CHAP. I.

THat we may fully and clearly un­derstand the Nature of this Myste­ry, 'tis necessary to search into the foun­dation and bottom of the whole matter; by neglecting which search many have spo­ken at randome or very Superficially of this Sacrament. Now to me it is very plain, that in instituting this Rite, our Sa­viour did not institute a Rite that was al­together a new thing to the World; but rather that he ordained a Sacred Feast which was very like and near of Kin to those Religious Feasts that were Custo­mary [Page 10] and Common in all (or most) pla­ces of the World for many and many A­ges before; and by so do­ing, did Certé nòn in hoc tantum sed & in Baptismi Sacramento videtur om­nino Christus se non Hebraerum tan­tùm sed & Gentium in idem foedus cooptandarum captui accommodasse: Grotius in Matth. 26. v. 27. accommodate himself, and adapt this So­lemnity to the ordinary and vulgar apprehensions of Mankind. Hence it is that we have such a little account given us of this great Ordinance in the Scriptures, for the three Evangelists, St. Matthew. St. Mark, and St. Luke, have given but a short Historical Relation of its Institution. St. Paul indeed hath occasionally said some­thing of it in one of his Epistles to the Church of Corinth; but the rest of the A­postles and holy Writers have said nothing: Because (as I conceive) by that Analogy, which People saw it to bear to other the like Mysteries, which were every where used, they could easily inform themselves of the Meaning, of the Ends, and of the Use of it; they might readily conclude, that 'twas intended to be a Religious, Foe­deral Banquet, proper indeed to Christia­nity, but answerable to those Religious Foederal Repasts, which did belong both to the Religion of the Jews, and to the Su­perstition of the Gentiles.

For our better understanding of this mat­ter, we must know, that it was customary [Page 11] of old, both among the blind Pagans and among the People of God, when they offered Sacrifices, to reserve some part of their offerings, and then to Feast toge­ther Religiously upon those remains. The careful observing and remembring of this thing will very much help us to apprehend the meaning of this Christian Banquet, as in the process of this disconrse will ap­pear. In the mean time 'tis necessary for us to note.

1. First, that Feasting after Sacrifice, and upon part of the Sacrifice, was very usual an­ciently even among such people as were stran­gers to the Common wealth of Israel. This is clear not only fromSo Alex­ander ab Alexandro speaking of the Re­ligious Rites that were used in honour of Hercules saith, In sacris Her­culis serva­tum legitur, ut sedentes epulis ves­cantur so­lennibus, quum in caeteris stantes & saltabundi vesci soleant, Geneal. dier. lib. 2 c. 14. And a little after, In templo Hecrulis juxta Tyberim ex decimis sacrum fit, ubi duae arae, exque earum altera mulieres degustare, ex alterâ viros tantùm vesci fas erat, ibid. Elsewhere he speaks of this custom more largely; Thissetae in Asia & Argini, ossa victimae tantùm in ignem mittunt, & defla­grant; ipsi autem vescuntur carnibus, lib. 4. c. 17. And speaking (as I con­ceive) of the old Egyptians, he saith, Ex reliquis Hostiae membris coenam apparabant, quibus qui sacris interfuere, vesci licebat, Ibid. —Graeci sa­tis habent femora a hostiae in duo frustra concisa igni subjicere, ut ex his holocau­stum, fieret, vesceribusque super prunas assis, pro jent aculo, mox carnibus veru decoctis, discumbentes vesci, ibid. —Apud Lacedaemonios in publica visce­ratione primi Reges erant, quibus duplum quam caeteris dabatur, privilegior, honoris praeter libamina, immolatorum quoque animalium coria debebantur, &c. —Hostiaque immolatá, & mysteriis peractis, qui sacris intererant, visco (leg. vino) & farre opposito, cum rotundis paniceis, quas in honorem deorum adhibe­bant, stantes vescebantur. Siquidem in aedibus deorum & epulari simul, & sacrum fieri servatum est: Nam Mensae in sacris aedibus ararum vicem praebebant. Quibus quidem extis & carnibus sacrificalihus, nisi ri­tè sacrificio perfecto, vesci non licebat, Delphis vero assuetum est, ut imma­lantes victimam, exclusis caeteris, vescantur. Ibid. —Inter (que) vescendum laudes diis canere assuerant his, quibus sacrum sieret. Ibid. And elsewhere, In Lu­dorum Apollinarium celebriate Matronas spectatae pudicitiae in propatulo epulari, omnique caeremoniarum genere festum diem agere produnt, &c. lib. 5. c. 26. In like manner Macrobius cites the Annals of L. Accius, concerning the Feasts of Saturn, Maxima pars Graium Saturno, & maximè Athenae Conficiunt sacra——Cumque diem celebrant per agros vrbesque ferè omnesExercent epulas laeti, famulosque procurantQuisque suos; nostrisque itidem est mos traditus illincIste, ut cum dominus famuli tum epulentur ibidem. Saturnal. lib. 1. c. 7. And speaking of the Furniture of the Heathen Temples, Principem locum (sayes he) obtinent Mensa, in quâ epulae, Libationesque & stipes reponuntur. Whence he clears Virgil for saying, Aeneid. 8. In mensa Laeti libant, divosque praecantur; Quia quod rectè fieri noverat, ab omnibus simul in templo epulantibus & u [...]i Sacratae assidentibus mensae factum esse memoravit, Macrob. Saturnal. lib. 3. c. 11. The learned Dr. Cudworth hath collecteth out of Homer and some other Heathen Authors, several passages more to the same purpose, True Notion, cap. 1. To which I only add that the Pagans objected against the Primitive Christians, that they did, Praecerptos cibos, & delibatos altaribus potus abhorrere; Caecilius in Minut. Fael. pag. 12. Edit. Lug. Bat. in quem lo­cum vide Comment. Elmenhorsti. See also Gyrald. de diis Gent. Syntagm. 17. And after him Stuckius, Antiquit. Convivial. lib. 1. cap. 33. where he treats at large of this matter. Humane Writers, but [Page 12] also by the Testimonies of Sacred Scrip­ture. And the first account we meet with touching this matter is in Exod. 18. For though it be probable, that these Religious Feasts I now speak of, were of as ancient institution as Sacrifices themselves, yet in this place of Scripute we find the first ex­press mention of them among Idolaters. For at ver. 12. of that Chapter we read, that Jethro Moses Father in Law, took a burnt-offering, and Sacrifices for God: And Aaron came, and all the Elders of Is­rael to eat bread (or to Feast) with Mo­ses [Page 13] Father in Law, before God. This was an Eucharistical Feast, whereby they gave Praise and thanks to God for the deliverance out of Egypt. Now, whatever Jethro himself was as to his Profession, if he was not an Idolater (as some conceive he was) yet he was the Priest of the Midianites, who were an Idolatrous people. For so we find that they and the Moabites called the people (of Israel) unto the Sacrifices of their Gods, and that the people did eat (meaning of their Sacrifices) Num. 25. 2. There are very many places in the Holy Scripture which shew, how addicted the Children of Israel were to eat and drink before the Heathen Idols, and to partici­pate of those offerings (which were made by the Heathens to their Gods) being tempted and led thereunto by the General practice of those Heathen people they conversed with. But for brevity sake I omit those instances, because they are subject to mens common observation and view, and because the thing is very plain from that great dis­pute in the ancient Christian Church, which was occasioned by this general practice. The things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 20. And yet it seems, many raw Chri­stians in those times did go and eat of those Idol-Sacrifices; some with Conscience of [Page 14] the Idol (i. e. believing those Idols to be true Deities, and those Idol-Feasts to be a­vailable unto them) unto this hour eat it, saith he, 1 Cor. 8. 7. To stop this evil course, a Canon was made at the Council of Jerusalem, that Christians should abstain from Meats offered unto Idols, Act. 15. AndVide Grot. Tom. 3. pag. 5 1. a. the reason was, because by sitting at meat in the Idols Temple, they made themselves partakers of the Table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10. 21.

Now this doth sufficiently shew, that Feasting upon Sacrifice was generally used of old even among Heathen nations; and the observation hereof together with the Knowledge of the meaning and ends of those Heathen Feasts, will very much help us to understand the full meaning and rea­son of this Christian-Feast. For this Reli­gious Banquet doth resemble, and is Ana­logous unto those Religious Banquets which all people were wont to celebrate after the offering up of their Sacrifices: For as they Feasted upon a Sacrificed Beast, so we feast upon a Sacrificed Jesus: But with this two­fold difference; first, that our Sacrifice is not repeated (as theirs was) but was offe­red up once for all upon the Cross. Se­condly, that whereas they did eat the Re­mainder and the very substance of their Sacrifices, we do not Feast upon the very [Page 15] Numerical Flesh of the Holy Lamb of God, but instead of eating after such a Gross man­ner, we partake of Bread and Wine, which are substituted in the Room of our Savi­ours Natural Flesh and Blood.

It is uncertain indeed how the Heathens came by this Custom of using Sacrifical Banquets, whether they hadApud Graecos aliasque Gentes u­surpabatur, ut qui victimas offer­rent de earum carne epularentur: sive id ab Hebraeorum exemplo ori­ginem traxit, seu, quod est probabi­lius à communium parentum insti­tutis, Grot. in Matt. 26. ver. 26. it originally from Noah and his Sons, or whether they imitated the Jews in this Observance. But this is cer­tain and plain, that Feasts of this Nature were very usual among the Jews. And for the right understanding here­of, we must know that there were three sorts of Sacrifices, which the Jews were wont to offer. 1. Holocausts or burnt Offerings, (which they presented unto God, as the Creator and Lord of all things.) 2. Pia­cular Victims, distinguisht into Sin Offer­ings and Trespass-Offerings, (which by way of Attonement they presented unto God, as the Judge and Avenger of all ini­quity.) And 3. Peace-Offerings, which were either by way of thanksgiving for Mercies already received, or by way of Prayer for the obtaining of more Mercies still, (which they presented to God as the Author and Giver of all good things.) Now these Peace Offerings were divided into [Page 16] three parts: The Blood and the Fat were offered upon the Altar, asSee examples hereof in Stuckius ubi supra. Whence it is, that [...] is is thought by some to be derived from [...] as it signifies retribuere; & ht sacra de salute facta [...] appellata judicant, quia ex hoc sa­crorum genere Deus, Offerentes & Sacerdotes suam quisque partem ha­buerant: Outram. de Sacrific. lib. 1. c. 11. who adds a little after; quin­etiam ut sacra salutaria, quia pros­peris de rebus facta erant, [...] appellari solent: ita, quoniam ab ip­sis offerentibus ad sacras epulas ad­hibita erant, [...] quoque passim dict a sunt, nempe victimae ad Con­vivia caesae. Gods portion: The Breast and Shoulder was allotted to the Priest, as his portion, and the Remainder of the flesh was given to the Ow­ners themselves, as their por­tion; and this they were re­ligiously to eat of before the Lord, as apears from the third and seventh Chapters of Leviticus compared with the twelfth of Deuterono­my.

I have hitherto noted matter of Fact, be­cause I conceive it necessary for every one, that would rightly and fully understand the Nature of this our Christian Feast to ob­serve well the ancient practice of Heathens and Jews, as to actions of the like Nature.

That the Christian Church did look up­on this Feast as Analogous to those Sacri­fical Solemnities which have been now spoken of, I am sufficiently convinced of by observing one general Custome where­in Pagans, Jews, and Christians did all Correspond: And it was this. Among the former it was usual (nay, it seems, there was aScholiast Aristophan. in Plut. Law in that case) among them, that when they had eaten of their Sacrifices [Page 17] in the Temples of their Gods, they did send some parts thereof to their absent Friends, as a pledge of their Love. These were called [...], Portions; and some­times they were so con­siderable;Ethnici ex reliquis hostiae partibus cae­nam apparabant, quibus, qui sacris in­terfuissent, vesci licebat. Hae partes sive portiones a Graecis [...], a Latinis interdum missae fuerant appel­latae. Festus quo (que) testatur omnium car­nium sacrificatarum partes strobula Um­bronum lingua fuisse appellatas. Has autem cum praesentibus distribuere, tum absentibus quo (que) mittere consueverunt. Stuckius, Antiq. Convivial. 1, I c. 33. that people were wont to sell them publickly in the market. To which thing those words of St. Paul do refer 1 Cor. 10. 25. whatsoever is sold in the Shambles, that eat, asking no que­stion for conscience-sake. In like manner the Jews were wont to do at their Sacrifical Banquets. A very preg­nant instance whereof we have 1 Sam. 1. 4, 5. where we read of Elkanah, that after he had Sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah and to all her Sons, and her Daughters, Portions; but unto Hannah he gave a double portion. And the same-custome is pointed to, Nehem. 8. 10. where Nehemiah said to the Jews, go your way, eat the Fat, and drink the sweet, and sent portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy unto our Lord.

Now this very custome was observed in the Primitive Church of Christ (to be sure in Justin Martyrs time) when the ho­ly Sacrament was done. For so that very [Page 18] ancient Writer tells us expresly, that the distribution and participation of the Holy Bread and Wine being ended, the remain­ders were sent by the Deacons to those Christians (the Sick and Infirm) that wereJust Mar­tyr Apol. 2. absent, which Conformity of their with Pagans and Jews in point of practice, doth plainly shew, that they reckoned this their Solemnity to be Analogous, and like to those other which were used by Pagans and all the Jews over world; Viz. a Sacri­fical Feast.

But St Pauls discourse doth seem to put the thing beyond all manner of controver­sie, in 1 Cor. 10. where he argues against the lawfulness of participating of Idol-Feasts, from that plain Analogy which the Lords Supper beareth thereunto. And thus he demonstrates the point. First, that they who did eat of the Jewish Sacrifices, did profess to be in Communion with the God of Israel; Behold Israel after the flesh: Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices par­takers of the Altar? ver. 18. Secondly, that in like manner they, who did participate of the Heathen-Sacrifices which had been offered unto Demons, did profess to be in Communion and to have fellowship with those Demons, ver. 20. Thirdly, the A­postle infers, that the Christian-Feast being the participation of the Body and Blood [Page 19] of Christ (as he shew'd, ver. 16.) it is im­possible for men to partake of meats offe­red unto Idols without renouncing Christi­anity; these two things being so utterly incompatible, that we cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; we cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and the Table of Devils. ver. 21. As the Idol-Feasts were Sacrifical Banquets proper to the Heathens: and as the Mosaical-Feasts were Sacrifical Banquets proper to the Jews; so this our Feast is a Sacrifical Banquet pro­per to Christians, and we may no more dare to eat of this, and the other Feasts too, then we may dare now to be Circumcised and turn Pagans after Baptism. This is the meaning and argumentation of St. Paul; and it plainly shews, that there is a great Analogy, likeness, and resemblance between this, and those other mysteries, as to the na­ture thereof, though the reasons, the uses and respects are far different and utterly irreconcilable. It is indeed a Sacrifical Feast as the others of old were; but such a one as was instituted for the Disciples of Christ, such a one as is intended for our partici­pating of Christ, for the tying of us to Christ, such a one as immediately Refers to Christ, such a one as directly tends to the Worshipping of Christ, and of God in Christ.

[Page 20]But then we must note, that of all the Sacrifical Banquets under the Law, the Pas­chal Supper was that, which this Christian Feast beareth the greatest Analogy unto. This appeareth several ways. 1. Because the Holy Jesus is called Our Passeover, the Lamb that was slain to this purpose (a­mong others) that we might Feed on him with all manner of inward, Spiritual pu­rity. Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the Feast, not with old Leaven, neither with the Leaven of Ma­lice and wickedness; but with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and Truth, 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. 2. Because this Banquet was instituted at the close of the Passeover-Supper,Dr. Hammonds An­nor. on Joh. 13. 26. [...], Chrysoft. T. 5. p. 559, edit. Sav. when our Saviour and his Disciples had done their meal, after he had washed their feet, after he sate down the second time, and probably be­fore the Traitor Judas was gone out of the Room. St. Luke and St. Paul both expressly affirm of the Cup, that Christ took it after Supper. 3. The mate­rial parts of this Christian Feast are the same with what were used at the Paschal Supper, excepting such things as were either Typical, or of peculiar signification to the Jews. For the bitter herbs were in me­mory of those bitter afflications they endu­red in Egypt, and so they were of Proper [Page 21] and Peculiar use to the Sons of Israel. In like manner, the Lamb was a figure of Christ to come, and the roasting of the Lamb upon a Spit was a representation ofJustin Martyr Dial. cum Tayph. pag. 259 edit. Par. the Passion of Christ upon the Cross, which being accomplished once for all, there was no further need of any Figure. But the other parts of the Paschal Feast, the Bread and Wine, Christ continued the the use of them, and order'd them to be u­sed still by his Church in all places, and to all Ages. 4. The manner of celebrating the Paschal Feast was very like to that af­ter which this Banquet was celebrated; and that in two respects (besides that of di­stribution.)

1. First in respect of those BenedictionsSee God­wyns Antiq. 1. 3. c. 2. which the Jews then offered up to God, for creating bread and Wine, for their pre­sent Festival, for their deliverance out of Egypt, for the Covenant of Circumcisi­on, and for the Law. Accor­dingChristus hoc loco non pro veteri tantum creatione, sed & pro novâ, cujus er­go in bunc orbem venerat, preces fudit gratias (que) deo egit pro Redemptione hu­mani generis quasi jam peractâ. Grot. in Matth. 26. ver. 26. unto which, our Blessed Sa­viour consecrated the Materials of this Feast, with eyes lifted up blessing God over the Bread and Wine, and adding no doubt, such other Praises as were Pro­per for the occasion, for the re­covery as well as for the Creation of the World, and for the Redemption of Man­kind, [Page 22] which was then (in a manner) actu­ally accomplisht.

2. Secondly in respect of those Solemn Commemorations which did attend the eat­ing of the Passeover. For this peculiar Ceremony the Jews used at that time, that the Master of the house, where the Lamb was eaten, did instruct the rest touching that Solemn Mystery, and did open unto them the meaning of it; declaring un­to them, that the Lamb before them was called the Passeover, because God passed o­verGodwyns Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 4. the houses of their Fathers in Egypt, that the bitter Herbs were in memory of those hard usages, whereby the Egyptians made the Lives of their Fathers bitter, and that the Unleavened Bread was in token of the great haste their Fathers made out of Egypt, by reason of which their Dough was not lea­vened: and this Rite was called Haggadah, that is, the annunciating, the declaring, the shewing forth of the Passeover. In like manner this Christian Ordinance is a standing Memorial of the Divine Philan­thropy, at which the Love of God in giving his everlasting Son, and the Compassions of Jesus in giving up himself to die for us are solemnly Agnized, and the Redemption of the whole World publickly Celebrated; and therefore St. Paul calls it, the Annunciati­on, the Declaration, or the shewing forth of the [Page 23] Lords death. 1 Cor. 11. 26. alluding manifest­ly to the Haggadah at the Jewish Passeover.

By this that has been spoken, it doth plainly appear, that this Holy Solemnity is Analogous and answerable to those Re­ligious Feasts which were used of old, and especially to the Paschal Feast, which obser­vation will help us, not only to understand fully the purport of this Mystery, but al­so to baffle the pretences of those Mon­sters of Hereticks, the Socinians, who give a very mean and contemptuous account of the Lords Supper. For they take no notice of any strict engagements it lays upon us to an Holy Life: they believe not the Sa­crament to be a Seal of Gods favour and Grace; so far are they from owning this, that Socinus had the con­fidenceMulto praestantior sine dubio re­spectu veteris faederis fuit sanguis ille pecudum, quam respectu no­vi sit panis ille & vinum. So­cin. ad Epist. Niemojevii. to say, that the blood of Beasts under the Law was of Greater efficacy and value, than the Bread and Wine in this Ordinance. They ut­terly deny that we hereby Receive any thing at the hands of God; nor will they indure us to say, that Gods Spirit is here given, or that our Faith is here increased, or that pardon of sin is here tendered, or that we receive here any Pledge of a blessed Resurrection and a glorious Immortality. No; they explode all do­ctrines [Page 24] of this nature, and teachIs finis est vitûs istius usur­pandi, ut beneficium a Christo nobis praestitum commemoremus seu Annunciemus, nec ullus a­lius. Cat. Eccles. Pol. that the proper end for which the Lords Supper was insti­tuted is this, that we may Commemorate the Lords Pas­sion: Nay Socinus was of opi­nion,—In caena Domini ne ipsam quidem mentionem Christi cor­poris pro nobis traditi, & san­guinis fusi disertis verbis fa­ciendam necessariam plane es­se. Socin de usu & fine Cae­nae Dom. that 'tis not necessary so much as to make express men­tion of Christs Body being de­livered, or of his blood being poured out for us; which yet is inconsistent with his own Principle; for how can we Commemorate the Death of our Blessed Saviour, without making mention of it? Briefly, these Blasphemous Hereticks look upon this Ho­ly Ordinance only as the me­morialVide Excerpta ex ore Socini in fine disputationis de usu & fine caenae Domini. of a Friends kindness: This is all they will allow; and so they conclude, that we may Celebrate it either sitting, or standing, or with our Heads covered; or with Water, if we will instead of Wine; but to kneel, or so much as to sigh with eyes lifted up at the Cele­bration, is, in their account, a kind of I­dolatry.

I confess, these ill conclusions do for the most part follow from that unsound Principle, that the Supper of the Lord was intended only in Commemoration of him. But what reason and ground have [Page 25] they for this Principle? Why,Non ullus alius, praeter hunc a Christo est indicatus finis. Cat. Eccl. Pol. because (say they) at the in­stitution Christ mentioned on­ly this end, Do this in remem­brance of me. But this is not a reason and ground sufficient. For the mentioning of one end is not the excluding of others. though Christ in express terms had said no more, yet it doth not follow that no more was intended. The very Analogy which this Feast beareth to other the like Sacri­fical Feasts of old, and especially to the Paschal Feast, is enough to shew us the several Ends of it, had our Saviour menti­oned no end at all. And this is the Rea­son, that I have now taken notice of that Analogy. For if such Feasts were com­monly reputed to be Covenant-Rites be­tween God and Man, then we may reaso­nably believe, that this is to be reputed so too. If to eat the body of a roasted Lamb, was a Pledge of Gods favour to the Jews, then we may infer, that to eat Bread, instead of Christs body, is a pledge of Gods favour to us Christians. If the use of other Sacrifical Feasts did entitle the partakers to all those Benefits, for which the Sacrifices were offe­red; then we may conclude, that the use of this Sacrifical Feast doth entitle the Com­municants to all those benefits, for which Christ our Sacrifice, offered up himself, and which he purchased for us.

[Page 26]Therefore the Socinians do but trifle, and are very vain in pretending to teach us the full meaning of this Rite, when they take no notice of that correspondence and Analogy which is between this and o­ther ancient Rites of the like nature. For this is a principal thing to be taken notice of; and we cannot easily conceive, what else it was which satisfied the Apostles touching the purport of this Ordinance, when it was instituted first. For, that they presently discerned the meaning of it, is clear; because we do not find, that they desired of our Lord any explanation at all of this mystery. In other cases they were very inquisitive, and sometimes about mat­ters which we think had little need of ex­plication, being obvious to Men of com­mon and ordinary capacities. And yet at the institution of this Holy Sacrament, tho it containeth some things so difficult and dark (to us) that they have occasioned Quarrels in all parts of the Christian world, yet the Disciples were who ly silent, be­ing very sensible what such Sacred Feasts did mean in those days, and what the ge­neral sense of Mankind was about them. They could not but know, that by eating of things which bad been offered at the Al­tar, men undertook to observe that Reli­gion to which that sacred Rite did belong, [Page 27] and whereof it was a part. They could not but know, that by such an action they had a right to those benefits, which the Sacrifice had been offered up for, and so they became very nearly related to God as his Favourites, and Family. And when they found, by our Saviouts discourse, that he would offer up himself a Sacrifice for them, and heard him now say of the bread in his hands, this is my Body, they might easily apprehend him to mean, that they were to eat of Bread in the Place and Room of his flesh, and instead of feeding upon his Natural Body. Considering that the Lamb which was drest for the Paschal-Supper was usually called the Body of the Passeover, no sooner did Christ call the Loaf, His Body, but they did instantly conceive, it was appointed to be eaten for his Body, and in liew of it, especially since he had told them before, that they were not to feed on him, as they were wont to feed upon the Lamb, after a carnal and cross manner, because the Flesh profiteth nothing, Joh. 6. 63. Hence they saw presently, that this institu­tion did very much resemble the Sacrifical Banquets which had been observed of old (only it was of a more Noble importance and signification) and so they troubled not the Lord with enquiries, being suffici­ently satisfied of the Nature and meaning of such solemnities.

[Page 28]And this we may suppose to have been the Reason too, why we find so few di­rections in the Scriptures of the New Te­stament about preparing our selves for a worthy eating of this Blessed Sacrament. For there is little, or nothing said upon this Subject, setting aside what Saint Paul once occasionally said of self examination in 1 Cor. 11. 28. For the thing was not so very needful; because such directions might easily be drawn even from the con­sideration of the Nature and ends of this Holy Banquet, and men already had great impressions and apprehensions of their du­ty in order to a due celebration of those Solemnities, to which this Mystery was Parallel and Analogous. With what Religion did the very Heathens prepare themselves, by washing their Bodies, and by abstaining from worldly and Carnal Pleasures, before they addressed them­selves to the Tables of their Gods? And with what care and curiosity did the Jews pick every Crum of Leaven out of their houses, and use other observances, before they presumed to eat of the Pas­seover? The very resemblance and Ana­logy between this Mystery and that, is enough to minister directions, about pre­paring and purifying our Spirits in order to it, and whatsoever is necessary in that [Page 29] point, may be easily gathered and conclu­ded from the consideration of the Pur­port and reason of this Holy Rite. All which is lost, by mens taking no notice of that Analogy which it bears to other Sacrifical Feasts; and therefore it is no wonder, that the Socinians speak so coldly of this matter, and that they are as su­perficial and slight about the business of preparation, as they are slovenly, Rude, and irreverent at the Celebration of this Mystery.

These things being laid down as the Foundation and Ground-work of what I have to say upon this subject, the task I have undertaken will be attended with the fewer difficulties, the true notion of this Sacrament will be the more readily conceived, the great errors about it will be the more easily removed, the truths con­cerning it will be settled with the greater firmness and solidity, and every thing will be apprehended (I hope) with the grea­ter perspicuity, and clearness; which is the thing that I much aim at in this whole matter.

The sum briefly is this; that this Chri­stian Rite is a Sacrifical Banquet, which beareth some proportionable likeness to those Sacrifical Banquets, which were Re­ligiously Celebrated of Old by the gene­rality [Page 30] of mankind: So that as Jews and Heathens were wont to feed upon a Sa­crificed Beast, so we Christians do feed upon a Sacrificed Redeemer: after a Cor­poreal manner we feed upon the Figure of him; that is, we partake of Bread instead of that his Flesh (which is his Natural Body;) but after a Spiritual man­ner we feed upon him Himself; that is, we partake of his Virtues and Divine na­ture (which is his Spiritual Body.)

CHAP. II.

THe Nature of this Mystery being unfolded, proceed we in the next place to consider the Ends and Purposes for which it was appointed.

1. Now one great End is readily gran­ted on all hands; only some differ a lit­tle about rendring the word [...], which is the expression in the Original. 1. Some render it, Recordatio; as if this solemnity was intended to put men in mind of Christs passion and to bring his Love to their remembrance. Nor have [Page 32] the Socinians sufficient reasonNisi quis antequam illuc accedat, non modo rectè mortis Christi me­minerit, sed ejus efficaciam & fructumjam interiore animo gustet ac sentiat, indignus planè est, qui eò accedat. Socin. ubi Supra. to quarrel with this interpre­tation, because (as they ar­gue) men ought to remember the Lords Passion before they come to the Lords Supper. 'Tis true, we ought to do so; and 'tis as true that this solemnity is a proper means to excite us to do so, to engage us to se­quester some time for antecedent Medita­tions, to consider of the Divine goodness, and of our own unworthiness before hand, to view the several parts of our Saviours Life and sufferings, and to observe the greatness of his love throughout the whole, that we may come to the Holy Table with souls possest with a deep sense of God mer­cies, and with hearts full of zeal, of thank­fulness, of repentance, and of Devotion; which we are apt at other times not to be so solicitously careful of. At the institu­tion of the Passeover, the Jews were commanded to take the Lamb into their houses on the tenth day of Nisan, and to Keep it up until the fourteenth of the same Month, Exod. 12. And one reason which the Jews give of this is, that in those four days, by having the Lamb under their eye, theyPaul Fagi­us in Ex­od. 12. might be stirred up to continual considera­tions and conferences of their Redemption out of Egypt; for which reason they have a Tradition [Page 33] on among them, that during those four days the Lamb was tyed by a bed-side. And thus do the thoughts of this Christi­an Feast, when it is near at hand, very much serve to excite men to the most serious con­siderations of the Redemption of all Man­kind by that Lamb of God which taketh a­way the sins of the World. And besides, the breaking of the Bread, and the pou­ring forth of the Wine, together with the mention that then is made of our Lords death, do abundantly serve to imprint in our minds a memory of the Passion after a most lively end efficacious manner; so that it is not in any wise an Unfit or Improper way of speaking, to say that this Sacrament is unto us a Remembrancer of our Duty.

2. But secondly, the generality of Di­vines render the Word (as the Socinians do) Commemoratio; meaning, that this Mystery was appointed as a Test of mens constancy, that to the Worlds end they might publickly Profess their Faith in a cru­cified Redeemer, by shewing, forth their dear Lords death, and by constantly celebrating the memorial of his bitter, but meritorious Passion. I shew'd before, how the Jews were wont at their Paschal Supper to com­memorate, and express the joyful sense they had of the deliverance of their Nation from the Brick-Kilms, and the Cruelties of [Page 34] the Egyptians. In like man­ner [...] &c. Chrysoft. in Pascha [...]. Non solum inter Sacrificia, sed etiam in conviviis & in omnibus solennitatibus antiquorum erant sermones de rebus ab illis diis ge­stis. Nat. Com. mythol. l. 1. c. 1. Inter vescendum laudes diis cane­re assuer ant his, quibus sacrum fi­eret, &c. Alex. ab Alex. ge­nial. dier l. 4. c. 17. the Heathen Festivals were so many standing Monuments of those kindnesses, which their supposed Deities had done for them, whether they were recoveries from Plagues, or deliverances from Tyrants, or the building of Cities, or victories in War, and the like. These things they were wont to Commemorate solemnly, and to rehearse them at their Sa­crifical Banquets in Honour of their Gods, adding divers sorts of Hymns and Praises, and shewing all man­ner of thankfulness for them. Now this Christian Mystery being a Religious Feast upon a sacrificed Saviour the very Nature and Analogy thereof doth sufficiently shew this to be one purpose and end of it, that we should publish, declare and commemorate the exceeding riches of Gods Grace by his kindness to us in Jesus Christ, and that we should testifie the sense we have of it by all manner of Eucharistical acts and expres­sions of Affection. For the word [...] importeth a great deal more than a bare Commemoration: It signifies here such an outward Profession as is attended with in­ward Heartiness, and with the intensest [Page 35] actions of Grateful and Fervent Souls. The Apostle speaking of the Mosaical Ob­lations which were to be once a year upon the Day of expiation, saith in Heb. 10. 3. that in those Sacrifices there was yearly [...] or a Remembrance of sins. He doth not mean a bare acknowledg­ment of sin, but such an acknowledgement as was accompanied with Compunction, with Repentance, or with solemn Deprecations of Gods Wrath. Paulus Fagius hath no­tedIn Levit. 16. the form of that Confession which the High Priest was wont to use upon that great and solemn day, according to the account which the Hebrew Doctors give of it. It was (saith he) a threefold Confession i. e. he confest his own sins, and the sins of the Sons of Aaron, and the sins of all the Chil­dren of Israel; and it was to this effect: ‘O Lord, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, and all thy people the house of Israel, have sinned, have done iniquity, have prevaricated before thee. I beseech thee O Lord, forgive the sins, the iniqui­ties, the prevarications, whereby I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, and all thy people the house of Israel, have sin­ned, have done iniquity, have prevarica­ted before thee.’ By Sins, the Hebrews mean all acts of Ignorance; by Iniquities, all Presumptuous and willful transgressions; [Page 36] and by Prevarications, all kinds of Rebel­lion, and Apostacy from God, and with this threefold confession, a general Fast was to be joyned, and the Law required them all to afflict their Souls; nothing that Re­morse and Anguish of Spirit, which Priest and People were to be under at that time; and these hearty expressions of Penitence and contrition is that, which the Au­thor to the Hebrews calls, the Remembrance of Sins. Thus should the Commemorati­on of Christs death for Sin be full of Life and Vigour, accompanied with such morti­fications of Flesh and Spirit, as are undeni­able arguments both of that bitter sense we ought to have of our own Vileness, and of those ravishing apprehensions of the Di­vine love, which the Commemoration of our Saviours sufferings is apt to beget in us. Briefly, though the Holy Jesus was a­bout to die when he instituted this Myste­ry, yet his design was to live for ever in the hearts of his Disciples: and because nothing is more common among men (al­beit nothing unbecomes men more) than to let the Remembrance of Gods mercies, slide away from them, and to Bury his fa­vours in Oblivion, therefore to help our infirmities Christ ordained a perpetual use of this Holy Banquet, that his Fathers and his own Love might be had in everlasting [Page 37] remembrance, For nothing serveth more to perpetuate the memory of any signal and remarkeable Event, than when Men assemble themselves solemnly to Eat and Drink together by Occasion and up­on the Score of that Event. This was the ground and Reason of all the fixt Festivals, among the old Heathens, that by means thereof the memory of those great atchievements which their reputed gods had done, might be transmitted and handed down from one generation to another. And this was one great rea­son why the Paschal Supper was instituted, that it might be a Memorial unto the Jews, Exod. 12. 14 And lest through the negli­gence of men, the deliverance, which God at that time wrought, should at any time after be forgotten, God added this com­mand at the 26 and 27 Verses of that Chapter. It shall come to pass, when your Children shall say unto you, what mean you by this service, that ye shall say, it is the Sacrifice (in memory) of the Lords Passeover, who passed over the Houses of the Children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians. It is very observable, that the incredulous and stiff necked Jews do now expect to be redeemed again out of all their thraldome by the Messiah, just at the self same time of the year, when their [Page 38] Fathers were redeemed ofId quod patet ex ipsorum verbis, quae apud illorum Cabalistas in hunc modum leguntur; in eadem die, viz. quintadecima die mensis Nisan, sci­licet Martis, redimendus est Israel in diebus Messiae, quemadmodum redempti sunt eo die; de quo scribi­tur, in diebus egressionis tuae ex E­gypto estendam mirabilia, P. Jag. in Exod. 12. Old by God out of the house of Bondage. For to this purpose (saith my Au­thor) we read in the Caba­lists; ‘In the same day, viz. on the fifteenth day of Nisan, (that is in March) the Israelites shall be re­deemed in the days of the Messiah, as they were formerly redeemed on that day, at their departure out of Egypt.’ What those fond people expect still, was accomplisht long ago: For it was just at that time, that the Lord Jesus (that imma­culate Lamb of God) was slain to Redeem all Mankind: And as the Passeover-Feast among the Jews was instituted for the Com­memoration of one deliverance out of great Bondage, so was this Feast, now u­sed by us, instituted for the Commemora­tion of another deliverance from a greater and more intollerable servitude; that Christ our Redeemer may never be out of our minds, tho he be gone into Heaven, but that we should most solemnly celebrate a perpetual memory of his infinite Love, and unspeakable Condescention. Accordingly the ancient Church was wont to be very Prolix in the Prayer of Consecration. ForVide Const. Apost. lib. having made mention, first of the Majesty [Page 39] and perfections of God, then of the Cre­ation of Angels, of Man, and of the whole World, then of his Providence over Adam, over Seth, and Enoch, over Noah, over A­braham, over the twelve Patriarchs, and over all the Children of Israel; and having concluded that part on this wise; ‘For all these things glory be to thee, Lord God Almighty; infinite Hosts of Angels and Archangels worship thee, Thrones, Do­minions, Principalities, Powers, and in­numerable Armies of Heavenly Spirits, the Cherubim, and six-winged Seraphim, with thousands of thousands of Angels and Archangels, that continually cry, Ho­ly, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabbaoth; Heaven and earth are full of thy Glory, Glory be to thee unto everlasting Ages:’ Then the Church was wont to go on to make mention of the Holy and only begot­ten Son of God, of his love to Mankind, of his Incarnation and Birth of a Virgin, of his Life, Laws, Miracles, and Humility of his Passion, Crucifixon, Death, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven: [...], said they, ‘we being mindful of, and commemorating his sufferings, do give thee thanks according to his com­mand, who in the night when he was be­trayed took bread into his Holy hands and looking up to Heaven to thee his [Page 40] God and Father, brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, and so forth.’ This is that [...] which our blessed Redeemer meant and spake of, not a Cold faint heartless speak­ing of that Love of his, which was strong­er than the most Torturing Agonies, and than Death it self; but such a Devout com­memoration as is attended with Solemnity, with admiration, with active and vigorous Affections, with the meltings and disso­lutions of the hardest hearts, with such Divine Raptures, Extasies, and Flights of mind, as if our Souls had dropt their man­tles of Flesh, and were entred into Hea­ven to bear their parts in that Quire of Blessed Spirits above. This was one End and reason, for which the Holy Jesus ap­pointed the use of this Mysterious, Evan­gelical Banquet.

And before I let this point go out of my hands, there are two things which I would note from this consideration.

1. First, that at this Blessed Sacrament there is not any New Sacrificing, or offe­ring up of Christ to expiate Sin, but only a Commemoration of his Death, a Memorial of that One Sacrifice which he offered un­to his Father when he offered up himself upon the Cross for us. The Romanists are strongly perswaded, that as the substance of Christs Natural Body is really in the [Page 41] Host, so he is really, truly and literally Sacrificed there, as a Propitiatory Oblation both for the living and the Dead too. But 'tis a modest censure to say (for 'tis the the least we can say) of this conceit, that 'tis a very fond and groundless fancy; be­cause neither from our Saviours words at the Institution, nor from St. Pauls Repea­ting the Story, nor from the Nature and Analogy of this Feast, can we gather any thing that gives Colour to this Principle; it being apparent every way, that Christ intended this Mystery, not that he should suffer in it a fresh, or be Sacrificed in it a­fresh, but that we should thereby Comme­morate and shew forth his Passion in Gol­gotha. Indeed in some cases the same thing may be said to be a Commemoration of a Sacrifice, and a true Sacrifice also; as the Paschal Lamb at Jerusalem was truly a Sa­crifice, and a Memorial too of the Lamb that was sacrificed in Egypt. But it can­not be said to be so in this case, because 'tis Contradictory to the Apostles argu­mentation in Heb. 10, where he shews, that Christs Sacrificing of himself, had this Prerogative, this dignity above all Legal Oblations, that it needed not (as the o­thers did) any Repeating, whereas the Sa­crifices under the Law were offered year by year continually, and every Priest stood [Page 42] Ministring and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices, Christ our High Priest offered one perfect Sacrifice for sins for ever, and so sate down on the right hand of God, by that one offering of himself having perfected for ever them that are sanctified, and having sancti­fied them through the offering of his own Bo­dy once for all. So that unless we will give the Apostle the Lie, we cannot affirm any Propitiatory Sacrifice to be in this Myste­ry.

'Tis true; this blessed Sacrament is cal­led a Sacrifice (or rather the whole Action and Rite is called so) and it is so in some sense, even as Prayer is called a Vid. Tertull. p. 187. H. 104. Sacrifice Psal. 141. 2. and as Praises are called a Sa­crifice, Heb. 13. 15. and as Righieousness and a broken Spirit are called Sacrifices, Psal. 51. 17. and as Almsdeeds are called Sacrifices, Heb. 13. 16. and as the devoting our selves to the service of God is called the presenting of our Bodies a Living Sacri­fice, Rom. 12. 1. For, at this Holy Sacra­ment we are bound to do all this, to bless Gods Name (therefore 'tis called the Eucha­rist, from our Praises and Thanksgivings) to implore Gods goodness, to offer up to him the Oblation of Penitent Hearts, to present him with some of our Worldly substance, to vow obedience to his Laws, and to offer unto him our selves, our Souls [Page 43] and Bodies, as a reasonable, Holy, and lively Sacrifice (as we profess in that excel­lent Prayer after the Communion.) It is Hence, and upon these accounts (not from any real Sacrificing of Christ, but from the offering up of our Devotion, of our selves, and of our Goods,) that the Cele­bration of this Mystery is called a Sacri­fice. And hence it is too, that the Lords Table is called an Altar (as it was called in the So Can. Apost. 3. So S. Cy­prian eve­ry where calls the Lords Ta­ble. And so doth Tertullian, Nonne so­lenior [...]it statio tua, si ad A­ram dei steteris? de Orat cap. 14. And I Suppose the ancient Christians took occasion of speaking thus from those words of our Saviour Matth. 5. 23, 24. if thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thy Brother hath ought against thee, &c. which words do [...] certainly relate to those Oblations which Christ intended should be made (and in the Aposto­lical times were made) in the Church. Ancient times of Christianity, but that some weak men now love to quarrel with words;) and the Place too where the Table stood was called the So the Author de Eccles. Hie­rarch. c. 3. [...]; where he means the Sacrarium or Holy place where the Table stands. And to the same purpose the word is used by Ignatius in those expressi­ons of his, [...], Ep. ad Ephes. And [...], Ep. ad Tralles. Where he urgeth that necessi­ty which people are under to joyn with the Bishop, and the rest of the Clergy in the Publick Prayers of the Church. For Anciently Prayer was made in the Chancel at the Holy Table; as 'tis insinuated Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. And by Tertullian, Exhort. ad Castit cap. 10. Si Spiritus reus apud se sit, conscientia erubescit, quomodo audebit Orationem dicere ad Alta­re? Hence Bishop Usher notes, that [...] and [...] sometimes sig­nifie the same thing; that is, the Altar-place: Unde in Polycarpi ad Phi­lippenses, & Ignatio ad Tarsenses tribut â Epistold, [...] a vulgato Latino interprete Sacrarium Dei, recte est redditum. Armachan not. in Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. Num. 42. [...] Or [Page 44] Altar-place) because it is there (or should be there) before the Lords Table, that we present to the Divine Majesty of God all our Christian Sacrifices, and perform the Offertory (as I shall hereafter shew at large, that all Christians were wont to do in the Primitive and Apostolical times of the Church.) But to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice, or the Holy Table an Alter, up­on presumption that Christ is really Sacrifi­ced, and in his Natural Body offered up there, is a Solaecism in Divinity, and that which is utterly against the sense of the Ancient Doctors of the Christian Church.

