The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believer, Chapter 7

The Mystical Union Between Christ and Believer · Chapter 7

p. 201CHAP. VII.

The Seals of the myſtical Ʋnion are Baptiſm and the Lords Supper. Baptiſm is a Seal of Ʋnion, not to all, but to Believers. Some Infants are in their infancy in union with Chriſt; ſome come to it afterwards: ſome never attain to it. The Lords Supper is a Seal to confirm and exhibit Chriſt to us. The preſence of Chriſt in the Euchariſt is not a corporal one. The Bread and Wine are not (as the Papiſts ſay) turned into his Body and Blood. His Body and Blood are not (as the Lutherans ſay) in, with, and under the Bread and Wine. The preſence of Chriſt is Spiritual. He is preſent objectively to our Faith, and virtually in the communicated Spirit. Alſo the eating of Chriſt is not oral, but ſpiritual.

HAving treated of the bonds of this Union; I now proceed to the Seals of it, Baptiſm and the Lords Supper. Baptiſm is the Sacrament of Initiation; the Supper is the Sacrament of Nutrition. Baptiſm is the firſt entrance into Gods Family; the Supper is the ſpiritual Banquet, unto which the baptized, after waſhing, paſs to feed p. 202upon Chriſt there: both of them are Seals of union with him.

Baptiſm is not, as the Socinians would have it to be, a nude rite, but an obſignative one; it is not a meer picture of ſpiritual Grace, but a Seal of it. Circumciſion was a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith; Baptiſm, which ſucceeds in the room of it, can be no leſs.foreign. Nazian. In man there is a body and a ſoul: to anſwer both, there is in Baptiſm an outward part and an inward one; the outward part is water, which cleanſes the body; the inward part is Chriſt, who by his Blood and Spirit cleanſes the Soul: in both cleanſings, union is requiſite. Water, unleſs applied, cleanſes not the Body; Chriſt, unleſs applied, cleanſes not the Soul. Where Baptiſm is in the right uſe, there is a ſeal of union with Chriſt, who communicates the ſpiritual cleanſing to thoſe who are in him as parts of his myſtical body: Hence are thoſe Phraſes in Scripture touching baptized perſons; they are baptized into Chriſt, Rom. 6.3. So united to him, as to be in him; they are baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. So united to him, as to be parts of his myſtical body; they have put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. So united to him, as a man is to a garment; his ſatisfaction covers them, his Spirit adorns them with p. 203holy Graces, they are in Baptiſm buried with him, and riſen with him, Col. 2.12. So united to him, that they have the power of his death in mortification, and the power of his reſurrection in a Divine life; the one is notably adumbrated in the baptiſmal immerſion into the Water; the other in the eduction out of it: Thus Baptiſm is a ſeal to confirm Chriſt with his benefits to us. But this is not all; it is alſo a ſeal to convey him with his benefits to us. Hence in Scripture, it is for the remiſſion of ſins, Acts 2.38. It is the Laver of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. Hence in the Fathers it is called, the inveſtiture of Chriſtianity, the genital Water; the ſpiritual Nativity; the divine Generation, with the like; which import, that it is a ſacred Medium, by which divine Grace is communicated to us; only it is to be remembred, that Baptiſm doth not this ex opere operato, out of the work done; it is not the Phyſical cauſe of Grace, but the Moral; it is Idolatry to imagine, that a meer creature ſhould phyſically, by its own intrinſecal virtue, cauſe ſuch a thing as Regeneration, which is only proper for God to do; we are all apt to be led by Senſe rather than by Faith; we had much rather have Grace incloſed in a viſible element, than be in a dependance upon p. 204God for it; but Grace is not in Baptiſm as Wine is in a Veſſel; it is not inſiſtent in the Water, but aſſiſtent; it lodges not by the way in the element, but comes immediately from the eternal fountain: In the right uſe of Baptiſm, it never is wanting; but,In Eſay. cap. 4.Isa 4 as St. Jerom hath it, Homo tantùm aquam tribuit, Deus autem Spiritum Sanctum; Man only gives the Water, God gives the Holy Ghoſt.

Baptiſm is a ſeal of union with Chriſt; only the Quaere is, to whom it is ſo? In anſwer to this, I ſhall ſpeak a little; firſt touching the Baptiſm of adult perſons, then touching the Baptiſm of Infants.

