CHAP. II. Of the Necessi•y to fit the word THIS with som• singular Bread and Cup.

OUR Lord, after his last Supper, treated Bread and Wine with such kindness, as at another time he did little Children: He took them up, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.

But with This great difference, that of Those he favor∣ed the Whole kind: Suffer (said he) [little children] to come to me. [Little children] indefinitely, i. e. Any little children whatsoever; and gave a Reason, comprehensive as the Precept, For of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Whereas Here, he preferreth not Bread and Wine in∣definitely, nor speaketh a word of their Fitness for the honor; recommendeth not either of them as Such, but as This; i. e. Not the whole Genus, nor any Other Species, but only This, i. e. This singularly Proper cup.

So great a difference in his Expression, must needs pro∣ceed from a suitable difference in his Intention.

In the Former case; his Words plainly declare his meaning, That as often as Any parents, or other friends, Page  19 desired to bring Any Children to him for his blessing, his Disciples should admit them, whoever they wer. And had he now meant as Universally of Bread and Wine, as then he did of Children; he Easily Might, and therefor Cer∣tainly would have declared such a parallel Intention, with a parallel Expression, saying, As often as you desire to set forth my death by a visibl representative, do it with Bread and Wine; for such viands ar proper to That end.

Thus I say he Might, and therefore Would have decla∣red his meaning, if he had meant no more; bicause Thus it would have be'n best understood. For (as reason re∣quired) it was his constant Practice to deliver his Practi∣cal precepts in the clearest stile, that the dullest apprehen∣sion of the most illiterate Fisherman, might understand his duty.

II. IN the Mysteries of the Kingdom indeed, especially such as might have temted his (yet) carnal followers to forsake him, he Hinted, and Intimated more than he thought fit to Express: and he gave his reason, I have ma∣ny things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. He therefore spake only so much as might serv to prepare them for that Spirit of truth, which as it brought all his Sayings to their Memories, and all his Institutions to their Under∣standings; so did it indue them with power from on high, to bear such truths, as were then too Big for their narrow Capacities, or too Heavy for their sensual Affections.

Now, this is a Practical Precept, Therefore Injoined, that it may be Performed; and for that reason oght so to be Expressed, that it may be clearly Understood, especially in such Necessary points as are to be Mesures of the Per∣formance.

Besides, as it is a Practical precept, so it is a Positive one too. And such (above all other) require the Ful∣lest and Clearest declaration of the Authors meaning:

For Precepts Moral, if they be less clearly delivered, Page  20 may receve further light from the candle of the Lord, which shines in every mans Reason.

But Precepts Positive, having no other Mesur, but the mere Will of the Law-maker, can have no other Inter∣preter but his Words, which therefor need be as Clear, as his intentions to be obeyed can be Real.

Which in This case we cannot doubt them to be, since it is appropriate to his own Personal honor, and favored with many expressions of his esteem.

If ever therefore we must mesure our Lords Mind by his Words, it must be Now: and Consequently, Now must we most carefully examin the Proper sense of Every word, by such tests as are owned by all mankind.

III. AND among his Words this Particle [THIS] as it hath the first Place, so hath it a principal Impor∣tance. Our Lord made it the head stone of the corner, thogh the bilders have rejected it, and made it a stone of stum∣bling.

For what S^t James said of the Toung, may be applied to THIS Particle. It is very litle in Bulk, but very great in Power: and that Power it exerciseth in the same Man∣ner too.

The Bridle determins the motion of the otherwise wan∣dring Horse; and the Helm, That of the otherwise flot∣ing Ship; and THIS, the otherwise Undermined object.

If we go on with S^t James, and complain of it's setting on fire the course of nature, the unhappy sentence may ap∣pear more gilty than Any: But our THIS is so far from the Incendiary, that had not it's help be'n refused, it wold either have Prevented or Quenched the flames.

For had the Doctors imploy'd some of That care in duly Stateing the power of the word [THIS] which they have worse than lost upon Exalting that of the word BODY; the Cup of blessing could never have spent (as it hath do'n) more blood of Christians than of the Grape.

But those who resolved to Deify the word BODY, must Sacrifice to it our word THIS: That they might destroy the principles of Natural Philosophy, they must begin with those of Grammar and Logick, which concur to re∣quire our Special regard to the neglected Particle.

IV. GRAMMAR tells us, that it is a Pronoun Ad∣jective and Demonstrative. As an Adjective, it cannot stand without a Substantive: and as a Demonstrative, it must have a proper Object to point at.

And Logik saith the Same, if we look upon it as a Simple word; and More, if we look upon it as part of a Proposition.

If we look upon it as a Single word, Logik calleth it Syn∣categorical, which is another expression of the same office which Grammar ascribeth to it. It so points at some Singu∣lar object, as to change the Vagum into Determinatum, and put as much difference between This Cup, and Any cup, as there is between Hic homo and Quidam; which is no less than what the Proper name can add to the Common nature. For if Peter be pointed at, and called This man, he is thereby as much distinguished from all other men, as if he were named.

