The New Covenant, Book 1 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Of Conſecration.
BEfore we proceed to the inward parts of a Sacramēt, anſwerable to the outward by a fit proportion: it ſhall not be amiſſe in this place to ſpeake ſomewhat of the Conſecration of a Sacrament. Firſt, we muſt conſider what it is: for the truth being knowne, it will caſt downe error, as the light ſcattereth the darkeneſſe. To conſecrate thenaWhat conſecration is. is to take a thing from the ordinary and common vſe, and to appoint it to ſome holye vſe. This therefore is conſecration, ſanctification, and dedication of the outward ſignes, to apply them vntounto an holy purpoſe. This is done, partly by the Miniſter, partly by the people, and partly by them both. The Miniſter taketh the water in Baptiſme, which ſignifieth the blood of Chriſt, and he poureth it on the perſō of the baptized: he taketh the bread and wine and poureth it out, he deliuereth them both: the people take and receiue, they eate and drinke in remembrance of Chriſt: and both Miniſter and people ioyne in prayer and thankſgiuing vntounto God the Father for the myſtery of our redemption accompliſhed by Chriſt our Sauiour, ſo that the Sacrament is conſecrated by the whole action of the Miniſter and people together. This maketh the difference betweene common water and the water in Baptiſme: this maketh the difference betweene that bread and wine of the Supper, and the bread and wine which is vſed for ordinary meat and drinke. True it is, in nature, in eſſence, in ſubſtance there is none: but in the end and vſe. Common water wee vſe for the waſhing of our bodyes: but the water in Baptiſme is ſanctified by prayer to another vſe, to be a ſigne of the cleanſing of the ſoule. Bread and wine at mens tables in their houſes are ſet before them for the nouriſhment of their bodies: but at the Lords Table they are ordained of God to an higher and holier vſe, euen to bee ſignes of the body and blood of Chriſt. This is noted by the Euangeliſts and by the Apoſtle Paul, thatbMat. 26, 26. Mar. 14, 22. Luke 12, 19. 1 Cor. 11, 24. the Lord Ieſus before he brake the bread and gaue it, hee bleſſed and gaue thankes to his Father, that hee had appointed him to bee the redeemer of the world, and giuen him authority to inſtitute this Sacrament in remembrance of his death and paſsion. For whereas the Euangeliſt Mathew ſaith, he bleſſed: the other by way of expoſition ſay Hee gaue thankes: ſo that the bleſsing heere ſpoken of, is Giuing of thankes, which alſo appeareth, Luke 9, 16. compared with Ioh. 6, 11. And the Apoſtle ſaith,1 Tim. 4. EueryEvery creature of God is good, if it be receiued with thanksgiuing, for it is ſanctified by the word of God and prayer. We ſee then that Conſecration is, when a thing is ſeparated from a common and ciuill vſe to a more ſpeciall vſe,Iuſtin. in Apol. 2 which is done by the authority of the word, and by the vertue of prayer, whereby it hath his ful force, power, and vertue.
The knowledge of this point, ſerueth to cleere our Vſe 1 doctrine, & to ouerthrow ſundry errors of the Church of Rome. Firſt, it ſheweth that we hold and teach a conſecration, that is, a ſanctifying of the water in Baptiſme, and of the bread and wine in the Lords ſupper, by the word, by prayer, and by thanksgiuing. The bread …d wine are changed, not in nature, but in quality: not in ſubſtance, but in vſe: not in eſſence, but in the end: not by force of certaine words, but by Chriſts inſtitution. We acknowledge and confeſſe a conſecration, not a conuerſion: a ſanctification of the ſignes, not a tranſubſtantiatiō of the ſubſtance into the body and blood of Chriſt. Hee bleſſed and praiſed his Father as Mediator of the Church, for the myſtery of the redemption of mankinde: and heg1 Cor. 10, 16 bleſſed the creatures, that they might bee effectuall ſignes, and ſerue for the confirmation and increaſe of our faith.
Secondly, we are taught, that conſecration is not a bare and hiſtoricall reading of the Scripture, neither a magical Vſe 2 charme and incantation by force of certaine wordes, as though theſe words This is my body, being murmured and ſpoken ouer the bread, and, This cup is the new teſtament in my bloud, whiſpered ouer the wine, did fully finiſh a conſecration, and made the elements to bee immediately changed into the body and blood of Chriſt, without any other obſeruing of the inſtitution. For the Lord Ieſus in pronouncing theſe words did not ſpeake to the bread or to the wine, but to his Apoſtles.
