Works, Book 1 · Discourse 45
DISCOURSE XLV.
1 COR. 10. 3, 4.
—And they did all eat the same Spiritual meat: And they did all drink the same Spiritual drink.
HAVING spoken at large of the Three things which I enquired of for Explication of these words, viz. 1. Of what Meat and of what Drink the Apostle speaketh, namely, of the food of Manna, and the water of the Rock, wherewith God sustained the Israelites in the Wilderness; 2. Wherein both the one and the other were Spiritual or Sacramental, namely, in being Signs resembling and assuring Christ with the Spiritual Blessings through him; 3. In what sense these Sacraments are said to be the same with ours, to wit, not in the Signs, but in the Spiritual thing signified, which is the Soul and Essence of a Sacrament: We come now to such Observations as these Words and Explications will afford us.
The first whereof is,Obser…at …. That if the Seals and Sacraments under the Law were the same with ours, then must they also have the same Covenant of Grace with us; for the Sacraments are Seals of the Covenant: If the Seals then were the same, as our Apostle affirmeth, how should not the Covenant also be the same? and seeing their Sacraments were differing in the Signs from ours, how could they be any way the same with ours, but only in what they sealed and signified? The Fathers therefore were saved by Grace and through Christ as well as we: So true is that the Apostle says Acts 4. 12. There is no other name under Heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved. For Iesus Christ (as it is Heb. 13. 8.) is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever; that is, He was a Saviour of old, is still, and shall be for ever hereafter. This is that which S. Peter yet more expresly affirmeth, Acts 3. 25. saying, Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. Yea not only from Abraham, but even from that time when God said, The seed of the Woman shall break the Serpent's head, G…n. 3. 1….was this Covenant made with men, and at length diversly shadowed in the Types and Sacrifices of the Law, until Christ himself was revealed in the flesh.
For the better understanding of this, we must know what a Covenant is, and what are the kinds thereof. A Covenant is as it were a Bargain between God and man, wherein God promises some Spiritual good to us, so we perform some duty unto him: if not, then to incur everlasting punishment. This Covenant is of two sorts; the one is called The Covenant of Works, the other The Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works is, wherein God on his part makes us a promise of Eternal life, if we on our part shall perform exact obedience unto his Law; otherwise to be everlastingly condemned, if we fail.The 2 Covenants described, of Works … …race The Covenant of Grace or of the Gospel is, wherein God on his part promises us sinners Christ to be our Saviour and Redeemer, if we on our part shall believe on him with a lively and obedient faith; otherwise to be condemned. The Covenant of Works God made with man at his Creation, when he was able to have kept the conditions he required; but he through his disobedience broke it, and so became liable to death, doth Corporal and Spiritual. And though the Covenant of Grace then took place, (as we have said) yet was the former Covenant of Works still in force, until Christ who was promised should come in the flesh. And therefore was this Covenant renewed under Moses with the Israelites, when the Law was given in Horeb; as Moses sayes, Deut. 5. 2. The Lord God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. What was … open, and what the secret or hidden Covenant under the Law.For all the time under the Law the open and apparent Covenant was the Covenant of Works; to make them the more to see their own misery and condemnation, and so to long after Christ who was yet to come, and at whose coming this obligation should be quite cancelled: Yet nevertheless, together with this open Covenant there was a secret and hidden Covenant, which was the Covenant of Grace; that they might not be altogether without the means of Salvation whilst Christ yet tarried.
This truth is plain, Gal. 3. 17, &c. where the Apostle affirms, That the Covenant of Grace in Christ was four hundred and thirty years afore the Law was given, and that therefore the Law could not disannul it or make it of none effect; but that the Law (so he calls the Covenant of Works) was only added to it because of transgressions, until the blessed Seed should come, v. 19. and that it might be a Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, v. 24. For in the Moral Law of God, under whose curse they stood bound, they might as in a Glass see their sin, their guilt, their want of Righteousness; and in their Ceremonies and Sacrifices they might again, as in Shadows of Heavenly things, behold the means of their Reconciliation, through his bloud who was to be slain and offered to God for them.
Now though this Covenant of Grace afore Christ be the same for substance with that under which we are now since his coming; yet the circumstances and outward fashion thereof are so varied, that the Scripture for this regard makes of this one Covenant two Covenants, calling one the Old Covenant for the old manner thereof under the Law, and the other a New Covenant for the new manner thereof now the Gospel is revealed.
Having therefore already seen the agreement and on…ness of them for the inward part, let us now behold their differences for the outward fashion: and so we shall see that as the Fathers ate the same Spiritual meat and drank the same Spiritual drink, and yet there was some difference in them; so the Fathers were under the same Covenant of Grace with us, and yet after a different fashion.
