Saint Luke relates that Iesus Christ began his last supper That after that he took bread in his hands and blessing the Divine Majestie brake it and then gave it to every one that was present at the banquet telling them that it was the bread which their fathers had eaten in Egypt That for the Close of the Repast he took again the Cup and presenting the Wine said that it was the fruit of the Vine and the blood of the Grape Terms borrowed of the old Testament Gen. 49. 11. and Deut. 32. 14. and to which our Saviour made allusion when giving the Wine he said that it was Blood Whereupon is to be observed in what the last Cup is different from the first Also why Christ blessed not the Wine and Bread both together but the bread by it self a-part and so the Wine That in this Feast there was a Dish composed of Raysins and other Fruits bruised and beaten together season'd with vinegar and made clammie like unto clay in remembrance of the Bricks of Egypt wherein they dipp'd their bread It may be it was the platter wherein Judas his sop was dip'd That the washing of Feet frequent among those of the East was not practis'd at the end of all Feasts but only in that of the Passeover From thence it comes that after Supper Iesus Christ washed the feet of his Disciples That their Custom was to close this Action with the singing of Psalmes the 113 and the 114. which is without doubt that Hymn which Iesus Christ and his Disciples sang before they went forth That speaking of the Passeover they oftentimes give it a name which signifies Annunciation which is the Term which St Paul transfers to the holy Supper when he saith Ye shall Shew the Lords death Without these observations drawn from the Ecclesiastical discipline of the Jews it is impossible to attain to a perfect understanding of the actions of Iesus Christ in the Institution of the Eucharist But the sence of his words touching his Body and his Blood ought to be drawn from a higher Fountain CHAP. VI. Necessary suppositions for the understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper THat which Iesus Christ said touching the Communion of his Body and of his Blood all that I say depends on certain Maximes which our Lord hath laid for a Basis and Foundation of this Communion Now there are very few people which observe these suppositions without which neverthelesse it is impossible to understand fully the Terms of the Son of God and to know the importance of them The words of the Institution advertise us that this Sacrament is a New Covenant in as much as it is the Seal of it and by consequence that it contains or presupposes articles quite new quite different from those which are contained in the old For we must know that the old Testament speaking of the Blood of the Covenant of the effusion of it for the remission of sins and of the flesh of the expiatory Sacrifice Symboles of the Body and of the Blood of Christ did contain certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Iesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist Let us retain this carefully That which the Son of God commands us to do in the Supper is founded upon Maximes opposit to those of the old Testament And in this opposition consists the Foundation and the Life of the words of Iesus Christ I conclude then that it is impossible without the conferring of these clauses carried through the two Testaments to construe exactly the mysterious words of the Institution Further Let not men think that here I mean to bring in Allegories For the relations and differences between the old and new Testament are not Allegoricall And if any one will call them by that name let him know that without such Allegories he shall never understand perfectly what Iesus Christ had a minde to say For these words the Testament the Blood of the Testament the Eating of the Flesh given for us the effusion of Blood for the remission of sins are terms of the Mosaicall Law It is therefore necessary to learn that which the Law ordained touching the communication of the Flesh and Blood destined to the expiation of sinners and compare this Ordinance with that of Iesus Christ in the Supper This will furnish me with an answer to those who would impose upon me to have here introduced matters estranged from the subject of the Eucharist under colour of being far removed from their own thoughts The considerations which I have to produce are immediately fastened to the words of the holy Supper and shew to what properly Iesus Christ had regard unto in pronouncing them as we shall see hereafter On the contrary many treat of the Eucharist who imbroyle it with an infinite number of other points whilst they omit a good part of the true substance of the Sacramentall words whereof they never expresse the entire sence None here refuseth to hear spoken of demon strative pronounes of a verb substantive of a subject and of an attribute of synecdoches of Metanomyes and other scholastick Terms which serve only for the grammaticall understanding Why then shall the proper names of things which Iesus Christ aimed at in the Eucharist be reputed strangers in this matter The new Testament and the old the blood shed for our sin and the blood of legall expiations the eating of the flesh of Christ and the eating of offerings are terms correlative in the words of the Eucharist and do answer one another with a loud voice The understanding of the one depends on the knowledge of the other CHAP. VII A preparatory question to the following Considerations THere is none but knowes that our Saviour explained himself more formally when he spoke of his blood in presenting the Cup and when he spoke of his body in giving the bread For these last words expound the former and teach us in what quality his body is produced unto us and given in the Eucharist namely in as much as it is the sacrifice of the new Testament offered for the remission of our sins Now these words expresse the subject and the cause of our Communion with him For it is not enough to know that we have the body of Christ to eat and his blood to drink we ought to know the reason and the vertue of it Otherwise we shall never understand the point of the Eucharist This reason is manifest Our Saviour in the 26 chapter of St Matthew speaks thus touching the Cup Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins But there are but few who know the meaning of Iesus Christ and wherein consists the knot and connexion of his purpose That we ought to drink his blood Because it is the blood of the new Testament shed for the remission of our sins And likewise why from the oblation of his body do we conclude
