The New Covenant, Book 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of the firſt outward part of the Lords Supper.
HItherto we hauehave ſhewed what the Lords ſupper is, and how to apply it to our inſtruction: now we are to cō ſider in this Sacrament two things, his parts and his vſes: as we hauehave ſhewed in the former bookes. The parts are partly outward and partly inward. A man is a compound creature made of fleſh and of a reaſonable ſoule, as Athanaſius ſpeaketh in his Creed. If the queſtion were asked, whether man were a mortall creature or immortall, earthly or heauenly, viſible or inuiſible: no man could rightly anſwere without a diſtinction, that he is earthly touching his body, and heauenly touching his Spirit. In like ſort we muſt conſider touching the Lords Supper, which is made of an earthly and an heauenly thing: and therefore if the queſtion were demanded touching this Sacrament, whether it be an earthly or heauenly thing, we may anſwere it is both, and muſt reſolue that in part it is earthly, and in part heauenly: earthly in the ſigne, and heauenly in the matter that is ſignified. Let vsus vnderſtand this well, and acknowledge the diuers natures and parts of it. There had neuer riſen ſo great diuiſion and confuſion in the Church touching the Sacrament, if this diſtinction had beene well obſerued. The ignorance of this point hath bred much ſtrife and debate: for whilſt ſome iudge of it according to the inward thing, and ſome according to the outward onelyonly, the truth of the Lords Supper hath beene buried in ſilence: both ſorts forgetting that the prouidence of God and his louing kindneſſe did abaſe it ſelfe vntounto our capacity, not onelyonly yeelding words to our eares, but viſible ſignes to our eyes, whereby he would exhibite to our faith ſpirituall things. The outward part is one thing, the inward part is another thing: the outward is taken in at the mouth, the inward by the inward man: the outward is turned into the nouriſhment of the body, the inward worketh in vsus to eternal life: the outward is taken by ſome to their deſtruction, but the inward alwaies to ſaluation. This appeareth euidently by the words of the Apoſtle deliuering to the Church what he had receiued of the Lord, and declaring how the ſame night he was betrayed, Hee tooke bread, and a1 Cor. 11, 23 22, 25 Mat 26, 26. 28, 29.when hee had giuen thankes, he brake it, and ſaid, Take ye, eate ye, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do ye in remembrance of me. After the ſame manner alſo, He took… the cup when he had ſupped, ſaying, This cup is the new teſtament in my blood, this do as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me. In theſe words we ſee, both the outward parts propounded, and the number of them defined and determined. For heere arebFoure outward parts of the Lords Supper. foure outward parts handled, to wit, the Miniſter, the words of inſtitution, the bread and wine, and the Communicants. The firſt Miniſter thereof was Chriſt: the words of inſtitution are, This is my body giuen for you, this is the cup of the new teſtament in my blood: the ſignes are bread and wine: the firſt Communicants were the Apoſtles. So then the Miniſters muſt do that which Chriſt did, and the people that which the Diſciples did: the actions of Chriſt are directions to the Miniſter, the actions of the Apoſtles are directions to the people.
I am not ignorant that it ſeemeth hard and harſh to ſome, to make the Miniſter and receiuer of the Sacrament to bee parts thereof. I am not willing to contend about words and names where we agree in the ſubſtance of the matter, foraſmuch as eueryevery one confeſſeth that theſe two are outward things, which being wanting, there can be no Sacrament. Againe, I hauehave declared in the firſt booke, and the fourth chapter, in what ſence I call them parts, to wit, becauſe the Miniſter ſtandeth in the place of God, and his outward actions do repreſent the inward actions of God the Father, as is farther proued in the 8. chap. of this booke: and the receiuer doth nothing in receiuing, in eating, and in drinking, but it hath his inward ſignification, as we may ſee in the 11. chap. following.
Laſtly, I would hauehave the indifferent reader vnderſtand that I ſay no more then others of the learned hauehave ſaid before me in other words, howbeit in the ſame meaning; who make two kinds of ſignes, the one elementall, the other rituall: the one in the matter, the other in the forme. The ſignes elementall in this Sacrament are the bread and wine: the ſignes rituall are the giuing and taking of the elements, which are the proper actions of the Miniſter and of the receiuer. Whether therefore you call the Miniſter and the receiuer ſignes or parts, or outward things, it is not greatly materiall, ſo that we confeſſe and ioyne together in this, that the outward actions performed as well by the one as the other, hauehave a relation to ſome other thing reſembled by them.