As touching the Adult; Baptiſm is a ſeal of union not to all, but to Believers only. Bonaventure ſaith, that faith is neceſſary in all Sacraments,In ſent. lib. 4. d. 3. qu. 3. eſpecially in Baptiſm; Quoniam Baptiſmus eſt janua Sacramentorum, ſicut fides eſt janua virtutum; becauſe Baptiſm is the gate of Sacraments, as Faith is the gate of virtues: Baptiſm is the ſeal of the Covenant, therefore it appertains to thoſe who by Faith are within it. It is clear in Scripture, that Faith is pre-required to Baptiſm; They that gladly received the word, were baptized, Acts 2.41. When they believed Philip, they were baptized, Acts 8.12. If thou believeſt with all thine heart, p. 205thou maiſt, ſaith Philip to the Eunuch, Act. 8.37. Anciently, before Baptiſm, Interrogatories were put unto the perſon to be baptized, and anſwers made by him in this manner; Renuncias Satanae? Renuncio. Credis in Chriſtum? Credo. Doſt thou renounce Satan? I renounce him. Doſt thou believe in Chriſt? I believe. Hence Tertullian ſaith,De Reſur. Anima non lavatione, ſed reſponſione ſancitur; the Soul is eſtabliſhed not by waſhing but by anſwering. In the due uſe of Sacraments there muſt be an hand on both ſides; manus Dei offerentis, the hand of God offering; and manus fidei accipientis, the hand of faith receiving; though a Sacrament hath its eſſential integrity, though there be a real offer on Gods part, yet without a receiving-Faith, there is Sacramentum ſine re, a ſign without Grace. Were Faith always preſent, the Grace as well as the Sign would ever be communicated; but Faith being abſent, nothing but the meer Sign paſſes to the receiver. Hence the Scripture diſtinguiſheth, touching Circumciſion, between that in the fleſh, and that in the heart, Rom. 2.28, 29. and touching Baptiſm, between the putting away the filth of the fleſh, and the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God, 1 Pet. 3.21. The Houſe of Iſrael was not, as p. 206other Nations, uncircumciſed in fleſh, yet were they uncircumciſed in heart, Jer. 9.26. Simon Magus was baptized with Water, but not with the Holy Ghoſt; for he was in the gall of bitterneſs, Acts 8.13, 23. Believers are the men, to whom Baptiſm is a ſeal of union, they are in truth baptized into Chriſt and into one body, while others are ſo in ſhew and appearance only; they do indeed put on Chriſt, while others, as St. Auſtin ſpeaks,Contr. Don. lib. 5. c. 24. put him on, only uſ que ad Sacramenti perceptionem, non uſ que ad vitae Sanctificationem, unto a perception of the Sacrament, not unto ſanctification of life. They are buried with Chriſt, and riſen with him; feeling his death in their mortification, his reſurrection in their Divine Life. Baptiſm is for the remiſſion of ſins, but it is to thoſe who by Faith are capable of it; it is a Laver of regeneration, as the Goſpel is the Power of God to Salvation, not to all, but to Believers.

As touching Infants, the Learned Profeſſors of Leyden require Faith not only in the Adult,Synopſ. Theo. de Baptiſmo. but in Infants too, in order to Baptiſm. Infants may be put into three ranks: Some Infants are in their infancy in union with Chriſt; they have Faith in the ſeed, though not in the fruit; Grace in the gift, though not in the uſe; they have the p. 207Spirit dwelling in them,Auſt. Epiſt. 57. and are a part of his Temple, though they know him not: Neither needs this ſeem ſtrange, it is very reaſonable to believe, that a ſupernatural power may do as much as a natural one; the Image of God, which, if Adam had ſtood, would have paſſed to Infants by natural generation, may well be derived to them by ſpiritual regeneration. It's granted on all hands, that ſome Infants at leaſt enter into life eternal; But what? do they do ſo unjuſtified, unſanctified? Surely no, in Heaven there is not ſo much as the guilt of one unremitted ſin; thoſe Infants, who go thither, muſt be juſtified; if they be juſtified, they muſt have Faith and Sanctification; Faith, becauſe juſtification is by it. The Scripture knows not two ways of juſtification, one by Faith, another without it; Sanctification, becauſe Juſtification is never ſeparate from it; But you are ſanctified, but you are juſtified, ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 6.11. Theſe twins of Grace can never be parted; where the juſtifying blood is ſprinkled, there the ſanctifying ſpirit is communicated; where the binding guilt of ſin is diſſolved, there the polluting ſpot is done away; both are to be found in thoſe Infants that are ſaved. Hence the Fathers in the Milenitan Council, Can. 2. p. 208do ſay, That Infants are baptized, in peccatorum remiſſionem, ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt, for the remiſſion of ſin, that, that in them may be cleanſed in regeneration, which they drew in generation: Here they mention both, remiſſion and regeneration in them. Again, In Heaven there is not, there cannot be the leaſt ſpot of pollution. Infants, which go thither, muſt be ſanctified; without the new birth there is no entry, Joh. 3.5. Without holineſs no ſeeing of God, Heb. 12.14. Hence it appears that Infants have ſanctifying graces; to theſe Baptiſm doth immediately ſeal union.

Some Infants, though baptized, are not in their infancy in union with Chriſt; but the work of Grace comes afterwards; both Baptiſms are not always together, the Spirit doth not always cleanſe in the ſame moment as the Water doth: The virtue of Baptiſm is not always immediately, but it follows us, as the waters of the Rock did the Iſraelites; in ſome the effect is earlier, in ſome later; theſe Infants are ſealed from the moment of Faith, not of Baptiſm; their Baptiſm doth point at a future union, but it ſeals not an actual one where it is not, but where it is.

p. 209Some Infants, though baptized, never are in union with Chriſt; ſome Divines conceive that all baptized Infants are regenerate, but common obſervation oppoſes this; multitudes there are of Infants baptized, who at years of underſtanding ſhew forth nothing at all of a Divine principle; Reaſon and Will appear, but nothing of Grace. It may be reaſonably expected in regenerate perſons, that the Seed of God ſhould ſpring up, that the ſupernatural principles ſhould come forth into act in ſome meaſure; but when there is no print or footſtep of Grace, no dye or tincture of it in the life, it cannot well be imagined, that there is any ſuch thing as regeneration in them: To ſuch Infants as theſe, Baptiſm doth not ſeal union. I conclude with the Learned Biſhop Abbot, In Thomſ. Diatr. cap. 7.In Chriſto baptizantur omnes qui baptizati ſunt, in Chriſtum non baptizantur niſi qui tranſeunt in Chriſtum, corpuſ que ejus & membra fiunt. All that are baptized, are baptized in Chriſt; but none are baptized into Chriſt, but thoſe who paſs into him, and are made his body and members.

