Choice Grounds and Principles of our Christian Religion, Treatise · Question 19
Quest. 19. What is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper?
Answ. The Supper of the Lord, is a Sacrament instituted by our Lord Iesus Christ: whereby it is signified, and sealed vntounto vsus, that we are as assuredly sustained to eternall life, by the body of Christ crucified, and by his bloudshed, as we certainely eate the broken bread, at the Lords Table, and drinke the wine out of the Cup, Math. 26, 26, 27. 1. Cor. 11.23, &c.
EXPOSITION.
THat you may the better vnderstand this Doctrine of the Lords Supper, and come prepared therevnto, with the more reuerence and Religion: (after I hauehave spoken a few words of the time, when it was instituted,) I wil enter into a briefe, and particular examination, and explication of the words of Christs institution, together with the seuerall circumstances, or sacramental actions, as they are recorded by the Euangelists, and the Apostle Paul, 1. Cor. 11.1. Cor. 11.23
As touching the time of the institution, The Lord Iesus (saith the Apostle) in the night that hee was betrayed, tooke bread. From this circumstance of time, wee are to obserue two points. First, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is succéeded in the place of the Sacrament of the Iewes Passeouer, which was instituted by God, a little before the deliuerance of the Israelites frō the captiuity of Egypt: euen as this was instituted by our Lord Iesus Christ, a little before our actuall deliuerance from the thraldome and captiuity of sinne, Satan, death, and condemnation. Of which our spirituall deliuerance, from these deadly enemies of our saluation, the Sacrament of the Passeouer was a type, and figure, and therefore not yet abolished, as touching the substance, but that remayning whole, and entire in the Lords Supper: the difference of time only excepted, as I hauehave shewed before. Now the reason, Reason. wherefore he instituted this Sacrament in the night, was this, forasmuch as he was thereunto compelled by the necessity of the Law of God, wherin it was expresly cōmanded, as Exod. 12. that the Passeouer should be celebrated at euen.Exod. 12.6. The which ordinance of God was first by him to be fulfilled, before he might proceed to the abolishing thereof, by the institution of any other. So that hereupon it followeth not, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper must still be administred in the night, because Christ in making himselfe subiect to the Law, instituted the same at that season: but this hereupon we may warrantably conclude, that it may be administred in the night, and after Supper too, if vrgent occasion and necessitie require the same, as in the time of persecution.
And whereas the Papists contend, that it standeth with no reason, to call this Sacrament by the name of the Lords Supper, because it was instituted after Supper: they cauell herein, not onelyonly against vsus, but euen against the Apostle Paul himselfe, who in plaine expresse words so termeth it in the twentieth Verse of the same Chapter.
For a second note, heere is offered vntounto vsus a most notable consideration of Christs wonderfull louelove and goodnesse towards vsus: For euen as when a man thinking on death, and preparing himselfe to leaue this world, doth in his last Will and Testament bequeath some gift or Legacy vntounto his friends, to such as hauehave beene néere and deare vntounto him, whereby they might hauehave occasion to remember him, and to praise GOD for him when hee is gone: So our Lord Iesus Christ, knowing now the houre to be at hand, wherein he should by death leaue this world, and ascend vntounto his heauenly Father, hath in the institution of this Sacrament, left vntounto vsus a most excellent pledge and token of his tender louelove and kindnes towards vsus, not onelyonly in abasing himselfe to take our flesh; but also in suffering death for our Redemption. This was no small louelove, but a louelove most wonderful surpassing and excellent; of which himselfe speaketh, saying, Greater louelove then this hath no man, Ioh. 15.13.when any man bestoweth his life for his friends. And now, as all the parts and circumstances of this louelove, our Lord Iesus Christ performed in his life, and at his death: euen so, hath hee left vntounto vsus this Sacrament, for a memoriall thereof, and perpetually to that end to bee obserued, euen vntill his comming againe. And surely, in regard hereof, there could not be any fitter time for the celebration of the same, then in the same night wherein hee was betrayed, and when hee certainely knew, that he should shortly dye, that so it might the more freshly bee imprinted and retained in our mindes.
Now to the words themselues of the institution.
Math. 26.26, 27, 28. Luke 22.19, 20.Iesus took the Bread, and when he had giuen thankes, he brake it, & gaue it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body. Doe this in remembrance of me. Also hee tooke the Cup, and when he had giuen thankes, hee gaue it to them, saying; Drinke ye all of it. For this is my bloud of the New Testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sins; This doe, as oft as yee drinke it, in remembrance of me.
Exposition.In these words is contained the whole institution of the Lords Supper: wherein are two especiall things to be considered. The Ceremoniall, or sacramentall circumstances, which are these; He tooke bread, hee gaue thankes, he brake the bread, hee gaue the bread, and they did take and eate it. Also hee tooke the Cup, hee gaue …hankes, he gaue it to them; he said, Drinke ye all of it.
The other thing to be considered, is the matter of the Sacrament, in these words; This is my body which is broken for you. 1. Cor. 11.23, 24, 25.This is my bloud of the New Testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes.
