Sermons, Treatise · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of the outwards of this Ordinance of the Supper.
1 COR. 11. 23, 24, 25.
He took bread, and when he had given thanks, &c.
§. 1.
IN the Sacrament of Baptiſm there is but one outward element, water; in this of the Supper two, bread and wine, which though they diſtinctly ſignifie, the one the body, the other the bloud of Chriſt, yet becauſe they ſet forth one nouriſhment of the body by bread and drink, of the ſoul by the body and bloud of Chriſt, and make but one commemoration of Chriſt and his death. This do in remembrance of me, verſ. 24. Drink it in remembrance of me, verſ. 25. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye do ſhew forth the Lords death, verſ. 26. Therefore as ſeveral diſhes are but one Supper, ſo theſe ſeveral ſigns are the parts of one Sacrament.
To avoid tautology and coincidency, I mean to open the parts diſtinctly, and yet to take together element with element, rule with rule, action with action, as fitly yoked together joyntly, and ſo be as ſoon at the end of the one, as of the other, which courſe of handling that word in Luke 22. 20. whom of all the Evangeliſts Paul doth nearlieſt agree with, and verſ. 25. of this Chapter foreign, Likewiſe, or, After the ſame manner, points me unto, and if there be any word in the three Evangeliſts that write the Hiſtory of the inſtitution (whereof one that is Matthew was preſent at the action) that may ſerve for the beautifying or clearing of any point, as we go along, we ſhall take it alſo into the contexture of our Diſcourſe.
The Method and order is, to handle,
1. The outward Ordinance of this Supper.
2. The inward thing ſignified or repreſented.
3. The mandate or command, Do this.
4. The end, For remembrance of me.
§. 2.
The outward Ordinance is properly called the Sacrament; the inward kernel or thing ſignified, is called Res Sacramenti, the thing of the Sacrament; for the Sacrament is the outward viſible ſign; and therefore it is very abſurdly ſaid of Bellarmine, and otherLib. …. de Euch. cap. 24. Papiſts, who have leſt nothing but accidents, and ſhadow of bread and wine, that Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt is the figure and remembrance of himſelf, as if one ſhould ſay, that the King is the picture, or image of himſelf; for as Dr Whitaker obſerves, The De Sacram. pag. 616.body and bloud of Chriſt is no Sacrament, but the thing it ſelf whereof the Sacrament is taken; As the contract is no ring, but that whereof the ring is a pledge; The Covenant is no Seal, but that whereof the Seal is, though in vulgar ſpeech, when we take the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament in complexion, we uſe to ſay, that the Sacrament conſiſts of two parts, Terrena and coelesti, as Irenaeus ſaith, an earthlyIren. l. 4. c. 34. Whitak. de Sacram. 626. and a heavenly, an outward and an inward, a viſible and an inviſible, Ut duae naturae in Christo.
The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or the outward Ordinance conſiſts.
1. Of materials or elements, bread and wine.
2. Of rituals or actions about thoſe elements, and they are,
1. The Rites uſed by Chriſt, or ſome other in his name, He took bread, he bleſſed, &c.
2. The Actions of the Communicants, They take and eat, they take and drink; And ſo ye have a Sacrament conſiſting of ſeveral elements, and ſundry outward rites and actions, all concurring to the eſſence or integrity of this Sacrament.
§. 3 §. 3. Of the Elements Bread and Wine.
I begin with the Elements, and they are
1. Two, viz. Bread and Wine: Our Melchiſedech entertains the children of Abraham, as that Melchiſedech did Abraham himſelf, Gen. 18. …8. He brought forth to him bread and wine. Chriſt did not take theſe two by accident, becauſe he found them then on the Table, but by choice and election for their uſe in ſignifying. The old Church of Iſrael had a Table-Sacrament, the Paſſeover, and Chriſt will have the Goſpel-Church to have a Table-Sacrament too, this Supper; but as before Chriſt their Sacrifices and Sacraments were all bloudy: So when Chriſt the ſubſtance of all Sacrifices and Sacraments hath ſuffer'd, the Sacraments of the Goſpel and Sacrifices are unbloudy: Many Divines ſhew the conveniency of Bread and Wine to be the materials of this Sacrament,Vide J nſen. Harm. p. 626. and ſome with too much fancy, The repreſentation of his Body broken, and of his Blood ſhed. The participation of his Body and Blood for ſoulſtrength, and ſoul-refreſhment, could not be better ſhadowed forth than by the ſtaff of Bread; and chearfull Wine; which as they are the moſt common▪ ſo the moſt neceſſary and prime materials that are uſed at our tables, anſwering both our appetites of hunger and thirſt; weakneſs is ſtrengthened by bread, faintneſs cheriſht by wine, the faint and feeble ſoul by Chriſt. Famine and thirſt are importunate things, no delights of the eye, no Muſick to the ear can ſatiſfie them. Violent deſires towards Chriſt are not to be excuſed, but praiſed: For his Fleſh is meat indeed, his Blood is drink indeed, Joh. 6. 55.
2. Bread and Wine ſeverally and aſunder, to ſet forth his death, wherein Corpus a ſanguine ſeparatum fuit, ſaith Janſenius, his Body and his BloodHarm. 896. was ſundred. The Papiſts, as to their Prieſts and ſome Kings or Princes, will allow bread and wine, but as to the common people, bread or wine they ſay by concomitancy, the blood is in the bread virtually, and ſo they ſhut up the wounds of Chriſt by their dry Maſs. But Chriſt would repreſent himſelf here not as a Lamb, but a Lamb ſacrificed and ſlain; and therefore the blood is ſevered from the body, as the money is not a priſoners ranſom, while it lies in the cheſt, but when it's paid: So the blood of Chriſt as ſhed is our ranſom. As Iſrael in the wilderneſs had a type of Chriſt, Manna which they did eat, and the rock alſo of which they drank, ſo have we the memorials of his body and blood, that we may eat and drink.
And which is the ſumme of all that may be ſaid on this point, ſince the Lord was pleaſed even under the Goſpel to continue that old way of Fellowſhip and Communion with his Church, by entertaining them at his own Table, upon his own chear in an Ordinance of eating and drinking; as he alwaies allowed the Iſraelites to feaſt with him upon the remainders of the Sacrifices in token of followſhip: and the very Heathens did by feaſting on their Sacrifices teſtifie their fellowſhip with their Idols, as is plain, 1 Cor. 10. 18, 19, 20. I ſee not how more fit materials could be uſed then Bread and Wine, which as they beſt ſtand with the ſimplicity of the Goſpel, ſo they are the moſt common and neceſſary attendants in all feaſts, and do both together ſet forth that full and perfect nouriſhment which we finde in Chriſt.