For though in many Liturgies and other Ancient Books, we often find mention to be made of Oblations and Sacrifices at the Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, yet this is meant of those sacrifices and Offe­rings which I have now spoken of, and which all Reformed Churches allow of: and par­ticularly the Ancients point to those Libe­ral Gifts, which Christians in those times brought with them to the Church, to be presented and offered up to God on the Holy Table, as an humble acknowledge­ment, that the whole Earth was the Lords, and as a Grateful Recognition of his Right to all, of his Dominion over all, and of his propriety in all the possessions they did en­joy. To this purpose I shall note a pas­sage [Page 45] or two out of that very ancient Writer, Irenaeus: ‘Oblations in general, are not forbidden us (says he) there1. 4, c. 34. are oblations under the Law, and there are Oblations under the Gospel, there were Sacrifices among the Jews, and there are Sacrifices in the Church. And again: Our Lord incouraging his Disciples to offer unto God the first Fruits of his Creatures (not for that God hath any1. 4. c. 32. in fine. need thereof, but that they might shew themselves neither unfruitful nor un­thankful) he took that Bread which was made of his Creatures, and gave thanks saying, this is my body; and he like­wise acknowledged the Cup (consisting of the Creature which we use) to be his Blood; and thus he taught the New Oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers throughtout the world unto God.’ And elsewhere speaking of the same thing,c. 34. in initio. he saith, ‘that the Oblation of the Church which our Lord taught and appointed to be offered through all the World, is accounted a pure Sacrifice with God.’ If any of the Fathers have spoken, as if Christ was offered up in the Holy Sacra­ment, they are to be understood as speaking figuratively and improperly, because the Signs and Symbols of Christs Body and Blood [Page 46] are presented upon the Table. Their mea­ning was (and they said so, when they spake strictly and distinctly) that they of­fered [...], Euseb. dem. E­vang. 1. I. c. 10. a Memorial instead of a Sacrifice (as Eusebius said) And to instance in no more, nothing can be more plain, then what S. Chrysostome hath said upon this subject; viz. That though we offer every day, yet we do but make a Commemoration of Christs Death; that this that is done now, is in Re­membrance of that which was done before:Hom. 17. in Heb. that we offer not another, nor a different Sacrifice, as the Jewish High Priest did, but still one and the same, or rather (saith he) we perform the Remembrance of a Sacrifice: which is the very same that Ju­stin Dial. cum Tryph. pag. 260. Martyr affirmed of our using the Bread in the Sacrament, that it is [...] in Memory of that Passion which Christ was pleased to undergo for us Men, and for our salvation.

I have noted all this to shew, how, grosly the Romanists are deceived in that which many poor wretches among them take to be a main part of Religion, tho I am afraid their Crafty Guides tell them so for their own Interest and Advantage. For do but take away the Doctrine of Christ being really Sacrificed under the spe­cies of Bread and Wine, and their Masses for Quick and Dead must go away next, [Page 47] then the Doctrine of Purgatory must down too, then the Practice of praying for souls supposed to be in Torments there, must down also, and then the conceit of Ab­solutions and Indulgences, and divers other Lucrative Arts, whereby the Knavish Priests cheat ignorant and Easie People out of their Mony; till in the end, by taking a­way first one shore and then another, the old rotten House drops down upon their Heads, which hath been held up hitherto by this Artificial Prop (among others) that our blessed Saviour is Really and Tru­ly offered up a Sacrifice for all men in this Mystery, whereas indeed it is not a Sacri­ficing of him, but a Representation and memo­rial of the great Sacrifice upon the Cross.

2. That which I would note in the se­cond place is, that this Blessed Sacrament was intended to be, not a Memorial of the Passeover-Supper, which Christ Celebrated the same Night that he was betray'd, but a Commemoration of his Passion and Death on the day following. This indeed is very obvious and easie to be observed: And yet for want of minding this thing well, many weak people among our selves have been unfortunately lead aside into wrong and superstitious conceits, about some Cir­cumstances which relate to this solemnity. Because the Passeover was eaten at Night, [Page 48] therefore some conclude, that this Sacrament ought not to be solemniz'd at any other time. And because our Saviour and his Disciples did (as they suppose) eat the Passeover Sitting, therefore these men in­fer, that it is not lawful for us to re­ceive this Sacrament in a Kneeling posture. They would have us to be guided by those Usages and Rites which were observed at the Paschal-Feast, as if the Customes then were presidents to govern and direct us now, and as if this Feast of ours were not only Analagous unto, but also a Repre­sentation and Memorial of that Festival a­mong the Jews. But all this is nothing but a Rope of sand, and any man may find it so, that will but consider the thing rightly. For this being a sacrifical Banquet, at which we do Commemorate the intollerable sufferings, and infinite Love of the Son of God, such Rituals are to be observed now as are most Congruous and suitable to the Nature and Ends of this Mystery. As for the Passeover-Supper, it is ceased and out of doors long ago, together with those observances which were belonging and appendant to it, and we have nothing to do with them, be­cause they were grounded upon special rea. sons, and were of proper use, and of pe­culiar significancy to the Jews. Thus the [Page 49] Time of its Celebration was to be at Night, because it was in the Night time, that the Lord smote the first born of the Egypti­ans, and passed over the houses of the Is­raelites, and this concerns us no more than it concerns us to Celebrate the very Day of their deliverance out of Egypt. Thus also for the Posture used at the eating of the Passeover, at first it was probably a Standing posture, because the Jews were commanded to eat it with their Loyns gir­ded, with their shooes on their Feet, and with their Staff in their hand. But there were proper and peculiar reasons for this Ce­remony; for it was Significative and in To­ken of their great Haste; and that concerns us no more neither, than it concerns us to eat Unleavened Bread which was in token of their Haste also. In our Savi­ours time the Posture was Altered (as I shall shew in its due place) and 'twas nei­ther standing nor sitting (as many igno­rant mem conceive) but a Recumbent and Leaning posture, one guest lying along in the bosome of another, as (St. John lay in our Lords Bosome) so making part of a Round or Oval figure. And even This posture was of peculiar fignificancy to the Jews too, for it was in Token that their Journey and Travels were at an End, and that they were possest of the Land of Rest, [Page 50] which God had sworn to their Fathers, that he would give them. So that nei­ther from hence can we gather any thing that bindes us, unless it be this, that in cir­cumstantial matters we should submit to those innocent usages, which either the Laws, or Customes of a Nation, or the Reason of times have introduced, as our Blessed Saviour himself did, who took such Cu­stomes as they were, and observed them as he found them, not troubling the World with debates and Controversies about things of nothing.

So then, the Rites used at the Passeo­ver are no Leading Rites to us, nor are we to Copy out that pattern any more than we are Commemorate the Jews feast. This Sacrament of ours is not a Memori­al of the Paschal Supper, but of our bles­sed Redeemers Death; and accordingly we are to use such Rituals as are most proper and suitable to the meaning and purpose of this Mystery, and most significative un­to Us. Considering that it was between Nine and Three of the Clock, that our dear Lord was hurried to Golgotha, nailed to the Cross, and there hung upon four wounds, languishing, bleeding, dying with pangs and throws unspeakable, unconceivable, it is proper for us to Celebrate about Noon this Blessed Sacrament, which is the Memo­rial [Page 51] of his Great Passion. Considering too the Intendments of this Mystery, that it serveth (as I shall prove as I go along) to engage us to be faithful and True to the Redeemer of our Souls, and to convey unto us all those benefits, which he purcha­sed for us by his Passion, as Pardon of Sin, the Communication of his Blessed body and Blood, the assistance of his Holy Spi­rit, a close Union with him, and an assu­rance of a glorious Immortality; and con­sidering also what We are, that the Divine Goodness should be thus propitious and kind to us, his Unworthy, Despicable, be­cause Sinful Creatures, I appeal to any man of sense and true humility, if it be not most proper, most becoming us (were Laws and Customes altogether silent) to receive the blessed instruments and Pledges of the Divine Grace in the Lowlyest, in the most Reverent, in the most Humble posture, and after such a manner as is most expressive of that sense we ought to have of our own Vileness and nothingness, and of the Love of Jesus. When I, who am so un­worthy, that the Lord should come un­der my Roof, am invited to come so near unto him, as to lie (as it were) not in his Bosome, but in his Heart too, and to take into my hands the Holy Seals of his dearest Love, of his tenderest and ever­lasting [Page 52] Compassions, then be thou Pro­strate, O my Soul; let me then Worship, and fall down, and Kneel before the Lord my Redeemer, and if there be any thing vi­ler than the Dust, or any place lower and baser than the Earth, let my sinful Body grovel and lie there. Thus the Nature and Ends of this Sacrament, and the con­sideration that it serves to Commemorate, not what the Jews did at their Paschal Sup­per, but what Christ, our true Passeover, did in being Sacrificed for us, are enough to take any humble man off from that re­gard which Superstitious Persons have of supposed Jewish postures; because we are not to represent and Commemorate their Actions, but to shew forth the bitter Pas­sion and Death of the Holy Jesus. And this shall suffice to be said, as the Use and Improvement of this matter; that this Eucha­ristical solemnity was intended to be a a perpetual and standing Memorial of our Saviours sufferings and Love: Do this in Remembrance, in Commemoration of me: That's one great End of this sacrifical Banquet.

CHAP. III.

BY the leave of the Socinians we will go further, and confidently affirm, that this Holy Sacrament is in­tended to another End too, viz. that it may be a Federal Rite, or a Covenant ban­quet between God and the Communicants. By a Covenant is meant, such a Commu­nion, Allyance, and League with God, whereby he claimeth a peculiar right, in­terest, and propriety in us, as in those who have devoted our selves to his Worship [Page 54] and service, and expect good things at his hand. And by a Covenant-Banquet is meant such a Religious Feast, whereby a League of that nature is contracted or Confirmed.

This at first may seem somewhat dark to you, because the generality of us are not well acquainted with the old Customes of of other Countries, especially of the Ori­ental Nations; the right understanding whereof will give us a great deal of light into this matter. For the opening of it therefore we must know, that it was ve­ry usual for People, especially in the Eastern parts of the World, to make and ratifie Contracts by eating and drinking together. Of this the Holy Scriptures give us some plain Exemples. For that Feast which Abimelech and Isaac celebrated toge­ther Gen. 26. 30. was a Covenant-Feast, a token and symbol of Friendship between them. Labans eating with Jacob upon an heap of stones, Gen. 31. 46. was no other then a Foederal rite. The Israelites eating of the Gibeonites Victuals, Josh. 9. 14. was the contracting of a League with those crafty people, which the Israelites were blameable for doing without asking Counsel at the mouth of the Lord; for had they first enquired of God, they had not been Circumvented, as they were into a [Page 55] confederacy with them. When David af­ter an upbraiding manner spake of his friends treachery (in words which are very appicable to Judas) Psal. 41. 9. mine own familiar Friend (said he) in whom I trusted, which did eat of my Bread, hath lift up his heel against me: He meant one, that had entred into Covenant with him by a Feast (as you find that Abner did in 2 Sam. 3. 20.) and therefore instead of a Friend, 'tis otherwise rendred in the Margin of our Bibles, the man of my peace, [...] à [...] com­edit. or the man that was at peace with me. Hence the Hebrew word which signifies a Covenant, is derived from a Root which signifies to Eat. And hence too we read of an Idol among the Sichemites, which was called Berith (or the God of a Co­venant) because the people of that place were wont, when they made Covenants, to eat and drink with their Confederates in the house of that God of theirs, as you find they did, when they entred into a League with Gaal, and made him their Head in Opposition to Abimelech, Jud. 9. 27.

But humane Writers afford many in­stances of this Nature, how people were wont anciently to make and Ratifie Co­venants between Nation and Nation, between party and party, and between [Page 56] Apud Graecos & Macedones panem gladio divisum, sponsum & sponsam cum ineunt sponsalia, gustare solenne fuit. Apud Galatas ut ex eodem poculo vir & uxor libant, Alex. ab Alex. l. 2. c. 5. This was called Con­farreatio, a marrying by the Rite of eat­ing a Bride-cake, which had been first offered as a sacrifice; and 'twas the most sacred band of Love. Nihil confarreationis faedere in sponsalibus Religiosius fuit. Id. i­bid. vide & Gyrald. de diis Gent. Syn­tag 17 p. 487. Man and Wife, sometimes byFeriebant pleri (que) faede­ra vel pane praeciso & i [...]vicem gustato, aut vini poculo Epoto. ab Alex. gen. dier. l. 5. c. 3. Ea­ting Bread, some­times by drinking Wine, and frequent­ly by† Apud Persas inter vinum & epulas frequenti convivio, in quo uxores & filios, caeteros (que) quos charos habent, tanquam fi­der pignora adhibebant, ibi (que) inter Sacra mensae, velut apud hospitales deos, faedera & pacta inibant, eam fidem socialem rati, & mansurae pacis pignus inviolabile. Qui e­tiam mos Germanorum fuit, ut de pace & bello, de (que) faederibus, societatibus, amiciti­is, sponsaliis & pactis. in conviviis inter po­cula decernant. Id. ibid. Hence we read of the [...] among the Greeks, a Cup of Friendship. Theogn. partaking of Both together, which doth evi­dently shew, that it was the general custome of Man­kind to Contract and Covenant with one another by the vi­sible rites of Feast­ing; that, as we now are wont to confirm Covenants by signing of deeds so the common cu­stome of the world formerly was to enter into Covenants, and to Ratifie all Contracts by Banqueting to­gether.

To draw down this observation now, and to make it serviceable to our present purpose, and business concerning this re­ligious, Christian Feast, the blessed Sacra­ment: There are these three things which I shall prove in their order.

1. That those Religious Feasts which [Page 57] the old Heathens celebrated before their Idols, were visible Rites whereby they Covenanted with those imaginary Deities.

2. That those Sacrifical Feasts, which were observed by Gods people, according to the Law, were visible rites too, whereby they Covenanted with the true God.

3. That this Sacrifical, Christian Feast, which we partake of, according to the Gospel, is a visible Rite also, whereby we Covenant with the Blessed Jesus. The proof of these three things will be suffici­ent, I hope, to clear this matter.

1. That those Religious Feasts which were Celebrated by the old Heathens be­fore their Idols, were visible Rites where­by they Covenanted with those imaginary Deities. So they were reputed to have been by God himself: for when the Jews were so foolish as to grow fond of those Heathen Rites, and to be taken with them, God charged them as guilty of a Sin of the Highest nature, as Apostates, as Idola­ters, as those that had forsaken him and his Covenant, and as those that had really and actually joyned themselves to the Hea­then Idols; which could not be true, if those Sacrifical Feasts of the Heathens had not been Foederal or Covenant Rites. The First instance of this we may observe in Exod. 32. where the people make an Altar [Page 58] to the Golden Calf, bring their peace­offerings, and Celebrate a Religious ban­quet upon the Remainders thereof; they sate down to Eat and to drink (to Feast to­gether before the Golden Calf) and rose up to play, ver. 6.Hebraei ad profanos Egyptiorum ri­tus animos transtulerunt. Quam enim Moses dux eorum ascendisset in montem, at (que) ibidem 40 diebus mo­raretur, aureum caput Bovis', quem vocant Apim, quod cos signo praece­deret, figurarunt. Lactant de ver. Sap. lib. 4. c. 10. Sic & S. Hie­ronym. in Hoseae cap. 4. This they did in imitation of the E­gyptians, among whom they had lived so long. For those blind Heathens Worshipped a Bull in ho­nour of theirNonne & Apim bovem cum Egyptiis adora­tis & colitis? Minut. Fael. in Oct. Factus est Serapis omnium maxi­mus Egyptiorum deus. Aug. de civ. dei. 1. 18. c. 5. Great God Apis: and when they had found the Beast, they re­ceived him with a great deal of Pomp and Festivity, [...] (saithSuidas in Api­des. [...] Schol Aristo­phan. in pace. Suidas) adding a great and magnificent Banquet: Which custome, because the Jews used be­foreSperabant dei quem colebant spi­ritum in eam imaginem venturum, sicut de astrorum Spiritibus gentes aliae sentebant. Grot. in Exod. 32. 5. that Image which they had nowmade, (though perhaps they made it with a design, that it should be a representa­tion of the true God) therefore they were looked upon as downright Idolaters: For so the Apostle speaks of them, 1 Cor. 10. 7. neither be ye Idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written, the people sat down to Eat and to Drink, and rose up to play.

[Page 59]Thus also when they were perswaded by the Moabites to eat of those Sacrifi­ces, which had been offered to their Idol, they were judged to have contracted a Con­federacy with that Daemon, and so Moses and David both express it, the one in Num. 25. 3. the other in Psal. 106. 28. that they joyned themselves to Baal peor; that is, they entred into Communion with that Heathen Deity which was Worshipped on Mount Peor, by eat­ingSacrificia ea inferiae erant in memoriam defunctorum peractae. Selden. de diis Syris Syntagm. 1. cap. 5. the Sacrifices of the Dead, or such things as were offered in memory of the dead.

Upon this account it is, that Idolatry is described in Ezek. 18. by Eating upon the Mountains; because it was generally in High places, and in GrovesPost sacrificia epulari mos erat, & quidem iisdem in locis ubi Sacri­ficatum fuerat. Grot. in Ezek. 18. 6. upon Hills, where the Hea­thens were wont to place their Altars, and to offer Sacrifices, and then to eat of the Sacrifices, as a Covenant Rite between them and their Gods.

To all which let me add in the last place, that St. Paul calls the eating of those Hea­then Sacrifices, the having of Fellowship with Devils; 1 Cor. 10. 20. The things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils, and not to God; and I would [Page 60] not that ye should have Fellowship with De­vils, Where it is observable what the A­postle saith. ver. 15. I speak as to Wise men, judge ye what I say. He knew they could not be so void of common sense, as not to understand the meaning of those Mysti­cal Solemnities, because all intelligent men in the world knew, that they were so ma­ny bonds of Friendship and Amity with their Gods.

2. This then being so clear; I proceed to shew in the second place, that those Sacri­fical Feasts which were used by the Jews according to the Law, were also visible and customary Rites, whereby they Co­venanted with the true God. In Psal. 50. 5. saith God, gather my Saints together unto me, those that have made a Cove­nant with me by Sacrifice. Hence it ap­pears, that the offering a Sacrifice was a Foederal Rite, whereby God and his people became One. Upon which account it was, that Salt was used in Sacrifices by Gods own direction, Levit. 2. 13. Every oblati­on of thy meat offering shalt thou season with Salt—with all thine offerings thou shalt offer Salt. For all Nations lookt up­on Salt as a token of Love, a Pledge and Symbol of Peace and Friendship. And the reason of it is given by Eustatius (as he is cited by Doctor Hammond on St, [Page 61] Mark: 9. 50.) * because as SaltNuma Pompilius deos fruge coli, & mola salsâ supplicari instituit, quam molam ex far­re, sale & aqua composuit, sine quâ nullum Sacrificium ratum fieri censuit. Alex. ab Alex. genial. dier. lib. 3. cap. 12: Multi modii salis simul edendi sunt, ut amicitiae munus exple­tum sit. Cic. de amicitia. Grae­ci vino madentes oleoperungunt & sale, qui etiam ante reliquas dapes sal velut Amicitiae symba­bolum hospitalibus apponant. A­lex. ab Alex. l. 5. c. 21. being compacted of many drops of Water, every one in it self of a Fluid and Unsteady nature, becomes one solid bo­dy; so they that from distant places Conjoyn into a League of Friendship, meet together both in place and friendly disposition. Hence Di­citur sal faederis dei, quod de­us exigat tanquam firmissimum faedus, ut sal in quavis Min­cha adhibeatur, & alias firma pacta dicuntur pacta salis, Numer. 18. Hanc cerimoni­am à Patribus acceptam, eti­am Ethnici in suis Sacris obser­varunt, nulla enim Sacra con­ficiebantur apud eos sine mola Salsâ P. Fagius. in Levit. 2. 'tis cal­led the Salt of the Covenant, Levit 2. 13. ratione Foederis (saith Paulus Fagius) be­cause it was a Token of that Permanent and firm Cove­nant which Men made with God by Sacrifice. And the Heathens themselves obser­ved this custome of Salting their offerings; for the parta­king of Salt was an Instrument and Pledge of Amity: like a Solemn Oath (as He in Origen said) which 'tis [...] Orig. contra Cels. lib. 2. pag. 74. Edit. Cantab. a wicked and disgraceful thing for any man to violate.

Sacrificing then being a Co­venanting Rite, feasting upon the Sacrisice was a Rite of the same Nature: Both So­lemnities were looked upon but as one; and the latter was only the [Page 62] Complement, the Close, the Finishing os the former. And to this purposeNullum ferê Sacrificium sine aliquo epulo, & vicissim nul­lum p [...]nè epulum, etiam profa­num, publicum praesertim, sine sacris quibusdam ritibūs at (que) cerimoniis fuit celebratum. Quin ipsa quo (que) Sacrificia quid fuerunt aliud quàm quaedam quasi epulae, at (que) convivia, se­cundum illud Poetae—Epulis accumbere Divûm.-Stuckius, Sacrific. Sacror. de­sorip. I understand those words in Psal. 50, 16. unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy Mouth? By taking Gods Covenant into ones Mouth, is meant, Eat­ing the Signes and Symbols of the Covenant, the partaking of those Sacrifical Banquets, which were a Token of Gods Covenant: As if he had said, what have wicked men to do to Feast before me, pretending thereby to be in Co­venant with me, seeing they hate to be re­formed. This is a Natural and easie expli­cation of that place, and it makes it very plain, that the Eating of Gods Sacrifices was a Foederal Solemnity. And a clear instance of this we have in Exod. 24. where we find the Covenant renewed between God and the Children of Israel, they solemnly undertaking and Vowing, that they would do all that the Lord had said, and would be obedient. Upon this burn offerings and peace offerings are Sacrificed upon an Altar built on purpose there for that occasion, and then we read, that Moses and Aaron, with the seventy Nobles of the Children of Israel, [Page 63] went up to God, and saw his Glory on the Mount, and there did Eat and Drink saith the Text, ver, II. It was a Sacrifical-Feast, which they Celebrated in their own names, and in the Names of all the Con­gregation, to confirm and ratifie that Covenant which they had openly, and universally engag­ed to keep. For want of minding which thing, many learned Expositors and the Chaldee Pa­raphrast himself, have been strangely mista­ken in their sense of that place of Scripture.

I doubt not but the Paschal Supper was a Foederal rite too, as other the like Sa­crifical Feasts were. For Moses comman­ding a memorial of the Passeover in Exod. 13. gave this as one Reason of it, ver. 9. it shall be a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes; that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth: Meaning that the Paschal Solemnity was to be a Token and sign of their Covenant with God, to put them in mind of those Obligations they were under to perform the Terms of that Covenant, which was sealed with the blood of the Lamb. Nay, if the Passeover had not been a very So­lemn Foederal Banquet, we cannot easily conceive why strangers and uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat of it; For the Law was very strict and express as to that in Exod. 12. No stranger shall Eat [Page 64] thereof; but every mans servant that is bought for mony, when thou hast Circum­cised him, then shall he eat thereof; a fo­reigner and hired Servant shall not Eat thereof. The reason is plain and obvious, because the Paschal Solemnity was a Co­venant-rite, which did not belong unto those, who did not belong to that Cove­nant which God had made with his pecu­culiar People, the Children of Israel,

Having thus made it evident, that the Sacrifical Feasts of old were Foederal or Co­venant Mysteries, and were so esteemed both by Jews and Heathens, Satis constat hanc & olim fu­isse, & nunc quoque esse omnium fere gentium consuetudinem, ut partim sacris quibusdam ceremo­niis, libationibus at (que) victimis: partem symposiis adhibitis fae­dera at (que) contractus, quibus ineantur, stabiliantur atque confirmentur. Stuck. Antiq. convivial. lib. 1. cap. 30. I proceed now to shew in the third place, that this Evan­gelical Feast is a solemnity of the like Nature. For tho we should suppose, that nothing to this purpose was said at the in­stitution of it, yet the very A­nalogy and Resemblance, that is between this and other Sacrifical Banquets, doth suffici­ently argue, that this Solemnity was inten­ded to be a Federal rite between the Church and Christ. This is the very principle upon which the Apostle argues, 1 Cor. 10. where going about to shew how unlawful it is for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols, he layeth down this Proposition, that by a due use of this Blessed Sacrament [Page 65] we Communicate of Christs Body and Blood, and are Foederally united to him; so that as the Loaf we eat of, is one, even so are we one Body (with Christ our Head) by being partakers of that one Loaf. This is the meaning and substance of the 16. and 17. verses. And, to make this the more evident, he draws a Parallel, and shews the Analogy between this and other Sacrifical Banquets. Behold Israel after the flesh (ver. 18.) are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, partakers of the Altar? i. e. are they not in Foederal Communion with God, whose Altar it is? Why even so, they who sacrifice to Devils, are in Foede­ral Communion with Devils, are joyned to Devils, have Fellowship with Devils; and therefore it is not lawful for us to eat of those Sacrifices, because it is not possi­ble for us to Communicate with Devils and with Christ too. This is a plain and preg­nant proof that this Evangelical Mystery is (as other Mysteries of the like Nature anciently were) a visible Rite of Covenant­ing.

But besides the Analogy of this sacrifical Feast, our Saviours words at the instituti­on, do sufficiently shew it to be a Foederal Ceremony: For speaking of the Cup, or of the Wine in the Cup, he said, This is my Blood of the New Covenant (for so it should [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 66] be rendred instead of, New Testament:) as if he had said, this is the Representa­tion of that blood of mine, which is the Seal of that new Covenant that is now be­tween us; or as St. Luke relates it, This Cup is the new Covenant in my Blood, that is, the sealing unto you the New Co­venant. As Circumcision is called the Co­venant of Circumcision, Act. 7. 8. because it was the Token and Seal, whereby the Co­venant between God and Abraham was ratified; so is the Cup in this Holy Sacra­ment called the New Covenant, because it is the Sign and Pledge whereby the New Covenant of Grace is sealed between God and all faithful Communicants. Formerly it was a Custome in some partsGrot. in Matth. 26. 27. Alex. ab Alexand. lib 5. c. 3. de Medis, Lydis, Carmanis, Scy­this, Armeniis, Hyrcanis, &c. of the World, for men to en­ter into Covenants by drink­ing of Blood, as the Learned Grotius, and others have rightly observed. But because this was an inhumane way, people that were more civilized, were wont to enter into Pacts and Covenants by drink­ing of Wine instead of Blood. Now since our Saviour said, that the Wine in his hands (which was instead of his Blood, and a Symbol of it) was the Cup of the new Covenant, we may easily dis­cern, that he did intend this as a Foederal Solemnity, as an Obsiguation of those pro­mises [Page 67] and Engagements which are on the Churches part, and on his part also. The Socinians therefore do abuse the World with a very great Error in teaching, that there is no manner of Obsignation at the Lords Supper: For the thing is evident and clear, that this is a Covenant-Ordinance; and then it must follow (as I shall shew in the next Chapter) that here we do sti­pulate to God that we will live up to Christs Religion according to our Power, and that God doth also stipulate to us, that upon our so doing he will perform all those promises of Grace and mercy which he hath made to the Church in his only begotten.

To this that hath been said it may add a little strength if we observe that our blessed Saviour himself exprest the making of Covenants under the the notion of Eat­ing and Drinking. So he represents Hy­pocrites pleading for themselves, Luke 13. 26. We have eaten and drunk in thy presence: Meaning, that some may profess to be in Covenant with him, and to hold Occasional Communion with his Church too; but yet that all their fair shews and pretences shall not serve their turn in that day, when the workers of iniquity shall be cast everlast­ingly from his presence. Thus also when he saith Apocal. 3. 20. Behold I stand at [Page 68] the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me; his meaning is, that he will enter in­to the strictest League, and ingage in an un­violable Contract of Love and Friendship with every obedient heart. For those vul­gar expressions are no other then Conde­scentions to vulgar Capacities. Because such actions were reputed by all Mankind to be Symbols of Peace, and arguments of good will, therefore our Saviour chose to express his divine Philanthropy after that manner; and when Divines do accomodate such expressions to the business of the Holy Sacrament, they go upon this ground, because this religious eating and drinking is a feasting with God now (as it was in the days of old) in a Foederal or Covenant way.

I have been the longer and the more particular upon this point, that I might make every thing intelligible as I go along, and withal might open the sense of some places of Scripture, which otherwise can­not be so rightly understood. Now from these premises there are two things which I shall conclude by way of application.

6. First, that men ought to come to the Blessed Sacrament upon great Consideration, and with all imaginable Sincerity. We had [Page 69] need be serious when we have to do with God; and never more than when we intend to approach before Gods Altar, lest by go­ing to it after a rash and inconsiderate man­ner we take a large step towards our own destruction. Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; and be more ready to hear (or obey) than to give the Sacrifice of Fools; for they consider not that they do evil, saith the Royal Preacher, Eccles. 5. 1. For the Sacrifice of the wicked is abominati­on; how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind? Saith the same Solo­mon, Pro. 21. 27. 'Tis enough to strike the heart even of an Infidel through with trembling and horrour, to consider that people professing so much sanctity and zeal, should dare to be such audacious Hypo­crites, as to use an Ordinance of such so­lemnity and importance, only to make a shew of Religion, or to comply with a custome, or to evade the Law, or to serve a present turn, or to secure their temporal interest, or to palliate a design, or to Co­lour over a wicked Cause, or to promote the ends of an execrable Association and Confederacy. A greater affront cannot ea­sily be offer'd to the Majesty of a just God, nor can Religion receive a greater scandal and blow, than when men presume to im­ploy Christs own Ordinance, as a Property [Page 70] and Tool, to bring about such low, such base, such abominable purposes. And yet how many have we seen, who seldome or never would communicate with us, but when their mony was at stake, and when the hand of Government lay somewhat heavy upon them? And have not all sober and indifferent men reason to mistrust, that such persons come to the Holy Sacrament, not out of Conscience, or any true fear of God, but rather out of pure Love of the world, out of a dogged sort of sullenness, out of spight to the Magistrate, and the Laws, with recoyling and self-condemning minds, and with this irreligious and Athesti­cal principle, that if they were left alone to themselves, they would not trouble them­selves with a thing of that Nature? I de­sire such as are concern'd to ask their Consciences, whether this be not their case? And to consider, how they will answer it to the Judge of all the earth, for profa­ning his Holy name, for debauching his Holy Ordinances, and for polluting his ho­ly Sanctuary and the service thereof, after such a lewd and Abominable manner? This is to be lyable to that dreadful re­prehension in Psal. 50. What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou should­est take (the seals of) my Covenant in thy mouth? For it is a Foederal Mystery which [Page 71] the Church here Celebrates (as I have shew'd you;) every Communicant is re­puted to Covenant with God by this acti­on; whether it be truth or a Lie that is in their right hand, they take the Sacra­ment upon it; and they certainly contract with him, either for a blessing, or for a Curse. So that there is no Trifling with the Majesty of Heaven (for God will not be mocked, especially after such a Solemn rate) there is no colluding with Angels, and men, and our own souls, especially in a thing of such vast Importance and Con­cernment. It is a very memorable story which the eminent Bishop Morton tells us (in his Appeal for Protestants) of a lear­nedl. 2. c. 2. s. 28. young man of St. Johns Colledge in Cambridge, that being seduced (in the time of Doctor, Whitaker, being then Master of the Colledge) to the Romish Religion, went to the Holy Sacrament (preten­ding Conformity, that he might save his Preserment.) It seems, that receiving the Sacramental Bread into his hands, he re­served it by some crafty way, and after­wards threw it over the Wall, But the vengeance of God pursued him so for his Hy­pocrisie, that he was soon tormented with such Remorse and anguish of Soul, that he threw himself over the battlements of the Chappel, and so ended his miserable Life. [Page 72] You see it is an old Popish course, for men to go to Gods Table only to Qualifie them­selves, only to serve their Secular interest, and to seem to make a Covenant with God, when they have made a Covenant with Hell. But (though God doth not make visible examples of all such Mon­strous Hypocrites, yet) we have as much reason to believe that God is angry with them, as we are certain that he is angry with every Rebel, though he doth not presently destroy him in that manner as he destroy'd Korah. It is a desperate thing for any man to dally with the Om­niscient and righteous God; and very dangerous to be rash and heedless in mat­ters of Contract, especially in such Con­tracts as are for an Eternity. Men use to be careful how they set their hands to a Bond, And to consider things throughly before they seal instruments of Inden­ture: And by how much a Soul is more valuable than Mammon, so much the more is every one obliged to deal wisely and faithfully with his Soul, when he brings it under engagements. The rash taking of Covenants and Engagements hath sent more Souls to the Devil, than a Civil War hath sent men to their Graves, 'tis neces­sary therefore to be well advis'd in actions which are look't upon to be of a Binding [Page 73] nature, and especially when we come to the Holy Sacrament, which lays a strict and indefeisable obligation upon the Con­science. Here we profess to contract with God for all that our very souls are worth; and for that reason we should know and consider rightly what we are about to do and stipulate with all sinceri­tyVroditur Rhadamistus regis Iberiae filius, dum simulat cum Mithridate Armeniae rege fae­dus inire, & ob id colligandipol­lices forent, lorum ad terram col­lido astu decidere simulasse, quo Mithridatis pedesvinculoinva­sit, ipsum (que) cum uxore & libe­ris captivos duxit, & nece affe­cit. Alex. ab Alex. l. 5. c. 3. and integrity of heart. The memory of that Prince is infa­mous, who professing a desire to enter into a League with Mithridates, and pretending a willingness to have their Thumbs tied together (as the manner of contracting was in that Coun­try) he craftly dropt the Thong upon the ground, and stooping down as if he would recover it, presently bound Mithridates feet with it, and so, first led him Captive and then killed him. This was shameful dissimulation and base perfidiousness: But their Sin is infinitely greater, who come to the Sacrament pretending they are desirous to enter into Covenant with the Prince of Peace, but are no other than Cheats and Counterfeits in all this, full of deceitfulness and hypocrisie in the whole a­ction, being as ready to Betray Christ, as they seem ready to Kiss him. Therefore men should be very serious and without all [Page 74] guile, when they make their addresses un­to God, and be afraid ofnothing more, than of putting tricks upon Heaven, when they think to deceive the world; because all such hypocrisie is both an argument of reprobate minds, and moreover an effe­ctual course that Hypocrites take to seal themselves up to everlasting perdition.

2. And so it is also, when men wilfully Forsake the Covenant of God, after they have solemnly undertaken it. In the next place therefore, we should be very careful, as to Contract at Gods Table with all sin­cerity, so to stand resolutely to what we have done, and to Perform our Vows, promises, and obligations, with constancy and faith­fullness afterwards. When a Covenant is evil, either in the whole or in part (as some Solemn Leagues and Covenants have been in a very high degree) then it becomes null and void of it self, and 'tis a Sin, not to break but to Keep it. But where a Covenant is both lawful and necessary (as the vowing of universal Christian obedi­ence at the Holy Sacrament is) there if men flinch from their Duty, and willful­ly draw back, the Crime is of such a high nature, that Gods Soul will have no pleasure in such Apostates, Heb 10. 38. The very Heathens accounted the violation of Con­tracts, especially such Contracts as had been [Page 75] made at the Altars of their Gods, to be one of the most Execrable Villanies in the World. Nay they looked upon those Co­venants which were made only by Bread and Salt, to have been very [...], Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 2. pag. 74. Sacred tyes and obligations. For which reason Celsus the Pagan argued against the Credibility of that story concerning the treachery of Judas. For (said he) when one man eateth with another, they scorn to betray one another; and therefore he thought it impossible for any man to be false to his God, when he communicates with him at the same Ta­ble. Now in this Celsus was guilty of a ma­nifest untruth (as Origen rightly answer'd) for many such perfidious fellows there have been, who have betrayed those of whose Bread they have eaten. Origen in­stanced in Lycambas, who was upbraided by Parius for violating the Covenant he had made by the Rite of eating Bread and Salt. But yet it is true, that mankind in general have ever Hated such treachery, and despised all such as were guilty and faithless after that manner; and Judas his Sin was very great and monstrous beyond expression, and comparison. And yet there have been more Judases in the world [Page 76] then One: Many Traitours have eaten and drank at Gods Table; nay have been ad­mired too for their Treachery, have been Canoniz'd for it by such as themselves, have been numbred, by their fellow Traitours, a­mong the Blessed in the Saints everlasting rest. However the sin is Abominable; and when men receive the blessed Sacrament, they are deeply obliged to be steady and true to their promises, and to their Contracts, which they make with the Divine Majesty. St Paul calls mens Apostatizing from the du­ty, the treading under foot the Son of God, and the counting the blood of the Covenant an unholy (or a profane and common) thing, Heb. 10. 29. Which expressions are Em­phatically applicable to the sin I now speak of, the sin of Unfaithfulness, after we have participated of Christ, after we have drank of his blood; this is indeed to despise the Son of God as one of no value; and to trample upon his blood, as an unprofitable, as a contemptible, as a vile thing; and of what sore punishments shall not such be thought worthy? It was an old custome among some people to make Covenants by giving and taking a little quantity of Wool which they had shorn—Quibus foederibus qui contrairet, turpissimo facinore, & in expiabili scelere tenebatur. Alex. ab Alex­and. ubi supra. from the top of a Lambs Head; and they who vio­lated such Covenants, were [Page 77] held guilty of the foulest Crime, and in­expiable wickedness. If Covenants be­tween man and man made by such frivo­lous and inconsiderable tokens, were repu­ted sacred by the very Pagans, how Sa­cred ought we Christians to count such Contracts as we make with the Divine be­ing by eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of the very Lamb of God? I conclude this consideration with those words of So­lomon, Eccles. 5. 4, 5. When thou vowest a Vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it, that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

CHAP. IV.

TO proceed now to another end of this Sacrament: It being already demonstrated that this Mystery was instituted as a Foederal, or Covenant Rite to be used under the Gospel, it ne­cessarily followeth, that a Third End of it is to engage all such as use it to the strict observation of that Religion which is establisht by the Gospel. This will evi­dently appear, if we consider well these [Page 79] three things. 1. If we consider only the Nature and Notion of the Evangelical Covenant to which this Mystery doth be­long. 2. If we consider besides, the de­sign, an Importance of all Mystical Rites in general. 3. If we consider also the Ana­logy which this Rite beareth to the anci­cient Mystical Banquets in particular.

1. As to the First of these; the Nature and Notion of a Covenant is this, that it is a Pact, Contract, or agreement, contai­ning certain Conditions and Promises, for the performance whereof each party bindeth himself, and undertaketh to the other. And the Evangelical Covenant is a Pact of this nature: For as it containeth promises which it lyeth on Gods part to make good; as that he will pardon our sins in this world, and take such care of our Souls and Bodies, that we shall be everlastingly happy in the next World; so it contains certain con­ditions and terms, which it lyes on Our part to perform in order thereunto; as that we will believe on his Son whom he sent into the World to be our Propitiation, that we will sincerely repent of all the miscarria­ges we have committed, and that we will make it our care and business to lead a Life of Vertue and Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Seeing then that this is the Covenant that is between God [Page 80] and us now; seeing that this Mystery was appointed pursuant to this Covenant; and seeing that at the due Celebration of it the Covenant is Ratified and confirmed; it must undeniably follow (whatever the Socinians and others affirm to the contrary) that by this Sacred Rite God himself is supposed to Seal his part of the Covenant unto us, and moreover that we are supposed to Seal Our part of the Covenant unto him; I mean, we are understood hereby visibly to profess, engage and stipulate, that we do and will stedfastly believe, heartily re­pent, and by the help of Gods Grace un­feignedly resolve to lead our lives so, as the Laws of Christ's Religion do require us. If it be a Foederal rite (as I have suf­ficiently proved) this must be the design and meaning of it in short.

2. But besides this we are to observe in the second place, that all those Mystical Rites, which ever were used in the World by any Sect or Society of men, were always designed to engage people to be obedient and True to that Religion, to which those Rites did appertain. This I note, not as if any Religion in the World could compare with the Christian Institution; nor as if a­ny Mystical Rites in the World ever were of that importance and dignity, as ours are; but only to shew what the general [Page 81] sense of Mankind hath been, as to the rea­son and intendments of religious Mysteries. Those Mysteries which were used in the Infant-times of Christianity by those lewd Hereticks the Simonians, the Nicolaitans, the Valentinians, the Gnosticks, and the rest, they were intended by the Authors of them to serve the Ends, and to strengthen the interest of their Religion, and to train up Proselytes in Conformity to that profes­sion which they were admitted into. Those Mysteries that were used of old by Pagans, as their Washings, their Lustrations, their Sacrifices, their Sacrifical Banquets, their many sorts of Festivals, and the like, they were designed to no other purpose, but to keep men Pagans, and to promote Paganism. The rites that were anciently observed by the Egyptians, by the Atheni­ans and other Greeks, by the Romans, and by other Nations, what were they for, but to oblige people to be True to the gods of the Country? In like manner those Myste­ries, which God himself appointed under the Law, were intended by him to tye his people fast to himself, and to keep them close to the Observation of that Religion, which he had directed by his Servant Mo­ses. Because the Jews of old were so in love with superstition and Idolatry (having lived so long among the Egyptians) [Page 82] lest they should turn aside after other Gods, the Divine Being was plea­sedRitus, qui aut ab Haebraeis ad gentes alias venère, aut, quod cre­dibilius est, à Syris & Egyptis usur­pati correcti sunt ab Haebraeis, & ab aliis gentibus sine ea emenda tione usurpati. Grotius Levit. 1. 9. to correct the Abuses and vitious nature of some Gentile customes, and to in­dulge his own inheritance the use of them, that there­by he might oblige them to serve Him, and Him only. This was the reason why the Jews were interdicted the use of many pro­fane Rites and Mysteries, that they mightPhilo in li­bro [...]. not forsake the Truth (saith Philo) but, by observing Ceremonies of Gods appointing, might go on with stedfastness in Gods way,Id. ibid. & in lib. de victimis. and practise that substantial Religion and inward Holiness of heart, which those rites did Adumbrate and point to. It was for the same reason, that God directed so many sorts of Sacrifices; not that he was deligh­ted to see poor Creatures slain, or was plea­sed with the Blood of Calves and Goats; but partly that heSacrificiorum onera, & operationum & oblati­onum negociosas scrupulositates nemo reprehendat, quasi deus talia sibi propriè desideraverit—sed illam dei industriam sentiat, qua populum pro­num in Idololatriam, & transgressionem, ejusmo­di efficiis Religioni. suae voluit astringere, quibus superstitio seculi agebatur, ut ab ea avocaret il­los, sibi jubens fieri, quasi desider anti, ne simula­chris. faci endis delinqueret. Tertull. adv Marc. lib. 2. vide & Origen. Hom. in Numer. 17. in initio. Justin. Mart. dial. cum Tryph. p. 237, 238, 292. might prefigure the great Propitiation and Sacrifice upon the Cross; and par­tly that he might se­cure his peoples O­bedience unto him­self; that he might bind them to the [Page 83] due observance of his own Religion, and that he might lay upon them the strictest Engagements to be constant and faithful to the Laws, which he had Establisht in his Covenant with them. For it hath been the general sense and opinion of Mankind, that the religious using of Sacred Myste­ries was a visible and Solemn way of Addict­ing and Devoting themselves to that Reli­on to which those Mysteries did relate; that the communicating in such Mysteries was of an Obligatory nature like a Vow; that it was a Consecrating act, by vertue whereof they thought themselves bound, in the construction of Conscience, to stick fast to that Religion which they undertook, and into which they were initiated after such a Solemn manner. Hence it is that St. Paul said of that Legal Foederal Rite; whereby men were initiated into the Jew­ish Religion, Gal. 5. 3. I testifie to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtour to do the whole Law. The voluntary and re­ligious susception of that Rite, the being matriculated into the Jewish Church by Cir­cumcision, did tacitly bring upon the man a burden, and Obligation, so that he stood Bound to observe the whole Law of Moses, and to Worship God after the Mosaical manner, as much as if he had with his own mouth vowed and stipulated to do so at [Page 84] Mount Sinai. The Sccinians themselves understand those Words of St. Paul to this purpose, ‘whosoever is Circumcised, as Moses Disciple, by vertue of that action of his, is bound to keep the whole Law: For heVide Crel­lium in Gal. 5. 3. that subjecteth himself to the Mosaical Law in one thing, subjecteth himself in all; be­cause the same Law requireth other things as well as this. Besides, Circumcision is the sign and mark of the whole Jewish Religion which the Law prescribeth; so that by undertaking that, men oblige and tye themselves, to the Law, as it were by a Pledge; even as Baptism underta­ken in the name of Christ, and the use of the Lords Supper is (saith Crellius) a Note and Symbol of Christianity.’ Here the Socinians seem unawares to make an argument against themselves, and con­fess upon the point, that the Eucharist is not only a Commemorative, but a Foede­ral Mystery to, that it carryeth an obligati­on along with it, and that it is in the Nature of a Pledge. And the truth is, as men did formerly Plight their Troth to God by the right of Circumcision, so do we now Plight our Troth to Christ by the use of both his Sacraments: They are binding Mysteries; and for that reason, I suppose, our Saviour made the use of Baptism, and the Rite of Eating and Drinking, Sacra­mental, [Page 85] because they were mysteries which were well known to the World, and which were known both to Jews and Pa­gans, to be engaging and Consecrating mysteries. For (as the Learned Grotius Grot. in Math. 28. 19. hath rightly observed) ‘a Church being then to be congregated and gather'd out of all Nations, it was convenient that they should have some Note (or mark) of their confession, the signification where­of should be perspicuous and clear to all men.’ By this means Christs Religion be­came the more easie, the more acceptable, and the more obvious both to Jews and Gentiles: For they were wont to Baptize too after a Sacred manner; they were wont to eat Bread and to drink Wine too in their Temples, and places of Publick Worship: And things being thus, as they plainly saw, that Christ Adapted these old mysteries to his own Institution, so they could easily gather from their own com­mon Notions, how that the great alterati­on and difference lay here, that Christ in­tended these ancient Rites to new, and to better purposes; that is, to tye and en­gage all Professors of Christianity, to be true to their Profession, and carefully to observe the Laws of that Religion, of which these mysteries were now made a Part.

