CHAP. XVII. The necessity of the Lord's Supper for Salvation pro∣ved from St. Joh. VI.

AND though I know that the Eucharist was not yet instituted when our Saviour had that Mystical dis∣course in St. John VI. yet withal I cannot but think that our Saviour intended even then to warn them of the necessity of a Corporal as well as Spiritual Ʋnion with himself, and to give them such an account of it, as, though they did not understand it at present, yet they should when they should be fitted Page  390 for understanding it, and when it should be fulfilled. I know it was usual among the wise-men of those parts in their Mystical Discourses to represent wisdom under the Metaphor of meat. But to represent it under the Metaphor of mans flesh, nay, of his own flesh who was then discoursing with them, sounded so unusual and harsh to his Auditors, who understood him literally, as that we find they were not able to bear it. And certainly he would not have used so offensive an Allegory, if he had not designed a greater advantage by it afterwards than he enjoyed by it at present. And though he usually explained to his Disciples in private what he discoursed in Parables to the Multitude, yet that was as they were able to bear it;* and with some things he did not think it fit to acquaint them during his Corporal presence among them. Particularly we find him cautious in acquainting them with his Death, and the ignominious circumstances of it, which was a thing so contrary to their received Notions concerning the Messias, as that it would have weakened his general Authority among them, on which the credit of the particulars proposed by him did all de∣pend, if they had been acquainted with them before they had first been prepared by exercise to endure the scandal of a suffering Messias. Yet this had been necessary to have been known by them before they could throughly understand his design in these words, supposing they were meant with relation to the Eucharist; which may serve for a just account why he did not speak more plainly concerning it than he did then, even to his own Disciples. Be∣sides we have elsewhere examples where it is expressly noted that his Discourses had express relation to things to be fulfilled afterwards,* and to be understood by his Disciples when they were fulfilled, and not before, that we may not admire at his doing so in this matter.

[§ II] AND as it is probable that our Saviour did hereby prepare them that they might, by degrees, understand their obligation to a Corporal Ʋnion with him, and of partaking of that Bread which he should afterwards appoint as an ordinary means of effe∣cting that Union; so it is also very probable that the Apostle did also design it for the use of the separaters of that Age wherein he wrote his Gospel, to let them also understand their obligation to keep that Communion,* wherein this Bread of God, as Ignatius soon after tells us, is only to be had, concerning which our Sa∣viour had spoken so great things before his institution of it. Any Page  391 one who considerately reads his whole Gospel may observe, that those things which were added by him above what had been writ∣ten by the other Gospels, especially the Doctrinal part of them, are generally such things whereby his Readers might be convin∣ced of their obligation to adhere to him in opposition to the An∣tichrists which then appeared, that is, certainly, to that Society which was visibly united in an external profession of adherence to him, in opposition to those many other visible Societies which were also visibly united in an external profession of adherence to his Rivals and Adversaries. And many of the same things pro∣duced in this case are also insisted on in his Epistle which was pro∣fessedly written on this Subject, and with more particular regard to this very case. Nor certainly could he have chosen a more ap∣posite Argument for this purpose than this was, what our Savi∣ours design was in instituting the Eucharist.

[§ III] AND this supposition, that this place is to be understood concerning the Eucharist, agrees exactly well with the account I have now been giving concerning it from other Scriptures. I said that the great use of this fleshly Ʋnion with Christ was principally to secure us of the Resurrection of our Bodies. Accordingly he frequently mentions the Resurrection here,* and that as a particu∣lar benefit of this eating the Eucharistical Bread. So he tells them, This is the Bread which descended from Heaven; not as your Fa∣thers did eat the Manna and are dead, he that eateth this Bread shall live for ever. Where by living for ever must certainly be meant the life of the Body when it is opposed to that bodily death which befel their Fathers after their eating the Manna in the Wilderness. I said that our title to the Resurrection of our Bodies was imme∣diately grounded on our partaking of his flesh. This is also our Saviours doctrine in this place.*He that eateth my flesh and drink∣eth my blood hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. And to this purpose he calls his flesh meat indeed and his blood drink indeed,* because it does perform the office of meat and drink to more effectual purpose than any worldly meat and drink does. The office of meat and drink is to preserve Life which the world∣ly meat and drink do only for a time, but these for ever. I said that this partaking of his flesh united us to him; And so says al∣so our Saviour himself, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood,*abides in me, and I in him. This mutual abiding in each other are the terms whereby this Apostle usually explains their being one Page  392 with each other, and that in the Person of our Saviour himself. And I have given them the glory which thou gavest me,*that they may be One as we are One, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in One. I said that by this participation of Bread we partake also of his flesh.* So also says our Saviour, The Bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the Life of the world. And it is very observable that when he speaks of the Bread which himself was to give, he still speaks in the future, which will make it much more likely that he should mean it of the Sacrament which he had not as yet instituted, than of his Do∣ctrine which he was delivering to them at that present.