This difference S. Paul, Gal. 4. 1. &c. setteth forth thus by a similitude; The heir as long as he is a child, &c. i. e. The difference of the condition of those afore Christ and since, is but as the condition of Heirs when they are under age, and when they come to full years. They are Heirs and Lords of all in both conditions, as well in one as the other; only the difference is, that in the one condition they are in the state of Servants under Tutors and Governors, in the other they enjoy the freedom of Sons: So the faithful in the Law enjoyed the same Covenant of Grace with us, but under the bondage of worldly Elements; but we now have the same in a state of freedom, as not held under such burthensome Elements and Pedagogies as they were.
But elsewhere he shews this difference more expresly both on God's part and our part. First, On our part, Heb. 8. and elsewhere, thus; The Old Covenant, which required so many external services, is called a carnal Covenant; the New, wherein no such are required, but works of the Spirit only, is a Spiritual Covenant, whereof God means when he saith,Ier. 31. 33. v. 10. I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and so he will be their God, and they shall be his people. For in the Old Covenant he wrote a Law as it were upon their hands and fleshly members, in that he required so many fleshly washings and sprinklings and sacrifices for expiation and cleansing of sin: whereas in the New he writes his Law only upon the Soul and Spirit; in that he now stipulates only the service of Faith, which is an action of the inward man, and not of the outward: not of the hand or bodily members, but of the Soul within. For by Law here I suppose is meant the condition which God stipulates in the Covenant, and through which he makes good his promise unto us. Not as though this spiritual condition was not also required under the Law in the Covenant of Grace then; but because it was not only, nor so openly, therefore is it made as a formal difference of the New Covenant and the Old.
Secondly, On God's part the Scripture shews the difference of the Covenants thus: The Old Covenant was a Covenant of worser promises, the New a Covenant of better Promises, and so a better Covenant, Heb. 8. 6. Indeed they in the Old Covenant had the same Spiritual Promises we have, and so it was one and the same Covenant; but they had them not open and uncovered as we have, and so our Covenant is not the same, but a better Covenant. So S. Paul makes his comparison in the same argument, 2 Cor. 3. 11. If that (saith he) which is done away was so glorious, much more that which remaineth. As if he had said, If the Cover seemed so glorious, much more shall the Iewel within so seem, when the cover is taken from it, as now it is. For all the open Promises in the Old Covenant seem to be no other than Temporal blessings; as for Spiritual, they had them only as enwrapped in them; so that they could look for them no otherwise but in and through the Temporal, which they had as Pledges of the Spiritual veiled under them: But in the New these are all revealed and no longer hid from us by such curtains; the veil is taken from the face of Moses, and we behold with open face the glory of the Lord, as the Apostle speaketh 2 Cor. 3. 14, 18. Remission of sins, Reconciliation with God, Everlasting life, these are our Promises; not deliverance from Temporal enemies, worldly prosperity, nor the land of Canaan, or long life in the land the Lord hath given us. So the case here is quite altered: For then Earthly blessings were as Pledges of Spiritual; but now unto us, Spiritual are Pledges of Temporal, so far as God sees good for us; For the tenour of the Gospel now is, Seek first the Kingdom of God, Matt. 6. 33.and all these things shall be added unto you.
And it is now time we should say with S. Paul, Rom. 11. 33. O the depth of the riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! and with David, Psal. 40. 5. Many, O Lord my God are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: and Psal. 92. 5. O Lord, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.
THUS I come to a second Observation which these words afford us;Observat. 2. namely, If the Fathers ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink which we do, then eat we not the real Body nor drink the real Bloud of Christ: For the Manna they ate was the same Manna still, though a Sacrament of Christ; the Water of the Rock was verily Water still, though a Sacrament of his Bloud: If then we eat the same Spiritual Bread; we eat Bread still, though Spiritual Bread; If we drink the same Spiritual Drink, our Drink is Wine still, though Spiritual Wine. Yea S. Paul himself calls them as they are, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread we break is the communion of the Body of Christ; Ergo, That which is the communion of the Body of Christ is Bread still. And unless it should be so, how could there be a Sacrament, which must consist of a Sign and a thing signified, of an Earthly thing and a Heavenly thing? For if the Sign once becomes the thing signified, it is no more a Sign, and so then is no more a Sacrament.
