Twenty-Three Sermons, Lecture 13
THE THIRTEENTH LECTVRE VPONUPON THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SVPPER.
IN 1 Cor. 11.26. it followeth, For as oft as you ſhall eate this bread, and drinke this cup, you ſhew the Lords death till he come: This being the portion of Scripture which through Gods direction we have already entred into for our preparation to the Lords Table, and the next Sabbath (God will … we purpoſe to communicate in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: therefore according to our wonted manner wee are now to conſider of ſome meditations, whereby wee may be the better ſitted to the holy participation of that ſaving ordinance of Ieſus Chriſt: We have entred, as you may remember, into theſe words already, and have ſhewed the drift of them, and the dependance of them with that which went before; duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page we ſhewed you the parts of them, that this verſe conſiſteth of two parts; as firſt, an action performed in the former part of the verſe, As oft as you ſhall eate this bread, and drinke this cup: Secondly, a caution or condition, that this action is to be performed withall, is the latter part of the verſe, Ye ſhew the Lords death till he come. I will not make my repetition of that which I have ſpoken before, we ſpake onelyonly of that which concerned the coherence and dependance of this verſe with the former, that whereas our Saviour ſaith in the verſe going before, Doe this in remembrance of mee, the Apoſtle ſaith here, As oft as you doe this you ſhew forth the Lords death till he come.
Now then wee are to come to the handling of the parts of the verſe, and firſt to beginne with the action in the former part of the verſe; wherein we are to conſider theſe two things: Firſt, the parts of the action, The eating of this bread, and drinking of this cup; whereby the Apoſtle deſcribes the Lords Supper. Secondly, the frequenting of the action, As oft as you ſhall eate this bread, and drink this cup: the parts of the action are the eating of the bread, and the drinking of th… cup. To begin with that, there be ſundry other actions of much uſe and ſignificancy in and about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as namely, the bleſſing of the bread, the breaking of the bread, the diſtributing of the bread, and ſuch like; but becauſe that this here, the eating of the bread, and drinking of the cup, becauſe this action is the accompliſhment of all the reſt, (for all that is done beſides in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the bleſſing of the bread, the breaking and diſtributing of it, tends to this, namely, that the receiver may profitably eate and drinke, and comfortably communicate in theſe holy myſteries) therefore the Apoſtle makes mention of this action onelyonly, as this I ſay being the accompliſhment of the reſt; even the eating of this bread, and drinking of this cup: we are here therefore to conſider of ſome particulars; and the firſt particular that here we are to conſider of is this, that the Apoſtle being here to deſcribe the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper, he doth deſcribe it and ſet it forth by a matter of action, or a matter of uſe: He deſcribes the Sacrament it ſelfe by the uſe of the Sacrament, by the eating of the bread, and the drinking of the cup.
Doctr. The matter that hence wee are to obſerve, is this, namely, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well in regard of the nature of it in it ſelfe, as alſo in regard of the benefit of it to us, doth wholly and altogether conſiſt in the participation and uſe of the Sacrament, I ſay both for the nature of it, and likewiſe for the benefit of it; for the Apoſtle ſpeakes here of both: he ſpeakes of the nature of this Sacrament, as appeares by the rehearſall of the inſtitution in the three verſes before going, wherein the nature of the Sacrament is fully ſet forth: and likewiſe he ſpeaketh of the benefit of the Sacrament, as appeares by the application of that inſtitution, as alſo by the whole diſcourſe he makes from the ſixe and twentieth verſe to the end of the Chapter. For explication of this doctrine, underſtand, that the Sacrament is then ſaid to he in uſe, when it is uſed, adminiſtred, and received according to Gods owne ordinance, then is the Sacrament in uſe, ſo long as the Sacrament is thus in uſe, ſo long it is in the nature of a Sacrament, and ſo ſoone as this uſe ceaſeth, ſo ſoone ceaſeth the nature of the Sacrament in that particular: So for the benefit of it, the Sacrament being thus uſed there is much benefit to be received by it, but without this uſe there is no