[§ IV] BESIDES his giving them this Bread is plainly spoken of in this whole Chapter with allusion to the Manna given by Moses. For when our Saviour had told them that this was the work of God,*that they should believe on him whom he had sent, the Jews answer him again, What sign dost thou that we may see it and believe thee? What dost thou do? For thus it had been the custom of Pro∣phets,* to confirm their Mission by some extraordinary sign. So Mo∣ses had two signs given him to convince the Israelites that God had indeed appeared to him. So the Prophet who cryed against the Altar of Jeroboam,*gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken, Behold, the Altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out. So in the contests between Jeremiah and the false Prophets that were his rivals,* he confirms the truth of his own Mission, and the falshood of theirs, by predictions of judgments which should befall the false Prophets; and by the course prescribed for knowing a false Prophet by the e∣vents not answering his Prediction,* or however that he should not be believed though it should have proved answerable, if he endeavoured to seduce them to Idolatry; it plainly appears, both that signs were the usual means for distinguishing true Prophets from false ones, and that these signs were generally predictions, by which it will be easie to understand the reason of that which has puzzled so many Expositors, why the Jews, when they had seen so many miracles performed by our Saviour, should yet de∣mand a sign from him, because no miracles were counted signs, but such as were done purposely in proof of his Mission, and vouched by him for such before their performance, and which afterwards in the events punctually answered their Pre∣dictions.

[§ V] Page  393NOW the signs themselves alledged in proof of Moses's Mission was that of his foretelling the descent of the Manna,* which is called Bread from Heaven, and Bread which God had given them. And therefore our Saviour immediately lays hold on this very instance for proof of his own Mission, and ac∣cordingly promises that he also would give them Bread, and such Bread as had descended from Heaven as the Manna had done. But with this advantage,* that the Bread which he would give them de future (else it had not been a Prediction, and con∣sequently not a sign, at least not like that of Moses who fore∣told the descent of the Manna before it came to pass) should be his own flesh, which he would give for the life of the World.* And where can we find this Prediction so probably fulfilled as it is in the Eucharist, where there is also Bread given us which is called his Body, and that Body which was broken for us? And what reason is there so likely why this Apostle should speak so little of this Sacrament afterwards, in the place which had been so proper for it, at the time of its institution, as because he had discoursed so largely concerning it here?

[§ VI] I DARE not say that our Saviour did herein allude to the Is∣raelites murmuring after flesh, after they had their wills in the Manna. So they complained then:*And now our Soul is dry∣ed away: there is nothing at all besides this Manna before our eyes. So that our Saviours allusion might be that the Bread which he would give them should be by so much more sa∣tisfactory than Manna, by how much it should prevent their murmuring for flesh, which Manna did not, that is, that it should serve for flesh as well as Bread. I rather think that his design was to shew how it should come to pass that the Bread which he would give them should come by that advantage a∣bove Manna, that the Life maintained by it should be immor∣tal, not mortal only, as that was which was maintained by the Manna; that is, that by this Bread our Bodies should become his, and consequently that it should be as impossible that our Bodies should be detained by the chains of Death,* as St. Peter tells us that it was impossible that the Body of our Saviour could be so detained. And when he therefore calls this Bread the true Bread from Heaven in opposition to the Bread of Moses, I am apt to think that it was meant according to the usual mean∣ing of this Mystical way of arguing. It is sufficiently clear from Page  394Philo, that the Platonical Ideas were received by the Hellenisti∣cal Jews,* especially by those of them who were for expound∣ing the Scripture Mystically, and that these Ideas were by them, as well as the Platonists, placed in Heaven, and particularly in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that those Ideas were the only Truth, and that all other resemblances of them were only *〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 derived from them only as impressions from the Seal, and therefore were not the true things themselves, but only the appearances of them.