the eating of it What is the consequence of the one to the other Here we have many excellent mysteries contained in these words of Iesus Christ to discover The Second Sect. CHAP. I. The first Consideration on the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper DIvines affirm that Iesus Christ knowing the Law which forbids eating of blood hath expresly mentioned a new Covenant which obligeth us to drink his blood In which he maketh the two Testaments to oppose one the other The one which forbids the eating of blood the other which commands the drinking of blood But I observe one point which is not so common although very notable touching the reason by which Iesus Christ invites us to drink his blood There is a Law in the 17 of Leviticus verse 11 and 12 which we must compare with the Ordinance of Iesus Christ in the 26 of Saint Matthew The Law saith Jesus Christ saith I have given you the blood to offer upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood which shall make an atonement for the soul It is shed for the remission of sins and therefore I said to the children of Israel none among you shall eat blood Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins This Comparison shewes that Iesus Christ commanding to drink his blood imploys the same reason for which it was forbidden to eat any blood at all The Law saith eat no blood for it is shed for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith drink blood for it is shed for the remession of your sins It is then expedient for us to drink his blood for the same reason which seems to forbid it us From whence comes it that the prohibition of the Law and the Commandement of Christ are found to be built on the same foundation Why doth the same cause which obligeth men to abstain from blood oblige us to participate of it How can one and the same reason serve to two contraries that it should be forbidden to eat blood because it is expiatory and commanded to drink the blood becaus it is expiatory Some will tell us that we must distinguish between blood and blood between that of Christ and that of living creatures between the spirituall perception of the one and the corporal eating of the other between the typical expiations and the reall expiations That Moses spake of a blood which was but a Seal and Symbole of expiaation and on the contrary Iesus Christ proposes unto us a blood by which expiation hath been made That the one speaks of an eating which was done by the mouth the other of a reception which is in the soul And that thus they are two different reasons But all this takes not away the difficulty the question remains still For behold what I have to say thereupon The Law forbids to partake of blood because it is the seal of the remission of sins And Jesus Christ commands to partake of the cup because it is the seal of the remission of sins Why do two so contrary consequences result from the same quality The precedent distinction hath no place here Moreover we must know that the Law speaking of the blood of living creatures which it says to be expiatory considers this blood in the union or correspondence it hath with that of Christ which alone is truely expiatory So that forbidding the corporall eating of the signe that hath relation to the blood of Christ the same forbidding touches the spiritual Communion of the blood of Christ represented by the signe Truely the tearms by which they expresse the cause of the Commandment are equivalent to those by which the Law expresseth the reason of the prohibition And 't is not without some great reason that the Son of God commanding to drink his blood would speak as the Law doth when it prohibits the eating of blood We shall therefore see from whence is derived this injunction on us to drink the blood of the new Covenant by the same reason which forbids us to eat that of the old But for as much as this question is linked with many other points we ought to propose them conjoyntly before we dissolve the difficulties Behold then another which ought carefully to be considered as being the center of this matter and the last of the words of Iesus Christ in the Supper CHAP. II. The Second Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ VVE speak of eating the Body which was given for our sins Many Orthodox Divines have these terms in their mouths who know not their importance nor to what Iesus Christ had regard in uttering them It is a RULE in the old Testament That a man cannot eat of that which is offered for him for the remission of his sins It is I say a point of Divine Right and a fundamentall clause of the first Testament That none can eat of that which is offered for the remission of his sins The same flesh cannot be our attonement and our nourishment These are terms which the Law declares incompatible And nevertheless against this Maxime Iesus Christ commands us to eat his Body Sacrificed for our