This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
1. The first Action, He Tooke Bread.
Christ never took any thing into his hand in a religious manner, but it was bettered. Ignatius was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the child whom Christ took in his armes. Christs S••••urge had more vertue, than an ordinary whip. Christs Touch impar∣••••••••th vertue.
2. The second Action, He Blessed the Bread. What it is to Blesse. Many kindes of Blessings. Gods Blessing what it is. The effects of Gods Blessing. Joseph a Prophet. Christs Blessing of the five loave caused their multiplication, not in Number, but in Magnitude. Christs Blessing is like Gods Blessing; it consisteth not in meere words. It is effectuall in opera∣tion. Christs Blessing of the bread, was not the Consecration of his Body.
Parents Blessing. Priests Blessing; and the effects thereof. Illyricus would have altered the doctrine of the Keyes. Christs Benediction consisted partly of
How God Christ blesseth.
How Man blesseth God. Why the blessed Sacrament is called the Eucharist.
In the Celebration of the blessed Sacrament Blessing Giving of Thankes all one.
The power of Blessing greater than the power of Nature. Mans blessing of God, a superlative kinde of Thankesgiving. Christs blessing of God, what it is. The vertue of Christs blessing. Mans blessing of Man, what it is. Christs Thankes∣giving, and blessing in the Sacrament, what it was. The Jews had distinct Graces for their Suppers. Christs Benediction of the Bread in ihe Sacrament, not the Con∣secration of it.
Lyranus, Hugo, Innocentius, and S. Ambrose taxed in this point. The properest use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amongst Men.
How Christ in the blessed Sacrament did
Probable that Christs blessing was not without Imposition, or lifting up of his hands.
3. The third Action, He Brake it.
The end, why he Brake it. Maldonat (saying Breaking of the bread, and Giving of it, is all one) is exploded. Christ in Breaking the bread, followed the Hebrew cu∣stome. Breaking of the bread did properly signifie the breaking of his body on the Crosse. How Christs body was broken. Breaking of the bread sheweth the ancient custome of Imparting the Sacrament to the Standers-by. Lorinus, in saying the bread was cut with a Knife, is against three Evangelists, and S. Paul.
The ancient Fathers do not use the terme of Cutting, but Breaking of bread.
The Not-Breaking of the bread in the Sacrament, is a transgression of the first In∣stitution. The Church of Rome herein censured. The practise of the Primitive Church: both in receiving of the Bread and Wine. The Papists taxed for Barring the Laity the Cup. Broken, and Divided, not all one, as Gaspar Sanctius ridicu∣lously thinks. The Rabbin, that taught Baronius, Direct against Lorinus. The form of bread at the Jews ordinary Feasts, described by Baron. cut Lozinge-wise. The forme of the Panis decussatus, religiously used among the ancient good Chri∣stians. A Crosse, or Christ crucified on the Crosse, was in ancient times impressed on the mysticall bread. The picture of a Dove, of the Holy Lamb, and of a Shepheard with a sheep at his back; and the mysticall signification of them.
4. The fourth Action. He gave it to his Disciples. He Himselfe gave it to every of his Disciples particularly. The consecrated bread given by Christ, was unleavened bread. We may consecrate either Leavened, or unleavened bread.
It is probable, Christ gave the Cup Himselfe to every of his Disciples. Musculus censured therein. Aquinas saying. The Sacrament is many things materially,
but one thing formally. He gave it to his Disciples. The Communicants at this Eucharist, were none of the Common Disciples, but onely the Eleven Apostles. They in some sort represented the rest of the Priesthood onely. Christ never gave power to any Lay-man to administer his sacred Body. Common persons are not to meddle with holy things. Gods judgements upon such prophane persons. Christ at this Eucharist gave his Apostles power to Consecrate the sacred Eucharist. After his Resurrection, and before his Ascension, he seconded this power. The Apostles in another regard represented the whole company of all his Disciples Christians in generall.
Christ when he Consecrated the blessed Eucharist, represented the body of the Cler∣gie Idealiter. But when he received it, he represented the whole body of the uni∣versall Church, both Clergie and Laitie.
The Apostles, quâ Apostoli Discipuli represented the body of the
5. Secondly, His words. First word: Take. He said, or Saying, were not spoken by Christ: neither are they part of his Consecration. The words of Conse∣cration were onely these; This is my body, &c. Innocentius the third, his opi∣nion concerning Christs Consecration of the blessed Sacrament, censured. A second and third opinion related by Aquinas, censured. Lucas Brugensis thinkes Christ used more words in the Consecration. When, or at what Time Christ said those words, Take, &c. Christ gave the hallowed bread, not in Promise, but in Exhibi∣tion. John the Baptist called a foole. Epictetus saying. Christ put not the blessed Sacrament into the Disciples Mouths, but into their Hands. In the Pri∣mitive Church the Christians received it into their Hands. So did they in Tertul∣lians time. So did they in Cyprians dayes. Taking is by the Hand. Cases may fall out, wherein the hallowed food may be put into the Recipients mouthes. We are not bound to doe All, whatsoever Christ did at the first Celebration. We must doe All, whatsoever he commanded us to doe. Authorities for Taking the blessed Sacrament into our Hands. The Tripartite History. Chrysostome. Cyprian. Tertullian. The Schismaticks in old time divided not themselves from the Catholique Church in this respect; as S. Augustine witnesseth. Nor Nova∣tus; as Ruffinus recordeth. The Christians in ancient time Reserved the Sa∣crament. Some Reject things really Tendred unto them.
6. The second word: Eate. It is probable that Judas did receive the Sop into his
7. The third word: This is my Body, which is given for you, &c. Tran∣substantiation roved at. The farther Disquisition thereof wittingly and willingly forborne. The Authors Apologie for the same. His Valediction to the Re∣mainder of his Miscellanies. Resolves to spend the remainder of his dayes in holy Devotion, and continuall Praying. The Moores of Morocco Pray six times every twenty foure houres. The Lords Prayer highly commended, and pre∣ferred before all other Prayers. It ought to be used by every Christian at least seaven times a day. The Church of England commended: Ʋnto which the Au∣thor submits himselfe, and all his Writings. Bishop Jewell, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Morton, Bishop White, and incomparable Master Hooker, have written Polemically the Controversies of the Lords Supper: unto whose unanswerable Wri∣tings the Author referreth all scrupulous Christians for their better satisfaction.
THe accursed Gnosticks have fained abominable blasphemies, and ascri∣bed them to our holy Saviour in his first Institution. Sixtus Senensis in my opinion, deserves a very sharp censure, for the bare reciting and recording such damned horrid lyes, though his soule detested them. May they never more be thought upon.
Let us consider the Actions in order in the same manner as Christ performed them.
First, He tooke bread; and so the Cup: he might have bid them take it them∣selves, as in the Second Supper he bade them Divide the wine among themselves, Luke 22.17. But he himselfe now Tooke the bread, and by Taking it, sheweth he would do somewhat more by It, than by other bread, which he took not into his hands. So John 6.5. Jesus lift up his eyes: and he took the loaves, and when he had given thankes, he distributed to the Disciples, ver. 11. So he took the seven loaves, and fishes, and gave thankes, and brake them, and gave them to the Disciples, Mat. 15.36.