The other ſeal is that of the Lords Supper; here Bread and Wine ſtand before our ſenſes; and Chriſt with his Body and Blood ſtands before our Faith, as if he were crucified p. 210among us. The Seventh General Council at Conſtantinople, who beat down all other Images, ſaith of this Sacrament, That it is Vera Chriſti Imago, the true Crucifix or Image of Chriſt; nay, it is more than a meer Image, it is a ſeal to confirm and exhibit Chriſt with his benefits unto us. The cup of bleſſing, which we bleſs, is it not the communion of the blood of Chriſt? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? 1 Cor. 10.16. Upon theſe words Theophylact obſerves, That the Apoſtle did not ſay, foreign, a participation; but foreign, a communion, that he might declare ſomething more excellent, namely, a very high union. In this Ordinance we eat the fleſh and drink the blood of Chriſt; we dwell in him and he in us; a very intimate union there is between him and us; only it muſt be remembred, that union is not ſealed to all, but to Believers: Faith is requiſite, that we may partake not meerly of the outward elements, …ut of Chriſt himſelf. This appears in 1 Cor. 11. in theſe words, Take, eat, this is my body; Drink, this is the New Teſtament in my blood, verſe 24, 25. There is an expreſs command to feed on the elements; and an implied one, to feed on Chriſt; all Receivers can do the firſt, but only Believers can p. 211do the ſecond: what we do in this Ordinance, we are to do in remembrance of Chriſt, verſe 24, 25. Not only in an hiſtorical remembrance which is common to all Receivers; but in a fiducial one, which is proper to Believers. The unworthy Receiver doth not diſcern the Lords body, verſe 29. but Believers have a ſpiritual eye for it; to them Chriſt is communicated. Others have the elements only, panem Domini, non panem Dominum; the bread of the Lord, not the Bread the Lord. Were I for Tranſubſtantiation at all, I ſhould think it reaſonable to be of their mind, who, as Bellarmine relates, held,De Euch. lib. 3: c. 11. that only that part of the Bread, which the pious receive, was turned into the Body of Chriſt: It is to me without doubt, that impious men do not receive it or feed upon it. Our Saviour ſaith, He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, Joh. 6.54. Hence that of St. Ambroſe, In Pſal. 118. Ser. 18.Ps 118Hic eſt panis vitae, qui ergò vitam manducat, mori non poteſt; he is the Bread of Life; he therefore, who eats Life, cannot dye; impious men, who eat him not, dye eternally.

The great thing in this Sacrament is the eating of Chriſt; eating cannot be of a thing abſent, it is an unmoveable axiom; that which is eaten, muſt be ſome way preſent. p. 212I ſhall therefore, firſt diſcourſe touching the Preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, and then ſpeak touching the eating of him. The Papiſts and Lutherans do both aſſert a corporal preſence of the Body and Blood of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, but upon different grounds; the one upon account of a tranſubſtantiation of elements; the other upon account of an ubiquity communicated to the humane nature of Chriſt.

The Papiſts aſſert ſuch a preſence upon account of a Tranſubſtantiation of elements; they explain it thus, thoſe words, This is my body, this is my blood, are conſecratory and operative; by virtue of them, and in the laſt inſtant of pronouncing them, the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Chriſt; the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine remains no longer; but under the accidents thereof, are the very Body and Blood of Chriſt.

In anſwer to this, I ſhall conſider the words, this is my body; (this) is the ſubject, (is) the copula, (my body) the predicate; touching the predicate, it is on all hands granted to be the Body of Chriſt; the only queſtion is in the two other.

The word (this) imports clearly the Bread; this appears by the precedent words: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and p. 213brake it, and gave unto them, ſaying, this is my body, Luke 22.19. What did he ſay was his body, but that which he gave to his Diſciples? what did he give unto them, but what he brake? what brake he, but what he took? And doth not the Text expreſly ſay, that he took Bread? Of the Bread therefore he ſaid, This is my body; the order of the words ſhews it to be bread; this will more appear if we compare theſe words, this is my body, with thoſe which are a fair commentary on them, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? 1 Cor. 10.16. In the one we have the word (this), in the other the bread in expreſs terms; in the one we have the body of Chriſt, in the other the communion of it: In both, Bread is the thing ſpoken of, as a thing diſtinct from the body, of which it is the communion. If the word (this) be not bread, what can we make of it? Is it the accidents of the Bread? The Greek word, foreign, imports not accidents, but a ſubſtance; accidents are not a body, neither are theſe converted, but remain. Is it the Body of Chriſt? That is not in the Euchariſt till all the words be uttered, it is not there at the pronouncing of the firſt word (this); the Propoſition is not identical, the words run not thus, p. 214my body is my body; neither, if they did, could they any more work a converſion, than a thing can be turned into it ſelf. Is it an ſubſtantia vaga, an indefinite ſubſtance, ſuch as is neither Bread, nor the Body of Chriſt? This is ſuch a vagrant, that all the world knows not where to find it: Chriſt did not take, bleſs, break, give an indefinite ſubſtance, but the Bread: It remains therefore, that the Bread is the thing pointed at. The words in effect are thus; the Bread is the Body of Chriſt; and then, as Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth,De Euch. lib. 1. c. 1. the words muſt be taken tropically, or elſe they are plainly abſurd and impoſſible.