benefit to be had by it at all; it is true, the benefit of the Sacrament to the faithfull receiver continues with us after the receiving of it, and we finde benefit, and comfort, and ſweetneſſe by it, but becauſe the benefit doth ariſe wholly and onelyonly from the uſe of the Sacrament, therefore the doctrine ſtands firme, namely, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well in regard of the nature of it in it ſelfe, as alſo in regard of the benefit of it to us, doth wholly and altogether conſiſt in the participation and uſe of the Sacrament; the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the Sacrament both in the nature and uſe of … hee ſpeakes of a matter of uſe, So oft as you eate this bread, and drink this cup, you ſhew the Lords death till he come: It is not onelyonly to have it, but to eate it and drinke it: For proofe of this point, take Chriſt his example; Matth. 26.26. Ieſus tooke bread, &c. there was bread there, and there was wine at the feaſt of the Paſſeover; but the bread and the wine did not make it the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: no, ſaith the Text, Ieſus tooke it, bleſt it, brake it, and diſtributed it, ſaying, Take, eate, this is my body: So likewiſe he did the cup. This was matter of action on his part, then likewiſe matter of action on the receivers part; queſtionleſſe, as hee gave it them, ſo they received it of him, and as he bade them eate it and drinke it, ſo they did eate it and drinke it; this is cleere in Marke 14.23. concerning the cup (he ſaith) They did all drinke of it: and the ſame is to be underſtood proportionably concerning the bread: here then is all matter of action and doing; whereunto if ye adde, that Chriſt ſaith, This is my body, and this is my blood, and ſo no doubt but they did ſo beleeve it in their meaſure, and accept of it; here ſtill you ſee is all matter of action, both on Chriſt his part, ſaying, and doing, bleſſing, breaking, and diſtributing; and on the receivers part, they tooke it, they eate it, they drank it, and were thankfull to Chriſt for it; this matter of action and uſe it was that gave it the nature of a Sacrament in it ſelfe, and made it beneficiall to them. Agreeable to Chriſt his example was his command, Doe this in remembrance of me, Luke 22.19. what is it that here Chriſt enjoynes his Apoſtles? why, ſurely the whole worke of the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that they ſhould doe that which they had ſeene him doe, to the end of the world, they and their ſucceſſors ſhould from time to time obſerve it as a perpetuall ordinance, for ſo our Apoſtle expounds the words; whereas Chriſt ſaith, Doe it in remembrance of me, the Apoſtle explaines it and ſaith, Doe this as oft as you doe, &c. giving us to underſtand, that it was not a matter that onelyonly concerned that preſent action wherein Chriſt and his Diſciples were employed, but that it is an action that concernes both Miniſter and receiver to doe in every Sacrament to the worlds end: marke upon what termes he doth commend that to them, ſtill he puts it in a matter of action, let this be your uſe and practice, the bread and wine muſt bee taken, bleſſed, broken, and diſtributed, eaten and drunken, or elſe it is no Sacrament in it ſelfe, nor any benefit to you: ſo in 1 Cor, 10.16. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? the cup of bleſſing which wee bleſſe, is it not the communion of the blood of Chriſt? It is not the bread that is the communion, &c. but the breaking of the bread, and ſuch other actions as do accompany the Sacrament, that Chriſt hath appointed; and the Apoſtle in the ſeventeenth verſe ſaith, For wee that are many are one bread, and one body, becauſe we all are partakers of one bread; ſtill what he ſaith concerning the Sacrament, he ſpeakes it in regard of the uſe and participation of it: ſo in verſe 21. You cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of Devills: ſtill he deſcribes the Lords Table by the uſe and participation of it, and ſo generally throughout all the Scripture: and in the eleventh Chapter, the Apoſtle here ſaith, verſe 20. When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eate the Lords Supper: do you think it is to be made partakers of the Sacrament, for one to eat, & not the other? no, this is not to eat the Lords ſupper: It is not the Lords Supper except it be eaten and in uſe, as the Lord himſelfe hath ordained it. Act. 2.42. And they all continued tn the Apoſtles doctrine, and fellowſhip, and breaking of bread: there you ſee the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is ſtill deſcribed by a matter of action and of uſe, by breaking of bread.