sins his body I say represented by expiatory oblations whose eating was forbidden This here is one of the highest mysteries of Religion and the foundation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Every one knowes that the old Testament had two sorts of Sacrifices distinguished by the ends to which they were offered The one the Eucharistick the other the Expiatory The one for the Benefits of God the other for the Evil deeds of man Now concerning the Eucharistick Sacrifice all those for whom it was by name offered had a right also to eat of it This meat sanctified by the Altar and distinguished from common nourishments was a most favoury Mess unto them as being sent from Gods Table for an earnest of that Communion which they had with him And we even there meet with an admirable correspondence with the subject of the holy Supper For by the Rule of the Law the flesh of such Sacrifices ought to be eaten either the same day it was sacrificed or the day after But on the third day it was not permitted to eat of it It is an axiome of the old Testament That no Sacrifice should be eaten on the third day Levit. 7. verse 16 17 18. This Law seems to have an eye upon the eating of the flesh of Christ which is meat to us in as much as dead for us For he exhibits unto us his body but in as much as broken So that the object of this eating is Jesus Christ in as much as dead Now for as much as the third day which is that of his Resurrection represents him unto us living the Sacrifices by which he was represented dead might not be eaten the third day But the Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sins was
the doctrine of the Sacraments wherein the learned of the Roman Church are more copious than in other points For amongst them almost all Religion is reduc'd to Sacraments and the Grounds of their Divinity consist in this matter Moreover as they have multiplyed the Sacraments even unto the number of seaven they have need of more stuffs to cloath them than we who have but two And as for the Eucharist besides that which they hold with us they have added to the Sacrament the Expiatory Sacrifice to the spirituall eating of the body of Christ the eating with the mouth to the Analogy between the sign and the thing signified the transubstantiation of the one and the other to the adoration of Christ the adoration of the Sacrament it self and of other additions which have infinite consequences all which enter together hudled up in this point of the Eucharist And as they are full of Labyrinths and rugged wayes wherein we cannot walk without either endangering Faith or Naturall Reason or sence The Roman Church hath conceived many distinctions which it gives for marks and directions to walk by in assurance Now the multitude alone of them leaving all that may be said of them otherwise shews that an Orthodox will sooner learn all that he ought to believe of the Eucharist than a Roman Catholick will the tenth part of that which his Religion teacheth concerning this point Nine distinctions such as are these following will clear to us all this business We put a difference between a Sacrament and a Figure Every Sacrament is a Figure but every Sign is not a Sacrament Between the Sacramentall eating and the Spirituall eating The one regards the Signs the other the thing signified Between the Substantiall being of Sacraments and their Significative being The Bread is the Body of Christ Sacramentally as the rock was Christ that is to say in a mysticall signification Between Reall and Corporall All that is Corporall is Reall but all that is Reall is not Corporall Spirituall actions amongst which is the eating of the Body of Christ are Reall but not Corporall Between the divers manners of Presence Many things are present to the Memory and to the Understanding which are not to the Corporall sences Many objects are even present to us corporally which are remote from us by a greater distance of places witnesse the Sun and the Stars Between the divers degrees of our Conjunction with Christ which considered in three regards is either Naturall or Mysticall or Glorious Between Faith and the Communion of the Body of Christ Faith is not the Communion but the Organ by which it is made Between a Sacrament and a Sacrifice The Sacrament is a gift which God bestowes on man Sacrifice is a present man which makes to God In the Eucharist it is not Man who offers Jesus Christ to God but it is God who offers Jesus Christ to Man Between a Sacrifice of Expiation and a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving This is done in the Eucharist the other was done onely on the Cross The Fift Section Which is the subject of a greater treatise serving not onely for the understanding of the Eucharist but also of all the New Testament CHAP. I. The Style of the New Testament is woven and composed of six kindes of Phrases and terms of different originall BY these termes and speeches I understand not after the order of Grammarians the sound of words or their Etymologies in the tongue wherein the New Testament is written but rather the sense and subject of expressions employed in it They come therefore from divers Sources to wit 1. Either from the common use of men which is as it were a language universall to all Nations As are the termes which represent the objects and the acts of sense Fire water the sun the head the feet eating drinking and generally all that is naturally and ordinarily known to men For the new Testament touches many things of this Nature either expressly or occasionally 2. Or from the Old Testament which is either cited or explaned or applied in the New 3. Or from the 27 Interpreters who having translated the Old Testament into Greek before the comming of Jesus Christ have often