And hence it is, that the forme of Chriſts giuing of thankes is not ſet downe by any Euangeliſt, becauſe our corruption and ſuperſtition is ſo great, that if wee had the words, we would aſcribe power & force to the words, ſillables, and letters, & therfore the manner of his thanksgiuing is pretermitted. This inclination of the heart is apparantly ſeene in the Romiſh Church, who aſcribe efficacy & operation to the pronouncing of certaine words, which is a part of ſorcery & a point of witchcraft. Wheras we auouch, that the whol action of taking, breaking, pouring out, diſtributing, eating, drinking, praying, praiſing, and rehearſing the inſtitution of Chriſt, are the conſecration, that is, the ſeparation of theſe creatures to this vſe.
Thirdly, if after the Sacramentall actions, if after thankſgiuing to God, if after prayer that we may vſe the Creatures to the confirmation of our faith, there doe follow conſecration, ſanctification, and change of the elements to another vſe: then the power, effect, and working of the Sacrament dependeth not vponupon the intention of the Miniſter: and therefore thehConcil. Trident. ſeſs. 7. can. 11. popiſh opinion is to bee refuſed and reproued, that holdeth it to bee no Sacrament, if the Miniſter hauehave not an intent and purpoſe in the adminiſtration thereof, at leaſt to do that which the church doth, that is, to conſecrate the elements and to make a Sacrament. If his mind bee not on his matters, and his heart on his buſineſſe in hand, they holde it can be no Sacrament. For otherwiſe ſaith Bellarmine, If a Prieſt ſhould reade the Goſpell at the table of Prelates and religious men, and in reading ſhould pronounce theſe words, This is my body, this is my bloud, then all the bread and wine vponupon the Table ſhould bee conſecrate and changed into Chriſts body and blood: which is not ſo, becauſe his intent is wanting. Againe, if a father ſhould leade his ſon to the bath, and there dip him in the water, And ſay, I waſh thee in the name of the Father, and though he think nothing of baptizing him, yet it ſhould be baptiſme, if an intent of baptizing were not required. But I would gladly hauehave him anſwere this queſtion: What if a father ſhould intend Baptiſme by dipping his child in the bath, whether that were baptiſme or not? Or ſuppoſe the Prieſt we ſpake of, reading at the Prelates table, ſhould hauehave a minde and meaning to conſecrate all the bread and wine vponupon the table, muſt it of neceſsity be a Sacrament, and reall change of al? Or admit the former Prieſt being in the ſaide Prelates wine celler, ſuppoſing himſelfe to bee in the Church and to ſtand at the Altar, ſhould pronounce the words of conſecration with a purpoſe and intent to make a Sacrament, ſhould al the wine in that celler be turned into the blood of Chriſt? Or if he being in a Bakers ſhoppe ſhould there ſolemnely ſay, This is my body, with the foreſaide reſolution ſhould all that bread be changed into the bodye of Chriſt? Let them ſpeake plainely, let them tell vsus directly what they hold. I thinke they will not ſay ſo: I am ſure it is not ſo. For other things are wanting, that are needfull in this matter. We hauehave ſhewed, that a Sacrament is not made by bare pronouncing of certain words, aſcribing force to them after the manner of enchanters, but the whole inſtitution of Chriſt muſt be obſerued;kThe Sacrament dependeth not vponupon the intention of the Miniſter. there muſt be diſtributing and receiuing, there muſt bee prayer and thanksgiuing, and from the vſe of theſe followeth Conſecration: all which are wanting in the former examples and ſuppoſitions, there is no taking, no breaking, no diſtributing, no pouring out, no receiuing, no praying, no thanksgiuing. Wee ſee touching the word of God, with what intent and vnderunder what pretence ſoeuerlPhil. 1, 18. Mat. 23, 2, 3. it be preached, if the Miniſter teach Chriſt crucified, howſoeuer hee bee affected, it may hauehave his effect in the heart, and worke faith in the hearer: ſo is it in the Sacraments, they hauehave their efficacy and operation howſoeuer the heart of the Miniſter be diſpoſed. And as Iſaac intended not to bleſſe Iacob but Eſau, mGen. 27, 1, 4, 33.yet it hindered not the purpoſe and determination of God: ſo the corrupt intent, the wandering imagination, and rouing conceite of the Miniſter, cannot hinder the bleſsing of God in the Sacraments, being his owne ordinances. For the force of the Sacrament dependeth no more vponupon the intention of the giuer, then it doth vponupon the intention of the