Reaſon 1 The reaſons: One reaſon is drawne from the uſe and nature of the Sacraments of the former Teſtament, they conſiſted altogether in action and in uſe, for the nature and benefit of them. Circumciſion, what was it? why, the cutting off the fore-skin of the fleſh: altogether in action. The Paſſeover muſt be killed and eaten: there had wanted the nature of a Sacrament, unleſſe there had beene killing, and eating; neither was there any benefit by it, without they fed upon it: ſo it is in ours, ours being the ſame in ſubſtance with theirs. The Papiſts, which are our adverſaries, and very hot againſt us in this doctrine, (and it is a very materiall difference betweene them and us,) they grant (indeed) that in the Sacrament of the former Teſtament it was ſo, but ſay they, it prooves not that it ſhould be ſo now in the Sacraments of the new Teſtament; the Sacraments of the former Teſtament, they were but ſhadowes, but ours are the ſubſtance; and therefore the reaſon holds not, ſay they. We will not now diſpute whether ours and theirs are the ſame, though we can prove it as cleere as the Sunne at noone day, that they are the ſame in ſubſtance: God forbid that any ſhould thinke that wee ſhould bee ſaved by one meanes, and they by another for matter of ſubſtance. But not to ſtand upon that. Put the caſe it were ſo, that their Sacraments were ſhadowes, and ours the ſubſtance, the reaſon holds much more ſtrongly: for if it were ſo then in the Sacraments that were but ſhadowes, that they conſiſted altogether in action and uſe, then much more our Sacraments that are in ſubſtance: thoſe Sacraments that have more action and uſe about them, are commonly moſt lively and powerfull; the more action and uſe a Sacrament hath, the more life and power uſually is in the Sacrament to the receiver: unleſſe therefore wee will make the ſhadow to have more life and power than the ſubſtance, the Sacraments of the old Teſtament muſt not conſiſt in action more than the Sacraments of the new; if they yeeld that the nature of them ſtood in the action and uſe of them, then ours muſt doe ſo much more: ſo then the reaſon holds very ſtrong, that the Sacraments of the former Teſtament conſiſted altogether in the uſe and participation of them, and therefore ſo muſt ours.
Reaſon 2 The ſecond reaſon is drawne from Baptiſme, the other Sacrament of the new Teſtament: Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, a ſweet paire of Sacraments that the Lord Chriſt Ieſus hath inſtituted; like two breſts for the nouriſhing of the Church to the worlds end: it is ſo in one of theſe breſts, and therefore it is ſo in the other; it is ſo in Baptiſme, therefore it is ſo in the Sacrament of the Lords Surper: it is ſo in Baptiſme, that conſiſteth both for the nature and benefit of it, in the uſe of it, the water is not Baptiſme, though it be never ſo hallowed, as the Papiſts ſay; but the waſhing of water, and the uſe of it, that is Baptiſme; if ſo be that there ſhould be water, and that water ſhould be conſecrated, as they call it, yet if there be not a receiver, or one to be baptiſed, or if there were a party to be baptiſed, and a Miniſter to baptiſe, yet without he be actually baptiſed, it were no baptiſme: Well, that the Papiſts grant in the matter of Baptiſme, but it is not true in the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper (ſay they:) Baptiſme conſiſteth onelyonly in uſe; but ſaith the Councill of Trent, It is a great prerogative that God hath vouchſafed to the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper, that whereas all other Sacraments have their nature and benefit by the uſe of it, yet this Sacrament of the Lords ſupper hath this prerogative, to retaine the nature and benefit of it, when the uſe of it ceaſeth. This they ſay, if they could prove it; but they cannot ſhew us any ſuch prerogative out of the word, thus to advance the ſacrament of the Lords Supper above the ſacrament of Baptiſme. We know this, that in each of theſe ſacraments every faithfull beleever doth receive Chriſt and all his benefits, I ſay, in Baptiſme, as well as in the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper. Gal. 3.27. By Baptiſme we put on Chriſt: and what can we doe more in the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper? Likewiſe by Baptiſme we are incorporated into Chriſt, into the death and reſurrection of Chriſt, Rom. 6.3, 4. What can be done more in the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper than this. By Baptiſme we are waſhed and renewed by the Holy Ghoſt, Tit. 3.5. What can be done more in the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper, than is in Baptiſme? Therefore if ſo be that the Sacrament of Baptiſme bee of no force nor benefit without the uſe, why ſhould the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper be of force and benefit to us without uſe? Againe, if the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper bee of force without uſe, why then ſhould not the Sacrament of Baptiſme? There can be no reaſon given of it, it is nothing elſe but a fancy or dreame of theirs, in thinking that Chriſt is bodily preſent in the Lords ſupper, and that drives them to ſpeak many ſtrange things contrary to all reaſon and religion.
Reaſon 3 The third reaſon is this: There muſt be a due proportion betweene the Sacrament and that which is repreſented by the ſacrament: now, what is repreſented by the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper? Why, Chriſt himſelfe, the death of Ieſus Chriſt; and the death of Chriſt Ieſus conſiſteth altogether both for the nature and benefit of it, in matter of action and uſe. Firſt for the nature of Chriſt his death: Chriſt had not dyed unleſſe his body had beene broken, and his blood ſhed. Then for the benefit of the death of Chriſt, no man ſhall have any benefit by it any further than they apply it, and receive it by the hand of faith: If it be ſo then in the thing repreſented by the ſacrament, then it is ſo in the ſacrament it ſelfe. And ſurely they that make the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper to be a matter of ſaving benefit being out of uſe, they advance it above the death of Chriſt, becauſe that is not in force, but ſo farre as it is in uſe and action.