expressed the Hebrew by certain phrases particular to themselves which are also entred into the New Testament because that the Apostles did often employ this Translation which was very common in their time 4. Or from the Divinity or Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the antient Jews of their Synagogue Policy c. This Divinity being the same with that of the Prophets But to make it more intelligible and more easily to prevent heresies the Jewish Doctors introduced termes which were not in the Old Testament signifying nevertheless the same things in substance Or else they had transferred by analogy some words of the Old Testament beyond their ordinary signification Now Jesus Christ and the Apostles have retained them in part in the New Testament 5. Or from the Morality of the Greeks and their Arts Proverbes and Sentences many of their termes are in the New Testament because the greatest part of the Gentiles to whom the Gospell was preached at the beginning were either Greeks by Nation or seasoned with the wisedom and custome of the Greeks 6. Or from the Style particular to the New Testament For besides the expressions drawn from the precedent fountaines Jesus Christ and the Apostles have also many others which are proper and particular unto them All this wil be cleared by the following examples already observed by the Expositors whereunto I have added some few which my observations have furnished me withall Termes of the common Language of men THese examples are infinite in number and the common sense will make them manifest enough When Jesus Christ said unto Thomas Put thy hand into my side When he commanded the Disciples to cast the net on the right side of the ship And those which were about the Sepulcher of Lazarus to take away the stone which was at the going in All these speeches and a thousand others the like bear simply the sense which they have in the ordinary language and there ought not any other to be given them as doe they who disguise them by allegories saying that Jesus Christ spake of the Absolution of sinners when he commanded that Lazarus which was newly risen again should be unbound Terms of the old Testament THE finger of God Luke 11. signifies his mervelous power so expressed in Exod. 8. v. 19. Hee who is who was and who is to to come Revel 1. v. 4. This is the expression of the name Jehovah explaned in Exod. 3. 14. Eheje I am that I am or that shal be The Conclusion of the Lords Prayer for thine is the kingdome c. is taken from the seventh of Daniel v. 14. and to him was given Dominion Glory and Kingdome c. and his Dominion is everlasting Many Hebrew words as Hallelujah Amen come also from the Old Testament Terms
of the 70 Interpreters I Touch not here the passages of the Old Testament which are related in the New with some difference as being so found in the Translation of the Septuagint which the Apostles have retained in many places The particulars and questions which may be moved thereupon have passed the examination of the learned Wee will observe onely for a pattern that the word Prophet the word Church and divers others are come from the Seventy who have employed them in the Greek Traslation of the Old Testnament from whence they are passed into the New Terms of the Divinity and Discipline of the Jews THE names of Paradise and of Gehenna are not in the Old Testament in the sense which they have in the New viz. to denote the places of Joy and Torment after this life Neither doe wee there read these words The world to come The day of Judgment The second death The bosome of Abraham and others which are come from the Judaicall school which had put them into use against the Sadduces denying the immortality of souls and the points which presuppose it Now Jesus Christ hath sanctified these terms and would have them inserted into the New Testament The Jews before the comming of the Messias were wont in their prayers to pray for the Comming of the kingdom of God Jesus Christ also hath put this Petition into the prayer which he hath taught us The same Jews speaking of this Kingdom of the Messias which they expected called it the Kingdom of Heaven Now they had drawn this phrase from hence that in Daniel this Kingdom was represented under the figure of Starrs Chap. 8. v. 10. And on the contrary the Empires of this world were set forth under the form of earthly beasts This name of the Kingdom of Heaven as used among the Jews is also frequent in the mouth of the Son of God Terms from the Morality of the Greeks THis is very remarkable the word VERTUE inasmuch as it signifieth the habit of good manners is not found in the Old Testament For the Hebrews have no term which answers precisely to this here The Greek word which hath the same signification is used in the New Testament yet very seldom for reasons whose consideration belongs to another discourse Likewise we have the particular names of many Vertues as also of many Vices which are not read in the Old Testament Such are the words of Temperance of Chastity and divers others which also come from the Morall of the Greeks Even from thence is come the word of Almes which is not also in the Old Testament The Hebrews express it by a more generall name For instead of Almes they say Justice From thence comes it that the Syriack translating these words of S. Matthew 6. Give not your Almes before men hath translated do not your Justice before men Terms particular to the New Testament I Will give but one example among many The habitation of the most blessed is called the. Third Heaven 2 Cor. 12. This name is not given to it in the Old Testament The holy tongue wherein Moses and the Prophers have written naming the Heavens expresseth them in the duall number as if it should be said the two Heavens