[§ VII] HENCE it came to be the design of the Primitive Chri∣stians in the great use they made of Mystical Judaism for their purpose, to shew that all the externals of the Law were only Ectypal resemblances of those original Archetypal Ideas which were reserved in Christ as being that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in whom the Pla∣tonists and the Mysticizing Jews themselves placed their Ideas, and that they were reserved with him in Heaven before his descent on earth. So the Priests of the Law are said to have served 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* to the example and shadow of heavenly things. Which is proved from that same place from whence Philo also proves these Heavenly Exemplars, and from whence Justin Martyr supposes Plato himself to have borrow∣ed them.*For see that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount. So the worldly Sanctuary (in opposition to the heavenly) which was only a figure for the time present. So the holy places made with hands are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the patterns of things in the Hea∣vens, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the figures of the true, to which are opposed the heavenly things and Heaven it self. So the Law is said to have had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,*a sha∣dow of good things to come, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not the very image of the things.* So in opposition to the earthly Tabernacle there is the heavenly, which is called the true Ta∣bernacle. And Christ, as he is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so, he is said to be the truth very frequently,* especially by St John, who of all the New Testament Writers seems to have been most punctually observant of this Mystical style; and whoever would know the Truth indeed must know it as it is in Jesus.*

Page  395 [§ VIII] THIS therefore being supposed, there will also be reason to suppose that Manna must also have been understood Mysti∣cally; and the rather so,* because the Psalmist calls it the Bread of Angels, who could not, according to the Hellenistical Hy∣pothesis of Philosophy then received, be supposed capable of partaking of material Bread. And accordingly our Saviour when he would prove himself to be no Spirit, he does it by eating:* and the Apostles, who were witnesses of his Resurrection, when they would urge their own Testimony more unexceptionably in that matter, this is the most convictive evidence on which they insist, that, even after his Resurrection, they had eaten and drunk with him,* a plain sign that they took it for a Principle granted them by those against whom they reasoned, that Spi∣rits could not eat and drink. And this is the reason why Philo, who takes up Mystical sences many times upon less con∣siderable exceptions against the Letter than this is, does grant a *Mystical Manna, and places it in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which comes ex∣actly home to our Saviours reasoning; and shews the prudence and cogency of it, at least as to this part of his Discourse, that he was the true Bread of which the Corporal Manna, which had been eaten by their Fathers in the Wilderness, was only a Type and resemblance. For supposing the Adversaries with whom he had then to deal to have been of Philo's mind (as plainly Philo, in most of his Allegories, does not pretend him∣self to be an inventer, but a deliverer of the Traditions of those who had studied Allegories; and whoever compares his not on∣ly with Clemens and Origen, who succeeded him in the School of Alexandria, and in the way of Allegorizing, but also with the Scripture it self, will find that they did not take that li∣berty that some may conceive, but kept constant to one way of Allegory, though, I confess, they sometimes give several Al∣legorical Expositions of the same Scriptures) I say, supposing that they granted that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the Archetypal Manna, he had nothing more to convince them of in order to the pro∣ving that he was the true Bread, but only that he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was to appear from those many Credentials which he afterwards produced of his being so.