Neither did he ever take Any thing in a religious forme into his hands, but it was bettered, and changed from its old nature some way or other. Simeon tooke Christ up in his armes and blessed God, Luke 2.28. for Christ needed no blessing. Christ took a child into his armes, Mark 9.36. And some think this child was Ig∣natius, who saith of himselfe, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, borne or carried of God. But whosoever hee was, certainly he was blessed of Christ more than others, whom he took not into his armes. When little Children were brought to him that he might touch them, Christ was much displeased with his Disciples, because they rebuked them who brought them; he took the children up in his armes; but what followed? He put his hands upon them, and blessed them, Mark 10.16. If I should say, that when Christ made a scourge of small cords, John 2.15. and drove all the faulty ones out of the Temple, no doubt that scourge had more vertue than an ordinary whip. If vertue went out of him, when a woman touched but the hemme of his garment, Mat. 9.20. questionlesse, when in a religious way he tou∣ched other things, he imparted vertue to them. So when he took the bread, you cannot but think, He put his hands upon it, and blessed it: blessed it above other bread which he touched not. Saint Matthew saith expressely, He took bread, and blessed it, Mat. 26.26. So it is also Mark 14.22. confirmed with a back of steel. It is varied Luke 22.19. Christ took the bread, and gave thanks, and brake it. And this is also doubled or redoubled, 1 Cor. 11.23. &c. Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it. Hence ariseth the next point, the Second point wor∣thy the disquisition.
AFter he took bread, he blessed it, Mat. 26.26. What it is to blesse? All words, names, voices, and things whatsoever which are applied to God, are more significant than if they be referred to ordinary matters. When God blesseth, he giveth, bequeatheth, exhibiteth blessings. He doth good, and prospereth the par∣ties blessed. Gods Benedicere, is his Benefacere; imparting to the creature some reall benefit, efficacious blessing, Gen. 12.2. I will blesse thee, and make thy name great.. That was one effect of Gods blessing; but many more concurred with that, both Temporall. The Lord hath blessed my Master greatly, and he is become great: he hath given him flocks, and heards, silver, and gold, &c. Gen. 24.35. What need have we to cite more particulars? when God blessed Abrahaem in all things, ver. 1. And God blessed Abraham not in Temporall things alone (for they ma∣ny times are the portion of the wicked) but even in Eternall and Spirituall bles∣sings,
Gal. 3.14. It followeth, Thou shalt be a blessing; or, as the Interlineary hath it rightly from the Hebrew, Be thou a blessing, Gen. 12.2. He spake the word, and it was done. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psal. 3.6. Abraham became a blessing to us. The faithfull alive are the children of Abraham. The blessed who are dead, are in A∣brahams bosome.
It yet followeth, I will blesse them that blesse thee, and curse them that curse thee: that is, who do good for thee, I will do good for them; who do ill to thee, I will do ill to them. God said to Kings, Touch not mine Annointed, and do my Prophets no harme, Psal. 105.14, 15. One of the Kings was Pharaoh, whom the Lord plagued, and his house with great plagues, because of Sarai Abrahams wife, Gen. 12.1••. though Pharaoh had committed no evill with her. The other King was Abi∣melech, to whom God came by dreame in a night, and said, Thou art a dead man, for Sarah whom thou hast taken, Gen. 20.3. Yet Abimelech had not come neere her, ver. 4. Abraham is a Prophet, and he shall pray for thee, ver. 7. And Abraham prayed unto God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife, and maid-servants: and they bare children. For the Lord had fast-closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, ver. 17, 18.
The like may be said of Isaac, whom Abimelech so revered, that he charged all his people, sayin, He that toucheth this man, or his wife, shall surely be put to death, Gen. 26.11. And both he and his people confessed that Isaac was now the bles∣sed of the Lord, ver. 29. God hath the like care of Ioseph: and he was a prosperous man. And Potiphar saw that the Lord was with him; and, That the Lord made all that he did to prosper in his hand, Gen. 39 3, 5. And the Keeper of the prison looked not to any thing that was under his hand, because the Lord was with Ioseph: and that which he did, the Lord made to prosper, ver. 23. Pharaoh made much of Ioseph, and God prospered both Pharaoh and his kingdome through Iosephs meanes. And Ioseph may well be accounted a Prophet; for Ioseph had a Cup, by which indeed he divineth (saith the Steward of Iosephs house, Gen. 44.5.) And if indeed he did Divine, he was a Prophet; yea one of those Prophets pointed at by the Psalmo∣graph, as followeth in Psal. 10.••. in the next verses where Ioseph is particularly named. He was blessed in himselfe, and a reall blessing to others. When Christ blessed the five loaves and two fishes, Luke 9.16. Benedictione augebat eos, & multi∣plicabat; by the blessing he increased, and they began to multiply, immediately upon Christs benediction of them: increased more at his fraction: multiplied yet more as he gave them to the Disciples: ascended to a greater augmentation, as the Disciples gave them to the people: growing still in quantity, as the people held, or beheld them. Lastly, it is like also they did increase even in their mouthes, and as they did eat them. Nor were the five loave made more loaves, or the two fishes increased in number; for then it had been improperly said, that they all did eat, and were filled with five loaves and two fishes, if the loaves and fishes were more in number: as if from every stalke seven eares came up full and good; so from every loafe more loaves did arise, and from every fish more fishes. But each piece or mouthfull of every one of these did grow greater. And as some wells do fill the rather, and swell the more, by ha••ing water often drawne from them; or as fountaine water continually floweth, and what you take up from it, filleth again with a kind of usurious increase: so every parcell of bread or fish did grow (as Butchers say of young fat meat) did plim, or grow till it came to their eating.
As God Blesseth: so Christ Blesseth. For his Blessing never consisted in meer words, but was effectuall in operation, conveying reall good unto the blessed. For though the Blessing of the bread was not properly the Consecration of his body; yet it was an antecedent Preparative; a dispositive Adaptation: not void, or vaine, or inefficacious: perhaps accompanied with prayers, perhaps with thanksgiving, perhaps with both. The Benediction of Parents, though it be but a prayer most times, yet it returneth not empty; but many times imparteth
blessednesse: yea, Alwayes if the Recipient be well prepared. The Sacerdotall Benediction is not Onely a plaine good prayer; but wholly, and altogether hath a certaine power and efficacy of the Key, Loosing and Absolving, (saith Illirycus.) Who would have invocated the doctrine of the Keyes, if he could have found but a little hole Open, or a little crack or flaw? But Christs Bene∣diction, as it was mighty in operation, so it consisted in part as well of Thankes∣giving, as of Prayers. For though S. Matthew and S. Mark, have the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and apply it to the Bread onely, Matth. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. And though S. Paul, 1 Corinth. 10.16. calleth the Sacred Cup, the Cup of Bles∣sing, which we Blesse: yet S. Paul, 1 Corinth. 11.24. useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and so doth the Evangelist, Luk. 22.19. He tooke bread, and gave thankes, and brake it. Giving of Thankes, and Blessing, are sometimes of one and the same signification; as is evidenced, 1 Corinth. 14.16. When thou shalt Blesse with the Spirit, how shall he who occupieth the roome of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy Giving of thankes, where Blessing, and Giving of Thankes, are confounded. Piscators observation on the 1 Corinth. cap. 10. vers. 16. is good. Poculum illud Benedictionis: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: That cup of Blessing. The words in the Syriac are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Cosó haú dothaudithó: id est: Poculum illud Gratiarum actionis: That Cup of Giving of Thankes. And so it is read in Tremelius Syriac translation of the New Testament. Ʋbi observa; Syrum, nomen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exponere per nomen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et sanè in Institutione sacrae Coenae, duo ista verba 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, uno eodem{que} sensu accipiuntur: Where observe (saith Piscator on that place) that the Syriac expoundeth the word which signifieth Blessing, by a word which signifieth Giving of Thankes. And verily, in the Institution of the holy Supper, those two words of Blessing, and Giving of Thankes, are to be taken in One and the selfesame signification.