The Copula (is) doth in Propoſitions import ſuch a conjunction, as the ſubject and predicate coupled together are capable of; when it ſtands between the ſign and the thing ſignified, it is not to be taken eſſentially, but ſignificatively; the ſign is not the very thing, but a ſign. In Scripture we read not of a ſign turned into the thing ſignified, but we ordinarily find the name of the thing ſignified given to the ſign: Circumciſion is the covenant, Gen. 17.10. That is, a ſign of it, as the next verſe tells us; The Lamb is the paſſover, Exod. 12.11. that is, a ſign of it. The Cup, that is, the Wine in in it, is the New Teſtament, 1 Cor. p. 21511.25. that is, it is Sacramentally ſuch; after the ſame manner the Bread is the Body of Chriſt; that is, it is ſignificatively ſuch: this is the plain natural interpretation of the words.Ʋſher, An. to a Jeſ. 61. Hence in the ancient Fathers, the Bread is called the figure, memorial, ſymbol, image, type, ſign, ſimilitude of Chriſts Body. It is the excellent obſervation of St. Auſtin, That Sacraments ſhould not be Sacraments, unleſs they did reſemble the things ſignified; and for that reſemblance they do often bear the names of the things themſelves:Epiſt. 23. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Chriſti Corpus Chriſti eſt, Sacramentum Sanguinis Chriſti Sanguis Chriſti eſt; after a certain manner the Sacrament of Chriſts Body is his Body, the Sacrament of his Blood is his Blood: The Bread and Wine are figuratively and ſacramantally ſuch.

Two things may be noted touching the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

The one is this; It is a Doctrine croſs to the deſcription of the Euchariſt which we have in 1 Cor. 11. The Bread was not bleſſed that it might be deſtroyed; nor given to be eaten, that it might ceaſe to be before it was eaten. Never did God put forth his miraculous power to make his command impoſſible, ſuch as the eating of Bread, which is not, muſt p. 216needs be; in thoſe words (this is my body) in which, if in any, Tranſubſtantiation may be found, there is no imperative word, no mention at all of converſion, which yet, being a very wonderful thing, would in all reaſon, if it were true, be fully opened: it is not only ſaid, this is my body, but it is added, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. In the Euchariſt Chriſts Body is not conſidered as a glorious Body, but as broken and crucified; neither is there only his Body, but the memorial of it; And how ſhould there be a converſion of the Bread into the Body? A converſion of it into the glorious Body, doth not ſute with the Sacrament; a converſion of it into a broken crucified Body doth not ſute with a ſtate of glory; or, if there were a converſion, how ſhould there be a memorial? the Bread, which is not, cannot be a memorial of the Body, neither can the Body be a memorial of it ſelf: after all, it is no leſs than three times called Bread, to aſſure us, that it is Bread after conſecration, as well as before.

The other is this: It is a Doctrine attended with very great abſurdities; it puts things into ſuch a poſture as here follows.

Here's a Sacrament without a ſign. It is eſſential to a Sacrament, that there be an p. 217earthly part as well as an heavenly; ſomewhat for the body, as well as for the ſoul: but here's a Sacrament of meer accidents; no Bread, no Wine to figure out the body and blood of Chriſt; no corporal nouriſhment to ſignifie a ſpiritual one.

Here's accidents without a ſubject; the bread vaniſheth, but the accidents remain and face our ſenſes, yet they ſtand all alone without a ſubſtance to inhere in; under their roof is no leſs than the body of Chriſt, yet they lean upon nothing.

Here's a thing made, which before was made; which is all one, as if a Father ſhould beget a Son already begotten, or an Architect build an houſe already built; the body of Chriſt, which was before the Converſion, is produced by turning the bread into it; he that was conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, and born of the Virgin, is made again by pronouncing a few words; to make that which is made, is impoſſible. Bellarmine to ſalve this, ſaith,De Euch. lib. 3.18. That it is not converſio productiva, ſed adductiva; which diſtinction overturns it ſelf; if it be only adductive, it is no converſion; if Chriſt had only deſtroyed the ſubſtance of the Water, and ſet Wine, that was extant before, in the room of it, there had been no converſion; no more is there, if the p. 218bread ceaſe to be; and the body of Chriſt, that was before in being, came in the room of it: Here is no Tranſubſtantiation, but Tranſlocation only.

Here's a body in many places; the body of Chriſt is intire in Heaven; it is alſo intire in the Euchariſt; it is therefore above it ſelf, below it ſelf, at a diſtance from it ſelf: all which are impoſſible.

Here's a miſtake of the Senſes; the bread appears to be bread, it looks, touches, ſmells, taſtes like bread, yet it is not ſo; in other things our ſenſes are right, but in the Euchariſt (in which the deſign is by ſenſe to lead our Faith to ſpiritual objects) they are in a fatal error, much leſs tolerable than if there were a miſtake about other objects; it being, not in a thing meerly natural or ſpeculative, but in a ſacred or practical ſign ordained on purpoſe to figure out and exhibit Chriſt unto us. Thus much touching the Doctrine of the Papiſts in this point.

The Lutherans aſſert a corporal preſence upon account of an Ubiquity in Chriſts humane nature: They explain themſelves more fully thus. Two things may be noted touching this Preſence, the Will of Chriſt, and his Power. Touching his Will, it appears in the words of Inſtitution, This p. 219is my body; that is, in, with, and under this bread is my body; this is foreign, the literal ſenſe of it. Touching his Power to do it, they ſay, there is an hypoſtatical union of the divine and humane natures in Chriſt; his Hypoſtaſis is communicated to the humane nature, therefore ſo are the divine Properties, ſuch as Immenſity is; he ſits in the humane nature at the right hand of God; and that right hand is everywhere. The union of the two natures is inſeparable; therefore where his Deity is, there is his Humanity; he is everywhere God incarnate, therefore no-where excarnate, or out of the fleſh.

In anſwer unto this, I ſhall offer ſome things.