As for that I finde in Cyprian, and from him inCyp. Epiſt. 76. Aug. Tract. in Jo. cap. 6. 26. August. and after both, in moſt Divines, That as one bread is made of many grains, and one cup of wine of many grapes, ſo the Church is one Body of many Members; whoſe Communion and Fellowſhip is here profeſſed, teſtified and ſignified by their participation of one Bread and of one Cup: The alluſion is proper, and not unlike that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 10. 17. We being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread. And this union of members was anciently profeſſed with all dearneſs of love and affection in the uſe of this Ordinance; and they delighted to expreſs their diviſion and ſeparation from all the world, their combination and concorporation among themſelves, by all entercourſes of love and dearneſs that could be; their Feaſts of Love, their Kiſs, mentioned in Scripture and ancient Authours, are hereof great witneſſes.
But what ſhall thoſe places or Countries do that have no bread of corn, no fruit of the vine: I confeſs that though God ſaid in the Paſſeover, a LambExod. 12. 5. or Kid, yet Chriſt expreſſes nothing there of other materials, and therefore in caſe of extream neceſſity, where the proper Elements cannot be had, they muſt either be without the Ordinance, or celebrate in that which is Analogicall, and which paſſes for bread with them, or wine with them; which it's better (ſay ſome) to do, than wholly to be deprived;…oulin Buckler pag. 531. Beza Epiſt. 2. but this Eclipſe is not likely to be ſeen in our Horiſon, therefore I ſhall not further diſcuſs it.
§. 4 §. 4. The Rites or Actions about the Sacrament.
So much of the Elements, Bread and Wine.
Now I proceed to the Rites or Actions; and firſt them of Chriſts uſing, in which you are to uſe your eye: as in the Word preached God ſpeaks to your ear, ſo here he ſpeaks to your eye. The Sacrament is a viſible Word, and therefore I hold it requiſite that the Communicant be within ſight of the Elements and Actions, that he may ſee the bread and the wine, Taken, Bleſſed, Broken, Poured forth; and not in corners and holes, whence he hath not the actions under command of his eye. Not that I deny but a blinde man may receive the Sacrament, but that all means of ſpirituall impreſſion muſt be uſed. Behold, ſaith Moſes, the blood of the Covenant, Exod. 24. 8.
The firſt Action of Chriſt is, He took bread, likewife after ſupper, the cup, ſo Paul, ſo Luke. He took the bread, he took the cup, ſo Matthew and Mark: of the two Elements the Bread is firſt taken both by Chriſt, and by the Communicant: This order is to be held by the conſent of all the four Writers; And of Chriſts Action, let us Note
1. That Chriſt took the Bread into his hands, he took the Cup into his hands, obſerving the rite and cuſtom then uſed, and gave thanks over the Bread, holding it in his hands, and ſo over the Cup, having it in his hands: This is the firſt ſtep towards the ſeparating and ſetting apart the Elements; he took them in his hand, ſee there was a ſolemn rite that the pater familias did uſe to take into his hands and bleſs theſe principall parts of the meal or feaſt. The taking of the Lamb was the firſt action towards the Paſchall, Exod. 12. 2, 5, 21.
2. That Chriſt took and bleſt the Bread and the Cup ſeverally, one after the other: He took Bread and bleſt, and pronounced, This is my Body. Afterwards he took the Cup and bleſt, and pronounced, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood: The Evangeliſts Matthew and Mark expreſs it, Luke and Paul likewiſe confirm it; and if there were nothing elſe, the very rule and uſage amongſt the Jewes to bleſſe them ſeverally, would prove it to us.
3. But whether there was any intervall of time between his taking and bleſſing the Bread and the Wine, is a harder knot: Matthew and Mark ſay, As they were eating, or as they did eat, he took Bread: Luke and Paul ſay, After they had ſupped he took the Cup: This ſeems to plead for ſome intervall of time,Videtur ſaith Calvin in 1 Cer. 11. 25. In Mar. 14. 22. Beza. and yet if Matthew and Mark be viewed alone, the Action ſeems to be continued: What wedge muſt be uſed for this knot? Beza hints that foreign may be variouſly tranſlated, When they had eaten: but I ſhall not grant Beza his Interpretation, but hold to our own, and appeal to the rule or cuſtom then received amongſt the Jews, to decide the Controverſie: for if thoſe words, As they were eating, be all one with thoſe of Paul, After they had ſupped, then how doth Paul and Luke ſo frequently and emphatically apply them to the Cup, which may by that interpretation be ſaid of the Bread alſo. The riſeGretius in Matth. 26. 26. was, that while they were eating, not the Paſſeover Lamb (for ſo all that Chriſt did was after ſupper) but the post coenam or after ſupper, the ſecond courſe, and toward the end thereof, the Maſter took bread and bleſt and brake it, and diſtributed it with a ſignification of the bread of affliction in Egypt; then at the very cloſe, and after all eating, the Cup was taken and bleſt, what intervall of time went between I know not. Non conſtat, ſaith Calvin, whetherCalvin in … Co. 11. 25. the Action was continued, but I beleeve the Bread was eaten, before the Cup was bleſt or taken; and Chriſt that inſtituted no new Rites, but ſet aHugh Brought. new ſuperſcription on the old mettall, imitated this cuſtom, and took and bleſt the Bread while they were yet eating, and took and bleſt the Cup at the cloſe after all, and ſo all are agreed: And here let me ſhew you a reaſon why the Churches now are not bound to conſecrate and diſtribute the Bread before they conſecrate the Wine, as it was in Chriſts Supper, becauſe the Rite was ſo at that time, and the thing being meerly occaſionall, is not obligatory, but indifferent: We pronounce the words of ſignification, This is my Body, This Cup is, &c. ſeverally, but we do not diſtribute the Bread before we bleſs the Wine; that Chriſt did occaſionally to the Rite.
4. The Bread which Chriſt took into his hands, was ſuch as was obvious and ordinary, on the Table at that time, foreign, ſaith Matthew, ſignanter; ſomeCameron in Mycoth. Matth. 26. peculiar Bread deſigned and prepared for that uſe, doubtleſs unleavened, according to Law and cuſtom; and yet the Greek Church ſtiffly holds to leaven'd bread, on opinion that Chriſt kept his laſt Paſſeover on the 13th day of the monethmonth, one day before the time by Law prefixed for leaven to commence; and of this opinion for the day is a late Learned Writer, in his anſwer to ſix Queries, who alſo holds that Chriſt and his Diſciples at this time did eat no Lamb, but kept only the uſuall post coenum or afterſupper. As to the time I aſſent not, and therefore hold the bread unleavened, in which the Romaniſt celebrates the Supper; and Calvin would not contend in ſo ſlight a matter, againſt the ſame cuſtom uſed in Geneva; nor do we make it any matter of moment, but bleſs ſuch as the Table doth afford, being pure and wholſom, as the uſe requires.