If it be urged,Mat. 26. 26, 28 That Christ himself saies plainly of the Bread, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body; of the Wine, Hic est sanguis meus, This is my Bloud: I answer. He saies*Iohn. 10. 7. also I am the Door; and in my Text is as expresly said, The Rock was Christ. If therefore it be absurd from hence to infer the Rock left being a Rock, and was made the real Person of Christ; so will it be of our Spiritual Bread and Wine. For the manner of these speeches is nothing but a Figure of certainty or assurance: He that receiveth the Bread, as assuredly receiveth Christ: Body as if the Bread were his Body; He that receiveth the Wine, as assuredly enjoyeth the Bloud of Christ as if this Wine were his very Bloud indeed. A predication in casu recto is a predication of sameness, and therefore is used properly in things which are in a manner the same, as Genus and Species, Homo est animal; but in things which are disparate and of several natures we speak usually in concreto or obliquo: and from h…ce arises a Scheme or Figure of speech, when we would express a most near union of things even different, yet to speak them in casu recto, which is the predication of sameness, as it were to express they were as nearly link'd together as if they were the very same. So we are wont to say, a man is Virtue or Piety it self, meaning, they are throughly link'd unto him. And because of all other things the things in the Sacraments are so assuredly and throughly link'd together, the Holy Ghost used this Scheme for a Sacramental speech, Hoc est corpus meum, and Hic est sanguis meus, that is, a Sign so sure as if it were the very same.
AND so I will come to a third Observation;Observat. 3. The Fathers (saith my Text) ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink, therefore is our Sacrament also to be eaten and drunk of us, and not only offered for us:Iohn 6. 53. Except we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, we have no life in us. And very fitly: For as our Bodies are nourished by eating of corporal meats, so our Souls are nourished by the Spiritual feeding upon Christ.
This condemns that lurching Sacrifice of the Mass, where the Bread and Wine are offered as a Sacrifice for the people, but they receive no one jot thereof; they are invited to a Banquet, but eat never a bit: Even like the unbelieving Ruler spoken of 2 Kings 7. 19. who saw all the plenty foretold by Elisha, but ate no whit thereof. And what is it but, as Christ said, to light a Candle and put it under a Bushel? Matt. 5. 15.
They think it is enough if the Priest eats all himself, though he gives no body else any with him: But it is no less absurd to affirm that another should receive good by the Priest's receiving, than to hold one may be fed by the meat another man eats, or be saved by another man's Faith: Which were most ridiculous; for a man is nourished by his own meat,Hab. 2. 4. and the just must live by his own Faith.
Many strong Reasons might be alledged against this so soul a corruption, but I will comprise all in three.
1. It is against the express commandment of Christ, whose words are, Eat ye all of this, Matt. 26. 26, 27.and, Drink ye all of this. Had the Church of Rome been the true Spouse of Christ, she would never have presumed to abolish what he hath ordained, and to establish what her self hath devised, not only in this, but in many other actions; which is no less than to advance her self in Wisdom and Authority above the Son of God.
2. It is against the nature of a Sacrament, which consists in receiving: For the main difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament is, that in the one we give to God, in the other God gives to us, and we receive of him.
3. It abolishes the Mystery of our consolation, and that whereby our Faith is strengthened in the use of these Holy Signs, that mankind might have an interest in Christ and what he should do on our behalf. We know it was required he should be incarnate and take our nature upon him, which now he hath done. Every one of us can believe that what he hath done is for the behoof of mankind; and so some men shall be the better for it, since our whole kind by reason of his Incarnation is capable of the benefits of his Passion and the whole work of Redemption. But in that though Christ became man, yet he took not upon him the nature of every several man, hence no man from his Incarnation could apply these Benefits unto himself in special: For he might say, indeed Christ was made man, and so man may be the better for him, and have some interest in him; but since he was not incarnate into me, how should I apply this unto my self? Why therefore the All-wise God, who knew our weakness, hath so ordained in the Mystery of this Holy Sacrament, that it is a Mystical Incarnation of Christ into every one who receives it. Whence Gregory Nazianzen defines the Eucharist, foreign, a Communion of the Incarnation of God. For in that he affirms the Bread to be his Body, and the Wine to be his Bloud; by receiving this Body and Bloud of Christ, and so changing it into the substance of our Body and into our Bloud by way of nourishment, the Body of Christ becomes our Body, and his Bloud is made our Bloud, and we become in a Mystical manner flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And as in his conception of the Holy Virgin, he took upon him the nature of Man, that he might save Man; so in his Holy Sacrament he takes upon him the nature of every man in singular, that he might save every man who becomes him in the Divine Sacrament of his Body and Bloud. His real Incarnation was only in one, but his Mystical Incarnation in many: and hence comes this Sacrament to be an Instrument whereby Christ is conveyed unto us, his Benefits applied, and so our Faith confirmed.