Reaſon 4 The fourth reaſon may bee drawne from ſuch things as the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper is compared unto. Firſt, it is compared to a plaiſter, becauſe that it is as it were a ſpirituall plaiſter to cure our ſpirituall ſores, ſinnes, and infirmities, through the ordinance and bleſſing of God: wee know in a plaiſter there muſt bee uſed many ſimples and ingredients, yet all they doe not make a plaiſter, till they bee tempered together by Art, elſe they make none: well, when they are ſo tempered, what good will this doe to him that needeth it, without he apply it to the ſore? ſurely no benefit at all: it is not a plaiſter, at leaſt not in the benefit of it to him, no further than he applyes it unto the ſore. So likewiſe for the matter of a ſeale; the ſacraments are compared unto ſeales: put the caſe there be a ſeale, and there bee wax, and the ſeale be put unto the wax, yet if they bee not put unto the writing, it gives no aſſurance of benefit to him to whom the conveyance is made. Laſtly, in the matter of a feaſt; as the ſacrament is called a feaſt, let there be much meat, and many gueſts at the feaſt, yet all this makes it not a feaſt, unleſſe they doe eate and drinke; but it is their meeting, their eating and drinking that makes it a feaſt, and makes it likewiſe beneficiall to them that eate of it. If it be ſo in theſe things, then it is ſo in the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper: though there bee bread & wine, and it be broken and poured forth, yet notwithſtanding if it bee not uſed, and eaten and drunken, it hath neither the nature of a ſacrament, nor the benefit of a ſacrament to any of us.
Vſe 1 The firſt uſe is matter of reproofe; firſt, of a Popiſh doctrine; and ſecondly, of a Popiſh practice. Firſt of a Popiſh doctrine. The Popiſh Church holds and maintaines very ſtiffely, That the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper ſtill continues in the nature of the ſacrament, and the bread ſtill continues the body of Chriſt after the uſe of it ceaſeth: and the Councill of Trent holds all other accurſed that are contrary minded. For their curſes we regard them not, for a curſe cauſleſſe (ſaith Salomon) flyes like a Bird in the ayre that leaves no impreſsion behinde it: ſo their curſe upon us being cauſeleſſe, we are never the worſe for it. But for their doctrine, that is falſe and damnable, that the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper continues to be a ſacrament when the uſe is finiſhed. There is no warrant, nor colour of warrant for it from the Word; never any Papiſt did, nor can alledge any argument or tittle out of Scripture to prove this: we for our parts have proved it by many places of Scripture, that the ſacrament is a ſacrament meerly in the uſe of it; and the nature and benefit of it conſiſteth in the uſe and participation of it; wee finde the Scripture never ſpeakes of it otherwiſe but as an action and uſe, and therfore ſee whether they are the ſheepe of Chriſt, or we: My ſheepe heare my voyce, and follow me, &c. we have the word of God to goe before us, Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſay ſo. That the nature of a ſacrament conſiſteth in the matter of action and uſe, thus we reſt ſatiſfied & go no further; we will not hearken to the voice of ſtrangers, that go farther and define what it is after, to ſay that it is beneficiall as well after as before: ſee if they deſerve not that curſe they pronounced againſt us. So much for their opinion. Now for their practice grounded upon this doctrine, to give you a taſte; firſt, in ſhewing of the ſacrament; the ſacrament after it is conſecrated, being lifted up by the Prieſt, and beheld by the people, oh this is a great part of Gods worſhip with them: It is a ſtrange thing that men ſhould be ſo beſotted.
Secondly, they keepe it, and reſerve it uſually in a box till it be mouldy and unſavoury, and yet ſtill they hold it to bee the Lords body, and (as they ſay) they doe many miracles with it.