receiuer. Againe, if the right receiuing of the Sacrament depend vponupon the intent of the Miniſter, what aſſurance can any man hauehave, that he hath euer receiued or ſhall euer receiue a Sacrament? What perſwaſion can we hauehave in our hearts that wee were euer baptized? What knowledge that we were euer partakers of the body and blood of Chriſt in the Supper of the Lord? Doth not this leaue vsus vncertaine and vnſetled, without comfort, without fruite, without benefit by comming to the Sacraments, and ſetteth the poore diſtreſſed conſciences of men vponupon the rack? Alas, wee cannot know the heartn1 Cor. 2, 11. and vnderſtand the intents thereof, For what man knoweth the things of a man, ſaue the ſpirite of man which is within him? Furthermore, were not this hard dealing and extreame cruelty in God, to hang the ſaluation of men vponupon the pleaſure of the Miniſter, wherby our faith and ſaluation ſhall alwaies be doubtful? and ſhould it not be vniuſt in God, to make the euill of the Miniſter to hurt the receiuer? Beſides, ſhal it reſt in the power of the Prieſt, (if this be a power) whē the people of God are*Mat. 18. gathered together in the name of Chriſt, and long earneſtly to bee ſatisfied with his grace, to ſend them away empty, and ſo to fruſtrate their aſſembly, becauſe his heart is ſtraying, and his wits a wool-gathering? And if his intention be a matter of ſo great importance, what priuiledge hath the receiuer that cometh with faith, aboue him that commeth without feeling? Or what ſhall become of their owne doctrine,Ex opere operato. Ex opere operantis. that the Sacrament profiteth and is auaileable, being barely done & performed, if it depend vponupon the working and operation of the Sacrificer? To draw to an end of this queſtion,oBellar. lib. 1. de ſacra. c. 28. our aduerſaries themſelues confeſſe, that the Church cannot iudge of things that are inward: whereupon wee frame this reaſon; If the Church cannot iudge of things inward, then it cannot iudge of the intent of the Miniſter: but they confeſſe it cannot iudge of inward things, therefore not of the intent of the Miniſter, & conſequently althogh they be preſent at the action, they remaine doubtfull of conſecration. Wherefore, Bellarmine foreſeeing the inconuenience and abſurdity of this vnreaſonable & vncomfortable aſſertion, confeſſeth that if one of their Maſſe-Prieſts in his miniſtration,pBellar. lib. 1. de ſacra. ca. 27. intend to doe as the Church of Geneua doth, it ſufficeth to make a Sacrament effectuall and of force, This is the confeſsion of a knowne and ſworne enemy: Wherby we ſee, that howſoeuer they ſay we hauehave no Miniſters, no ordination, no conſecratiō, no Church, that our Sacraments are no better then the feaſts of Ceres and Bacchus, and lay many falſe accuſations to our charge, that the Supper of the Lord with vsus is no Sacrament, but a bare ſigne without grace, without effect, without vertue: yet they are conſtrained to confeſſe and yeeld thus farre, that if a Maſſe-munger purpoſe to do as the reformed Churches do, his doing is effectuall, and the Sacrament is good. The effect of this point is this, that if we deſire to be comforted & aſſured of Gods fauour whē we come to his Supper, we muſt not hang the profit of his ordinances vponupon the weak & vnſtable foundation of Popiſh intentions. And if there were no other point in controuerſie betweene the Church of Rome and vsus then this which now we hauehave in hand, it were ſufficient to make vsus abhorre and abiure the Popiſh religion: in which they that liue, cannot aſſure thēſelues whether euer they were baptized, or receiued the Lords Supper, or were married, or abſolued of their ſinnes, whether they hauehave any Sacraments, any Prieſts, or any Popes; foraſmuch as all theſe hang vponupon the ſlender thred of the Prieſts intention. The Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 14.23. Whatſoeuer is not of faith, is ſinne. But they cannot directly proue or know, whether the Prieſt going about his buſineſſe, intended to baptize thē, or to deliuer the Euchariſt vntounto them, or to marry them, becauſe they know not his heart: and therefore in their adoration and worſhipping of the Sacrament, they may be Idolators, and cannot ſecure themſelues from feare of committing Idolatry. For if the ſubſtance of bread & wine remaine in their nature, it followeth by neceſſarie conſequence, that they fal downe to a piece of bread, and commit greeuous Idolatry in the groſſeſt kinde, whereof the Gentiles would be aſhamed. The like might bee ſaide of their