3. Thus the purport and meaning of anci­ent, [Page 86] Sacred Rites in general, serveth to shew that obliging force which we attribute to this Christian Mystery. But if we pursue the thing a little further, we shall find, in the Third place, more evidence of this matter still, by observing a little that Analogy which this Christian Rite beareth to the an­cient mystical Banquets in particular. It was customary among the Pagans by drink­ing of Wine, and making good chear after a Religious manner at their Temples, to make SolemnThus the Athe­nians (which was usual with other people al­so) quum in aureis & argenteis vasis d [...]is propin [...]ssent, & [...] cecinissent, tunc aem [...]n sanctissimis caeremoniis coelum suspicientes vota nuncupabant A­lex ab. Alex. 1. 3. c. 22. And when the Boys of Athens commenced Ephaebi; they went into the Temple of Hercules, and having consecra­ted a Vessel of Wine there, and drinking to the Company, took a Solemn Oath conceptis verbis, to be true to the Gods of the Country. Archaeolog. Attic lib. 5. c 13. & hinc [...] ea Sacra dicta sunt, sc. Sacrificia quibus Ephaebi Herculi Libabant. Vows. After the same manner they were wont toSo Theocri [...]us de ce­realibus M [...]ster [...]is [...]. And Vir­gil. lib. 1. Georgic. Curcta tibi Cererem pubes agrestis adoret. Cui tu lacte ravos [...] miti dilve Ba [...]cho These Mysteries were perform­ed very secretly in Templi a [...]y [...]is: And therefore Alcibiades was accused of profanation for initiating privately the Mysteries of Ceres [...] o­ver Cups of Wine, whereby he initiated his Companions, who there­upon were called mystae: Plutarch in Aleibiad. Hence that common say­ing in Julius Firmicus, de Tympano mandueavi, de Cymbalo bibi, & Re­ligionis secreta perdidici; quod Graeco, sermone dicitur, [...] (vel [...]) Jul. Fermic de E [...]ro [...]e Prof. Relig. Which also Clemens Alexand. takes notice of [...]; Clem. Alex. in Protreptic. initiate men [Page 87] into the Religion of their Deities; by Vertue of which Initiation they devoted themselves and all they had (sometimes to their very So the custom was, ut quam vestem quis eo tempore gestaret, quo initiaretur, non prius eam exueret, quam longo usu detrita, gestari amplius non posset? Tum ferebatur in Templum, dicanda illi Deo cujus Religionis candidatus fuisset, qui Sacrandam offerebat. Gerard. in Aris­tophan. Plut. vide & Scholia ibidem. Clothes) to the service, and Worship, and Honour of that Deity, into whose Re­ligion they were admit­ted. And for this rea­son they excluded allExtraneos ad Sacra adhibere, fas non erat, Alex. ab Alex. de Epulis Sacri­ficalibus, 1. 4. c. 17.—Delphis assuetum est, ut immolantes victimam, exclusis caeteris vescantur, and quam extraneos ad­mittere fas non erat. id ibid. Strangers from Com­municating in their Mysteries, and initia­ted none, who they sus­pected wouldHence it was that the Atheniaus would not initiate Hercules into the Eleusinian Mysteries, because he was a Sranger (Schol. Aristoph. in Pluto.) and there­fore probably would not keep his vow, nor be true to their God. not be true to their Gods. After the like manner was Julian the Apo­state initiated into Paganism, when he had so long carryed the Guise and Character of a Christian. Being desirous to know whether he should be Emperor, and co­ming to a place where an Heathen Tem­ple stood, the Priest (who promised to answer his Enquiry) led him into a Se­cret, close part of the Temple, and there wrought upon him so by occasion of some Daemons appearing to him, that he was per­swaded to participate of the Wicked Hea­then Mysteries, and so from that time heTheodoret Hist. 1. 3. c. 3. became a profest Pagan, and hated Chri­stianity [Page 88] and Christ himself to his last Gasp.

By this we see, that the very Pagan sort of mankind thought they very obliged by receiving the Symbols of their Religion to cleave and addict themselves to it, and to Per­form those engagements, which by those visible expressions and tokens, they made unto their Gods.

And as for those who Worshipped the true God after his own way, it is plain, that by Feasting upon part of their Sacrifices they Profest themselves to be his People, to whom they had offer'd up those Sacrifices; and they Bound themselves by that Sacred Rite to keep their Faith with him, and to con­tinue stedfast in their Duty to him: because that manner of Feasting in the presence of God was esteem'd (as I have shew'd) a Covenant-Ceremony. For our better under­standing of this matter we must note, that in the First Ages of the world good men were not contented with the inward Re­ligion of the Heart onely; nor did they think it enough for them to Express their Devotion by words alone. No; their Zeal did excite them to give all Real, all Publick, all Visible demonstrations of their Love and Duty to that Supreme Being, who by the variety of this own great Works had given Plain, Real, and Visible demonstrations of [Page 89] his Goodness to them. As the Egyptians were wont to express things by Hierogly­phicks, so the Fathers of old were wont to express their Devotion by Actions. This, I conceive, was the first Original of Sacri­fices, which we find to have been offered even by Cain and Abel. For considering that God was the Cause of allNon ullo dei jussu. sed di­ctante ratione honorem deo etiam conspicuum habend um &c. Grotius de Cain & Abel in Gen. 4. 3. In quem locum vide & S. Chrysostom. things, and that the Existence and preservation of all things de­pendeth upon his providenced, they were led by the Light of Hu­mane reason to express the grate­ful sense they had of Gods goodness by pre­senting some of his own Creatures to him, that thereby they might set forth his Ho­nour, after the most conspicuous, and after the Noblest manner they could

The Holy Patriarchs thought this offer­ing up of Sacrifices, a Becoming, because an ocular Act of Divine Worship; an Honou­rable, because a Visible and Solemn way of Adoreing their Creator; so that every Sa­crifice was esteemed a Real Prayer, and every Holocaust was accounted a Visible Doxology. Was the Glory of Gods Majestie to be set forth, and his Greatness to be Publisht? why, a whole Burn't-offering was presently devoted for that purpose. Was his wrath to be deprecated, and an Atonement to be made? why, a Sin-offering was pre­sently [Page 90] sent unto his Altar? was his Mercy to be Praised, and the Continuauce of it to be Implored▪ why, a Peace offering was presently set apart for his service. Such was the Simplicity and Zeal of men in those days, that they thought themselves obliged to give the most Plain, the most Evi­dent demonstrations of their Piety. And as all their Prayers and Praises were, so were their Vows too, not Verbal onely, but Real, and Conspicuous. Part of their Oblations they committed to the Fire to Honour their Creator, and part they fed upon themselves to testifie their own Obedience. From the Altar, where they had offered up Gods Creatures, they went to the Table, to offer up Themselves, a Living Sacrifice unto God. Their Actions were more Significant, though more Silent Expressions than their words. For by eating of Gods meat, they declared to the world, that they were and would be Gods Vassals. As Friends Pledge mutual Fidelity by Feasting together; as a Bride Professeth her Subjection and Troth to her Husband by eating of a Cake; and as Ser­vants declare their Relation and obligations to their Master by feeding constantly at his Table; so did the Saints of old own their Engagements and Duty to God, by partaking of his Sacrifices.

When Jews and Proselytes feasted upon [Page 91] a Sacrificed Lamb at the Passeover, they did by that Action Engage their Services to God according to that way of worship with was establisht then. For this Reason it was that no Uncircumcised Persons could be Com­municants at that Banquet, because they were out of the Covenant, and so could not be supposed capable of Sealing that Covenant with God, which they had not Undertaken, or entred into. They who were the Children of faithful Abraham had indeed a Right to participate; but yet the Mystery was such, as that it did call upon them to answer the Ends of that Covenant, which they were interessed in. The careful purging of all Leaven out of their houses, did put them in mind of that inward Purity and Since­rity of Heart, which the Covenant, of God did require. The Sight of a Sacrificed roasted Lamb, did teach them to believe in the Messiah that was to be slain for their Re­demption from sin and Eternal Death. The Haggada (I spake of before) or the Repea­ting and Publishing the History of their de­liverance out of Egypt shew'd them the Reason and Ground of those particular Obli­gations to God, which the whole Nation of the Jews did lye under. Moreover, by their Prayers and Thanksgivings at that Solemnity, they Own'd their obligations, and Profest, that as that Infinitely Good and Powerful [Page 92] Being was their God, so they would be hisIdeo nos confiteri, laudare, celebrare, extollere, colere, bene­dicere, Te­nemur, &c. Vide Bux­torf. Synag. cap. 13. People. And so even the Modern Jews are wont to acknowledge at the Passeover, we are Bound to confess, to praise, to cele­brate, to extoll, to worship, and to Bless God, because he did such Wonders for us and our Fathers, when he Redeemed us into Liberty out of Servitude. Accordingly they durst not put an End to that Faederal So­lemnity,P. Fagius in Deut. 8. nor depart, till they had Exprest their Thankfullness after a large manner. For so Paulus Burgensis tells us, that the Paschal Lamb being all eaten the Jews were wont anciently to Sing Seven of Davids Psalms (which thy called, if I mistake not, the Great Hallelujah) from the 112 to the 119th: which 'tis thought was the very Hymn, which the Evangelist meant, when he noted of our B. Saviour, that having Sung an Hymn, with his Disciples, he went out into the Mount of Olives, Matth. 26. 30.

Thus the celebration of the Passeover-SupperGrot. in 26. Matth. as also Dr. Hammond; who di­stinguishes between [...]. was a Tye upon the Jews; and thereby they Profest Universal Obedience to the Mosaical Institution. In like manner, the ce­lebration of the Lords Supper is a Tye upon Christians, and thereby we profess Universal Obedience to the Evangelical Institution. Hence we may suppose it was, that the use of the Paschal-Solemnity thencesorth ceased utterly and for ever, so that not so much [Page 93] as that Comemorative Passeover was used any more, which the Learned Grotius, and others speak of, and which consisted of Un­leavened bread and Bitter Hrebs onely. For Christ having fullfilled all Legal Righteous­ness, and having now Buryed Moses ho­nourably before he dyed himself, he pre­sently instituted another Rite, thereby Signifying, that now all obligations of obedience to the Jewish Religion ceased. and that his Church from that time onwards was to observe another way, and that this Rite was intended as an Engagement upon them to do so. For though or Saviour did not tell his Disciples so much in Express terms, yet we may be easily satisfied that this was part of his meaning, if we carefully observe these three things.

1. If we observe the Analogy of this Feast (the thing which I have Laboured to clear as the Hypothesis of these Discour­ses.) For it plainly answers those Sacri­fical Feasts, which were used by Mankind in general; and it chiefly answers the Pas­chal Feast, which was used by the Jews in Particular. Now since That, and the Rest were Covenant-Banquets, that laid Tyes and obligations upon all such as did observe them, it is reasonable to conclude, that this Christian Banquet is a Faederal Solemnity, that Layeth Tyes and Obligations upon the [Page 94] Observers of it also: as it is Analogous to the Like Banquets in its Nature, so we must Suppose it to be Analogous in its use and Si­gnification likewise.

2. We may observe too, that Christ in­stituted this Rite presently after he had washed the feet of his Disci­ples.Servitia aequè ac Proselyti sa­cris imtiabantur, faeminae Loti­one; mares autem circumcisi­one pariter & Lotime. Lud. de veil. in Mosen Maiemond. de Sac. paschali pag. 6. 28. It was the custome of the Jews to initiate Strangers into their Religion (not only Women, but Men also though they were Circumcised) by washing their Bodies with Water: and that Absolution was an Engagement upon them to observe the Religion of the Jews. Our Blessed Lord being willing to make the best use of those customes which others u­sed and understood, did not only order his Disciples to initiate Proselytes by washing them likewise, but he did it Himself now. Though he did not Baptize any as John did, by washing all their Bodies in a Ri­ver, yet he washed his Disciples Feet, which was Tantamount. And thereby he did not only set before them a wonderful pattern of Humility by that humble mini­stration of his own, but he did also after a Ritual manner formally admit them into that Religion, which he had instructed them in before; and by that Ceremony they came to have a part in him; i. e, to have [Page 95] a great interest and share in him, and to be very nearly related to him, as we may gather from those words of his to Peter, If I wash thee not thou hast no part in me, Jo. 13. 8. Now considering, that presently after that action, he returned to the Ta­ble again, and proceeded to the institution of this Feast, 'tis rational to Judge that he intended it as a another Tye, and as a fur­ther Obligation upon his Proselytes, to be true to that Religion which he had now so Solemnly entred them into.

3. We may observe, that the Disciples took the Sacred Elements from Christs own Hands. We do not read, nor doth it Seem Probable, that our Saviour did now partake of either Himself; but having broken the Loaf and blessed the Cup, he give it to his Disciples. Now as the taking of a Pledge brings a Tye and Engagement upon the Re­ceiver (and the receiving of Bread and Wine was of old universally thought to carry the most Sacred obligation along with it) so the taking of these things at the Hands of Christ, was a Visible Rite of Stipulating with him: hereby they undertook Solemnly to do whatever he had commanded them: hereby they give their Master the most Sa­cred Securities, that they would be True and Faithfull to him, whatever should come of it, though they should even receive Death [Page 96] for it at the hands of men. The Actions which now past between our Lord and his Family were Rites of Covenanting, such as were ge­nerally used in ancient times in Cases of Con­tract: These were plain Interpreters of their minds; and they spake the Sense of the Disciples as plainly, as if they had said with their Tongues, as the Jews said at Mount Sinai, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do and be Obedient.

For these reasons our Church (I am sure) looks upon this as a Consecrating Mystery, by celebrating whereof every Communicant doth Devote himself wholly to the Service of God in Christ. This is manifestly concluded from those words in the Prayer at the Post­caenium, Here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our Selves, our Souls and Bodies to be a reasonable, holy and Lively Sacrifice unto thee. And herein the Church of England doth perfectly agree with the Catholick Church of old, for Christians in the Primi­tive times esteemed this Holy Rite, as a most Sacred and Strict Tye upon them, that they who Live in this world should no longer Live unto themselves, but unto Him, who died and rose again for them, as S. Basil said. And that this was the Sense of the Ancient Church will appear by these 3. Arguments.

1. From the special Notation and use of the Word Sacrament, in the Latine [Page 97] Church. The Old RomansMilites jurare solent, & i­deo militiae Sacramenta dicun­tur. Jurant autem se omnia strenuè facturos, &c. Veget. de re mil. 1. 2. were wont to call their Mili­tary Oath, Sacramentum, a Sa­crament, because every Soul­dier did, by that Sacred prote­station,Vocati sumus ad militam dei vivi jam tunc cum in Sa­cramenti verba spospondimus. Tertull, ad Martyr. Devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia re­solvit, an magis Deo obligat? id. de Oration. plight and Swear Fi­delity to his General. From the Camp the word was brought into the Church, and was used to signifie those two great Mysteries of our Religion, Baptism and the Eucharist. And the reason of it was, be­cause the ancient Christians did believe that by Celebrating these Mysteries they did swear Fealty to the Captain of their Salvation, and did Vow that they would manfully sight under his Banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and continue Christs faithful Souldiers and servants unto their lives end, as our Church excellently expres­seth it with allusion to the Military Oath.

2. The same appears, secondly, from the Practice of the ancient Christians, who were known, even by the confession of their E­nemies, to use this Sacrament to this End, that thereby they might be—Se (que) Sacramento non in sce­lus aliquod obstringere; sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne a­dulteria committerent, ne fi­dem fallerent, &c. Plin. Tro­jano, lib. 10. Epist. strongly engaged to observe all the Laws of Piety and righte­teousness. For Pliny, a Pro­consul in Asia about sixty years after our Lords Ascension, [Page 99] writing to Trajan the Emperor about the Christians, gave him this account of them, that their custome was upon a set day to meet together before Sun rise, and to sing Hymns to Christ, and to bind themselves by a Sacrament, not for any wickedness, but that they would not to be guilty of any Thests, or Robberies, or Adulteries, or be false to their words and promises, and the like.

3. This plainly shews, that the sense of the Primitive Church was, that Mens ta­king of the Holy Sacrament is like the taking of a Promissory Oath, a taking of the greatest Tyes and Obligations upon them. And this, thirdly, we may suppose was the reason, why they were wont to take it every day in those times. For those were times of Persecution, dangers, and death lay every day before them, and many provo­cations did lie in their way to tempt them unto Apostacy. It was thought necessary therefore for Christians then, to address them­selves daily to the Lords Table, that their zeal for Christ crucified might not cool, but that it might be like the Fire of old upon God's Altar, continually Burning, and that their Obligations to all manner of active and passive obedience, might be every day renewed and strengthned by their constant re­ception of the blessed Sacrament.

[Page 98]To conclude this consideration therefore by making it practical. As men ought to be very Serious and Sincere when they go to the Holy Table, so should they be very Circumspect and watchful over them­selves when they depart from it, remem­bring, that they have entred Solemnly into the deepest Engagements, and have taken Christs whole burden upon them. I findBoldacius de Oggio Christiano lib. 2. c. 19. a Story told out of Abulensis concerning Joseph in Egypt, that when Potiphars daugh­ter, by her Fathers command, was going about to salute him, Joseph put forth his hand to keep her at a distance; and gave this reason for it, because a Woman that Worshipped Idols, that did eat the Bread and drink the Wine of Idols, ought not in any wise to sclute a man, that Worshipped the living God, and had eaten of Holy Bread. This Story indeed is granted to be a Fi­ction; but yet it is of good use to us in two respects. 1. It shews (what I have already proved) that the Authors and Pub­lishers of this tale, took it for granted, that the communicating of Bread and Wine, whether it was before God, or before an Idol, was a visible Rite of Covenanting with that Deity whose Religion those men pro­fest, whether they were Jews or Heathens. 2. It argues (what I am now upon) that such as have Eaten and Drank in the pre­sence [Page 100] of the true God; ought to take a most special care, that they defile not them­selves with any manner of Impurity. Not that men should only beware of falling into the embraces of an Egyptian Love (I would not be understood so) but that eve­ry one, who participates of this Holy Bread and Cup, should arm himself with a sturdy resolution, never to commit Willingly, that which is really Base and Sinful. I would crave leave to deal plainly; because we live in a lewd age, and many Egyptians are a­mong us, and every man hath not either the Conscience, or the Courage of a Joseph. Some have an unlucky and ill Art of shrink­ing the great Catalogue of sins into a ve­ry little number; so that if they be not common Swearers, or Drunkards, or Whore­mongers, they are, in their own account, the very Babes of Grace, though their Souls are as black as an Ethiope, nay as Hell it self, with all other kinds of Villany. I do not find, that every formal professor of Religion makes any great account of in­justice and dishonesty; nor that they are so afraid of premeditated Perjuries, as of an ex tempore-Oath; nor that they stick half so much in point of Blood-sted and Rebelli­on, as in point of common decency; nor that their foreheads are as tender as they pre­tend their Consciences are; nor that their [Page 101] Stomachs are so queamish, but an hundred Camels will go down with them more glib than one little Gnat. Nay, we are come to that shameful pass now, that wickedness must be Sanctified too, and the Brand of a Reprobate is become the mark of a Saint; so that to be forsworn is to be sober and conscientions; to be Perfidious is to be a Zealot; to be a Rebel is to be a Stickler for the Faith; to be a Schismatick is to be a precious vessel of Election; and to be any thing or nothing is to be moderate and Prudent. I beseech every well meaning Christian, not to suffer himself to be Im­posed upon in things of such vast concern­ment; but before he go to the Sacrament to ask his Conscience seriously, whether disobedience, and Rebellion, and Hypocrisie, and self Love, and indifferency in Religion, be not sins in the account of God, as well as other Crimes: And let such as intend to be Communicants, take care first to be sincere and uniform Penitents, and resolve stedfastly to keep those Vows, which they are understood to make so Solemnly before Gods Table. It is a fearful thing to lay ones hand upon the Holy Evangelists, and then to be Perjured: But the wickedness is far greater, to lay ones hand, as it were, upon Christs Body, and then to be a Traitor; and to take Judas his morsel into ones Mouth [Page 102] with the Devil in his Heart, is the ready way to be, as he was, a Son of Perdition. By receiving the Holy Sacrament you give up your selves to the Holy Jesus, and are no longer your own; do not desecrate that which you offer up, and hallow unto the Redeemer of your Souls after such a So­lemn manner, when you are solicited unto any sin, be it against the First or against the second Table, remember I be­seech you (as the Story saith of Joseph) that you have eaten of Holy Bread, and consider, as he did when he was sollicited by his wanton Mistriss, how shall I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? Men, that have a True sense of Religion, are al­ways very Circumspect, especially upon a Sacrament-day; they dare not leave their Devotion at the Church-doors,, but carry the sense of what they have done, along with them home, and are afraid to pollute and stain those Garments which they have just washed. Why, thus circumspect ought men to be every day, though they be not e­very day Communicants; for they are last­ing tyes and obligations which we take upon us at the Sacrament: No shifts no pretences, no equivocations, no secular concernments or advantages, no not the very fear and danger of Death, can be e­nough to set us free from those Engage­ments [Page 103] which this heavenly Ordinance brings us under. We are bought with a price (and this Sacrament is a commemoration of your Redemption) Therefore glorifie God in your body, and in your spirit which are Gods, as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 6. 20.

CHAP. V.

BEsides these Ends already mentioned, there is another yet, for which this blessed Ordinance was appointed; viz. that it may be a Token and Pledge, and as it were a Seal, to assure every de­vout and honest-hearted Communicant of the Divine Grace andSunt, qui omnino credant, caenam Do­mini nobis testari Dei erga nos bene­volentiam. Hoc nullo modo verum es­se potest. Socin. de usu & fine S. Cae­nae. Vehementer fallunter illis qui Coe­nam Domini visibile verbum appellant, quo Deus suas promissiones obsignat Wol­zogen. Comment. in Matth. 26. 26. vide & Cateches. Racov. & caetera scripta Sociniana. favour. Socinus and his followers will by no means allow this, and the reason which they bring for their Singular opinion in this point is this, because Christ at the institution of this Or­dinance, made no mention at all of any such end. [Page 105] 'Tis true our Saviour did not mention it in plain and express terms; but this is no argument against us, because neither did he mention (that we read of) the ne­cessity of self-examination before the Cele­bration of this Ordinance; nor (perhaps) had we had any Scripture proof for our Duty in that particular, if St. Paul had not told it us occasionally, and by chance, and by reason of some abuses, which had crept into the Corinthian Church. Never­theless the Reason of this our Duty may be gathered easily from the consideration of the very Nature and Analogy of this Christian Feast, And so may our Doctrine touching this End of it also. For seeing this is a Covenant-solemnity (as I have shew'd from our Saviours own words) it is rational for us to conclude that here there is an Obsignation between both parties; as on our part, so on Gods part also. And seeing this Mystery is answerable to other the like Mysteries of old, which were vul­garly known over the World, it is fit for us to judge, that it was intended also for such answerable Ends and purposes as were vulgarly known too.

Indeed I do not wonder that the Soci­nians deny the vertue and efficacy of this Sacrament, seeing they deny the satisfaction made upon the Cross, and the propitiatory [Page 106] Virtue of Christs own blood. But we may well wonder, that Socinus should have the confidence to say, that the blood of Beasts formerly was far better (that is much more efficacious) in respect of the Old Covenant, Socin. in disput. contr. Nie­mojev. than this Bread and Wine now is in respect of the New, for though we grant (what Socinus affirms) that 'tis not the Wine, but the Blood of Christ which answers the Blood of the ancient Sacrifices; yet seeing the Wine is the Representation and Commu­nication of Christs Blood, we must conclude that it Communicates those benefits, for which that Blood was shed; and conse­quently that it seals that Covenant to every faithful Communicant in particular, which the Blood of Christ sealed to all Mankind in general. And as it is true, that our Sa­viours Passion did answer those Sacrifices which were offered up of old; so it is true also, that this Holy Banquet doth answer those Sacrifical Feasts, which were used of old. If therefore it be made appear. 1. That those sacrifical Feasts which were an­ciently Celebrated by Heathens, were look­ed upon as Tokens of the Friendship and Kindnesses of their Idols unto them. 2. That the Sacrifical Feasts which were Ce­lebrated by the Jews were esteemed Pled­ges of the Friendship and Favour of God unto them: then it will follow of course, [Page 107] that this Sacrifical Feast, which is Analogous unto those, ought also to be esteemed a Pledge a Token, and Seal, of the Friendship and Favour of God now unto Us.

1. First then it is evident, that the old Heathens did reckon, that their being ad­mitted to partake of their Sacrifices, was an Argument and Pledge of the Favour of their supposed Deities. Hence it is thatPorphyr. de absti­nent. lib. 2. Porphyry tells us, as the joynt opinion and confession of all their Divines, that no man was to eat of their Piacular victims; mea­ning such Sacrifices as were offered up to avert Evils from them, and to appease the wrath of their Gods. The reason was, be­cause the Sacrificers were lookt upon at that time to be in a state of Sin and Pol­lution, out of Favour with their Gods, and under their heavy displeasure, and there­fore they were not to partake of any ob­lation till their Peace was made; no, in­stead of Feasting with their Deities, they were to be Cleansed first, neither were they to go home to their Cities, or into their own houses, till they had washed their Bodies and their very Clothes in some Ri­ver or Fountain. It was the general sense even of Idolaters, that to banquet toge­ther in their Temples upon part of those things which they had sacrificed at their Al­tars, was a sure Token that their Gods were [Page 108] Friends with them. Hence it was, that after the Sacrifice they were wont to ex­press all manner of Mirth, chearing them­selves before their Deities, and setting out their Praises, and singing Hymns to them,Vide Alex. ab Alex. 1. 4. c. 17. & Gyrald. de diis gent. Syntagm. 17. and using many sorts of Musical Instru­ments, and Dancings, and all kinds of Festivity. Hence it was too, that they cal­led their Idols then, [...] their well pleased Gods: And their Custome was to exclude all strangers from Communicating with them, because their Gods were not in Friendship with such, and they were wont at such times to cease from sirifes, and to let Law- suits fall, shewing thereby that now they were at peace both with Gods and Men. Many other things I might ob­serve were it needful; but this is enough to shew, that the old Pagans did believe that their Sacrifical Feasts were Pledges of their Deities Favour and kindnessHinc Lectistermia a septem vi­ris Epulonum celebrata pacis de­ûm exposcendae causa, vide Gy­rald. loco citato. Post convivi­um antequam discederent, Gra­tias Diis agebant, quòd eos in convivium accepissent. Nat. Com. Mytholog. lib. 1. e. 1: to them; and therefore be­fore they departed they did use to give thanks to their Gods for receiving and admit­ting them to Banquet with them. Upon this presumpti­on it was, that the old Pagans (especially the Great Men among them) would rare­ly eat an ordinary meal at Home, before they had offered part of it (and thereby [Page 109] had Consecrated the whole)Causa cur Daniel pane vino (que) regio abstinuerit, non alia est, quàm quod moris est illis gentibus partem de pane & de vino inji­cere in aram, aut si ara non ad­esset, in focum vice arae, at (que) eo modo diis suis consecrate, totum illud quod erant comesturi. Grot. in Dan. cap. 1. ver. 8. unto their Idols; that they might never be out of their Gods Favour, but might have them always propitious to them. This was the practice of Ne­buchodnezzer at Babylon; and for that reason Daniel and his Brethren refused to be fed from the Kings Table, lest they should defile them­selves with the portions of the Kings Meat, and with the Wine which he drank, as we read, Dan. 1. 8.

2. But not to digress. It is not to be doubted, in the second place, but the Jews counted their Eating of all Sacrifical ban­quets to be a plain Sign, and undeniable argument of the Favour of God to them. For they went upon this principle (nor were they at all mistaken in it) that as Philo saith, the Victims which they [...]. Philo. de victimis. offered, did no longer belong unto the Offerer, but unto God, to whom they were offered. And hence they concluded rightly, that their being allowed to come to Gods Table, and to eat of Gods meat, was a clear evidence that God was at Peace with them. And ‘this (as the same Author tells us) was one reason why God sometimes appointed his Priests alone to eat of the Sacrifice in the [Page 110] name of the Rest, and as the representa­tives of those who had offered it, that they might be assured, that to as many as repented of their Sins, God was now be­come kind and Propitious; because it wasId. Ibid. not to be believed, that God would call his own Ministers and Servants to par­ticipate at his Table, if all things past were not buried in Oblivion.’ I suppose he means, that the Priests eating the Sacrifice as the peoples Proxies, was an evident To­ken, that God was willing and ready to be in perfect amity with them; and that he was so far reconciled to them, as to make them capable of being instated in his Fa­vour fully. For they were not sure, that God was perfectly Friends with them, till they were admitted to eat of their sacrifi­ces in their own persons. Hence it was that the Priests alone did Eat of sin and Trespass-offerings, because the parties that did offer them were now under Guilt, and so were unfit as yet for Gods entertainment. Hence it was too, that they offered piacu­lar sacrifices, before the Peace-offrings, (which they were allowed to partake of) because their sins were to be Atoned for, before they could receive the Pledges of his Love, as his Guests and Favourties. Hence it was also, that none of those, who were any wise polluted or unclean, in [Page 111] the construction of the Law, were admit­ted to eat of any Peace-offerings, or of the Paschal Supper, because they were not yet Reconciled unto the God of Purity and ho­liness. But when once men had the Li­berty and Priviledge to Eat and Drink before the Lord they were satisfied and as­sured by that Rite, that they had now a good Title to the mercies of the Covenant, and were perfectly restoredOmnis res divina vocabatur Korban (quod est, proxima conjunctio) duas ob causas: ip­samet altaribus conjungebatur, & hos, a quibus fiebat, quàm arcte deo conjungebat. Abarban. Exord. Commentar. in Le­vitic. to the Love of God. For this reason it was (as Rabbi Abarbanel tells us) that Obla­tions were called Korban (which is a word derived from an Hebrew Radix, thatRab. Levi Ben Gersom. Sa­lomon Iarchi, Kimchi and o­thers cited by Dr. Outram de Sacrificiis, lib. 1. c. 11. signifies to draw near) because the Oblations were brought to Gods Altar, and the Offe­rers themselves were thereby brought very nigh unto God. And for the same reason divers Hebrew Doctors thought, that Peace-offerings were so called, because by means thereof Peace and Concord was pro­cured (and by the eating of them Confir­med) between God, and those who presen­ted them. Their using of one Common Ta­ble was a Token, that they were in Gods Grace and Favour; that Sacrifical Feast was a Symbol of Friendship between God and all the Communicants. And upon the [Page 112] same grounds it was also, that at the eating of the Peace-offerings they were wont to rojoyce before the Lord, to sing Psalms and Hymns unto him; signifying, that theyAbarbanel. loc. laud. were at peace with God, and that God was at peace with them; whereas at the Sacrificing of sin-offerings, the People did use to express their Grief and Heaviness, such as become Penitents, abstaining from all Banquets, especially those Sacrifical Banquets, which their sins had occasioned; for it was not fit forDe hostiis Pacificis licebat post effusum sanguinem privatis qui obtulerant, eorum (que) uxoribus & liberis epulari, in signum am [...]citiae cum deo. Id in oblatione simulae non licebat; quia id inter privilegia e­rat Sacerdotalia: nec in victim is pro peccato & delicto, ne de culpa Laetaren­tur. Grot. in Levit. 3. 1. them to rejoyce for their iniquities, when the Priests did eat of their sin-offerings, as they were wont to rejoyce for Gods Friendship and Kindness to them, which they were assured of, when they were suffered to eat themselves of their peace-offerings, as the lear­ned Grotius hath rightly observed.

Once more, as in general the Sacrifical Feasts among the Jews were Pledges of Gods singular love to them, so was the Passeover-Feast in particular. The Socinians cannot deny, but that at its first institution it was a visible Sign to the Jews, that God would be so favourable and Gracious to them, as to deliver them out of all their distresses in Egypt; for Moses told them in [Page 113] express terms to that purpose. Those I­dolaters the Egyptians thought themselves sure of the good will of their Gods, when they had the Priviledge to Banquet before them. Therefore God himself, to confirm his own people in the belief of his pro­mise, and to make them sure of it, that he would infallibly redeem them with a strong hand, notwithstanding all the dis­couragements and difficulties they saw be­fore them, ordered them to kill in each house a Lamb; and to feast upon it, and to be assured thereby, that he would cer­tainly deliver them, even tho the Egyptians should be never so enraged to see that Creature killed, which they thought it un­lawful and abominable for men to slay and eat of; so that as the Rainbow was a sign of Gods Covenant with Noah; and as cir­cumcision was a Token of Gods Covenant with Abraham (for so the Scripture calls it expresly, not only the Seal of Abrahams righteousness (as the Socinians would have it) but a Token of Gods Covenant too with Abraham, Gen. 17. 11.) even so the Pas­seover Feast was now a sign and Token of his Covenant with Abrahams Children. In after ages it continued to be a Pledge still of the Divine favour to them, and for that reason it was that no stranger, no uncir­cumcised Man, no unclean person could par­take [Page 114] of it, because being as yet out of Gods favour, they were uncapable of re­ceiving the Token, the Pledge, the Earnest of his Love and Goodness.

Seeing then, that the feasting upon Sa­crifices was thought by all mankind to be a Pledge and argument, that Heaven was propitious to them: Seeing that the feast­ing upon peace-offerings in general, and upon the Paschal-Lamb in particular, was concluded by the Jews to be a Pledge and argument of Gods special love to them a­bove all other Nations; it evidently fol­loweth, that this our feasting upon Christ our Sacrifice, this our Eating of Bread in­stead of his Natural Flesh, this our Chri­stian Sacrifical Banquet, being Analogous and answerable to the Sacrifical Banquets of Old, ought also to be looked upon, as those were, to be a Token, Pledge, and Seal of Gods favour, goodness, and grace to us, though the Scriptures had not told us any thing to that effect in express terms.

But in my opinion St. Paul hath said e­nough to this purpose, if men will but atten­tively listen to what he saith in 1 Cor. 10. where part of his business is to shew, how unlawful it is for Christians to Eat of things that are offered unto Idols. And this he doth by shewing the incongruity and inconsistency of the thing, and the Evil [Page 115] effects of it; because every professor of Christianity doth hereby make himself a most wretched Bankrupt, and undoes all his interest in Christ, and throws away an in­estimable stock and Treasure of Blessings, by his sitting at meat in the Idols Temple. To make this out he shews in few words what those Blessings are, 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 Though some Socinians interpret those words, as if by the Communi­on of Christs Body and blood, was meant, the making and causing us to be of that Society (or Church) which belongs to Christs Body and Blood (which is a very Trissing and far fetch interpretation) as Slichtingius in 1 Cor. 10. 16. Yet in the Socinian Catechism, they own and confess, that such as ducly Celebrate this Rite, do Communicate of Christs Body and Blood that is (say they) of all those good things which Christ hath brought tous by his Death; though they trifle again in saying, that this Rite is not any cause; but only an Attestation of that Communion. of the Body of Christ? ver. 16. were part of the Apostles meaning is this, that by rightly receiving the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood, we have a share in all those Blessings for which his Body was broken, and his Blood was shed: We have a Ti­tle, Claim, and Right thereby to all the Mercies of the new Cove­nant; we receive the Vertues and won­derful effects of his Passion, and so we are understood in a Mystical sense to par­ticipate of Christs Body and Blood. 'Tis true; we do here partake of Christ not mystically only, but really too; we parti­cipate [Page 116] not only of his Bruised and Crucified, but also of his most Blessed and Glorified Body, as I shall shew at large hereafter in its proper place: But that is not to our purpose now. Though we do Communicate of Christ now, while he is in Heaven, yet in the place before quoted, St. Paul doth directly point to those blessings, which by means of this Sacrament accrue to us from his sufferings on the Cross. And to con­vince us that we do hereby receive ma­ny such blessings; and that we are enti­tled to the Love and favour of God in particular (which is the Fountain and Ori­ginal of all other blessings, to convince us of this, I say) he draws a parallel between this sacrifical feast of Ours, and those o­thers which were used among the Jews. Behold Israel after the Flesh, saith he: Are not they which Eat of the sacrifices, parta­kers Clarius in Loc. of the Altar? that is, do they not par­take of the Vertue of those Sacrifices which are offered upon the Altar? His plain mea­ning is, that the Jews did partake of those effects, which by the Sacrifices were procu­red; their feasting upon the Sacrifices was a Token and Pledge to them, that their desires were answered; that what they had offered and sacrificed for, was granted them; that their oblations returned into their own bosome, that they had the Benefit of [Page 117] them, and were entitled to those blessings which they were intended for. There is an expression which will make this matter clear, in Lev. 7. 18. If any of the Flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted? neither shall it be imputed unto him that offe­reth it. When those sacrifical Feasts were re­gularly Celebrated, they were imputed to the guests for their Good, they were recko­ned advantagious to them, they were fa­vourably accepted at Gods hand in order to the Ends for which the Sacrifice was designed, they served to make an Atone­ment, they were effectual to their purpo­ses, they were good to all intents, they were available to the Offerers; (as the He­brew Ayns­worth. in Lev. 7. 18. Doctors expound the Phrase.) This is the true meaning of being Partakers of the Altar, in St. Pauls Language; when by eating duely of the Sacrifices of the Altar, they turned to a good Account, and Men were Profited, Benefited, and Blest by so doing, being in Communion with God, whose Al­tar it was, and receiving the Pledges of his favour, which was obtained by the things that were offered upon the Altar. Was the Grace of God to be beg'd and sought for by an Holocaust? why, eating of the Oblations, which were annext to it was a Pledge to assure them, that their Prayer [Page 118] was heard, and that God would be graci­ous unto them? Was the Wrath of God to be appeased by a sin-offering? Why, the feeding upon those oblations, which attended it, was appointed as a Pledge to certifie them, that an Atonement was made. Were peace-offerings presented, that people might be delivered from dangers and ill changes, and that God would give them Peace, Prosperity, and Plenty, and conti­nue his goodness to them? Why, the Feasting upon the Peace offerings was in­tended as a Pledge to satisfie them, that Gods good providence and care of them should not be wanting, as long as they would not be wanting to themselves. Thus they were partakers of the Altar, by be­ing assured of the effects of their offerings.

To return now to our Apostles argu­ment: As the Jews were partakers of Gods Altar, so are we partakers of the Lords Table. Their sacrifical feasts were inten­ded as Pledges of Gods manifold mercies to them: And this Christian feast is inten­ded as a Pledg of Gods manifold Mercies to us, but to better purposes, and in an high­er degree. God Covenanted with them for things temporal; with us he Covenants for spiritual and Heavenly things chiefly. Christ our Sacrifice was slain, to purge our very Consciences from sin, to endue us with the [Page 119] Holy Ghost, and with power from on high, to deliver us from the danger of Eternal Damnation, to make us sure of Heaven, and to make God and us, one. And this our sacrifical Feast is intended as a Pledge to certifie and assure us, that his friendship and dearest love shall never fail us, if we be but true friends to our own Souls. Thus we partake and Communicate of our Saviours Body that was Crucified, and of the streams of that Blood he shed for us, by receiving at this Sacrament the ver­tues and effects of his Passion, as the Jews received the Vertues and effects of their Sacrifices. This Sacrament is a Token to us, that Christs Sacrifice is imputed to us (in a comfortable sense) that is, here God assures all faithful Communicants, and as it were sets his Seal to it, that Christs of­fering up himself shall infallibly turn to a good account to them, that it is an effe­ctual Atonement on their behalf; that it shall be available for them to all intents and purposes; and that tho' they do not eat of the very flesh of our Sacrifice, as the Jews did of their Peace-oflerings, but of Bread in the Room of it, yet it shall be all one to them in effect, and that they shall ever be the Blessed of the Lord.

I have been the more prolix and exact in this matter, that I might clear and vin­dicate [Page 120] the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, In her Catechism. whose Notion of a Sacrament in ge­neral is this, that it is an outward and visible sign ordained as a means whereby we receive, and as a pledge to assure us of an inward and spiritual grace. And of this Sacrament in particular she saith, that Christ hath instituted and ordained these Ho­ly Exhortati­on at the Communi­on. Second Prayer af­ter the Communi­on. Mysteries as pledges of his Love; and that God doth assure as thereby of his Fa­vour and goodness towards us. For it is senseless to imagine, that Christ should in­tend the Absolution of so many Mosaical Rites, because they would be useless and insignificant, or of very small account un­der the Gospel, and yet should institute himself another Ceremony, that would be of very mean and inconsiderable importance. For such would this Mystery be, were it no more than what the Socinians would have it, a memorial only of Christs suf­ferings, by using which we profess our Faith in him. For the Scriptures are a memorial of Christ, and that not of his Passion on­ly, but of his Nativity, of his Sanctity, of his Life, of his Doctrine, and of his Mi­racles; and every Chapter in the Gospel doth more or less annunciate, and shew forth his Love. And Men have many va­rious ways of declaring and professing them­selves his Disciples, tho this Sacrament [Page 121] were not used at all. We publish our Faith daily by repeating our Creed: The Ancients were wont to do it by using fre­quently the sign of the Cross, signifying to all Unbelievers, that they were not asha­med of a Crucified Jesus. The Holy Mar­tyrs shew'd their Faith by their Constancy unto death; and every good man in the World shews his faith by a Life of Obe­dience to his Masters Laws; so that were the Doctrine of the Socinians allowed this great Ordinance would soon become an useless, and worthless thing; and our Lords Wisdome in appointing it would not only be questioned but even traduced and blasphemed, were not this Christian Feast believed to be intended for those Noble, those excellent, and those Beneficial purposes, which have been hitherto men­tion'd.

