The Right Administration and Receiving of the Lords Supper, Treatise · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Some Obſervations upon the precedent Diſcourſes.
§. 1 NOte here the ſimplicity of this high and excellent Ordinance, the feaſt is dreſt out in plainneſs and ſimplicity, anſwerable to the ſimplicity of the Goſpel, as the Apoſtle cals it, 2 Cor. 11. 2. Here is no outward pomp or oſtentation, no ſtatelineſs to take the eye, for as gaudy attire becomes not mourning, ſo this Sacrament ſetting forth the paſſion and ſufferings, the death and bloudſhed of our Lord had not been ſutable to him in his loweſt eſtate and darkeſt eclipſe, if it ſhould have ſhined in outward luſtre. It was Tertullians Obſervation, Nihil obdurat, &c. nothing Lib. de baptiſmeſo hardens the mindes of men, as the ſimplicity of the works, and yet the magnificence of the promiſe, that great and glorious things ſhould be found under ſo plain a dreſſe, as a rich diamond in a plain caſe, to the end that the eye of faith might be more exerciſed then the eye of the body, and that the ſpiritual and inward part might be looked after and intended, Is not this the Carpenters ſonne? was a great ſtumbling block: and ſo may the ſimplicity of the two Sacraments be to us. The Temple, Utenſils and Service were rich and ſtately; Chriſt was prefigured in golden Types, But grace and truth came by Jeſus Chriſt, Joh. 1. 17. But we have a better Covenant, and better Promiſes, Heb. 8. 6. And if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains exceeds in glory, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c. but that was an outward, this an inward glory; that was in Moſes face, this in the face of Chriſt; that the carnal Jew might ſee, this the ſpiritual Chriſtian ſeeth; We ſaw his glory, Joh. 1. 14. or rather there the glory was veiled, But we with open face behold the glory of the Lord, 1 Cor. 3. 13, 18. The glory of their Ordinance was a ſtumbling block to them, for they reſted in the cabinet, and looked not for the jewels; The meanneſſe of our Ordinances are a ſtumbling block to us, for we look not for the tReaſure in ſuch earthen veſſels. God doth great things by pooreſt meanes, Jericho's wals fall at the ſound of Ramshorns, the fiery ſting is healed by a piece of braſſe, the ſight reſtored to the blinde by the Uſe of ſpittle and clay; The figure in this Sacrament is poor, the thing ſignified heavenly and rich; the Seal is mean, the inheritance or eſtate is great, but why were the types ſo rich, and our memorials ſo poor? You know Spectacles are for divers ſights, they had finer Spectacles, we better eyes; They had leſſe ſpirit ſtirring in the Ordinances then, than we now; if their Tree had more ſhadow, we have more fruit.
§. 2 Secondly, Take along with you alwayes the Analogy, proportion and ſimilitude between a Sacrament, and the thing of a Sacrament, between the ſigne and the thing ſignified. It's Auſtin his Rule, If Epiſt. 23. & al…bi.a Sacrament ſhould not have ſimilitude and reſemblance with that whereof it is a Sacrament, it ſhould not be a Sacrament; and from this ſimilitude or reſemblance it is that the ſigne is called by the name of the thing ſignified, as the bread, Chriſts body, the wine is called Chriſts bloud; The Rock was Chriſt, Circumciſion called the Covenant; The Lamb called the Paſſeover; and in common ſpeech, When we look on a Picture, we ſay, This is Caſar, this is Auguſtus, this is Hercules; nothing more ordinary. In the Sacrament this ſimilitude is a ſimilitude of proportionality (ſaith Bonaventure) conſiſting of four termes: You are moſt of you Arithmeticians, and you have a golden Rule, called, The Rule of Three, becaUſe three terms being given, the fourth is given▪ and this ſets forth to you the Analogy of a Sacrament in four termes; As water in Baptiſme waſhes the body, ſo the Spirit by his grace, or the bloud of Chriſt cleanſeth the ſoul; As the bread and wine nouriſh and refreſh the body, ſo the body and bloud of Chriſt nouriſheth and refreſheth the ſoul: As by the hand we take, and with our mouth we eat and drink the bread and wine, ſo by faith we receive the body and bloud of Jeſus Chriſt; If you deſtroy the ſimilitude, you deſtroy the Sacrament, as the Papiſts do by their Tranſubſtantiation, for they deſtroy the Analogy: Thus the accidents of Bread and Wine, or the Species, doe not nouriſh the Body (ſay we;) Nor the very Body and Bloud of Chriſt doth not paſſe into bodily nouriſhment (ſay they) (for it was horrible to imagine it) therefore there is no reſemblance, the ſimilitude is deſtroyed, and ſo the Sacrament.