How then do they abolish this Holy Mystery, this comfortable Analogy, where Christ is offered; but those for whom he is offered receive him not, but stand as gazing Spectators, whilst the Priest alone is the Actor? But let us, who are so happy above them, who come hither as Receivers, and not as Gazers, let us, I say, consider how great a Gift it is which God gives us.Luk. 19. 8. Zaccheus gave a great Gift, half his Goods unto the Poor:Matt. 14. 7. Herod promised a greater unto the dancing Damsel: but the greatest of all is that which the *Chap. 4. 9.prodigal giver offered our Saviour, even all the Kingdoms of the World. But all these Gifts are faln short, and of infinite less value than this transcendent Gift which God gives unto us; which makes S. Iohn, when he speaks of it, to express it with an Emphasis, Ch. 3. 16.So God loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Lo here the greatest Gift that Heaven can yield, or the Earth can receive. Let us therefore stir up Hearts and Hands to give thanks and praise unto him of whom we receive so wonderful a Gift, saying, with the Prophet David, Psal. 116.What shall we render unto the Lord for this admirable benefit?
AND thus I come to a fourth Observation which these words will lend us; namely,Observat. 4. That the Apostle warrants here by his Example the Illustration of things in the Gospel by the Types of the Law. For if the Apostle uses an Example where one would scarce suspect there was a Tppe, much more doth he approve an application where a Type is plain and evident; and besides, seems to insinuate thus much unto us, That all the extraordinary actions of God toward his ancient People had in them some Mystery of some things to come, as this of Manna in the Wilderness. And I make no question but the searching and suting of Allegories in these two kinds were allowable and profitable: But this is the errour of Allegorizers, They seek Allegories where they are not, but where they are they seldom look for them: For although the body and verity be of it self more clear and evident than the shadow, yet always a Comparison affords more light than a single contemplation.
Now because the Apostle hath led the way of this practice in the matter of the Eucharist, let me have leave to second him in another Instance of the same Argument, almost out of himself in the Chapter, not in so sublime a kind, but in a plain and vulgar Type. Amongst all the Sacrifice of the Law, there is none either for name or nature comes so near the Sacrament of the Supper as the Eucharistical. The Passeover was a special kind hereof, where it is so well known that the Fathers ate the same Spiritual Meat we do, that I shall not need say any thing of it; only it shall suffice to shew the same in the whole kind of Eucharistical Offerings, which is not so much observed.
An Eucharistical Sacrifice or a Peace-offering was a Sacrifice of fire, or expiatory; a part whereof was burnt upon the Altar, as in other Sacrifices; but the remainder and greater part was eaten by the faithful people who brought it; that so their Sacrifice being turned into their bodie's nourishment might be a Sign of their incorporation into Christ to come, who was the true Sacrifice for Sin. So, whereas other Sacrifices were only Sacrifices, this was also a Sacrament; the rest were only for Expiation, but this also for application, being a Communion of that Sacrifice which was offered. Rightly therefore was it*Peace-offerings were ever annexed to the Burnt-…fferings that were for any particular persons and not foreign Offerings for the whole Congregation. added to all other Sacrifices: for what profit was there of expiation of Sin, unless it were applied? Well might it then be called a Sacrifice of Peace, as containing in it a Communion of Peace, and Communion with Iesus Christ, and through him with God the Father. The Greeks call it sometimes foreign or a saving Sacrifice, but commonly foreign, for the same reason we call our Sacrament of Peace foreign; both being to be celebrated with thank… giving to God, both oral and real: For with this Sacrifice they used to offer their*Lev. 7. 14. & 32. Heave-offering; and of this was the Commandment, That none should appear before the Lord empty, *Deut. 16. 16.when they came to solemnize their peace-making and reconciliation with God.
For in place of this Eucharistical Sacrifice, whereof the Passeover was a special kind, hath Christ ordained our foreign, wherein, as they in theirs had a communion with him who was to come, so have we a Communion with him who is already come. And of this kind were the ordinary Sacrifices of the Gentiles, of which the Christians were forbidden to eat, because they might have no peace and Communion with Devils. And therefore our Apostle in the rest of this Chapter compares these Three together; 1. The Peace-offering of the Iews, wherein they were partakers with the Altar or Sacrifice which figured Christ to come; 2. The Sacrifice of the Greeks *or Gentile…., wherein they had Communion with Devils; and 3. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ; and so concludes, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils, verse 21.