Obj. If it be thought sufficient that there is a difference be∣tween THIS and other bread, as soon as it is prepared for Consecration.

Ans. I answer, We ar not yet com'n so far. We are not now enquiring into the Consequence of the Action, but into the Meaning of the Institution; which was the Caus, of the (then futur) Action,

We know it to be no Common Bread, when it is Sepa∣rate (or about to be so) from Common use: but we wold also know whether it wer not distinguished from Common bread, before the Institution required us so to Separate it: whether it had not some Praevios fitness above Any other Bread, which might prefer it before All orher, to the Of∣fice Page  22 wherewith our Lord honored it, in consideration of That singular Praevios fitness.

Now since our Lord pointed to it by the Demonstrative THIS, before ever he had Consecrated it, and thereby de∣clared it Singularly capable of the Office; either it must have some Praevious singularity, or the Demonstrative must be vain, as having Nothing to demonstrate.

FOR Words are but Images of Thoghts: and as That Thoght must be vain which hath no Thing to answer it, so must That Word be, that is not answered by a Thoght: the One and the Other must be verified by some Idea.

But of All words, the necessity lieth heaviest upon THIS. Others must Signifie some proper object: This doth not only Signifie, but Point to it, and must be not only Vain, but Abusive, if professing to shew somthing, it have nothing to shew. This Priest must of necessity have somthing to offer.

I here challenge Any one to shew me, in Any Author whatsoever, any one example wherein This Demonstrative createth the first Difference, without any Praevios disposi∣tion in the Object so to be pointed at: And 'till That can be do'n, we may very well receve our Lords word in the same Sense, since it carrieth the same Sound, as it doth in Moses's stile.

This (said he of the Blood of sprinkling) THIS is the blood of the Covenant: That Blood receved not All its pro∣prieties from what Moses said or did: But it First differed from All other blood, by its Proper circumstances of offer∣ing; and Moses finding it so Predisposed, honored it with a singular Demonstrative and Dignity.

Our Lords stile is the very same, and plainly alludeth to the same form of Consecration: This cup (said he) is the New Covenant, and therefore This blood of the New Co∣venant; must (as well as that of the Old) have some Prae∣vios singularities preceding the Proposition, and Fitting it Page  23 for the honor whereto, merely by reason of That fitness it was so preferred above All other.

As we know what Honor it receved from the Instituti∣on, so we must enquire what was the Singular fitness it broght to it: We are not yet com'n to the word of com∣mand, DO THIS, where the Demonstrative following the Action, may derive a singularity from it: but we are yet in the porch, in the Declaration, [THIS is] &c. and de∣sire to learn what THIS can signify, before any other word be spoken, which may change it to some other state, than what belonged to it before.

V. HITHERTO we have looked upon it in its Sin∣gle capacity. Logik further considereth it as a Part, and the principal Part too, of a Proposition. It is no less than the Subject, considerable Always as the Founda∣tion whereon the Praedicate is to be bilt; and Oftentimes as the Standard whereby its meaning is to be mesured.

For the sense of the Praedicate must ever be fitted to the capacity of the Subject: and if the ordinary signification appear too big or too little, the Inrerpreter must imitate the Prophet, who applied his Own Eyes, Hands and Mouth, to the Childs; wherein he must derive his mesures from the Speakers mind, somtimes discoverable by common Reason, and somtimes by the Speakers annexed Expositi∣on. E. G.

Jacob categorically affirmeth of several of his Sons, that they are Beasts of several kinds: and immediatly limiteth the extravagant Expression to some determinate Resem∣blance.

Juda is a Lions whelp] (Not in all respects, but this) From the prey my son thou art not go'n up.

Issachar is a strong Ass.] (What in the whole form? No, but in This) couching down between two burthens.

Dan shall be a Serpent in the way] (Not in All, but this One respect) He biteth the horse heels.

Our Lords stile is the same, at other times as well as now. And we may as reasonably say, Our Lord was not a Man, but a Plant, because he said [I am the Vine] thogh he interpreted himself by adding [In Me ye bring forth fruit] Yea, not so much as a Living plant, because he said [I am the door] thogh he immediatly added [by me if any enter in, he shall be saved] As we may, that this is not Bread, because he said [This is my body] when he imme∣diatly glossed upon the word, by adding [Do This in re∣membrance of me.]

But on the contrary, we are as much obliged to mesure This Proposition by the annexed Limitation, as either of the Other; and so to confess, that This is no more our Lords Body, than himself was a Door, or Issachar an Ass.

Now if it be true, that the Praedicate must be thus ac∣commodated to the Subject; then, the less capable the Subject is, the less must we giv it of the Praedicate. If therefor Bread [as such] cannot be understood to be our Lords body; Then perhaps [as THIS] it may carry such diminishing characters, as may write it less capable.

For This reason, it is probable that former Ages have be'n industriously silent concerning it, and for This reason is the enquiry necessary.