The Cup which Chriſt took hath this mark, itforeign. …oſ. Hallel. was a Cup after they had ſupped; and that was the Cup of the Hallell, or of the Hymn the laſt Cup, which uſed very ſolemnly to be bleſt; this mark, after ſupper, differences it from that Cup, Luke 22. 17. He took the cup and gave thanks, and ſaid, Take this and divide it among your ſelves: This is not the Cup which Chriſt took into his Supper, for that comes after, ver. 20. There were divers Cups ſolemnly bleſt and given round at this Paſſeover feaſt, three or four, therefore this which Chriſt took in, is the very laſt, after which they eat and drunk no more that time: And the laſt Cup was even among the Heathens counted ſolemn and ſacred, in honorem Grotius in Matth. 26. 26.foreign, in honour of their good Genius, &c.
§ 5 §. 5. Of Chriſt his Conſecration or Bleſsing of the Elements.
The ſecond Rite or Action uſed by Chriſt, was giving thanks; He took Bread and giving thanks he brake; likewiſe alſo the Cup. He took the Bread and bleſſed, Matth. 26. …6. Mark 14. 22. He took Bread and gave thanks, Luk. 22 19. and St Paul here: Two of them ſay of the Bread, He bleſsed: Two of them ſay of the ſame Bread, He gave thanks. They all ſay of the Cup, He gave thanks; and yet in another place, 1 Cor. 10. 6. The Cup of bleſsing which we bleſs; what can be more plainly infer'd hence, then that theſe two words foreign, are in this buſineſs of one ſignification and effect, as in Mark 8. 6, 7. He gave thanks and brake the bread or loaves, the fiſhes he bleſt. Shall we be ſo trivially curious as to ſeek criticiſms in a thing ſo plain. Not only our Divines, but Romaniſts alſo conſent, he bleſt the Bread by thankſgiving and prayer over it; He prayd God, he bleſt God, or he gave God thanks, and thereby bleſt the Bread and Wine; therefore it is ſaid, The Cup of bleſsing which we bleſs, apply the one of theſe words to God, he gave him thanks, the other to the Bread, as Paraeus and others, all comes to one, the Bread and the Cup were bleſt by Prayer andIn loc. Janſen. Harm. p. 96. Thankſgiving. Thus the Jew in his form bleſſed his Bread and Cup, by bleſſing God that created the fruit of the earth, and of the vine, and theſe two words in Greek expreſſe but that one in the Hebrew Barak, as Maldonate and Paraeus note, and this bleſſing is that we call Conſecration or Sanctification, by which the Elements are ſet apart to holy uſe, and ſegregated from common or prophane; For the further clearing of which,
Firſt, That Chriſt, whether at miraculous meals,Calvin. in loc. P. Martyr. in locum. Mark 6. 41. or at common ſittings down with his Diſciples, Luke 24. 30. Matth. 14, 19. alwayes gave thanks and bleſſed the bread. Let his holy example be a command to us. The Jew held his meat prophane, untill he had bleſt it. He had a form of Religion beyond moſt of us, therefore the Apoſtle uſeth the word, It's ſanctified; It's ſanctified, or made legitimate unto us by the Word that warrants it, and prayer that bleſſeth it, 1 Tim. 4. 5. For ſhame either learn of Chriſt, or of the Jew; mock not God with pulling a hat over your face, but give thanks and bleſſe.
Secondly, We finde no form of words uſed by Chriſt in this Conſecration or Bleſſing, none of the Evangeliſts tell us, what words he uſed, but they expreſſe the action in the ſame words of ordinary grace at meals, He gave thanks, he bleſſed, in what wordsEſtius in loc. it is not reported to us; He prayed (ſaith Eſtius) that the Bread and Wine might be turned into his very body and bloud; So he imagines; But who told him ſo? No Scripture nor ancient Father. The Jewiſh form of words is known in their Rituals, Rara benedictio (ſaith Scaliger) without theſe ſolemn words, Bleſſed be thou, O Lord, that haſt ſanctified us by thy commands, and given us a charge concerning ſuch or ſuch a thing. In reaſon Chriſt did accomode his bleſſing to the occaſion, praiſing God for his Redemption of man-kinde, and for the coming of his Kingdom, for his new Teſtament or Covenant, and a bleſſing upon his Ordinances and people. Ignorantia licita eſt, ſaith Scotus, It's a lawfull ignorance not to know Lib. 4. diſt. 8. qu. 2.the words of conſecration. But as to thoſe operative and converſive words (as they call them) This is my body, wherein the Schoolmen ſhow their learned fopperies, thoſe almighty words, whereby a ſilly Prieſt makes his maker; And as Lapide hyperbolicallySee Annot. in 1 Cor. 11. 25. ſaith, If Christ had not been incarnate, would have incarnated him; They muſt not be angry, if with Pope Innocent the third, that great Creatour of Tranſubſtantiation, we deny them to be the words of Conſecration for three Reaſons:
1. Becauſe Chriſt bad his Diſciples, Take and Eat This is my body. Reaſons why they are not the words of conſecration.before he pronounced thoſe words, This is my Body, and he did not ſure bid them, Take and Eat the Bread before it was bleſſed and conſecrated.
2. Becauſe the words of conſecration or bleſſing ſhould in reaſon be ſpoken to God, not to the Diſciples of the bread, as theſe are.
3. Becauſe theſe words, This is my Body are aſſertive, ſignifying what the bread is, and (as one of themſelves ſaith) ſhould be falſe and untrue, if they ſhould not ſignifie what the bread is, before the words be pronounced, not what they ſhall be afterward. God when he created light, ſaid not, This is light, but Let there be light.*4 Chriſt ſpake theſe words at the conſecration.