God doth not blesse with Giving of Thankes or Prayers to man.
Christ blessed creatures reasonable and unreasonable, sometimes with Giving of Thankes; sometimes with Prayer: Thankes to God: Prayers for the things to be blessed.
Man may be said, in a nice way, to blesse God; yet not Give him Thankes Then: but God may be blessed by prayer alone: At another time he may be blessed by Thankesgiving alone without Prayer. Commonly it is done by the coadunation of both duties. For no otherwise can we blesse God, or conferre good on him: But we can Thanke him, and Pray to him, and keepe his Comman∣dements.
The Jewes did use the word Benedicere, to governe both a Dative and an Ac∣cusative case; As Benedicere Deo; and Benedicere Deum. The Romans doe restraine the use more to the Dative. The Graecians construe it with the Accu∣sative.
As the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, is called the Eucharist, from Christs giving of Thankes, when he did institute it: and Justin Martyr in his second Apology, tearmeth the Sacrament Eucharistizatum pa∣nem, the bread which is sanctified by Giving of Thankes, or rather cibum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the bread of nourishment. And Irenaeus, 4.34. Ille panis, in quo gratiae actae sunt, est corpus Domini, that bread In which, or On which, or Over which Christ gave Thankes, is the Body of the Lord. So was both Bread and Wine blessed, even the very materials: and the Fathers insist more upon the Benediction, than on the Thankesgiving.
In Celebration of the blessed Sacrament, the duties of Blessing and Thankes∣giving, seeme to be all One, though they may, and are at other times divided. In giving of Thankes, Christ blessed: in blessing the bread, he gave Thankes.
Eusebius Emissenus, Homilia 5 de Paschate, Quanta vis divinae Benedictionis, ut in Christi substantiam divina elementa mutentur? Oh, how great is the power of Christs divine Benediction, that changeth the divine Elements into Christs
substance? Ambrose de iis qui initiantur, cap. 9. answereth in a sort. Greater is the power of Blessing, than of nature; because by the Blessing, Nature her selfe is changed. Blesse me (sweet Lord) and change my Nature into Grace.
He blessed some bread to multiply it, and it did multiply; as if it had had ve∣getation, sense, or reason. Neither was the Crescite and multiplicamini, Increase and multiply, so fruitfull. For of five loaves and two fishes, which he Blessed, Matth. 14.19. All did eate, and were filled, above five thousand in all, and there was more left, than was in store before they fed. But here Christ blessed the bread, separating it from common use, elevating it above its nature, and impar∣ting to it spirituall vertue.
When Men blesse God, it is but an higher degree of Thankesgiving, if I may so call it.
For our Goodnesse reacheth not to him, we can convey no good to him; we may by blessing God, and thanking him, doe good to our owne soules, bodies, and estates; to our children, kindred, friends, and benefactors.
The Greater properly Blesseth the Lesser: Not the Lesser the Greater.
Whensoever either Christ blessed God; or Man did, doth, or shall blesse him, Benediction is nothing else but Thankesgiving, and praysing, and speaking good of him. And, of the two, rather Giving of Thankes is comprized in Be∣nediction; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; than Benediction is all one with Thankesgiving; or Benedicere, be interpreted, Gratias agere.
Christ never blessed any Creature, but it received good by him, in one kinde and degree, or other; But Benedicere nostrum non est causale, (as Christs blessing was) sed recognoscitivum seu expressivum; Wee Thanke God, and utter our desires.
Man never blessed man or Creatures so, that the very Benediction was not a Thankesgiving to them; but rather a Prayer for them, and a Thankesgiving to God.
Christs Giving of Thankes when he administred the Sacrament, was Thankes to God alone, not to Men, not to the Sacrament: And the Benediction did not onely blesse God: but blessed the subject matter, the Bread, and the Wine con∣tained in the Cup: the Cup it selfe being said to be blessed, by the Metaphor of continens pro contento. The elementall Sacramentals had an induing, some way or other, with heavenly vertue.
The Jewes had distinct Graces for their Suppers. And no doubt, Christ was more devout in Thankesgiving to God, than the Jewes were. He is a Jew, who denieth this truth. Therefore Christs Thankesgiving in the Celebration of the Eucharist, was not an Ordinary Giving of Thankes, as is before all other meales: but more Divine, and Operatively energeticall, suting with so heaven∣ly mysteries.
Christs Benediction of the bread, was not principally the Consecration of it, but a kinde of preparative prayer before the Consecration.
Lyranus, Hugo, Innocentius, say, the Benediction was the Consecration. Bene∣dixit ipsum panem, saith Maldonate. Ambrose, Hic est panis, quem Benedictio consecravit: This is the bread consecrated by the Blessing (saith he, in Libro de iis qui initiantur, cap. 9.) Barradius (saith Ambrose) taketh Benedictionem Latè: and inferreth, If after Blessing Christ instituted the Sacrament, then the bles∣sing was not the Consecration.
Truely may I say, the Blessing and Thankesgiving was not the full intire Consecration, but onely the former part of it. Amongst men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Blessing before eating, sanctifying the meate, ere it be taken, by prayer to God: and daily doe we blesse the Table (as our phrase is) that is, the meate on the Table, or the whole Meale, though all the dishes be not brought in: and this is the properest and best use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After meate, is a Thankesgiving rather for the Creatures received, than a Sanctification of
them. And it may be, Christ did both Blesse Before he did eate and drinke: and gave God Thankes After: one time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: another time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Though the manner of Christs Benediction be not recorded in Scripture, yet we cannot well thinke it was in words onely: Excluding all solemnity of Cere∣mony, denying his Ocular Elevation, rejecting the Imposition of his Hands, which he was wont to doe in Benediction. He laid his Hands on little children and blessed them, Mark. 10.13. So did he in healing the sicke, Mark. 6.5. He laid his Hand on a few sicke folk, and healed them. So Luke 4.40.
Sure I am, that he lift up his Hands, when he Blessed his Apostles, Luk. 24.50. And his Apostles were wont to consecrate people to divine services by Im∣position of Hands. 1 Timoth. 5.22. Lay Hands sodainly on no man. He doth not speake in Sensu forensi, of Laying on of hands; as he Laid his hands on me; that is, he strooke me: But in sensu Ecclesiastico, as the Holy Spirit teach∣eth us, for Consecration, as Timothy himselfe was used, who received a gift by prophecy, With the Laying on of Hands, 1 Timoth. 4.14.