Thirdly, they doe not onelyonly thus, but they carie it about with them, when they travell in the ſtreets and other places, as a preſervative againſt ſickneſſe and other evills: theſe and ſuch other like fopperies are uſed in the Popiſh Church, upon this falſe ground, that being once dedicated to the uſe of the ſacrament, as they ſuppoſe, it muſt needs alwayes have the ſame force and power, ſo long as it continues: wee may referre it to the judgement of any indifferent underſtanding man to judge, whether hee thinketh they or wee doe come neareſt to the meaning, and true inſtitution of Chriſt. We are ſure that Chriſt tooke bread, and commanded us ſo to doe, to take the bread, to bleſſe it, breake it, and diſtribute it; but wee are ſure that he never commanded it to be caryed about, for any ſuch ſuperſtitious uſes as they doe. I doe not doubt but there be many that have occaſion to travell into places where theſe and ſuch like ſuperſtitions are uſed, if they have any underſtanding, or any taſte of Religion, they will grow into a greater hatred and deteſtation of Popery in ſeeing that which they doe, than wee doe, or can doe by the hearing of theſe things: and therefore if any ſhall come to ſee any ſuch things, labour to be fenced with this preſervative; let us know, the ſacrament is excellent in the uſe of it, otherwiſe it is of no force after the uſe, but to put any ſuperſtitious holineſſe in it: that it is in force afterwards, we have no warrant for it from the Word, and therefore let us hate it as an abominable ſuperſtition.
Vſe 2 The ſecond uſe, it teacheth us reſolution how to ſettle our mindes concerning the truth of God in this caſe, never any benefit to be had by the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper, but onelyonly ſo farre forth as we partake in the uſe of it, according to Gods ſaving ordinance. It is true, a man may feed on Chriſt by faith, though his faith be not lift up by ſuch helpes as the ſacrament is: but if thou wouldſt have it to helpe thy faith, thou muſt eate it, and drinke it: he that lookes to have any benefit by the ſacrament, muſt communicate in the uſe of the ſacrament. It is not enough for us to ſtand by, and looke on, and for others to doe it; but we muſt doe it for our ſelves. It is true (indeed) that God hath promiſed a bleſſing to his owne ordinance, but yet with this condition, that we uſe them in their owne kinde, and ſo as he hath appointed and ordained them; but if wee apply them not, or uſe them otherwiſe than God hath appointed, he is freed of his promiſe, neither can we expect any bleſſing from God.
Vſe 3 The third uſe: It miniſtreth unto us matter of exhortation: it teacheth us, ſeeing it is ſo that the ſacrament is only beneficiall in the uſe of it, therefore let us labour to frame our ſelves to a frequent uſe of the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper, there is no benefit without the uſe of it, by the uſe of it there is much benefit, and ſingular profit and comfort; as the aſſurance of Gods love and favour, aſſurance of the forgiveneſſe of our ſinnes, and reconciliation with God, and grace from God, to preſerve us from ſinne, that wee fall not finally, and many ſuch like helpes there be: Therefore ſeeing without the uſe of it there is no benefit, and by the uſe of it much benefit, let us ſtirre up our ſelves to uſe it frequently: And when thou comeſt to it, ſee thou bring not thy mouth, and thy body and hands onelyonly, but thy ſoule, thy heart, thy faith and thy ſpirituall man; that while the one is imployed in the bodily eating of bread, and drinking of wine, the other may be imployed in the ſpirirituall eating of the body, and drinking of the blood of Chriſt: bring the whole man to be imployed in this worke, and ſo ſhalt thou then communicate in the whole benefit of the ſacrament: Alwayes provided, that ſtill we ſtir up our ſelves to matter of action in the uſe of the Sacrament, that we ſtirre up our mindes and ſcules to an actuall beleeving, an actuall diſcerning, and an actuall receiving of Chriſt and his merits, and an actuall applying them to our poore ſoules: then ſhall we be ſure to have the benefit of the Sacrament: ſtill know the benefit and nature of the ſacrament conſiſteth in the uſe of the Sacrament, and therefore the more we ſtirre up our ſelves to thoſe actions that accompany it, the more benefit we ſhall receive by it: And this is that that makes many that come here to the Lords Table, and that are made partakers happely of the nature of it, yet (notwithſtanding) they faile of the benefit of the Sacrament. What is the reaſon? Surely the fault is their owne, becauſe God hath appointed it to be a matter of action, and doing, and they perform not thoſe actions that God hath enjoyned them unto, they doe not apply Chriſt to them by faith, they eate, and drinke, and yet doe not actually diſcerne the Lords body. So much of that firſt particular that is to be conſidered, namely, That the Apoſtle deſcribing the nature of the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper, hee deſcribes it in regard of the uſe and benefit of it.