The name of the third is come up thereupon only since that Jesus Christ is entred therein I omit other contemplations which may be brought hitherto Finally all the writers of the New Testament have also every one his style and particular terms whereof it is not necessary to speak at this time Now as of all these expressions whereof we have seen the Originals some carry the proper sense and naturall to the terms and others are drawn by a figure to a quite divers signification so we ought also to see the matters where-from the figurative speeches are extracted CHAP. II. The Figurative speeches which are in the New Testament are taken from five divers sorts of matters THe way which we have here held above is almost the same which conducts us hither Every phrase which bears a Figure in the New Testament is drawn from some of these subjects here mentioned or from many of them viz. 1. Either from things which are of the generall knowledge and common to the most part of men 2. Or from matters of the Old Testament as Washings Sacrifices c. 3. Or from Customs Conditions and other things particular to the people of the Jews when Jesus Christ and the Apostles were in the world 4. Or from the Customs of those of the Eastern people Greeks and other nations with whom the Church of God hath conversed heretofore 5. Or even from the proper matters of the New Testament the one taking the name of the other The New Testament contains then five Orders or Categories of figurative terms whereof wee must give some examples I. Examples of the first Order Hence comes the similitude of the Sower of Leven of Occupying c. The Apostles are called the Salt of the Earth God is called Light Jesus Christ is named the Vine the Dove The Holy Ghost is designed by the name of Water of Fire II. Examples of the second Order Jesus Christ is called the Tree of Life the Manna Rev. 2. The first fruits of those that sleep 1 Cor. 15. Alms is called an Offering of a sweet smelling savour Phil. 4. by a tearm borrowed from the perfumes that were used upon the Altar of Incense In this ranck are many allusions Jesus Christ in St. Luke 19. v. 42. upbraided Jerusalem that they knew not the things which belonged to their peace that it was hid from their eyes The agreement which is found in these words is not visible to any except those who know that Jerusalem in the language of the Old Testament signifies vision of peace For these words mean that quite contrary to her name she saw not her peace that Jersulalem was not in Jerusalem Some Hebraisms may be referd hither In the 13. of Leviticus when the Law would say that the Priest shall pronounce him clean who was healed of the Leprosy it saith that the Priest shall cleanse him and when it would say That the Priest shall declare such a one defiled with a Leprosy it saith the Priest shall defile him So Jesus Christ saith that his Disciples shall pardon or retain sins that is to say shall pronounce that they are pardoned or retained III. Examples of the third Order The Parable of the Virgins of the Children fitting in the market-places and divers others taken from the Customs of the Jews The Degrees of punishments used among them viz. Of Judgement of the Counsell and of Hell fire are named for to represent the difference of pains whereunto God condemneth sinners Matthew 5. Our Saviour saith that one Iota or one Jod of the Law that is to say the least article of it shall not pass away without being accomplished This word is taken from the Alphabet of the Hebrews whereof the least letter of all is
They who Analise such passages simply according to their Logick give them a constrained and often a ridiculous sense This stile hath transcendant prerogatives which we ought to understand that we may know the method of the Son of God which otherwise will seem irregular There you finde also similitudes which at the first sight seem rude and monstrous as when the coming of the Lord is compared to that of a thief in the night 1 Thes 5. and in other places In such comparisons we are wont to say that a comparison should never be pressed to the utmost For to things alike in one regard are unlike in another But this caution alone will not content the minde For there hath been alwaies whereat to wonder that two subjects should be compared and put together and the one invested with the name of the other between which indeed there is some conformity yet on the other part there should be so great and so visible a repugnance of qualities that it renders the comparison enormous In this then there is a secret which is not alwaies perceivable In the language of God the more a phrase is estranged from our rules the more it is mysterious That whereof the question is here is one of the most strange in all the Scripture But if instead of be holding onely the superficies we put it in the ballance its weight will make it known for gold of Ophir CHAP. XII The clearing of the fourth Consideration VVHEN mention is made of Eating the Body of Christ that speech is not simply drawn from the resemblance which there may be between Eating and Communicating and ought not to be put into the rank of simple similitudes This phrase is of a higher derivation The intention of our Saviour was to revoke a clause of the Old Testament which was this that a man should not eat the flesh and blood offered for the remission of his sins We have seen the sense and importance of it Jesus Christ would shew that he gives us that which the Law refused us It was therefore necessary that he should express it in the same termes that is to say that he should speak to us of eating the flesh offered for our sins And that he hath done not onely in words retaining the proper termes of the Testament but also by the exhibition of a