Page  396 [§ IX] THIS was very apposite to our Saviours purpose, and might very probably have been part of his design; but I cannot think that it was the whole of it. For the benefit here spoken of is plainly corporal, and not such as could agree to the Angels, viz. the intitling their Bodies to a Resurrection unto bliss, as I have already observed. If it had been otherwise, the reason given by him, why this Bread should make their Bodies immortal, had been very improper. For what relation had flesh to the food of Angels? How could they receive nourishment from it, or be made immortal by it? Nay indeed what need was there of proving that the Archetypal Manna should make its recei∣vers immortal, seeing that, by the Hypothesis then received, all Archetypal •eings were supposed to be immortal? Or, if he would be pleased needlessly to put himself to that trouble, yet why should he make use of so unlikely an Argument for pro∣ving it? They know not of any flesh that was to be immortal. At least they were much better assured that all Archetypal Be∣ings were immortal than that any flesh was so. And therefore how could the immortality of his own flesh pass with them for an Argument of the immortality of this Archetypal Bread? I cannot therefore but think that the Bread here spoken of im∣mediately was material Bread and food for their Bodies, as Man∣na had been to their Fathers, and therefore the immortality and a Title to a Resurrection, could not be so confidently presumed to be an effect of it but that it would need proof. And for this the immortality of Christs Body, whose name was by him∣self given to the Eucharistical Bread, was indeed a most proper proof, and that which was accordingly taken up by the Chri∣stians themselves. Only I confess it was an Argument suppo∣sing the Truth of the Christian Religion, Mystery of the Kingdom, as our Saviour elsewhere speaks,* and therefore, according to the method then observed in Mysteries, unfit to be communi∣cated to Enemies, nay, even not to the Sons of the Kingdom themselves,* till they had first attained to a sufficient degree of Purity and maturity of judgment for understanding them, which was timely enough when he should afterwards institute this Sacrament. They might then remember that he had spoken to this purpose, and they would be better prepared to receive the harsh and unexpected unwelcom news of his Death with the less danger of being scandalized at it, when they received Page  397 it by degrees. And it is observable that, at this time, the principal part of his Authority were his own Disciples. For that was the event of this Mystical discourse,* that many of his Dis∣ciples went back, and walked no more with him: That we may not admire that he should on such an occasion make use of such Arguments as presupposed the Truth of the Christian Re∣ligion.

[§ X] BUT for understanding more fully the force of this reason∣ing even with Christians themselves, and the connexion it had with the Notions then received; it is further observable, that besides these Mystical Expositions of the Old Testament, which were then received by the Jews, concerning such things in the Christian Religion which they were capable of foreseeing by those Notions of the New Covenant, and the state of things under the Messias, which then prevailed even among them, there were also others → relating to the positive and arbitrary Revelations of the Gospel, of which they could have no distinct knowledg before those Revelations. For the great design of the Primitive Chri∣stians being to shew that their Religion was indeed no real in∣novation from Judaism, but only that Mystical state of it which was described in those writings which were received by the Jews themselves, and which was also allowed by them to have Mystical sences besides the Literal, and such Mystical sences as could not, in strict reasoning, be necessary Arguments of the Wri∣ters mind to a pertinacious Adversary, but might serve for prudent intimations for a mind prepared and willing to receive conviction, which is the disposition the Christians also do al∣ways require in a person qualified to judg of their Religion; they accordingly shew that even such things as these which might seem to have the least foundation in the Letter of the Law, were yet designed by it, according to this way of ex∣pounding it Mystically. Thus, as the land of Canaan was a type of Heaven, so they supposed that the changing of the name of him who was to bring them into Canaan from Oshea to Je∣sus was not done without very particular design. And indeed these Mysticizing Jews had already granted them that the change of names was indeed made generally with Mysterious designs.* And very many of their Allegories are grounded on those names, and the Criticisms of them. And this so exactly fitting the name of our Saviour, it is no wonder that it was produ∣ced Page  398 by the aPrimitive Christians as a proof that his very name was expressly foretold under that dispensation. Very many of the like instances might have been produced from the primi∣tive Writers concerning the particulars of our Saviours History which they thus shewed to have been thus prefigured in the Old Testament, though not expressly mentioned in it. Thus the veil over Moses's face proves that the Jews should not under∣stand the Gospel when it should be preached to them. And Ishmael's mocking Isaac proved that the Jews who were born after the flesh should persecute the Christians who were born after the Spirit. And the Israelites cloud prefigured the Christi∣an Baptism. So the Author to the Hebrews, who from the burn∣ing of the carcasses of the Sacrifices without the camp concludes that therefore our Saviour was also to suffer without the gate of Hi∣erusalem.*

