Page  70

CHAP. II. Concerning the Clause [AS OFTEN AS.]

HOW unhappy our Lords Supper hath be'n in All the means he used to indear it, we have alrea∣dy noted. He chose the Last night, because the words of dying friends most forcibly affect the survivors: and the horrors of the Tragical time dashed it out of the Apostl's thoghts. He then made a contrary opportunity, and by a Supper purposely contrived, evidenced his care of This memorial of his Death, equal to that of evidencing his Resurrection: And then, Joy and Wonder hindred them more from heeding This, than from believing That: Nor did Any other means prevail, till the Holy Ghost broght it to their understandings.

But their Disciples had not the same mesur of This Spi∣rit. The Corinthians either mistook or soon forgot; and St. Paul found it highly necessary not only to Remind them of their duty, but further to Explain it.

And This very Explication suffers as much from the mi∣stakes of Interpreters, as did the Holy Supper it self, from the profaneness of the Corinthians.

For St. Paul did no more intend to discorage our Obe∣dience to our Lords Command, than did our Lord himself, to encourage Their profaneness in the Performance.

Page  71

Yet in his Own words do we take refuge from his Re∣proofs, as if he had taught us to place All our safety from Unworthiness, in keeping distance from Obedience.

That we should run from One extreme to a Contrary, thogh it be a great Error, is no great Wonder: thogh no∣thing be more Condemned, yet nothing is more frequent∣ly practised.

But that Those very words, whereby he indeavored to Prevent the Error, should be made to Serv it; That he should use his utmost care to prove Constancy indispensibl, and we should take his words for a Dispensation from it: is the Singular unhappiness of This Only clause, perverted thereby to an utter Defaisance of our Lords Command, and an utter Defait of his Own Design.

We shall therefor indevor to restore the Words to their due power.

First, by shewing what must needs be their true mean∣ang: And Secundly, by exposing the Absurdities of That, which is vulgarly imposed upon them.

II. FIRST, we are to enquire into the true sense of this Clause [As often as.] And to this end we need not look back upon what we have seen in the word [THIS] For, This Claus no less peremtorily requireth a certain Standard, than That Demonstrative doth a certain Object: And the Apostle plainly joineth them together in the same power, as the dubl hinge whereon his whole Argument turneth.

These doth he jointly resume as the sum of our Lords institution; These doth he fasten as a nail in a sure place, and upon These doth he hang that chain of Consequences, whereby he convinceth his Corinthians of their crime, and discovereth the Need and Way to avoid it.

Let us first vieu the import of the Words, and Then his care concerning them.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is plainly Relative: it imports Equality in Page  72 point of Frequency, and requireth that the new Relative should conform it self to the mesur of a Former Cor∣relate.

Now it is plain, that whoever is obliged to make One thing Equal to Another, must certainly know the mesur of That Other, which he is to conform to. No Town can shew a Standard made of Air or Water, but of Wood or Me∣tal, whose firm substance having a stable bigness of its own, may certainly determin the Quantity of what is to be me∣sured by it.

The Apostl is very careful to prove and inculcate, that [Eating THIS bread and drinking THIS cup] is the stable Standard whereby we must mesure our Frequency in the Lords Supper: It must therefor be necessary, that it self must have its Determined Frequency, fixed by som prae∣vios Law or Custom certainly foreknown, and thereby ca∣pable to give mesures to any Other performance.

If therefor [THIS bread and THIS cup] be (as I hope I have proved) a Singular bread and cup, used at Certain Determinate times, then have we the Standard whereby we must mesure our Frequency in the Lords Supper: And again, if we are obliged to do This [As often as] That; then must we understand how often we must Do That. So the Relation is perfect and reciprocal. Our obligation to celebrate the Lords Supper [As often as we Eat THIS, &c.] supposeth it certain [how often] we eat it: And the Cer∣tainty of difference between THIS and Other bread and wine, determineth how often we are to use Them in the Lords Supper.

Thus will our Lords mind in This Institution, be as plain as in Any other Practical Precept; The Apostles Argument as convincing as Any in All his Epistles; And our Lord's stile, conformable to that of All mankind, and that which himself frequently used, when most desiros to be understood by the meanest.

When th u fastest (saith he) anoint thy head and wash thy Page  73 face: when thou givest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth: When ye Pray, say Our Fasher, &c. Had these exercises no other Foundation, but the pre∣cariosly supposed Will of the performer; and That too, undrawn by any preceding motive: Had they never before be'n heard of in the World (as is supposed of This bread and This cup) what would such a groundless Precept have signified? Who wold thereby have be'n induced to under∣go the penance of Fasting, the cost of Alms-doing, or the labor of Prayer? Or what Obligation had there be'n broken by the neglect?