nourishment whose sensible eating is an expression of this other We ought then to know that this word of Eating denoting the communion of the sacrifice is not simply used because there is a resemblance between the two acts but forasmuch as in the Law this communion is called Eating So Jesus Christ hath not introduced this word for a simple Metaphor or comparison but hath pronounced it as a terme of a Testamentary clause whose repetition was here necessary for the cause abovesaid For this terme being already in the first Testament to express this Communion must be retained in the second It Bootes not to say that the name of Eating which denotes an act of the mouth and of the teeth upon the flesh of Legal offerings is not convenient to the Communion of a humane body as is that of Christs and that the comparison of it is rude For to understand this terme we must take the entire sense which extends it self a great deal farther then a simple comparison In the institution of the Supper this Communion is not simply qualifed Eating of a Body given for Food but of a body given for the attonement of our sins Now this speech means that the Communion of the Body of Christ which we know to be spiritual is in effect what the eating of expiatory Sacrifice was in figure Moreover that the body of Christ having succeeded Sacrifices the Communion of this Body hath taken the place of eating of Sacrifices This title then belongs to it not by simple resemblance but if I may so say both by succession and in the same sort that Jesus Christ is called Passover and Lamb the truth taking the name of the Figure As for the words of Jesus Christ in the sixth Capter of Saint John although they have reference to those of the Holy Supper nevertheless their interpretation requires particular considerations which I omit forasmuch as I treat of nothing here but what our Saviour said in the Eucharist Nevertheless we may observe as we goe that the Communion of the body of Christ is there called Eating not by a simple similitude but is as much as to say that this Communion is in effect and in substance that which the eating of the Manna was in shadow and similitude For the Jews had objected this eating of the Manna Finally for to measure this phrase in all its dimensions it is not enough there to consider the analogy between the eating with the mouth and the Communicating in spirit For this resemblance is not the onely cause of this expression nor the onely point we ought to draw to in conclusion Moreover our Lord would shew that a spiritual life hath principles much different from a life animal Both have this common to them that their subsistance depends on the union of man with some other subject which we call aliment But in the life natural man hath no proper aliments which are not of a kinde inferiour to his own such are plants and their fruits such is the flesh of bruit beasts which we lodg in our intrales mingling their blood with ours and uniting thâ—m to our own substance Man is constrained to incorporate into himself these vile things and which are much below him On the contrary in a spiritual life he unites himself to a subject infinitely more excellent then himself to wit to the Eternal Spirit for it is the Spirit which quickens Now this Spirit Communicates himself unto us in the Flesh of Christ So that his Flesh is unto us Meat indeed In which is seen this diversity That in the Life Natural man and his food ought to be of different kindes But in the Life Spiritual man and his food ought to be of one and the same kinde Therefore it is that our Saviour expresseth the Communion of his Body by the name of this act contrary to Nature which is to eat the flesh of man for to signifie that a Spiritual Life is maintained by a means quite contrary to that which Nature employs in an Animal Life For to Eat the flesh of the Son of man signifies not onely to have Communicated with him but signifies also that this Communion is not according to the Laws of Nature And the words of the Son of God bear not onely a similitude of qualities but also note an opposition of kinde between the food of the Body and the nourishment of the Spirit All this abovesaid being duely considered we shall finde that this phrase which seemed so strange could not be more pregnant more compleat nor more convenicent for the subject CHAP. XIII The fift Consideration upon the words of
other in some respect XXII The first that felt death is also the first that sacrifised with Blood representing the bloody Oblation of Jesus Christ XXIII The Blood which was shed for one man alone or for some small number of persons never entred into the Holy Place but only that which was shed for many i. e for the multitude or for the Church in generall The Blood of Jesus Christ hath pierced the Holy Places as having been shed for many XXIV That which moved our Saviour to ordain Bread rather than Flesh to represent his Body is not because that Flesh hath served heretofore in Sacrifices For Bread and Wine were also employed in Legall Oblations But it is that he would shew that after him no creature should any more dye for the sin of man Therefore it is that he hath ordained Sacraments which require not the slaughter of any Creature as being compounded of signs which are of themselves without life and of other substance than of flesh and blood XXV All the properties of Bread and Wine enter not into the Analogy or Sacramentall relation which these Elements have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Many similitudes which the Learned introduce in this matter are impertinent and abusive as when they represent the violent death of Jesus Christ by the Baking of Bread in the Oven c. XXVI God never repeats the same thing but it is with some diversity It