Let vsus then ſee the actions of Chriſt. He tooke bread, he bleſſed, he brake the bread, he poured out the Wine, he diſtributed and deliuered them both. Wherefore the actions and workes of the Miniſter arecFoure actions of the Miniſter. foure-fold. Firſt, to take the bread and wine into his hands after the example of Chriſt, who did it to ſhew that himſelfe willingly giueth himſelfe for his Church, which ſerueth to ſtrengthen our faith and perſwaſion of his louelove toward vsus: in whoſe imitation the Miniſter doth it, to repreſent the action of God the Father, giuing his Son vntounto vsus for our full redemption. The ſecond action is bleſsing and giuing of thanks, that is, by prayer, by thankſgiuing, and by rehearſall of the promiſes of God, together with the inſtitution of Chriſt, actually to ſeparate the bread and wine ſo taken from their cō mon vſe to an holy vſe. Wherby we are giuē to vnderſtand, that the outward creatures are reuerently to be vſed, calling vponupon the name of God, and crauing his aſſiſtance to vſe his ordinance as we ought to do: and that we ſhould ioyfully praiſe God, for the gracious work of our ful redemption by Chriſt.
The third action is breaking the bread & pouring out the wine, which are neceſſary rites to be obſerued, hauing reſpect & relation to the vnſpeakable torments of Chriſt for vsus, who was pierced, crucified, & made a curſe for vsus vponupon the Croſſe,dPſal. 22, 16. Eſay 53▪5. as the Prophet teacheth, He was wounded for our tranſgreſsions, he was broken for our iniquities, the chaſtiſement of our peace was vponupon him, & with his ſtripes we are healed. Wherefore, theſe Sacramentall rites of breaking and pouring out are not to be reiected and omitted, being vſed byeMat. 26, 26. Act. 2, 42. 1 Cor. 10, 16. Chriſt, practiſed by his Apoſtles, and retained by the Churches. Not as in the Church of Rome, where they breake not to diſtribute to the people, neither poure out the wine to giuegive vntounto them, as we ſhall ſhew at large in the end of this chapter.
So then, we ſee that whole bread is not to be deliuered, but that the bread is to be broken, and the wine to be poured out, to be diſtributed among ſundry Communicants. The laſt action of the Miniſter, is to diſtribute the bread and wine and giuegive them into the hands of the people preſent. Chriſt did not offer them vp to God, but deliuered them to his Diſciples. All theſe being workes to be done and performed by the Miniſter in the adminiſtration of this Sacrament, do note out the actions of God the Father, ſcaling vp his Son vntounto vsus, as we ſhall ſee afterward when we come to the inward parts.
Vſe 1 Now let vsus enter into the conſideration of the vſes of this part. Are theſe the actions commanded in the word, executed by Chriſt, and to be performed by the Miniſter? Then we ſee that ſuch as are ſet apart to deliuer this Sacrament, are not conſecrated & appointed Prieſts of the new teſtament, to offer vp an vnbloody ſacrifice for the quicke and dead, as the Church of Rome teacheth and practiſeth. They are commanded as Miniſters of God to deliuer the outward ſignes to the people, not as Prieſts to offer them to God the Father: they are appointed Preachers of the Goſpell, not Prieſts of the law: which were to aboliſh the Prieſt-hood of Chriſt. Wherefore, wee muſt deteſt the blaſphemy of theſe ſhameleſſe ſhauelings,fStella Clericorum ſe…diſ. Serm. 3. that teach the Prieſt to be the maker of his maker, & that he which made them,gCre…tura vobis mediantibus vobis. gaue them power and authority to make him, and ſo after a ſort preferre themſelues being the ſacrificers, before Chriſt who is the Sacrifice: themſelues being the creators, before Chriſt the creature: themſelues the makers, before Chriſt being made of them. Thus theſe ſacrificing Prieſts are not aſhamed to ſpeake, and to bray aloud.