Whereas now, that these Precepts did not Create New performances, but Reform Old ones; since, before our Lord had opened his lips concerning them, his Disciples very well knew how frequently Those exercises were per∣formed, it must be needless to tell them what they knew already; but he must be supposed to imply it in what he bilt upon it.

And if we may paraphrase his words, we may thus do it: You often Fast, and give Alms, and Pray, and ye do well in it: I give you no new command concerning the Substance or Quantity of those good exercises; go on to do as much as you have formerly do'n; but I caution you concerning the Manner, that as often as you do them, you do them sincerely without any misture of Hypocrisie.

The language is the very same here, and so ar all mate∣rials; A practice presupposed, and left to its former me∣sures, a new Precept concerning a change of manner, and This mesured in point of frequency by the foreknown Standard: Our Lord's and the Apostl's meanings, as clear at That time, as the supposed practice (they both refer to) was common. I say [At That time] and insist upon it, as necessary both for Justification of the Scriptur, and Sa∣tisfaction of our Own Consciences, that we must re∣deem That time, that therewith we may retrive the Only proper light, whereby we may discover both Page  74 our Lord's and Apostl's meaning.

And thogh we might now supersede any further proof, since our Lord himself may be pleaded the best Interpreter of his own Language, frequently used upon like occasions; yet because another and more acceptabl sens (shall I call it) hath gotten possession of Most, if not of All minds: I shall further observ,

• 1. With what care the Apostle Recordeth these words.
• 2. With what partiality he applieth them to the cup, and with what suitable partiality he honoreth the cup for their sake.
• 3. With what care he righteth the bread, by giving it equal power with the cup in his own deductions.

III. 1. IT is very observable with what care the Apostle Recordeth this clause. None of the Evangelists mention it, and it is probable our Lord used it not in his Institution; and therefor the Apostle is careful so to Insert it, as withal to Authorise it, saying expresly, That he re∣ceved it of the Lord. This is very considerable, and there∣for we shall observ,

1. This Apostle was our Lords Disciple, after another rate than were the rest: He enjoyed not (as They did) an intimate conversation with him upon Earth, but was a∣bundantly recompensed with Revelations from Heaven.

St. Luke (indeed) is very sparing (as became an abridger) in recording such Revelations: he mentions only That which converted him, and a very few others, relating to som of his journies: Yet in recital of his speech to King Agrippa, he plainly intimateth a larger discourse even in That First Vision, than himself had expressed; and parti∣cularly, that our Lord promised to make That an earnest of More, and Those more instructive: I have (said he) appeared unto thee for This purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of Those things wherein I will appear unto thee.

Page  75

Which After-appearances were Such and so Many, that he declareth himself in danger of being puffed up by them.

2. What he declareth himself to have receved of the Lord, must needs be This considerabl 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

All the rest were openly delivered at the Institution, to the whole College of Apostles; from Them he might have receved them, and to their Testimony he might have ap∣peled, if his truth had be'n questioned.

But concerning These important words, they must All have joined their testimony Against him, if the Evange∣lists did not join in a strange omission, neglecting to report such a considerable clause.

As therefor our Lord by a very intelligible Ellipsis, left these words unspoken, because needless at the time of his Institution; so doth the Apostle now by another Ellipsis, omit the distinction which we are supposed to understand, between This clause which he inserted, as receved of the Lord by a posthum explication, and the rest, which All the other Apostles receved without it, at his Last Sup∣per.

3. These words alone he immediatly resumeth, and in∣forceth as his principal Evidence, for all his deductions thence inferred.

Since this is the Basis of All, it oght to be firmly setled, and he needed our Lords authority for This only.

4. This Authority evidenceth not Only the Truth, but the Importance of what was thus delivered.

These words of deference [What I have receved] are ne∣ver paid but to Truths of the first rate.

In the fundamental Article of the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15.1, &c. when he had honored it with the most illustrios titles, The Gospel, That whereby we are to be saved, &c. he addeth This also: I have delivered (saith he) [that which I also receved] but expresseth not from whom; since the cloud of witnesses was apparent.

Page  76

When he would confirm the truth of the whole Gospel, and exalt its dignity to the highest, he speaketh in the pre∣sent stile, Gal. 1.11. I receved it not of man, neither was I taught it, but by Revelation of Jesus Christ.

And since the Stile is the same, the Consequence must be the same, Here as There: If I, or an Angel from Hea∣ven, teach any other doctrin than what you have received, let him be accursed.