Thirdly, The form of Conſecration or bleſſing uſed by the Churches of Chriſt is Thankſgiving and Prayer, reciting the words of Inſtitution, as they are here in Paul, or the other Evangeliſts. We (ſaithLib. 6. de Euch. cap. 5. §. 12. Chamier ſpeaking of the French Churches) do religiouſly obſerve, to pray to God that theſe Elements which Chriſt hath ſanctified may be profitable to us unto ſalvation, and we recite to a word the firſt Inſtitution of this Ordinance out of Saint Paul, viz. in this very Chapter. So the Church of England in their form, ſo is it directed ſince, Thankſgiving, Prayer, and the words of Inſtitution recited, as for Exhortations ad populum, then alſo uſed, with which anciently in England, and now, we firſt begin, together with places of Scripture memorized and in ulatum of the worthy, they are rather to conſecrate you, and quicken up unto livelineſſe your faith and graces. Now we may not take foreign, ſtrictly to exclude prayer; For as Chryſoſtome obſerves, it denotes the praiſing ofExercit. p. 382. P. Martyr. in 1 Cor. 11. 24. God, the giving of thanks, prayer, and the bleſſing of the Symbols, and therefore we reade in Justin Martyr, in this action, foreign, & foreign Epiſt. 2. Lib. de Trin. 3. cap. 4.foreign, and Auſtin cals it Panem prece myſtica celebratum; So Jerome Janſen. Harm. p. 99.ad Evagrium. So others, So generally Chriſt made choice of, and ſanctified theſe Species, or theſe kinds, Bread and Wine to be the Materials or Elements of his Supper, and theſe we bleſſe by prayer and thankſgiving, reciting his Inſtitution, The Cup of bleſsing which we bleſſe, 1 Cor. 10. 16. and this is verbum ad Elementum, or ſanctifying by the Word and Prayer, and from this word foreign, giving thanks: The Lords Supper hath been anciently called foreign, the Euchariſt, foreign, ſaith Juſtin, foreign Apol. ….foreign. Origen. cont. Celſ. l. 8.
§. 5 §. 6. That a Presbyter only can conſecrate or bleſse the Elements to this uſe.
Fourthly, I told you before, that this Action or Rule is Chriſts, He gave thanks, or he bleſsed, and for after-times he commanded his Apoſtles, hoc facite. This was not then the action of the Communicant, they eat and drink, but they do not conſecrate, this is the action of thoſe that Chriſt authorizeth by a lawfull calling to be Stewards of his Word and Sacraments. The Pater-familias did bleſſe the Bread and Cup in and unto his own family or company, becauſe it was a houſe, a chamber-ſupper, but the Temple ſervice of ſacrificing was lawfull to none, but to a Prieſt; and if Chriſt hath ordained a lawfull calling of Officers and Miniſters, called his for the ſervice of his Church under the Goſpel, as it appears to us; this act of all others doth properly belong to them to bleſſe in his Name, for it is foreign, publick Office, we finde no Rule or Example in Scripture to the contrary, and if that be a good argument in point of calling, which is delivered Heb. 7. 13, 14. that of the Tribe of Judah no man gave attendance at the Altar, for Moſes ſpoke nothing of that Tribe concerning Prieſthood, then we may reaſonably argue, That no private man that is not called by God can perform the Office of a publick Miniſter, for Chriſt ſpake nothing of them concerning the Stewardſhip of his Myſteries. Juſtin Martyr is clear the foreign didApol. 2. bleſſe and conſecrate, the Deacons did indeed carry about the bread and wine, and deliver them, but not bleſſe them, and therefore Jerom ſpeaking of the difference between a Deacon, and a Presbyter, or a Miniſter, ſaith, What doth the Deacon ſwell againſt the Ministers ad quorum preces corpus Domini conficitur, by or at whoſe prayers the body of Chriſt is made? Whitak. de Euchar. 651.I ſhall not be tedious in this point, Convenit inter omnes Pontificios. Inſtit. l. 4. e. 15. §. 20.It's agreed on all hands by the Papiſts for the Character ſake, and for our Divines. Calvin ſaith, De Euchar pag. 656.It's a part of the Eccleſiastical Ministry to diſpenſe the Sacraments, and if you will, you may ſee Whitakers de Euchar. who acknowledgeth, That the efficacy of the Sacrament depends not on the perſon or quality of the Miniſter (though Jerom on 2. Ephan. 3. hath a ſtrange paſſage to the contrary) yet that it is no Sacrament, except he that celebrates it have authority from Chriſt Jeſus, whom he cals Sacrilegious and Prophane perſons that dare attempt it without Commiſſion, and makes the difference thus, What if any man ſhall ſet a publick Seal, which he hath ſtolen into his hands, Is it all one as if done by a publick Notary, or allowed Officer? No, ſurely. I know there is a little diſſertation de coena, that debates the Queſtion, what may be done, ubi Pastores deſunt? And I know the Socinians, thoſe Levellers of Divinity, that ſlight Chriſt into a meer man, his bloud from a Sacrifice to a Martyrdom, the Sacraments into void and empty figures, and the Miniſters into fore men of the Jury, if ſo much; but ſtand you in the old wayes in this point.
§. 7 §. 7. That the change of the Elements is onelyonly of their uſe.
Fifthly, The change of the Elements of bread and wine by vertue of Chriſts ſanctifying or bleſſing them, is not any change or alteration of the Elements themſelves, but of their uſe and office; The change is relative, not inherent, Panis certa conſervatione, Co…. Fauſt. l. 20. c. 13. Apol. 2.fit myſticus, ſaith Auſtin; now the bread is not common bread, ſaith Juſtin, foreign, &c. The bread when it doth percipere vocationem Dei, ſaith Irenaeus, then it is not common bread, but theLib. 4. c. 34. & l. 5 c. 4. Euchariſt of the body and bloud of Chriſt. If the bread ſhould be changed in ſubſtance, what argument could the ancient Fathers have found thence to prove againſt Marcion? that Chriſt had not a phantaſticalIren l. 5 c. 4. and aiery body; And how again could they every where allude thus, that the Divine Nature of Chriſt did not deſtroy the humane? As the ſymbolical Nature of the Elements deſtroyes not the ſubſtantial and natural being; The water of Baptiſm is water ſtill; The Rock that was Chriſt, was a Rock ſtill; The Serpent on the Pole was braſſe ſtill; The great Seal that conveys a great Eſtate is Wax ſtill. The uſe, the office, the relation of theſe ſacramental myſteries is high and admirable, and becauſe the ſpiritual ſignification and uſe is ſo admirable, therefore the Fathers foreign, exceeding rhetorically and hyperbolically do ſpeak of them to awaken and quicken, and cheer up the ſpirits of people to look upon and uſe them in their ſymbolical uſe, as inſtruments and exhibitive conveyances of Chriſt to our faith. Bellarmine triumphs in one word of Cyprian de Coena, Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9.Panis non effigie, ſed natura mutatus, nullam admittit ſolutionem, a crack of vanity; That piece is later then Cyprian, but if his, by ſinne of firſt parents, natura humana, humane nature was changed, ſaith Auſtin, Aug. de cin. lib. 14. c. 12.and when a man is regenerated, his nature is changed, ſay we, how, not his fleſh, his body, but quality, &c. Naturam expellas furcâ licet, what's that butVide Forbes Epiſt. Theol. p. 537. quality or cuſtome, not ſubſtance; The holineſſe of any thing ſanctified to God, infers a change of uſe and relation, but not of ſubſtance, conſecrations of times, perſons, places, things, may appropriate them to holy uſe and ends, and there is accordingly an eſteem or reverence of ſuch things ſo ſet apart, but the ſubſtance of the things is as it was; for conſecration is not a Philoſophers-ſtone, holy things may be ſpent in their uſe, as the Sacrifices of old, the Paſchal Lamb, the bread and wine in the Supper, but the ſanctifying of them to that uſe doth not firſt change them into the thing ſignified, and ſo deſtroy the ſign and ſignification, as the relation is deſtroyed ſublato fundamento; Every Papiſt is bound to have the faith of miracles; for the miracle of turning ſtones into bread is nothing ſo great as this of turning bread into Chriſts body. Maldonate hath a ſtory, that in his dayes there was a book came forth, De Arte nihil credendi, and that there was but one true ſaying in it, which was this, He that will be an Atheiſt, let him firſt be a Calviniſt, and if there had been in that book, He that will believe any thing, let him first be a Papiſt, there had been another, or rather, one true ſaying indeed.