Secondly, if the Miniſter be an outward part of this Sacrament, then it belongeth nothNum. 3, 10. Heb. 5, …. to priuate perſons to deliuer Vſe 2 it to others, nor to take it to themſelues, and deliuer it to themſelues, when or where there is no Miniſter. They may indeed apply to themſelues the outward ſignes, they may eate the bread and drinke the wine, and in reſpect of the ſacramentall rites do as the Miniſter doth: yet for that they do it without a calling, it is not a due adminiſtration, but a true prophanation of this Sacrament of the Supper. For let vsus a little inſiſt vponupon the ſimilitude before ſtood vponupon: If the keeper of the Princes broad ſeale be not in the way, or for the preſent be not to be gotten, ſhall any man preſume to take it where it lieth without direction, & without commandement? Such a one worthily beareth his puniſhment, whoſoeuer he be. In like manner, albeit one ſhould earneſtly deſire the Sacrament of the body & blood of Chriſt, and euen faint in ſoule for the fruition of it, finding himſelf in his longing affection able to take it himſelfe, without the aſsiſtance of another: yet eueryevery one muſt conſider his guifts, his ſtanding, his calling, and place wherein God hath ſet him, he hath not committed to priuate perſons the adminiſtration of the Sacraments: they may not preach the Goſpell, they may not baptize their children, they may not meddle with the Lords Supper, no more then common ſubiects may take the Princes ſeale, if the keeper be not in the way. Againſt this euident truth,iTwo obiections anſwered, pretending that priuate mē may deliuer the Supper. two things of importance may be obiected, which I purpoſe to preuent before I proceed any farther. For firſt, this doctrine ſeemeth not to agree with that maxime and principle, which before we hauehave reſolued vponupon, namely, Accedat verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum, that is, Ioyne the word of inſtitution to the outward ſigne, and there is made a Sacrament: Secondly, it ſeemeth to leaue ſicke perſons without comfort in their hearts and peace to themſelues, if for want of a publike Miniſter, themſelues may not ſupply that want, and giuegive vntounto themſelues this Supper. Theſe are the two obiections, pretending and intending that priuate perſons may at ſome times, vponupon ſome occaſions, hauehave ſome right and intereſt in diſpenſation of the Sacraments. Touching the former point, being a ruled caſe of Saint Auguſtine, kAug. Tract. 80. in Iohan. 13that if the ſigne be annexed to the word, a Sacrament is ordained, we doubt not to affirme the rule vndoubtedly to be true, being truely and rightly vnderſtood. For the meaning is, if there be an outward ſigne which is the matter, and a word of inſtitution which is the forme of the Sacraments,lAriſtot. metaphyſ l…b. 7. cap. 7. the eſſence of them is fully finiſhed, as if there be the matter & forme of an houſe, we conclude rightly there is an houſe. Howbeit we preſuppoſe there was a builder of the houſe to prepare the matter and to order the forme. So the former principle doth preſuppoſe a Miniſter to deliuer, and a receiuer to receiue the Sacrament: otherwiſe we ſhal alſo warre vnderunder the enſigne of our enemies vnawares, who hold it to be the Supper of the Lord,mBellar. lib 4. de Eu…b. cap. 2. con…t. Tr…d. f…ſſ. 13. can. 4, 7. albeit there be no eating, no drinking, no receiuing thereof. If therefore in the conſtitution of a Sacrament, the inſtitution of Chriſt, touching taking, eating, and drinking, muſt be obſerued: then we ſee that more is required then the ſigne & the word in the worke of the Sacrament.
Againe, touching the obiection of the ſicke, who ſeeme to be wholy left in diſtreſſe and diſcomfort, if they may not lawfully adminiſter the Supper to themſelues, or receiue it at the hands of ſome priuate perſons: I anſwere, it was an ancient practiſe of thenBeza quaeſt. & reſp d. Sacr. Church to carty the Sacramēt vntounto the ſicke when it was adminiſtred in the Church: beſides, albeit in extremity of ſicknes the Miniſter be wanting, we leaue not the ſicke without counſell and comfort. For this we teach, this we are ready to maintaine, this we would hauehave all beleeuers in health and in ſickneſſe to recall and remember; that if they ſtedfaſtly beleeue that the Lord Ieſus hath ſuffered death vponupon the Croſſe for them, if they particularly apply vntounto themſelues his precious merits for their redemption, if they earneſtly remember the benefits of his bitter paſsion with all thankſgiuing, and if they truely repent them from the bottome of their hearts of al their ſins: they do eate and drinke effectually,oIoh. 6, 54, 55 56, 57, 58. and to their ſoules health profitably the body & blood of Chriſt our Sauiour, although they doe not receiue the Sacrament with their mouth. If they do not thus the Sacrament receiued cannot profite them. This ſerueth to comfort the weake, and to keepe them within the liſts and limits of their proper calling.