Thogh This be a quite different question, yet it is not unserviceable, even toward our understanding the Other. It is one question, which asketh what Jacob meant by the word Ass? when he put it upon Issachar: and another to ask, which of his sons it was whom he so stiled? So it is one thing to enquire what our Lord meant by the word [Body] when he said of the Bread, This is my body: and another, to enquire what extraordinary Bread that was which he preferred to that dignity.

THE Eunuchs first question was Not concerning the Things to be suffered, but the Person that was to undergo Page  25 them: He asked not what was meant by being led like a lamb to the slaughter, his judgment taken away in his humili∣ation, or the obscurity of his generation; But of whom speak∣eth the Prophet this? And the same must be our method if we will understand our Lords Institution. Before we en∣quire what he meant by calling the bread his Body, we must ask of what bread speaketh the Lord this?

We may probably better understand [Into What] our Lord changed it, if we first know [From What.] Many Therefore understand not What they say, because they know not Whereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 1.7. Many wold not have Spoken, Others would not have Believed, what All confess they cannot Understand, in the Praedicate of this unhappy Proposition, if they had first understood its true Subject as they ought to have do'n.

1. That our Lord spake only of that individual Bread and That individual Cup which he then distributed, so as to make Those Individuals the adaequate Subject, as well of his permanent Institution, as of That One Distribution, cannot be imagined; since Those Individuals must perish in the useing, but for ever live in such successors, as may be the Same in the General Nature of Bread and Wine, and in the Special circumstances wherewith those were ac∣companied, even before their preferment.

2. That he spake of the Whole kind, Any Bread and Any Cup, we may not believe, both because of the now mentioned difference of stile in This text, and That con∣cerning Children: and because such a sense would oblige us to Consecrate All bread and All wine, seeing the De∣monstrative would have pointed to All alike. This sense is as much too Wide as the former was too Narrow: yet some will have a yet Wider. For

4. They conceve that our Lord was so far from pointing to any determinate Bread, that he did not to any determi∣nate Thing. But the Hoc must be taken Indeterminately, Page  26 Hoc, i. e. Hoc aliquid, This Somthing. That they may destroy the nature of Bread, they begin with that of the Pronown.

For whereas the Proper office of This Pronown, is to make the Object More determinate, by singling One out of Many, contracting the General to a Special or Particu∣lar; This sense will make it Less Determinate and More General: 'twill be so far from distinguishing This bread from Other bread, that it will take away the Specifical dif∣ference, whereby it is distinguished from an Egg, a Stone, or a Scorpion, &c. Which is so contrary to the nature of a Demonstrative, as Black is from White; whereof One is said to Congregate, the Other to Segregate.

And the Constant Practice of All mankind contradicts it. For whoever sheweth any thing to another, and stileth it [This] Doth not pretend to disable him from judging what it is in its kind, but to difference it from Others of the same kind; doth not pretend to Contradict his sense, but to Direct it.

If Caius shew Titus a Guinny, and say [This you shall have, if &c.] he wold do him injustice if he gave him a Shilling instead of it, pretending he meant not by the word THIS any determinate coin; nor would Any arbi∣trator judge, but he must pay what the constant import of the Phrase called for, i. e. what to sense the piece appeared to be worth, which Cajus pointed to by the word THIS.

The case is the same on both sides; as it must not signi∣fy Less, so must it not More; but just the same as the sense to which it is shewen takes it for: If Therefore to All senses it appear Bread, the Demonstrative will not make it Any thing else: it will leave it its Proper Nature of Bread, and Add to That Nature some Enclosure from the Common, to exclude All Other but THIS only.

4. That our Lord pointed Not at the Elements, but the Action, is the concept of a greater than Bellarmine, of our Church; which he bildeth upon the Gramma∣tical Page  27 disagreement of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But it is contradicted by the Other Element; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth more necessarily require that the Demon∣stration should be applyed to the Cup, than the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can forbid it to be applyed to the Bread: And the two Elements being joined in the same interests, often help one another in the interpretation of what is not equally expressed, but must equally be implyed, as equally belong∣ing to Both.

Nor can we abstract the Action from the Subject, but must take the whole complex together: This Action, Thus performed, with THIS Bread and THIS Cup. For our Lord first Declared what THIS IS, before He Commanded us to DO THIS.

We cannot therefore perform the Action, until we know what is the Necessary Mater: because the Action is confi∣ned to THIS bread, and the Common nature of bread is determined to THIS only, with exclusion of All Other, and That before the Action hath passed upon it.

I have (I doubt) tired my good Reader with this dry kind of reasoning: I come now to another kind of evi∣dence, probably more Satisfactory, certainly less Trou∣blesom.

If I can shew som special Bread and Cup, that shall ex∣actly fit both our Lords Institution, and the Apostl's Com∣ment thereupon; This probably may be more persuasive than Any Logical Demonstration whatsoever, that there Must be such an One, let us therefor try if such can be found.