is to the end that things which are obscure in one place may be made unto us intelligible by another This is the scope of the difference which is found among the Evangelists reciting the Institution of the Supper XXVII Before the Passeover there was no Sacramentall Eating Jesus Christ celebrated the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of his Body viz. the Passeover and the Eucharist on one and the same table XXVIII The Passeover that Jesus Christ celebrated is the seaventh and last of those which are recited in the Scripture as being the perfection and conclusion of all those aforegoing In this last Passeover the true Lamb is there found in person Moreover as the Passeover came from Egypt there where it was first celebrated so Jesus Christ also was called out of Egypt XXIX The Sacraments of the Christian Church have already dured longer time than the Mosaicall Ceremonies have subsisted XXX The Institution of the Passeover is recited very largely this of the Eucharist is comprised in very few words It is because That contained many Ceremonies This here but a very few But finally the Institution of the Passeover speaks much more of the sign than of the thing signified This is the style of the Law to be prolix in the narration of Ceremonies and to speak very briefly of spirituall graces represented under such figures XXXI The Sacraments of the Christian Church were formed of matters and actions simple naturall and Common to the end that they might not be subject unto Change but remain unvariable to the end of the world XXXII The difference of times of places and persons whereto God had bound the most notable Ceremonies of the Law tended to facilitate their abrogation But on the Contrary our Saviour hatâ— not prefixed any time for the Celebration of the Supper to the end that it might be universally practised in all times and in all places XXXIII That in the Supper Jesus Christ is represented as he was on the Crosse and not as he is in Heaven as dead and not as glorified this is because the Sacraments tend rather to assure us of the glory that Jesus Christ acquired unto us than to describe that which he possesseth himself Now it is by his death that he hath gotten us this glory From thence it comes that having Instituted two Sacraments which represent him dead he hath not ordained any one which might represent him glorified XXXIV That Our Saviour hath not Instituted more illustrious Signes and the reason why they are not miraculous is among other reasons forasmuch as the end of Miracles is to shew the greatness and power of God But on the contrary the end of our Sacraments chiefly of the Eucharist is to shew the infirmity the death and humiliation of Christ XXXV According to the Maxims of the Roman Church a man may without thinking of it and not knowing any thing of it eat the Body of Christ Jesus XXXVI There is none of us who knows all the particular Reasons of all the Circumstances of the Passion XXXVII That the History of the Passion of Jesus Christ doth not move us so much as that of many others whose afflictions are recited in Scripture is forasmuch as the sufferings of Jesus Christ are not the Object of any naturall Commotion such as we may have for other men but of another kind of resentment which being Spirituall is not so easie to be raised XXXVIII From thence it also comes that the superstitious are sometimes more moved at the rehearsall of the Passion of Jesus Christ than the true Christians XXXIX Here we consider why it hath been easier for many to resolve to suffer death for the love of Christ than to shed so much as one tear for the love of him XL. Although the Spirituall Communion of the Body of Christ be a Super naturall Act nevertheless it is not done by a miraculous transportation and ravishment of Spirit as was that of the Prophets XLI A Roman Catholick hath need of much more time to learn his Religion than an Orthodox to understand his And particularly concerning the Eucharist An Orthodox man will sooner learn all that he ought to know concerning it than a Roman Catholick the tenth part of that which his Religion teacheth him concerning this point XLII The style of the New Testament is composed of six kinds of phrases and termes of different originall some proper others figurative XLIII The Figurative Speeches which are in the New Testament are drawn from five divers sorts of matter XLIV The Figure which is in this word Eating for to denote the Communion of the Body of Christ is not simply derived from the naturall Act of Eating in generall but from the Action of the Faithfull of the Old Testament Communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices and other Sacred meats XLV In the Old Testament there were but two other Holy For they were exhibited either by Washing or by Nourishment Baptism and the Eucharist doe answer to these two kinds of Actions This iâ— the Reason wherefore we have these two Sacraments and in these two manners above-sayd FINâ—S