As touching the Will of Chriſt, expreſſed in thoſe words, This is my body. The Lutherans ſeem to ſtand for the foreign, the Letter of the Text; but their Interpretation is not a litteral one, (This) is not properly (in, with, and under this) in propriety (This is my body) is one thing, (in, with, and under, This is my body) is another; neither is their Interpretation true. Baptiſm is a Sacrament of the New Teſtament as well as the Lords Supper; as in the one, the blood of Chriſt is not in, with, and under the water; ſo in the other, the body is p. 220not in, with and under the bread; the reaſon is alike in both Sacraments. If in the Euchariſt the body be in, with, and under the bread, then the blood is in, with, and under the wine; conſequently the blood is ſeparate from the body. There is put upon Chriſt now in Glory, not to ſay, a ſecond paſſion, but as many paſſions as there are Euchariſts. It is not eaſie to imagine how the bread ſhould be broken, and the body under it, not be ſo; or how the body ſhould be broken on Earth, and at the ſame time glorious in Heaven; or how the ſame body at the ſame inſtant can be preſent in as many diſtant places as there are Euchariſts in the world; or, if ſuch a Preſence might be, how the body coúld be finite, or indeed a body. All which ſtrange Riddles the Lutherans muſt maintain to make good their opinion.

As touching the Power of Chriſt to do it, the particulars muſt be conſidered.

Firſt, The Hypoſtaſis is communicated to the humane nature; therefore ſo are the divine Properties; ſuch as Immenſity is.Theol. Ancil. 51. I anſwer, with the learned Baronius, the Hypoſtaſis of the Word is communicated to the humane nature; not inhaeſivè or denominativè, but ſuſtentativè: the humane nature of Chriſt is not a Perſon; it may p. 221no more be called a perſon, than Chriſt may have two perſons; it doth not ſubſiſt, but exiſt in the perſon of the Word; there is no perſonality in it, but it is received and taken into the perſon of the Word, and the perſon of the Word doth ſtay and ſuſtain it. Hence it is evident, that the hypoſtaſis not being communicated to the humane nature inheſively or denominatively, the divine Properties are not ſo communicated to it, neither is there any immenſity therein. It's true, from the hypoſtatical union of the divine and humane natures in Chriſt, there doth iſſue a foreign, a communication of Properties; the Properies of both natures are truly and really attributed to the Perſon; the Perſon ſubſiſts in both natures; both natures are united together in the Perſon; but the Properties of the divine nature are not communicated to the humane; for then the humane ſhould be not immenſe only, but infinite and eternal, nay, God himſelf, becauſe the divine Properties are all one with the divine Eſſence.

The ſecond thing is, Chriſt in his humane nature ſits at Gods right hand, and that right hand is everywhere. I anſwer, This argument ſuppoſes, that the body of Chriſt is as the right hand of God is, which p. 222is utterly untrue; the right hand of God is incorporeal; is the body of Chriſt ſo? or can it be ſo, and not ceaſe to be a body? The right hand of God is infinite; is the humane nature of Chriſt ſo? or can it be ſo, and not become a God? In like manner, the right hand is everywhere; muſt the humane nature be ſo too? Scripture oppoſes it in thoſe very Texts which mention Chriſts Seſſion. Chriſt ſits at the right hand of God; but where? It is foreign, in heavenly places, Eph. 1.20. foreign, in the high places, Heb. 1.3. foreign, in the Heavens, Hebr. 8.1. The Seſſion therefore notes out his ſtate of Glory in Heaven, not his univerſal Preſence. The Apoſtle tells the Coloſſians, that Chriſt ſits on the right hand of God; and from thence preſſes them to ſet their affections on things above, not on things on the earth, Col. 3.1, 2. But if the Seſſion note an univerſal Preſence, the Apoſtles exhortation vaniſhes into nothing. Stephen looketh up, and saw the heavens opened, and Jeſus ſtanding at the right hand of God, Acts 7.55, 56. But if the being at the right hand did point out an univerſal Preſence, what needed any looking up, or opening of Heaven to ſee him, who in his humane nature is everywhere? Again, If the Ubiquity of Chriſts p. 223humane nature be from his Seſſion, then it is not from the hypoſtatical Union, which was long before in the firſt moment of his Incarnation; or if it be from the hypoſtatical union, then it is not from the Seſſion, which was after his Paſſion and Reſurrection.

The next thing is, the union of the two natures in Chriſt is inſeparable; therefore where his Deity is, there is his Humanity. I anſwer, There may be an union, and yet the united may not co-exiſt in all places; a Star is united to its Orb, yet the Orb is where the Star is not: The humane nature of Chriſt is united to the divine, yet the divine nature is where the humane is not; the reaſon is evident; where the united are equal, there may be a full co-exiſtence in place; but where they are unequal, as the two natures in Chriſt muſt needs be, there it cannot be ſo; the infinite nature is not put into finite ſtraits; the finite one is not ſtretcht into an infinity; the union joyns not, deſtroys the natures; the humane nature muſt have its limits, the divine can have none. Hence it appears, that the divine nature muſt needs be where the humane is not.

The laſt thing is, Chriſt is everywhere God incarnate, no-where excarnate, or p. 224out of the fleſh. I anſwer, As to that, he is every where God incarnate; it may be taken two ways, either thus, God who is in the fleſh, is every where; and this is true, but proves not the ubiquity of the fleſh: or thus, the fleſh, in which God is, is every where; and this would make for ubiquity, but it is untrue.