When our Lord himself hath so reveled his mind, All the inhabitants of Earth and Heaven should they combine, are nether to be believed against the Revelation, nor obey∣ed against the Command.

And to what purpose such a Revelation, and such a Vouching? If These words do not Streighten the obliga∣tion, they will be but Impertinent; if they Slacken it, they will be Worse. They can no other way answer the Care bestowed upon them, but by inforcing constancy in the performance.

IV. 2. MY next Observation is, the Partiality where∣with the Apostle treateth the Cup, which alone is honored with these considerable words. Somthing of This Partiality we have already observed in his Argu∣ment against the Cup of Devils, which added to what we are now considering, will duble the weight.

Describing the Institution, he giveth the Bread its due Place, but as cold a Treat as possible. Affordeth it not so much as the common articl, but without welt or gard, speaketh in the slightest manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and descri∣beth our Lord as equally slighting it, not stiling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but Indefinitely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: much less giving it the power to mesur the performance.

But coming to the Cup, ver. 25. He useth it with much more deference himself, and reporteth our Lord to have used the same Partiality. He saith (indeed) that our Lord took the Cup 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But the Equality must relate to Page  77 the Tradition which it equally honored, not to the Cir∣cumstances wherewith it self was honored, not in Like, but in Higher manner.

1. He expresseth the exact Season [After Supper] and This in exact conformity to the Jewish stile, which useth to fix a character of emphasis upon the Cup After Supper: As we find most properly to our purpose, Berach. cap. 7. ver. 6. Wine is broght to them in the midl of the meal, they bless severally every one by himself: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For That After meal, one blesseth for them all. Where that prefix ל payeth deference the Wine After Supper as to Wine of note. But this is not payed to Bread, because none but the Paschal Cake was distributed After Supper; and had our Apostle spoken of That in the same stile, he had intimated that which he endeavoreth to confute, viz. that our Lords Supper was successor to the Passover.

2. He honoreth it with an emphatical Article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. Then he describeth our Lords partiality, who did not speak of it as of the Bread, with a simpl 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but more emphatically, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

4. Nor Indefinitely [This is my blood;] as of the Bread [This is my body] but with an Explication, fixing his mean∣ing [This is the New Testament in my blood.]

5. And above All; the important 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is industriosly put upon the Cup, and denied to the Bread.

Let us now reflect.

He First reciteth the consecration of the Bread: and he could no otherwise: matter of fact obliged him to it, as appeareth by the uniform testimony of all the Evange∣lists which spake any thing of it. Yet he prefaceth the consecration of the Cup with the note of conformity [In like manner also.]

In which form of speaking, it is Not unusual to omit in reciting the later, what had be'n expressed in the former; the very phrase excusing, because manifesting the Ellipsis, Page  78 used merely to avoid the tediosness of repetition.

But it is contrary both to Reason and Practice, that any thing should be omitted in the Former, and understood in the Later; and therein expressed by such a conforming Phrase, when This cannot find in That any likeness.

What the Reason of this strange method is, we shall the better discover, if we observ Another care which seemeth to cross This.

He is very punctual in reciting the difference of Time, between the consecration of the One and the Other. Our Lord took the Bread [when he had given thanks] and the Cup [when he had supped.]

His Argument wold have go'n more Smoothly, thogh not so Strongly, if in the common way of speaking he had made the later every way like the former. But how could he avoid this cross?

Should he give the Cup the precedence? he must then misreport matter of Fact.

Should he then apply these mesuring words to the Bread, that he might speak of the Cup in like manner also? He must then have confounded his Own argument: For the mesuring clause must have signified either too much or too little: too little, if this should point at the Paschal Bread; too much, if to the Ordinary.

For since, of All Fests, the Passover was most prefigu∣rative of our Lords Death, and he delivered rhe Bread with such a form of words, as manifestly alluded to the Paschal cake; if to such peculiar suitableness with That Season, and That Form, he had added These words also; Would not the Demonstrative have pointed to the Bread, as Paschal? and consequently, would not these words have required us to mesure our performance of the Lords Com∣mand, by that of God to Moses? And would not this have cleared the Corinthians from any profanation of his Supper, except only in the Easter Communion?

But if these words had be'n applied to the Bread, as Page  79 blessed Before Supper, then must they have signified too much: For they would have comprehended, not only every Fest, but every Private meal. They would not be a Ru∣brike for Publik worship in the Church, but Advice for Private manners at home, they would neither require Fest nor Communion, nor distinguish the Church of God from the meanest Parlor.