Laſtly, ſeeing the former actions of the Miniſter are done plainely in the ſight of all, it is the duty of eueryevery one to giuegive diligent heed, and to hauehave weighty conſideration of theſe outward ceremonies, by the meditation thereof to confirme their faith and to make the outward works to further the inward graces. For they are offered to our ſences, not that we ſhould reſt in them, but that our weaknes by them ſhould be helped, and we by them lift vp our hearts to thinke vponupon greater things.
This ſerueth to reproue thoſe that omit the breaking of the bread, and deliuering of it being broken, into the hands of the Communicants. True it is, ſome make too much of the breaking of the bread, others eſteeme too little of it, and both ſorts are to be reproued, and a middle courſe betweene them both is to be retained.
One ſort much more ſtreight and rigorous then is meet,The firſt opinion. offend in the exceſſe, who make the breaking of bread to be ſimply neceſſary and an eſſentiall part of the Supper, as that without it there can be no Sacrament. The reaſon whereupon they build, is the title giuen to this Sacrament, that it is called the breaking of bread, and this breaking of the bread is ſaid to be the Communion of the body of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10, 16. Obiection.1 Cor. 10.16. From whence they reaſon thus, The bread broken is the Communion of the body of Chriſt. Therefore the bread vnbroken, is not the Communion of the body of Chriſt. Anſwere. This is a broken argument that cannot hold, and ſo weake in ſtrength that it cannot vphold it ſelfe. If one ſhould argue thus, A man is a creature going vpright: therefore a man not going vpright but crooked as not a man. Or thus, The body of man hath armes, and hands, and legges: therefore if it want eyther arme, or hand, or legge, it is not the body of a man: all men ſee this will not follow. This onelyonly will follow that ſuch a man is not a ſound man, and ſuch a body is not a perfect body: ſo it will onelyonly follow that the Sacrament is not an entire but a maimed Sacrament where the bread is not broken. Wherefore theſe men do great wrong to many reformed Churches which hauehave not yet this ceremony among them, while they dare pronounce that they hauehave no Supper at all, becauſe they are deſtitute of this rite: which iudgement of theirs ſauoureth of the want both of verity & charity.The ſecond opinion. Another ſort offend on the contrary ſide, to wit, in the defect, who make this breaking to be meerely indifferent and not neceſſary: accidentall, and not of the ſubſtance. They confeſſe that the Lord Ieſus at his laſt Supper did truely breake bread, but that he did it as a thing indifferent, and according to ordinary cuſtome. Beſides, they affirme that this breaking ſignifieth the diſtributing or deuiding of the bread to others. But one of theſe is contrary to the other, the former ouerthroweth the latter, and the laſt deſtroyeth the firſt. For if Chriſt did truely breake bread in his Supper, then it followeth that to breake bread in the Supper, is not onelyonly to deale the bread, but to giuegive it into ſeuerall parts being broken, as he ſaith diſtinctly, Hee brake it and gaue it to his Diſciples. Mat. 26, 26.Againe, if breaking and diſtributing be all one, then is not the breaking which they omit a rite indifferent, but very neceſſary, foraſmuch as the giuing of the Supper to the Communicants is ſo neceſſary, that without it there can be no Sacrament. Theſe therefore are they that ouerthrow themſelues.The third opinion. The third opinion is the ſounder of ſuch as hold a meane way betweene both extreames, that the breaking of the bread is no eſſential part of the Supper, neither yet an indifferent ceremony, both which are two dangerous rockes on which ſundry mē ſuffer ſhip-wrack: but a neceſſary ceremony, not as though without it there were no Supper at all, but as a part ſeruing to perfect the whole; which wanting, the Supper ceaſeth not to be, howbeit it is not intire and compleat. For this rite is not as the head or the heart in mans body, without which there could be no body, but as the hand or the foot, without which it is a body, albeit a maimed or a lame body. So likewiſe touching this holy Supper, without bread, without bleſsing, without giuing, there can be no Supper: it is as much as if the head were cut off, or the heart pulled out, or the braine periſhed. But without breaking, the Supper remaineth; albeit maimed and