Jesus Christ in the Supper SINCE Jesus Christ speaks of a Testament whose last seal is the Eucharist a Christian ought to learn what this Testament is for to know the importance of the seal which we see put to it and principally it is necessary to have regard to that which Jesus Christ said thereof when he instituted the Supper For he advertiseth us that this Testament is New that is to say succeeds another which is abolished by this latter Moreover that this Testament is with the Blood of the Testator that is to say that he died in this last Will. Now I omit to shew why he would make a second Testament and if there wanted any thing in the first it will suffice to observe thence that the first Testament was of no force in comparison of the second For a Testament hath no vertue during the life of the Testator nor can it send forth its effect unless the death of the Testator intervene Hebrews 9. v. 16 17. So that the Old Testament had no force in its time because that Jesus Christ was not yet dead But the Testament which we have at this day hath been made efficatious by the death of the Testator Some Jew who cannot perswade himself that God would abolish the first Covenant by a second that which nevertheless he ought to have learned of Jeremiah 31. v. 31 c. will tell us that this will make us doubt whether or no there shall be yet a third But this is no reason For the Covenant of God was conceived in form of a Testament or of a donation by reason of Death Now the Testator being once dead there is no place for another Testament The last Will wherein he died remaines irrevocable for ever Finally there is this thing extraordinary that death permitting none to be executor of his own Testament Jesus Christ contrarily is come from death to life for to execute his forasmuch as none was capable of this charge For he is risen again for our justification Rom. 4. v. 25. CHAP. XIIII The sixth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MY Blood saith he is shed for the remission of sins We know that his death ought to be bloody according to the Maxime which says that there is no remission of sins made without effusion of blood Hebrewes 9. Now we demand not here why this remission could not be obtained otherwise that is to say why it behoved that the death of our Saviour should not onely be violent but also be marked with blood Nevertheless that which I have to observe thereupon deserves to be considered Death which is the wages of sin began by effusion of blood The first that ever died which was Abel died of a bloody death As then the blood of man hath been the first fruits of death so also was it the conclusion and destruction of it Death began by blood and ended by blood Between this first blood which was shed upon the Earth and the Blood of the Son of God there is a very remarkable opposition touched by the Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 12. to wit that the Blood of Sprinkling which is that of Jesus Christ speaks better things then that of Abel For this cried out for the the punishment of sin but the other cries for the remission of sins It is also observable that the same man who died first of all is also the first in the holy History who had sacrificed with blood For he was the first that offered the flesh and fat of living Creatures Genesis 4. 4. So the first who felt death brought forth by sin is also the first who offered the bloody Oblation whereby we should be delivered from sin which is the sting of death Finally The Jews who think it strange that the Blood of a Man is our Expiation have nevertheless an imagination which cannot subsist but upon this principle That there must be an humane Sacrifice to wipe away the sins of man They beleeve that God will give them grace in contemplation of the obedience of Isaac who exposed himself voluntarily to be sacrificed And they have prayers wherein they alledge the merit of this Sacrifice as a foundation of the Redemption which they expect Now as for the offering of this Patriarch if it had been capable to expiate the sins of his Off-spring even of those who live at this day why after this Sacrifice of Isaac should there be yet need of so many expiatory Sacrifices To what purpose hath the Law which is since given imposed upon them Sacrifices for the obtaining of pardon But to speak no more of it Isaac was not sacrificed in effect and his blood was not shed in this Oblation Which shews that it is not expiatory For without an actual effusion of blood no remission of sins at all is made The Law tells them that it is blood which makes expiation for the Soul Lev. 17. CHAP. XV. The seventh Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Institution of this Sacrament is comprised in few words whereof not one is vain For Jesus Christ hath said nothing which contains not some great point Now above all things he shewes what is the vertue and dignity of the Blood which he presents unto us and this in four divers respects to wit 1. That it is his own Blood the Blood of the Son of God 2. That it is the Blood of the New Covenant 3. That this Blood purchases unto us remission of sins 4. That this Blood is shed for many As for this last amongst many other matters therein contained I think that our Lord would yet touch upon a difference also between the Blood of the Old Testament and that of the New In the Old Testament the Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes employed only for the expiation of one man among the people who had need of a particular sacrifice Now this Sacrifice which was offred but for one man alone was many wayes inferiour to that which was offred for many that is to say for the Multitude or for all the Church Principally in this that the Blood shed in Sacrifice for one man alone never came into the Holy Place But that did which was shed for the multitude Jesus Christ therefore advertiseth us that his Blood was shed for many for the Multitude to the end that we might know that his Blood hath penetrated the Holy Places and hath opened them Hebr. 9. v. 12. And in this also is the New Testament more excellent than the Old For the Blood of the Old Testament did not alwayes enter within the Holy Place Moreover the Blood of the Old Testament which was shed for one man alone was not sufficient even to Expiate legally all the sins of such a man but onely a particular offence for which by name there wholly needed a Sacrifice On the contrary the Blood of the New Testament was not onely shed for many men but hath also Expiated universally all the sins of