As to the other, He is no where excarnate or out of the fleſh; he may be ſaid to be out of the fleſh two ways; either thus, The union of the natures is diſſolved, the divine nature is ſeparated from the humane, and this never is or can be; though the divine nature be where the humane is not, yet the union remains, it being made cum foreign, non cum loco, with the word, not with place; the Divine nature, being immenſe, cannot poſſibly by diſtance be ſeparated from any thing; if in the leaſt point it were ſeparated, it ſhould ceaſe to be immenſe: or elſe thus, The Divine Nature is not ſhut up in the limits of the fleſh, but doth tranſcendently exceed them; and thus the Divine Nature is not ſo properly out of the fleſh as beyond it; according to its Infinity it is where the humane is not. Thus much touching the Doctrine of the Lutherans in this point.

p. 225But if there is not a corporal preſence of the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, is there no preſence at all? Are the Sacraments foreign, naked ſigns and empty figures of Chriſt crucified? This indeed is charged upon us by the Papiſts and Lutherans. When Calvin ſaith, that the body of Chriſt is exhibited to us in the Sacrament,De Euch. lib. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine cries out, that it is but mera ludificatio. When Wendilin ſpeaks of the preſence of Chriſts body in the Euchariſt,Wend. Ex. 103. the Lutherans cry out, fucus eſt, dolus eſt, it is a colour, a cheat. Nevertheleſs we ſay, that the body and blood of Chriſt are truly, though ſpiritually, preſent, not as contained in the elements, but as exhibited to our Faith. Thus Reverend Calvin hath it,Inſt. lib. 4. c. 17. ſ. 11. Dico in coenae myſterio per ſymbola panis & vini Chriſtum verè nobis exhiberi; in the myſtery of the Supper, by the Symbols of bread and wine, Chriſt is truly exhibited to us. Thus the excellent Ʋſher, Serm before the Commons. 1620.Of his precious body and blood we are really made partakers; (that is, in truth and in deed, and not in imagination only) although in a ſpiritual, and not a corporal manner. Thus the Church of England, Hom. 1ſt. of the Sacrament.In the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare ſign, no untrue figure of a thing abſent; but the Table of the Lord, the bread and p. 226cup of the Lord, the memory of Chriſt, the annunciation of his death; yea, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation; which by the operation of the Holy Ghoſt (the very bond of our conjunction with Chriſt) is through Faith wrought in the Souls of the faithful. And again, The body of Chriſt is given,Art. the 28. taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and ſpiritual manner. It's true, the Papiſts and Lutherans make light of this ſpiritual preſence: Gregory de Valentiâ calls it, merum ſomnium Calviniſticum, a meer Calviniſtical dream. The Lutherans ſay, that this is not a true preſence of Chriſts body, but foreign & imago, a ſpectrum or image. In anſwer to this, I ſhall offer two or three things.

The Papiſts and Lutherans, who caſt off this ſpiritual preſence as a fancy, do yet in explaining a corporal preſence make the notion too fine to conſiſt with the nature of a body.De Euch. Lib. 1. c. 2. Lib. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine will not have the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt to be viſible, ſenſible, tangible; it exiſts after the manner of Spirits, nay, it is preſent after the manner of God. The Lutherans will not have the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt to be viſible, palpable, local, circumſcribed p. 227with place; it exiſts in a ſupernatural manner; it is preſent praeſentiâ divinâ, by a Divine preſence: Thus they, who ſlight the ſpiritual preſence, do make the corporal one ſo fine, that the body of Chriſt, after they have ſtript it of its eſſential properties, is more like a Spirit than a Body.

The preſence of Chriſt in the Euchariſt is a ſpiritual one. This is clear; the preſence is ſuch as the faculty is to which the thing is preſented; the Bread and Wine (which are the outward ſymbols of the Sacrament) are preſented to our ſenſe; the Body and Blood of Chriſt (which are the inward marrow of it) are preſented to our Faith: In the former a corporal preſence is neceſſary; in the latter a ſpiritual one. Again, The preſence is ſuch as the eating is; the eating of Chriſt is ſpiritual; it is (as appears in the ſixth chapter of St. John) from ſpiritual principles to a ſpiritual end; from the quickening ſpirit to life eternal: the preſence therefore muſt be a ſpiritual one, that it may ſute to the eating. Further, The preſence is as the union is; the union between Chriſt and us is ſpiritual, he dwells in us by Faith, he lives in us by his Spirit; the preſence therefore muſt be a ſpiritual one, that it may agree with the union.

p. 228The Fathers are not for a corporal, but a ſpiritual preſence. St. Cyprian treating of the Euchariſt ſaith,(a)(a)Non tàm corporali, quàm ſpiritali tranſitione Chriſto nos uniri: de Caenâ. That we are united to Chriſt, not by a corporal, but ſpiritual tranſition. St. Ambroſe ſaith,(b)(b)In illo Sacramento Chriſtus eſt, quia corpus eſt Chriſti, non ergò corporalis eſca, ſed ſpiritalis eſt: De iis qui initiantur. cap. 9. In the Sacrament is Chriſt, becauſe it is the Body of Chriſt; it is not therefore corporal food, but ſpiritual. St. Athanaſius ſaith of the Body of Chriſt,(c)(c)Corpus meum in cibum dabitur, ut ſpiritualitèr unicûi que tribuatur: In illud, qui dixerit Verbum. That it is given for food, that it may be ſpiritually diſtributed to every one. St. Auſtin ſaith,(d)(d)Habuit Chriſtum Eccleſia ſecundum praeſentiam carnis paucis diebus, modò fide tenet. Tract. in Joh. 50. The Church had Chriſt according to the preſence of fleſh a few days; now ſhe holds him by faith. St. Bernard ſaith,(e)(e)Eadem caro nobis, ſed ſpiritualitèr, non carnalitèr, exhibeatur. in feſt. Mart. That the fleſh of Chriſt is exhibited to us ſpiritually, not carnally. Thus the Ancients are not for a corporal preſence, but a ſpiritual one.