vnperfect, as if the body wanted an eye or an arme. Beſides,How the breaking of the bread is neceſſary. it is the will of Chriſt that this ceremony ſhould be obſerued: ſo that it may be ſaid to be neceſſary in two reſpects: firſt in regard of the making perfect of the Sacrament: ſecondly, in regard of the commandement of Chriſt. Now that this neceſsitie may appeare how great it is, let vsus conſider the reaſons, wherby it is proued that this beaking, where it is, ought to be continued: and where it is not, ought to be reſtored.The firſt reaſon. Firſt of all we hauehave the example of Chriſt, who ſaid of himſelfe, Learne of me, eueryevery action of Chriſt about the Supper is our inſtruction. But in the firſt inſtitution of the Supper he brake the bread which he had bleſſed, and did diſtribute it to his diſciples. Therefore it behoueth vsus to do the like. Obiection. Neither let any obiect that the manner of Chriſts beaking, and of his Apoſtles is vnknowne or vncertaine. Anſwere. For the Lord doth not command vsus or tie vsus preciſely to vſe that forme which hee vſed, and therefore if the bread be broken, howſoeuer the example of Chriſt is followed. Beſides, we are altogether ignorant what forme of words Chriſt vſed in his bleſsing of the bread, and in giuing thanks to his Father, foraſmuch as it is not expreſſed by any of the Euangeliſts: may we then from hence cauill and conclude, we know not his manner of bleſsing: therefore bleſsing is indifferent and may be ſafely omitted? No, we cannot reaſon in that ſort. As then we do bleſſe and giuegive thankes aright albeit we know not how Chriſt did it: ſo we do well to breake the bread, albeit we know not which way he did it.The ſecond reaſon. The ſecond reaſon is from the commandement of Chriſt, Doe ye this. And againe, So often as ye ſhall do this: heere is an expreſſe precept and a direct commandement, without this the Sacrament is as a body lame of his limbes. From hence we reaſon thus, That which Chriſt hath commanded vsus to do as wel as bleſſing and giuing, that is neceſſary to be done: but he hath commanded vsus to breake bread in the vſe of the Supper as well as to bleſſe it, and giuegive it to them that are preſent: Therefore to breake bread is neceſſary and not indifferent. The third reaſon is drawne from the example of the Apoſtles,The third reaſon. 1 Cor. 11, 1. who following Chriſt are to be followed of vsus, as 1. Cor. 11. Be ye followers of me, euen as I alſo am of Chriſt. Neyther did they vſe this ceremony according to the cuſtome of the country of Iudea, for they vſed it as well out of the borders of Iudea as in them, as appeareth in many places, Acts 2.42. and 20.7. 1 Cor. 10. So that they reſpected nor the cuſtome of the place, but the commandement of Chriſt. This is a good precedent for the Churches that profeſſe the Goſpell to follow. Fourthly, the whole Sacrament is called by this name,The fourth reaſon. and hath this title giuen vntounto it, to be called, The breaking of bread, as we may ſee in the places before expreſſed. Doubtleſſe the Apoſtles would neuer call it thus, if this rite that we ſpeake of were not truely neceſſary and Sacramentall.The f ft reaſō. Fiftly, this myſticall rite ſerueth notably to the comfort of our hearts and the ſtrengthning of our faith, and therefore is not to be omitted, ſeeing it ſhaddoweth out vntounto vsus the breaking of the body of Chriſt, and witneſſeth that Chriſt was as truely broken for vsus vponupon the Croſſe, as the bread that is bleſſed is truely broken and deuided into pieces; this the Apoſtle noteth, ſaying, 1 Cor. 11. Which is broken for you, 1. Cor. 12, 24 Luk. 22, 19.that is, which ſhall ſhortly be killed and crucified; according to that which Luke ſaith, cha. 22. Which is giuen for you, to wit, vntounto death, euen the death of the Croſſe. To take from vsus and to rob vsus quite and cleane of this comfort and conſolation expreſſed by breaking of the bread, Obiection. they obiect diners things. Firſt, that breaking ſignifieth to deale it and diſtribute it, as Eſay 55. Breake thy bread to the hungry; Anſwere. but it cannot hauehave that ſignification in this place, as appeareth by the words following he gaue it: whereas if they were both one, it ſhould be a needleſſe and fruite-leſſe repetition, which the Scripture vſeth not. Againe, Obiection. they ſay that Chriſts body was not broken, if wee ſpeake properly, not figuratiuely: for not a bone of him was broken. Anſwere. I anſwere, this maketh directly