1. To draw down this speculation now to our Christian Practice. First this con­sideration should raise in us a Thirst and longing desire after this Sacrament, and should encourage us all to go often to it with zeal, with alacrity, and with an ho­ly contention, who shall go fastest. Lord! How backward are many to do their souls Right? How deaf are they when we in­vite them to an unanimous Celebration of this Mystery? How many excuses have they [Page 122] at hand to palliate their sinful negligence? How do they mutter and complain, if the Law threaten them with stripes for their disobedience? And how do they think themselves no less than Persecuted, if the Magistrate finds it necessary to constrain them do their Duty, when perswasions will not work upon them? I beseech you to consider seriously and indifferently, whi­ther do these Counsels, these admonitions, these importunities, and Christian Methods tend, but to charitable and kind purposes? by any good means, if it be possible, to make you truly Happy; to bring you ve­ry neer unto God; and to make you re­ceive the Symbols and Pledges of his Ever­lasting Love: Will men call it persecution when God himself threatneth them with his Judgements, and visits them with a Rod, that he may make them mindful of their Duty, and that he may bless and save them in the end; Why, this is the reason of our corrections at the hands of Men, when we begin to be exorbitant and intractable? and I know no other ends of all our Discipline and Laws, but this that we may all be good Christans in this World, and glorious Saints in another; and if men will be so Rash and unjust, as to call this Persecution, I hope they will not grudge to be persecuted into Heaven. But, say [Page 123] they, would you have us eat and drink our own damnation? No, the Lord forbid it, but we would have you sincerely Repent that you may be saved. Would you have us come before we are prepared? No, but we would have you both prepare your selves and come: What God hath joy­ned together you must not put asunder; much less must you plead the neglect of One duty in contempt and defiance of both. Would you have us neglect the business of our particular Callings? No, if they be lawful ones; nor yet neglect the more weighty concernments of your general cal­ling, but whatever regard you have to your Purses, chiefly and principally to re­gard the interest of your immortal Souls. Would you have us to come on a sudden? No, not so suddenly as to be surpriz'd, or with your iniquities, and with the Love of sin about you; but to give all diligence to be fit to come the next opportunity lest God in vengeance for your sin, should not suffer you to live till another.

These and the like are the Charitable considerations, for which we earnestly press you to use this Ordinance, and they are a proper subject for your impartial me­ditations.

But indeed there would be little need of these Argumentations, but that it is the [Page 124] Divels great work, and he useth his ut­most wiles, above all things to keep men from the Sacrament, lest they should re­ceive there the Seals of Gods everlasting Grace and Goodness, and not come into the same Condemnation with Himself, and with the damned Association in Hell. Hence it is, that he suggesteth to some, that it is an Useless Ordinance, or not of such moment as to be Necessary; to others, that they shall have Time enough, and will be fitter for it Hereafter; to others, that it is Impossi­ble to celebrate it Rightly; to others, that it is a Formidable and Dangerous Mystery; and to others, that when they have done what they are required, little Profit comes by it, unless it be the Saving of their Money. But were not the Ignorance of men so Great, and their Prejudices so Strong, as that they do not see or observe the Meaning of this Rite, these Fancies (for so I call them) would Presently Vanish. For one design of it is to Engage us to be Really and Sincerely Good; and another end of it is, to Assure us, that as long as we are so, we have a good Title to the Felicities which are above, so that let men be conscious to themselves, that they have Honest and Good Hearts towards God and towards Men, and they may be so far from looking upon this as a Dreadful [Page 125] discouraging or empty Mystery, that they ought to look upon it as upon the most Com­fortable Ordinance of Jesus Christ: Because it is intended to be a Sacrifical Feast, that by means thereof we may participate of the Great oblation made once for all upon the Cross (that is, of the Vertue and ef­fects of that oblation) and may receive a sure Pledge at the hands of God, that there­by we are in a blessed state of Salvation.

2. In an humble and modest confidence of this, secondly, every Devout and up­right-hearted Communicant may go away with an easie and chearful mind, and with this comfortable perswasion, that he stands fair in the Eye of God, and that his con­dition is safe, if he be but careful to per­severe unto the end in well-doing. I do not love to blow Men up with Air, nay I think it a great miscarriage and sin in some Teachers of our days, that they are given very much to puff up their Disciples with a huge conceit of themselves and of their State, and make poor ignorant, (nay ill) people to believe, that they are the precious Vessels of Election, and the greatest Saints, when they have little but their pro­fession and some Cant, that bespeaks them Christians. It is not for any of us to Ca­nonize those who stand yet upon the earth, especially if their feet be foul, and their [Page 126] ways crooked. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall, first into the Mire, and at last into Tophet. It is not for any man to presume, so as to put it out of all question and doubt; but yet e­very Good Man hath reason to Hope, so as not to be perplext and distracted in his mind, touching the certainty of Gods dea­rest affections to him. And of all others, the humble and honest-hearted Communicant hath the greatest reason to hope, that he shall one day see the goodness of God in the Land of the living; because that part of the New Covenant which containeth Gods promises, is confirmed at this Sacra­ment to every Holy Soul. 'Tis true in­deed, the Covenant of Grace was confir­med by the Death of Christ upon the Cross, and therefore his Blood is called; the blood of the Covenant; that is, of the New Co­venant, which was Sealed and ratified to us by Christs Blood, as the old Covenant was confirmed, ratified, and sealed to the Jews by the Blood of Beasts. But then it is to be considered, that the Covenant was confirmed upon the Cross to all inde­finitely, not to me, or to thee in particular (for no man finds himself named in Gods promise) but to all Believers in general. Now as it was necessary, that the Divine Grace should be first purchased for all at [Page 127] large, and then some means used for the conveyance of this purchase to every indi­vidual Believer; so is it necessary, that be­sides the confirmation and sealing of the promises by Christs Death to all in general there should be another obsignation to the Soul of every person in particular, that gives up himself to him that died for him; because otherwise every ones mind would fluctuate in endless doubtings, and uncer­tainties. Now we say, that this obsignation is transacted at this Covenant-Feast: And how so? Why, here every particular Com­municant that is duly prepared, receives the Seal, when he receives the Elements, which are the Tokens and Pledges upon the Divine favour. In that I am admitted to participate here of the Sacrifice of the Cross, it is an evident sign and strong argu­ment to me, that that Sacrifice shall be im­puted to me, shall be available and effect­ual for me; as the Sacrifice was imputed to the Jews, was available and effectual for the Jews, and was declared to be so, when they were admitted to partake of the Peace­offerings, and to feast upon them, as we do here upon Bread and Wine.

CHAP. VI.

HAving thus discoursed of the Nature and Ends of this Sacrament, I pro­ceed next according to the usual me­thod to discourse of the Blessings which it brings us, by our due Reception of it.

1. And, first, it is the joynt Confession of all the Christian Churches in the world [Page 129] (for I do not reckon upon the Blasphe­mous Socinians) that we do hereby receive the Body and Blood of our Redeemer. This I mention in the first place, and must take the greater care and pains to clear, because the proof hereof will strongly and evidently prove the conveyance of divers other blessings hereafter to be mentioned in their order. Now we are said to par­take of Christs Body and Blood in a two­fold sense; that is, after a Mystical, and af­ter a real manner.

1. In a Mystical sense we do partake here of our Saviours Body, as it was Broken, and of his Blood as it was shed for us up­on the Cross: that is, our Feasting together at the Holy Table; is by interpretation a feeding upon our Crucified Jesus; in the account of God, and construction of the Gospel. We are reputed and esteemed to par­take of that Sacrifice which he offered up, and so are entitled to all those mercies which that Sacrifice was offered up for. For the opening of this matter we must remember, how Mankind were wont of old to participate of those things which they had first offered up in Sacrifice; as the Jews (for instance) were wont to par­ticipate of their Peace-offerings, and of the Paschal Lamb. Now this Feast being Analogous and answerable to those; accor­ding [Page 130] to the Vulgar course and the Ordina­ry manner of Feasting, Christians must have fed upon Their Sacrifice (that is upon Christs own Natural Flesh) as Jews and Gentiles were wont to seed upon their Ob­lations. But considering that this would have been an [...] &c. Cyril. A­lexand. in Catena Thomae in Luc. 22. vide & e [...]. ad Calofyr. Item Theophy­lact. in Marc 14. Inhu­mane way of feasting; and considering that one and the same Body could not have served [...] Athanas. in illud, quicunque dixerit verbum &c. for all Christians in all Ages; and conside­ring too, that the fee­ding upon Christs ve­ry Flesh was not ne­cessary in it self, but that the ends and pur­poses of this Feast might be very well answer'd by our fee­ding upon something else in the Place of Christ, therefore at the institution of this Ordinance he appointed us the use of Bread and Wine, instead of giving us his very Body and Blood, which he gave to God as a Sacrifice for us. These Creatures are the Symbols and Representations of his Body and Blood; they are substituted in the place and room of them; and the man­ducation of the one, and the drinking of the other, is, to all intents, as valid and [Page 131] effectual to us, as if we did actually partake of those things which they do represent, and in lieu of which they are appointed. This I take to be part of the meaning of our Saviours words, this is my Body, and this is my Blood: As if he had said, this Bread is instead of my Flesh, and this Wine is in the Room of my blood. This is a Natural and an easie interpretation; 'tis fair, and rational, and full of sense; and 'twould serve to silence a great many con­troversies among Christians, were it but admitted; would they put in but this one word, instead; and understand our Saviour to mean, this is instead of that, in the place and room of it. Nor do I see any reason in the World against this interpreta­tion; For all men know, that the Jews were wont to speak after a concise man­ner, meaning something which they did not fully express; of which there are a thousand instances and examples in Holy Writ; and why may we not allow, that our Saviour spake now (as other Jews did, nay as he himself did at other times) after a short concise manner, saying of the Bread, this is my Body, but intending thus much, This is instead of my Body. The Analogy of this Feast to other Sacri­fical Banquets, doth plainly and infallibly argue, that our Saviours words are thus [Page 132] to be interpreted, because we feed here upon Bread, instead of eating the very Flesh of our Sacrifice. And I am confirmed in this opinion, by an observation thatBishop Tay­lor, of the real pre­sence, Sect. 4. in fine And Dr. Hammond in his An­not. on Matth. 26. 26. hath been made by two learned Doctors of our Church, who have noted, that the Lamb for the Paschal Supper, being drest and set upon the Table, the Jews were wont to call it, the Body of the Passeover, and the Body of the Paschal Lamb. If this be so, it is reasonable to believe, that our Saviour alluded to a Jewish Phrase, that was ready at hand, when he said, this is my Body, or this is in the room of me, the true Passeover. When he took the Bread into his Holy hands and told his Disciples, that that was his Body, he gave them to understand, that they were not to expect to eat of his very Natural Flesh, as they were wont to eat of the Flesh of a Lamb; but instead of that, they were to eat Bread, which should be as Benefici­al to his Church, as the eating the body of the Passeover had been unto the Jews; it should be all one to us as if we did eat of his very Body. His speech may be right­ly Paraphrased after this manner: Where­as hitherto it hath been customary among people to feast upon the Dead Carcass of a dumb Animal, in Token that they were in Covenant with God, and were entitled [Page 133] to all the mercies of the Covenant: And whereas the Lamb is a Type of me; to the intent now that you, and the rest of my followers may be assured, that you shall have a certain interest in my Sacrifice, and shall receive infinite blessings by my death, though you are not to feed upon my very natural Flesh; Lo, instead and in the Room of that, I appoint you to Feast after this manner, and to look upon it as a feasting upon me, and upon my Sacrificed body, tho you do not eat of the very identical oblation, as hath been usual hi­therto; and I would have you be satisfied, that as often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this Cup, ye shall be supposed, in­terpreted, and reckoned to participate of me my self.

Now this I call the Mystical partaking of Christs body and blood; because, by the celebration of this Mystery, we are presu­med and reputed to do so; we do in effect partake of both, by partaking of those things which do represent, and are appoin­ted to be taken in the place of both; and we are as truly said to partake of our Sa­crifice, as the Jews were said to partake of theirs, when they did eat of their ve­ry oblations. This is the first and great blessing we receive.

2. Hence we conclude in the second [Page 134] place, that every Communicant who is rightly prepared and dispos'd, hath here­by solid and substantial grounds for his hopes touching the Pardon of his Sins. For since by this visible Pledge of Gods Love we gain an interest in the Sacrifice of Christs death, since we are reckoned to participate of Christs Body and Blood; since we are partakers of the Cross, as the Jews were of the Altar, it necessarily fol­lows, that we have all the Benefits of our Lords Passion; and so, that we ought to be assured of the Truth, and sincerity of Gods promise, that he will forgive and blor out all our miscarriages; because it was for that end, that Christ died.

But this will more evidently yet ap­pear, if we consider, 1. The Corresponden­cy of this Feast to the ancient Sacrifi­cal Banquets in general: 2. The Ana­logy of it to those Feasts which were used after Sin-offerings in particular: And thirdly if we consider the words of our Saviour at the institution of this Rite.

1. First then it is already proved, that Gods ordering his people to Feast upon part of their Sacrifices, was a sign and Token to them, that they were in favour and Cove­nant with God, that they had a Right unto all his promises, that their Sacrifices [Page 135] were accepted Kindly, and were Imputed unto such as had offered them. By the vi­sible Solemnity of Eating and drinking in Gods presence they were assured, that now they were in a State of Reconciliation and Peace with him, and had a Title to all those mercies which their Sacrifices were intended for. Seeing therefore that this Feast is answera­ble unto those, it argues plainly, that as the Eating of Sacrifical Feasts was an Evidence unto the Jews, that they were benefitted by the oblations, and were in Gods Fa­vour; so the partaking of this Sacrifical Feast is an evidence unto us Christians, that we are Benefitted by Christs Oblation of himself, and are in Favour with God also; and consequently, that we have a Right to his Promise, that he will Forgive and Par­don us, that being a main part of Gods Covenant, one of his Principal Promises, an Eminent Blessing, and such a Singular Expression of his Favour, as every Soul of man is Highly concern'd most earnestly to Hunger and Thirst after.

2. But for the further confirmation of this matter we are to note, that this is not a Feast upon a Sacrifice at large, but a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin in Parti­cular, you must remember that there were certain Oblations appointed by the Law, which were called Sin offerings and Trespass­offerings, [Page 136] because they were intended to make an Atonement for all iniquities what­soever, both of the Heart and of the Hand, whether they were offences against the First, or against the Second Table. Of these Sacrifices the People of the Jews were never suffered to eat; no, nor the Priests themselves sometimes, as when it was a whole burnt offering, or a Sacrifice of Expiation, that was to be burnt without the Camp; wich was a Lively Type of Christ, wo was Sacrificed without the City, Nevertheless, these Sacrifices were atten­ded with Other sorts of Oblations, which the People were allowed to eat of, and their eating thereof was a Pledge and Assu­rance to them, that their Atonement was now made, and their Pardon given. Why now, Christ was made Sin for us (that is, he was made a Sacrifice for our sins,) though be knew no Sin. And as he was our Sin offering, so our eating at the Holy Table is a Token and Argument to us, that God is at Peace which us, and that our Atonement is made for all our iniquities, trangressions, and sins. Nay, we have a far greater Priviledge in this respect, than the People of the Jews, had for they were not permitted to eat the the flesh of a Sin-offering; but we are, that is, we are permitted to eat of Bread [Page 137] instead of it. They were never allowed to Drink the Bloud of any of their Sacrifices, but we are; that is, we are allowed to drink wine instead of Christs Bloud, These Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina, & Scholae Evangelicae hoc primum magisterium protule­runt, & doctore Christo primùm haec mundo innotuit disciplina, ut biberent Sanguinem Christiani, &c. Autor Serm de Caena Dom. Cipriano ascript. are Singular Priviledges to us; and so they are Greater Assurances also of our Pardon and Atonement: Christ gives us his Body and Bloud too, for our plenary Conviction and Consolation, touching the Remission of our Sins. In this respect our Christian Feast doth far out go all those which they used under the Law. For they could parti­cipate but of some of their Sacrifices, and but of Part of them too: we participate even of our: Propitiatory Sacrifice; nay, of our whole propitiation. Whereas the Bloud of every Sacrifice was wont to be poured out at the Altar, and not so much as one Drop of it was to be tasted of, either by the Poeple or Priests, behold saith our Saviour to his Disciples, you have liberty to participate even of the Bloud of my Sacrifice; as this Bread is in the Room of my Body, so is this Wine in the place of my Heart Bloud; and I give you this particular command and Priviledge, that ye Drink of it every one of you, though no such thing hath been allowed hitherto at any Sacrifical Solemnity. Which shews, [Page 138] that our whole Sacrifice is fully imputed to every worthy Communicant for his forgive­ness;Dr. Pa­tricks Men­fa Myst. cap. 4. 5. 3. and (as a Learned Man hath well ob­served) that we are fully justified by Christ from all those things, which we could not be justified from by the Law of Moses.

3. Thus the Analogy of this Sacrifical Banquet doth prove, that every worthy partaker thereof hath the strongest and most substantial reasons to hope in God firmly, and to depend upon Gods good­ness and promise for his Pardon. But thirdly, the words of our Saviour himself do seem to argue this beyond all manner of controversie, though the Socinians en­deavour to Evade the force of them. For speaking of the Cup, he said expresly, Drink ye all of it, for this is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. Though it be granted (what the Socinians object) that those words, for the Remission of Sins, do immediately relate to the shedding of Christs Blood, which was spoken of just before; yet they endeavour in vain toLud. Wol­zogenius in Loc. conclude thence, that they have no refe­rence to the drinking of the Cup. Nor have they reason enough to affirm, that Remission of sins is the fruit of Christs Passion only, but not the effect of our drinking, because he said not, drink ye [Page 139] all for the Remission of Sins; but drink ye of the Wine that represents my Blood, which is shed for the Remission of sins. For, since our forgiveness is the certain, immediate, and necessary consequence of his sufferings, it will undeniably follow, that it we participate of his Blood (as I have shew'd we do) we must be supposed to par­take also of that which is the inseparable ef­fect of his Blood shedding. That which brings the cause must also bring the effect, which is the Natural result of it: The same action, which makes us partakers of the Sacrifice it self, must likewise make us partakers of the fruit and Benefit of the Sacrifice: So that it matters not how our Saviour exprest the thing, as long as he exprest it enough: Since he first tells us, that his Blood was for our Remission; and then bids us to Drink of that Blood; and then assures us that our drinking thus of Wine is in effect the drinking of his very Blood, we have all the reason in the World to believe, that by our thus drinking we obtain Re­mission, and that our Lord commanded us to drink in Order thereunto. The truth is, Pardon of sin is the Blessed fruit both of Christs dying, and of our receiving: Of the former, as the meritorious Cause that purchased pardon for all in general: Of the latter, as the ordinary instrument [Page 140] that conveys the pardon to every Holy Soul in particular. The shedding of Christs Blood did procure and ratifie Gods promise of Grace to all Mankind; and the receiving of this Wine (which is the Symbol of that Blood) is the Seal of that promise to all worthy Communicants, when Christ was slain upon the Cross, he obtai­ned this favour of God, that all Men were then put into a salvable condition, into a Capacity of forgiveness, into a way whereby they might be pardoned actually and fully, if they would not be wanting to themselves, perfect Peace and reconcili­ation was then merited; and it was meri­ted for all that should accept of it, whe­ther Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; for he tasted Death for every Man, Heb. 2. 9. He died for all that were dead, 2 Cor. 5. 14. Thus far the Scripture speaketh in general terms; but it saith nothing of Me, or of Thee, as to our particular Persons. We find not our names there; much less can we find our Names in the book of E­ternity: All that we can do is to judge of our selves by examining our state, by fair probabilities, and rational Collection. And to strengthen our hopes, and to e­stablish every mans humble confidence, this Ordinance was appointed; that as of­fen as we eat this Bread, and drink this [Page 141] Cup of the Lord; after a worthy manner, we may be comfortably and reasonably well perswaded, that our sins and transgressi­ons are done away. For that pardon is by this Ordinance applyed to every one in particular, which before was bought for all universally; and any man that is but satisfied of the truth of his Faith, and of the sinceri­ty of his Repentance, may go away from the Holy Table well satisfied to, that he now stands fair in the eye and favour of God, and so shall stand still, if he doth but hold up his goings in Gods ways, so that his footsteps do not slide back into Sin and Perdition.

I hope, that by this time I have fully proved and illustrated this matter. But yet before I let it go, I would note this one thing, that our Saviour spake expresly of the Remission of our sins, when he spake of the administration of the Cup. Neither of the three Evangelists, who have recorded the History of the institution of this Mystery, nor St. Paul, who hath re­peated it, takes any notice of that expres­sion, when our Lord spake of the distri­bution of the Bread. Indeed it is not to be doubted, but our Saviours Body was broken for our forgiveness; nor do I doubt but his meaning was so, when he said, this is my body which is given for [Page 142] you (that is for your Atonement and Par­don) but that particular expression, touch­ing the Remission of Sin, was used by him (for ought we know) only in re­ference to the Drinking of the Wine. Hence I infer, that for the Peace of a Mans Conscience, and for the satisfaction of his mind, that he is in an hopeful state of Salvation, it is necessary for him to re­ceive the Sacrament in both kinds. See­ing forgiveness of sin is the effect of the whole Ordinance; seeing our Saviour seems to have a particular and special regard to our drinking of the Cup; and seeing he gives us this reason for it, because it is the Sacrament of his blood, that is for our Remission; I say, seeing that the thing stand­eth thus, I cannot see what substantial and solid grounds men can have to be confident of their Pardon, if they parti­cipate not of the Wine, as well as of the Bread.

If the thing were not prejudicial to the Peace of mens Souls, yet it would be impossible to Vindicate the Church of Rome from the guilt of Impiety, Sacriledge, and Innovation, for Denying the Cup to all the Lay-People of her Communion. For the Holy Jesus himself administred both the Bread and the Wine to his Disciples; and as He had done, he commanded them to do [Page 143] also: nay, as if he then fore-saw, and was minded to prevent that abuse, which hath lately crept into the Roman Church, he Positively commanded his Disciples, when he reached out the Cup to them, that they should All drink of it; and his Reason was this, because his Bloud (of which the wine was a Figure) was now to be shed for the Forgiveness of All. So that were this argument driven home upon the Ro­manists, they must be brought to confess (if they will speak out) either that the Cup is to be given to Lay-people, or else that Christs blood was not shed for Lay-peoples Sins. I will not enter into that enquiry, how many, and what the persons were, to whom our Saviour spake at that time. Though some are rea­dy to tell us, that they were only the twelve Apostles (who were then in the quality of Priests) yet this is a confi­dent assertion, which we need not grant: For though it be said, that he sate down with the twelve, yet it doth not follow, that no more than twelve were there. It is probable, that the good man of the House, who is supposed to have been a Believer, might be there among the rest; at least it is improbable, that the Holy Virgin, of whom he took such care at his Death, should not be with [Page 144] him at his last Supper, especially since he admitted the Traitor Judas. But suppose none but the twelve were Commu­nicants, yet they were the representatives of the whole Church; and what he said unto them, he must be understood to have spoken in reference unto All; that every Member of his Family should drink of the Cup, as well as eat of the Bread. Accordingly was the practice of all Chri­stians in the days of old. Wheresoever St. Paul speaks of the administration of this Sacrament, he speaks of both Ele­ments, that they were communicated of, and this, he saith, was that, which he had received of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 21. And that the same was the usage of the times following, is undeniably clear out of the writings of many antient Fathers; both of Greek and Latine Churches, who Celebrated this Mystery as we do, which I note the rather, that I may lay open those Lyars, who, to palli­ate their corruptions, confidently tell poor ignorant people this Monstrous falsity, that Antiquity is on their side. This their custome of half-Communion is a most Notorious Innovation; and the general practice of it was never autho­riz'd, till that blessed Assembly of Divines (forsooth) at Constance, about the year [Page 145] 1415. and yet those very men, though they were so bold asLicet Christus post Caenam Instituerit, & suis Discipulis ad ministraverit sub utra­que specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sa­cramentum; tamen hoc non obstante &c. Et similiter licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujus­modi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, tamen, &c. Praecipi­mus sub paena excommunicationis, quod nullus Presbyter communicer populum sub utraque specie, panis & vini. Concil. Constans. Sess. 13. acknowledged by their own Caranza, Sum. Concil. p. 626. to appoint Commu­nion under one kinde onely, yet they were so ingenuous as to confess that the thing was contrary to Christs Institution, and that the custome of the Pri­mitive Church had been to the contrary also: Hoc tamen non ob­stante, as they then declared, not with­standing all this, they prohibited the ad­ministration of the Cup to the Lay-peo­ple. But whether their Prohibition, or our Saviours Institution, and the custome of the old Catholick Church, ought to take place, let the indifferent world con­sider.

Indeed 'tis no news to hear of the Dis­honesty of the Roman Clergy; there are so many palpable instances of their soul dealing with the world. But 'tis an unac­countable injury they do to mens Souls, to defraud them of that, by a due re­ception whereof we receive the remission of our Sins. And though Bellarmine, and the rest, have taught them to come off with this Pretence, that the whole Christ is in each part of the Sacrament, and so, [Page 156] that the very Bloud of Christ is even in the wafer, yet this is a groundless sug­gestion and untruth; at least it is too vain an imagination for men to trust to, in a case of such vast Importance and Concernment. For they themselves do confess, that theIn una specie non habetur perfectè & integrè Sacrificii ratio, sed utraque necessaria est, &c. Bellarm. de Sacram-Euchar. lib. 4. c. 22. Sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is not perfect without both Kinds:So Alexander Alensis, Gaspar Cassalius, and Ruardus, as Bellarmine doth confess ubi Supr. c. 23. And some of their Doctors have declared their Opinion, that there is less spiritual bene­fit by Half Commu­nion; and the Learn­edObjicit Georgius CassAnder, quòd Sancti patres tribuunt peculiarem effectum sanguini domini, qui ex Calice sumitur. sic enim Ambrosius Ioquitur si lib. 5. de Sacram. c. 3. Quotiescunque bibis Remis­sionem accipis peccatorum, & inebriaris Spiritu. Et Cyprianus lib. 1. Ep. 2. Quomodo docemus, aut provocamus eos in comfessiore nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis inibitaturis Christi Sanguinem dene­gamus? Id. ibid. Cassander object­ed justly, that the Ancient Doctors of the Christian Church laid a great deal of stress upon the administration of the Cha­lice, ascribing a peculiar efficacy to the Sacrament of our Lords Bloud; not but that his Body is the means of our Ju­stification too, but because our Saviour Dignified the Cup after a peculiar manner; saying, this is my Bloud of the New Co. venant, which is shed for the Remission of fins. I wish therefore, that the deceived members of that Church would consider [Page 157] this seriously: 'Twould be enough to make their Hearts ake to think, how their Hopes of the forgiveness of their Sins are wonderfully weakened by this Unchri­stian practice. It would be a wonder, how any of the Laity, among the Roma­nists, could enjoy one quiet hour in their lives, or ever go to bed in Peace and with any tolerable Satisfaction (especi­ally such of them as are Conseious to themselves of those flagitious Crimes they have acted) did they but sadly con­sider what a miserable case they are in. Were there nothing else to frighten them but this, that they confidently Trust to a few fruitless Absolutions, which onely keep up a Market, but are Deprived of that, which, to penitent, Souls is a Certain instrument of Pardon.

Blessed be God, that we lye in the bo­some of a Church, which administreth to all her devout children the Seals of Gods mercy according to her Lords own mind and appointment, and agreeably to the way of the Catholick Church. And as this should set all our desires upon the wing, and make us fly on every occasion to the Holy Table that our wearyed Souls may find, a Resting place and Sure footing; so should it replenish us with Comfort and Joy of Heart when we go away, being fully [Page 148] assured of Gods purposes of Grace towards us, and being satisfied in a good measure, that we are now in a Happy condition. 'Tis true, before men go to the Sacra­ment they ought to be well satisfied of Gods merciful Kindness, and gratious Inten­tions towards them; for this is matter of Faith and Hope, which are the things we must necessarily go upon in all our addresses unto the Father of mercies: but yet the fruit of eating and drinking here, is Joy and Peace to every honest hearted Communicant, because his Faith and Hope is hereby much the stronger, and built upon more sure and certain grounds. 'Tis true also, that a mans pardon is begun before he doth make his appraoches; that is, if he makes his approaches regularly, and like a good Christian; for he must re­pent first of all his transgressions, and that doth dispose him for Gods mercy, and makes him meet to be a Partaker of it. We must not presume to go to the Lords Table with guilt about us, or while we are Reeking in our Sins; but Repentance must wipe our defilements off, because Christs Body and Bloud is not food for Swine. As the Paschal Lamb was not to be eaten but by persons that were pure, and clean according to the Sanctifications of the Law; so this Christian Passeover [Page 149] Feast is not to be celebrated, but by such persons as are purged by Repenance, which is the Sanctification of the Gospel. Yet all this not withstanding, the Blessed Sacra­ment is an Ordinance of very great con­cernment and comfort to the cleanest Com­municant: for though he hath Repented long ago, and though, upon his having done so, he hath great Reason to Hope that he is Reconciled unto God, yet this Reconciliation is as yet but imperfect in comparison. A man is not fully, perfectly, and finally pardoned, till he hath Ended his Life well. While we Live, we are still Transacting our business with Heaven; but do not finish our work till we dye. My Pardon is Inchoa ted upon my Repen­tance; 'tis compleatd and irrevocable upon my Perseverance unto the End; but tis Confirm'd to me upon my due Eating and Drinking at this Solemnity. Hereby all former Grants are Ratified and Sealed anew; so that now we have a fair Evi­dence to shew for our discharge, and such an Evidence as will be valid, and hold in the day of Judgement, if we be not so Foolish as to Cancel the Deed our selves, and render our Title to a blessed Eternity Null and void, by returning again with the dog to his vomit. A Release you know may pass between Parties onely [Page 160] by the Consent and Promise of the Injured Person, but when once it is committed to Deed, the act is then Confirmed; and the Seal which is affixt to the Deed makes that Sure in Law, with before was onely Parol or by Promise. In like manner, though our forgiveness be Inchoated and Begun upon our Repentance, yet it is Continued, Ratified, and Ascertain'd unto us upon our Participation; so that he who was justified, is justified still, and his Justification is more certain (certitudine Subjecti) than it was before; that is, a Sincere Commu, nicant hath better Hopes to comfort him­surer grounds to go upon, more to shew and say for himself, more to plead against the clamours of his Conscience, more and better Reasons to be Quiet in his mind, than when he was barely a Penitent. To say the Truth, if he doth not Backslide and Revolt, he hath a certain Title to the Kingdom of Heaven. Upon this account 'tis every mans Interest to Com­municate often: The longer he lives, the Older he grows, the more he draws to­wards his grave, still he should be the more intent upon this Duty, that his Peace and Comfort may still receive the more Addi­tions, and that his Assurances may be the more and more strong; so that by the blessing of God he may at last use such [Page 161] expressions as S. Paul did (which I am sure no Non-Communicant in the world can with such Reason use) I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; hence forth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness 2. Tim. 4. 7. 8.

CHAP. VII.

BEsides that participation of Christ Crucified which is Mystical, by In­terpretation, and Construction (as I have shew'd already) there is also at this Ordinance a participation of Christ Glo­rified, So 'tis Ex­prest in the Prayer of Conse­cration. which is Real, by our being actually made partakers of his most Blessed Body and Bloud. This is manifestely the Do­ctrine of our Church, that the Body and Bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper; and that our Souls are streng­thened and Refreshed by the Body and Bloud of Christ, as our Bodies are by the Bread and Wine. Now our Bodies receive nourishment by our actual receiving the very Substances of Bread and Wine; and so (according to the Comparison) our Souls [Page 153] also do receive strengh and Comfort, by actually receiving and participating of the very Nature of Christ. After the same manner was the Faith of the Church of England delivered in the beginning of the Reformation by that truly Learned and Great man Arch-Bishop Cranmer, in that Admirable Book of his called a De­fence of the true and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament; wherein he doth often useFol. 32, 33, 73, 100. Et alibi. fol. 42, 76, 84. that Similitude, That as the Bread and ‘Wine Corporally comfort and feed our Bodies, so doth Christ with his Flesh and Bloud spiritually comfort and feed our Souls; and he positively affirms, that by the Communion we receive spiritual food, and supernatural nourishment from Hea­ven, of the very true Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ, that our Souls by faith do eat his very body, and drink his Bloud (though spiritually) Sucking out of the same everlasting Life; and that the Hearts of them that receive the Sacraments are secretly, inwardly, and Spiritually Trans­formed, renew'd, fed, comforted, and nourisht with Christs Flesh and Bloud, through his most holy Spirit, the same Flesh and Bloud still remaining in Heaven.’ So that according to the sense of the Church of England, not onely the Sacrifice of Christs Death is (in the account of God) [Page 164] Sacramently Imputed unto us for the Par­don of sin; but moreover the very Glo­rified Jesus, now Living and sitting in Heaven, is (in the Reality of the thing) Actually Communicated unto us from above, and verily received by us in the Sacra­ment: And the outward Elements of Bread and Wine are not onely Signes and To­kens (much less Empty Tokens and Bare Signs) of Christs Body and Bloud; but are also the Means and Instruments of bringing the whole Christ to us; so that his Flesh and Bloud do Really, but after a Spiritual and wonderfull manner, go along with the Bread and Wine, to Su­stain and Refresh the Soul, as They do the Body.

I know very well, that I am now en­tring upon the Tenderest point concern­ing this Sacrament; perhaps, upon the Nicest speculation in the whole Body of Divinity: Nor am I insensible how wary and Cautious Divines are, what they say, and how they unfold their thoughts of this matter. Indeed it is that, which re­quires of us a great deal of Consideration and Pains, aswell to Conceive a Right notion of it, as to Express it so as to make it In­telligible to others. But not withstanding the Difficulty of the thing, it being so very Usefull and Necessary for the Sa­tisfaction [Page 165] of every mans mind, I shall take upon me to discourse of it at large, but without trangressing (I hope) the due bounds of Modesty and Truth.

To clear my way as I go from one foul mistake, we are to note, that Christ is not so present in the Sacrament as to be eaten after a Carnal and Gross manner; neither are the Elements so changed by any act of Consecration, as to be turned out of one substance into another, out of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of our Lords Natural Flesh and Bloud. This indeed is the Faith of the whole Roman Church, and they have In­vented the word, Transubstantiation, to signifie and Express their Faith: and it implyeth these three things: 1. That the Nature and Matter of the Elements va­nisheth away. 2. That the Accidents thereof (as they call it) meaning the Colour, the Smell, the Taste, the Quantity of the Elements do all remain without their Pro­per and Natural suject. 3. That Christ's Na­tural Body supplyeth the room of Bread, and that this Bloud is in the Place of Wine. Now I might pass over this with quick dispatch, by referring you to a great many Learned and Unanswerable Books, which have been written against this Monstrous Error (to say no worse of it) but to [Page 156] save you the charge and pains of so much travel, I desire you 1. To Consider in ge­neral, that there are four things which are Infallibly able to satisfie a mans Judge­ment, as to the Truth or Falsity of any thing whatsoever, viz. The Use of our Senses, the Suffrage of Right Reason, the Au­thority of Divine Revelation, and the help of Tradition. And if men will pertina­ciously contend for a proposition in spight of the Concurrent Evidence which is gi­ven against it, by all these Demonstrative mediums, which ought, and are enough to Convince every man, they were as good tell us plainly, that they are Resolved to be Infidels, or Scepticks, or to believe no more than what they themselves please: for stronger arguments than these four can never be offered to any.

Now thus stands the case between Us and the Romanists: they dispute for their beloved Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and to maintain the Controversie, they ap­peal to the Definitious of their own Church; that is, they will be Parties and Judges too. We plead against their Doctrine, that 'tis contrary to every Test which should govern Rational Creatures in their Sentiments. And though the very Mentioning of this palpable Error be enough to Expose it to Scorn and Laughter, yet [Page 157] for the further discovery thereof, observe in particular.

1. How it contradicted the Testimony of our very Senses. We cannot conceive, but that God gave us our Senses as helps to inform our Understanding: nor can it be supposed with any Colour of Truth, that all men should be Constantly deceived in the perpetual use of their Senses, when their Faculties are Good, and the Object of their Sense is Adequate and Proper: this would be as Ridiculous and Absurd, as to say, that none of us yet ever saw the light, tho our eyes be open, and the Sun every day Appears. Now that which we contend for is as clear to our Sense, as the Sun is at high Noon. For we see it, we smell it, we taste it; we feel it (by Four of our Senses we find what we receive at the Communion) to be Bread and Wine: and why should we fancy our selves deceived in this case, more then S. Thomas was when he put his finger into our Saviorus Side? why should not we be satisfied by so many of our Senses, that it is Bread and Wine, when He was convinced by his bare Touch, that it was his Lord and his God? Upon two accounts it is impossible for Considering men to think, that a Fallacy can be put upon us in this matter. For 1. should we Suppose the Omnipotent power of God [Page 168] could turn Bread into Flesh, the Species of Bread remaining still, yet it would not at all answer that great End for which Mi­racles have been ever wrought; and there­fore it is not Reasonable for us to be­lieve that God would do it. It would be indeed the Greatest of all Miracles, and infinitely beyond that which our Saviour Himself did, when he turned Water into Wine; for there the Colour, the Taste, the Smell, the Operation of Water was changed as well as the Substance. And as it is not in the least probable, that every the Meanest Priest should every day do a Greater Miracle than ever our Lord him­self did, so it is not in the least Credible, that God Himself would do a Miracle but to convince men of Some Necessary and Important Truth. Should he do a Mira­cle for no other end but onely to shew his Power, of necessity it must must be Seen, it must be shewed in some sensible instance; for otherwise it could not be a Demonstration of his Omnipotence. But God never yet did any Miracle for the Miracle-sake, but that thereby he might Attest the Truth of some Doctrine, and might Convince men of Something, which they could not well be convinced of, but by Gods setting his own Seal to it after that manner. For which reason all Mi­racles [Page 169] have been still Apparent and Open to the Senses; and 'tis Necessary they should be so, because they would be of no Use were they not perceived; neither could they prove any thing, unless they themselves were Manifest: And if we reckon up all the Miracles that ever were done in the world from the days of Moses to the times of the Gospel, we shall find, that instead of being Concealed and Hid from men, they have been always Expo­sed and made Plain to mens Senses. Now this doth utterly baffle the groundless pretence of Transubstantiation: for that Doctrine supposeth God to do the Highest Miracle that ever was done, to no Ne­cessary purpose; neither to edifie Us, not to shew Himself; and how can we think, that he will make Wonders and his Power Cheap, and with an Almighty hand alter the Course and Nature of things so as not to Glorifie himself, nor to do Us Good by so doing? This would be a Miracle, that could not in any wise serve the Ends of all Miracles; and it becomes us not to believe that the All-good, and All wise God will deceive four of our Senses at once to no End at all, since it hath been all along the method of his Provi­dence to satisfie All our Senses for the Best purposes.

[Page 160]But this is not all: there is secondly a Worse thing behind yet, The Romanists by crying down the Credit of our Senses give Atheistical Spirits, and all that are Ene­mies to our Religion, advantage and Ar­guments to Discredit all the Doctrines of Christianity: and therefore their Hypothesis is so far from being Believed, that it is to be Condemned as Impious and Scandalous in the Highest degree. For, if when our Senses tell us, this is Bread, and this is Wine, we may not Trust our Senses, Ill men will presently draw thence this Na­tural Conclusion, that they have no Reason to give credit to any Article of the Chri­stian Creed; especially if the Church of Rome be Infallible in this definition, that mens Judgements must not be governed by what they See or feel. The credibility of the whole Gospel dependeth Originally upon the Testimony of Sense: and we therefore believe the Evangelical tidings to be True, because we believe they were Preached by the most Holy Jesus, and were Attested by God himself, who by working wonders Confirmed the Doctri­nes which were taught by his Eternal Son. Now if men over-rule the Evidence which is given by Sense, I would fain know how the Subtilest Romanist can prove, that there was such a one as Christ in the [Page 171] world; or that he was not a meer Phan­tasm (as some Hereticks thought of old?) Or how can they make it credible upon Sufficient grounds, that Christ. Preached some of those things, which the Papists themselves believe? or that he Confir­med his Doctrine by Miracles? They must at last come to this, that competent wit­nesses heard him deliver those Doctrines, and saw his works: and to all this any Infidel may answer, that according to their Principle, mens Senses may be De­ceived: and if we may not believe our Own eyes (as they say, we must not) what reason is there to believe the Senses of Others? and if All may be mistaken, how can it be made appear, that the Hi­story of the Gospel is not a Dream, a Fancy, a Fable (as one of the Popes did upon a time call it?) The Holy Apostles proved the Truth of Christs Re­ligion, by the certainty of their Senses. So S. John, 1. Jo. 1. 1, 2, 3. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our Eyes; which we have looked upon, and our Hands have Handled of the word of Life, (for the Life was made Manifest, and we have seen it, and bear witness, &c.) that which we have Seen and Heard, de­clare we unto you. The Expressions are [Page 172] ingeminated to shew the Truth and Cer­tainty of Christs being in the Flesh: and this certainty is proved by the Testimony of their Senses: which undeniably ar­gues, that such a Testimony is to be ta­ken, when the Organs of Sensation are rightly disposed, and the Object is suitable to the Faculty. Briefly; the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead, is the fun­damental Article, upon which many others do depend; for if Christ be not risen, then is our Preaching in vain, and your faith is also vain. 1. Cor. 15. 14. Now Christ himself appealed to the Senses of his Dis­ciples, to Convince them that he was Risen indeed. As they were frighted at his appearance, and fancied that it was a Ghost, to Satisfie them to the Full, Behold, said he, my hands and my feet, that it is I my self; handle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have, S. Luke 24. 39. Now if they had reason to conclude, that it was their Master indeed, because they heard, saw and handled him; why may not we aswell believe and conclude, that this is Bread and Wine indeed, when we see, and taste and smell, and feel it to be so? The Apostles had the Testimony but of Three Senses; we have the Testimo­ny of Four, and if our Senses must not be [Page 173] believed, then not theirs neither, and then what becomes of our Christian Religion?