This ſpiritual preſence is ſo great a myſtery, that reverend Calvin ſaith,Inſtit. lib. 4. c. 17. Nec mens plane cogitando, nec linguà explicando par eſſe poteſt; the mind cannot conceive it, the tongue cannot utter it. Where myſteries are deep, to ſpeak a little is enough. I ſhall therefore only touch on two things.

p. 229The one is this; the body of Chriſt is objectively preſent to our faith. St. Paul tells the Galatians, that before their eyes Jeſus Chriſt had been evidently ſet forth crucified among them; his Croſs was at Jeruſalem, his glorious reſidence in Heaven; yet he is before our faith in the Goſpel, and particularly in the Euchariſt, in which, as in a ſacred Crucifix, we ſee him as it were a ſuffering for us. It is here to be noted, that there is a double exiſtence of things; the one abſolute, which is coufined to time and place; the other relative and objective, which is not ſo. The Sun in its abſolute exiſtence is in its orb; but as an object it is preſent to the eye, which ſees not meerly the viſible ſpecies, but the Sun it ſelf. The Body of Chriſt in its abſolute exiſtence is in Heaven; but as an object it is preſent to Faith, which ſees not meerly the outward figures and ſymbols in the Euchariſt, but Chriſt himſelf ſweating, bleeding, dying on a Croſs, ſatisfying Divine juſtice for ſin; which is ſuch a ſight, as makes the Soul hide in his wounds, waſh in his blood, reſt on his at onement, and triumph in his ſalvation. The phylact upon that paſſage, Gal. 3.1. enquiring how Chriſt, who was crucified at Jeruſalem, could be ſaid to be crucified among the Galatians? Anſwers thus, Praedicationi p. 230fidem praebentes perinde ac praeſentem vidiſtis; believing the Goſpel preached, ye ſaw him as preſent with you. St. Jerom upon that Text ſaith, it was with you quaſi apud nos omnia facta ſint, as if all things had been done with you, as if you had ſeen Chriſt hanging on the Croſs: Thus Chriſt as an object is preſent to our Faith. It's true, the Lutherans ſay, this preſence is not a real one, but in fancy and imagination only; but may that faith, which is foreign, the ſubſiſtence of things hoped for, Heb. 11.1. be called a fancy? Was it a fancy, by which Abel offered his excellent ſacrifice? Enoch was tranſlated into Heaven? Noah prepared an Ark? Abraham offered up his beloved Iſaac? Moſes ſaw him that is inviſible? Is it by a fancy, that we are juſtified before God? that we overcome the World? that we are inſerted and incorporated into Chriſt? that we eat his fleſh and drink his blood? that we have him dwelling and living in our hearts? Theſe things are not done by fancy, but by faith; that ſpiritual preſence, which is to our faith, is not imaginary but real; no needleſs thing, but ſimply neceſſary to the ſpiritual eating of Chriſt unto life eternal. Without a preſence there can be no eating; without a ſpiritual preſence there can be p. 231no ſpiritual eating; that cannot be corporally eaten which is not preſent to ſenſe; that cannot be ſpiritually eaten which is not preſent to Faith: the ſpiritual preſence therefore is ſo far from being a fancy, that it is neceſſary to that ſpiritual eating, which is neceſſary to life eternal.

The other is this; The Body of Chriſt is preſent virtually, and in the Holy Spirit communicated to us. St. Cyprian ſets out Chriſt by the Sun, the great Luminary of the world;De Caenâ. Domini. Totum apud ſe manens totum ſe omnibus commodat, remaining whole in himſelf, he communicates himſelf whole to all his members. His Sacred Body, which is locally in Heaven, comes down to us in healing and quickening beams, in the ſpecial preſence and operations of the Spirit; there goes out from it a divine virtue, which reaches down to all the Believers in the world, and upon every touch of Faith is preſent to heal them: Evigilet fides & praeſtò eſt Chriſtus; let Faith awake, and Chriſt is at hand. Aquinas, a great man among the Papiſts, aſſerts, that the paſſion of Chriſt operates per ſpiritualem contactum, by a ſpiritual contact. Scheckius, 3. Pars. q. 48. art. 6.a learned Lutheran. ſaith, that the Body of Chriſt is preſent with us, not locally and corporally, but ſpiritually and in Energy. But here it p. 232will be ſaid, that thus the body of Chriſt is preſent in its effect only. To which I anſwer, there is more in it than ſo; the Spirit communicated is not a meer effect, but a copula or unitive bond; it operates not meerly upon believers as objects, but in them as parts of Chriſt. When the Sun lets down his rays to the earth, thoſe rays are effects, and operate upon the earth as an object; but when the head lets down the animal ſpirits to the feet, thoſe ſpirits are an unitive bond, and operate in them as parts of the body. Thus it is between Chriſt and Believers; the Spirit is not a meer effect, but an unitive bond; it joins them intimately to Chriſt, it makes them members of his body, of his fleſh, and of his bones, myſtical parts of him, and a kind of appendants of his humane nature, not indeed hypoſtatically, but ſpiritually joined to it; the diſtance between Heaven and Earth can no more impede this conjunction, than the diſtance between the head and feet can impede that union which is between them. The Immenſe Spirit can more eaſily unite at a vaſt diſtance, then finite ſpirits can at a leſs; the humane nature of Chriſt cannot by local diſtance be ſeparated from the Divine, becauſe the Divine is Immenſe; Believers cannot by local diſtance be ſeparated p. 233from Chriſt, becauſe the uniting Spirit is Immenſe. Again, The Spirit operates not meerly upon Believers as objects, but in them as parts of Chriſt; firſt it makes them parts, and then it operates in them as ſuch: 'Two things eminently ſhew them to be parts of him, that is, his Satisfaction is imputatively derived down upon them; his Spirit doth by a ſpecial preſence operate in them; in the one they are as parts covered, in the other as parts acted: That the curſe of the Law doth not ſeize upon them, it is becauſe the Head covers them with his ſatisfaction; that they walk in holineſs and obedience, it is becauſe the Head moves and acts them by his Spirit. Thus we are in intimate conjunction with him; and ſo, as St. Chryſoſtom ſpeaks, foreign,In 1 Cor. cap. 10.1 Cor 10 by union we partake of him; his body, which is united to him hypoſtatically, is united to us myſtically; we have his fleſh in the uniting and operating Spirit. We know his fieſh (ſaith St. Auſtin) Non ſecundum carnem, De Verb. Domini. ser. 60.ſed ſecundum ſpiritum; not according to the fleſh, but according to the Spirit: his corporal preſence being gone from us, there ſucceeds a ſpiritual one in the room of it.