§. 3 Thirdly, It is a moſt true, moſt firm and golden Rule, That a Sacrament out of the Uſe appointed Chami…r. de Luchar. l. 7. c. 4. §. 11. & l. 8. c. 3 Forbeſ. Hist. Theol p. 550.by God, hath not the nature of, nor is any more a Sacrament. It is not a Sacrament extra uſum, out of the actual Uſe. There muſt not onelyonly be Bread and Wine, but Bleſſing, and Taking, and Eating, and Drinking, or elſe to us there is no Sacrament; The Bread and Wine upon the Table are no Sacrament, but the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine; As in Baptiſm, the water is no Sacrament, but the waſhing with water is. The Papiſts confeſſe this of every Sacrament, and of Baptiſm, but not of the Lords Supper, which for Tranſubſtantiation-ſake, which troubles the whole Scaene, they hold to be a perfect Sacrament by conſecration, whether it be received by the Communicant, yea or no, and this is the Doctrine of their Schoolmen, and Aquin. part. 3. Qu. 80. & aliis Scholaſticis.all others of their confeſſion; We appeal to the Text, Take, Eat, This is my body; It's ſo, being taken and eaten, and not otherwiſe, The remains of Bread and Wine are no Sacrament, it is the Uſe which gives the Reaſon and nature of a Sacrament, and when and where the Uſe is not, the Sacrament is not. It's true in our vulgar ſpeech we call it the Sacrament, as on the Table; as the beaſt might be called a Sacrifice before it was ſlain, being deſtin'd and appointed thereunto 1 Sam. 13. 9 Whitak. de… acram. p 621, 624, &c.(as Whitaker ſaith) but it is no Sacrifice till ſlain and offer'd; nor was the Lamb a Paſſeover, but as it was eaten and roſted; ſo a meer ſtone, is a ſtone, whereſoever it be, but not a boundary, but in the Uſe; and an earneſt is money, but not an earneſt, except taken upon agreement; Bread and Wine are Elements, but not a Sacrament, till all the Rites and Actions be Obſerved, which God hath appointed, viz. in the participation and Uſe, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18. The Cup of bleſsing and the bread, are the Communion of the body and bloud of Chriſt, being partaken and received, not elſe.
There is ſome kinde of Argument urged againſt this Rule from the reſervation of the Bread eſpecially, and of the Wine, which is read of in Antiquity, and that was either private reſervation, when the Communicant carried home the Bread, and kept it in his cheſt for his private Uſe to eat of privately, or elſe it was by the Miniſters to give to lapſed Chriſtians in time of extremity or ſickneſſe that were debarred of publick participation: The firſt is mentioned Cypr. de lapſis.by ancient Authours, and by ſome commended, as Ambroſe de obitu. Satyr. Nazian. Epitaph pro ſor. This is excUſed by Jewell againſt Harding; As in time Forbeſ Hist. Theol. p. 553. Col. 1.of perſecution, when Chriſtians might be deprived of the publick Ordinance, and by others on other grounds.Burgeſs of knealing.
The other hath one onelyonly example in true Antiquity, and that is Serapions caſe, EUſeb. Hiſtor. lib. 6. cap. 34. and is excUſed by Chemnitius, as if Chem. de coena. Examen. p. 93.it was to oppoſe the Novatian opinion, of not reſtoring the lapſed, though penitent unto the Communion of the Sacrament; Of both theſe, I ſee no clear warrant in the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and therefore ſay with Cyprian, Non quod aliquis ante nos, &c. We are not to look what any hath done before us, but what he did and commanded that was before all, even Jeſus Chriſt.
§. 4 Fourthly, It is the peoples right to receive the Cup as well as the Bread, Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26. 27. Moulin Buckler p. 529.They all drank of it, Mark 14. 23. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink of this Cup, ſaith Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 26. Nothing more plain, and yet whether it be the ambition of the Prieſts, that would exalt themſelves above the people, or whether it be the fruit of Tranſubſtantiation, or both, this Cup is taken from the people in the Romane Churches, but it was not taken away by publick Decree, till the Council of Conſtance, Anno 1416. ſince which time there was great petitioning to the Council of Trent, for the Cup, but Chem. Exam. de coena. p. 134, 135. Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 6.they referr'd it to the Pope, in whoſe hands it lies, and it ſeems will lie, till God put another cup into his hand to drink. And ſo you ſee that that Council of Conſtance that burnt John Huſſe and Jerome did let out the bloud of good Chriſtians, and ſhut up the bloud of Chriſt from them. I conclude, Let us follow that which is ſimpleſt and pureſt according to Chriſts Inſtitution, and neither ſuperſtitiouſly reſerve, nor impiouſly mutilate the holy Ordinance.