againſt themſelues. For if Chriſts body were broken figuratiuely, then it is euident that this b…eaking hath a ſimilitude and reſemblance with the breaking of the bread, ſo that the one holdeth proportion with the other. Beſides, they confeſſe that by breaking, the Apoſtle would expreſſe the moſt greeuous torments which our Sauiour ſuffered; and the moſt ſhamefull kinde of death which he endured, as the word is taken elſe-where, as Eſay 38. where Hezekiah complaineth that his bones were broken as it were of a Lyon.Eſay 38, 13. Obiection. Againe they ſay farther, If Chriſt would hauehave his paſsion repreſented by this meanes, he would not hauehave abrogated the ceremony of the Paſſeouer, which beyond all compaſſion did more euidently repreſent the paſsion of Chriſt thē the bread: otherwiſe Chriſt ſhould hauehave aboliſhed a type that was clearer, and hauehave ordained another that was darker, whereas the new Teſtament and all things done in it and belonging to it are compared to the light of the day in reſpect of the ſhadowes of the old Teſtament. Anſwere. I anſwere the cleare light of the new teſtament conſiſteth chiefly and principally in the forme of the doctrine of the Goſpell, which is an euident teſtimony touching the worke of our redemption already finiſhed. The Sacraments are dependances vponupon it, and borrow their light from the Goſpell, as the Moone doth from the Sun: ſo that the Sacraments of the new teſtament are clearer then the old in this reſpect,Piſcat. in Ma…. cap. 26. not in regard of the forme of the ceremony. For the legall waſhings did no leſſe repreſent in regard of the outward forme, the waſhing away of our ſins by the blood of Chriſt, then the baptiſme of the Goſpell. So the paſsion of Chriſt and the fruite and benefit of his paſsion was no leſſe, but rather more repreſented by killing of the Paſchall Lambe and the eating of it, then by breaking of the bread & by eating of the bread. If theſe had bin vſed in the time of the law as they are in the time of the Goſpell, they had not bin ſo ſignificant & pregnant as the ſlaying of beaſts: but the breaking of bread in the Sun-ſhine of the Goſpell and plenty of knowledge reuealed to the world, being a ſigne of a thing already done, and finiſhed, muſt needs be more liuely in repreſentation then the killing of ſacrifices in the law which were ſhaddowes of things to come, whereas Chriſt was not yet reuealed, nor the myſtery of the Goſpell opened. Beſides, the words of inſtitution pronounccd in the Sacraments of the new Teſtament are clearer and more ſignificant then any ſet downe in the law, ſo that Paul ſaith, his Goſpell was not hid,2 Cor. 4, 3. Gal. 3, 1. 2 Cor. 4, 3. and that Chriſt Ieſus was by his preaching diſcribed in their ſight, Gal. 3, 1. Laſtly, heere is produced a falſe cauſe of abrogating the Paſchall Lambe in ſtead of a true. For it was not abrogated by the holy Supper, becauſe it is a more cleare, manifeſt, and euident type, but becauſe it was inſtituted and ordained to continue, vntill Chriſt the true Lambe of God figured by it was killed. When he was once crucified, the other killing muſt ceaſe and giuegive place: foraſmuch as his blood had force to ſtanch all other blood which was wont to be ſhed both in circumciſion and in the ſacrifices. Obiection. Furthermore it is obiected, that in powring out of the cup there is no myſtery or myſticall ſignification; therefore there is none in breaking of the bread. Anſwere. I anſwere, the former part is falſe; for the pouring out of the wine ſignifieth the ſhedding of Chriſts blood out of his ſide. For as it is ſaid of the bread, This is my body which is broken for you: ſo it is ſaid of the cup, This is my blood which is ſhed for you for the remiſsion of ſins. And what can the ſeparatiō of the bread and the cup ſignifie, but the ſeparation of the body & blood of Chriſt once made vponupon the Croſſe, whereas his blood is now no longer ſeparated from the body, becauſe he can dye no more? Obiection. Anſwere. To conclude, they vrge that in the new teſtament is no place for figures. It is true, if they ſpeake of figures ſhadowing out Chriſt to come. But if they ſpeake of figures ſignifying Chriſt already reuealed & manifeſted, we feare not to affirme, that we hauehave figures ſtill of Chriſt and of the benefits purchaſed by him. For I pray you what are our Sacraments but figures liuely ſetting forth Chriſt our Sauiour? So then to take away ſignes, is to take away the Sacraments, which are nothing