In the old Law they had diverse Heave offrings, or Wave-offrings: As they did wave other things: So they did wave a loafe of bread, and a cake of oyled bread, and a wafer out of the basket of unleavened bread, Exodus 29.23. Vatablus readeth it, Exaltabis{que} Illa Exaltationem: Thou shalt wave them for a Wave-offring. This was first Lifted up, or Heaved up; Then was it waved, or shaken to and fro, as it is in the Margin of our last Edition. Vatablus in his Comment, saith it is Ad verbum, Agitabis illa agitatione: yet the Interlineary hath it, Agitabis Ea agitationem. I conclude; Lifted up the bread was, and shaken to and fro it was after it was Lifted. So farre have we Scripture to guide us. Vatablus doth more particularize the manner of the waving. The Heaved∣up. Sacrifice they did shake, or wave; moving it first from the East to the West; then from the North into the South; signifying thereby that God was Lord of the whole earth (saith he.) The signification is good and proper, if it were grounded on Scripture, which it is not. That the heaving up of the offe∣ring did manifest It appertaineth to God, is a faire resultance; but though Rabbi Solomon, and Vatablus after him, may safely conclude, it was moved or shaken round about, yet which quarter of heaven they began at, and which they ended at, wanteth proofe: and the Rabbins differ in judgement one from another.
I will not say, but it is possible, Christ at the Benediction, might use Eleva∣tion; in signification that he should be Lifted up to the Crosse: yea, waving of the bread in the sight of his Apostles: and toward them, or toward heaven: and if he did, he did it with a divine signification, that God commanded this, and that this ordinance was from heaven, perhaps with more than one onely. But it seemeth not probable to me, that when and where he abrogated part of the Leviticall Law; Then and There he used the Ceremony of the said Leviticall Law: or that his Offering was not every way perfecter than the Oblations of the Old Law, which savoured more of the Terrestriall than Celestiall Canaan. Sed quis{que} abundet sensu suo: Let every one opine as he pleases: yet thus con∣clusively I shall never beleeve, but the Benediction was with some sacred ex∣traordinary Solemnitie, Ceremony, or Action, more, than if it had beene used, or was used at an ordinary refection. For by the breaking of ordinary bread, Christ was not knowne, nor was discerned, nor could be discerned from any other man: But when he (so solemnly) Tooke bread, and Blessed it, and Brake, and Gave it them (just as he did before in the Eucharist) by his Actions, and the devout manner of them in their Circumstances, were their eyes opened to know him, Luk. 24.30. &c.
WHen Christ had Taken the bread, he Blessed it, He Gave thankes, He Brake it. His Breaking of it is now to be considered. If the Priest alone had been to take it, there needed little breaking: or rather none, unlesse the Priest are all the broken pieces. The Breaking implieth it is so done for more than one: and for this end was Fractio panis; The Breaking of bread.
It is ridiculous, what is in Maldonate, Matth. 26.26. on the word Fregit; It is called the Breaking of Bread; not because it is truely Broken; but because it is Given: As if Bread could not be Broken, and yet not Given. As if they could not also Give whole loaves. Did whole loaves, and not rather Broken bread signifie Christs body, which was Broken for us? And did not Christ Give his Disciples the Sacred Bread after it was Broken? How then is Break∣ing all one with Giving? He saith, our reasoning proceedeth from great Igno∣rance. Judge (Reader) if this supervice exposition doe not arise from pride, and presumptive confidence, that he can cast dust, and blinde the eyes of the world.
Even in this particular also, it seemeth Christ followed the Hebrew custome: For the Talmudists report, that at their Home-feasts among the Jewes, the Head or Father of the Family, Tooke Bread, Gave Thankes, and Brake it.
And in truth, Breaking had a proper signification to demonstrate That his Body should be Broken on the Crosse. For though a Bone of him was not Broken, John 19.36. yet were they Out of joynt, Psal. 22.14. yet his Flesh was Bro∣ken in many pieces. His holy Temples and Head pierced with many thornes: thornes beate in with a Reede or Cane, Matth. 27.30. His tender backe so cruelly whipped, that the Psalmist, Psal. 129.3. compareth the executioners to ploughmen: the dints, ruptures, and slices, made by the Roman rods, to no lesse than furrowes, than long furrows. The ploughers plowed upon my backe, and made long furrowes. I know no interpretation of this Scripture so proper as this, that I have delivered. His innocent hands and feete, they bored thorough with great vast nayles, so great, that a bridle was made of them, as Eusebius records. The Psalmist sayth, Psal. 22. vers. 16. They Digged my hands and my feet: as the Hebrew well beareth it, intimating the wide orifices of the wounds: Lastly, so great an hole was made in his side, that Thomas thrust his hand into it, Joh. 20.27. in signe of these Breakings, well might he Breake the Bread.
The word of Breaking, sheweth the ancient custome of Imparting the Sacra∣ment to the By-standers; And it was Broken by the Hand of the Breaker: or rather with a Knife (saith Lorinus on Act. 2.) because unleavened bread is glu∣tinous, or clammy; and so is easier divided. That a Knife shall be said so pro∣pely to Breake bread, as an Hand, I cannot beleeve. And I discerne no such clamminesse, or cleaving of the Unleavened Bread, above the Leavened, as should cause a Knife to be used, rather than an Hand: and the Hand may easily enough divide it. And if the Knife did prepare it, yet the often repeated word of Fra∣ction, induceth me to think, the Fingers did Breake the divided Bread into lesse and fit pieces. But Lorinus brings in that invention of the Knife, and preferreth it before the Breaking with the Hand, contrary to three Evangelists, and S. Paul, who name not Cutting, but Breaking of bread: Nor doe the ancient Fathers name the Cutting, but urge the Breaking. And when Christ said, Doe this; It is as cleare as the light of the Sunne, he meaned, Take the bread, Give thankes, Breake it, &c. And so the not Breaking of the Bread is a trangression of the first Institution.
How ill then doth the Church of Rome, to leave off Breaking of the Bread (as it hath done for a long time) and to consecrate Singulos panes, seu minores ho∣stias, ad vitandum periculum decidentium micarum; the loaves by themselves, or
lesser hostes, or sacrifices, to avoyd the danger of the crumbes falling downe; and that the Laicks and other sacred Administrants must be contented with a lesser host than the sacrificer hath, (saith Lorinus;) Yet Christ Brake the Bread, without feare of crumbes falling, say I: and the Primitive Church appointed men to receive the sacred bread into their Right hands, with their fingers close and not open, and the women to receive it in cleane Linnen, so to prevent the falling of the crumbes.
Likewise concerning the sacred Wine: The Laicks were wont of old, Cannâ haurire Dominicum sanguinem è calice, with a Cane to drink out of a Chalice the Blood of our Lord: (and so was no danger of spilling one drop.) Pellican calleth it, argenteum calicem, & Fisiulam quâ Laici Dominicum exorbeant sangui∣nem. A silver Mazor, or Cup, or Chalice, and a Pipe, Reed or Cane, by which the Laicks sucked, and supped the Blood of our Lord. See Beatus Rhenanus in his preface before Tertullian de Corona Militis; and Tertullians testimony in his book de Corona Militis, is expresse, that they had a great care of the sacred My∣steries. Calicis, aut Panis etiam nostri aliquid decutian terram, Anxiè patimur; We are soretroubled, and passionately suffer if one drop of the sacred Wine or one crumb of sacred Bread fall to the ground. Which in despight of some novel∣lists, I will apply to the Sacramentall morsell.