§. 8 §. 8. Of Chriſts Action of Breaking the Bread.
Thirdly, The next Rite or action of Chriſt, He brake it, and ſo ſay all the three Evangeliſts, and he ſaid, as here it follows, This is my body broken for you, and concerning his bloud both Matthew and Luke ſay thus, This is my bloud which is ſhed for you, which (as ſome ſay) was in the parallel, the Cup repreſented correſpondent to the breaking of the bread by theMorton in loc. pouring forth of the wine out of ſome greater veſſel into the Cup, and ſo the bread is broken, the wine is poured out, as the body of Chriſt was crucified, and his bloud ſhed: Upon this Action we ſhall for memory ſake ſpeak of theſe particulars:
1. That from hence the Euchariſt or Lords Supper hath been called foreign, The breaking of bread, as the phraſe, Acts 2. 42, Acts 20. 7. have been interpreted: So Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread which we break, Is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? Thus ſome love to ſpeak in our dayes, calling (I wiſh it be not out of ſingularity) this Sacrament, The breaking of bread, which as it is by Synecdoche of the part for the whole, ſo it was uſed by the Hebrews of any common feaſt or meal, when they did eat together, and is applied to this Sacrament, but at ſecond hand; They began all their ſolemn meals with bleſſing, and breaking of bread, and their feaſting was called eating of bread, Gen. 4…. 25. a form ofCaſaub. Exerc. 16 p. p. 339. Beza in Act. 2. 42. & 46. ſpeech new and inſolent to Greek and Latine ears, who called their feaſts by the other element foreign, or convivia, drinkings together.
2. Chriſt at all other meals, where he was Maſter of the meal and bleſt, did alſo break the bread, for he that pray'd the bleſſing, was by the Jews calledGiodw. in Antiq. Jewiſh. in the Paſſeover ex Druſi…. Habbotſeang, the breaker at his meal-meals, and at other, he bleſt and brake, but in this Paſchal Poſtcaenium, or Supper, (to which you muſt ſtill have your eye) the uſual Rite was, That he that bleſt broke theGrot. in Mat. 26. Scult. de emend. l. 6. p. 536 bread into parts to be diſtributed to the gueſts or ſitters, and the pieces were about the bigneſs of an Olive,Morton. in loc. Martyr. in loc. Beza. in Act. 2. ſaith Scaliger. He that brake did eat one, and the reſt were communicated; for their bread at this time was not, as learned men ſay, great and thick loaves, but42. Steph. Gloſſa Mat. 26. broad and thin, inſtar placentae, like your Cakes here in England; If they were thick as ours, then may the knife Leviter ſcindere non obſcindere, and ſo be broken.
3. The Churches of God do many of them hold this Ceremony of breaking of the bread, and it ought to be holden. Our Churches, ſaith Paraeus, do Par. in loc.rightly obſerve it: And in all our Churches (ſaith Chamier) we uſe it: And it hath a command, Do this, Chamier. De Euchar. lib. 7. c. 11. Piſcat. in loc. Paraeas i… 1 Cor. 11. contro. 2 ſed non integram.ſaith Piſcator. And therefore it is not adiaphorous or indifferent: And there is a Diſſertation in Paraeus fully debating the point, in which he doth not ſay, The Sacrament is null without it; nor doth Beza ſay ſo, Epiſt. 2. Nor yet that it is meerly indifferent and left to choice, but uſefull and requiſite, he holds it for good ends and ſignifications, as I ſhall ſhew, and he affirms, That it continued in the Church, and was uſed for a thouſand years af…er Chriſt. But the Papiſts as ſacrilegious, they ſteal away the Cup from the people; So they uſe the Bread ſuperſtitiouſly, making their Hoſt into pines nummularios, little round wafers, like our money, and put them whole into the mouths of the Communicants; For, ſaith the learned Janſenius, The Church (viz. of Rome) doth laudably Harm. 895.obſerve, that the Euchariſt be toucht only by ſacred hands (viz. the Prieſts: As for Chriſt (ſaith he) Promore fecit, he followed the Cuſtom or Rite at that time.
4. This Bread was broken, and Wine poured forth:Calvin. in loc. P. Martyr. in locum. Beza in loc.
1. For the more lively repreſentation of the death and grievous ſufferings of our Lord; for though a bone of him was not broken, nor his body properly, yet the Apoſtle cals it broken in regard of thoſe wounds, and pains, and torments, which brought forth a violent death, and all this for us; As the corn is not grinded or baked, nor the bread cut or broken, but for us, that the breaking of his body might break our hearts, and his flowing bloud, ſhed our tears; for it is the higheſt repreſentation of death, the bread broken, and wine poured forth, and is uſefully obſerved to raiſe up ſuch affections, as the ſight of a dying Chriſt may work even in a heart of ſtone, as Chryſoſtom ſaid before.
2. It was broken for diſtribution ſake; for in Hebrew ſpeech, to break bread to the hungry, is to diſtribute it, Lam. 4. 4 and this hath another meaning in it, and ſets forth the communion and fellowſhip of the Church, all partaking of one Chriſt, and feeding on him, and his death unto eternal life, 1 Cor. 10. 17. We being many are one bread; We are one body, and of one holy fellowſhip and communion, For we are all partakers of that one bread; for Chriſt is that common center in whom we meet, and by union with him, we have communion with one another; and thus the ſignification is lively, one bread broken and divided amongſt many Communicants, who are one, is one Chriſt given wholly to every believer, and all believers one in Chriſt. This brotherhood was obſerved and noted for their mutual love in thoſe times, when their profeſſion of Chriſt diſtinguiſht them from all the Heathens about them, and when they were incloſed round by obſerving and cruel men that envied and hated them to death; now that heat is diffuſed, and not ſo concenter'd by the antiperiſtaſis, and ſo is not ſo warm; we ſtand in need of perſecution to make us love one another.