2. Methinks all thoughtful men should mistrust that cause, which to secure it self from the danger of a Shock, blinds their eyes, and befools them into such absolute Bondage, that they must be obliged to believe, that snow is Ink, and that Ice is fire. But besides this, secondly, nothing can be more contrary to Reason, than the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Spi­rit of man is the Candle of the Lord, saith Solomon, Prov. 20. 27. and 'tis senseless to imagine, that when God set up this lumi­nary in our hearts, his meaning was, that we should mind it no more than as if we lived in utter darkness, or that it should be less useful to us than the light of a Glow worm. Now first this is a certain principle of Reason, that a man can have but one body, and so we are to conclude, that Christ himself had no more. But if that which he gave to his Disciples was his very Natural Body, consisting of so many organical parts, then had he more Bodies than one (even as many as there were Morsels) because it is supposed, that every Disciple received the body of Christ entirely. Now this is an imagination which the greatest Hereticks yet never durst to defend. Some indeed held of [Page 174] old, that Christ had no real Body at all, but only an imaginary, and Phantastick being, which was a delusion of mens sen­ses; so the followers of Simon Magus, the Marciouites, and others did falsly main­tain. But that he had more than one natural Body (properly so called) none did ever affirm. And yet this is the consequence of the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For either his Natural body is not in the Wa­fer at all; or else it is not there wholly and entirely; or else it must be supposed to be multiplied proportionably to the number of the consecrated Wafers: And hence it must follow of necessity, that as at the institution of this Sacrament, Christ had some Bodies which were not Crucified (for the Supper was before the Passion, and that body which every Apostle did eat was never Crucified) so still that Christ hath an indefinite number of Bodies, even as many as there are Communicants in the whole World: And then where shall we find that one man Christ Jesus, that St. Paul speaks of Rom. 5. 15. the gift of grace hath a­bounded unto many by one man Jesus Christ.

Again, Secondly these are certain and Eternal principles of Reason; that one and the same body can be but in one and the same Place at once, as my body cannot be here and at the Indies in the same mo­ment [Page 175] (for then it would be one Body, and yet not one at the same time.) it is certain by reason that a body must have Parts, divisible and distinct the one from another, as every humane Body hath a Leg distinct from the arm, and the head distinct from the trunk (for else it would be a body, and not a body.) A body must be Circumscribed and limited to a de­terminate space proportionable to its di­mensions (for else it would be a finite and yet an infinite substance.) A body cannot be broken into pieces, and yet remain en­tire (for then it would be whole and not whole.) These and the like are everlast­ing and certain principles, which all men that will obey common reason must agree in; and they are taught us both in Chri­stian and Heathen Philosophy as common Notions and Maxims, as fixt and clear, as that one and one makes two: So that to contradict these principles is to tell Man­kind, that they are all mad-men and fools that are not able to tell their Fingers. And yet these principles are contradicted by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is made up of I know not how many impossibilites, which we can no more re­concile to reason, than we can prove that the same proposition is both true and false in the same respect; and that man, who [Page 176] believes that Doctrine, must believe the grossest and most palpable contradictions. For according to this rate these monstrous Absardities will follow; that Christs Hu­mane flesh is Circumscribed in Heaven (as every body must be confined to a certain place) and yet at the same time is in millions of places here on Earth, and yet one Body still: That it is whole, and yet is broken: That it is divided, and yet is entire; that it is entire in every Wafer, and yet if you break those Wafers into a thousand particles, that the body of Christ is one still, and whole in every the least particle: That tho there be feet, and hands, and head, and many other consti­tuent and integral parts in Christs body, and tho all these parts are the one with­out the other, and by the other, and di­stinct from the other, yet that all are so jumbled and crowded together into a point, that whosoever eateth but a piece that is no bigger than a Pins point, eateth all and every part of Christs body: And ma­ny more such contradictions there are, so wild, so irrational, so inconsistent with common sense, that 'tis as tiresome to count them up, as to tell the number of the Stars.

Further yet, Thirdly, we find by ex­perience, that what we eat and drink at [Page 177] the Communion, doth serve for Nourish­ment, [...]. Justin. Mart. Apol. 2. Quomodo dicunt car­nem in cor­ruptionem devenire, & non percipe­re vitam, que a cor­pore Domini & Sangui­ne alitur? (Subaud. Symbolico) Irer. adv. Haeres. l. 4. c. 34. * it recruites the spirits, and helps to repair the expences of Nature; and they tell us of King Lewis, that he lived 40 days together onely by the food which he had from the Holy Table; and without question any man may sustain himself a Considerable time onely by the use of the Sacred Viands, provided he receive a Convenient Quantity. Now we desire a Rational answer to this Inquiry, what is it that nourisheth a man in this case? If they say, it is Christs Body and Bloud, Naturally understood, and Corporally ta­ken; it is Blasphemy; for then it may feed a Reprobate aswell as a Saint; and a Jew aswell as a Christian: nay, what if some Unclean Beast should happen to light on it? The Consequences thereof would be such, are as enough to strike the Heart of any good Christian with Horrour, but to hear them mentioned. If they say, it is the Species, the Accidents of Bread and Wine that nourisheth, without the Sub­stance of either, it is down right Non-sense: And they were as good say, that a Body can be sustained with a shaddow; or that a man may Live upon a shew, which is not so much as Air; or that he may be fed by Dreaming, specially if he Dream as Pharaoh's Baker did, of three Baskets [Page 178] upon his Head, full of all manner of Meats; or that he may Quench his Thirst, and Refresh his Spirits, only by Looking upon Grapes; nay, though he mistake Paint for Reality, as those Birds did which flew to the Picture of a Vine which Zeuxes had drawn, supposing that they were Natural and Real Clusters. Either they must grant that to be Bread and Wine which they feel in their Stomachs, and find Re­freshment and Strength from, or else they must say, we Trust too much to Sense and Reason; and then they cannot blame us, but by allowing sense and Reason to be on our side; a Crime, which I wish all Romanists were guilty of in every Parti­cular.

To all which I add in the 4th. Place, that the outward parts of the Sacrament are Subject to many Alterations and Changes, which without Loathsomness and Abhor­rence we cannot conceive to be incident to the Blessed Body and Bloud of our Re­deemer, the Lord of Glory. The solid part is torn in pieces with our Teeth; and if men have stronger Stomachs than the Capernaites, who could not away with the thoughts of eating Humane Flesh; or if they can endure to go beyond the Cannibals, who were wont to eat their Enemies Flesh only; yet we have Reason [Page 179] to wonder, how they can rellish the thoughts of out going the most Barbarous Pagans, who ever had more Reverence and Veneration for that they Worshipt, than to Devour such things as they took to be Deities. Yet thus the Romanists do not stick to do; for which reason Averroes would not become a Christian; but when he saw some of that denomination to Eat that which they Adored as their God, he cryed out with Indignation, Let my Soul rather venture its Lot, and take its por­tion with the old Philosophers. Again; the Bread may grow Mouldy, may Corrupt, may bread Worms and stink; for which cause Hesychius tells us of some Christians for­merly,Hesych. in Levit. that their custome was to Burn the Remaining Surplusage of the Sacrament. Nay it may be stoln away by a Mouse, as sometimes it hath been since People came to be so Superstitious as to Reserve it; and to secure it from the like chance, and from the Vermines teeth, the Romanists are wont to keep it shut up close in a Pix. So also the Liquid part in the Cup, may Intoxicate the Brain, being immode­rately taken; it may be prickt and become Eager through negligence; and many ac­cidents more 'tis Subject unto, which without abomination we cannot conceive can happen to the Holy Bloud of our Saviour. Nay, [Page 180] both the outward Elements may beBellarm. de Euch. lib. 3. c. 24. mixed with Poyson; and Peter Martyr well objected against the Papists (neither doth Cardinal Bellarmine positively deny the truth of the Stories) that Pope Victor the 3d. and the Emperour Henry the 7th. were both of them poysoned with the Sa­crament. In a word; our Saviour him­self hath told us, S. Matth. 15. 17. that whatsoever entreth in at the mouth, goeth into the Belly, and is cast out into the Draught. Origen doth positively affirm the same thing of theQuod si quickquid ingreditur in os, in ven­trem abit, & in secessum ejicitur, & ille cibus qui Sanctificatur per verbum Dei, perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in seces­sum ejicitur—Et haec quidem de Typico Symbolico (que) corpore; Which a little be­fore he calls five several times, Bread, and the Bread of Lord. Origen. in Matth. cap. 15. Sacramental Bread: though Bellarmine doth onely trifle up­on the Argument, in­terpreting it of the Corruption of the Species or Accidents onely; that is of Nothing, or of things without matter and Substance, which is as good as nothing. The truth is, the Learned Jesuite was not able to answer this objection; and there­foreBellarm. de Euch lib. 1. cap. 14. he tells men, that they should stop their ears at it, and say nothing to it. But let them endeavour to Shuttle it off what they can; it is a most Horrid Conclusion which followeth their Principle of Tran­substantiation; which renders the Prin­ciple [Page 181] it self highly wicked, and Blasphemous, as well as Unreasonable.

3. But yet did the Holy Scriptures say expresly, that what we taste and see at the Lords Table is the very natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ, we ought rather to disbelieve our senses and reason too, than contradict the Word of God. But they speak nothing to this purpose, but do plainly say and argue the contrary: and this is the third thing which we justly blame the Romanists for, that they will not suffer the Scripture to determine the point between us, though it be a Book which They acknowledge as well as We to contain the Word of God, and which one would think should be judged a cer­tain Rule of Faith, and of sufficient au­thority to oblige every Christians Judge­ment to Acquiesce by.

Now 1. as touching the Body of Christ, the Scripture tells us, that it is gone up into Heaven there to abide till the day of final Judgement. To this purpose S. John tells us chap. 14. and 16. that Christ spake to his Disciples before his death, telling them that he was about to leave them, and to depart from them, that he was going his way to the Father, and was leaving the world. Which ex­pressions must necessarily be understood [Page 182] of his Bodily absence, that his Humane Nature was to be no longer here below, or else the sense would be Impertinent and to no purpose. For his design was to Prepare the minds of his followers, that they might not be dejected at his de­parture, nor surprized with it: And to that end he told them of it before hand, and assured them withal, that in lieu of his Corporal presence he would give them his Spirit, to be with his Church to the end of the world. Now to what pur­pose were these Expressions and Promises, if he was to be with them still in Person, and if his Body was to be handled by them still, at the Sacrament? The Poor (said he) ye have with you always, but Me ye have not always, Matth. 26. 11. This is contradicted by those of the Church of Rome, for they say, we have him with us still, even in his person, though he be not visible to our eyes, nay, they pretend to have him much better than the Jews had, for they saw him, and heard him, and touched him only, but these pretend to eat him too, and to take him down into their very Stomachs. And S. Peter speaking of him affirmed, that he was in Heaven, and there was to be until the times of Restitution, Act. 3. 21. In respect of his Body he is at the right [Page 183] hand of God in Heaven; and thence we look for him saith S. Paul, Phil. 3. 20. not in the Sacrament, on the Patin, or in the Chalice, but we look for him from Hea­ven, at the general Resurrection. Lord! what can a man in his wits collect out of all these Texts, but this, that though Christ be with us by his Spirit, yet he is at such an infinite distance from us in his Humane na­ture, that till the end of all things we cannot have so much as a Glimpse of him, unless Heaven be opened to us by a Miracle, as it was to S. Stephen? Men were as good take the Holy Writers by the Throats, and with violent hands keep them from speak­ing at all, as dispute against such plain and Full Evidence, touching the absence of our Saviours Natural Body.

And then secondly, as touching that which we take into our hands at the Sacrament, the Scripture still calleth it Bread and Wine. At the institution our Lord pointed to the contents in the Cup, and termed it the fruit of the Vine. And so he is said to have taken Bread, to have blessed it, to have broken it, and to have given it to his Disciples, requir­ing them to eat it; meaning plainly, that which he took into his hands, and that was Bread. S. Luke calls the Distribu­tion of the Sacrament, the breaking of [Page 184] Bread, Act. 2. 42. And S. Paul says, 'tis Bread which we break, 1 Cor. 10. 16. that we are Partakers of Bread, vers. 17. and that as often as we eat of it, we eat of Bread, 1 Cor. 11. 26. whence it appears, that 'tis Bread after Consecration as well as before; though the Use and Condition of it be changed, so that by it the Body of Christ be communicated to us, yet the Nature and Substance of it is the same still, even Bread, as the Scripture calls. For 'tis an eternal truth that where things are of a Different Nature (as bread and flesh are) the one cannot be said to be the other with any Propriety of speech; as Bertram rightly argued▪ that nothing is more absurd, than to callBertran. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. bread, flesh; or wine, bloud, without a Figure, for 'tis as absurd as to call a Man an Elephant, or a Fish a Scorpion. Either then it is not Bread (and then the Scripture deceives us:) or if it be Bread, it is not Christs Natural Flesh, (and then the Church of Rome cousens us; and there is the point.)

The utmost that they can pretend from Scripture is, that one expression, this is my Body: and will you not (say they) believe our Saviour himself? Yes we do firmly believe that to be true, which our Saviour did mean, but the [Page 185] question is, what his meaning was? Now, that those words are not to be taken strictly, and according to the first Sound of them, will be clear from these follow­ing considerations.

1. That before men grew Hot, and Angry, and Magisterial about this matter, several Doctors even of the Roman Church could not find, that our Saviour meant any thing of Transubstantiation by that Phrase. That Doctrine was defined first at the Lateran Council, a little above 400. years ago; and yet Scotus and Cameracensis (who lived after that Council) did hold, that without the Churches Declaration there is no place of Scripture which for­ceth men to believe Transubstantiation. Nay Bellarmine himself confesseth the thing to be Probable enough (which thoseBellarm. de Euch. lib. 3. c. 23. Doctors said) and by this 'tis manifest, that in their own opinion Christs words may be allowed to bear a very doubtful sense; so that had it not been out of pure respects to the Declaration of their Church, probably they would have been contented, that those words at the Insti­tution should have born such a constru­ction, as would not have shook the Rea­son of men so notoriously.

2. If we frame notions of things just according to the clink of a Phrase, we [Page 186] must needs entertain very strange appre­hensions of our Saviour himself; because he is usually called a Lamb, a Lyon, a Shepherd, a Rock, a Door, a Way, a Vine, and the like.

3. As Christ saith here, This is my Body, so in Job. 6. he saith also, that he is the Bread of life; and that his Flesh, is Meat; and his Bloud, Drink. He speaks as plainty and positively in the one place, as he doth in the other. Now if men affirm, that the bread is changed into Christs Flesh, because Christ saith positi­vely, This is my Body, they have equal­ly the same reason to affirm, that Christs Flesh is turned into Bread, and his Bloud into Drink, because he said as positively, My Flesh is meat indeed, and my Bloud Drink indeed. A latitude must be allowed to be as to the sense of those expressions, or else men must fall into a Labyrinth of absurdities and contradictions, which they can never wind themselves out of by the help of any clue.

4. If we observe what our Saviour said to the Capernaites upon the like oc­casion, we cannot but conclude, that his meaning at both times was mystical. The story we have in the 6th. of S. John ▪ verily, verily (saith our Lord) except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and [Page 187] drink his bloud, ye have no life in you, vers. 53. This seem'd a very Harsh expression, because they conceived (as the Romanists do now) that Christ intend­ed his Flesh should be torn in pieces with their Teeth, and that his Natural bloud should be suckt out of his veins with their mouths. The bare apprehension of this matter turn'd their stomachs, so that they were scandaliz'd presently and fell off from him. Therefore to rectifie their mistakes, he expounded himself, telling them, that they were not to understand him in a literal and carnal sense; no, the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit, and they are life, vers. 63. meaning, that he spake My­stically, and that they were to interpretSo that place was under­stood by the Anci­ents. his words after a Spiritual manner, and of a Spiritual and Divine way of feeding upon him, and so we feed upon Christ, who laughd at the Doctrine of Transubstantiati­on; and so all good Christians fed upon him for many hundreds of years, before that Doctrine was dreamt of, or thrown about, to debauch and intoxicate the world.

CHAP. VIII.

3. 'TIs true, the Papists are wont to crack of Tradition and An­tiquity, as if all the ancient Fathers of the Catholick Church were on their side. And nothing hath prevailed more with ordinary people to turn or continue Papists, than an opinion, that Transubstantiation was all along the Faith of the Christian Church. I confess I won­der much that common people will pre­tend to be judges in this case, when they understand little of Greek or Latine, [Page 189] much less have skill to tell, which of the Books, that are ascribed to the Fathers, are Genuine, and which are supposititious. But alass they are taught by their leaders to believe any thing, and to talk by Rote like a sort of men among our selves, who are readily perswaded to act any thing that is for the Cause, for the Cause, for their darling and dearly beloved Cause, though they venture their Necks and their very Souls for an evil cause sake.

Therefore to clear this matter fully, we will once for all try the point by unque­stionable authorities, and examine parti­cularly what the sense of the Christian Church was, chiefly in the Primitive times, and ex abundanti in the times following: And I am fouly mistaken, if we do not find, upon the whole enquiry, that Tradi­tion (which the Romanists brag of so much) is plainly against them for above a thousand years.

In the prosecution of this thing, I beg leave to go a little out of the common rode, not to trouble my self with an end­less fatigue of collecting a world of senten­ces out of the Fathers (a course, which tho it be proper enough for a Disputant, yet may be liable to a great many Cavils.) I shall rather chuse to argue from some observations that may be made upon those [Page 190] Controversies the Ancient Church had with Infidels and Hereticks, which will evident­ly shew the sense of the Ancient Christians, as to the point under our hands: for this is certain, that we can never better learn the sense of the Ancient Church, than out of their Disputations, especially when they go upon the same grounds, and use the same way of Argumentation.

1. Now, first, it is easie to observe what the sense of the Ancient Church was, as to the eating of Humane Flesh, and the drinking of Bloud. The Pagans were wont for a long time to throw this in the teeth of the Primitive Christians, that they ce­lebrated Thyestean banquets, and stories ran about, that at their sacred Assemblies they killed a Child, and then junketed together upon the tragical dish. The Chri­stians granted, that the feasting upon Hu­mane Flesh and Bloud was a most Barbarous and Flagitious crime, but they proved them­selves Innocent; they abominated the very thoughts of any such detestable practice, and in all their Apologies they declared their utter Abhorrence thereof: so Justin Martyr in the Age next to the Apostles: then Tatian; after him Athenagoras, and The­ophilus Justin Martyr [...] 2. Apolog. 2. Tatian. Orat. cont. Graec. P. 162. Athenagor. legat. pro Christian. P. 4. 35, 36. &c. Theophil. ad Autol. lib.3. P. 119. 126. Tertullian. Apologet. cap. 9. Origen. cont. Cels. l. 6. P. 302. Minut. Felix in Octavio. the Patriarch of Antioch. After [Page 191] these, Tertullian; af­ter him Origen; and after him Minutus Fae­lix. For an hundred years together were [...] &c. Theop. ad Autolyc. the Primitive Christians busie in vindica­ting themselves from that Atheistical and Savage Practice (as Theophilus calls it) of eating mans flesh. And to make this evidently appear, the ancient Christians did appeal to their very Enemies, who could not but know, that some Christians were wont to refrain from all flesh whatso­ever; that none of them would taste of that which was strangled, or which was destroy­edTantum ab Humano sanguine cavemus, ut nec edulium pecorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus. Minut. Felix P. 34. Denique inter tentament a Christianorum, botulos cruore distentos admovetis certissimi scilicet illicitum esse penes illos &c. Tertull. Apol. c. 9. by a wilde Beast, or which dyed of it self; nay, that they were so very Nice in these times, that they would not eat any thing (not so much as a Sausage) that was mixt with Bloud. Now to argue hence: Can it be credible in the least, that they would have made such Apologies for themselves, had they believed that they did constantly eat of Christs Na­tural Flesh, and drink of his Natural Bloud in the Sacrament? With what faces could they then have pleaded as they did? What an Argument would they have given the Heathens against Christianity? How soon [Page 192] would the Pagans have given them the Lye? What Hypocrites would they have been rendred, in pretending that they durst not taste of the flesh and bloud of men (no not of Cattle neither) if all the while they were Conscious to themselves, and were perswaded, that they fed daily upon the Flesh and Bloud of Jesus? Nor was it pos­sibleTertulian ubi Super. Athenagor leg. pro Christianis p. 39. for them to have concealed this matter; because the Heathen Inquisitors every day apprehended their Servants, who for fear of Torments and Death discover'd the Se­crets of their Religion; and they would certainly have discovered this too, had they been taught by their Pastours, that Christs Flesh and Bloud were received at the Sa­crament after a Corporal manner. And to this purpose serves that memorable and apposite Story of the Confession that was made by Sanctus and Blandina at their Mar­tyrdome in the early times of Christianity. The Story is related by Ireneus, and (though it be not to be found in those Works of his that are extant, yet) it stands upon re­cord in the Comments of Oecumenius upon S. Peter; and Albertinus and others have taken particular notice of it, because it is a most evident Testimony in this case. ‘The Greeks (saith this Author) having appre­hendedAlbertin. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 3. some Servants that did belong to the Christian Catechumeni, and endea­vouring [Page 183] by force to understand from them some of the secrets of the Christians, those Servants had nothing to tell, so as to grati­fy their Tormentors, but this, that they had heard their Masters say, how that the Divine Communion was the Bloud and and Body of Christ, they supposing the meaning to be, that it was properly bloud and flesh. The Pagans upon this taking it for granted, that the Christians celebrated such [barbarous] Mysteries divulged it presently among the rest of the Greeks, and by tortures compelled Sanctus and Blandina the Martyrs to confess the truth. Hereupon Blandina presently dealt freely with them, and said, How can Christians endure the thoughts of doing this (the eat­ing of the flesh, and drinking of the bloud of Christ) seeing that for exercise (or Dis­cipline-sake) they Refrain from several sorts of flesh, that are Lawful to be eaten?’ Now several things are observable from this Relation. First, that this suggestion was originally grounded upon Hear-say. Se­condly, that these Servants did belong to such Christians as were meer Novices in the faith, Candidates as yet for Baptism, not in­structed well in the nature and meaning of this other Sacrament. Thirdly, that they did utterly mistake too the sense of their Masters, and perhaps were willing to tell a fable for [Page 194] their own Security sake. Fourthly, that what the Pagans concluded hence was a perfect Calumny, and an Unjust charge against the Christian Church. And to make this evident to all the World. Fifthly, the Holy Martyrs argue from a custome that many Christians then had, of abstaining from ordinary flesh-meats, when they were not bound to such abstinance by any Law of Christ; so that 'twas impossible for them to conceive, that they did eat of the very Flesh of their Saviour (much less that they should be so Barbarous, as to drink his Bloud) in the Sacrament. This therefore is enough to make it clear, that the old Christians in the Apostolical and most Primitive times did not so much as Dream of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and 'tis a most Ridicu­lous thing for any man to think otherwise.

2. It is observable, that the Ancients were wont to prove the Truth of our Lords Incarnation, from this known and receiv'd principle, because the Bread and the Wine at the Sacrament were Tokens and Represen­tations, the one of his Body, the other of his Bloud. Some Hereticks there were of old, who would not own that Christ took indeed Humane flesh of the Holy Virgin; nor that he really suffered, or rose again; but they taught their Disciples that all this was noth­ing but a Shew and Phantasm. This Heresie [Page 195] was broached in the days of the Apostles, 1 Jo. 4. 3. 2 Jo. 7. and was afterwards propagated in a great many places by that Arch. Heretick Simon the Sorcerer, and by Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and divers more. Now against these Hereticks the Catholick DoctorsIgnat. Ep. argued from a known Principle of Christiani­ty, viz. that the Bread and Wine in the Eu­charist were Sacraments, Figures, and Repre­sentations of Christs Body and Bloud. This was Tertullians Argument,Panis & Calicis Sacramento jam in Evan­gelio prebavimus Corporis & Sanguinis Do­minici veritatem adversus Phat asma Marcionis. Tertull. ad Marc. l. 5. that when Christ took and distributed Bread among his Dis­ciples, he made it his Body by saying, This is my Body; that is the Figure of his Body (said Tertullian.) And hence he concluded that our Lord had indeed a true and real Body, because the bread was a Figure ofCorpus sum insuistum [panem distribu­tum] fecit, hoc est corpus meum di­cendo; id est, Figura Corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est Phantasma figuram capere non posset. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. 4. where note, that he calls it Bread, when it was distributed; after Consecration. it. For a shadow must be the shadow of some Substance, and an I­mage must be supposed to represent something that is Real. In like manner Origen grounded an Argument against those Hereticks upon those words of S. Paul, that the Bread and Cup of bless­ing is the Communication of Christs Body and Bloud; whereupon he askes the Question, [Page 196] that if Christ was (asQuod si, ut obloquuntur isti, carne disti­tutus er at, & exanguis, cujusmodi car­nis, cujus corporis, & qualis tandem Sanguinis Signa & Imagines & panem & poculum ministravit? Origen. Dial. 3. where note again, that Origen called it Bread, when it was administred. they said) destitute of flesh and bloud, of what flesh, of what Bo­dy, of what bloud, was that Bread and Cup, the Signes and Images, which Christ administred? Some of those Hereticks foresaw the strength of this Argument; and therefore that they might not Confute their own Principle by their Practice, that they might not seem to grant the Reality of Christs Humane Body by receiving the Symbol and Sign of it, we are told by Ignatius the Martyr (who lived in the Apostoli­cal [...] &c. S. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos. age) that they would not receive the Sacrament, because they would not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our Sins, and which was raised again by the goodness of the Father. Undoubtedly the Holy Martyr meant, that they would not own the Bread to be the Sign and Figure of Christs Body (as all Catholicks then believed.) For the Que­stion was, whether our Saviour lived, and dyed, and rose again in a true Humane Body? The Church proved that he did so, because he appointed bread to be the Figure of his [Page 197] Body. But had they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, it would have proved that Christ had a Body, which was made of meal (not of the substance of the Virgin) a Body which did not suffer upon the Cross, nor Rise again; but it would never have proved, that which the Catholicks content­ed for; and so they would have Lost the Que­stion in hand, and madeSi propterea Corpus sibi finxit quia cor­poris carebat veritate, ergo panem de­buit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vani­tatem Marcionis ut panis cru [...]ifigeretur. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib 4. themselves Ridiculous to their Adversaries. Seeing then the Church in those times believed the bread to be the Fi­gure and Image of Christs Body (as Ter­tullian and Origen affirmed, and S. Igna­tius meant) it is Nonsence to conceive, that they believed it to be his very Natural Flesh. For how can it be the Figure of a thing, and the very real thing too? How can I call this the Picture of Christ, if I believe it to be Christ himself? How can I say, it is the Image Nemo potest ipse sibi [...] Imago sui esse, Ambros. de Fide lib. 1. Neque ipse sibi quisquam imago, Hilar. Imago corporis non potest esse ipsum divinum Corpus, Concil. Nicaen. 2. Actione 6. Pignus & imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non adse, sed ad aliud aspiciunt; Bertram. de Corp. & Sang. Christi. of his Flesh, if it be the very Same? This doth evidently shew, that the Ancient Church did not in the least imagine, that the bread is turnd into his very natural Body.

[Page 198]3. It is observable that the Primitive Christians aknowledged two distinct Na­tures in the Sacrament; meaning the materi­al Element, and that blessed Spiritual thing which goes along with it. Thus we are told by Ireneus (who was but one remove from the Apostles) that the bread which is of the Earth, after the calling upon God, is no longer E terra panis percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis▪ panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena & caelesti, Iren. adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. Common bread, but the Eucha­rist, consisting of two things, an Earthly, and an Heavenly thing. Thus also Origen doth distinguish the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ (meaning the Materia Panis, Orig. in Matth. c. 25. Haec quidem de Typico Symbolico (que) corpore. Multa porro & de ipso verbo dici possunt, quod factum est caro verus cibus, Ibid. Bread) from his True Humane Nature, which he calls the Word that was made Flesh, the true Food of life. So likewise Nec panem [reprobavit Christus] quo ipsum corpus suum representavit, Tertull. adv. Marcion. l. 1. Tertullian doth distinguish the Bread which represents Christs Body, from the Body it self which is represented by it. In like manner the Author of the book de Caena Domini, ascribed to S. Cyprian, doth distinguish between the bodily Substance of the Holy Viands, and that Divine Virtue which is present with them. Lastly S. Austin Hoc est quod dicimus; hoc modis omni­bus approbare contendimus, Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili Elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri Jesu Christi car­ne & sanguine, Sacramento & Re Sacramenti, id est, Corpore Christi. August. apud Gratian. de Consecratione, distinct. 2. c. 48. (as he is quoted by [Page 199] the Collector of the Decrees) is positive and plain, that the Sacrifice of the Church is made up of two things, consisteth of two things, the visible Substance of the Elements, (for that is the meaning of the word species, among the Ancients) and the Invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sa­crament (or the thing Communicated by the Sacrament) namely the Body of Christ. To which purpose S. Austin speaks him­self up and down in many places of his Writings. By this it doth appear, that the Christian Doctors for theQuia omnis res illarum rerum naturam & veritatem in se conti­net, ex quibus conficitur. Id. Ibid. first 400. years acknow­ledged two distinct and real natures to make up the Eu­charist, (for every thing contains in it the Nature and Truth of those things whereof it doth consist, saith S. Augustin,) which they could not have acknowledged, had they conceived the Nature and Substance of the Elements to be turned into the Nature and Substance of Christs Body and Bloud. Transubstantiation implyes the total Destru­ction of the Earthly Nature and Substance, which is utterly repugnant to the sense of the Ancients: of whom we confidently [Page 200] affirm, that as with one mouth they still called it Bread, even when 'tis broken, distributed and received; so they distinguisht it still from that which is Represented by the Bread. And so true is this, that theWhereas in the genuine Epistle of Ignatius ad Philadelph. it is, [...] the Inter­polator renders it, [...] &c. very Interpolator of Ig­natius, and the Ancient Interpreter of his Epi­stles, speaking of the Eucharist, say, There is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus, and one Bloud which was shed for us; and there is one Bread (or Loaf) which is broken for all. Which Observation makes it clear, that the Bread and Christs Flesh were believed to be two distinct Natures, and so, that the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation was not thought of in that age, whe­rein that Interpolator and Interpreter did live, whensoever that was.

4. For the further clearing of this thing yet, it is observable, in the fourth place, of the Primitive Fathers, that they Re­sembled the Union of those two Natures in the Sacrament, to the Union of the Two Natures in our Saviours Person. To this purpose Justin Martyr, discoursing of the [...] [leg. [...], meaning the words of In­stitution] [...] Justin. Mart. Apol. 2. Eucharist, saith, ‘we do not receive those things as common [Page 201] bread, or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was by the word of God made Flesh, and had Flesh and Bloud for our salvation, so we believe that Food which is blessed by Prayer, and by his word (whereby our Flesh and Bloud are by alteration nourisht) to be the Flesh and Bloud of our Incarnate Saviour.’ As Christ was God and man by the union of two real and distinct Substances, the Humane and divine Substan­ce; so must the Eucharist be believed to consist of two real and distinct Natures, the visible and invisible nature: which Joannes Langus observed to be so strong an Argu­ment against Transubstantiation, that the Expurgatory Indexes have ordered his An­notations upon those words of Justin to beQuod Transubstantiationem non agnoseit, sed apertè contendat cum corpore & san­guine Christi remanere veram panis & vini Substantiam. Ind. Belgic. p. 76. blotted out. So he that wrote the foremention­ed book of the Lords Supper, affirmeth, that ‘as in the Person of Christ the Humani­ty was seen, and the Divinity was hid, so in the visible Sacrament the Divine [Page 202] Essence infuseth it self after an invisible, and ineffable manner.’ S. Augustin, S. Hillary and others of the Antients, use the very same simi­litude; and conclude, that the Mystery of the Eucharist (where two realVide Augustin. in Gratian de Consecr. Distinct. 2. c. 72. & Hilar. de Trin. 1. 8. Ibid. c. 82. Natures go together in the same Sacrament) is like the Mystery of the Incar­nation (where two real Substances were united together in the same Person.) For the Romanists themselves dare not say, that only the Accidents of Humanity were in our Lord at his Incarnation: and therefore they ought not to say neither, that only the Accidents of bread and wine are in the Eucharist after Consecration. At least, they ought not to appeal to Antiquity for this conceit, it being plainly the sense of the Primitive Church, that as the Nature of Man was neither abolisht, nor changed into Christs Divinity, when 'twas united to it, so neither is the nature of bread abolisht or changed into Christs Body, when 'tis ad­ministred with it.

5. It is observable, that whereas some Hereticks in the Ancient times denyed our Saviour to have two several Natures, the Catholicks proved he had so, by this known, received Principle, because there are two several Natures in the Sacrament, which is a Figure of Christ. This is a thing [Page 203] which requires particular observation, because it will clearly and undeniably prove, that the sense of the Church, which I have shewn for the first 300. years, was the same still (and indeed more plain, if possible) for the two Centuries next following. The occasion of their speaking so plainly was this: Between the third and fourth Century there brake out the pestilent heresie of Apollinaris, S. Aug. de Haeres. c. 55. who held, that our Lord took not his Body of the holy Virgin, but that the Word was made Flesh, so that the Deity was turned and transubstantiated into the Manhood. Against this Heresie S. Chrysostom under­took the defence of the Catholick Faith, that Christ, at his Incarnation, was both God and Man, one Person of two Natures joyned together, which are not one Substance, but each hath its Properties distinct from the other. And how doth he prove this? Why, he argues from the condition of the Holy Sacrament wherein there are two Natures, so that neither is the Bread turned into Christs Flesh, nor his Flesh into Bread, but both are distinctSicut enim, antequam Sanctisicetur panis, panem nomi­namus, Divina autem illum Sanctificante gratia medi­nate Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione Pa­nis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis [...]appel­latione, ersi Natura panis in ipso Permans [...]t, & non duo corpora, sed unum flii corpus praedicatur, sic & hîc di­vina insidente corpori natura, unum filium, unam per­sonam, utraque haec fecerunt. S. Chrysoft. Ep. ad Caesarium contra Appollinarem. in themselves, though they go ‘As (saith S. Chrysostom) be­fore the Con­secration [Page 204] of the bread, we call it bread, but when the Grace of God hath sanctified it by the Priest, it is delivered from the name of Bread, and is exalted to the Lords Body, though the Nature of Bread remaineth still (and so, two things make one Eucharist) so here, the Divine Nature is in the Body of Christ, but these two Substances are distinct, and make one Son, and one Person.’ This is a very plain testimony on our side. Afterwards the Apollinarians were divided in their opinions (for they shifted, and were Un­stable for want of truth) and then Theo­doret took up the quarrel against them all in his book entitled Polymorphos. For then the Heresie of Eutyches appeared abroad, whose opinion was that though Christ had at First two Natures, yet after the Union of them the Humanity ceased, was quite absorpt, and Transubstantiated into the Di­vinity. To prove this, those Hereticks drew an argument from the Eucharist: Christs Body (said they) was turned into his Deity at the Ascension, even as the Bread and Wine are turned into his Flesh [...] Theodoret Dialog. 1. and Bloud upon Consecration. But to his Theo­doret answered roundly, ‘that Christ honoured [Page 205] the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Bloud, not changing their Nature, but to their Nature adding Grace. And whereas it was urged again by those Here­ticks, that the Symbols of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before Invo­cation, and another thing after; Theodo­ret told them, that they were taken in their own nets, because the Mystical Signs do not Id. Dialog. 2. depart from their own Nature after San­ctification; but Remain in their former Substance, aswell as in their Figure and form.’ If this be not Home and Plain, I know not what can be: and yet we have a Further Testimony from the mouth of Gelasius (who was Bishop of Rome too about 500 years after our Saviour.) He wrote an Excellent Book of the Two Na­tures of Christ against the Eutychians and Nestorians: and how doth he argue? Why he clears the Catholick Faith by ar­guing from the Eucharist too: and theseGelas. de duabus Naturis in Christo. are his words; Indeed the Sacraments of Christ Body and Bloud, which we receive, are a Divine thing, for by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature; and yet it doth not cease to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine. The Image and Simi­litude of Christs Body and Bloud is in the Action of the Mysteries; and by this it ap­pears, that we must think that to be in Christ, [Page 206] which we Profess, celebrate, and take in the Image, that as they pass into a Divine Substance by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, the Nature of the things remaining still in their own Propriety; so is the Principal My­sterie, the Efficiency and Virtue whereof the Sacraments do Represent; by their Continu­ing what they were it appears, that they shew one entire and true Christ to continue also. If this be not enough yet, we will produce Ephraim the Patriarch for another witness after Gelasius. He wrote very learnedly against the same heresies; and even he draws one of his Arguments from the blessed Eucharist likewse; and he is as Positive as can be, that the Body of Christ (meaning, the Symbolical Body, as Origen In Photii Biblioth. cod. 229. called it, that is the Bread) which is re­ceived by the Faithful, doth not depart out of its sensible Substance and Nature, and yet remaines undivided from the Spiritual Grace: and to clear his meaning fully, he shews in the very next words, that the Elements in the Eucharist are no more changed, than the water is in Baptism, which Remaineth still water after Sancti­fication. Thus these four Great men, S. Chrysostome, Theodoret, Gelasius, and Ephraim, delivered the Sense of the Catholick Church in their times: and if you add them to the forementioned Fathers who lived in the [Page 207] Primitive times before them, it will be ma­nifest beyond exception, that for above 500 years together after Christ, the Christian Doctors did no more believe the Elements in the Sacrament to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Flesh and Bloud, than they did believe the Manhood of Christ himself to be Transubstantiated into his God-head, or his God-head to be abolisht and turned into his Humanity.

Now the sense of Christians in those ages ought to satisfie the minds of Christians in these: for certainly the faith of Christ was never more clearly, more Learnedly, more solidly maintained, than in the first five Centuries; and one reason of it (as I conceive) was this, because Here­sies of all sorts were then so very thick and Numerous; the Providence of God per­mitting it so to be, that the zeal of good men might be exercised continually, where­by it came to pass that the Doctors of the Church were industrious and learned, and the true faith was throughly sifted and esta­blisht: for so it is ever, that as evil man­ners in the State are the occasion of good Laws; so evil Doctrines in the Church are the occasion of Sound and Excellent De­finitions.

I do not wonder, if in the following ages we have not such great Plenty of witnesses [Page 208] to appeal to. They were times wherein learning did much Decay, and mens In­dustry and zeal were much abated for want of those Incentives which had formerly been, like goads in the sides of the holy Fathers; and I remember what Boniface the Martyr said of the times he lived in, that whereas Golden Priests were formerly forced to use wooden Chalices, Then wooden Priests did use Chalices of Gold.

And yet we may well be Astonisht at their Monstrous confidence, who tell us, that Transubstantiation was believed in those declining times. If it had been so indeed, the Argument from it would have Signified nothing, because there can be no Prescription against truth; and the sense of some in latter ages ought not carry the cause against the general Judgement of the Primitive and best times But in good ear­nest, upon the strictest search I can make, I do not find any grounds for the credit of the present Romish Doctrine, either inUnus idem (que) se­cundum hu­manam substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra, & dereliquens terram cum ascendisset in caelum. Secundum divinam verò im­mensam (que) substantiam nec caelum dimittens cum de caelo descendit, nec terram deserens cum ad caelum ascendit, &c. Fulgent. ad Trasimud. l. 2. c. 17. Fulgentius, or inChristi sanguis non jam in manus infidelium, sed in or a fidelium funditur, Gregor. apud Gratian. de Consec. dist. 2. c. 73. Mysterium est, quod aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem: quod intelligitur fructum babet spiritualem, sed cum Mysterium sit, unde corpus & sanguis Christi dicitur? Consulens ommipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae, qui non habemus usum comedere carnem crudam, & Sanguinem bibere, facit ut in pristina remaneant forma illa duo munera, & est in veritate Corpus Christe & Sanguis. Id. in Glossa ex Alcuino, ibdi. Gregory the [Page 209] Great, who lived in the sixth Century; or inChristus in caelum ascendens discessit quidem carne, sed presens est majestate, &c. Isid. Hisp. Sentent. lib. 1. Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae passionis. Unde hoc eo jubente corpus Christi & sanginem dicimus, quod dum fit ex Fructibus terrae, sanctificatur & fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spititu Dei. Id. Origin. lib. 6. c. 19. Isidore His­palensis, who flou­risht in the seventh, or in venerableFinitis veteris Paschae solenniis quae in commemorationem antiquae de Egypto liberation is agebantur, transit in novum quod in suae redemptionis memoriam Eccle­sia frequent are desiderat▪ ut videlicet pro agni carne & sanguine suae carnis san­guinisque Sacramentum in panis ac vini figura substituens, &c Beda in Luc. 22. Panis ac Vini Creatura in Sacramentum carnis & sanguinis Christi ineffabili Spi­ritus sanctificatione transfertur, sic (que) cor­pus & sanguis illius non infidelium mani­bus ad perniciem ipsorum funditur & oc­ciditur, sed fidelium ore sumitur asl; salu­tem. Id. Homil. de Sanctis. Bede, who was in the eighth Age; no not in Damascen himself neither, tho he be brought forth by the Romanists, as a Champion on their side.

The Learned Arch Bishop Cranmer hath drawn up the sense of Damascen into this sum, ‘that the Bread and Wine are not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ, that they be made one Nature, but they remain still distinct in Nature, so that the Bread in it self is not his flesh, nor the Wine his blood, but unto them that worthily eat and drink the bread and Wine, to them the bread and Wine be his flesh and blood, that is to say, by things natural, and which they be accu­stomed unto, they be exalted unto things above Nature: For the Sacramental bread [Page 210] and Wine are not bare and naked figures, but so Pithy and effectuous, that whosoever worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually Christs flesh and blood. Wherefore (saith the Holy Martyr) they that gather out of Damascen; either the natural presence of Christs body in the Sacraments of bread and Wine, or the Adoration of the out­ward and visible Sacrament, or that after Consecration there remaineth no bread nor Wine, nor other substance but only the sub­stance of the body and Blood of Christ; either they understand not Damascen, or else of wilful frowardness they will not under­stand him; which rather seemeth to be true by such collections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him. For Da­mascen saith plainly, that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire and wood joy­ned together, so the bread of the Commu­nion is not bread only, but bread joyned to the Divinity.’ He that desires further satisfaction as to this, may peruse the whole vindication of Damascen in the third book of the Arch-Bishops defence. This I shall presume to say, that Church Writers about Damascens time, and Damascen himself spake for the most part as other of the Anci­ents did: They spake to the same pur­pose and in many places (to my appre­hension) very clearly and very agreeably [Page 211] to the sense of our own Church, viz. of the real presence of Christs Spiritual body, (which in the next discourses I shall endea­vour to explain) tho possibly here and there we may light upon some few ex­pressions, which may seem somewhat harsh to such as do not rightly understand the Catholick Faith in this particular point.

Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine doth insi­nuate,Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c. 1. that the Doctrine of Christs Cor­poral presence in the Sacrament was belie­ved at the Second Council at Nice, about the year of Christ 787. And herein the Jesuite is followed by some Divines of our own, who have taken the insinuation from Bellarmine at the second hand; and have thence concluded, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had its rise at that Coun­cil, that thereby the Practice of Image-Worship might be the better settled and supported. But this is false; and I can­not tell whether this error proceeds from inadvertency, or from a willingness some have to disgrace the Catholick Church, as if it had been guilty of such a foul mistake in those ancient times. I am sure that upon looking into the Nicene Coun­cil, [...], Synod. Ni­cen. 2. Actione Sexta. I cannot find any such matter. They determined indeed that after Consecrati­on the bread and Wine are rightly cal­led the body and blood of Christ. But [Page 212] why must this be meant of Christs Natu­ral Body? Why might they not intend his Spiritual body, and his real, Spiritual presence (of which anon?) Do but ob­serve the occasion of this their assertion, and the thing will evidently appear. The Council at Constantinople were against the bringing of Images into Churches, for this reason among many others, because Christ left no Image of himself but the Sacrament. At this expression the Nicene Council af­terwards took pet, and would not en­dure such Language, that the materials of the Sacrament are the Images of Christs bo­dy and blood; for they supposed the mea­ning to be, that they are bare Images na­ked and empty Figures, without the presence of Christs body and blood; and this they exploded as unsound, and uncatholick Doctrine. Here was the quarrel as to that point: For whereas the Constantinopolitan Council had said, that the Eucharist be­came a Divine body, the Nicene Council accused them for contradicting themselves; for (said they) if it be the Image of a Body, it cannot be a Divine Body too. They denied the Sacrament to be a bare Image; they affirmed it to be, not so much an Image as the very Body of Christ, and that so it ought to be called; but that they hold a corporal presence of Christs [Page 213] Natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament there is nothing in the whole History o, that Council, that constraineth us to believef and therefore the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation had not its first rise then.