elſe but ſacred ſignes?The ſixt reaſon. Sixtly, that which includeth vnderunder it the myſtery of the vnion of the Church among themſelues and with Chriſt the head, is by no means to be paſſed ouer. But the breaking of bread hath this myſtery in it, that many by partaking of one bread broken, are made one myſticall body, as the Apoſtle witneſſeth,1 Cor. 10, 17. We being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, which he declared to be broken in the former verſe. The vnity betweene the mēbers of the Church which are many, is ſhaddowed out by the bread made & compact together of many graines: howbeit this is much more euident vntounto vsus by the bread which is broken and diſtributed to all that are preſent. Seauenthly, we hauehave the expreſſe teſtimony of the Apoſtle, The bread which we breake, &c. The ſeauenth reaſon.Now that is to be iudged neceſſary to be done, without which we cannot ſay with the Apoſtle in the adminiſtration and participation of the Supper, The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Chriſt: but without this ceremony we cannot ioyne with the Apoſtle and ſay, The bread which wee breake, is the communion of Chriſts body: Therefore the rite of breaking and parting the bread into many pieces is neceſſary. They may ſay, the bread which we giuegive or diſtribute, but not the bread which we breake: for to breake is one thing, and to diſtribute is another. Theſe two differ ſo farre the one from another, that a thing may be broken which is not diſtributed and giuen; and it may bee giuen which is not broken. Eightly,The eight reaſon. that which fitly ſerueth to make the Sacrament perfect and abſolute, whole and entire, may not be neglected or omitted; and where it is not, it ought to be reſtored. But the breaking of bread maketh the Sacrament inſtituted of Chriſt to be more ful, and without it to be maimed, as a man without an hand. Therefore it ought to be reſtored againe.
Ninthly,The ninth reaſon. it is in the power of no creature to omit or aboliſh any rite not in it ſelfe indifferent, but commanded by Chriſt in the celebration of his Supper. But the breaking of bread is not indifferent to be done or to be left vndone, but is expreſly commanded to bee practiſed, as we hauehave prooued before. Therefore no man vnderunder heauen hath authority to abrogate it. For this is a true and certaine rule, that a right hauing the commandement of Chriſt for the vſe of it to be continued is not indifferent. Tenthly, it giueth vsus peace of conſcience.The tenth reaſon. Now that which ſetteth the conſcience at quiet & doth more effectually miniſter comfort in the vſe of this Supper, that is by no meanes to be neglected. But the due obſeruation of this breaking according to the commandement of Chriſt doth quiet the conſcience and comfort the heart more forcibly and fruitfully, inaſmuch as it aſſureth vsus that we keepe the ordinance of Chriſt purely and entirely, without adding any thing vntounto it, or without taking any thing from it: Therefore it is not to be paſſed ouer.The 11. reaſon. Laſtly, to draw to an end, that ceremony ought to be retained and continued in the Church, wherby the Idolatrous and falſe opinion of the corporall preſence and eating of the body of Chriſt, is moſt ſtrongly conuinced and pulled out of the hearts of the ignorant people: but ſuch is the ceremony of the breaking of bread. Therefore it ought to be practiſed, that the Idoll ſet vp in the hearts of the multitude may be defaced and pulled downe. This carnall and corporall preſence profiteth not, as we wil make plaine afterward. Thus we hauehave heard the reaſons which vrge and require this as a neceſſary duty belonging to the Miniſter to breake the bread, a duty neglected not onelyonly of the Church of Rome, but alſo of others, who maintaining a reall preſence of the body of Chriſt, omit the breaking of the outward ſigne. In all this that hitherto hath bin obſerued, we may note three things. Firſt, that we do not condemne our brethren or the Churches who hauehave not this breaking of the bread obſerued among them, whether it be through error conceiued, or any other let and impediment obiected. Secondly, the defect of this rite cannot deſtroy, albeit it do diſfigure the Supper, it is as a maime in an whole body, or as a ſcarre in a faire face. Laſtly, that this ceremony is not to be holden indifferent, but neceſſary in reſpect of Chriſts commandement, and neceſſary to preſerue the comlines and beauty in this Sacrament.