§. 9 §. 9. Of the Manner of Chriſts giving the Bread and the Wine.
Fourthly, The fourth Rite or Action of Chriſt, He gave it to his Diſciples, which in this place you finde not, but in the implication of the word Accipite, Take ye, but all the three Evangeliſts Matthew, Mark, Luke, expreſly ſay, He gave to the Diſciples, He gave to them; for the word Diſciple, I leave it a while, and only ſpeak of the Action, He gave, that the Diſciples received the bread and wine from Chriſt into their hands, and not put by him into their mouths, I make no queſtion, as I ſhall touch afterward: Nor do I doubt but they received them from his hand, for he bleſſed and brake, and reached them forth to them, and ſo the people may be ſaid to receive them from the hand of the Miniſter that conſecrates either mediately or immediately, which may be the true meaning of that ſpeech of Tertullian, Nec de aliorum manu De Corona.quam praeſiden…ium ſumimus, nor we take them (ſaith he) from the hands of others, but of our Preſidents or Miniſters, but the clear Queſtion will be, Whether Chriſt did with his own hand give to every particular perſon into his hand, the bread and the cup? And, Whether there were any words ſpoken particularly to every one in the delivery of them, as for inſtance, Take thou, Eat thou, Drink thou?
For the firſt, Whether Chriſt did with his own hand deliver the bread and cup into the hand of every particular Communicant, viz. immediately? We muſt look ſtill to the rite or cuſtome uſed in the Paſchal Supper; and if we conſider that well, we ſhall ſee it probable, that the Pater-familias did not riſe from his diſcumbency or poſture of lying, to go to every particular perſon, or that every one came to his hand, for there might be twenty at the Table, and not all within the reach of his hand, nor do we finde that Chriſt roſe up, nor that they roſe up to receive them. He ſaid, Take ye, eat ye, Drink all of it; and though he might give the Cup to the next into his hand, yet his ſpeech is general to them all, and ſo the bread and the cup paſt in the Poſtcaenium, or Paſchal Supper. Maldonate ſaith, He reacht out theMaldona in Mat. 26. 26. bread ſigillatim, but the cup he gave to the next, and he to the next; for, he ſaith, Luk 21. 17. Take this, and divide it among your ſelves, wherein though heDe emend. l. 6. Martyr. in 1 Cor. 11. 24. be miſtaken in the cup, as not being the ſame with ours, ut ſupra, yet the rite and manner of diſtribution is very like to be the ſame in both: So Scaliger, that the Maſter firſt delivered the cup to the ſecond, the ſecond to the next, till it had paſt through the foreign, or Table; and Janſenius ſaith, That heJanſ. Harm. p. 895. gave to each particular his part, Aut patinam tradidit propinquioribus, or gave the plate or diſh with broken bread in it to them that ſate neareſt, and then ſucceſſively and in order it paſſed along: As alſo, ſaith he, he delivered the Cup, ſo that every Communicant had his part from the hand of Chriſt, either immediatly or mediatly. As for after times, and not long after, that of Justin Martyr is expreſs, that when the Miniſters had bleſſed, the Deacons did carry it and deliver it to the ſeverall Communicants, and did either put each part into each perſons hand, or as I finde in Clem. Alex and. Strom. lib. 1. foreign, the diſtributers do ſuffer or permit each perſon to take his part of the bread. There might be different Rites in ſeverall Churches as to this point, and of no great moment one way or other; but for all the Communicants ſitting down at the very Table by companies, and their ſitting and receiving the Elements, I finde not in my ſimple reading in Antiquity, when Communicants grew numerous, and met in one common place to perform Divine Offices: but ſo did Chriſt and all other Paſchall ſocieties, which eat in chambers and houſes, and as I ſhewed you before, were not under ten nor above twenty of a company.
Let then the Lords and his Diſciples ſitting at the ſame Table in that Rituall poſture and manner then in uſe be holden as indifferent or appendant to the Paſchall cuſtom; for we ſhall never hit that pattern in all reſpects, becauſe they ſate at the Table while Chriſt bleſſed and brake the Bread, which we that have ſeverall Tables full do not, nor can do; and let the Diſciples dividing among themſelves, or handing both the Bread and Cup from one to another, be accounted indifferent too, and hardly and not conveniently imitable in our numbers, yea and not certain neither (though very probable to me) for if one, as Peter Martyr holds it ſo, yet another, asMartyr. in 1 Cor. 11. 24. Paraus in locum, ſaith, that it's not obſcure out of the Hiſtory, that when the Lord ſaid, Take ye, Benedict…m & fractum panem ſingulis manu p…rexiſſe, he reacht the Bread to every perſon with his hand.
Let us touch the other Queſtion, Whether there were any words ſpoken to every one at the delivering into his hands; and here indeed we finde nothing but Take ye, eat, this is my Body broken for you: Drink ye all of it, this is the Cup of the New Teſtament; and doubtleſs the whole Inſtitution needs not to every ſingle perſon be repeated, having been recited in the Conſecration: Yet you know that in the form uſed in England, the Miniſter was appointed to deliver Bread and Wine into the Communicants particular hands, with a preſcript form of words, The Body of our Lord, The Blood of our Lord, &c. and Chemnitius Examen. de praparat. ad coenam.the beſt Scholar of all called Lutheran, ſaith, that the form of applying the words of Inſtitution to every Communicant, mihi maxime probatur, is beſt of all approved by him: And that in theſe words the Sacrament was delivered in the Church of old time, he cals in for witneſs Ambroſe, who hath indeed theſelib. 4. de Sac. ſub finem. words, the Miniſter ſaith Corpus Chriſti, & tu dicis Amen, The body of Chriſt, and thou ſaiſt Amen: And before this time Novatus diſtributing the Myſteries to every one his part, adjured them into his faction firſt foreign, in ſtead of ſaying Amen, Hiſtor. lib. 6. cap. 35.ſaith Euſebius: which Amen it ſeems every Communicant ſaid when the Bread was put into his hand, as Juſtin Martyr ſaith, when the Miniſter hath finiſht his Conſecration-prayer, all the people preſentApol. 2. foreign makes acclamation to it ſaying Amen. IEccl. Pol. lib. 5. p. 366. conclude with Learned Hooker, that upon the ground that Sacraments are particularly applying Ordinances, and we are dull and heavy-hearted, If [I Baptize thee] offend not, why ſhould [Eat thou] offend any man? I conclude upon the whole matter, that what is moſt to the reverence of this Ordinance, and ſerves beſt to raiſe up and elevate the peoples hearts, ſhall be followed by me.