In the ninth Centu­ryDum quidam fidelium, corporis san­guinis (que) christi quod in Ecclesia quotidie celebratur Mysterium, dicunt, quod nulla sub figura, nulla sub obvelatione fiat, sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestatione peragatur: Quidam vero restantur, quod haec sub mysterii figura contineantur, & aliud sit quod corporeis sensibus ap­pareat, aliud artem quod fides aspiciat, non parva diversitas inter eos esse dig­noscitur. Bertram de Corp. & Sang. Christ. indeed some began to speak variously [...] Ibid. and doubtfully con­cerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament (which in a little time was the occasion of Bertrams writing his excellent book, of the Body and Blood of Christ, to Carolus Calvus then Emperor.)De Char. c. 11. But even in that Age Rabanus Maurus taught (as the received Doctrine of the Church) ‘that it is unlawful (as well as im- impossible; Nefas, is his word) to eat the body of Christ with our Teeth; that Christ is in Heaven, and ought to be there according to his flesh; and that therefore he left us this Sacrament as the visible fi­gure and character of his flesh and Blood.’ He distinguisheth (as many of the An­cients before him did) between the Sacra­ment, De insti­tut. Cleric. lib. 1. c. 13. and the virtue of the Sacrament; affirming the one to be eaten with the mouth, and the Inward man to be satiated [Page 214] with the other; so that though the Sa­cramentDe Institut. Cleric. lib. 1. c. 31. it self turneth to our Bodily nou­rishment yet eternal life is obtained by the virtue of the Sacrament. And whe­reas Paschasius Radbertus and his follow­ers had now vended some new conceits, which had a tendency towards the intro­duction of the Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion, he wrote purposely against them, as erronous conceits; ‘some of late (says he) being not rightly perswaded of the Sacra­ment of Christs Body and Bloud, have affirmed it to be that very Body and Bloud of our Lord which was born of the virgin, and wherein the Lord Suffered upon the Cross, and rose again out of the Sepulchre,De Euchar. 33. which error (saith he) we have exposed with the best of our skill in an Epistle to Egilo the Abbot.’ That Epistle indeed is not now extant, but the matter of fact is certain; and the faith of that great man, Rabanus, was so well know to be utterly destructive of the Fancy of Transubstan­tiation, that Waldensis in an Epistle to Pope Martin the 5th (almost 600 years after) had the confidence to censure Ra­banus for an Heretick, though he were no less then Archbishop of Mentz, and for all sorts of learning had few in the Chri­stian world that were his Match.

Haymo likewise affirmed, that the Bread [Page 215] and Wine (for so he call the ElementsIn 1. Cor. 11. after Consecration) are replenished with the virtue of our Lords Divinity, and so become his Body; but this doth no more argue Transubstantiation, then it argues that Christs Humane Nature is turned into his Divine Substance, because that in him the fulness of the God-head dwelleth bodily. Bertram was a very learned and judicious Divine, in the same age; and he in the Book I mentioned but now, gives the Cause against the Romanists so fully, and argues against Christ's Corpo­ral presence in the Sacrament so strongly from the Nature and Notion of a Sacramant, from sense, from Scripture, and from Tra­dition, that the Knavish Compilers of the Spanish Index Expurgatorius had no wayBertram. de corp' & Sang. Chri­sti. left them but to forbid the Use of the Book; which to my sense was the same thing as if they had said, we will damn all Authors, or cut out their Tongues, that we can find to Speak against us (Behold the Honesty and Ingenuity of those, who vaunt so much of Tradition.)

They that had the management of the Bel­gick Index were somewhat more modest, for they profest they would use all arts to Ex­tenuate, and excuse Bertrams errors, and to put some convenient sense to them, or by some device or other tell a lye for him; [Page 216] and they were content that his Book should be mutilated, and some things purged and taken away from it: this, I say, was more modest usage, then what poor Beriram received at the hands of the Other Censors; and yet this was very dishonest too; and a plain Sign of a very weak cause that needed such disingenuous Artifices. So they might have dealt with Amalarius too, the Archbishop of Triers in the same age; who trod in the steps of S. Austin, affirmingAmalar. de Ecclesii Offic. l. 3. c. 25. the Elements to represent Christs Body and Bloud, as Signes of things, and that the Priest offereth up Bread and Wine instead of Christ, and that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are in the Place and Room of Christ Body and Bloud.

Tis true, Paschasius Rabertus, who lived at the same time, differed much in his opi­nion from these great men, though it be hard to tell what his opinion was, so very Inconsistent was the man with himself; as it usually happens to Heady Opiniators, especially when they are on the wrong side, and will be venturing upon new discoveries. This is allowed, that Paschasius had a No­tion by himself; but I think if it be searcht well into, it will be found to come nearer to the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantia­tion, Paschas. de Euchar. c. 41. & 13. then to the Romish Conceit. For since he affirm'd (as Rabanus did) that [Page 217] ‘Christ is not to be torn with mens teeth; that because it was necessary for Christ to be in heaven, he lest us this Sacrament, to be the visible Figure and Character of his Flesh and Bloud; that we drink of Christ Spiritually, and that we eat his Spiritual Flesh and the like;’ whether do these Ex­pression and Notions tend, but to destroy the fancy of eating Christs Natural Body after a gross manner, as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation doth import?

In the 10th Century we meet with Theo-phylact; who spake of the Sacrament in a Lofty strain (as many others before him did) and used the Word [...] to ex­press the Mutation of the Elements. Which Expression the Romanists greedily catcht hold of, as if he intended the changing of things out of one Substance into another. But this is very wide of Theophylacts mean­ing, who plainly intended not a Real, Essential change of the Substance and Nature of the Bread and Wine; but a Mystical, and Sacramental change of their Quality and Condition; so that upon [...] &c. Justin Martyr. Apolog. 2.-Qui est e terrâ Panis percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistie ex duabus rebus constans, &c. Iren. adv. Har. l. 4. c. 34. Consecration they are no longer Common things (as Justin Martyr and Ireneus said of old) but the Elements of Divine things unto us, so that [Page 218] thereby the Divine body of Christ is com­municated to every Holy Soul. The learned Cranmer explains him rightly, that as hot and burning Iron is Iron still, soDefenc. lib. 3. the Sacramental bread and Wine remain bread and Wine still, tho to every wor­thy Communicant they be turned into the Virtue of Christs flesh and blood. And that this was the sense of Theophylact is clear from his own words, that the kind (or substance) of Bread remaining and continuing, a Transelementation is made in. Theophy­lact in Marc. 14. to the Virtue of Christs Flesh: which no­tion I shall explain hereaster.

In the mean time I desire the Reader to note once for all, that the Romanists to support their new Doctrine of Tran­substantiation have grosly abused the an­cient Writers of the Church, by rendring the words [...] and Species, as if they sig­nified no more then shew and appearance: And this they call the accidents of the Bread and Wine, which they grant to re­main, but without the Natural substance or essence of them; so that mens senses are cousened as to the things which they see. Whereas the word [...] among the Greeks signifieth not the appearance or shew, but the sort and kind of a thing; and when it relates to things of matter (as Bread and Wine) it signifies the Essence or sub­stance [Page 219] of those things. And thus the words form, likeness, and fashion, are used by St. Paul himself, in the second of Philippians at the seventh Verse; where speaking of our Saviour, he saith, that he took upon him the form of a Servant, [...] Phil 2. 7. and was made in the like­ness of Men, being found in fashion as a Man: Meaning that he was really in a ser­vile Condition; and a Man in substance, essence, and Nature. In like manner the word species among the Latines, signifies the sort, the kind, the substance of the thing, and, being spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, it signifies the very na­tural Essence or matter (not barely the appearance) of the Elements. And this is the true meaning of Theophylact in this place, where he saith, that God [...]. doth preserve the kind, the Essence, the substance of the Bread and Wine, but doth Transelementate (or change) them into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood. However we grant, that this expression of Theophylacts gave occasion (though wrong­fully) to the School men in after Ages, to lose their time in enquiring after the manner of that change which is consest to be in the Elements. But even they were di­vided [Page 220] in their opinions, so that the poin was not agreed upon for some time after, Theophylact.

For until the controversie arose about Berengarius (which was towards the end of the eleventh Century) it was matter of Dispute; some being of one opinion, and some of another. They were only agreed in this, that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, but they could not tell how. But Berengarius raised a dust which blinded other mens eyes and his own too. His true Crime seems to me to have been this; not that he erroneously disputed a­bout the manner of Christs presence, but that he denied him toSo his Schooll-fellow Adelmannus char­geth him, in an Epistle to him which Is yet extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, wherein speaking of the Novel Do­ctrine, which was reported to have been spread abroad by him, he saith, hoc est, ut illorum dictis utar, non esse ve­rum corpùs Christi, ne (que) verum sanguinem, sed figuram quandam & similitudinem. be present at all in the Sacrament; affirming not only that the E­lements were Bread and Wine, but that they were bare bread and Wine, and no­thing else; which was the opinion of those, who in the beginning of the refor­mation were properly called, Sacramentaries, and which is the opinion of those black­mouth'd Hereticks the Socinians now. This was an Heterodox conceit indeed, that was utterly against the Faith of the Catholick Church from the beginning: and out of [Page 221] hatreed and detestation of this foul Error, the Bishop of Rome, and others, presently fell into another extreme, as foul as that (as usually men do when they are in Heat and Passion.) Then the Doctrine, not so much of Christs real, as of his corporal presence was laid upon the Anvil, and Lanc­franck and Guitmund (Berengarius his Ene­mies)See the Confession which was extorted from Beren. garius at Rome, and which he afterwards retracted, in Gratian de Consec. dist. 2. c. 24. fell a hammering at it; and then they would not be satisfyed with this (which yet had satisfied Christians for above a thousand years) that Christs Divine Body is verily communicated after a Spiritual manner to the faithful. But they would needs have it, that his Natural Body is actually eaten with mens mouths, and handled with their hands. However, this was the sense but of a few men as yet, and all men were yet at liberty to opine and dis­pute, as long as they did it Modestly. For Fulbertus was against the new opinion; and at the second Synod at Rome against Beren­garius, under Gregory the seventh, Anno 1079, they did declare, that there was great variety of opinions about the BodyHabitus est Sermo de Corpore & Sanguine Domini no­stri, multis haec, nonnul­lis alia sen­tientibus. and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, as may be seen in the Acts of that Synod; and Adelmannus though he blamed Berengarius, yet was he against Lancfranck, not owning that Conceit of Christs Corporal presence. Lancfranck maintain'd it here in England (and [Page 112] he was the first man that planted that weed in this Island) but all men were not of his opinion here; (though he was a man of great Authority) and in Foreign parts the point continued disputable for a long time: for S. Bernard (who lived in the twelfth Century current) was of another opinion, and Peter Lombard (who was fifty years after him) found it to be a moot point even in his days; and he tells us himself, what various opinions there were about it then; so that for a matter of 1200. years together,P. Lomb. Sentent. l. 4. dist. 11. the Doctrine of Transubstantation (you see) was not determin'd: In the Primitive times, and for some Centuries after, it was not thought of: In later ages it was but dreamt of, and when men began to talk of it, they talked as if they were asleep, and they declared their several opinions, as men tell their Dreams; 'twas no Article of Faith, no not in the Church of Rome, till the Lateran Council, Anno 1215. nay, some Learned men are of opinion, that it wasVide Mr. Thorndike of the Laws of the Church p.37. Bish. Taylor of the Real Pres. p. 267. not determined then neither, but some time after. But let that rest for me; I will en­quire after it no further now, since we have found it already a child of Fancy, and an upstart too, that was Begotten of Late, and brought into the World by the mid­wifry of time, but cannot derive its Pe­digree from any of the Holy Fathers: we [Page 223] must lay the Brat at the Church of Romes door; it is their own; and since they are so fond of it without any sense or reason, let them keep it if they please, (so they keep it to themselves) though we wish it had been an Abortive, or had dyed a Chrisom, spe­cially since it hath cost so much Christian Bloud to Foster and Breed it up.

CHAP. IX.

TO proceed, though there be no grounds in the World for the opi­nion of Transubstantiation, yet we must not conceive that Christ is not verily, really, and of a truth in the Sa­crament; he may be really present, though there be no reason to believe, that he is present after a Corporal manner. For two different Substances and Natures may be joyned and go together, though they re­main distinct in themselves, and in their [Page 225] properties; as the Soul and Flesh of a man are united in the same Person; and as the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were united together in the same Lord. Though we should suppose that Pillar to have been a real cloud which went before the Israelites, yet it will not follow that God was not in it, though we shoiuld suppose those shapes, to have been true Bodies, wherein the Spirits of God were wont to appear to the old Patriarchs, yet this doth not argue, that Angelical Substances were not present in them, though we should suppose that to have been a real Dove which lighted on our Saviour, and that to have been real Fire, which sate upon his Apostles, yet this will not argue but that the Holy Ghost was in both. In like manner, though we grant the Elements in the Eucharist to be Substantially and really Bread and Wine, yet it will not follow by any means that Christ is not present in the Sacrament: it is easy to conceive it possi­ble for it to be Bread still and Christs Body too, and to be wine still, and Christs Bloud too: There may be an union of these two things, though we do not suppose the Na­ture of the one to be destroyed or turned into the nature of the other.

And that this is not only possible, but is certainly so de facto, the Scripture doth [Page 226] strongly oblige us to believe. For, 1. S. Paul tells us, that the administration of the Sacrament is the Communion of Christs Body and Bloud, 1 Cor. 10 16. which words are to be understood, not only of that foederal Vid. S. Chrysost [...]n 1 Cor. 10. 16. Communion which we have thereby with Christ; but moreover of that real Comu­nication which we have of him; so that by drinking of the Wine we participate of Christs Bloud, which streamed out of his side, and which he gives us here, as well as he shed it on the Cross; and by eating of the Bread, we do not only Partake of his Body, but also obtain thereby a close Con­junction and Coherence with him, whose Body it is: we are united to him by the Bread, even as our Flesh is united to Christ himself, as S. Chrysostom affirms, which doth plainly argue the real presence and communication of his Body and Bloud. 2. Again whereas S. Paul saith, I Cor. II. 27. Whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord; he doth seem manifestly to conclude, that Christs Body and Bloud is really in the Eu­charist, that all worthy Communicants do indeed receive Christs very Body and Bloud by receiving the Elements, and that Christs Body and Bloud are verily tendred and offer'd even to the unworthy, though they [Page 227] receive them not. For were it not thus, I would gladly understand how it cometh to pass, that unworthy receiving brings upon a mans Soul some peculiar and extraordinary Guilt? If it be a special sin (as S. Pauls words argues it to be) against the Body and Bloud of our Lord, it must follow that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are there. For a sin is of a peculiar nature and considera­tion, when it is acted against an Object that is more peculiarly Interested and Concern'd; so the sin against the Holy Ghost seems strictly and and properly, to be a malicious resisting and reproaching of the Truth, in spight of those Miracles which are wrought by the Holy Ghost, for the Confirmation of the Truth. A man is then said to be pecu­liarly guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, because in the working of Miracles the Holy Ghost is concern'd and interested after a pe­culiar manner. To this purpose it is obser­vable, that when our Saviour spoke of this sin, it was after some Miracle that he had done, and by occasion of the Jews re­proaching it, as if it had been done, not by the Power and Spirit of God, but by Beelzebub, It was especially a sin against the Holy Ghost, because in the Miracle the Holy Ghost was specially concern'd. Even so here unworthy receiving makes a man guilty of a sin against our Lords Body and [Page 228] Bloud, because his Body and Bloud are peculiarly Interested in the Sacrament. Evil men strike at Christ then after a most sinful sort, because his Body and Bloud are present there after a singular manner; and therefore doth the sin bring an extraor­dinary guilt, because it is the doing despight to the very Body and Bloud of Him, who made himself an offering for us.

For these and the like reasons the Ca­tholik Church of Christ hath in all ages believed a real presence of his Body and Bloud in the Sacrament, nor do I know any one Doctrine of Christianity, which hath come unto us with less Contradiction, then this came down from the very days of the Apostles, even to the times of Be­rengarius. And so true is this, that the Learned know well, that the Ancients grounded their Faith of our real Union with Christ upon this Principle, because his very Body and Bloud are really communicated to us by our receiving the Eucharist. As they be­lieved [...] S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. 10. 16. vide & Iren. & multos alios. a Supernatural Union between the Na­tures in Christ, so they believed a Mystical Union between all the Faithful and Christ; and this they [Page 229] concluded, because they believed a Sacra­mental Union between Christ and those Creatures of Bread and Wine, whereby we receive Christ. S. Hilary calls our Conjun­ctionHilar. de Trinit. lib. 8. with Christ a Natural conjunction, because as Our Nature was before united to his by his Incarnation so now his Nature is United to Ours by the Communion. Our Church calls it, the Communion of the Body and Bloud of the Lord, in a mar­vellous Incorporation: and S. Austin himselfHomily of the Sa­cram. 1. Part. used the same Expression: and all the Ancients acknowledged this real Union to be wrought by means of that RealS. August. Ep. ad Iren. Communion of our Saviours very Body and Bloud, at and by the Holy Sacrament.

For the Opening now of this great My­stery, I shall shew these Five things. 1. That we are to distinguish between Christs Na­tural and his Spiritual Body. 2. What is meant by his Spiritual Body. 3. Why it is so called. 4. That Christ hath a Spiritual Body indeed. 5. That this Spiritual Body is received by us in the Sacrament.

1. We are to distinguish Christs Spiri­tual from his Natural Body; not as if he had two different Bodies, but because that One and the same Body of his is to be considered after a different manner. Now this is S. Pauls own distinction, 1 Cor. 15. 44. There is a Natural (or Animal) Body, [Page 231] and there is a Spiritual Body. The Apo­stle there treats of that Exalted state our bodies shall be in after the Resurrection, how they shall be delivered from all Mor­tality and Corruption, and shall be the everlasting Temples of the Divine Spirit, and shall shine with light like the Stars, and shall be like Angelical Substances and Spirits, in Comparison; and all this, be­cause our Saviour is risen, and gone before us into heaven, and there remaines in a Glorious Body, as 'tis called Philip. 3. 21.

Now this Body of Christ may be con­sidered, either in respect of its own Natu­ral Substance, as it consisteth of Flesh, Bones, and Bloud, and other Constituent and Perfective parts of humane nature; and in this sense no man can partake of the Lords Body. Or else it may be conside­red with respect to his Divinity, as that is united to it, as it is clothed with infinite Majestie, as it is replenisht with the Pre­sence and energy of the God-head, as it casteth live Influences upon his Church, by virtue of the God-head dwelling in it, and filleth all things with Spiritual rayes and emanations of his Grace. In this res­pect our Lord is called a Quickning Spirit, 1 Cor. 15. 45. the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a [Page 231] Quickning Spirit; because he giveth life to every Humble and Obedient heart here below, and through his Humane Nature dispenseth to every one the Vertues of his Passion; and in this respect every good Christian participates of Christs Body, that is of the Spiritualities of his glorious Body. The Ancient Christians acknowledged and insisted much upon this distinction be­tween the Natural, and the Spiritual bo­dy of Christ, confessing the one to be in the Sacrament, but not the other. There is (Saith Clemens Alexandrinus) a Two­fold [...], Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. in mitio. Blond of our Lord; there is his Fleshly Bloud, whereby we were redeemed from destruction; and there is his Spiritual Bloud, whereby we are now Anointed: and this is to drink the Bloud of Jesus, to be made partakers of our Lords Incorruption. In like manner, Origen Shewing, that even in the New Testament there is a letter which killeth, if men do not understand that which is said after a Spiri­tual Si enim secundum liberam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, nisi manducaveretis carnem mean & biberitis Sanguinem meum, occi­der haec litera. Orig. in Lev. 10. Ho­milt. manner, instan­ceth in that Phrase, of eating Christs Flesh, and drinking [Page 232] his Bloud, for (saith he) if you understand this according to the sound and clink of the Expression, it is a killing letter. S. Jerome also tells us, that the Bloud and Flesh of Christ is to beDuplicitur verè sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur; vel Spiritualis illa at (que) Divina, de qua ipse dixit, caro mea vere est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus—vel caro & sanguis quae Crucifixa est, & qui militis effu­sus est lancea. S. Hierom. Comment. in Ep. ad. Ephes. cap, 1. understood in a twofold sense, either for the Spiritual and Divine Flesh and Bloud, of which our Lord said, my Flesh is meat indeed, and my Bloud is drink indeed; or for that Flesh and Bloud which was Crucified, and which was poured out by the Souldiers Spear. So doth S. Austin distinguish the Invisible, the Intelligible, the Spiritual Gratian. de Consecr. dist. 2. cap. 148. Flesh and Bloud of Christ, from that Visible, that Palpable Body of his, which is full of Grace, and of the Divine Ma­jestie: This he calls strictly and properly, the Body of Christ;Donec seculum finiatur, sursum est Dominus; sed tamen hic etiam nobiscum est veritas Do­mini. Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit, unto loco esse oportet. Veritas autem ejus ubi (que) diffusa est. Id. cap. 144. Quaere whether, it should not be read Virtus, instead of ve­ritas; Whereas in some Ancient Authors, and specially in S. Austin, there is mention made of Veritas Domini, and Veritas corporis Dominici, &c. I mistrust that those Expres­sions are corrupt, and that we should read Virtus Domini, and Virtus corporis, &c. Al­bertinus observed a corruption in a passage of S. Cyril Translated out of Greek into La­tin, by Thomas Aquinas in the Catena. There 'tis thus Influit Deus oblatis vim vitae, convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis, whereas it should have been rendred, in virtutem propriae carnis, for 'tis in the Greek [...], at Albertinus shews out of Victor Antiochenus his Comment upon S. Mark. preserved in the Kings Library at Paris: Albertin: de Sacr. Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 752. Here was a Palpable Trick; so there might be in other such instances for ought we know. the other he calls, the truth of his Bo­dy, meaning the Virtue of it: and saith positively, that till the end of the world, the Lord is in heaven above; ne­vertheless that the truth of the Lord is [Page 233] with us here below. For that Body of Christ wherein he arose, is necessarily to be in one place, but the truth (or Vir­tue) thereof is diffu­sed every where. St. Ambrose speaking of that Body which is received in the Eucharist, calls it the Spiri­tual S. Ambros. de Mister. c. 9. Body of Christ, the Body of a Divine Spirit? and this I confidently affirm of all the Ancients, who have either purposely in­terpreted, or occasionally quoted those words of Christ in the sixth of S. John, that they all understand him to speak, of our feeding upon him after a Spiritual manner, and of Spiritual food, of Spiritual Flesh, of Spiritual Bloud, which he doth give us from Heaven to eat and drink of, Se­cretly and Undiscernably; always distingui­shing this Spritual Body, not onely from the Substance of the Holy Elements, but also from that Natural Body of Christ, which he took of the Substance of the Holy Virgin.

2. This then being manifest, that our Saviour hath a Spiritual body, of which (and of which alone) we do participate, I am now in the next place to shew what [Page 234] that spiritual Body is. Now by his spi­ritual body we mean, the spiritual virtues of his glorified Body; those Heavenly streams of Grace which flow from him; those vital Powers which we receive into our Bosoms through him; those Divine operations which our poor Souls depend upon him for; those Coelestial and admi­rable influences, which are derived to his whole Church from his Throne of Glory. For the right understanding of this mat­ter, we must consider. 1. That the Body of Christ is filled, not only with the ha­bitual Graces of the Holy Spirit, where with he was anointed above his Brethren, but filled too even with the Majesty of the God head, so that in him all the full­ness of the God-head dwelleth bodily (that is, really, substantially, and fully) Col. 2. 9. 2. We must consider, that of his fullness all we do now receive plentifully, and Grace upon Grace, as St. John tells us, Jo. 1. 16. So that tho Christ be in Heaven, above all Principalities and Powers, and there is to remain until the restitution of all things, yet is he unto every one of us the Source and principle of Life; Virtue goeth out of him even now; still he imparteth himself to us after an ineffable, but effectual manner; and the meanest Soul in his Church is no more hid from the Emana­tions [Page 235] of his Grace than the least Plant in a Garden is hid from the influence of the Sun. Hence it is, that we are said to be made partakers of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1. 4. Because we do partake of those Divine Graces and Influences, which flow­ing from Him, do transform and shapen Us into his own likeness. And this is that anointing which St. John speaks of, 1. Jo. 2. 20. Ye have an unction from the Holy one; meaning that plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit, through the Man Christ Jesus, whereby the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts. For Christ himself hath received the Spirit without measure, and is anointed with the Oyl of gladness above his Brethren; but this is like the Oyntment which was upon Aaron; it was poured out upon his Head, but it ran down even to the skirts of his cloathing, and perfumed his whole Body. So doth the Spirit of Christ descend from Him up­on Us in streams of bliss and joy, and e­very drop of comfort which falleth upon our hearts, is a distillation from him whom God hath made the head of his Church.

At present I do only suppose (what shall be shew'd by and by) that every faith­ful Christian doth derive Virtues from the Blessed Jesus, which do relieve and ope­rate upon our Souls, as those Virtues did [Page 236] upon the Bodies of such as were healed and relieved by him in the days of his Flesh. For St. Luke tells us, Luk. 6. 19. that there went Virtue out of him, so that he healed them all. And when that poor Woman had been healed of her bloody issue only by touching our Saviours Cloathes, he himself said, that virtue had gone out of him, Mark. 5. 30. which Story is related by St. Luke too, who adds also, that Jesus perceived that Virtue was gone out of him, Luc. 8. 46. And if such wonders were wrought by the Virtues of his body in his state of Servitude and Humiliation, we may well believe that he now casteth upon e­very member of his Church, more Abun­dant Virtues and influences, since his bo­dy now is infinitely Glorious and Vivifick by reason that the Divinity (which was hid in him before) abideth in it, in its grea­test plenitude. [...] S. Ignat. Ep. ad E­phes.

3. Now these spiritual Virtues we receive from Christ, are called his Body, his flesh and Blood upon these three accounts. 1. First because they have the like Natural Properties, which Flesh and blood hath, and tend to the like Ends and Purposes to which flesh and blood serveth. For as this helpeth to corroborate and animate our Bodies, so do these Divine Virtues help to strengthen and enliven our Souls [Page 237] In which respect, ChristPanis est esca, sanguis vita, caro sub­stantia panis propter nutrimenti congruen­tiam, sanguis propter vivificationis effi­cientiam, caro propter assumptae huma­nitatis proprietatem. Panis iste commu­nis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corpori­bus: ideo (que) ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adjuta infirmitas, sensi­bili argumento edocta est visibilibus Sa­cramentis in esse vitae eterne effectum, &c. Author de Can. Domini, Cyprian. is to us meat indeed, and drink indeed; for these Spiritual Influences which spring from him, are, as Flesh to feed, and as Bloud to pre­serve our Spirits to Life everlasting. 2. These Spiritual Virtues do issue immediately from Christs Humane Na­ture; and therefore when we receive them, we are truly said to participate of Christs Body: For the Body of Christ, by being united to the Deity, is become a Quickning Body. This S. Cyril [...]. S. Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. of Alexandria teacheth us, that the Son of God is by Nature Life, as being begotten of the Living Father; yet nevertheless, that his Holy Body is Vivifick too, as being joyned and United, after an ineffable manner, to the Word which Quickneth all things. This S. Cyril, of all the Ancient Doctors (I know of) hath given the Fullest, the Clearest, the most Substantial account of this matter: though what he says is very agreeable to the sense of the Rest; who by Christs Real Presence [Page 238] in the Sacrament understood nothing else, but the Presence of those Heavenly Virtues and Influences; which are called his Body, because they are the Distillations and Effects of his Glorified Humane Nature. ‘For (as a Learned Doctor of our own Church hath confidently affirmed) though the Divine Nature be the Prime Fountain of life toDr. Jaekt son, vol. 3. l. 2. c. 3. all, and an inexhaustible Fountain in it self, yet a Fountain it is, whereof we cannot drink; save as it is derived to us through the Humane Nature of Christ. And, though God the Father doth convey unto us many inestimable blessings, yet he conveys them only through his Son; and not only through him as our Advocate or Intercessor, but through him as our Mediator, that is, through his Humanity, as the Organ or Conduit.’ So that we are as truly said to partake of Christs Body, when we partake of these Blessings, as we can be said to partake of a Spring, when we drink of the Waters, which stream and flow from it. 3. Besides, nothing is more usual among Mankind, than to give the Denomination of things to the Virtue and efficacy of those things. So we are said to be warmed with the Fire, when we onely feel its Heat; and to have the benefit of the Sun, when we are comforted onely with its Rayes. Which Two Similitudes I make use of the [Page 239] rather, not onely because they serve to illustrate the matter in hand, but also because S. Chrysostome calls that Heavenly thing we re­ceive at Sacrament, Spiritual Fire; and because the Holy Scripture it self calls ourAd Pop. Antioch. Hom. 60. Saviour the Sun of Righteousness. And as it is not Improper to say, that the Sun, though it be at a vaste distance from us, reacheth every corner of the Earth, so that in the Fields, in our Houses, in our Closest Re­tirements we feel it; and nothing is hid from it, from the moss upon the wall, to the Vegetables that are wrapped up in the bosome of the earth; when yet all these are cherisht not by the Sun it self, but by its Beans onely: so it is not a Paradox to be­lieve, that the Sun of Righteousness, casteth his Influences from above, and quickens his Church, and every part thereof; so that every heart, that is not quite Dead in Trespasses and SinsEcclesia corpus Christi effecta obsequitur capiti suo; & superius lumen in in­ferior a diffusum claritatis suae plenitudinae a fine us (que) ad finem attingens, totum apud se manens, totum se omnibus com­modat, & caloris illius identitas it a corpori assidet, uta capite non recedat. Panis ita (que) hic azymus, cibus verus, & sincerus, per speciem & Sacramentum nos tactu Sanctificat, &c. De Caena Dom. opusc. S. Cypriano ascript. (like a Rotten Root) Receives the benefit of his Operations: nei­ther is it any Impro­priety of speech to say, that our hearts are wrought upon by the Body of Christ, that we are Partakers of his Body, that we are enlivened and comforted by his very [Page 240] Body, when we receive those Spiritual Virtues which are darted from that Glorified Body of his which is in Heaven,

4. By this time, I hope, it doth appear, how necessary the distinction is between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body, and what is meant by that Spiritual Body, and why it is so called, I proceed next to shew, that He hath indeed such a Spiritual Body, wherewith he really. quickneth and strengthneth every faithful Christian. For the clearing hereof we must observe our Sa­viours discourse which the Jews in the sixth chapter of S, Johns Gospel, by occasion of their speaking of the Miracle of the Manna; he told them, that he would give his followers the true Bread from Heaven, that his Flesh, which he would give for the life of the World, should be that Heavenly Bread; that his Flesh should be meat indeed; and his Bloud drink in­deed; and that it was necessary for every one (who hoped for life) to eat that Flesh, and to drink that Bloud of his. To conceive (as the Socinians, and some other modern Writers do) that by his Flesh is meant his Doctrine only, and that by eating his Flesh and drinking his Bloud is meant, the Believing of his Doctrine and no more, to me seems a forced, a foreign, and very weak Notion; and an inexcusa­ble [Page 241] act of Singularity; For all the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Churches, do with one mouth interpret our Saviours dis­course of that Spiritual Communication of his Flesh and Bloud, wherewith every good Christian is blest, Now, that our Saviour might make this credible and easie to his Auditors (that his Flesh and Bloud should be meat and drink to the Souls of his Disciples) he opens the matter to them these two ways. 1. By intimating to them, that he was to Ascend up in his Body into Heaven; vers. 62. what if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? ‘For this reason (saith Athanasius) he put them in mind of his Ascen­sion [...] Athanas. in illud si quis dixerit verbum contra filium &c. Tom. 1. P. 979. Edit. Par. into Heaven, that he might draw off their minds from Gross and Carnal Ap­prehensions, and that they might thenceforth know that the Flesh he speak of was to be Food from above, Hea­venly and Spiritual nourishment that heS. Cyril. Alex. in Joan. lib. 4. c. 22. was to give them.’ And this was no more impossible for him to do, than it was im­possible for him to fly through the air: he could as easily make his Body Spiritual [Page 242] and vital, as he could make an Heavenly of an Earthly Substance, especially since he was God, which he put them in mind of by telling them, that he was in Hea­ven before.

2. But to clear the matter fully, heId. 16. c. 23. Interpreted himself to them, vers 63. It is the Spirit that Quickneth, the Flesh pro­fiteth nothing: meaning (as S. Cyril excel­lently understands it) that though his Flesh considered in it self, could not quicken any thing; as standing in need it self of a quickning principle, yet con­sidering the Mystery of the Incarnation, and how the Word dwelleth in the Flesh, we are to conclude, that even the Body of Christ hath a quickning Faculty, being united to that Word which giveth life to all. For the corruptible Nature of Man did not degrade the Word by being joyned unto it, but became it self exalted into a far better condition; so that though it Quickneth not of it self, yet it doth by the Energy and Operation of the Word, the Spirit or Deity of Christ, the plenitude whereof dwelleth in our Saviours Flesh bodily, and so maketh it Vivisick. This truth being laid down, that our Lords Body is full of Vital virtue by being united to the Godhead, it followeth very plainly, that we must not think of eating the Natural [Page 243] and Heavenly Substance of our Lords Body after a Bodily manner, with our mouths; But of receiving into our Hearts and Souls the Spiritual Virtues of his glorified Flesh with a lively Faith: the words that I speak Ubi supra. unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life, saith Christ: meaning thus much (accord­ing to Athanasius) ‘that my Body which is given for the World, shall be given for food, to be ministred to every one after a Spiritual manner:’ his words are Spiritual, and to be spiritually understood (as S. Cyril, S. Chrysostom, and the rest all say) that is to be interpreted of that Spirit which is Life, and which giveth life, and of those Spiritual Influences which come from Christs Heaven­ly Body, by the virtue, energy, and ope­ration of that Eternal vivifick Word which abideth in it.

From this whole discourse of our Saviour (especially as it is explained by those two great Luminaries of the Church, S. Cyril and Athanasius) we are to conceive, that the Humane Nature of Christ, being taken [...] S. Cyril. in Joan. lib. 4. c. 24. into God at his Incar­nation, and being vest­ed with the Glories of Heaven upon his Ascension, is so full of the Energy of the Di­vine [Page 244] Spirit, that it is become a Spiritual Body: Not that it hath lost the Nature of Flesh, but because it is Hypostatically united to the Godhead, by reason of which Union it is endued with an enliveningQuid est, eundem, ni­si quia eum quem etiam nos? S. Aug. Tom. 10. Hom. 27. Power, and the Man Christ Jesus (that Quickning Spirit) doth through his Glo­rified Humanity dispense those Spiritual Virtues, which are the proper Food and Nutriment of the Soul, and are fitly called Christs Spiritual Body, Christs Spiritual Flesh and Bloud.

This may be further illustrated yet by considering what S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. how that our Fathers in the wilderness did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same Spiritual drink (mean­ing, that they had the same Spiritual meat and drink with us. For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that went with them, and that Rock was Christ. And how did they eat and drink of Christ, but by receiving from him those Graces and Vertues, which have all along been the Portion and Suste­nance of the Faithful? For Christ was with all Believers under the Law, before his manifestation in the Flesh; they were continually under his care and Providence their Souls lived by his Divine Influence, as their Bodies were supported with Manna, and were refresht by waters out of the [Page 245] Rock. Now these were Figures of good things to come, that when Christ the true Manna should descend from Heaven, and should be smitten upon the Cross, as the Rock (which prefigur'd him) was smit­ten with Moses Rod, he would ever be life and aliment to those that should believe on his Name, and that that Body of his, which was to be smitten, as the Rock was, should send forth such abundant, salutary streams of Living waters, as would Quench the thirst of every true Israelite to all Eternity.

And this real (but Ineffable) presence of Christs Grace and Virtues is that, which the Doctors of the Christian Church meant, when they speak with such ravishment of the Presence of the Holy Jesus with us poor mortals in this vale of misery. They entertain'd not any mean and nauseous con­ceits of the presence of Christs Natural Body, whether in or out of the Sacrament; but they were taken up with Noble and Lofty speculations, and they fixt their minds upon the Divine and Mysterious con­sideration of those Beatifying streams of Grace, which spring from Christ (the Fountain of everlasting life) and are con­veyed unto his Church through his Humani­ty, by the efficacious operation of his Divine Spirit. The Anciens considered, that the [Page 246] eating of Christ Natural Flesh; and the drinking of his Natural Bloud (were the thing possible, and consistent with Huma­nity) could not be profitable, could not be to any purpose in comparison of those vital and operative Virtues, which flow from Christ, and Quicken all that are capa­ble and apt to be quickned: and therefore their meditations soared high, they listed up their own minds to Heaven, instead of bringing down Christ upon the Earth, they minded and spake of the real presence of his Spiritual Body only. And when we find some of them to speak, as if the Na­ture and Substance of Christ were exhibited to us, we should consider what they them­selves meant by those and the like expressi­ons, For they spake like Divines, that were full of Lofty and Seraphick notions, and were forced to speak of Mysteries in a high strain, giving the Elements in the Sacrament becom­ing and honourable [...]. S. Cyril ubi Supr. Names, but intending by the Flesh and Bloud of Christ, the Virtue, the Grace, the Spiritual­lities and Efficacy of his Humane Natu­re, as it is Quickned [Page 247] and made quickning to us by the Power of the Eternal Word in conjunction with it. ‘As S. Austin. saysSecundam Majestatem suam, secundum pro­videntiam, secundum Ineffabilem & In­visibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo di­ctum est, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi. Secundum carnem vero quod verbum assumpsit, secundum id quod de Virgine natus est, secundum id quod a Hudaeis prebensus est, quod ligno confixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutus, quod in sepulchro condi­tus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. S. Aug. Tractat. 50. in John. plainly, in respect of that Body which was assumed by the Word, which was born of the Virgin, which was appre­hended by the Jews, which was nailed to the Tree, which was taken down from the Cross, and was wrapped up, and laid in the Sepulchre, in respect of that Body we have him not with us; but in respect of his Majesty, in respect of his Providence, in respect of his Ineffable and invincible Grace, that promise of his is fulfilled, lo I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world.’ And speaking of the Eucharist he doth distinguish betweenNam & nos bodie accipimus visibilem cibum, used aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti. S. Aug. Tractat. 26. in John. Usque ad Spiritûs participa­tionem manducemus & bibamus. Id Tract. 27. the Sacrament it self, and the virtue of the Sacrament, cal­ling that, the Grace of Christ, which is not consumed with our Teeth, and the participation of the Spirit. This is that which S. Austin elsewhere calls the Intelligible, the Invisible, the Spiritual Body [Page 248] of Christ: that which Ireneus calls the Hea­venly thing; that which Clement and Jerome call the spiritual Flesh and Bloud of the Lord, That which Pseudo-Cyprian calls the Divine Virtue, the Divine Essence, the Divine Majesty, the participation of the Spirit, the drink which flowes and streams from that Spiritual Rock, Christ Jesus: That which S. Ambrose calls, the spiritual Aliment, and the Body of a Di­vine Spirit; that which others call, the Lords Immortality, his Divine Body, the Truth of his Body, the Nutriment of the Inward Man, the vital Pulment of the In­carnate Deity: and divers other expressions we meet with in old Authors, signifying the wonderful vertues of Christs Glorified Hu­manity, whereof every Faithful Soul is made Partaker. S. Ifidore Pelusiot con­ceived, that the roast­ing [...] Isidor. Pelus. Ep. 219. l. 1. of the Paschal Lamb with Fire, did Typically fignifie, that Christ (the true Pasleover) was to unite the Fire of the Divine Essence to his Flesh, to be eaten of us: That's his Expers­sion, and it shews his opinion; that we receive the virtue of his Divine through his Humane Nature. Among modern Foreign Writers, none seems to me to have explained this thing better, than the moderate and Ju­dicious Author of the Diallacticon Eucharistiae [Page 249] a Book written about 130. years ago, to compose all contro­versiesHoc corpus, hunc sanguinem & carnem, hanc substantiam corporis, non communi more, nec ut humana ratio dictat, accipi oportet, sed it a nominari, existimari, credi, propter eximios quosdam effectus, virtutes & proprietates conjunctas, quae corpori & sanguini Christi natura in sunt, nempe quod Pascat animas nostras, & vivificet simul, & corpora ad resurrectionem & immortali­tatem praeparet. Dialact. pag. 33. & 34. Non hic cogitandûm est nos crudas bominis carnes comedere, vel sanguinem bibere: Sed verba spiritalia esse, & spiritualiter intelligenda; carnem quidem & sanguinem nominari, sed de Spiritu & Vita, idest vivi­fica dominicae carnis virtute debere intellagi, &c. Ibid. pag. 25. Quia figur a veri corporis panis est, jure Corpus appellatur, & quia virtutem ejusdem vitalem conjunctam habet multo magis, tum vero maxime quod utrumque complectitur. Ibid. pag 54. Panis Domini, Corpus Christi est, quia gratiam & virtutem ejus vitalem conjun­ctam habet. Quod outem haec non commen­titia, aut nuper nata sententia est, sed ab antiquis recepta & approbata Scriptoribus, claris ipsorum testimoniis confirmabimus. Ibid. pag. 57. about the Sa­crament) and he too goes altogether this way, shewing, that that Body of Christ which is present with us, is his spiritual Body, and that we communicate thereof by deriving Efficacy, Power, and Vital Vir­tue from the Body of the Lord. And this account I am the bet­ter pleased and satisfi­ed with, because it was a Notion that was en tertained and really asserted; by a very Learned Doctor of our own Church, withDr. Jack. vol. 3. p. 325. & Seq. whose words I shall conclude this considera­tion: ‘we must not collect (saith he) that Christs Body, because comprehended within the Heavens, can exercise no real operation upon our Bodies or Souls here on Earth; or that the live Influence, of his Glorified Humane Nature may not be diffused through the World, as he shall be pleased to dispense it: no, we must not take upon [Page 250] us to limit or bound the Efficacy of Christs Body upon the Bodies or Souls which he hath taken into his Protection: there are Influences of Life which his Humane Nature doth distill from his Heavenly Throne: And the Sacramental Bread is called his Body, and the Sacramental Wine his Bloud, as for other reasons, so especially for this, because the Virtue and Influence of his most Bloudy Sacrifice is most plenti­fully, and most effectually distilled from Heaven unto the worthy Receivers:’ and many more things he saith to the same effect.