Possibly to Prevent, certainly to Remove both sides of mistake, and to convince the Corinthians of their obliga∣tion, to close neither All their Private, nor Only their Paschal, but All and Only their Festival Suppers with our Lords: he So describeth the Institution, that it appeareth probable, that our Lord distributed the Bread at the Be∣ginning, and more so, that he did it before the End of Sup∣per; but manifest, that the Cup he delivered at its proper time: And since the Cup was the Adaequate character of a Fest, to the Cup only must the power be given, which these words import.

Let Any one giv Any other tolerabl account why the Apostl should thus deprive the First-born of the Blessing which naturally belongs to it, and I must confess my self to have lost a great evidence of the Relation between our Lords Institution, and the Tradition whence I endevor to prove it derived.

There are too many who have need to consider another honor to which our Lord preferred the Cup above the Bread. He said not, Eat ye [All] but said, Drink ye [All] of this: Whether This difference wer occasioned by Judas's Presence when That was distributed, and his Absence when this was so, is not so plain as it is, that it falleth very cross to the Laws of That In∣fallible Church, which denying the people the Cup; takes away the better half of our Lords Supper, and the Whole of the Apostl's Argument, which cannot out-live this lose, but would not have be'n wounded so mortally by That of the Bread.

Page  80V. 3. MY last remark is, that in the Deductions which which himself draweth from our Lords purposly recited Institution, he payeth to the Bread joint honor with the Cup, which he had denied it for no other reason, but only for its unserviceableness to his Argument.

Those Deductions ar ushered with ver. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shew forth the Lords death till he com.

1. Here we see he applieth These relative words to Both elements, whereas in recital of our Lords Institution, he had not at all applied them to the Bread: And this, contrary to that know'n rule, which forbids the Conclusion to in∣fer more than was conteined in the Premises.

Hereof what other account can there be given, or what better desired, than the Tradition offereth? In the for∣mer verse he was to state our Lords mind reveled to him∣self, concerning Frequency: And thereof the Cup was the only Standard, because That alone distinguished Festival Suppers from Common: But in This he is to describe the Supper it self, wherein the Bread hath right, not only to be joined with it, but to be preferred before it.

Had he now excluded the Bread, he must have intima∣ted concerning It, what som, without any such color, de∣clare concerning the Cup; that it were needless, bicause the Supper were complete without it: But by this care, he preventeth any such concept.

2. He addeth another Claus, not mentioned in the In∣stitution ['till he com] thereby either to obviate an evasion in point of Duration, if possibly the Corinthians might pretend to shift from his reproofs, by supposing the Obli∣gation worn out; or to strengthen the command, by shew∣ing how great esteem our Lord had for it, as extending it to all times future as well as present.

3. But the most remarkable is this, that the Imperative is changed to the Indicative: A change so Considerable, and otherwise so unaccountable, that our glorios Dr. Ham∣mond Page  81 thinketh it not to be made. The Greek is indifferent to both; but in the Imperative there appeared a grain of sense, and none at all in the Indicative.

For if in the Subject of the Indicative proposition, we see no other difference between. This Bread and Cup, and and any Other Bread and Cup, but what our own actual Consecration hath advanced it to; if this stile be only a Periphrase of the Lords Supper, differing therefrom only in Syllables, then will the Proposition tell us no news at all: Every child will without its help understand, that as often as we eat. This bread and drink This cup (upon no o∣ther reason but this, that we may thereby shew forth our Lords death) we shew forth our Lords death. And that the Apostl should so carefully bring a candl to shew us the Sun, seemed no way probable to our learned Doctor.

But if the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be read Imperatively, not [ye do] but [do ye] then may there be so much of reason in the Pre∣cept, as there is of possibility to do otherwise. For look how much danger there is, that we may do this without shewing forth our Lords death, just so much need there is of Caution, and just so much reason will there be in the Command, which hath no other use but to prevent such danger: whereas in the Indicative, as there can be no pos∣sibility of error (since the very naming of the Subject makes the Praedicate self-evident) so can there be no rea∣son for the Proposition.

Yet all this while, if there be Any at all, there can be •ut a very small difference: for the Performance contain∣eth the End, almost as necessarily as the Subject doth the Praedicate: it is almost as hard to do this without shewing forth our Lords death, as it is to doubt whether we oght to do it or no: And all that can be gotten by the change is this, that upon supposition of the Reverence which every one will certainly pay our Lords Person; the command en∣joining an action in remembrance of our Lords death, will by consequence mind them of doing it with such Intenti∣ons.