Bucan in his 48 Common place, pag. 658. seemeth to slubber the matter over, thus, Si in terram forte cadat per imprudentiam, vel mica panis, vel vini gutta, non amplius Sacramenti rationem habet: If by chance there fall to the ground a crumb of bread, or drop of wine, it leaveth off to bee part of the Sacra∣ment.
Further observe, that the Papists have kept away the sacred wine from the Laity, and now they pare them and mince them, and say they must be content with a lesser consecrated Host, than the Priest hath: So that the Laity may feare the Romanist will, ere long, take wholly from them the lesser Host also. They shall give me leave to think, if they had kept the old Institution; if they had continued in the plaine way: if they had not mingled Policy with Divinity, and preferred gainefull Imaginations, and Worldly Ratiocinations before the evi∣dence of Scriptures, there had never been a Session from that Church.
Some think, that to be Broken, is all one with to be Divided. So Gaspar San∣ctius on Acts 2. But he is much deceived. For after it was Broken, it was Divi∣ded: and it might have rested Broken, and yet Undivided: Undivided to Christ himselfe, or to his Apostles: though when it was Broken, it was Divided, one piece from another, and not till it was Broken. Yet he well resolveth; Panis hoc loco Frangi dicitur, non Scindi: it is said to be Broken, not to be Cut or Sli∣ced with a knife. He might have added out of Baronius (whom he cited in Anno Christi, 8. which should have been 58. Numero 64.) that the Rabbin skilfull in Judaicall Antiquities, taught Baronius, when the bread was Cut at their Common Feasts, into such shape as hereafter is expressed, they did cooke them so, that they needed not to Cut them when they ate them, but only to Break them; This is direct against Lorinus before cited. The forme of ci∣vill morsels, at ordinary Feasts, is thus described by Baronius, not much differing from our March-panes or Sweetmeates cut lozenge-wise.
The forme of the Panis decussatus or bread made in likenesse to a Crosse, or an X, was in this wise, as the same Baronius there hath it, from the old monuments yet to be seen.
That the good Christians made a religious use of this forme, because it did in some sort resemble a Crosse, Gregory proveth, Dialogorum 1.11.
Yea even the unleavened bread, of which they made the Eucharist, was by the Ancients framed to such a quadrangular forme in a Circle, whose parts being divided by Breaking, were called morsels. And the Crosse not only stood upon the Altar, (which Chrysostome avoucheth:) but also was drawn upon the Eucharist; and afterward on the same mysticall bread, Christ crucified was for∣med. So farre Baronius.
Let me adde from Johannes Stephanus Durantus de Ritibus Ecclesiae. cap. 34. that the holy Eucharist was kept, and reserved in a vessell made in the forme of a Dove, which is a token or badge of Charity, or of the holy Spirit in that wise descending and lighting upon Christ. And I have otherwhere read (if my me∣mory deceive me not) that the signe of the Holy Lamb was sometimes printed on the Sacred Eucharist, as I have seen it graven on some Chalices remaining to this day.
Or rather, to speak according to Baronius his relation, ad annum 216. Numero 15. The Image of a Shepheard carrying a Sheep at his back, was wont to be effigiated in the Chalice, and on the Episcopall Cloak, or Pall.
I have the rather transcribed these things, because they are not quotidiani com∣matis, obvious and ordinary; but carry with them a new delight.
THe next words are, He gave it to His Disciples. In which words, at the first sight of them, is plainely evidenced, That Christ gave not the blessed bread to One alone; and that One Apostle gave it so to Another; and hee to a Third, &c. But that Himselfe gave it to His Apostles: Himselfe, and no other: it was His Immediate gift; to Each, to All of them.
That the Consecrated Bread given by Christ to his Apostles, was unleavened bread, is most certaine: To say peremptorily, that we may not use leavened bread: Or that we must use leavened bread only, savoreth of two extreames: What Alphonsus de Castro saith of the Greek Church, that they are Schisma∣ticks, not because they used leavened bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: but because they think, that only leavened must be used; I say on the other side, If any maintaine that the bread of the Sacrament must be only unlea∣vened bread, and that it is sin to consecrate any Other bread; I shall think him to be in this point little lesse than a Schismatick. A liberty is left to the Churches of God: which no way gives room to the unbridled licence of the giddy people
against their Pastors. Though at the delivery of the Wine he said, Drinke yee All of this: and at the delivery of the Bread, did not say Eat yee all of this: it is likely he did it for this cause, because he gave the Broken bread to every one Himselfe, by Himselfe; but they gave the Cup One to the Other (saith Musculus.) Yet I hold it far more likely, that as immediately he gave to every one of His A∣postles the consecrated bread; so he did also deliver the Cup to Every one; and was more distinct, and punctuall in administring the Holy Sacrament, than at common refection. The word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, proveth it; As he gave One Species, so he gave the Other; yet was not this Another Sacrament, though it was a di∣stinct Action, and a distinct Materiall. Both Eating and Drinking make up but One Sacrament. Aquinas parte 3. Quaest. 73. Artic. 20. This Sacrament is many things materially; but One thing only formally, as it makes one inte∣grall refection Only.
In the First or Second Supper, I confesse, he said, Accipite, & Dividite, Luke 22.17. He tooke the Cup, He gave thankes, and said, Take this (Wine) and divide it among your selves; for they did not divide the Cup; So, He did not divide. the Wine; but They: And yet at the holy Institution of the Eucharist, the same Evangelist saith, Hee gave the bread to Them: Likewise The Cup: versibus 19.20.
In the First or Second Supper hee used no Benediction extraordinary: They did eat, and drink promiscuously, and as is usual in such Feasting, one Dis∣ciple might help another.
But in this Sacred Banquet, the Consecrant and Administrant, was Christ only, lest any man should challenge superiority or equality of concurrence in the Institution.
A second rivelet from this fountaine, Hee gave it to His Disciples, may thus flow.
Foure times S. Matthew nameth Christs selected company Disciples; S. Marke, Thrice; S. John, Thrice; S. Luke, Once only, called them Apostles: Luke 22.14. and Once Disciples. Now as the once-named word (Apostles) sheweth, That the Communicants, were then no part of the Disciples in General; but those very especiall Twelve or rather Eleven, (Judas being gon forth) which were an exempt out from the rest: employed above the rest, more inwardly and familiarly conversing with Christ, than the rest of the Disciples: So since they are so often called Disciples, we may think it teacheth us probably, That the A∣postles represented at this Eucharist, in this regard (viz. as Christ was the Ad∣ministrant) the rest of the Priesthood only; not the Body of Christs Church; not the whole and intire company of all the Faithfull Disciples that then were, or were to bee unto the Worlds end: Lay, and others: but the Clergy, Presby∣ters, and Ministers, who are here called Disciples: though the word (Disciples) be also often of a larger extent. And this may be a reason hereof. No man can imagine that Christ gave power to the Laity, and Common Disciples, Men and Women to consecrate his Sacred Body and Blood. If they should offer to do such an Act, they should be more guilty than rash Ʋzzah, who for but touching the Arke, was stroken dead by God, 2 Sam. 6.7. Than foolish Saul, who for offer∣ing a burnt Offering, lost his Kingdome, 1 Sam. 13.13. Than presumptuous Na∣dab, and Abihu, who offered strange fire before the Lord, Lev. 10.1. and were consumed with fire from Heaven. Than wicked Jeroboam, who by raising up two Calves, made Israel, the greatest Calfe, to sin: and made of the lowest of the People Priest of the High places; now the Calfe was growne to to an Oxe. Any one that would, or whosoever would, Jeroboam consecrated him, 1 King. 13.33. which thing became sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it, from off the face of the Earth, vers. 34. It were an horrid intrusion on Sa∣cred offices; and a Nullity in the fact it selfe. Not Angels or Archangels, nor any of that Heavenly spirituall Host: Not Kings, nor Princes (unlesse in Orders)
not any under Heaven, except the Clergy, have power to Consecrate the most holy Eucharist. To whom he said, Hoc facite; which he said not to others.