He tooke bread:
The bread which Christ tooke, was vnleauened bread: the same being the vsuall and ordinary bread at that time. And whereas the Papists say, that because Christ tooke vnleauened bread, the first part of this Sacrament must alwayes therefore be administred with bread that is not leauened, and that it is an abuse of of Christs ordinance, if it bee administred with that which is leauened: The answer is plaine, that the necessitie of the time constrained Christ to take vnleauened bread, it being an ordinance and Law of God, as Exod. 12.Exo. 12.15. that for the space of seuen dayes there should be no leuen found in the houses of the children of Israel, and that whosoeuer should eat leauened bread from the first day, vntill the seuenth, that person should be cut off from Israel. And now when Christ instituted this Sacrament, and tooke Bread, it was the first of these seuen, as we may see, Math. 26.Math. 26.17. So then, hereupon it followeth not, as they imagine, that this part of the Sacrament must of necessity be administred with vnleauened bread: but this may well be gathered, and concluded, that it must euermore be administred with bread, and that whosoeuer shall presume to celebrate it with any thing else, hee retaineth not the institution of Christ; but is manifestly guilty of prophaning & abusing the same: the Euangelist saying in plaine termes, that he tooke bread: and they name no other thing that he tooke; neither also doth the Apostle say, that he instituted it with any thing else. And surely, herein is a more manifest argument of Christs louelove, then is of eueryevery one well considered; in that, by such familiar creatures, as Bread and Wine, he would vouchsafe to attemper himselfe to our rude capacity, and to bring vsus to the perfect vnderstanding of his heauenly mysteries: wee being hereby plainely taught, and led (as it were) by the hand, to this comfortable assurance; that as Bread and Wine by naturall effects, nourish our bodies, strengthen and comfort our spirits: so doth the body and bloud of Christ broken, and shed for vsus vponupon the Crosse, nourish our soules, and quicken our spirits to eternall life with God. As the bread is made of many graines kneaded into one loafe; and the Wine pressed out of many Grapes into one Cup: so the multitude of Christians, communicating at the Lords Table, though many in number, are ingrafted into Christ, and made members of his mysticall body, and ioyned with mutuall louelove one with the other, so that now they liue by the Spirit of Christ, as members of a naturall body liue, and hauehave sence by that Spirit, that commeth from the heart, and from the head.
He gaue thankes.
The forme & matter of Christs thanksgiuing, is expressed neither by the Apostle Paul, nor by any of the Euangelists, they all concealing it, and (no doubt) vponupon very great consideration. But whatsoeuer it was, this is manifest, that thereby he sanctified, and separated the Bread, to bee an holy and blessed Sacrament of his body, broken for vsus vponupon the Crosse; as also afterward the Wine, to be an holy Sacrament of his bloud shed for our sinnes. Whereby we learne two points. First, somewhat generally by conference with other places: That we ought to giuegive God thankes in the vse of his good creatures, and to pray him to blesse and sanctify them to our comfort: remembring this notable saying of the Apostle,1. Tim. 4.4, 5. 1. Tim. 4. EueryEvery creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be receiued with thanksgiuing, &c. The second, and more particular, is, that by praise & thanksgiuing vntounto God, for the death of Christ, and by prayer vntounto him, that we may bee made partakers of the fruit and benefit of his Death, ought the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be administred, and the Bread and Wine sanctified, and set apart to that end.
The Papists terme this thanksgiuing, consecration: which phrase, and terme of speech, we would not stand vponupon, if withall they did not teach, that by consecration, the very substance of the Bread & Wine, should be turned into the body & bloud of Christ: which is nothing so. For consecration is, when that thing which before was impure, and that creature which was common, or vncleane, is made pure, and set apart, for the vse of man. And this is two wayes. First, they are sanctified of the Lord; and secondly, they are sanctified of vsus. The creatures are said to be consecrated of the Lord, when they are instituted, ordained, and set apart from all other creatures, to serue for the vse of man, by his holy Word, according to that of S. Paul to Timothy, which I noted before; and where he addeth, that it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer. The second manner of consecration which appertaineth to vsus, is by giuing of thankes. And thus, and no otherwise, is the Bread and Wine at the Lords Table, to bee consecrated at this day, and from time to time. It is consecrated and set apart, by the Word and institution of Christ; and by the prayer, praise, and thanksgiuing of the Minister, and faithfull Christians, in the celebration, and participation thereof, comming (as they ought to come) prepared thereunto, with a religious consideration of the wonderfull and vnspeakeable mercy and louing kindnesse of the Lord, who spared not his owne Sonne, Rom. 8.32.but gaue him to death for vsus all, as Rom. 8.
He brake the Bread.
From hence we learne, that the Bread at the Lords Table, in the administration of the Sacrament, must be broken. First, because it is according to Christs institution, as we sée héere in expresse termes. Secondly, that eueryevery one of the communicants feeding thereon equally, may see themselues to be equally partakers of the body of Christ crucified; yea, this breaking of the bread seemeth so necessary, that the Holy Ghost doth call the Sacrament by that very terme,Acts 2.42. Cha. 20.7. Acts 2. and chap. 20.