By this account we may easily under­gand the meaning of the sixth chapter of S. John, which hath so puzled many Learned Interpreters; and we may fairly give the reason of the Sentence of our Lords, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Bloud, ye have no life in you. For the Principle of life comes from our Lords Glorified Humanity; and unless we receive into our Souls the vital Virtue which distilleth from it, we can be in no other than a dead Condition.

I do not mean, that 'tis impossible to have life without receiving the Sacrament: no, there is that which Divines call a Sacramental and Spiritual receiving of Christ, and a Spiritual receiving only: when men eat and drink after a right manner, they [Page 251] receive both the Sacrament and also the thing or virtue of the Sacrament: but yet men may derive (and by Faith do derive) virtue from Christ without the Sacrament) (if they do not abstain through negligence, or the love of sin, and the like.) The Grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments so, but that God may dispense it as he pleaseth; nor are we to conceive, that the Blessed Body of Christ doth quicken none but at the Communion.

CHAP. X.

5. BUt yet the celebration of the Communion is the Ordinary, standing, and effectual means, to make us partakers of Christs Virtues and Spirit: And this is the last thing I shall shew (for the conclusion of this whole point) that the spiritual Body of Christ, which in some measure is given in general to all faithful Christians, is effectually, certainly, and abundantly given, particularly [Page 253] to all Devout and Faithful Communicants.

And here to touch a little upon the Effects of the Ancient Sacrifical Banquets, which have been spoken of before: It is observable, that those Mysteries were not things of an empty nature to those that communicated thereof, but were attended with the operation and efficacy either of Divine or Diabolical Powers. 1. That great care and Reverence which was required of the Jew under pain of death, for the due cele­bration of the Paschal Supper, was a clear argument, that God himself intended to be with them at the time, after a more Peculiar manner, and to scatter his Heavenly Bles­sings among them. The intent of that, and other Religious Mysteries was that the Souls of Gods People might be united to the Di­vine Nature, and might be Inspired by the Divine Mind, as Abarbanal tells us. To this purpose the Learned Masius observes,Abarbanal Exord. in Levit. in fine. that some Hebrew Doctors believed so great a Mystery to have been in the Paschal Sa­crifice, as that thereby God did after some sort first of all Communicate his Divinity unto Men. And he cites a passage in a Book of Rabbi Judas, where he saith, that by means of the Passeover God didMasius Comment. in Josh. c. 5. p. 89. take men into such close Communion with himself, that by his Divine Power they did abide in him, as the week of a candle [Page 254] abideth in the Light; and that this was mystically signified by those words, Levit. 11. 45. I am the Lord, that bringeth you up out of the Land of Egypt, to be your God; meaning (as that Rabbi interprets it) that I might impart unto you mine own Divinity. Where the same Author also takes notice of a saying in Philo, that by the Passe­over, was signified the passing of our mortal and corruptible nature into God, that is, the changing and raising of it into the Divine Nature. And for the under­standing of these MysteriousThat's the true reading (not withstanding what we find in the margent). [...]. Philo de Sacr. Abel. & Cain. notions, Masius refers us par­ticularly to the sixth chapter of S. John; as if God under the Law did bless men with such Spiritual Influences and Divine virtues at the Passoever; as Christ doth now bless Communicants with at the Eucharist, to be meat and drink indeed to the Souls of his Disciples.

2. As the Jews did partake of God at the Paschal Supper, so did the Heathens partake of Divels at their Sacrifical Banquets. That there were Demoniacks of old, people that were inspired by Divels, and possest with Divels, is outEtiam de corpuribus nostro im­perio excedunt inviti & do­ [...]entes; Tertull. Apolog. c. 23. de Daemonibus. of all controversie: for the Ancient Christians were com­monly wont to force them [Page 255] out of men, and to put them to a great deal of Torment. The Divel had many opportunities and ways of getting this power over people, God permitting it so to be in vengeance for their wickednesses. So Tertullian tells a story of a Christian woman, that going to see an Heathen Tertull. de Spect. c. 10. Play return'd possest with the Divel: and when the Exorcist demanded of the Demon how he durst meddle with one of the faithful, his answer was, that he found her in his Dominions. But never did these Infernal Spirits take greater advantage over men, nor seize them more effectually, than when they did Sacrifice unto them, and did eat of their Sacrifices in their Temples. Then these Demons did sometimes appear unto them, as they did to Julian: some­timesTheodor. Ecol. Hist. l. 3. c. 3. they possest them so that they were besides their senses, and become mad and furious, as those who were called [...], and such as [...] [sorsan, [...]] [...]: Galen, quo­ted by Casaubon of En­thusiasme. chapt. 1. celebrated the Orgia, or the Mysteries of Bacchus, (other­wise called, Omophagia, from their eating of Raw-flesh) whereby they grew quite Frantick, yet past for men that where Divinely inspired full of theArnob. adv. Genr. lib. 5. Numen and Majesty of God. Sometimes the Divels drove them into such a violent [Page 256] furor, that they whipt and scourged oneHerodot. l. 2. another (as the old Egyptians were wont to do, when they had done Sacrificing:)Vide Lu­cian de Dea Syria. nay, that they would cut their Arms and other parts of their Bodies (as those Lu­cian speaks of) like the worshippers of1. Kings. 18. Baal, those Demoniacks, that did usually cut themselves with knives and Lances, till Vid. Lu­cian ubi Supr. the Bloud gushed out upon them. Sometimes the Divels did Influence them so, that they were full of Poetical strains, could So the Enthei Sacerdotes mentioned by several Authors. Pleni & mixti Deo vates; Minut. Fael. And such was that [...], that Pythia vates (like that Phythoniffa, 1. Sam. 2 8. called by the Seventy [...]) vide Gyrald-Hist. Deor. Syntagm. 7. pag. 222. de­liver Oracles, and by the help of the Demons within them, could foretel things to come, could Divine; and presage events, after they had Hence [...] to banquet upon the Sacrifices which had been sent to the Oracle, for the asking his advice) Eurip. in Electra. p. 835. eaten of the Sacrificess. Out of many Writers itDr. Cud­worths True No­tion. appears, that the old Heathen by means of their Sacrifical, Idol feasts, contracted such fellowship and intimacy with the Powers of hell, that they hardly ever wanted their Assistance. And a learned Doctor of our Church tells us out of one of the Rabbies, that the Amient Chaldeans were wont to eat Flesh and Drink Bloud with their Idols, because they had thereby such Communication with Demons, that they familiarly conversed with [Page 257] them, and told them what would happen in process of time. Which he also con­firms out of another Rabbi, who saith, that by this kind of Communion with Divels, at their Tables, the Chaldeans were able, to Prophesie and foretell things to come. To all which I shall onely add, that those lewd Hereticks, who used Inchantments and Ma­gical Arts (as many of them did) in the Primitive times of Christianity, did learn to deal with Divels, and taught others to deal and to be possest with Divels also, by means of those Mysteries which they used in Imita­tion of the holy Eucharist, that was used by the Catholicks: and to this purpose Ireneus tells us particularly of that Wizard Marcus, Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 9. that he became familiar with Demons, and fascinated his Disciples, especially of the female Sex, after this manner.

Now this I take to be the full importance and design of that Phrase, 1 Cor. 10. 20. where S. Paul saith, I would not that ye should have fellowship with Divels; [...], to be Communicants with, and Partakers of Divels: meaning, that they should not have any the least society with them, lest by sitting at their Tables they should come to be governed, acted, and inspired by them, as Demoniacks were. And this gives a great deal of Light to those places of Scripture where we [Page 258] are said, to have the Communication of the Body, and of the Bloud of Christ, and to be partakers of the Lords Table. For the full meaning of these expressions is, that by feasting together at the Table of the Lord, we do participate of our Lords Spi­ritual Body, and of his Spiritual Bloud, so as that we are Influenced by him, and receive Spiritual Virtue, Power and Energy from him. that as the Possessed of old were thought to have a Divine Numen in them, so every de­vout Receiver of the Lords Supper may be said to have God and Christ in them, because they are lead byHence Demoniacks were called [...], and [...] Maxim. in Pseudo­dyonis. de Eccl. c. 3. So the Saints of Christ were ancienly called, [...] and [...] (as Ignatius the Martyr was called) [...], Clem. Alex. Trajanus dixit. Quis est Theophorus? Ignatius respondit, Qui Christum habet in pe­ctore; vide Acta Ignatii pag. 3. &c. the Spirit and re­ceive the Graces of the Spirit of God & Christ, in Virtue of Christs Body and Bloud. The So­cinians go a great way round about to fetch a wrested interpretation of these words of S. Paul, The Cup of bessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Bloud of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the Commu­nion of the Body of Christ? 1 Cor. 10. 16. For whereas they understand those words to this effect, that our celebration of the Eucharist, is a Declaration of that Commu­nion [Page 259] we have with that sacred Society, the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ; the Interpretation is Impertinent, Idle, and Ridiculous; because that place of Scripture doth plainly signifie a Commu­nication of Christs Bloud, as well as of his Body; nay, of that bloud which was shed, and of that Body which was given for us; and this cannot be meant of his Body My­stical. Some again are as wide on the other hand; who though they grant a Communica­tion of Christs very Body, yet never the less Deny the Reality of its presence, which is a meer Riddle, and an unintelligible notion, for how can we conceive, that we really par­take of Christs Body at the Sacrament, if it be not really there; to deny him to be Present, and yet to affirm that we receive him Spiritually, Mystically, and Sacramen­tally, is nothing else but to use so many dark expressions to cover Non sense; it being impossible to imagine how we can Communicate of that which is Not: and 'tis as plain a Contradiction to say, that we eat of Christs Body, and drink of his Bloud, if his Body and Bloud be not Present; as it is to say, that we receive Christ, and yet not receive him at the same time. Nor doth it mend the matter to say, that we receive Christ by faith. For if Christ be not Pre­sent, and at our hand, I cannot see how [Page 260] all the faith in the world can help us to re­ceive him. Christ doth dwell indeed in every Believers heart, and faith doth dispose and qualifie us for the reception of him; but how can faith bring that to me, which is not nigh me, and which is not her below to be gi­me? Faith is a perswasion of the mind, and this perswasion worketh upon mine own heart, but cannot work upon the object of my faith so as to bring that to me, which is really above in heaven onely. Nay, we must suppose the Body and Bloud of our Saviour to be in the Sacrament; or else we cannot Rightly believe, that we do receive him; for to believe that I receive Christ at the Sacrament, when at the same time I believe that he is not Really there, is a Lying faith that contradicteth and confuteth it self. Seeing then 'tis reasonable to believe, that Christs Body and Bloud are actually and verily in the Sacrament, it must be granted that they are there, either in respect of their Natural Substance, or in respect of their Spi­ritual (but Real) Virtues, and in respect of those Divine Influences, which are, by means of the Sacrament, derived from the man Christ Jesus. But the first of these is a pro­position so uncouth, so irrational, so repugnant to Scripture and all Antiquity, and upon every account so impossible to be true; that it nomore agreeth with Christianity, then [Page 261] darkness doth agree with light. Therefore if men well understand and speak sense, they must grant S. Paul to speak in the fore-cited place, of the Communication of Christs Spiritual Body and Bloud: and so the thing will be obvious, rational, and intelligible: for in regard that by the use of the blessed Sacrament we receive virtues and influences from our Lords Glorified Humanity, we are very rightly said, to Communicate of his Body. In regard that these Virtues are not imaginary Ideas, but Real things (Real in themselves, and of real effect and operation) it is very proper to affirm, that Christ is Really present in the Sacrament. Lastly, in regard that these virtues are of a Spiritual Nature, and flow from him who is a Quickning Spirit; and are dispensed by the Holy Spirit, and are receive by, and work upon our Spirits, and are efficacious in order to our Spiritual Life; and do make us parta­kers of the Divine Nature; it is easie to con­ceive the reason, why Christ is said to be pre­sent in the Eucharist after a Spiritual manner: and so by this construction of the matter, the Doctrine of Christs Real (but Spiritual) Pre­sence, and of the Real (but Spiritual) Com­munication of his Body and Bloud, is secured, and the darkest part of this Mystery lyes open, and fair, and easie to be understood by men of the most Vulgar capacities.

[Page 262]To this purpose Anselm understands thoseIn 1. ad Cor. cap. 10. words of the Apostle ‘the Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communication of Christs Bloud? that is, doth it not make those who drink of it worthily, partakers of the Life of Christ, which is designed by his Bloud? doth it not make us par­takers of his blessedness and Glory, wherein our souls are made One with his by the Communication of the same Glory? And so the Bread which we break, is it not the partici­pation of the Body of Christ? that is, doth it not work this in Us, that our bodies participate of the Immortality and glory of our Head? This is the meaning, saith he, that the partici­pation of the Bread and Cup of the Lord hath this effect, that our souls and Bodies are thereby made conformable and Like to the soul and Body of our Redeemer. We eatId. in 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. and drink even to the participation of Christs Spirit; so that we are the members of his Body, and are enlivened by his Spirit.’

Indeed Anselm was but a late Writer in comparison (for he lived in the 11th. Cen­tury.) But in this he spake the sense of the Ancient Doctors of the Catholick Church; whose faith it was, that Christs Humane na­ture, by being united to the Deity, hath a Quickning faculty, so that all true believers do receive Quickning Virtues from him, spe­cially by a due use of the blessed Eucharist. [Page 263] That this was the Catholick faith appears by one pregnant instance, which hath not been taken notice of by many Writers upon this Subject. A little above 400 years after our Saviour, Nestorius the Heretick taught, that the Divinity and Humanity of our Lord was not united in one person. Upon this a General Council met at Ephesus, and unanimously con­demned this Heresie. S. Cyril of Alexandria was a great man at the Council and had a great hand in the condemnation of Nestorius; and one Reason he gave to justifie their proceed­ings was this, because, Nestorius by that his Do­ctrine made void the Vir­tue [...]. Concil. Ephes. of the Sacrament. And how did they conclu­de so? why this was the principle of S. Cyril and the rest of them, that the Body of Christ is Vivifick, and that the Souls of Communi­cants live by receiving Vital Virtue from it. Now, if (as Nestorius said) the Divinity and Humanity of Christ be not United, it is impossible for his Flesh to yield any Life; because no flesh quickneth of it self, neither can Christs flesh Quicken, but by the power of the Word. Seeing therefore, that Heretick denyed the Union between the Word and the Flesh of Christ, it would follow of necessity, that the Body of Christ is not vivifick, and consequently that we receive [Page 264] no vital virtue from it at the Sacrament; which Doctrine being contrary to the Common Faith, the Author of it, Nestorius, and his followers were very justly Anathe­matiz'd. Whosoever reads the History of that Council with indifferency of judgement, may easily perceive that the sence of the Church at that time was, that at the Holy Communion men receive Divine and hea­venly Virtues from our Saviours glorified Huma­nity, so that we live by Him through the Communication of his Virtues, as he himself lived by the Father through the Commu­nication of his Nature. And I am suffici­ently satisfied, that this was the faith of the Catholick Church both before that Councel, and also for many ages after it. Thus when St. Ignatius intimates, that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ, 'tis clear to me, that he meant Christs spiritual Flesh, as Clemens Alexandrinus, and St. Jerome expresly called it, meaning the Spiritual Virtue of his flesh by reason of its Hypostatical Union with the Deity. When Ireneus said, that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, the Earthly and the Heavenly thing, 'tis plain that by the Heavenly thing he meant (not Christs solid, Natural Body, but) that Heavenly Grace and Virtue which goeth a­long with the Sacrament. When Justin Martyr compared the Mystery of the Eucha­rist [Page 265] with the Mystery of the Incarnation, I cannot doubt but he meant, that, as in the one there was a Personal union between Humanity and Divinity, so in the other there is a Sacramental Union between Bread and Spirit, when the Pseudo Dionysius af­firms,De Eccl. Hier. c. 3. that by the Sacrament we Commu­nicate of the Divine things of Christ, 'tis but fair to understand him to speak of those Divine Virtues and influences wherewith the Holy Jesus doth bless every humble and devout heart. When Clemens Alex­andrinus [...], Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. distinguish­eth the spiritual Blood of Christ from that which is fleshly, and moreover saith, that by drinking the bloud of Jesus is meant the being made partaker of the Lords Incorruption, any man may see that he spake of the Spiritual Virtues of Christs Blood, whereby we are purified, sanctified, and fitted, for a blessed Immor­tality. When Theo­dotus affirmed that by [...], [leg. [...], Theodot. in fine oper. Clem. Alex. pag. 800. the power of the Spirit the Bread is changed into a spiri­tual virtue, his plain meaning was, that there is a change, not [Page 266] of the substance, but of the quality of the Bread, so that by the manducation thereof spiritual Virtue is given to the worthy Re­ceiver. When Origen, speaking of the Bread, calls it the Typycal and Symbolical Body of Christ (or the figure and TypeIn Matth. 15. of it) and then presently mentions, by way of distinction, the Word it self which was made flesh, and is the true food, which whosoever eateth shall live for ever; it is most reasonable to understand him to speak of that vital and Divine vir­tue [...], Cyril. Catech. m yst-8. which goes along with the symbol, and is derived from the Word, which is the sui­table food of the Soul, as bread is of the Body. When Athanasius understands, by the flesh ofAthanas. in illud quicunque dixerit verbum &c. Christ, that Heavenly food from above, that spiritual Alimony which Christ gives us from Heaven, what else could he mean, but those Divine and Caelestial Virtues, whereby he strengthneth and refresheth every craving Soul; tho, in the substance of his Natural body, he be absent from us? When accor­ding to Julius Fermicus, Ipse ut Majestatis suae substantiam credentibus tradens ait; nisi edevi­tis carnem filiis hominis &c. Jul. Firmic. de Errore Profan. Gent. in Bibliotheca Patrum. the receiving the sub­stance of Christs Majesty, is the very same thing with the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his Blood, what [Page 267] can he mean by the substance of Christs Ma­jesty, but those substantial and Divine influ­ences which come from his Throne of Glory, whereby we are made partakers of the Di­vine Nature (as St. Peter Si ergo nos naturaliter secundum car­nem per eum vivimus, id est, Natu­ram carnis suae adepti, &c. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 8. speaks) or as St. Hilary expresseth it, whereby we are made partakers of the Nature of his Flesh (glorified?) when St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith of the Bread, (as he did of the Oyntment which was used in those days) that afterSt. Cyril. Cateeh. 3. Invocation it is not any common or incon­siderable thing, but the gift of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, made efficacious by the presence of his God-head; how can we understand it but of that spiritual Energy and Virtue wherewith the Element is in­dued,Epiphan. in Ana­ceph. and which efficaciously worketh by the power of Christ upon the soul of e­very worthy Communicant; When Epi­phanius speaketh so positively and so home, that the Bread in the Eucharist, and the Water in Baptism have their Virtue from Christ, that 'tis not the Bread it self that is efficacious, but 'tis the Virtue of the Bread (wherewith Christ indues it) and that the Bread indeed is Food, but 'tis the Virtue in it which serveth for vivification; what can any man desire more plain, more em­phatical, more full? when St. Ambrose [Page 268] saith (if the Book be his) ‘that we takeAmbros. de Sacram. lib. 6. c. the Sacrament as the Similitude of Christs body, but do really receive the Grace and Virtue of Christs Nature:’ 'tis plain that he means those spiritual influences which are derived from him. When St. Chry­sostom Chryso­stom. Hom. 50. in Matth. to shew what benefits we have by receiving of Christ shews the benefits which they had who touched but the Hem of his garment; undoubtedly he meant that we receive these benefits (as they did) by virtue which goeth out of him. When St. Austin so often speaks of not the out­ward Symbols only, but chiefly of the thing in the Sacrament, of the Virtue of the Sa­crament, and of our eating and drinking even to the participation of the Spirit, and saith, that the Truth and virtue of Christs body is diffused every where; what can any reasonable man suppose him to mean but that though Christ be in Heaven in his Body, yet he is with us by his spirit, and blesseth us all with his Spiritual influences, but especially when we Celebrate the me­mory of his Passion? When St. Cyril of A­lexandria so frequently affirmeth, that the Glorified Body of Christ is vivisick, and makes the Sacrament vivisick too; and saith that God condescending to our weaknessCarene Thomae in Luc. 22. sendeth the Virtue of Life into the Bread and Wine that are before us turning them [Page 269] into the Energy (or efficacy) of his own flesh, so that a quickning principle may be in us; the sense is so plain and satisfactory that I will presume to say, were St. Cy­ril alone allowed to be judge in this case, there would hardly be any [...]oversie at all in the Christian World about the blessed Sacrament, unless it were this, who should receive it oftnest, and with the great est reverence. This Divine and spiritual virtue derived from Christ, and conveyed into the Sacrament, is that which Theo­doret means by that Grace, which he saithGratian. de Consec­dist. 2. c. 28. is added to the Nature of the Elements. This is that too which Pope Leo and the Synod of Rome meant by the virtue ofTheophyl. in Marc. 14 Hugo. de Myste­riis Eccles. cap. 7. Ge­las. de du­ab. Nat. in Christo. this heavenly food; that which Theophylact meant by the Virtue of Christs Flesh and Blood; that which Hugo de St. Victore meant by the efficacy of the Sacrament, by the spiritual Grace, and by Christs spiri­tual Flesh; that which Pope Gelasius meant by that Divine thing in the Eu­charist, whereby we are made partakers of the Divine Nature; that which Beriram Bertram de Corp. & Sang. de Domini. meant by the invisible Bread, the Pow­er of the Divine word, the Virtue of Christs Body and blood, the invisible efficacy, the spiritual flesh and blood of our Saviour, and abundance of ex­pressions more to the same purpose, in his [Page 270] admirable Book to Carolus Calvus. 'Tis that too which Isidore Hispalensis meantIsidor. Hispal de Eccl. Offis. by the Divine Virtue which worketh sal­vation under the cover of earthly things: That which Haymo meant by the grace ofHaymo. in Cor. 11. Sanctification, whereby he saith the Ple­nitude of the Deity, and the Divinity of Paschas. Ratbert. de Euchar. the Eternal Word filleth the Elements: That which Paschasius Ratbertus himself meant by the Spiritual Flesh of Christ, that vital Portion which every good Communicant receives of the fullness of Christs Divinity: Lastly, 'tis that whichPanis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed [leg. seu] natura mutatus, omni potentia Verbi factus est caro; Et sicut in persona Christi Hu­manitas videbatur, & latebat Divinitas; ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Di­vina se infundit Essentia, &c. Pseudo-Cyprian. de Caen. Dom.—Et Su­perius lumen in inferiora diffusum, clari­tatis suae plentitudine a fine usque ad finem attingens, totum apud se manens, totum se omnibus commodat, & caloris illius identitas ita corpori assidet, ut a capite non recedat. Id. ib. the Pseudo - Cyprian meant by that Divine Vertue which he ac­knowledged to be in the Sacrament, that Supersubstantial Bread, (as he calls it) that Divine Essence, and Majesty which accom­pany the Elements, that effect of Eternal Life, and that Latent Spirit, whereof every devout and well disposed Christian doth participate. I have not time to look into every particular Church-Writer: but this I will presume to affirm, that where any of the Ancients do harp upon Christs presence in the Sacrament, they mean his [Page 271] presence by his Grace and Virtue, and where they speak intelligibly and distinctly of this matter, they speak plainly to this purpose; intending by the body and bloud of Christ, which we receive, neither more nor less, then those efficacious Virtues which are de­rived to his Church from his glorified Hu­manity; this they call his Body and Bloud, especially when they call it, by way of distinction, the spiritual Body, and the spi­ritual Bloud of our Blessed Redeemer.

And this account is the rather to be re­ceived by us for several good Reasons.

1. Because it makes this great Mystery very easie to be understood, so that without any straining of our wits, or for­cing of Scripture, we may readily and clearly conceive how we are said to Communicate of Christs Body and Bloud. For do but conceive a notion of Christs spiritual Body, and the account is very short, and the mat­ter is very intelligible.

2. It shews the sense of the Catholick Church in former Ages to be the same with ours now. For Christians did ever acknow­ledge two different things in this Mystery, the outward sign, and the inward Grace, and accordingly they did every set a different Price upon these two things, valuing most of all the spiritual Grace, but yet Honour­ing the Element for the Grace sake. Many [Page 272] times indeed they called the bread, Christs Body, because it signifies, and represents and exhibits it; but usually they called the Elements, the Types, the Antitypes, the Figures, the Images, the Signs of our Lords Body and Bloud; so the Author of the Constitutions, Pseudo Dionysius, Cle­mens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Theodoret, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Origen, Cyril, Basil, Macarius, Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, and divers more: so that we may well laugh at those who are pleased to talk, as if the Fathers believed Transubstantiation. Yet nevertheless they all with one mouth confessed the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament; and so do we now, but in that sense which the Ancient Church meant, they believed the presence of Christ spiritual Body, and after a spiritual manner, and that is our Faith also: and we cannot be con­demned for Hereticks, but the old Catholick Church must lye under the Anathema too.

3. This account serves for ever to break the neck of their pretences, who to defend their new Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, and other pestilent Errors which are built upon it, do stifly urge the literal and strict construction of those words, this is my Body, and this is my Bloud; suppo­sing, that it passeth the skill of the Pro­testants to give a better Interpretation: [Page 273] whereas this account gives such a fair, such an Intelligible, such a Rational, such a Catholick explication of the thing, that the Romanists themselves, if they would consider it well, may look upon their Construction, not only a very absurd, but as a very needless one too.

4. This account may serve to reconcile and make up those differences which are between some Reformed Churches about this matter. For whereas 'tis granted by us on all hands, that the Elements retain still their own Nature and Substance even after Consecration; and yet the Lutheran Churches hold, that Christs Real and Sub­stantial Body is delivered together a long with the Elements; methinks this should not be enough to maintain a breach, if men were considerate and candid, and would not insist too much upon Phrases. For if by Christ real and substantial Body be meant (as I believe the old Lutherans did mean) the real and (as they may be called in someFor the Ancients themselves used the words, Na­ture, Sub­stance, &c. to this sense; as is well observed by the Judicious Author of the Diallacticon (commended by Lavater in his Historia Sacrament.) Cum agitur de Sacramentis, mentionem faciunt Patres Naturae & Sub­stantiae, non [...] sed [...], hoc est, non ut Philosophi na­turales loquuntur, sed ut homines de Divinis rebus disserentes, Gratiae, Virtuti & Efficacitati, Naturae Substantiaeque nomen impertientes, nimirum Sacramenti natura id postulante. Diallact.. pag. 63. Edit. Anno 1557. Est autem virtus corporis Christi efficax & vivifica, quae per gratiam & My­sticam benedictionem cum pane & vino conjungitur, & vino conjungitur, & variis nominibus appeilatur, quum res eadem sit. Ab Augustino, Corpus intelligibile, in­visible, spirituale: Ab Hieronimo, Caro Divina & Spiritualis: Ab Irenaeo, Res Caelestis: Ab Ambrosio, Esca Spiritualis, & Corpus Divini Spiritus, Ab aliis aliud simile quippiam. Et hoc multo etiam magis efficit, ut hoc Sacramentum dignissimum sit veri Corporis & Sanguinis nomenclaturâ, quum non solum extrinsecus figuram & imaginem ejus prae se ferat, verùm etiam intus abditam & l [...]entem naturalem ejusdem corporis proprietatem, hoe est vivificam virtutem secum trahat, ut ham non inanis figura, aut absentis omnino rei signum existimari posset, sed ipsum Corpus Domini, Divinum qui­dem & Spirituale, sed presens gratia, plenum virtute, potens efficacitate. Ibid. pag. 56. 57. sense) the Substantial Virtues and Influences of Christs Body, I do not see but all Re­formed Churches in the World, mightshake hands and be Friends as to this matter.

[Page 274]5. This account serves to the clear mean­ing of several Doctors of our own; who are wont to say, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, and received in and by the Sa­crament, and that really; but yet Spiritually, Mystically, Sacramentally, Effectually, Vir­tually, and the like: all which expressions (otherwise hard to be understood) are very Intelligible, if we do but take this notion along with us, that the Virtues and In­fluences which flow from Christ, are by the due use of this Sacrament, actually, really and effectually dispensed.

CHAP. XI.

THis then being a Fixt principle, that by means of the Holy Bread and Wine we do really partici­pate of Christs Body and Bloud, divers other Blessings do necessarily follow, which depend upon this, as upon the Prime and Fundamental Blessing. And, as I have shewed already, that pardon of Sin, is the effect of our feeding upon Christ in a Mystical sence, so I am to shew you next, that there are more Blessings which accrue [Page 276] to us by our Communicating of Christ after that real and spiritual manner which has been explained now.

And the next is this, that hereby we receive such large supplies and measures of Christs Spirit, as are suitable to our necessi­ties. Our condition by nature is so misera­ble, that we are not sufficient of our selves, no not to think any thing (that is good) as of our selves: therefore unless we receive supernatural aids and assistances from Hea­ven, it is impossible for us to make our selves meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light: Without me ye can do nothing, as our Saviour told his Disci­ples, Joh. 15. 5. without the communicati­ons of his Holy Spirit, 'tis in vain to con­ceive, that either we can have our fruit unto Holiness, or reap in the end everlast­ing life. For this reason he there compares himself unto a vine, and us unto the branches, because, as the branches cannot bear fruit of themselves, except they abide in the Vine; so neither can we, except we abide in Christ. That spiritual assistance which is derived from Christ unto every particular Christian, is like that vital Sap which is conveyed from the Root unto every particular Twig: And by means of his vital Spirit it is, that we thrive, and grow, and bring forth fruit unto perfe­ction. [Page 277] Hence Christ is called our Life, be­cause he is the Authour of that quickning, Principle whereby we live unto righteous­ness; and from Him it is, that the whole Body (of the Church) by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred, and being knit together, increaseth with the increase of God, Col. 2. 19. Now this Heavenly assistance, this quickning Principle, this Divine Nu­triment is given to every Soul by the My­sterious and Gracious Energy of the Spirit; and by the due celebration of the Eu­charist, the assistances of the Spirit are the more plentiful, and his Irrigations are the more abundant; a dew is then in­creased into a showre, and every thirsty Communicant is largely refresht with di­stillations from above, as the parched ground in Summer is refresht with Rain. This appears two ways: first, because (as hath been proved) by this Blessed Mystery, we are made partakers of the Nature of Christ: and consequently it must be granted, that we partake thereby of the Spirit of Christ. For considering that the fullness of the Deity dwelleth in him: considering that he hath received the Spirit without measure: and considering that of his Fullness we receive by this Ordinance according to our capacities and wants, we must conclude, that we receive of his [Page 278] Spirit, whatever the Socinians affirm to the contrary. Secondly, S. Paul hath put the thing out of doubt, if we will but observe his meaning in 1 Cor. 12. 13. where he saith, that by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The Apostles design there is to perswade Christians to Unity and Love; and he useth this as an argument, because they have all received one Spirit, first at their Baptism, and afterwards at the Lords Supper; there they all drink of one Spirit, (or as some conceive it should be read) they are all drenchedFor the Socinians themselves grant a Redundancy in that Phrase, [...] idque redundat, utrumque Hebraea Phrasi; Slichtingius in 1 Cor. 12. 13. with one and the same Spirit (quasi potionati Spiritu, as S. Jeromes expression is) by re­ceiving very liberalThese Pharses, [...] and [...] are all one with [...]; vide Chrysost. in Locum. And Clemens Alex. reards it [...], [Sc. [...]] which cannot favour the fancy of the Socinians, who understand the word [...] in reference to our Spiritual washing in Baptism: for the [...] plainly relates to our drinking at the other Sacrament, and to our receiving of the Spi­rit by it. measures of the Spirit at the Sacrament. To drink the Spirit, and to drink into the Spirit, are Phrases here of the same impor­tance: they signifie the receiving of the Spirit in a very plen­tiful measure; and S. Pauls expression doth constrain us to believe [Page 279] that we receive the Spirit plentifully by drinking of the Sacramental Cup.

Indeed this must not be understood so, as if the Holy Spirit were first given us at the Lords Table: For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, nor is he fit to be a Communicant. For every one ought to use this Ordinance being well prepared, with a lively Faith towards God, with sincere Repentance from dead works, and with unfeigned Charity to all Mankind (as shall be shewn hereafter) and these virtues are wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ, who divideth to every man se­verally as he pleaseth, and as every one needs. The meaning therefore is, that by eating and drinking after a worthy man­ner great Additions are still made to our former stock. Here is an Improvement of every Talent of Grace, which was put into our hands before. Here that Holy seed which was sown in our hearts by Baptism, is nourisht and made very fruit­ful by fresh Influences from Heaven. For as the Spirit is given us by measure, so is it given by degrees too; and every Ordinance of God brings a portion of the Spirit, if our hearts be but ready, and our bosomes be but open to receive it. But at this Ordinance men receive a double portion; so that to him that hath much, [Page 280] more is given, andQuotiescunque bibis, remissionem pec­catorum accipis, & inebriaris Spiritu. Sancto Ambros. de Sacram. l. 5. c. 3. he hath more abun­dantly: and by drink­ing duely of the sa­cred Chalice we are inebriated with the Holy Ghost, as S. Ambrose said (if the Books de Sacramentis be his.) And if we may have leave to guess at the reasons why our blessed Saviour was pleased to continue the use of bread and wine at this Mystery, which he himself instituted instead of the Passeover, we may conjecture this reason to have been one, that they might signifie that variety and abundance of Grace, which he gives us by our worthy eating and drinking of these Elements. For bread and wine are the most principal and most substantial sorts of nutriment; the one serves to strengthen mans heart, the other to make it glad, Ps. 104. 15. Now the designation of these two things to this Sacred use intimates that plentiful Assistance and Recruit which is by this Holy Rite given unto all, who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity. They have not only so much as is necessary for their support, but such a portion of the Spirit too as is productive of chearfulness and pleasure in the ways of Religion. This was eminently verified in the case of the Primitive Christians, who had this Mystery in such great esteem, and [Page 281] were fitted by it for the sharpest afflictions that could be brought upon them. They had not only the tongues, but the hearts of Saints, and Religion was not matter of their discourse, but of their practice. They overcame the World, and were more than Conquerours: their constancy was as firm as the Rocks; their Prayers went up daily as the Incense; their Zeal was like the fire upon Gods Altar, that went not out; their Charity was as active as the Flames, and as large as the World: their Love of Christ was so vigorous and fervent, that they sang in Prisons, and rejoyced in their torments and at the very stake; and I cannot so well impute the reason of this; to any other thing, as to their frequent and religious use of this blessed Sacrament. I am sure, they themselves believed, that the Holy Ghost did both Sanctify those things which were to be distributed at the Communion, and did also enter into the heart of every Faithful Receiver. Hence it was, that they thought it the greatest punishment that could be in­flicted upon them in this world, to be de­prived of the Sacrament; concluding, that they were thereby cut off from all fellowship with God. Hence it was, that Penitents were wont to beg the Prayers of good Christians upon their knees at the [Page 282] Church-doors; and were content to un­dergo any the severest Penance, that they might have the liberty to go to the Altar of God again. And hence it was too, that on all occasions, especially in times of dan­ger or distress, they flocked together in crowds and throngs to the Holy Table, be­cause this was the most certain, and the most effectual course they could take, to arm them­selves so with the Spirit of God, that they might persevere in well doing, and endure all their conflicts and agonies, as it became the Hearty Disciples of a crucified Jesus.

It being clear therefore, that large mea­sures of the Spirit are given by this Ordi­nance, this conclusion will serve as a prin­ciple to infer another; viz. that those Divine Graces wherewith our Souls are endued, are hereby increased and strengthned; and parti­cularly, that our Faith in Christ is very much Confirm'd at, and by this Ordinance. For the Spirit of God is never given to vain, or to mean purposes; but his office is, by kindly and gracious operations, to renew mens minds and to bring their hearts still more and more to such a temper and frame, as is suita­ble to the Laws of the Gospel. So that our drinking of the Spirit at the Holy Communi­on must necessary have this effect, that those good things are establisht, which were wrought in us before, by the Spirits Energy. No [...] [Page 283] is this any more, than what Devout Communicants find to be true by their own experience: their minds are then fixt upon things of Heaven; their sense of Christs Love is then strong; their affecti­ons to him are then warm; their hope in him is then lively and comfortable; their Charity to others is then great; and their whole Soul is full of the most ravishing Pleasures: so that were men careful, not to stifle or resist the Spirit, but to keep themselves so well disposed all their time, as they are when they go from the Lords Table, it would be impossible either for their salvation to be insecure, or for their minds to be uneasie. And yet Faustus Socinus will by no means allow our Faith to be at all Confirm'd by the use of the Lords Supper. He looks upon that Holy Rite as a work of our own (as he is pleas'd to call it) as an ordinary thing that we do among one another, in Commemoration of the Lords Death, but not as a Mystery whereby we receive any benefit▪ any advantage from God. But though the Heretick be so admired, as a great man of sense and reason, yet he trifles altogether, and talks Impertinently and Idly upon this, as he doth Sophisti­cally upon the Rest of his own notions. For why doth not the celebration of this My­stery confirm our Faith? Why (saith [Page 284] Socinus) the distribution of the bread and wine cannot do it, because they are mean things, which testifie Nec enim panis ille fractus, & a nobis comestus, vinumque in poculum infusum, & a nobis epotum oftendunt nobis, aut suadent, vere Christi Corpus pro nobis fractum fuisse, &c. Socin. de usu S. Caen. nothing, which shew no reasons for our Faith, nor contain any thing that perswadeth us to believe, that Christs Body was Broken, or that his Bloud was shed for us. Now the Here­tick and his followers in this argument, do first mistake the Question: for we do not say, that the bare distribution of the Elements is the thing which serveth to help and strengthen our faith, but that this is done by the whole action: Now the whole Action containeth Prayers and praises, a rehearsal of the Institution, and a declaration of Christs Passion, as well as a division of the Creatures of Bread and Wine. All these things come under the Notion of the Eucharist, and each of them ministreth to the confirmation of our faith (especially since they all concur in the same Action) because they were appointed by Christ himself to be done in Commemoration of his death, and consequently do suppose and argue that he died indeed. 2. So that Secondly, these men are false and deceitful in this their way of reasoning, that the Sacrament is no Proof of our Lords Passion. [Page 285] For 1. St. Paul saith plainly, that as often as we eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, we do shew forth the Lords Death, 1 Cor.Nec often­dunt nobis, aut suadent, &c ubi supr. 11. 26. (which in express terms contra­dicteth the Doctrine of Socinus.) This is an outward Testimony for my faith to rely up on. 2. The Holy Spirit is given (as hathNonne ad credendum Evangelio, Spiritus sancti inte­riore dono opus est? Non Ca­tech. Sect. 6. cap. 6. been proved,) with the Bread and Wine; and by his secret operation I am perswa­ded to believe the Article of Christs Pas­sion to be true: That's an inward Con­firmation of my Faith (though I suppose, the Socinians may not value that, because they allow not Faith to be the effect of the Spirits operation.) 3. Considering that this Ordinance was instituted by Christ him­self as a memorial of his death, and that he hath appointed us the use of it for that reason and upon that account, this is evidence and proof enough to convince me, that he suffered and died of a truth. The Divine institution and command, together with the meaning, End, and Design of it, this is that which we oughtQuid insulsius, quam si quis ita argumentaretur; nos panem istum frangimus & comedimus, idque ut praedicemus, Christum corpus & Sanguinem suum pro nobis tradi­disse: Igi ur verum est, ita Christum fecisse? Socin. in Ap­pend. ad scriptum de Caena Dom. particularly and carefully to regard; and then if I argue thus, we eat Bread and drink Wine (by the Divine appointment and in­stitution) ‘that we may de­clare, that Christ gave his [Page 286] Body and blood for us; and therefore it is very true, that Christ did so;’ this is no ab­surd argumentation (as that wicked Impostor had the confidence to say,) it is rather a very rational and clear way of reasoning; for why should I believe, that Christ would com­mand me to commemorate that which is an untruth. It is a plain argument that Christ did dye, because he hath required us to Celebrate this Mystery in memory of his Passion; and consequently it is true, that the Ce­lebration of this mystery is for the confir­mation of our faith. The meaning and signification of this Mystery is the thing which we are principally to consider; and to illustrate this matter briefly by two fa­miliar instances, let us consider that com­mon Phaenomenon in the air which we call the Rainbow: If you ask a Philosopher a­bout it he will tell you, that tis nothing but a Meteor, the Natural effect of such and such Natural causes; but the Christian will tell you, that it is a Token of that pro­mise which God made of old unto Noah, and therefore when we see the Rainbow we may assuredly believe, that tho the World was once drowned with a Flood it shall never be destroyed by Waters a­gain. Thus the signification and meaning of that thing is for the Confirmation of our Faith, tho' there be not groundse nough [Page 287] for this perswasion from the Nature of the thing it self. 2. Again; let us consider that ancient Mystery, the Passeover Supper; the ea­ting of a Lamb with bitter Herbs, to the igno­rant Pagan might seem but an Ordinary meal, or perhaps a silly, because unpleasant Ceremo­ny; but to the Jews it was a Rite of great signi­fication; because it was a memorial of Gods Mercy to their Fathers, in delivering them out of Egypt; and therefore God com­manded even their Posterity to keep it with all diligence and solemnity. Now let me ask the Socinian; was not this memorial thus instituted, thus appointed, sufficient grounds for all the Jews in after­ages to believe; that the History of that deliverance was true. Nay, are not all the Jews in the World now, by eating of bitter Herbs only, certified and convinced and confirm'd in their Faith touching the truth of that deliverance? It cannot be denied: but that story was made undoubt­edly credible by that Mystery, because that Mystery was instituted and appointed by God himself upon that occasion; so that from that rite any man might conclude; that the matter of Fact to which it did relate, was beyond all controversie true. Why, this Christian Rite is of the like sig­nification and use to us, as the Paschal Solemnity was to them. Though to unbe­lievers [Page 288] and Hereticks it may seem a thing of a very mean Nature, yet considering, the reason of its institution and designation, it serveth very much to comfort the Hearts and to strengthen the Faith of such as look into it well. For it is the memorial of our spiritual deliverance by that Holy Lamb of God which took away the Sins of the World; and because we are comman­ded by him, who is the way, the truth, and the Life, to Celebrate this memorial to that End, and under that Notion, we may be as­sured, that the thing, whereof it is a me­morial, was most certainly True; we are hereby certified, that Christ our Passeo­ver was Sacrificed for our sins indeed; and so our Faith is Confirmed (by this Mystery) that with Christ there is Plen­teous Redemption for us all, if we will but quit our bondage, and accept of that de­liverance which he hath purchased for us by the effusion of his most sacred blood.