The ſecond point that we are to conſider, is this, (namely) that whereas the Apoſtle here in this ſpeech makes mention of the outward elements in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the bread and the wine, hee calls them by their owne proper names, eate this bread, and drinke this cup, that is, this wine; hee calls them, I ſay, by their owne proper names, that is, by the names of the ſigne, not by the names of the thing ſignified: hee doth not ſay, As often as ye ſhall eate this body, and drinke this blood; but, As often as ye eate this bread, and drinke this cup; and this he doth after the bleſſing and conſecration to this ſacred uſe, and that appeares by the circumſtance of the Text: For looke what bread our Saviour ſpake of in the former words, that the Apoſtle ſpeakes of here, ſeeing he inferres it by way of reaſon. Now that which Chriſt ſpake of in the verſe going before, was bread, after it was bleſſed and conſecrated, bread, in the uſe of the Sacrament, and ſo the Apoſtle calls it bread ſtill: and ſo likewiſe it appears plainly by the whole drift of this part of the chapter: where the Apoſtle ſpeakes of the bread in the uſe of the Sacrament, namely, after conſecration.
Doctr. 2 The point of doctrine that hence wee are to obſerve, is this, namely, That howſoever the creatures of bread and wine uſed in the Sacrament be conſecrated by the inſtitution and bleſſing of God, to a ſpirituall and ſacred uſe, yet they are not thereby changed out of their nature and ſubſtance, but ſtill, for their nature and ſubſtance, they continue the ſame creatures as before, the ſame bread, and the ſame wine; bread ſtill, as it was bread before. No man will ſuppoſe that the Apoſtle doth nick-name them. Seeing then the Apoſtle calls it bread, after the bleſſing and conſecration of it, and the Apoſtle cannot be ſuſpected to nick-name them, therefore out of queſtion it muſt be ſo reputed, that it continues in the nature of bread after conſecration: the Apoſtle doth not call it ſo here onelyonly once in this chapter, but three ſeverall times, 26, 27, 28. verſes: if ſo be he had ſpoke it but once, we might have thought it to be an improper ſpeech: but ſpeaking ſo of it often, this ſhewes it is the true name & title that is due unto them, and that they are the very ſame creatures as they were before: And the Apoſtle doth not onelyonly call them ſo here, but elſewhere, as in 1 Cor. 10.16.17. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt, &c? mark, he calls it bread even in the breaking, or in the uſe of the Sacrament: It is bleſſed before it is broken; and it is bread when it is broken: The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? therefore it is bread after the bleſſing. Now the Apoſtle goes further, and ſaith in the ſeventeenth verſe, For we that are many, are one bread, and one body, becauſe we are all partakers of one bread: The Apoſtle doth not onelyonly call it bread, while it is in the Miniſters hand, but when the people receive it, and partake of it, he ſaith, you are partakers of bread: ſtill it is bread, notwithſtanding the bleſſing. And though by the bleſſing and inſtitution of Chriſt, and the promiſe of God, it be conſecrated to a holy uſe, it ſtill continues bread, and loſeth not the nature and ſubſtance thereof. It is ſtrange to ſee how miſerably the Papiſts do ſhuffle and ſhift to avoid this very argument in this place, becauſe the Apoſtle is ſo plaine and expreſſe that it is bread. To give you a taſte of it, becauſe it is a matter of great controverſie betweene us and the Church of Rome: they would avoid the force of this reaſon, therefore you ſhall ſee how they expound it: This bread, ſay ſome of them, (I will not tell you of the meaneſt, but ſome of the beſt and greateſt Champions amongſt them) it is called bread, not becauſe it is bread, but becauſe it was bread, by a trope and figure, becauſe it was made of Bread. Marke, it is called ſo by a trope and figure: Vnderſtand thus much, when as wee ſay that the words of Chriſt, ſaying, This is my bodie, are to bee underſtood figuratively, they exclaime againſt us for it: What (ſay they) will you have a trope and a figure in the Sacrament? that is ridiculous: and yet to ſerve their owne turne they will have tropes even in the Sacrament. But to goe to the ſenſe of their anſwer: This is called bread (ſay they) becauſe it was bread: as Mat. 11.5. The blinde receive ſight, the halt goe; marke, ſay they, they are called blinde, though they receive their ſight, becauſe they were blinde before; and they are called the halt, becauſe they were ſo before, though they goe now: ſo this is called bread, becauſe it was bread before, but not ſo now, but meerely the body of Chriſt. Take it ſo: apply this expoſition to this place, and then ſee what a ſpeech they will have the Apoſtle to make; As oft as ye eate this bread, which before was bread, but now is not, you ſhew forth the Lords death till hee come, it was ſo, but it is not ſo: why then ſhould the Apoſtle tell them it is bread? The compariſon is very unlike: they were called blinde, becauſe they were blinde before; but that blindneſs which they had before is taken away, and ſo they are ſaid now to ſee. If they can ſhew