Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, Book 2 · Chapter 12 · Confutations
5. Places of confutation.
1. Confut. Against reservation of reliques.
Vers. 10. YE shall reserve nothing of it untill the morning. This was commanded to take away all occasion of superstition, lest they might have superstitiously abused these reliques of the paschall lambe: which charge given unto the Israelites may reprove the superstition of those professing Christianity, which doe reserve the reliques of Saints, and doe fondly yeeld adoration unto them. So in time past a superstitious use was taken up in reserving part of the Sacrament, and carrying it about unto sicke folkes. The Lord therefore foreseeing what inconvenience might arise by such reservations, forbiddeth any thing at all to be kept of the lambe: Iun. in Analys.
2. Confut. That the bread in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ carnally but only a seale and pledge of it.
Vers. 11. FOr it is the Lords Passeover. That is, it did signifie it: for Sacraments are not the things which they represent, but signes and seales of them: Genevens. So in the Gospell the bread is called the body of Christ, being a signe and representation of it: Pellican. So is circumcision called the Lords covenant, Gen. 17.11. yet was it only a signe and seale thereof. Then as neither the lambe was the Passeover it selfe, nor circumcision the covenant it selfe: so it is but weakely inferred by the Romanists upon these words of our Saviour, that the bread should be the very body of Christ.
3. Confut. Against the carnall or raw eating of Christs flesh in the Sacrament.
Vers. 9. EAt not thereof raw. Ferus upon these words hath this note: Crudem comedunt qui tantum ast… mant id quod viderint, & quia solum panem viderint, solum panem …redunt: They eat the lambe raw, which only esteeme that which they see, and because they see nothing but bread, they beleeve nothing but bread. In which words he seemeth to glance at the Protestants, that doe not beleeve the bread to be turned into Christs flesh, and yet they beleeve that there is more present than bread, that the very flesh of Christ is exhibited to the faith of the worthy receiver. But upon this point Pellicans note is more agreeable: Non cru…us, id est Christus non est carnaliter, substantialiter vel sensibiliter comedendus: Christ the paschall lambe is not to be eaten raw; that is, carnally, substantially, sensibly. For who may be better said to eat Christ raw, they which deny the carnall presence of Christs body, or they which hold that they doe eat with their mouth and teeth the very flesh, body and bones of Christ? they most properly may bee said to eat Christ raw: both in respect of their owne opinion, of the carnall presence, and for that they come not prepared with a true lively faith to the Sacrament, but with an erroneous perswasion. All they therefore that come unprepared, and so doe eat and drinke unworthily, may be said to eat Christ raw: for as raw flesh is offensive to the stomacke, and hee may bee said to eat his owne death: so they that eat and drinke in the Sacrament unworthily, are said by the Apostle to eat and drinke their owne damnation, 1. Cor. 11.28.
4. Confut. Against the Anabaptists that allow no allegories in the old Testament.
Vers. 46. YE shall not breake a bone of him. In that the Apostle, Ioh. 19. applieth this unto Christ, it i… evident that he was the true Lambe of God, shadowed and prefigured by the paschall lambe, and therein divers wayes represented and resembled, as is before shewed doct. 3. This therefore maketh against the Anabaptists, which will not have any proofes alleaged out of the old Testament, for confirmation of any thing in the new: and take away the use and explication of the types and figures of the old Testament, allowing no sense of any place, beside the historicall and literall sense: whereas it is evident, that Saint Paul doth allegorically apply the histories of the old Testament, as that of Sarah and Hagar, Galath. 4. and the paschall lambe he maketh a figure of Christ, 1. Cor. 5.7. Iun. in Analys.