And a third reason is, because this breaking of the Bread, doth most liuely set forth vntounto vsus, the breaking of Christs body for our sinnes. Not that his body was materially broken,Ioh. 19.36. Exo. 12.46. as wee reade Ioh. 19. and Exod. 12. (for the outward breaking of it could hauehave made no satisfaction,) but the breaking was inward, in Spirit, with bearing the burthen of our sinnes, with which inward griefe of the Spirit, the body, in some sort, may also be said to bee broken, or tormented, when therein, for the bitternesse of the paine, he cryed vntounto his Father, as it is recorded, Mat. 26. and 27.Mat. 26.36 chap. 27.46 So then, when wee see the bread broken before vsus in the Sacrament, we must verily beleeue, that the body of Christ crucified, is offered vntounto vsus of our heauenly Father, to be receiued by Faith.
He gaue the Bread.
As the bread at the Lords Table must be broken; so also giuen and distributed. If it bee taken into the hand of the Minister, sanctified by prayer and thanksgiuing and broken; yet if withall it be not distributed, it is no Sacrament, nor sacramentall bread, that bread onelyonly, being so to bée termed, and accounted, which is after prayer and thanksgiuing broken, and distributed to the communicants. Which quite ouerthroweth the opinion and custome of the Papists, in keeping the bread in their boxes, which remaineth vndistributed, as most holy, & consecrated bread, thinking, and making the simple people beleeue, that that bread hath maruellous great vertue in it, to driue away Diuels, &c. which is not worth the standing vponupon.
That which the distributing of the bread doth signifie vntounto vsus, is, that it is not the body of Christ, as it was borne of the Virgin Mary, that is offered vntounto vsus, or represented by the bread; but his body as it is was broken, by which wee are saued. And secondly, that this Sacrament must be administred in the face of the congregation, and publikely to all the people, being assembled together for the partaking of it: Contrary also to another custome of the Papists; the Priest oftentimes receiuing it alone, as wee shall sée further hereafter.
And whereas hee gaue the bread vntounto his Disciples; we may learne & obserue, that such onelyonly are meet partakers of the Lords Supper, who are the Schollers and Disciples of Christ. And of Christs Disciples doth hee himselfe make a description,Ioh. 8.31. Ioh. 8. by their continuance in his Word.1. Cor. 11.28. And these are also such, who (as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 11.) before they presume to come to the Table of the Lord, are religiously carefull, to proue and examine themselues.
And they did take, and eate it.
The Bread at the Lords Table, being blessed, broken, and distributed, must also be receiued, and eaten. If it be sanctified, broken, and distributed, and therewithall not receiued, and eaten, it is no Sacrament, nor sacramentall bread. The bread being set apart by prayer, and thanksgiuing, broken, giuen, receiued, and eaten, is an holy Sacrament of the body of Christ; and they who reuerently, and religiously, according to Christs institution, are partakers thereof; doe together, with the bodily eating of the bread, spiritually and by faith, eate, and receiue the very body of Christ, to the spirituall nourishment and preseruation of their soules.
This is my body.
This expresseth the matter of the first part of the Sacrament, as I shewed before: The word (this:) which sentence is to be applyed vntounto the bread, which the Minister doth take blesse, breake, and giuegive to the communicants, exhorting, and requiring them to receiue, and eate it. And whereas hauing thus relation vntounto the bread, he saith, This is my body: Wee must not thinke, that the pronouncing of these words doth make the Sacrament, or is any part of the consecration, as the Papists imagine: but herein did our Lord Iesus Christ teach his Disciples, what hee had done, and how hee had sanctified and set apart the bread, to be an holy representation of his body, which should shortly bee broken and crucified for them.
That which wee obserue heere for our instruction and comfort, is this: That the bread at the Lords Table, taken, blessed, broken, giuen, receiued and eaten, is a most holy Sacrament, and representation of the body of Christ crucified, and broken for vsus in the Garden, and vponupon the crosse. And whereas our Lord Iesus Christ calleth it his body; I will shew some reasons wherefore he doth so, and then come to a further proofe of this point, by the Testimonies & authorities of the Scripture.
A first reason why hee called this bread his Body, was, to teach his Disciples to make a difference betwixt this sanctified Bread, and common bread.
Secondly, to distinguish it from the other part of the Sacrament, which concernes the Cup.
Thirdly, to distinguish it from the Sacraments of the Old Testament.
Fourthly, to teach his Disciples the thing signified by that outward Sacrament; and therewithall the inseparable coniunction betweene the outward element, and the thing thereby signified in the right receiuing of it.
Furthermore, that his Disciples should know, that hee had instituted another Sacrament of the New Testament, besides Baptisme: and which they might well discerne, not onelyonly in that hee tooke common bread, blessed it, brake it, and gaue it to them, commanding them to receiue, and eate it: but in that also he gaue it the name of the thing thereby signified, according to the vsual phrase of the Scripture when it speaketh of Sacraments, as Gen. 17.Gen. 17.10, 11. Circumcision being but the signe of the Couenant, is called the Couenant. And Exodus 12.Exod. 12.27. The Lambe is called the Passeouer, which was not the Passeouer, but the signe of it, and which it did represent. And so the Rocke in the Wildernesse, whereof the children of Israel did drinke, is by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10.1. Cor. 10 4. called Christ, of whom it was a signe.