So much for the opening of the Rites or Actions uſed by Chriſt, or that are to be uſed by any Miniſter that ſhall in his Name celebrate this Ordinance, He took the Bread, and the Cup, He bleſſed or gave thanks, He brake, he gave: In which it is to be noted, that he did not recede from the then received rite or cuſtom for both the Elements; and the rites are quite through the ſame which were uſually and by cuſtom at that preſent on foot in their Paſchall Solemnities; and which is more, yet this Bread and Cup ſo bleſt and given at theſe Solemnities are not found to ſtand by any expreſs command of holy Scripture, but were ſuch as their wiſdom had by cuſtom made uſe of in this ſervice, of that Bread and that Cup the Lord was pleaſed to make the Seals of his Body and Blood, as Hugh Broughton, our LearnedBroughton in Dan. pag. 46. Countryman, obſerves.
§. 10 §. 10. Of the outward Actions pertaining to the Communicants.
Now I proceed to the other ſort of outward Rites or Actions pertaining to the Communicants, which are theſe; He ſaid, Take eat; He ſaid, Drink ye all of it, as you may ſee in St Matthew, who wasMyroth. lin Matth. 26. 26. preſent in the action, and as it is here. Forſan at haec ſunt vetus formula, &c. ſaith Cameron. Haply that this was the old Rite, but in the Jewiſh Rituals that are now, as it is recited by Cameron in the Hebrew, and by Scaliger in Greek, it is ſomewhat diverſe.Scaliger de Emend. lib. 6. pag. 536. Thus every one that is hungry, let him come and eat, and whoſo hath need, let him come and keep the Paſſeover.
1. Take ye: It is to be underſtood of taking in the hand, for it's not likely that Chriſt roſe and put the Bread and Wine in every ones mouth, ſaithBeza Epist. 2. Beza, but as the Cup paſſed from the neareſt to Chriſt to them more remote; ſo it's probable (ſaith the ſame Author) that the Bread alſo did. There is a great ſtirre about the Communicants taking the Elements in his hand, not as though, if other wiſe, the Sacrament was a nullity, as Beza proves; for aBezain Epist. 2. man may have no hands to take it with, but for the decency and ſignificancy thereof: The taking in the mouth only being more like that of Bruits, which take their meat with mouth or beak as Chamier ſaith, than that of men; and there is a whole Chapter ſpent in reciting Antiquities for this taking in the hand, in Chamier, who ſaves me the labour to recite any ofDe Euchar. l 7. cap. ult. them to you, and this is all upon occaſion of the Papiſts, who take the Bread into their mouths, and touch it not with hand, out of a too ſuperſtitious venerationBeza Epiſt. 2. of the Elements, as Beza notes: Nor do they of them that ſearch out the footſteps of this cuſtom riſe any higher than about five or ſix hundred years ago.
The ſignification of it is, the appropriation of Chriſt to our ſelves, whom God makes ours by his gift, and we make ours by faith, even as truly as if he were put into our very hand. They that makeParaeus in loe. Taking and Eating divers Rites of divers ſignifications, as many of our excellent Divines do, do tell us that there are divers degrees of faith, that by taking Chriſt we have propriety in him, He is ours: by eating his Body and drinking his Blood we have comfort and refreſhment from him; and that he is firſt ours in claim, before he be ours in comfort; as firſt take, then eat. In the uſe of the brazen Serpent our beleeving was ſet forth by an act of our eye,Joh. 3. 14. looking up; but here 'tis ſet forth by an act of ourhand, retenſion or receiving; the promiſe of Adoption is made to our receiving Chriſt, Joh. 1. 12 and our faith muſt be a Chriſt taking, a Chriſt-receiving faith: Chriſt would be ours, elſe he would not have inſtituted this Chriſt-applying Ordinance: He came into the hand of murderers that ſlew him, that crucified and wounded and dying, he might be taken in the hand of thy faith; faith like the hand hath a faculty of working and bringing forth obedience, but like the hand again, it hath a taking and receiving faculty, which is the moſt excellent, the juſtifying act of faith, taking Chriſt.
Take ye, is not a bare permiſſion but a command, it's our duty, as well as our benefit, to receive Chriſt, and conſequently not to receive him, is both ſinne and miſery.
§. 11 §. 11. Of Sacramentall Eating and Drinking Chriſts Body and Blood.
2. Eat ye, drink ye all of it: Chriſt ſpeaks and repeats often Joh. 6. the eating of his fleſh, and drinking of his blood, at which ſome of his followers took offence, conceiving him carnally and literally, which he told them were to be underſtood ſpiritually, ver. 63. There is a ſpirituall eating and drinking Chriſt his fleſh and blood by faith only, which is extra-ſymbolicall or without the Sacrament, for that Doctrine was delivered a year or two before this Sacrament was inſtituted; and it is ſuch, as without which ye have no life in you, ver. 53. which may not be ſaid of all that never received this Sacrament; but that ſpirituall eating and drinking is here ſymbolized, as that fleſh and blood is: For the underſtanding of which, let us neither be like the carnall Iſraelite that did eat Manna, and drink of the Rock, but neither ſaw nor taſted Chriſt in them; nor on the other ſide let us be like the Capernaites, Joh. 6. that had a groſs apprehenſion of eating very fleſh, and drinking mans blood, but rightly conceive the meaning thus:
1. The firſt and not the leaſt thing is this, that This is the one and only Ordinance under the Goſpel where eating and drinking are Sacred and Religious acts: for in all the world, among all ſorts of men, friendſhip, fellowſhip, communion, are maintained and ſhown in feaſting together, eating and drinking together; and our God never let his Church be without ſuch an Ordinance, wherein he and his people might teſtifie this fellowſhip and communion: In the Law there was not only a Lamb roſted, but in all their Shelamim or Peace-offerings, they that brought them had part to feaſt upon and make good cheer as at all their feaſts they rejoyced before the Lord, God bidding th…m to his own Table to feed upon Sacrifices, for they that eat of the Sacrifices are partakers of the Altar, 1 Cor. 10. 18. & Rev. 3. …0. I will come in and ſup with him, and he with me: Thus God entertains his friends, invites them to eat and drink with him upon his own Sacrifices, upon Chriſt the great Sacrifice: It's Gods own cheer, provided for ſuch Abrahams as are the friends of God: What a favour and condeſcenſion of God is this! What honour and dignity is duſt and …ſhes graced with, to ſit together and feaſt and have fellowſhip with God in an Ordinance of eating and drinking the fleſh and blood of this Sacrifice Jeſus Chriſt! Nay, and further yet, It was a cuſtom in Covenants making that the Conſederates feaſted, eat and drank together; therefore Birith the Hebrew word Covenant, may come of Barah to eat, and ſo ſtill, and further it is implied that this is a Covenant ſolemnity, an eating and drinking of confederates together, God ſmels a ſavour of reſt in the Sacrifice of Chriſt, and we eat and drink of that fleſh and blood ſacrificed unto God, and renew our Covenant with him, and he with us, by mutuall feeling, he to be ours, we his. I am ſo taken up with this, that if no more be ſaid, I ſhould be ſatisfied, but there is more.