Page  82

But be the gain litle or great, we must quit it: because the word FOR which ushereth the declaration, necessarily requireth the Indicative mode.

Had it be'n an Illative [wherefor or therefor] the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had be'n indifferent to the other mode. [Therefor do ye] had be'n all as proper as [Therefor ye do.] But the Causal FOR will by no means indure any other than an In∣dicative: Its proper office is to confirm our Belief, or in∣struct our Understanding, not to command our Will: No Author ever speaks so, nor will our Ears indure such an in∣congruos sound: so that our excellent Doctor must lose on one hand, whatever he may seem to gain on the other, and he will reap but small thank from the Apostle, by deli∣vering him from a supposed Solaecism in Logik, and casting him upon a real one in Grammar.

I say it is but a supposed Solaecism in Logik, and That sup∣position is grounded upon our inadvertency. For grant once that our Demonstrative [This,] and our Relative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 point to some praeviosly singular Bread and Cup; and im∣mediatly we discover a sens so far from trifleing, that pro∣bably it will appear too severe, certainly most worthy of so great an Apostle, most serviceable to his Argument, and most worthy our utmost consideration. For thus will it con∣vince the Corinthians.

It is in vain for you to pretend that you do not celebrate the Lords Supper in Those your intemperate meetings: FOR I have so recited our Lords Institation, that you may plainly perceve it to be his meaning, that as often as you drink This cup, which he Then consecrated, and which is the same with that wherewith you close All your Church Fests, you must do it in remembrance of Him.

FOR he hath not left it in your power to make his Sup∣per Concerned or Unconcerned (by celebrating it as often or as seldom as you please) in such meetings; yea; or to choose which way you will be guilty, whether of Diso∣bedience Page  83 to his Command, by Omitting the duty; or of Contemt to his Person, by Doing it unworthily: FOR he hath inlayed it upon All such Fests so inseparably, that thogh you would, you cannot take Any of them with∣out it.

FOR YOU DO, whether you intend it or no, whe∣ther you will or no, notwithstanding any contrary Intenti∣on, You Do, you cannot but Do, what he hath thus made not only Unlawful, but utterly Impossible for you to Omit.

It is not only a Command, obliging you; but an Insti∣tution, necessitating you; and you cannot avoid the Actu∣al doing it, if you avoid not All Church Fests.

FOR as often as ye eat This bread, you eat That whereof our Lord said, This is my body: and as often as you drink This cup, you drink That whereof he said, This is my blood. And taking this for the sens of the 26^th vers, the necessity of the 27^th, and all that follow, immediatly appears; For if they be so Much; and so Unavoidably concerned; then, whoever eateth This bread and drinketh This cup un∣worthily, must needs be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, who hath so made Those the representatives of These, that whether we receve them or no, will make no difference in his imputation, because the Relation depend∣eth not upon Our admittance of them for such, but upon His own Commission, constituting them for such.

So that in the recess, by intending to Omit the Lords Supper, you make your selves guilty of breaking his Com∣mand which obligeth you to Do it, without escaping the other guilt of Unworthiness, since his Institution hath made his body and blood concerned in all the abuses you put upon This bread and This cup.

SINCE therefor this 26^th vers cannot be Imperative, because Grammar requireth the Indicative mode always to follow the causal FOR: And since it cannot be Indicative, Page  84 if [This bread and This cup] in the whole comprehension sig∣nifie nether more nor less, than [the Lords Supper] because then, in their formal concept, they will necessarily import setting forth his death; and Logik requireth that the Prae∣dicate in every Proposition, should bring somthing of news concerning the Subject;

But if we fit the Demonstrative [This] with its neces∣sary Object, and the Relative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with its necessary Me∣sure, then will the Proposition carry Weight enough to lay it as a foundation for all the Deductions which the Apostl bildeth upon it, and Light enough to shew the use of eve∣ry syllabl in his Argument, and Force enogh to convict the Corinthians beyond all possibility of reply;

To doubt now whether we will accept so Serviceable, yea so necessary an Hypothesis, is no other than to put our selvs into a very hard streight: For we shall be obliged either to accuse the Apostl of transgressing the plain rules of Grammar and Logik, yea, and of Justice too, in charging the Corinthians with the greatest Crime, without suffici∣ent evidence; or else to produce som Other Hypothesis of our own, which shall be at least equally serviceabl, towards clearing his discours from such great defects.

And while the adversary deliberates upon so hard a choice, I proceed to examin that Other Sens (shall I call it) which alloweth our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 No ground to Build, or so much as to Stand upon.