[§ XI] NOR was this way of arguing so precarious as some may conceive, especially considering the times whereof I am now discoursing, as certainly they ought to be considered by him who would judg prudently and solidly in a matter of this na∣ture.*Clemens Alexandrinus has at large proved that this Mysti∣cal way of shadowing things by things and obscure intima∣tions of words, were generally allowed of by all the Religions and Mysteries and Philosophy then extant, and especially by the Eastern wisdom, as the most proper way for the Gods to con∣verse with men by. And there can be no greater ambiguity charged on this way than what is also common, not only to the Heathen Oracles, but even to the Symbolical representati∣ons which were in ordinary use among the Jewish Prophets themselves. Besides the reason of these concealments held here as well as in other Cases, that none but Persons not curious nor litigious, nor indisposed with worldly Passions and prejudices might understand them, but that ← others might fall into the snares which they justly deserved to fall into in regard of the mis∣demeanours they were guilty of which deserved Punishment, and the little diligence used by them to avoid it. This is the rea∣son our Saviour himself gives of his using Parables to the Mul∣titude. And indeed this way of Parables must needs be grant∣ed to be as uncertain to those who had them not particular∣ly expounded to them, as this way of Mystical reasoning. But particularly Historical matters had a reason why they should Page  399 not be too expressly and particularly foretold, both that the Prediction might not hinder the Persons concerned from enga∣ging on the event, and that after it was come to pass it might then be understood the rather to proceed from God, by how much it was the less foreseen by second Causes. And none doubt∣ed but that many Prophesies might be certainly understood when they were fulfilled, which were not understood before. Besides in general they had certain Arguments of Miracles and such extrinsick evidence to assure them that the state of Christianity was that state of Mystical Judaism so generally spoken of by the antient Prophets, besides the certainer accommodation of some of the clearest Predictions which might assure them of thus much, that this was the time when the less clear ones were to be fulfilled also. So that thus much being granted that all the Predictions of God whether by words or shadows were then to be fulfilled, it followed thence, that where the accommo∣dation between the Prediction and the event was clear, that was the very sence which God intended should come to pass.

[§ XII] HOWEVER it is certain that the Primitive Christians did actually use this way of reasoning, and that the multitude of such accommodations whereby it appeared that every thing which then befel the Novel Converts to Christianity was either predicted or prefigured in the Old Testament, was not only a ve∣ry great inducement with many of them to receive the Christi∣an Religion, but the only Apology they had to vindicate that Religion from the charge of innovation with which it was a∣spersed by the Jews: And particularly the Sacraments were of that consequence as indeed would need a particular proof. For if Mystical Judaism required no external Solemnities of wor∣ship, we must suppose them ready to enquire why these ex∣ternals were required. If by our Saviours Authority alone, then it would not look like a part of Mystical Judaism when no part of the Jewish Scriptures could be alledged in favour of it. But if Mystical Judaism did indeed require these Solem∣nities, then they would object against the abrogation of Cir∣cumcision and Sacrifices which had formerly been so expressly required by the Law, as an abrogation of Judaism, not as an introducing a more Spiritual Notion of it.

[§ XIII] In answer hereunto the Christians did both shew that literal Circumcision and Sacrifices had been disapproved in the Old Page  400 Testament it self, and that their own Rituals had been predi∣cted or prefigured as proper to that state of Mystical Judaism which they endeavoured to introduce. Particularly as to pre∣figuration, Baptism they supposed to have been prefigured in the cloud of the Israelites, in which they are said to have been bap∣tized into Moses, that is, were made Disciples unto Moses, as by Christs Baptism men are admitted to be Disciples to Christ,* and in the water of the deluge by which those who were in the Ark were saved,* to which our Baptism is expressly called an Antitype. And the rock which followed them, the Bread of Melchizedeck whom they took for a Type of Christ, and this Manna in the Wilderness were taken for prefigurations of the Eucharist, and these later two, even as to the Element of Bread, that even in that Christ might appear to have innovated no∣thing, but to have done that which God had long before de∣signed that it should be done by him. And considering how necessary these things were for that great design of the Apo∣stles, we have reason to look on them not barely as Arguments ad bomines, but as real Truths requisite for the satisfaction of the Christians themselves, as well as for the conviction of their Adversaries. And considering withal their close connection with this great design of the Apostles in their Controversies with the Jews, we have reason to suppose that these were the sence of the Apostles themselves, in whose times principally it was that these Controversies with the Jews were debated, and in whose times the ordinary Converts from Judaism were most likely to desire satisfaction in those particulars. Which will make these Mystical Expositions of the most antient Fathers much more considerable than they are commonly esteemed, if not for the solidity of the Expositions themselves, yet at least for the credit of the first conversion to Christianity, and of the Apostles, who, for the propagation of the Christian Religion, thought it so necessary to insist on these Expositions. And this prefiguration of the Eucharist by the Manna, being so necessa∣ry for the Apostles design to defend the institution of the Eu∣charist from the charge of innovation, and so early insisted on by the Primitive Christians, we have very just reason to suppose that it came from the Apostles, though we could not trace it in their writings. At least we have reason to believe that it was the meaning of our Saviour and the Apostle in this place, Page  401 where on other accounts it appears so likely to have been so.