Indeed it is true (as is in my Miscellanies) that Saint Peter represented sometimes all the Apostles: sometimes the Apostles represented all the Cler∣gy: But in this place toward his death, Christ gave his Apostles (repre∣senting the whole body of the Priesthood) a power to consecrate the Sacred Eu∣charist; and gave it to them only: So after his Resurrection, when he had over∣come actually Death and Sin, Hell and Satan; when he had fully satisfied to the utmost farthing, for all our offences, and had an over-merit left; even before his Ascention, he gave again, when he had most and properest power for to give, to the Apostles (representing the Church for ever, that are in holy Orders) another power and authority, distinct from the former, yet conducing some way to it, in these words, John 20.21, &c. As my Father sent me, so send I you. Then hee breathed on them, and said; Receive ye the holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye re∣mit, they are remitted unto them: Whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Let the ill-bred ignorant Clown jeere at the power of the Keyes, he shall never find Heaven gates open, but by these Keyes; And to the Clergy only were thy given, maugre all the enemies of the Clergy.
In one respect it hath been maintained, that the Apostles did at the Eucharist represent the body of the Priesthood; viz. as the Sacrament wholly, and only was to be Instituted and Consecrated by them, by whom the Bread must bee Taken, Blessed, Broken, Distributed and Hallowed, with the right forme of con∣secration. But in another regard, the Apostles, even Then, may be said to re∣present the whole company of the Disciples, in the largest signification; namely, as All, and Every Christian was to Receive it: for so were Themselves, Then, Recipients; and as Recipients (as well as in other regards Administrants) were these words said to them, Do this in remembrance of me; and All of you drinke of this: which last words cannot be restrained to the Ministers only, but in∣volve within their circumference, the whole round World of devout Christians: Else none might Communicate but Priests only; which to say, is accursed. Per∣haps I may say inoffensively, Christ represented the Apostles, and stood for them, and the body of the Clergy Idealiter, when he consecrated the blessed Eucharist, and gave it to them. But, as Christ himselfe Received it, and in both kindes, he may be called their Symposiarchon; and I am sure, I may say truly, and there∣fore boldly, Our most blessed Saviour represented the whole body of his univer∣sall Church, both Clergy and Lay-people, if so he did Receive it, as is most pro∣bable. In imitation of him, I say likewise, that the Apostles (quà Apostoli & Sacerdotes) did celebrate the Divine Mysteries, and Administer them; So, re∣presenting the Clergy: but as they received the Divine Food, they were Parti∣cipants, (quà Discipuli,) and so stood in the room of the whole Christian Laity.
THe words of Saint Matthew, and Marke, and S. Paul, do follow after, He gave it to them: And said. S. Luke varieth it thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saying. It is all one in sense.
Here let me tell you, These words, Hee said, or Saying; were not spoken by Christ, nor part of his Consecration: But they are the words of the Evangelists, and Apostles recording and coupling Deeds and Words at Christs Institution. Christs Consecration consisted of Actions and Words: His Actions were, Hee Tooke Bread, Blessed it, Brake it, and Gave it to his Disciples. His words were not these, Saying, or He said; They are the Historicall copulative narrative of the Heavenly Penmen: but his words were only these, This is my Body, and so forth.
Aquinas tertiâ parte, Quaestione 78. Aritic. 1. ad primum, relateth, That
Innocencius the third opined, Christ first perfected the Eucharist by Divine power; and Afterwards expressed the forme which others should follow. But this is ex∣presse against the Evangelists, who say; Christ did blesse it; which was not with∣out some forme of words: yet, in favour of Innocentius, he saith, The words were spoken Opinativè magis, quàm determinativè. Rather by way of Opinion, than of determination.
Others (quoth he) say, the Benediction was made with certaine other words, to us unknown; but he replyeth wisely; This cannot hold, because our Benedi∣ction of Consecration is now perfected by reciting what was then done: (Let me adde, and Said also.) And if it were not done by those words, Then; it would not be done by these words, Now.
A third sort say, Christ spake the words of Consecration twice: Once secret∣ly: the second time openly to instruct others how to do so. But this cannot stand; because the Priest doth consecrate, uttering these words, as publikely spo∣ken by Christ, not in a secret Benediction. Whereupon since the words have no force, but as Recited by Christ, it seemeth Christ consecrated the Eucharist, by manifest uttering of them. More he may reade at large in him, who so pleaseth.
To conclude, he saith not, nor can say, that Christ himselfe pronounced this Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dicens: or this Proposition, Et Dixit, And Said.
It is true, such a Consecration compounded of his Reception of it into his hands, of Benediction, of Fraction, of Distribution, and lastly of the Consecra∣tory and Operatory words themselves, cannot handsomely be registred in parti∣cular, without the Addition, Saying; or And he said: yet this evinceth not, That Christ pronounced those words, or in the consecration needed to pronounce them, but they are only the convenient, if not necessary expressions of the Relators.
Diverse think, that Christ used more words in the Consecration; and among these the learned Franciscus Lucas Burgensis, on Matth. 26.26. Non est verisi∣mile, tam paucis verbis Dominum usum esse, quàm scribunt Evangelistae. It is not likely, that Christ used so few words, as the Evangelists write. Thus far I agree with him; that whether the Benediction were of God, Christ blessing God: or a benediction upon the Elementary materials; or of both (as I judge likeliest:) some other words were used by Christ, not made knowne to us: fit for Christ on such an occasion to speake, not necessary for us to know or speak: Bru∣gensis scarce probably insisteth upon One. Of which hereafter.
Between Christs Offering, and giving the blessed bread to his Disciples, on the one side: and the consummate Consecration, on the other side, Christ held out his hand, and reached the bread, and said (not the words And Said) Take ye, or Take.
Take. Some would Give, but others will not Receive; Thus God would Give much unto Millions of people, if they were willing or prepared to Re∣ceive it. And gifts there are, which come off kindly from the hands of the Donor, yet fall short of the hands of such to whom they were Destined, because they clutch their Fists, & ponunt Obicem, lay a Blocke in the way.
Christ gave the hallowed bread, not in Promise, but in Exhibition: He com∣manded them to Receive it.
When he wished Thomas to thrust his hand into Christs side, John 20.27. it is irreligious to think, that Thomas disobeyed, or refused to do so, though it be not expressed.
That late Writer was a Foole, who said, the Holy Baptist was a foole, for not doing at first, as Christ willed him. God graunt me to be as humble, and as well accepted by Christ, as Saint John was, even when Christ the se∣cond time spake to the Baptist, and over-ruled him to baptize our Saviour. And let the haughty German keep his wisdom to himselfe. The Baptist was wise to Godward; though esteemed a foole by him.