But heere a question may bee asked; that seeing as the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 6.Rom. 6.3, 4. we be grafted into Christs Death and Resurrection by Baptisme: what neede hauehave wee then of this Sacrament? or how doth it differ from that? Whereunto I answere, that this Sacrament doth not differ from Baptisme, but in the manner and institution of it. For as Baptisme was instituted to ingraft vsus into Christs body, that wee might become his members: So the Lords Supper was instituted, and ordained to nourish vsus, to retaine and to feed vsus, being ingrasted into his body, and that so we might grow and flourish in him.
Another question may be asked, whether the same that is offered vntounto vsus in the Sacraments, be not in like manner offered vntounto vsus in the Ministery and preaching of the word of God? To this I answere, that Christ by the Word, is offered to our eares outwardly, but in the Sacraments he is receiued of vsus inwardly by faith into our soules: So that wee become one with him, and he one with vsus, and dwelleth in vsus, euen vntill the end of the world, and that without any separation.
Doe this in remembrance of me.
The Papists would hauehave these words to be applyed to their Priests, who (as they say) are to offer vp the body and bloud of Christ, a sacrifice for sinne. But marke it well, and you shall see into what absurdities they run. For if these words, Doe this in remembrance of mee, be to be applyed onelyonly to the Priests, then must none but onelyonly the Priests remember Christs death: the which I say is most absurd; all the faithfull Communicants being religiously and faithfully to remember Christ, as well as they.
And as for that which they say of the Priests offering of Christs body for a sacrifice: it is most cleare, that the elect and faithfull, being made perfect by the onelyonly oblation of Christ offered by himselfe once for all, as the Apostle teacheth, Heb. 10.Heb. 10 14.18. neede no other sacrifice, but a memoriall, and Sacrament thereof, to confirme their faith in the remission of sinnes purchased by his sacrifice, according as hereof again, Heb. 9.Heb. 9.25, 26. that if Christ should be often offered for sinne, then he should often hauehave suffered: but it is manifest that hee did but once suffer, when he offered himselfe for a sacrifice: therefore is hee not now any more to be offered: as also againe, cha. 10. Where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sinne. So then, when Christ said, Doe this in remembrance of me: It is as much in effect, as if he should say, Eate this broken bread, and performe all other parts and circumstances of my institution from time to time, in remembrance of me, and especially of my death, and of the excellent fruites and benefits thereof, to the redemption and saluation of the world, & so consequently with euerlasting praise, and thankes, vntounto my heauenly Father, for his vnspeakeable louelove and goodnesse in the same respect. This is the true sence and meaning of these words, and the true end and purpose that Christ aymed at, in the institution of this Sacrament: That his death and passion, and the notable fruits and benefits thereof, should not onelyonly be had in perpetuall remembrance of his Church, but also that his exceeding bounty and goodnesse towards the redemption and saluation of mankinde, should be published with due praise, and aduanced with hearty thanksgiuing.
Also he tooke the Cup.
In these words the Euangelist comes to the second part of the institution of this Sacrament: wherein, before I come to the particular handling of them, we may obserue two speciall outward differences betweene this Sacrament, and the Sacrament of Baptisme. First, Baptisme is administred in one onelyonly element or visible creature, namely, water: and this Sacrament of the Lords Supper in two, Bread, and Wine. The other difference is in the vse, the one being taken without the body, and the other within. Now the reason why Baptisme is instituted in one element, and this other Sacrament in two, was, because Christ is signified, and represented in both Sacraments after diuers sorts. In Baptisme, as hee is the washer away of our sinnes, and giueth vsus entrance into his Church, that wee may be partakers of his benefits. And in the Lords supper, as our natural bodies cannot liue with bread alone, nor with drinke only; but we must hauehave both bread & drink: euen so, our soules cannot be nourished with the body of Christ alone, nor with his bloud onelyonly, but we must of necessity hauehave both his body & bloud. And therfore, Ioh. 6. he saith, That his flesh is meate indeede, and his bloud is drinke indeede. Which is as much as if hee said, That as our bodies are nourished with meate and drinke, so are our soules nourished, and strengthened in the vndoubted hope of eternall life, no otherwise, then onelyonly by faith in his body crucified, and in his bloud shed. For this is a note, very necessary to be obserued, that the Bread & Wine are not Sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ, as he is now glorified, but as he was broken, and crucified for vsus vponupon the Crosse.
That which we call the Cup, the Papists translate a Chalice: but the Word doth signifie any common and ordinary vessell to drinke in. And it is no great matter in what manner of Cup it be administred, so as it be comely, the Lord being not delighted with outward shewes. And whereas S. Luke and S. Paul, Luke 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25make mention of the circumstance of the time when he tooke the Cup, as namely, after Supper, we may thereby know, that there was a distance of time betwixt the receiuing of the Bread, and of the Wine: For the Bread was giuen when they were at Supper, but not the Wine, vntil they had supped. Whereupon it may be gathered, that it is not of necessity, that the Minister, in the administration of the Lords Supper, should giuegive the Wine presently after the imparting of the Bread: but that there may be some space of time, wherein may be singing of Psalmes, &c. Another thing to be obserued in the taking of the Cup, is, that in the vse of the Lords Supper, the Wine is as necessary to be receiued of eueryevery Communicant, as is the Bread: for euen as Christ gaue the one, and commanded it to be perpetually obserued in remembrance of him, euen so also, and after the same manner, hee tooke the Cup, gaue it, and instituted the perpetuall obseruation of the same.