The next thing is the eating of Chriſt. The Papiſts and Lutherans, who ſtand for a p. 234corporal preſence, are for an eating ſutable, that is, an oral one; but this is a great miſtake. In the Euchariſt there is an earthly part before our ſenſe, and an heavenly one before our faith; in the one an oral eating is proper; in the other it is impoſſible, vain, nay, a very horrible thing: It is impoſſible; the body of Chriſt cannot be eaten orally without ſuffering; neither can it ſuffer while it is in glory; it would not, if torn into pieces, ſerve all the communicants in the Church; neither can it (being finite) be received intirely by all. It is alſo vain; could we take the body of Chriſt into our mouths, how ſhould it ſpiritually profit us? which way ſhould it nouriſh our Souls to life eternal? The Throat is the road of corruptible food, Faith is the only organ that takes in the incorruptible; a Capernatical eating is to no purpoſe. It is alſo a very horrible thing;In Joh. cap. 6.John 6 Theophylact, ſpeaking of eating Chriſts fleſh, ſaith, Chriſtians are not devoratores carnis, devourers of humane fleſh; but our Saviours words are to be underſtood ſpiritually.

The Ancient Fathers were not for an oral eating,De Caenâ Domini. but a ſpiritual one; Non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, ſed fide ſincerâ panem ſanctum frangimus, ſaith St. Cyprian, We do not ſharpen our teeth to bite; but we break p. 235the Holy Bread with a ſincere Faith. The Fathers in the firſt Council of Nice ſay, That we receive the Body of Chriſt foreign, truly, but they mean, ſpiritually; for they call upon us to lift up our minds in Faith. St.Auſtin ſaith, That the true eater, who never dies, Manducat intùs, non foris, In Joh. tract. 26.manducat in corde, non premit dente, eats within, not without; eats with the heart, preſſes not with the tooth.

This ſpiritual eating ſtands in two or three things; it imports intimate union with Chriſt; the Bread is united to the Body, Chriſt is united to the Soul. Hence St. Auſtin, Ad fratr. in Erem. Ser. 28.Sacramentum illud ideò hominibus datur, ut corpus in terris capiti coadunetur; This Sacrament is therefore given to men, that the body on earth may be united to the head: It's true, Believers before they receive the Euchariſt are united to Chriſt; but in the uſe of it their union is increaſed, their faith comes to have more life and activity, they grow up into the head in a further conjunction with, and aſſimilation to him. Again, It imports a derivation of ſtrength and life from Chriſt; Bread ſtrengthens the outward man, Chriſt the inward one; his Satisfaction ſtrengthens it againſt the fears of wrath; his Spirit ſtrengthens it unto all duties and ſufferings: p. 236Believers have ſome ſtrength before, but here they renew their ſtrength; they have freſh taſts and ſavours of Chriſts precious blood, high and rich anointings of the Holy Spirit; they do not only eat Chriſt, but feaſt upon him; his fleſh is as ſpiritual marrow; his blood is as celeſtial wine to cheer their inner man; his Spirit comes down upon them in further communications of grace and comfort, in pure diſcoveries of the love and kindneſs of God, which cannot but put life and vigor into their Souls. Further, It imports that this derivation of ſtrength from Chriſt is continued; we eat, not once or twice, but often, to repair the frail body; Believers daily feed upon Chriſt, daily derive ſtrength from him to keep up their Souls in a ſtate of Grace. Some of the Ancient Fathers interpret the daily Bread in the Lords Prayer to be no other than Chriſt; the ſuperſubſtantial Bread, which we daily feed on by Faith.De Orat. Dom. Tertullian ſaith, That in begging daily Bread, we beg Perpetuitatem in Chriſto, a perpetuity in Chriſt. St. Cyprian ſaith, That in it we beg, Ʋt a corpore Chriſti non recedamus, that we may not depart from his body. Every day we ſtand in need of Chriſt; we are not always at the Lords Table, feeding p. 237on the elements; but upon Chriſt, the ſpiritual ſubſtance of the Sacrament, we are daily to feed, that we may receive ſuch a Divine vigor from him, as may preſerve our union with him.

Thus much touching the Seals of this union, Baptiſm and the Lords Supper. p. 236duplicate page p. 237duplicate page