Sacrament of Orders. It is not to be proued or knowne, that hee which ordered the Pope had an intention to giuegive him Orders. They ſay it is an high point of faith, to beleeue that the Biſhop of Rome is the ſucceſſor of Peter, the Vicar of Chriſt, and the head of the Church: yet if the Prieſt that baptized the Pope had no intention to baptize him, then is he no member of the Church, much leſſe the head of it: and if he that ordained him had no intention to ordaine him, then is he no Prieſt, much leſſe the high Prieſt: and therefore they muſt reſt altogether doubtfull and vncertaine, whether Clement or Paul, or any other ſitting in the Popes Chaire and ſea of Rome be true Pope; and thereupon cannot aſſure themſelues, whether the Decretals which paſſe vnderunder the name of Popes, were indeed their Decretals whoſe names they carry.Popiſh ſhifts to iuſtifie the Prieſts intention. True it is, notwithſtanding the groſſeneſſe of this aſſertion, they hauehave inuented ſundry ſhifts to couer their owne ſhame and nakedneſſe: but they are as figge-leaues which are eaſily pulled away. Among the reſt two are moſt principall, which do not ſuffice to heale the wound, but ſerue rather to make it wider. Firſt of all, when they are vrged and preſſed, that the Prieſts purpoſe and intention maketh the people alwaies in doubt, and leaueth them in a maze and mammering what they doe; ſo that they oftentimes adore an vnconſecrated Hoſt, and call that God which is no God, but a bare bit of bread: Pope Adrian wil hauehave the Hoſt adored with condition, & with a ſecret reſeruation to himſelfe, I adore thee if thou be Christ. And therefore Thomas of Saliſbury forbiddeth a man preciſely to beleeue that it is the body of the Lord. Thus though they fall downe with great deuotion at the eleuation of their God amight, yet all their adoration is made at hap-hazard, ſo that we may ſay to them as Chriſt doth of the Samaritans, Ioh. 4. Ye worſhip that which ye know not. For ſeeing their worſhip, to make it warrantable, muſt be ioyned with an [if] If it be Chriſt, it maketh them alwayes in doubt; and where doubting is, there is no faith; and where no faith is, there is ſinne, as wee noted before, according to the doctrine of the Apoſtle Iames; Aske in faith, and wauer not.
The ſecond ſhift is ſet abroach by Bellarmine, (which we touched before) that it ſufficeth, if he intend to make no more then that which the Church maketh: & to draw out the Spiders web as long and large as he can, he ſaith, It is not needefull for the Prieſt to doe that which the Church of Rome doth, but it ſhall ſuffice, if his intention be to do that which the Church of Geneua doth. But this is a poore beggerly ſhift, that cannot helpe him: both becauſe he will hauehave it to ſuffice to worke this ſtrange feate of tranſubſtantiation, to do that which is done out of the Church, by ſchiſmaticks, by hereticks, and by Infidels: For ſuch hee accounteth thoſe that are of the Church of Geneua; he acknowledgeth them to bee no Church, becauſe they are not ſubiect to the Biſhop of Rome, neyther ſubmit themſelues to his authority and iurisdiction. And againe, becauſe the Church of Geneua hath an intendment not to make the body of Chriſt in their conſecration, ſo that their intention is not to intend it. Thus we ſee what ſilly ſtuffe they bring. But as they that are in danger of drowning, are ready to catch hold of eueryevery ruſh or reede to ſee if they can ſaue themſelues: ſo do theſe Ieſuites, or elſe they would neuer teach ſo ſtrangely touching the Prieſts intention, that it ſufficeth to make the bodye of Chriſt, to hauehave an intent not to make it. O miſerable people led by ſuch blinde guides! O wretched guides of ſuch blinde people! what a wofull condition is this, that a man ſhall liue all the daies of his life in the boſome of their holy mother the Church, and yet her Sonnes and daughters can neuer aſſure themſelues to hauehave beene baptized, (though they make the want of it a note of reprobation) or euer to hauehave receiued the Lords Supper, or to hauehave beene married, which alſo they make a Sacramēt, ſeeing all dependeth vponupon the Prieſts intention and lawfull ordination? This is the lamentable condition of all thoſe that liue vnderunder the hard yoke and heauy bondage of ſuperſtition. There is no peace nor comfort in ſuch a doubfull and dolefull religion. Wherefore as the Holy-Ghoſt ſaith, Reuel. 18, 4. Goe out of her my people, that yee be not partakers of her ſinnes, and that yee receiue not of her plagues. Thus much of Conſecration.