He gaue thankes.
We see heere, that there ought to be a double thanksgiuing, in the celebration of the Lords Supper: for as Christ gaue thankes when he gaue the Bread, so did he in like manner giuegive thankes when hee gaue the Cup. The forme and matter being here concealed as in the former.
He gaue it to them.
The parties to whom hee gaue the Wine, were his Disciples: vnderunder the name and title of whom are vnderstood all faithfull Christians generally, vntounto whose faith, euen as vntounto his Disciples, doth the Lord giuegive his bloud, as often as they celebrate the Lords Supper, and hauehave the Wine giuen them in the same. From which Sacramentall action of the Lords giuing the Cup vntounto his Disciples, wee may here againe obserue: First, that it is not the bloud of Christ, as it naturally procéeded from the virgin Mary, but his bloud, as it was shed vpō the Crosse, that is giuen vntounto vsus for our spirituall nourishment, and whereby we are saued, And secondly, that this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, ought not, without respect of persons, to be administred to eueryevery one, but only vntounto such as approue themselues to be Christs Disciples: And who they are, I hauehave shewed already.
He said, Drinke ye all of it.
From hence wee learne two points. First, that the drinking of the Wine is so necessary to the being of the second part of this Sacrament, as that although it be blessed, giuen, and receiued, yet withall, vnlesse it be drunke, it is no Sacrament. For euen as not the water in Baptisme, nor the pronouncing of these words after the blessing of it, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. doth make the same Sacrament, vnlesse there be one that is baptized, so neither the blessing, giuing, or receiuing of the Wine, doth make the Sacrament of Christs bloud, vnlesse there be some that do drinke the same. And therefore, how truly the Papists affirme that to be the Sacrament, which they reserue after the administration, or rather what horrible idolatry they commit in calling, and worshipping it for a God, there is none so ignorant but he may discerne.
The second point is, that all they who are partakers of the Bread, which is the Sacrament of Christs body, ought in like manner to be partakers of the Wine, which is the Sacrament of Christs bloud. For, euen as he said concerning the one, Take, eate, this is my body: euen so in like manner, concerning the other, Drinke ye all of it. Whereupon the Euangelist Marke, chap. 14.Mark. 14.23. addeth, that they all dranke of it.
This alwayes heerewithall being duly obserued, that although there bee two kindes of outward substances, namely, Bread, and Wine, yet doe they both make but one Sacrament, and therefore consequently may not be separated. Whereby againe, the grosnesse, or rather the intolerable presumption of the Papists, is euidently discouered, in that, of their owne priuate authority, they dare corrupt the holy institution of Christ, offering to the Lay people (as they call them) one onelyonly kinde, namely, the Bread, when they communicate; and vtterly denying them to drinke of the Cup. Whereas, the Lord Christ (as it were, by the Spirit of Prophecie) fore-seeing what should come to passe in the Church, speaketh nothing so generally of the Bread, as of the Cup. Hee saith not of the Bread, Eate ye all of this: but, Take, eate, this is my body: but of the Cup, without any maner of restraint, Drinke ye all of this. Whereupon the Apostle Paul, 1. Cor. 11.1. Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. hauing an especiall regard to this holy ordinance, and institution of Christ, doth many times ioyne the Bread and the Cup together, as may be seene at large in that Chapter.
Moreouer, if the Sacrament of the bloud of Christ were giuen to the Apostles onelyonly, (as the Papists imagine) then the thing it selfe, namely, remission of sinnes, which is obtained through Christs bloud, belongeth onelyonly vntounto them: whereas the Lord plainely saith in the very next words, that not onelyonly for them, but for the remission of the sinnes of many, is his bloud shed: and in many other places it is euident, that his bloud was shed for the redemption of all the faithfull. Wherfore if the thing it selfe, namely, remission of sinnes, belong generally to all that truly beleeue, much more then vndoubtedly ought the signe of the same. But they obiect, that if the Cup be giuen to all, without exception, there may bee a great offence committed, in letting it fall. As if the eternall prouidence of God could not foresee the danger of committing that offence: And as if the Papists were become more carefull, and more prouident to preuent offences, then the Sonne of GOD. Againe, they say, that onelyonly the Apostles sate with the Lord at his last Supper, and that the vse of the Cup was granted to them onelyonly, and so consequently, that all the Priests whom the Apostles did represent, and not any other at this day, should drinke of the Cup: but by as good reason they may say, that the Bread is in like manner to be debarred from the common people, as also from all women generally, seeing it cannot be proued, that any women sate at table with him when he instituted this Sacrament.