Our Souls being thus establisht by a well grounded Faith, another invaluable bles­sing accrues unto us still: For hereby we are closely, and (if we our selves do not dis­solve the band) inseparably United to the Lover and Redeemer of our Souls; the same Holy Spirit which strengthens our Faith, making us also partakers of Christs Nature, so that we dwell in him, and he in [Page 289] us; we are one with him, and he with us, Exhortat▪ before the Commu­nion. as our Church teacheth. I confess this is an abstruce speculation, and that which many Divines have laboured hard to open to our understanding, though all of them, have not laboured with equal success. Some call it a personal and Mystical Union that is between Christ, and every true Belie­ver; and in some sense they call it rightly so, for this personal Union (as some fanciful Men talk of it) is such a Mystical business indeed, that it is an unaccountable and unintelligible Notion. Others calls it (and with more Reason and clearness) a Moral and political Union; and I wish that some in this Age were not so peevish as to be angry at every word that comes not out of their own Mint, nor clinks ac­cording to their own fancy; but would be so charitable and Candid, as to give one another grains of allowance, conside­ring the unavoidable weaknesses of our Nature, for many times 'tis hard for us to Conceive of things rightly, and sometimes 'tis much harder for us to express and ut­ter our Conceptions. Now for the due understanding of this matter, I conceive that there is a four-fold Union, which rela­teth most to our present business. 1. Such an Union as is between the Founda­tion of a Fabrick, and the superstructure, [Page 290] which are made one House by being fast­ned together with the same pins and Ce­ment. 2. Such as is between Husband and Wife, who become one Flesh, by being knit together by the same consent and Love. 3. Such as is between a King and his Subjects, who become one Society by being linked to­gether by the same Laws. 4. Such as is be­tween a root and the boughs, which become one Tree by being nourisht with the same moisture; and between the head and the Mem­bers, which are made one Body by being a­nimated with the same Soul. Now our Union unto Christ beareth a Resemblance and si­militude with all these (though it be a­bove them all) and it increaseth in degrees according as we grow more and more per­fect. Then are we one with Christ, when we heartily believe his Doctrines, when we love him, and set our affections upon him, when we submit to his Government, and obey his Laws, when we put our selves out of our own power, and resign up our selves to his command, and when our own wills are entirely Subject and Conformable to his. This is that Moral Union, whereby we are fastned to him as to the Foundation and corner Stone of his Church; whereby we are Joyned to him, as to the Foundation and corner Stone of his Church; whereby we are Joyned to him, as to the Bridegroom of our souls, and whereby we are Related to him, as to our Sovereign Head and Lord. [Page 291] Upon no other Terms but these, will he own us to be his; and when men talk after that wilde and Iewd rate, as if Christ were all theirs, though they be of an Un­christian Temper, and live in open Diso­bedience to the Laws of Christianity, 'tis the same thing as if they should say, that such may be the Sons of God, as are not led by the Spirit of God; which is contrary to what S. Paul teacheth us, Rom. 8. 14.

But yet there seems to be besides this Mo­ral Union, a Closer Band between Christ and his Church, and that which is the effi­cient Cause of our abundant Love and Obe­dience to him: and this I call (as some of the Ancients did) an Union of Nature. For as our Humane Nature dwelleth in Christ by means of that Hypostatical Union of our Flesh in his Person; so doth Christs Di­vine Nature dwell in Us, by means of a Mystical Union of his Spirit with our Souls. The same Spirit which is in him, is Communicated to Us also; and by Virtue of that Communication we are transformed into his Image, his Nature is Graffed in Ours, so that we are of a New Constitution and mould; and every Lively Member of his Church, by Participating of his Spirit, is of the same mind with him, of the same Temper, frame and Disposition, that is, Holy, Humble, Heavenly-minded, Just, [Page 292] Pure, Good, Charitable, Compassionate, Kinde and Obedient, as he himself was. To do men of Learning right, they who dispute about Christs being a Political Head, do not at all Deny, but plainly Own his being an Influential Head too. Nor can any thing be more clear, then that we de­rive Influences from him, as every mem­berDr. Sher­locks de­fence of his Book against Owen, pag. 505. in ones Body deriveth Influences from the Head; so that we are animated with the Life of Christ; there is (as it were) one and the same Soul in Him, and in his Church; for he that is joyned unto the Lord, is One Spirit, 1. Cor. 6. 17. I am the S. Aug. in loc. Vine, thy are the Branches, saith our Sa­viour, Jo. 15. 5. The Vine and the Branches are of One and the same Nature: the same Vital Humour which is in the Root, is Transmited and Communicated to every living Twig: and for that reason did our Saviour use that Similitude, to shew that as the Root doth Convey its Quality to the Boughs, so doth the Son of God giveCyril. Alex. in Joan. l. 10. c. 13. to his Saints an affinity of his Own and his Fathers Nature, by giving them his Spirit; so that by the participation of his Spirit, (whereby we are conjoyned unto him) we Communicate of his Nature. To the same purpose are those words, Jo. 17. 21. where the Holy Jesus prayed, that his Disciples might be One; that as the Father [Page 293] is in him, and he in the Father, so his Disci­ples might be One in (or, with) them. Which words do import something more than an Unity of Affection and Will: for the Son is One with the Father and the Father One with the Son, by being Both of the same Divine Essence: so that we may conceive the full meaning of that Prayer to be, that all Christians might be One, not onely with themselves by the Unity of Faith and Love, and with God by Consent and Agreement of Will; but that they might be One with the Son and the Father, by bearing in them the Divine Image, by a likeness, Similitude, and Resemblance of Nature, though they cannot be One by Identity of Substance. Thus, I am sure, some of the Ancients un­derstood this, and the other place of Scrip­ture, where Christ is called a Vine, And the Faith of the Old Catholick Church was this, that by the efficacious Energy of Gods Spirit some Rays of his Divinity are con­veyed into us, whereby we are made par­takers of the Divine Nature; and that this Participation of Nature is the closest Ligament, S. Igna­tius calls it [...]; Ep. ad Ephes. pag. 22. Bandage, and Instrument of Union between Us and our Redeemer. This will evidently appear by this one Ar­gument: Some Hereticks did of old (as the the Socinians do now) Deny the Divinity of our Saviour: and when they were put [Page 294] hard to it by the Catholick Doctors, who argued against them, from those words of Christ himself, I and my Father are One, and from other places of the like impor­tance, the Hereticks returned this answer, that Christ is One with the Fa­ther, byId quod ait, Ego & Pater unum sumus, tentant [Haeretici] ad unanimitatis referre consensum, ut voluntatis in his Unit as sit, non naturae: id est, ut non per id quod idem Sunt, sed per id quod idem volunt, unum sunt. Hi­lar nitate lib. 8. pag. 119. Ed. Par. Unity of Love, and by agreement of Will, but not by Iden­tity of Essence. But this would not by any means Satisfie the Catholicks, who proved an Unity of Nature between Christ and his Father, by shewing that Unity of Nature which is between Christ and Us, in someCvril. Alex. in Joan. lib. 10. c. 13. measure and Degree. ‘We do not deny (saith S. Cyril) but that we are joyned, to Christ by a True Faith, and Sincere Love: but that there is no Union at all between him and Us in respect of his Flesh, that (saith he) we do utterly Deny: For Christ is in Us by the Com­munication of his Nature. And again, besides the Unity of Consent and Will, Id lib. 11. c. 26. there is, saith he, a Natural Union, where­by we are Tyed unto God: And again; we are made the Sons of God, and Hea­venly men, being made one with Christ by the participation of the Divine Na­ture; and so we are One, not onely by [Page 295] Affection and Consent, but one also by the Communion of his Holy Flesh, and one by the Participation of One Holy Spirit.’ S. Cyril was very prolix and very Positive and Dogmatical upon this point; and so was S. Hilary before him; for he did argue the same way, and did plainly assert a Natural Eos nunc qui inter patrem & filium voluntatis ingerant unitatem, interrogo, utrumne per na­turae veritatem bodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis? Si enim vere verbum caro factum est, & nos vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui & natu­ram carnis nostrae jam insepar abilem sibi homo na­tus assumpsit, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicanda carnis admiscuit? Hilar. de Trin. lib. 8. Haec vitae nostrae causa est, quod in nobis carnablibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus; vi­cturis nobis per euin ea conditione qua vivit ille per patrem. Si ergo nos naturaliter secunduim car­nem per eum vivimus, id est, naturam carnis suae adepti; quomodo non naturaliter secundum spiritum in se patrem habeat, cum vivat ipse per Patrem? Id. ibid. Uni­ty between Christ and Us; meaning such an Union as is wrought by the Communion of his Nature. ‘This is (saith he) the cause of our Life, that we have Christ abiding in us according to his Flesh (that is, his Spiritual Flesh) and we live by him, as he himself liveth by the Fa­ther, &c.’ Now Christ liveth by his Father through the Communication of his Divine Substance, and we live by Christ through the Communication of his Holy Nature. By the Communication of Christs Na­ture to us, is meant the Communi­nication of the Divine Virtues of his Flesh, which are, like sparks, con­veyed into Our nature, and by means of this Communication of Christs Virtues, that Union is wrought between him Us, which S. Hillary and S. Cyril call a Natural Union. Sensus est, Christum in nobis esse, non per corporis sui Sub­stantiam, sed per Efficaciam carnis suae, quam in Eulogia Mystica participamus, unde resultat cum eo inter nos vera Unitas. Quis enim negare posset aut participationem efficaciae earnis ejus veram ac Realem esse, aut ex ejusmodi participatione veram & Realem unitatem inter illum & nos consur­gere? Albertinus de Sacr. Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 765.

The Notion of our [Page 296] Union with Christ being thus explained, it is easie to prove now, that this strict and most blessed Uni­on is effected by a due use of this Holy Sa­crament. For since we do hereby partici­pate of his Blessed Bo­dy and Bloud, and are endued with a plentiful measure of his Spirit, it necessarily and plainly followeth, that we receive such a portion of his Na­ture, as is suitable to our Capacities; and so, that we are One with him, because we receive of His, and are enlivened and quick­ned by the same Spirit which dwelleth in him, and are of one and the same Nature with him. But besides, the words of Christ himself are plain, Jo. 6. 56. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in Him. Perhaps the words are to be understood, as if they were to be read Thus, as he dwelleth in me, so I dwell in him; meaning, that as our Na­ture was United to his, when he became Incarnate, so his Nature is United to Ours, when we eat his Flesh and drink his Bloud. And this we infallibly do, when we wor­thily celebrate this Holy Mystery. Though [Page 297] in some cases men may eat his Flesh and drink his Bloud Spiritually and by faith alone, without the Sacrament; yet we do it much more, and more effectually by the Sacra­ment: and consequently we must be sup­posed to be more nearly United to him by means of this Ordinance, then by any other means whatsoever. Hence it was (as some of the Ancients tell us) that Christ ap­pointed the use of such Creatures as are of a Nourishing faculty (for so Bread andSicut cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus & vegetat, ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit & roborat, &c. Raban. de Serm. proprietate, lib. 5. cap. 11. Wine are) to shew, that as there is a Na­tural Incorporation of our nourishment into our Flesh, so there is a Spiritual Incorporation (if I may so speak) of Christ into our souls. And hence it is that others of them compare the Spirit of Christ, which is received by the Sacrament, to Leaven; representing to us by that Similitude, that there is such a Dif­fusion Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. cap. 17. of Spiritual Virtue throughout the soul, as there is of ferment, that leaveneth the whole Lump into which it is cast. AndId. lib. 10. c. 13. hence it is, that S. Cyril also compares the Mixture of Christ's Nature with Ours, to the Mixture of wax with wax, when several pieces of wax are melted and incorporated toge­ther. All these Notions and Similitudes (and divers more such, which we meet with in the [Page 298] writings of the Ancients) do shew, that by eating Christs Flesh, and drinking his Bloud (especially at and by the Sacrament) we do so participate of his Spirit, of his Virtues, Influences, and Divine Nature, as that Christ and we do become One. Quemadmodum intelligit (Cyrillus Glaphyr. in Genes. lib. 7.) Christum se in animas immittere per Gratiam & virtutem Spiritus, sic etiam sensus ipsius est, eum corpora ingredi per virtutem cor­poris sui Eucharistiae communicatam? nec ulterius urgendae sunt comparationes quas affert mixtionis, scentillae ignis, caerae & fermenti. Albertinus ubi supr. pag. 761.

And thence follow­eth the last inestimable blessing, that I shall mention (a Blessing that we carry with us to the very Grave) viz. an Assurance and Pledge of a Glorious Re­surrection. It is appointed unto man once to dye, Heb. 9. 27. This Sentence having past upon our Parents in Paradise, Nature it self doth now Execute it upon their Po­sterity. For as none can bring a clean thing out of an Unclean, so none can bring an Incorruptible thing out of a Mortal. We dye of course; Christ that took on him the burden of our sins, did not take off this weight from us: though he delivered us from all Necessity of tumbling into Hell, yet there are wise and great Reasons for which he did not think it fit for him to keep us from falling into the Grave. But yet, that we may dye in Hope, in hope of a joyfull Resurrection (as corn is committed to the earth in hope of a good Harvest) [Page 299] Christ doth by this Sacrament take Seisure of our Bodies, by communicating to us his Own, and so uniting us to himself, that he may change our vile Body, and make it like unto his own Glorious Body, according to the mighty Energy, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself, Phil. 3. 13.

Hence it is that the Church in her wis­dome hath thought it convenient, that men should often receive this Sacrament especially in times of danger, distress, and Sickness; to the end, that they may make their peace with God, and with their own Consciences, and may go out of this world with firm and well grounded hopes both of a plenary Ab­solution, and of an Happy Resurrection. For this Sacrament is an Earnest to assure all worthy Communicants, that these very Bodies of theirs, in which Infirmities and death do now Lodge, shall be raised again out of the dust being nourisht, as it were, out of the veins of our Redeemer. These Ele­ments are the Symbols of our Resurrection, the Medicine of Immortality, the Antitode that keeps us from Final Corruption, the— [...]. Ignat. Ep ad Ephes. [...] Athanal Conservatory for a Resurrection to Eter­nal Life.

That which hath been spoken already [Page 300] doth make this evident sufficiently. 1. For, first, it is sure, that by the Sacrament we receive the Spirit of Christ; and since the same Spirit is communicated to Us, that dwelleth in Him, it must necessarily follow, that it shall have the same power over our Flesh, which it had over His, to raise it up again at the day appointed. Thus S. Paul himself argueth, Rom. 8. 11. If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 2. Se­condly, seeing, the Holy Communion is an instrument of Uniting even our Bodies unto him, who is the Head over all, so that the members of our Bodies are the very members of Christ, and we become, as it were, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, less cannot follow then that our Bodies shall be made Immortal, as His is; it being im­possible that any thing which is His, should perish everlastingly. To effect such an Union as is between Christ and his Church, it is not necessary, nor possible, that there should be a confusion or conjunction of bodily Sub­stances: It sufficeth that there is a Contact of Spiritual Vertue from the Flesh of Christ. Now this Vertue goes along with the Sacrament, and is received by every faithful Commu­nicant, so that it doth affect even his Body, [Page 301] Sanctifying and Appropriating it to the Saviour of our Souls and Bodies both, and making our whole man His. And this Union cannot in any wise be dissolved by Death: because Death is onely a Separation of the Soul from the Body, so that for that time the one loseth all vital activity from the other; but neither of them doth, or can lose its Title to Christs Protection; the Body continueth still related unto its Head, as in time of its Life, and the Union between Christ and it remaineth entire, and so its Right to a glorious Resurrection through Christ, is indefeisable. In this respect our Condition is very like to the Condition of the Son of God, when he himself was in a state of Death. He dyed, as we do (though to purposes infinitely Great, and with tor­ments unspeakably Excessive) his Spirit was actually sever'd from his Flesh, when he gave up the Ghost. Nevertheless, though his Flesh had no manner of vitality from his Humane Soul, being really Sepa­rated from it, yet it was not separated from the Deity, but remained perfectly United to it by a Substantial Conjunction, and by reason of that Conjunction it was restored to life after so many hours. In like manner when we give up the Ghost, the Body par­teth with the Soul, and during this state hath no manner of sensation or Motion, having [Page 302] lost the Natural Principle of Both: but yet it is not separated from Christ though it Corrupteth in the Grave, while its Mate is in the enjoyment of Bliss, yet it is still Uni­ted to its Lord by a Mystical Conjunction; and by reason of that Union it shall be reu­nited to the soul in Gods good time, that Both may have their Partnership in the fruition of an endless Life. 3. This consideration, were it duely weighed, would be of very great Use and Comfort to good men, when they are going out of this world. But there is besides a third thing to be considered; viz. that as we are united to Christ, so Christs Nature is also communicated to Us by means of this Sacrament, which doth fur­ther conclude an Assurance of an Happy Resurrection. This Nature thus commu­nicated, is as it were a Spark of the Di­vine Nature, which gives the Body a Disposition and Aptitude to Rise again; like that Vital Principle in wheat, that makes it Apt to spring out of the earth again, when 'tis committed to the ground, though it hath been laid up a long time in the Granary. S. Cyril calls Christs— [...]. Cyril: where [...] is a living Body (and so corpus vitae in some of the Latines) as [...] is a Glorious Body, Phil. 3. 21. Living Body (mea­ning the Virtue of it, or his ‘Spi­ritual [Page 303] Body, the Quickning Seed that is in us. For Christ, by Divine Influences from his body, giveth vitality to our, mortal Bodies; by that vivifick Virtue, which is communicated by the Bread, it entreth into the bodies of the Faithful (though it be Substantially absent.) And hence he argues, that if the dead in our Saviours time were raised to Life onely by being touched with his Holy Body (out of which there went Virtue) certainly the vital [...]; &c. Cyril in Joan. lib. 4. cap. 14. Blessing must be much more abundant, which we receive who even Taste and Communicate of it, because it transforms Communicants into its own Blessed Condition, that is, into Immortality.’ In like manner Ireneus pro­ved the Certainty of a Resurrection, from the Virtue and efficacy of this Sacrament; supposing it a thing very Unreasonable to deny that Flesh to be capable of In­corruption, which is nourished withThis is plainly the meaning and force of those words of Irenaeus, Quomodo dicunt (Haeretici) carnem in corruptionem [scilicet finalem] devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae a corpore Domini & sanguine alitur? Quemadmodum qui est e terra panis, perci­piens invocationem Dei, jam non communis pa­nis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebas con­stans, terrena & caelisti, sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt corrup­tibilia, spem Resurrectionis habentia. Adv. Hae­res lib. 4. cap. 34. Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eu­charistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia; quomodo negant carnem capacem esse donationis Dei (quae est vita aeterna) quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur, & membrum ejus est? Id. lib. 5. cap. 2. that Bread which carrieth with it the vital Virtues of the Flesh of our Lord; be­cause [Page 304] those Vir­tues turn to the advantage of that Body as well as of the soul, by reason that our Flesh (being Uni­ted to the Flesh of Christ by the Spirit) is by the Eucharist Prepared and Disposed for, and made capable of the gift of God, which is eternal Life.

But (to conclude this point) besides these arguments drawn from the Reason of the thing it self, and from the sense and suffrage of Antiquity, our Saviours own words are abundantly demonstrative of this matter, in S. Jo. 6. The bread of God is be, with cometh down from heaven, and giveth Life unto the world: I am that bread of Life.—Your fathers did eat manna in the wil­derness, and are dead: this is the bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not dye (for ever.) I am the Living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall Live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the world.—Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for [Page 305] my Flesh is meat indeed, and my bloud is drink indeed.—As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

These words are so plain, that they need no Explication, if by eating the Bread, the Meat, the Flesh here spoken of we understand (not of Believing the Doctrines of Christianity, as some most Absurdly imagine; nor of eating the very Substance of Christs Body, as others most Ridiculously conceive; but) our partaking and communicating of the Virtues of his Flesh and Bloud; which is the genuine and Catholick construction. Now by a right use of this Holy Sacrament we do this effectually; and consequently may be assured, that as we are blest with the Spirit, and Life, and Communion of Christ in this world, by so doing; so we have an un­doubted Title to a Life of Glory and Immortality in the next.

CHAP. XII.

I Have now done with the Speculative or Doctrinal part of this Subject, having after a plain, Didactical manner de­livered and asserted the true Catholick Faith concerning this Sacrament: and from the consideration of those bles­sings which it brings with it, I shall briefly draw these following Inferences, and so conclude the whole matter.

1. That we are not to rate this Mystery according to its Face and Outward Ap­pearance, nor judge of its efficacy and Dignity by the Elements. For though our Senses do infallibly assure us, that it is Bread and Wine, yet our Faith ought to assure us too, that it is not Common bread or Bare Wine, but something more. By the word and Prayer, and by the Secret (but effe­ctual) operation of the Holy Ghost, there is, besides the Natural and true Substance of the materials, an Addition of Grace, which [Page 307] is chrefly und principally to be considered by us. And this is that Change of the Ele­ments, which the Catholick Church ever did believe; meaning not a change of their Nature, but of their Use, of their Quality, of their Condition. As when we say, such a man is turned a Christian; or such a Chri­stian is turned a Minister; or such a Fabrick is turned into a Church; our meaning is not, that there is a Substantial, but an Ac­cidental So Philo saith of Cajus Caesar, when he changed the Temple of God at Jerusalem, into a Temple bearing his own Name, [...]; Philo. lib. de legatione noted by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. 2. cap. 6. mutation, an alternation of the state Condition and Quality of the man, or the thing, but not of the Substance, or Nature, for the Con­vert is a man still, but something more, that is, a Servant of Christ; and the Minister is a Christian man still, but something more, that is, an Am­bassadour of the Gospel; and the Fabrick is an House still, but something more, that is, the House of God. In like manner, when St. Chrysostome and the rest of the Ancients [...]: Chrysost. in Prodit. Judae Tom. 5. p. 559. say, that upon repeating the words of Institution, the things which lye be­fore us on the Holy Table are Changed, the meaning clearly is, not that their Na­ture [Page 308] or Substance is Destroyed, but that the Condition of them is altered, so that they are Bread and Wine still, but something more, that is, they are now become Sacra­ments; the vehicles of Grace, the means and Instruments, whereby the Spiritual Body and Bloud of Christ are conveyed and communicated to us.

Upon this account, when we go to the Holy Communion, we should think we go (as indeed we do) to an Ordinance of the greatest Consideration and Consequence: we should value it highly for that Divine stamp which the Holy Jesus hath set upon it: we should prize it according to the Purport and Ends for which it was first in­stituted: and we should regard not so much the things themselves which we eat and drink, as the Institution of the thing, toge­ther with the Power and Blessing of God which doth attend it. Men that do not look into the Inside of this heavenly My­stery, but judge according to Appearance, are apt to entertain mean and low thoughts of it, because they see none but a weak and Sinful man that Ministreth, and nothing but the Common Creatures of Bread and Wine that are distributed. But when we present our selves before the Lords Table, we should Lift up our Hearts, and Raise our Thoughts above those things which are [Page 309] obvious to the Sense; we should bear in ourHence that very Ancient Admo­nition, extant in S. Cyprian (de Orat. Dom.) and in divers An­cient Liturgies, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts. minds the Truth, the Goodness, and the Power of God; and consider, that it is the Usual method of his Providence, to bring the Greatest Ends about, by the use of such means, as to our thinking are the most Un­likely and incompetent for those purposes. Thus it was as to his choice of Persons in the beginning of Christianity: he employed such men for the great work of the Ministry, as in the esteem of the world were of the least and Meanest consideration; One, a Pub­lican; another, a Tent-maker; many, that were Fishermen; few, that were Learned; none, that were Noble, or that bore a great Figure in the world; and yet by these weak, these contemptible Instruments (I mean, weak in themselves, and Con­temptible in the account of others; by these instruments) were Philosophers, Princes, Kingdomes, and infinite numbers of Jews and Idolaters Captivated and brought in obedience to the Faith of the Son of God: we have this Treasure (of the Gospel) in Earthen vessels that the Excellency of the Power may be of God and not of Us, saith the Apostle, 2. Cor. 4. 7. Thus it hath been Gods method too, as to his choice of things: [Page 310] He hath been wont to use the most Ordi­nary, the most Contemptible means to effect his purposes of Grace and Mercy; that he might shew the greatness of his own Power, and convince the world, that nothing is so mean, but that it shall be serviceable and effective of Noble ends, as long as it is the hand of an Almighty Agent. What was Circumcision, that it should be the Seal of Abrahams Righteousness, and a sure Token of Gods Covenant with him and his whole Issue? what was the noise of a few Rams-horns, that it should tumble down the walls of Jericho? or a Cake of barly bread, that it should be seen to overturn the Tents of the Midianites? or a Brasen Serpent, that the sight of it should cure the wounds of the Israelites? or a little lump of Figs, that it should presently heal He­zekiah? what was a manger, that it should be the Cradle of the Lord of Glory? or a Cross, that it should be the Altar for the great Propitiatory Sacrifice to be offered up upon it? what was St. Peters Shadow, that it should restore the sick, and cast Unclean Spirits out of their Holds and Possessions? nay, what is a little Water, that it should Cleanse and Sanctifie all our souls and make Baptized persons the Vessels of Election? And yet S. Paul calls it, the Washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. And the operations [Page 311] of Christs Spirit are so effectual by Bap­tisme, that to every Faithful man it be­comes the instrument of Salvation. And why should it be thought a thing incre­dible, that God should bless the use of the Bread and Wine, or make it productive of those Spiritual Benefits, which have been afore-mentioned? Our Faith ought not to stumble at this: we should not look upon the Elements, but upon the Institution, not take an estimate of this Or­dinance by the Creatures we receive, but by the Divine Benediction that cometh down upon them. For when Christ Bles­sed the Bread and the Cup, and commanded the use of them, he intended that this My­stery should ever be successful and effe­ctual to every Soul that should be rightly Disposed. 'Tis S. Chrysostoms observation,S. Chrys. ubi. Supr. that when God blessed his Creatures in the beginning, and commanded them to be Fruitful and Multiply, that word, though it was given so long ago, yet 'tis power­full still, and will be powerful to the worlds end: and by Virtue thereof the least grain of mustard seed groweth up to a great plant. In like manner that Bles­sing wherewith the Son of God blessed the bread and Wine at the Institution of this Solemnity, ceaseth not now, but is as effectual as ever; so that they are still the [Page 312] Instruments of Our growth in Grace, as they were to the Disciples in the beginning: not indeed by any Natural Causality that is in them, but by the good Pleasure and Blessing of God, and by the Operation of the Holy Ghost. For the workings of the Spirit, though they be Mysterious and Se­cret, yet are they certain and True, and at this Heavenly Solemnity the work of the Spirit is done. So that we must draw our minds off from the things which are below, which are before us, which we see and taste of, and Fix our thoughts upon the Spiritual Body and Bloud of Christ which are, as it were, wrapped up in them; and as the Ancients were wont to admonish, we should prepare, not so much the Mouth, as the Heart. And this is the true rea­son of those Rhetorical Expressions of some of the Fathers (S. Chrysostomes especially;) where they seem to speak as if it were not Bread and Wine, but something of a more Noble and Excellent nature, that we Com­municate of. Such forms of speech were not Pure Negatives, but Negatives by Comparison (as hath been admirably well proved and explained by the Learned Arch­bishop Cranmer in several the like instances both in the old and New Testament.) It is not Bread and Wine, that is, it is not so much the Bread and Wine, as the Body and [Page 313] Bloud of Christ which is to be considered. The Elements are nothing at all in Compa­rison of that which they do Represent, Exhibite, and bring to us. ‘And the designDefence pag. 36. of those Fathers was, to draw our minds upwards to Heaven; that we should not regard so much the Bread, the Wine, the Priest, and the Natural Body of Christ, as we should consider his Divi­nity and Holy Spirit, given unto us to our Eternal salvation: That we should not fix our thoughts and minds upon the things themselves before us, but lift up our hearts higher, unto Christs Spirit and Divinity, without which his Body avai­leth not; as he said himself, it is the Spi­rit that giveth life; the Flesh profiteth nothing.’ The Arch-Bishop is very co­pious upon this; and I shall transcribe his words the rather, because the passage is ve­ry useful, and the Book is not very com­mon. ‘This form of speech (saith he) isNegatives by compa­son. commonly used, not only in the Scrip­ture, and among all good Authors, but also in all manner of Languages. For when two things be compared together, in the extolling of the more excellent, or abasing of the more vile, is many times used a Negative by comparison, which nevertheless is no pure Negative, but on­ly in the respect of the more excellent, [Page 314] or the more base. As by example. When the people rejecting the Prophet1 Reg. 8. Samuel, desired to have a King, almigh­ty God said to Samuel: They have not re­jected thee, but me. Not meaning by this Negative absolutely, that they had not rejected Samuel (in whose place they de­sired to have a King) but by that one Negative, by comparison he understood two affirmatives, that is to say, that they had rejected Samuel, and not him alone, but also that they had chiefly rejected God. And when the Prophet David Psal. 22. said in the person of Christ, I am a Worm, and not a Man. By this Negative he denied not utterly, that Christ was a man, but (the more vehemently to express the great humiliation of Christ) he said, that he was not abased only to the Nature of Man, but was brought so low, that he might ra­ther be called a Worm, than a man. This manner of speech was familiar and usual to St. Paul, as when he said: It is Rom. 7. not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me. And in an other place he saith: Christ sent me not to baptise, but 1. Cor. 1. to preach the Gospel. And again he saith: My speech and preaching, was not in words 1 Cor. 1. of mans perswasion, but in manifest decla­ration of the Spirit and power. And he saith also: Neither he that grafteth, nor he 1 Cor. 3. [Page 315] that watereth, is any thing, but God that giveth the increase. And he saith moreo­ver. It is not I that live, but Christ liveth Gal. 2. within me. And God forbid that I should Gal. 6. rejoyce in any thing, but in the Cross of our Lord Jesu Christ. And further, we do not Ephe. 6. wrestle against flesh and blood, but against he Spirits of Darkness. In all these senten­ces and many other like; although they be Negatives, nevertheless St. Paul meant not clearly to deny, that he did that evil whereof he spake, or utterly to say, that he was not sent to Baptize, (who indeed did Baptize at certain times, and was sent to do all things that pertained to salvation) or that in his office of set­ting forth Gods word, he used no witty perswasions, (which indeed he used most discreetly) or that the grafter and wa­terer be nothing, (which be Gods Crea­tures, made to his similitude, and without whose work there should be no increase) or to say, that he was not alive, (who both lived, and ran thro' all Countries, to set forth Gods Glory) or clearly to affirm, that he gloried and rejoyced in no other thing than in Christs Cross; (who rejoyced with all men that were in joy, and sorrowed with all that were in sorrow) or to deny utterly, that we wrestle against flesh and blood, (which [Page 316] cease not daily to wrestle and War a­gainst our Enemies, the world, the flesh and the Devil.) In all these sentences St. Paul (as I said) meant not clearly to deny these things, which undoubtedly were all true, but he meant, that in com­parison of other greater things, these smaller were not much to be esteemed, but that the greater things, were the chief things to be considered. As that sin committed by his infirmity, was ra­ther to be imputed to original sin, or corruption of Nature, which lay lurking within him, than to his own will and con­sent. And that although he was sent to Baptize, yet he was chiefly sent to preach Gods word. And that although he used wise and discreet perswasions therein, yet the success thereof came principally of the power of God, and of the working of the Holy Spirit. And that although the Grafter and Waterer of the Garden be some things, and do not a little in their Offices, yet it is God chiefly; that giveth the increase. And that although he lived in this world, yet his chief life, concerning God▪ was by Christ, whom he had living within him. And that al­though he gloried in many other things, yea in his own infirmities, yet his greatest joy, was in the Redemption by the Cross [Page 317] of Christ. And that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, yet our chief and principal fight is against our ghostly enemies, the subtil and puissant wicked Spirits and Devils. The same manner of speech, used also St. Peter in his first Epistle, saying, that the apparel Pet. 3. of Women should not be outwardly with broi­dred Hair, and setting on of Gold, nor in puting on of gorgious apparel, but that the inward man of the heart, should be without corruption. In which manner of speech, he intended not utterly to forbid all broi­dering of Hair, all gold and costly appa­rel, to all Women. (For every one must be apparelled according to their condi­tion, state and degree) but he meant hereby clearly to condemn all pride and excess in apparel, and to move all Wo­men that they should study to deck their Souls inwardly with all virtues, and not to be curious, outwardly to deck and a­dorn their bodies with sumptuous apparel. And our Saviour Christ himself was full of such manner of speeches. Gather not Mat. 6. unto you (saith he) treasure upon Earth. willing us thereby, rather to set our minds upon Heavenly treasure, which e­ver endureth, than upon Earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perish­eth, and is taken away from us. And yet [Page 318] worldly treasure must needs be had, and possessed of some men, as the person, time, and occasion doth serve. LikewiseMat. 10. he said: When you be brought before Kings and Princes, think not what and how you shall answer. Not willing us by this Ne­gative, that we should negligently and unadvisedly answer we care not what; but that we should depend of our Heavenly Father, trusting that by his Holy Spirit, he will sufficiently instruct us of answer, rather than to trust of any answer to be devised by our Wit and study. And in the same manner he spake, when he said: It is not you that speak, but it is the Spirit Mat. 10. of God that speaketh within you. For the Spirit of God is he, that principally put­teth godly words into our mouths, and yet nevertheless we do speak according to his moving. And to be short, in all these sentences following, that is to say: Call no Man your Father upon Earth: Let Mat. 23. no Man call you Lord or Master: Fear not Mat. 23. them that kill the Body. I came not to send Mat. 10. peace upon Earth. It is not in me to set Mat. 10. you at my right hand or left hand. You shall Mat. 20. not worship the Father neither in this Mount Joh. 4. nor in Jerusalem. I take no witness at no Joan. 5. Man. My Doctrine is not mine. I seek John. 7. not mine. I seek not my glory. In allJohn. 8. these Negatives, our Saviour Christ spake [Page 319] not precisely and utterly to deny all the foresaid things, but in comparison of them to prefer other things, as to prefer our Father and Lord in Heaven, above any worldly Father, Lord or Master in Earth, and his fear above the fear of any Creature, and his word and Gospel above all worldly peace. Also to prefer spiri­tual and inward honouring of God in pure heart and mind, above local, cor­poral and outward honour, and that Christ preferred his Fathers glory above his own. Now forasmuch as I have de­clared at length, the Nature and kind of these Negative speeches, (which be no pure Negatives, but by comparison) it is easie hereby, to make answer to St. John Chrysostome, who used this phrase of speech most of any Author. For his mea­ning in his foresaid homily, was not that in the Celebration of the Lords Supper is neither Bread nor Wine, neither Priest nor the Body of Chist, (which the Papists themselves must needs confess) but his intent was, to draw our minds upwards to Hea­ven, that we should not consider so much the Bread, Wine, Priest, and Body of Christ, as we should consider his Divini­ty and Holy Spirit, given unto us to our eternal Salvation. And therefore in the same place he useth so many times these [Page 320] words, think and think not. Willing us by those words, that we should not fix our thoughts and minds up the bread, Wine, Priest, nor Christs body: But to lift up our hearts higher unto his Spirit and Divinity, without the which his Bo­dy availeth nothing, as he said himself. It is the spirit that giveth life, the Flesh availeth Joan. 6. nothing.’ Thus far he. Therefore when you address your selves to the Table of the great God, you should be full of lofty and Divine apprehensions of that hidden Trea­sure of Celestial Grace and Virtue, which is then to be tendred unto you, how mean soever the Instruments of that Grace are in their own Nature. And accordingly you should go with those Holy dispositions and affections, with that Reverence, dread, and awe of God, but withal with that for­wardness and swiftness of Devotion, and with those transports of pleasure and joy, as if you were now going to the very gate of Heaven. Men should be afraid to use this important and venerable Ordinance with respect to secular and base ends, only to satisfie the Laws of the Realm, to save their Places, their Reputation, their mam­mon. It is a most fearful act of presumpti­on, a deadly and horrid prophanation, an ar­gument of Atheistical or debaucht minds, when men dare prostitute a thing of such [Page 321] a sacred Nature to their carnal Lusts, and take the Viands of Eternity into their hands and mouths, even when the Devil is in their hearts. When you prepare for this solemn occasion, be in good earnest with God and with your own Souls, be as considerate and serious as if you were go­ing to die, be as upright in heart as if you were to take the next step to judgment. When you see the Holy Table spread, call home your thoughts, let your minds be as composed, and your Meditations be as full of Reverence, as if you saw a vision, and be­held the food of Angels let down from Heaven in a Sheet, when the happy hour is now come, that God waits to bless you with the greatest Treasure of his love, be­grudge not the going to his Table for it, but bless God that you may have it for fetching; and when you go, be as pure in heart, as if your lips were touched with a live Coal from off the Altar, prostrate your bodies, and cast your Souls down to the lowest step of humility, and adore the Almighty like those Seraphims in Isaiahs Vi­sion, who covered their feet and their Faces with their wings, as they cried one unto ano­ther. Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts the whole Earth is full of his Glory, Isa. 6. 2, 3. When the Bread and Wine are made Sacraments, and those blessed Symbols of [Page 322] Grace are reached out unto you, think and know that the Lord of Life and Glory is now coming under your roof; and great is the Peace of such as receive him with the pas­sionate desires of affectionate Penitents, that bathe his feet with their Tears, and lodge him in the retirements of a clean, innocent and Virgin heart. And when you depart, let it be with Thanksgivings and Hal­lelujahs, and with all the expressions of grateful Souls, enflamed with the Love of Jesus, and with a deep sense of your Ho­nour and Felicity, that God hath vouchsa­fed thus to visit you with his goodness, that he hath taken you into his Arms; that he hath covered your offences, that he hath fed you with the true Bread of Life from Heaven, that he hath shed his love abroad in your hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is now given unto you, that he hath uni­ted you to himself by the Communication of the Divine Nature, that he hath cast into you the seed of immortality, and given you an earnest of a blessed Resurrection, and an antepast of Heaven; for all these blessings you receive at the hand of God, as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord after a worthy manner, and as it becometh Saints.

2. Whence I proceed to the Second Con­clusion; that if no special Law had been [Page 323] given us for the celebration of this Mystery, if no Positive Command had been annexed to its Institutions, were we so wholly left to our own Liberty whether we would Re­ceive the Communion, or no, that we should not sin against God by not recei­ving; we should nevertheless be very much wanting to our selves, and sin against our own souls, should we Turn our backs upon this great Ordinance, as (to their shame) many Ill men do; some that never yet Communicated in all their Life; some that Despise it, and Hate to do it; some that pretend they are Afraid to do it (though it be not the Ordinance, but their own Wickedness that scares them) some that strive against their own Convi­ctions for the sake of this world; some that are so supine and Listless, that they care not to set about it; and some that do it so seldome, that they seem Indifferent whether they do it at all, or no. To bring all these wretches to a due Sense and Practice of their Duty, I would beseech them to Con­sult their own Best thoughts (if they be ever Thoughtful) and Seriously to con­sider, what mercies they wilfully Forsake. Is it a slight thing, is it Nothing to be made a Partaker of that Great Sacrifice for sin which was offered upon the Cross? when we daily lye at Gods mercy, and stand in [Page 324] need of his Pardon, and are utterly Un­done, if we have it not: when we feel in our own Breasts the miserable Effects of our Follies, those Twinges and Sores in our Consciences, those wounds and gashes in the Spirit, which are so full of intolera­ble Anguish, that some have hurryed them­selves out of the world on purpose to be rid (as they thought) of the sense of their Torments: when we are sensible how the Judgements of God go abroad in the Earth to Punish men for their Impieties: when we have seen so many sad Examples of men, who have roared, and sometimes Despaired upon their death-beds, under the burden of their guilt; and when none can tell, but that he may be tortured, punisht and visited after the same manner; these things and the like being considered well, what can any man desire so much as to have his iniquities forgiven? and then what Fools are they, that neglect to receive the Holy Sacrament, which is the Seal of our Pardon? Is it a mean thing, not worth our craving or lon­ging for, to be nourisht with the most Bles­sed Body and Bloud of our Redeemer, to receive Vitality and Influences of Grace from him, to be Refresht and strengthned with that Divine aliment, which hath been the Support of Apostles, Prophets and Mar­tyrs, and without which our Souls can no [Page 325] more live a Life Spiritual and Divine, than our Bodies can continue in plight and strength without Sustenance? Is it not a mercy invaluable, to have the Guidance, Aids, and Comforts of Christs Spirit? when our Natural Corruptions are so strong, when the Enemy of our Souls is so malicious and Buisie, when the Temptations we meet with are so Thick and ensnaring, when the Com­mon course of Humane Life is such, that we walk continually among Dangers and Deaths: Lord! what a Miserable Crea­ture would man be, without the care, Assi­stance, and Succours of the Spirit? In times of Errors and Delusion to be assisted, and kept stedfast by the Spirit of Truth: in times of Tryal to be led by that Spirit of Power, which helpeth our infirmities: in times of Impiety to be guided and gover­ned by the Spirit of Grace and Holiness: in times of Affliction and Distress, whether they be Publick or Private calamities we groan under, then to have the Spirit of Comfort, to speak peace to our Consciences, to take away the Bitterness of our pottage, to sweeten and lighten our Griefs with sa­lutary Breathings from above, to Support us in all our sufferings, to carry us safe through all Difficulties, and at last to lead us into a Serene and Calm world; Oh! what an Hap­piness is this, and what Improvident peo­ple [Page 326] are thy, who neglect an Ordinance that is Productive of this Happiness, that is so Beneficial and Useful to all these purpo­ses? Again; to have such a lively Faith as will not fail us, however we may be winnowed, sifted and tost; to have a vigorous Hope that will keep our Heads up, when storm, and tempest beat down thou­sands; to be full of those Graces, which are sweeter then Nard under our nostrils; to be United to him, who Loved us and gave himself for us, and to have this Testimony within us, that we are the very Members of Christ, and in the end to Dye with Sa­tisfaction, and with a strong Confidence, that one day we shall rise again and see the Salvation of God in the Land of the Living; these are Felicities, than which the Na­ture of man is not capable of Greater in this Life; and I have shew'd you parti­cularly; one by one, that these are the Blessings, wherewith God crowneth every Constant and Devout Communicant. Brief­ly, there is no Ordinance of God, but what doth carry its Advantages with it, where men use it after a Regular and Due manner. But all other Ordinances seem to center and meet in this; so that it is a certain Instrument of an Holy Life, and of that which will be Dear and Valuable to us when all the Gayeties of Life are over; I mean a [Page 327] Comfortable Death. And so I leave it to the thoughts of every Understanding and Thinking Christian to consider, what Unwise, as well as Unthankfull men they are, who are so willing to go from an Or­dinance at which others gather up Life and Immortallity. It is no wonder, that the world groweth so vain and wicked, and that the Souls of men are so Improsperous. One great reason is, because they have Itching ears, but Insensate Hearts, that neither Crave for the Influences of Heaven, nor care to Receive them, though they come down in streams God be merciful unto them; but they will one day find, what a crime and Folly they are guilty of, in forsaking thus the mercies of the Cross, and in trampling under their feet the Bloud of the Son of God after this manner.

Not that their imprudence, or unthank­fulness is their only sin: No there is an addi­tion of impiety too, which helps to aggra­vate it. For in this case we are not in our own hands, neither are we left to our own liberty and Pleasure. The Command of Christ, whereby we are obliged to solem­nize this Mystery, is as plain, and as pe­remptory a command, as any other in the whole Bible? and if a law from Heaven can make any thing necessary, then is this so. But I will not now meddle with that con­sideration: [Page 328] There being that and many more, which relate more immediately to our practice, that I see will cost another just Discourse; as of the necessity that is incum­bent upon us; and of the necessity of pre­paration also, together with the Nature and Extent of that preparation which is requi­site, and divers other the like matters, which deserve to be well considered, and to be treated of by themselves in their due order, and by degrees. Here we will end this Discourse, beseeching God to help us to a right understanding, and to enable us to keep a good Conscience in all things, for Christ Jesus his sake. to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, three Persons in the Unity of the God-head, be all Glory, and Honour, and Praise, for evermore,

Amen.