Epictetus said of old: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Every matter hath two Handles. Whereas it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Take; because an Handle, and every thing else by which we Receive, and Handle, and Hold a thing, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And because Taking into ones hand, is more proper than to take it into ones mouth; I resolve, Christ put not the blessed Sacrament into their mouths, but into their hands: and they did as they were commanded, that is, Take it: For in the Primitive Church the good Christians received it into their hands.
Tertullian de Coronâ Militis; Eucharistiae sacramentum non de aliorum Manu, quàm praesidentium, sumimus: We give it not one to another, but each of us ta∣keth it from the hand of him who is set over us. And into their hands did they take it at first (as Maldonate confesseth.) And the story in Cyprians booke de Lapsis, pag. 284. proveth. For one who tooke the blessed Sacrament unwor∣thily, Cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invênit, found embers in stead of it, in his hands, and was not able to handle it, or eate it.
When Christ said, Take, Eate, the taking was with the hand; as the eating was by the mouth; and if the Apostles had Taken it from Christs hands imme∣diately into their mouths, this one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eate, would have served for all: and Christ had had no need to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Take. For, from bidding them Eate, floweth this sequell necessarily, that they were to receive it into their mouths: since otherwise they could not eate. Therefore the two words, Acci∣pite, Manducate, are two diverse commandements to be performed by two distinct instruments, of Hand and Mouth. Nor otherwise to be lawfully administred (as I judge) unlesse to such as are too weake and sicke to receive it with their hands; or have lost the use of their hands; or have no hands at all: Which cases sometimes have, and sometimes againe may fall out; and then the hallow∣ed food may be put into the mouths of the Recipients; Otherwise, not. For Christ did both practise it, and command his Church to doe the like. Doe This, This, as well as the other things. And therefore the delivery of the heavenly Manna into the hands of the Communicants, is necessary, except in the before excepted cases.
Indeed we are not bound to doe whatsoever Christ did at the First celebrati∣on; For he did it at night, and but to a few, and with unleavened bread, which are left at liberty to us. But we are bound to follow whatsoever he both did and commanded: as he did in this point. For he both Tooke the bread into his hands, and bidding them Take it, he put the consecrated bread into their hands: and charged them to doe after the same manner.
And if we goe to Reason, The washed hands and lips are as cleane, as the in∣side of the mouth: and therefore it may be put into their hands, as well as into their mouths. Let humane discourse give way to Authority.
Tertulliane de Idololatria, cap. 7. saith, they did Manus admovere corpori Do∣mini; put forth their hands to receive the body of our Lord.
The Tripartite History, 9.30. How wilt thou hold out thy hands, from which unjust blood yet droppeth? How wilt thou take with such hands the ho∣ly body of our Lord? Chrysostome in his third Homily to the Ephesians; How wilt thou appeare before the Tribunall seat of Christ, who with uncleane hands and lips darest touch Christs body?
Cyprian de Lapsis, pag. 281. speaketh of some, who offered violence to the bo∣dy and blood of Christ: and then sinned more with hands and mouths against the Lord, than when they denied the Lord. And pag. 283. he instanceth in a sacrilegious wretch, who was angry with the Priest, because the Priest would not suffer him presently with defiled hands to Take the body of Christ; or with polluted mouth to drinke his blood.
Tertullian in lib. de Idololatria, Faulting such as promoted the makers of Idols, to the Orders of Priests, or Deacons, cryeth out; Proh scelus! O abhomina∣tion! The Jewes Once laid hands on Christ; these Daily offer violence to his
body, by unworthy Giving and Taking of it. O manus praecidendae! O hands worthy to be cut off!
Yea, the very Schismaticks in old time divided not themselves from the usance of the Church in this specialtie. For Augustine, Tom. 7. contra literas Petiliani, 2.23. pag. 22. saith to Petilian, and his adherents, I doe instance, and make rehearfall unto you of a man who lived with you—into whose hands yee placed, or put the Eucharist. Ruffinus Ecclesiastica Historiae 6.33. saith of Novatus, or Novatianus; That when he divided the Sacrament to the people, he held the Hands of the Receivers, till he made them sweare by what they held in their Hands, and then they did Sumere. They did accipere manu; Sume∣mere ore: Tooke it with their Hand; and received it with their Mouth: And I doubt not, but these holy ancient Fathers followed Christs celebration, in such things as he commanded.
When they did Reserve the Sacrament, and carry it to their houses, I hope they tooke it not into their Mouths, they carried it not in their Mouths, but tooke it in their Hands.
Accepto corpore Domini, & reservato, saith Tertullian in the end of his booke de Oratione. It was first received (and this was not within their Mouths) but with their Hands. If it had beene in their Mouths, it was not so fit to be Reser∣ved. And how vaine had it beene, to take it out of their Mouths, and to reserve it to that end, that they might put it another time into their owne Mouthes? or into other folkes Mouthes either? If you plead, it was reserved for the sicke; Gregorius Nazianzenus Oratione 11. in laudem Gorgoniae, saith; If Gorgonia's Hand treasured up any part of the Antitypes of Christs honoured body and blood, shee bedewed it, or mingled it with her teares. The word (If) not be∣tokening any doubt, but implying a certainty, that sometimes shee did weepe over the consecrated mysteries, which her Hand had Reserved. The word If, being taken for When. So it is used, 1 King. 8.46. If they sinne against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not. I conclude with the binding Rubrick of out Ly∣turgy, that the Priests, or Priest, must deliver the Communion to the people in their Hands, Kneeling.
Maldonate on Matth. 26. confesseth it: further proofe needed not. Yet was Maldonate too blame to say, The same Church with better Counsell begins to give the Sacrament not into their hands, but into their mouthes: because there was both more reverence, and lesse danger. To call that better Counsell which varied from Christs Institution, I like not. Nor doth Maldonats similitude hold. For, if the Churches are the Eucharist fasting, varying from Christ; yet they had Apostolicall Authority to guide them, which the Handlesse and Mouthlesse Receivers wanted.
Some Reject things really Given, and Tendred. Matth. 7.9 Yee Reject the Commandements of God. Jeremy 8.9. Some rejected the Word of the Lord. Luke 7.30. The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves. 1 Samuel 10.19. The Israelites rejected their God. Is not in those words included a plaine offer, and withall a Not-accepting of the Tendry?
Remarkably is it said, Joh. 12.48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth-not my words, the same Word shall judge him at the last day. Rejecting, is expounded by Not-receiving, if it signifie not worse also.
So some Refused to heare Gods Word, Jeremy 13.10. Ammon refused to eate, 2 Sam. 13.9. though the cakes were powred out before him. Elishah though he was urged to take a gift, yet refused, 2 Kings 5.16.
Yet for all this, I cannot think, but when Christ said to his Disciples, Take; they did Take it: and when he said, Eate; they did Eate. For it argueth Obe∣dience to their Master: and their conformity, to partake of the mysteries of Christ.
THe next part of our Saviours words, is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eate.
That Christ gave Judas a Sop, is cleare, a dipped Sop, Joh. 14.26. that Iudas received it, I hold as cleare, Iohn 14.30. He then having received the Sop, went immediately out.