They also cry out, that one kinde is enough for the Lay people, forasmuch as by a necessary concomitance it followeth, that where the body of Christ is, there is his bloud also: which exclamation of theirs if it be sufficient, then it must needes follow, that one part of this Sacrament was instituted in vaine: But the Lord distinctly first gaue the Bread, and afterward the Wine, and instituted nothing in vaine: therefore both kindes, séeing the Lord so commanded, ought to be parted among all the faithfull. If he had meant to signifie both his body and bloud when he gaue the Bread, he would not hauehave seuered the one from the other, both in words and signes: but being willing to helpe our weakenesse, did set the Cup seuerally from the Bread, to teach, that hee sufficeth no lesse for drinke, then for meat. Therefore, although it be true which they pretend, that the bloud is in the Bread, and the body in the Cup, yet they defraud the faithfull of the strength and confirmation of faith, which the Lord in this distinction hath so carefully and tenderly prouided for them.
For this is my bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes.
The Apostle Paul in rehearsing these words of Christ, doth somewhat differ from the Euangelists Mathew and Mark, but in sence and meaning they be all one, and there is no diuersity at all betwéene them. For séeing they all spake by one Spirit, which is the Spirit of truth, it is vtterly vnpossible, that one should be any thing contrary to the other, or that the one should in any measure at all dissent from the other. Mathew and Marke reade it after this manner, This is my bloud of the new Testament, &c. meaning thereby, that the Wine in the Cup, was a Sacrament of his bloud, by which his bloud, the new Testament, or couenant of frée remission of sinnes, was fully established: for it was neuer fully confirmed, and ratified, before it was confirmed by Christs reall bloud. For the bloud of Calues and Lambs, in the old Testament, were but signes and figures of Christs bloud. And therefore, although this couenant was made at the beginning of the world, when the Lord said, The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head: Gen. 3.15.yet was it not fully confirmed and established, before Christs death. But the Apostle Paul, agréeing with the Euangelist Luke, repeateth Christs words in this sort: This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud, that is, this is a new Sacrament of the new Testament, confirmed in my bloud. So that (as I said) there is no repugnancy: but in sence and meaning they agrée all in one. For as the holy Ghost can shew his minde in all languages, euen so also infinite wayes in one tongue. The Cup is taken for the Wine in the Cup, by a figuratiue kinde of spéech. By a figure also is it said to be the new Testament, according to the ordinary phrase of ye Scripture, vsually attributing (when it speaketh of Sacraments) the name of the thing signified, to the outward signe, as I hauehave shewed before. The outward signe (I say) is here honoured by the thing signified: so that this herein we are to obserue, that the Wine in the Cup at the Lords Table, being consecrated, and put apart by prayer and thanksgiuing, is not to be considered as common, and ordinary Wine, but is an holy Sacrament of the new couenant, made between God and vsus through Iesus Christ, concerning the free deliuerance from the guiltines of all our sins, and our eternall life, through faith in his bloud. And now for these two respects, is it figuratiuely after this manner called the new Testament, not in regard of the matter and substance thereof, forasmuch as Christ being the substance thereof, was promised at the beginning of the world, but in respect of the dispensation, and administration of the same, forasmuch, as whereas the ancient Fathers before Christs comming, had this couenant ministred vntounto them in types and figures, so as they saw Christ, but as as it were, a farre off: wee now sée him much more liuely and familiarly, being administred vntounto vsus after another manner, with all his glory and righteousnesse. And secondly, it is called the new Testament, or couenant, because it is confirmed vntounto vsus after a new sort: for it was confirmed to them of the old Testament, in the bloud of Calues, Lambs, Goates, &c. so farre as it pleased the Lord: but it is confirmed to vsus in Christs owne bloud, which for our sakes, for our redemption and saluation, hee shed vponupon the Crosse: According as hee said in plaine termes when hee gaue the Wine, that his bloud was shed for many, for the remission of sinnes.
For many, for the remission of sinnes.
VnderUnder the name of many, hee vnderstandeth all such as are elected, and doe truly beléeue in him, of what Nation, or Countrey, and of what estate and condition soeuer they be throughout the world. Whence we may obserue for our further instruction and comfort. First, Christs innocency: That in no measure at all, in regard of himselfe he deserued death, but for this cause submitted himselfe therevnto, that as the Apostle saith, Heb. 2.Heb. 2.14, 15. That he might destroy, through death, him that had the power of death, that is, the deuil: and that he might deliuer all them, which for feare of death were all their life time subiect vntounto bondage. In him had the Prince of this world nothing, as himselfe speaketh, Ioh. 14.Ioh. 14.30. because hee was clearely exempted, and free from all sinne, as Heb. 4.H…b. 4.…5. Secondly, that many, but not all, without exception, hauehave remission of sinnes by Christs death and bloud-shedding. That hee hath not giuen his life a ransome, and shed his bloud, nor by bearing their iniquities, hath iustified all, but many, that is, part of all: which many, are all such as are elected, and truly beleeue in him, as I said before. So saith Simeon, Luke 2.Luke 2.34. that he was appointed for the fall, and rising againe of many, that is, for the fall of many reprobates, and for the rising of many who are elected, and therefore not for the redemption of eueryevery one. The death of Christ, in respect of the fulnesse and sufficiency of redemption, is sufficient for all men, but it is effectuall onelyonly to those that were fore-ordayned to life in him. As of this, wee shall consider further (through Gods assistance) when we come to the 21. question.