[§ XIV] THIS therefore being thus supposed, it will plainly follow that by the Eucharistical Bread the Ideal Manna is communicated to us. And as all particular derivations from the Ideas can per∣form nothing but by vertue of the impressions which they are supposed to receive from the Ideas themselves, but it is im∣possible that any derivation can be as efficacious as the Origi∣nal; so it will be also, on the same Principles, ordinarily im∣possible that the want of this Ideal Manna thus communica∣ted to us by the Eucharist can be any other way supplyed. And as immortality, (that is, a happy immortality to which the Scripture does frequently appropriate the name of immortality,) does, on the same Hypothesis, only agree to these Ideal Proto∣types themselves, not to any resemblances derived from them; so this immortality of our Body, and our consequent Title to the Resurrection of our Body resulting from it, can only be ex∣pected from our participation of the Eucharistical Bread, if that be the only ordinary means appointed for our participation of this Archetypal Manna.

[§ XV] AND supposing that this whole Discourse of St. Joh. VI. has relation to the Eucharist at least, as it was to be instituted by him for the future, nothing can be more plain than that which I am at present concerned for, the great mischief men have ordinarily reason to fear when they are deprived of the Eucharist. So our Saviour tells them, Verily, verily,*I say un∣to you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And the flesh here spoken of was immediately before made the Bread, that Archetypal Manna which he was to give them, The Bread which I will give is my flesh.* Which two attributes of Bread and Flesh ascribed to the same thing are not so naturally capable of being ascribed to any thing else as they are to this Eucharistical Bread of which I am now speaking. God grant that our dissenting Brethren may be as sensible of the consequence of this Discourse as they are concerned in it.

[§ XVI] I AM very unwilling to lay any stress of the Principles of my present Discourse on any thing that might look like a Pa∣radox, especially in my expositions of the Scripture. But as I have already prevented this Exception by warning how suffi∣cient Page  402 the necessity of valid Baptism as an ordinary means for Sal∣vation is to my design;* so really I conceive the things here de∣livered of that very great importance for preventing and cor∣recting Popular errors in a Subject of this nature, and so ve∣ry necessary for assuring any of the sense of Mystical Scriptures, as that I could not be confident even of commonly-received Ex∣positions of Scripture, till I had examined them by this Me∣thod of enquiring into the nature of Mysteries, as they were then received, and the Peculiarities of speech that were used in them. As for the common way of explaining them (either by the Literal signification of the words where the absurdities fol∣lowing thereon are tolerable, and sometimes where they are not; or where the absurdities are so sensibly intolerable as to force them from a Literal Exposition, yet still not to consider them as terms of Art, but only to take the most obvious Me∣taphorical signification that may suit the design of the Context, whereas some peculiar Metaphorical signification is proper to them when they are considered as terms of Art) though the Propositions be true by which they express their Expositions, yet the means they use for deducing those Propositions from such Texts are so uncertain, as that I can by no means believe them true as Expositions; and therefore cannot assure my self of the Truth of such Propositions when their Truth depended on their being true Expositions of those places from whence they had been deduced. And therefore I conceived my self obliged to make use of the now-mentioned Method as well to assure my self of some Popular Truths, as for the conviction of popu∣lar mistakes. For certainly whoever would use the Popular way of expounding any Book whatsoever consisting of terms of Art without regard to the Art to which those terms belonged, could expect no other than frequent mistakes; nay, it would be a rare accident, if he ever hit on the true sence of the Author, and must rather be imputable to the luckiness of the event than any wise contrivance of his own design. But much more it must be so when the design of the Art it self is to use terms in significations as remote as may be from the commonly-received ones, purposely that none but worthy and industrious Persons might understand them. This was the case of Mysteries. And therefore certainly the surest account of such Mystical Scriptures is to be had by enquiring into the nature of the Mysteries then Page  403 received, and the peculiarity of style that was used in them, especially when withall the Subject spoken of was also Mysti∣cal, which is the Case of the Sacraments. However I do most heartily submit what I have written, that may look like a Pa∣radox, either on this or any other Subject, to the judgment, not only of my Superiors in the first place, but also of any other truly pious, judicious and candid Readers. And I am the ra∣ther timorous of being very positive in matters of this nature, because they▪ are many of them so now to the Age we live in.