2. That Chriſt is full and perfect nouriſhment of the ſoul, both meat and drink; Joh. 6. 55. My fleſh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed, farre beyond Manna, which yet was called Angels food, as the ſubſtance is beyond the type: ſights may pleaſe the eye, ſounds or airs the ear, but they are not ſo neceſſary as nouriſhment unto life; life cannot be maintained without nouriſhment; growing bodies foreign, ſaith Hypocrates: growing Chriſtians ſtand in need of much nouriſhment to bring them up to their foreign, the ſtature of a full Chriſt: decaying Chriſtians ſtand in need of nouriſhment to repair decaies: Every life, be it never ſo little muſt be nouriſht, ſo neceſſary is Chriſt to every Chriſtian, and ſtill more of Chriſt, for his meat is Chriſt, his drink is Chriſt. As nothing ſo neceſſary, ſo neither ſo ſweet and pleaſant, ſights are pleaſing to the eye, and ſmels to the ſenſe, but nothing is ſo cloſe and delightfull as the meat and drink to the ſenſe of taſting; Chriſt is ſweet to faith, as meat and drink to hunger: There is no content comparable to the receiving of Chriſt. He is Manna, the beſt Bread and Wine, the beſt drink. The fruition of the joys of heaven is ſet forth by the pleaſure of eating and drinking, Luk. 22. 30. That you may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdome. It was experimentally ſaid of Galeacius that all the delights of this world are not comparable to an hours enjoyment of Chriſt Jeſus.
2. No act of ours could ſo well have ſignified the cloſe and intimate union of Chriſt with a Beleever: We may ſee at a diſtance, and hear and ſmell, but not taſte nor eat nor drink; the meat and drink is concorporated into us, and is made fleſh and bone with us, Job. 6. 56. He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my blood, dwels in me, and I in him: Chriſt muſt be preſent to the faith of a Chriſtian, for we cannot eat and drink that which is abſent. This union with Chriſt is reall, though myſticall, and it is lively drawn forth in this Ordinance, under the reſemblance of eating and drinking: We hardly conceive, and hardly beleeve it, but when we ſee the graft live, we are ſure it's knit; and we may be as ſure of our union with Chriſt, by his ſpirituall ſap of Grace which we finde is in us.
4. This command, Take and eat, goes before the pronouncing of the words, This is my Body; Aquinas ſaith it is a Hyſteron Proteron, but I ſhall not take his word, let's hear him ſpeak that was preſent, an ear witneſs, an eye witneſs Matth. 26. 26, 27. Take eat, This is my Body; Drink ye all of it, For this is my Blood: what ſtands this For for, if drink ye, did not go before? This obſervation is noted by almoſt all Divines from Peter Martyr, and Mr Hooker makes uſe of it thus, That Chriſt is not preſent in the Elements, but in the worthy receiver: The order of the words ſhews it, firſt eat and drink, then it follows, for this is my Body, and this is my Blood: an ingenious obſervation that cuts the hamſtrings of the Popiſh or corporall preſence in or under the outward ſignes, as if it were a knife ſet in the Text to cut that intricate knot, that makes ſuch a garboyle in the Text: when you take and eat by faith, then is the Body and Blood of Chriſt preſent to you, but not latent and hidden in the Bread or Cup: The union of Chriſt is not otherwiſe with the Bread then as the thing ſignified with the ſign, but it is with the Communicant, theHooker. Eccleſ. Polit. p. 359. believer really, though ſpiritually; the ſacramental ſigns do exhibit Chriſt, but not contain him under them, they contain not the grace which God beſtows with or by them.
§. 12 §. 12. Of Spurious Rites and Geſtures.
So have I opened to you the outward Elements, the outward Rites or Actions of this Sacrament, whether thoſe of Chriſt, or of the Communicant, and theſe are genuine and proper, by which the Sacrament is ſutable to the Inſtitution; as for other Rites which time or ſuperſtition have introduced without example or command they are, adulterine and ſpurious, eſpecially the adoration of the Euchariſt upon opinion of the converſion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Chriſt, which whether it be performed at the elevation or lifting up of the hoſt by the Prieſt in the Maſſe, or at the circumgeſtation or carrying it up and down in proceſſion in the ſtreets, as is uſual in Popiſh countreys, is no better then abominable Idolatry, even by their own confeſſion; For Coſterus ſaith, That the bread-worſhip was the greateſt Idolatry that ever was in the world. If the bread be not turned into the true and natural body of Chriſt, as (ſaith a learned man)Dr J. Burgeſſe Lawf. of kneeling, p. 113. upon my ſoul it is not, and if the perſwaſion of Chriſts real preſence in the Euchariſt, will by no means excuſe their adoration from Idolatry, much leſse excuſable is any Proteſtant who is perſwaded of the contrary. As for other circumſtances of the action, as the time, viz. at night, in the cloſe of the Paſchal Supper, the place an upper-room or chamber, Mark …4. 15. The gueſt; twelve in number, Matth. 26. 20. The geſture which was diſcubiture or lying on couch-b…ds fitted to the Table, which the Jews were at the Paſſeover by cuſtom fixed unto, as appears by the ritual, In other Scaliger. lib. 6. De emend. pag. 534.nights we ſit or lie on couches, but in this we lie along. Theſe, I ſay, are moveables, and not of the freehold of this Ordinance: Nor ſhall I ſay any thing of theD. Burgeſs, ubi ſupra p. 112. geſture, which as it was uſed in England hath been an apple of contention and much written pro and con. The Reformed Churches vary, ſome ſit at, ſome about the Table, ſome receive this Sacrament paſſing by the Table in order, as in a Marah, as in the Reformed Churches in France, and I condemn them not; and for thoſe Divines of the Reformed Churches that diſliked our geſture uſed here in England, they did not many of them pronounce it ſimply unlawfull, but inconvenient, becauſe it was a geſture of adoration, and did not ſerve to pull the bread worſhip out of mens mindes, nor was ſo ſutable to this Ordinance, which is a Table Ordinance, nor to ſet forth that fellowſhip and communion, which is expreſt in eating and drinking with our Lord, theſe were their reaſons, and I do not know that I have any occaſion to debate the point, but to leave it determinable by the Churches of God, as may be moſt ſutable to the Decorum and nature of this Ordinance, for if I ſhould, ſome of you might haply ſay, that I made a Funeral-ſermon for meeting at Sacrament.
Having laid open the parts of this Supper, let us upon the whole matter ſtand ſtill a little and make Obſervation.