A third note obserueable here is this, that all our sinnes are pardoned and forgiuen, not for the acknowledgement or confession of them, but for the m…rit and bloud of the Sonne of God. Not for our owne workes or merits, but of the sr…e grace and mercy of God, for which cause are we taught to professe, as an article of our faith, that wee beleeue the remission of our sinnes. And lastly, that the meanes, and meritorious cause of remission of sinnes, is not the body and bloud of Christ it selfe, taken, and considered apart from his Passion, but his body broken, and his bloud shed, his painefull sufferings, his bearing in body and soule, the extremity of Gods wrath: According to that of the Apostle, Col. 1.Col 1.14, 20, 2…. In who… we hauehave redemption through his bloud, euen the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. And againe, It pleased the Father (saith he) that in him all fulnesse should dwell, and by him to reconcile all things vntounto himselfe, and to set at peace, through the bloud of his Crosse, all things in Heauen, and in earth. And verse 22. In the body of his flesh through death. And Heb. 9.Heb. 9.22. we hauehave it in expresse words, that without shedding of bloud, there is no remission of sinnes. He saith not without bloud, but, without shedding of bloud.
This doe, as often as ye drinke it, in remembrance of me.
This is as much in effect, as if hee had said; This is the end which I respect, in the institution of this Sacrament: and this is my will and commandement, that as often as yee celebrate the same, you should not only call to your remembrance my Death and Passion, with the inestimable benefits thereby purchased: but also extoll and magnifie my wonderfull louelove in this behalfe; and that altogether with one month, and with one heart, confessing that all your confidence of life and saluation, is reposed therein.
Of Transubstantiation.
The Papists say, that the whole substance of the Bread at the Lords Table, is turned into the reall body of Christ, and the Wine into his bloud, by the power and efficacy of these words pronounced by a Priest, This is my body, and this is my bloud. Thus, like very Witches & Coniurers, ascribing power and efficacie to bare words and sillables. But herein how grosse and absurd they are, may easily appeare by these few reasons.
Reason 1 First, if the substance of the bread bee turned into the substance of Christs body, then the body of Christ consisteth of these fiue elements: of Bread, Water, Wine, Flesh, and Bloud. But this cannot be, and it is horrible blasphemy, so to think of the body of our Sauiour Christ: but we must beleeue, & acknowledge, that he consisteth only of a diuine & humane nature.
Reason 2 Secondly, if it bee as they say; then Christ did not onelyonly offer his owne flesh to be eaten with the bodily mouthes of others; but he himselfe also with his bodily mouth did eate his owne flesh, (for that which he gaue, of that did he eat.) But this is monstrous, & against nature, either that a man should eat his own flesh; or that one man should eate the flesh of another.
Reason 3 Thirdly, they hereby take away one part of the Sacrament, and so make it no Sacrament at all (For eueryevery Sacrament consisteth of two parts; the outward element, and the inuisible grace thereby represented.) Now they cannot deny, but Bread is the outward element instituted by our Sauiour: therefore if the bread be transubstantiated, there remaineth no outward element of bread; and thus is one part of the Sacrament abrogated by them. That which taketh away the nature of a Sacrament, is not to be admitted in the Sacrament: but transubstantiation doth so; therefore not to be admitted. For if it bee transubstantiated, it is no signe, but the thing it selfe.
Fourthly, it taketh away one of the Articles Reason 4 of our Christian Faith, where wee professe, that Christ sitteth at the right hand of his Father in Heauen: and wee doe not reade, that hee shall come from thence vntill the Day of Iudgement: (howsoeuer concerning his Spirit, he is, and will bee with vsus vntounto the end of the world, as Ioh. 12. and chap. 14 and 16.Ioh. 12.8. chap. 14, 16, 17, 18. chap. 16.7.) but they that wil hauehave his bodily presence in the Sacrament, must proue another comming of Christ besides that: nay, many commings, which is contrary to the expresse Word of God. Or else they must imagine, (as indeed they do) that Christs body may be in many places at one time: which is also against the Word of God, and asmuch in effect, as if in plaine termes they should deny him, to be (as yet) come in the flesh.
Reason 5 Furthermore, the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.1. Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. speaking of the Sacrament, as it is after consecration or thanksgiuing, calleth it Bread and Wine, (for by the Cup, hee meaneth the Wine in the Cup.) Now if it be Bread and Wine after consecration, then is it not the body and bloud of Christ: but the Apostle in expresse words calleth it Bread and Wine; therefore it is not the body and bloud of Christ.
And whereas they obiect, that the Apostle therefore so calleth it, because it was so before,Ex…. 4.2, 3. euen as Aarons Rod which was turned into a Serpent, was called a Rod, because it had beene so. First, the very words of the Apostle doth manifestly confute them, euidently signifying Bread and Wine, and not the accidence or shew only of the same. And as for that which they bring of Aarons Rod, when it was called a Rod, it appeared so to bee: and when it was called a Serpent, it appeared to the sight, and might bee discerned to bee a Serpent.