us that the ſubſtance which was in this bread before, is utterly deſtroyed by the words of conſecration, then we ſhall beleeve that it is called bread, becauſe it was bread; but elſe we muſt beleeve that as it was bread before, ſo it is bread ſtill; and is ſo called here by the Apoſtle, becauſe it is now bread in regard of the preſent ſtate of the thing. Againe, they ſay this bread is called bread, becauſe it is like bread, not becauſe it is bread, becauſe it hath the forme and faſhion of it: As the brazen Serpent was called a Serpent, though it was but in the forme of a Serpent: whereby they make the Apoſtle to ſay thus: As oft as you ſhall eate this bread, which indeed is no bread, only it hath the outward forme of bread: is not this a ſenſleſſe ſpeech? They give another anſwer; It may bee called bread (ſay they) after the Hebrew phraſe, becauſe it is food; for they call all food by the name of bread, becauſe bread is the principall food. I anſwer, they call temporall food by the name of bread, but let it be ſhewed that they call all ſpirituall food by the name of bread, for they ſay it is ſpirituall food which the Apoſtle here ſpeakes of: but the cup being here mentioned as well as the bread, doth cleerly anſwer this exception. Laſtly, Iohn 6. doth not Chriſt (ſay they) call himſelfe bread? & I hope that is not meant of ordinarie, but ſpirituall bread. It is true, Chriſt calls himſelfe bread, but withall he gives other titles, whereby to know it to be heavenly bread: as where he ſaith, I am the living bread, or, The bread that came downe from heaven: but this is not ſo, becauſe it was ſuch as they did eate in their owne meales, and at their owne Tables: there he ſpeaketh of himſelfe as the heavenly and ſpirituall bread: But this the Apoſtle ſpeakes of here, is of the bread of the Lords Table: He that eates of that bread ſhall never dye, Iohn 6.50. but a man may eate of this bread, and yet dye for ever, as verſe 29.
Reaſon 1 The firſt reaſon of this point is this, becauſe the nature of the Sacrament requires it ſo, the nature of the Sacrament agreed upon on our ſide and on theirs, muſt conſiſt of an outward and viſible thing, and of a ſpirituall and inviſible grace, heavenly and earthly, and both theſe muſt bee there preſent in their true being, elſe it is no Sacrament: there muſt bee an outward in the true being of it, and an inward thing repreſented in the true being too: If the inward thing repreſented ſhould bee preſent, and not the outward thing repreſenting it, it were no true Sacrament; or if the outward were there preſent, and not the inward, it were no true Sacrament, and therefore there muſt be both. Now if they ſay that there is the ſhew of an outward thing, and that that will ſerve the turne, they may ſay as well that the ſhew of a Sacrament will ſerve the turne: therefore when they ſay, onelyonly the ſhew of bread is there, we may well ſay there is indeed no Sacrament there, but onelyonly the ſhew of a Sacrament.
Reaſon 2 Againe, the proportion betweene the ſigne and the thing ſignified, requires as much: What is ſignified by the bread and wine? the body and blood of Chriſt; and they have an active power and virtue to cheriſh and nouriſh our foules to eternall life: and therefore the bread and wine muſt bee ſuch in the Sacrament as hath power alſo to nouriſh the body to a temporall life; but if onelyonly the ſhew of bread and wine were there preſent, then there were no power to nouriſh, for it is the ſubſtance of the bread that yeelds power by the bleſſing of God to ſuſtaine life; the maintenance of our life ariſeth from the ſubſtance of our food; and therefore it followes, that as the outward forme muſt needs bee there preſent, ſo the ſubſtance of the bread muſt be there alſo in the very true being, or elſe it is no true Sacrament.
Reaſon 3 The laſt reaſon is this, our owne judgement, our owne eyes, or owne taſte, ſenſe, and naturall parts, our teeth and ſtomach finde the bread and wine there, and ſhall they tell us that it is not there, when we ſee, feele, and taſte it? Doe wee thinke that God doth ſo delude us as oft as we receive the ſacrament, to make us beleeve that there is bread and wine, when there is none? will God deceive us when we come to doe him ſervice in the uſe of his owne ordinances? Except God delude us, which we are ſure he cannot, nor will not, there muſt be the bread and wine there preſent. And ſurely it is Gods gracious purpoſe herein to lead us as it were by the hand from our bodily feeding to our ſpiritull feeding; that while our bodies feed upon the ſignes, and finde and feele the taſte, and relliſh, and comfort of the bread and wine, our ſoules may be lifted up by faith to meditate of the thing ſignified, and ſo to feed upon the body and blood of Chriſt, and finde comfort in them: That we may truly ſay, Looke, the bread and wine comforts my body, thus, thus doth the blood of Chriſt comfort my ſoule, and by faith I am aſſured of the forgiveneſſe of my ſinnes by the blood of Chriſt, as by ſenſe I feele the benefit of thoſe outward elements. Thus the Lord vouchſafeth to lead us on by the hand, as it were, by that which is done outwardly in this Sacrament, to that which is to be done ſpiritually.