Againe, that which we eate and drinke Reason 6 at the Lords Table, doth nourish our bodies: and can our bodies bee nourished with that which hath no substance? Can the shew or likenesse onelyonly of Bread and Wine, nourish the substance of our bodies? and if our bodies be not nourished with ye outward thing in the Sacrament; how then can it hauehave this comfortable representation; that as the Bread & Wine doth nourish our bodie, so doth the body and bloud of Christ nourish our soules? So we see, that if the Popish doctrine bee true; then can wee not possibly hauehave any comfort in the receiuing of the Sacrament: but after this manner must néedes be discouraged, and discomforted: that as the shew, signe or likenesse of bread and wine, cannot nourish our bodies; no more can the body and bloud of Christ nourish our soules. This (I say) must needs follow vponupon their doctrine. For not the substance of Bread and Wine, but onelyonly the outward shew of the same it is, which most grossely, and wickedly, they would make to hold proportion with the body and bloud of Christ.
Reason 7 Last of all, if wee should grant (which they are neuer able to proue) that the bread and wine in the Sacrament, are turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud; yet what profit should come by that bodily presence, seeing the flesh (as himselfe speaketh, Ioh. 6.Ioh. 6.63.) profiteth nothing? The body of Christ crucified, (I say) and his bloud shed, is not profitable, without the merit of his Death and Passion, apprehended and applyed by the mouth of the soule, which is Faith in him. And if they say that the body of Christ crucified, and the merit of his Death, euer goe together in the receiuers of the Sacrament; and that they who receiue the one really present, receiue also the other: then doe they fall into a foule absurdity, and make the distinction of the Apostle idle, 1. Cor. 11.1. Cor. 11.27, 29. that some are worthy, and some are vnworthy receiuers. And by this doctrine of theirs, all without exception, good, and bad; beleeuing, and vnbeléeuing; (yea euen such as by the Apostles doctrine eate and drinke their owne damnation) doe receiue the body and bloud of Christ really present, and withall, the merit of his death, and so are fed and nourished to eternall life: which, as yet, is not so much as begunne in them, and whereunto (it may be) they shall neuer come. Such, and so grosse absurdities, follow vponupon this popish conceit of Transubstantiation. For though we grant a reall presence, euen of the crucified body of Christ; yet (beeing separate from the merit and vertue of his Death) there is no vse, nor profit, that comes by that bodily presence.
Now, the Papists being not able to answere these, and such like arguments, they say, that herein is a miracle: but we doe not reade of any miracle in the Scripture, but it did alwayes appeare to the outward sences to be a miracle, as I shewed before in Aarons Rod, & is further manifest in the water which Christ turned into Wine, Ioh. 2.Io…. 2.6 &c Now, that which we receiue at the Lords Table, appeares to our sight, hands, taste, téeth, and stomake to bee no other then Bread and Wine. And shall we contrary to all these sences, imagine or thinke they are not so? This were childish, and ridiculous.
But doth not Christ (say they) in plaine termes call the bread his body? And shall we not beleeue him? And doth he not also in as plain termes call himselfe a Doore, a Vine,Ioh. 10.9. chap. 15.1. 1. Cor. 10.4. Ioh. 1.36. Ioh. 10. and 15. And elsewhere also, is he not called a Rocke, a Lambe, &c? Yea, but it appeares by the circumstances (say they) that these are figuratiue speeches. And doth it not appeare also as plainely by the circumstances, that this is figuratiuely spoken, when he saith; Doe this in remembrance of me? And doe this, as oft as yee shall drinke it in the remembrance of me? Especially withall considering, as I hauehave formerly noted, that it is vsuall in the Scripture, when it speaketh of Sacraments, to attribute the name of the thing signified, to the outward signe, and representation thereof? But
Thus we may sée how rightly the Papists agree with the Capernaits, Ioh. 6. For euen as they imagined, that Christ would giuegive his very flesh and bloud to bée eaten and drunke with the bodily mouth, as other meat and drinke: and therefore contended among themselues, saying, How can this man giuegive vsus his flesh to eate? Ioh. 6.52.60.63.And thereupon went away offended, saying; This is an hard saying, who can heare it? Euen so doe the Papists gather, and conclude vponupon the very same words of Christ at this day. But as our Lord Iesus Christ, to correct the erroneous conceit of the Capernaites, said vntounto them, that his words are spirit, and life, that is to say, figuratiuely spoken, and spiritually to bee vnderstood: euen so is the same our answere to the Papists at this day, that we are ingrafted into Christ, and doe truely eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud, but yet onelyonly after a spirituall manner, and no otherwise then by faith.
But they cry out, that herein we speake against Gods Omnipotency, and almighty power, when we deny the naturall body and bloud of Christ to bee (as they would hauehave it) in the Sacrament, and in many places at one time. Whereas wee onelyonly say, that although Christ be omnipotent, yet can hee doe nothing against his owne will, against his Word or glory: As to dishonour his glorious body, and to bring it within the compasse of a piece of bread, where it may be deuoured of Cats and Dogs, Rats and Mice, or which is worse, be eaten of wicked men, who are the members of the Diuell. This we say, Christ cannot doe, not for want of power; but because he will not doe it As Heb. 6.H…b. 6.18. It is vnpossible that God should lye. And this thing, not to lye, is not a want of power, but a signe of greater power in God.