Vſe 1 The firſt uſe ſerves to confute the Papiſts opinion of Tranſubſtantiation: the meaning of it is this, that ſo ſoone as ever the bleſſing is pronounced, & the words of conſecration are uſed, which are theſe, This is my body, and this is my blood, preſently (ſay they) the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is vaniſhed away, and in comes the body and blood of Chirſt, for this they hold, that two ſubſtances cannot be in one place together, and therefore, ſay they, if the body and blood of Chriſt come in, then the other ſubſtance goes away. We need no other place againſt this dreame of theirs than this in hand, that the Apoſtle calls it by the name of bread after conſecration. And this ſhould teach us much more to hate and loath that groſſe practice of theirs in adoring the Sacrament; and indeed it comes from this Tranſubſtantiation: Tranſubſtantiation is the mother of adoration: becauſe they thinke the body of Chriſt is there bodily preſent, therefore they adore it: horrible Idolatry! the Apoſtle cals it bread, and they make it their God: and therefore judge you whether we doe not juſtly challenge the Papiſts, that they worſhip a breaden god: that which the Holy Ghoſt calls bread, that they worſhip as God, and therefore they worſhip a breaden god: this is fearful Idolatry, & this is a main matter of their religion. An Idoll (ſaith the Apoſtle) is nothing in the world: and ſurely this is a great Idoll of theirs, and yet it is nothing, that is, nothing that hath any true being: Here is bread, but no true God, as they fondly imagine: this is nothing but a fancie of theirs, to thinke that Chriſt is there bodily preſent; they fondly imagine ſuch a thing to be there that is not, and therefore they adore and worſhip that which is not. True it is, that Chriſt is there really preſent to all ſaving purpoſes in the uſe of the bread and wine to every faithfull receiver, and it is the comfort of our ſoules that he is preſent by the power of his Spirit, to make good unto the faithfull the worke of our Redemption: But that he is there bodily preſent, we have no warrant.
Vſe 2 The laſt uſe teacheth us how to expound ſuch places of Scripture: As where it is ſaid, This is my body, to expound them ſacramentally and in a ſpirituall ſenſe: This is my body, in a ſacramentall and ſpirituall ſenſe, that is, this bread to every beleever that partakes it in a true manner, beleeving in me, and being raiſed up by this to a conſideration of the breaking of Chriſt his body for the forgiveneſſe of their ſinnes, and ſo finde the benefit of it to themſelves: it is made actually and really (yet ſpiritually) the body of Chriſt to everie true beleever, if ye will receive it. This is Elias, ſaith our Saviour; what therefore ſhould the Apoſtles conclude that therefore Iohn Baptiſt was Elias; that his body was turned into his body; no ſuch matter; but take it as it is meant; this is Elias, not that Iohn Baptiſts was Elias, that his body was turned into his body: but ſo he was called, becauſe he came in the ſpirit of Elias, to doe that which he did: So, this is the body of Chriſt, not that the bread is turned into the body of Chriſt, nor the wine into his blood, but if you will receive it, this is my body and my blood: to every faithfull receiver the Spirit of God is at hand to make good unto them the body and blood of Chriſt, and all his merits: the ſame Spirit that was in Chriſt when he performed the office of our redemption, is in and at the Sacrament, to make Chriſt really preſent (yet ſpiritually) to every faithfull receiver, by the power, merit, and virtue of his body and blood, for all ſaving purpoſes, as the nature of the Sacrament requires. Theſe things if we could underſtand them, and ſet our hearts upon them, and live by faith, wee ſhould reſt more ſolid in them. It is want of faith that makes thē dote upon the bodily preſence of Chriſt; whereas if they could be perſwaded that the Spirit of God doth performe effectually all ſaving purpoſes, as if Chriſt were bodily preſent, if they did but conſider and beleeve this, it would make them renounce the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and therfore we that are the people of God, and know that as God is a Spirit, ſo he will be worſhipped in ſpirit and in truth: we muſt labour to walke in the ſpirit, and to live by faith: we muſt beleeve that Chriſt is really preſent, yet ſpiritually to everie faithfull receiver, to make them truly to partake of his body and blood, and ſo by his Spirit is made wholly ours.
The end of the thirteenth Lecture.