That Iudas did eate it, is not expressed, nor so cleare. He might possibly Take it, and not Eate it, but let it lie on his trencher. Besides, the Sop beeing given for a Manifesto, that Iudas was the onely Traytor, perhaps he was not willing to swallow the Disgust, as he accompted it, and the Sop also. But it may be well answered; Iudas was so surprized with the unexpected Offer; his rea∣son, wit, and senses so clouded: his soule amazed with such arisings, and fumes of his treasonable plot: in one word, so given over to Satan, that what ano∣ther man, yea what he himselfe would have done at another Time, either not Receive, or not Eate, he certainly received, and in likelihood swallowed.
If the words of Scripture be closer followed, and more forcibly urged, That Iudas having received the Sop, went out immediately: and therefore he did receive it onely, but not Eate it. I answer: The end of his Receiving, was onely to Eate it: and there was no great distance of time betweene the Recei∣ving and Eating of the Sop: but he might put his hand to his mouth even al∣most in an instant, or in tempore penè imperceptibili, in the twinckling of an eye, and swallow, without chewing, a moystned, soft, little glibbery Sop, that his going out immediately excludeth not his Eating. Besides, the word Receive, may extend, not onely to his Taking of it with his hand, but to the Eating of it also. For there is a receiving into Ones mouth: and it is not possible to be proved, that Iudas did not So receive it, nor Eate it.
And it may be well beleeved, because so many holy Fathers have declared themselves to think, He did Eate the Sop. I know but few that deny it; but many affirme it. Some indeed say, He carried away the Sop, and shewed it to the High Priests, and thence framed a forged accusation against Christ: or an excuse for his own treachery; as if without cause he would not have betrayed him. A man having his hidden sinnes revealed, groweth worse, and more madd in sinning: Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter, said One.
The safest way to commit sinne; Is by new sinnes still to beginne.
Lucas Brugensis on Matth. 26. saith; That after the word Eate, the reason was given. And the word (Enim) is to be understood: Indeed it may well be understood, because at the delivery of the Cup, it is expressed, Matth. 26.28. For this is my blood of the new Testament: And yet the sense seemeth to me as full, Take, Eate, This is my Body: as if it had beene written, Take, Eate; For this is my Body. I would not willingly adde any new sense to Scripture, no more than I would diminish a letter from it: especially, if, as it is, the sense may be well accepted.
Carolostadius (and never any before him, that I have read of) fancieth; That when Christ said these words, This is my Body; he put his finger to his breast, shewed himselfe, and meaned thus: Here sitteth my Body which shall be given for you. This Sleidan reporteth in the Fift booke of his Commentaries. And this may seeme to favour him; Jesus said to the Iewes, Destroy This Temple, and in three dayes I will rayse it up, Joh. 2.19. And the holy Apostle expoundeth it; Christ spake of the temple of his body, verse 21. Tolet in his Commentary on the place, saith; It is certaine, that when Christ said, This temple, he did by his Gesture, and the motion of his hands, demonstrate Himselfe, and pointed not at the materiall Temple built of stone; so might he here doe.
Tolet his Collection is but probable. For Christ might point at either, at neither, but leave them in suspence. Many times did Christ use verball aequivo∣cations, as I have proved in my Miscellanies; that is, he so spake, that his words might have a double Construction; though he adhorred mentall Reservation.
Concerning Carolostadius, I must needs say, he was one of them, who in those precipitious and whirling times, did strive to rayse his owne name, by inventing most new devices: And this was one of them, which is not seconded by any o∣ther Christian Divines, which I have seene; but disliked by many: For when Christ said, This is my Body, which shall be given for you; (as Carolostadius hath it) is as if he pointed at, and did meane his naturall passiive body. What did they eate? They did eate none of That body, nor was it Broken, till, after the Celebration of the holy Eucharist, he did suffer. But the holy Scripture hath it in the Present tense, Luk. 22.19. This is my Body which Is given for you: And vers. 20. This Cup Is the new Testament in my Blood, which Is shed for you. Can you think (O Carolostadius) that when he gave them the Cup, he touched his breast, and pointed at, and meaned the blood in the veynes, lanes, and hidden al∣leys of his mortall body? So, 1 Corinth. 11.24. This is my body, which Is bro∣ken for you. And, this Cup Is the new Testament in my blood, vers. 25. Likewise Matth. 26.28. This is my Blood which Is shed: and so Mark. 14.24. For though it be a truth most certaine, that Christ his naturall body and naturall blood was broken, given, and shed afterwards in his Passion: yet Carolostadius was too blame, to change the Tense, to invent an imagined gesture of Christ, which is impossible to be proved.
Lastly, to broach a new opinion contrary to all Divines; from which reful∣teth, That they did eate onely bare Bread, but no way the Body of the Lord: and dranke onely the fruit of the Grape; but no way dranke the Blood of the Lord. Indeed the Vulgate hath it, Frangêtur, in the Future tense; is Shall be broken for you: But it starteth aside from the Originall. Nor standeth it with sense, reason, or example, that the Future is taken for the Present tense: since it is a retrograde course against nature. But the Present tense is often used for the Future, foreshewing the infallible certainty of what will, or shall come: both in Propheticall, and Evangelicall Writings. Esay 60.1. The glory of the Lord Is risen upon thee: And yet he speaketh of Christ, and his comming. And Re∣vel. 22.12. Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me: And Yet he com∣meth not, though it were said above fifteene hundred yeares passed. But most undoubtedly He Shall come quickly: Celeritate motus, though not celeritate tem∣poris, when he beginneth to come, he shall come speedily; though he shall not quickly begin to come.
IT succeedeth, This is my Body, Matth. 26.26. which is Given for you, Luk. 22.19. Which is Broken for you: 1 Corinth. 11.24. This doe in remem∣brance, or for a remembrance of Me: as both S. Luke and S. Paul have it.
And he tooke the Cup, and gave thankes, and gave it to them, saying, Drinkeyee All of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes: Matth. 26.27. &c. It is thus changed; Mark. 14.23. He gave it to them; and They all dranke of it. And S. Mark leaves out these words, For the remission of sinnes. S. Luke maketh the alteration, thus; Likewise also (he gave them) the Cup after Supper, saying; This Cup is the New Testament In my blood, which is shed for You, Luk. 22.20.
Another diversity is yet, 1 Corinth. 11.25. Likewise after Supper (he tooke) the Cup, when he had supped, saying; This Cup is the new testament In my blood: This doe yee, as oft as yee drinke it, in remembrance of mee. Matth. 26.29. Christ saith, I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine: And this was After the
sacred Supper. But (saith Adam Contzen) A Matthaeo non suo ordine ad finem coenae recitantur ea verba de Genimine vitis. S. Matthew reciteth not in Order the words concerning the fruit of the Vine; nor were they spoken After Supper. Perhaps (say I) they were spoken Twice.
Here (if ever) is an ample field to expatiate in; these words have tortured the wits of the learnedst men since the dayes of the Apostles; Et adhuc sub judice lis est; And yet they are not determined. And as the Areopagites in an inexpli∣cable perplexity, deferred the finall determination till the last day; so the Roman Church might have deferred their definitive sentence, and over-hard censure, e∣ven till then; especially since they confesse, that the manner of Transubstantia∣tion is inenarrable. Whereupon I am resolved, to forbeare farther disquisition, and to lose my selfe in holy devotion and admiration, that I may find my Christ. The sayle is to large for my boat: This Sea is too tempestuous for my Shallop: The new Cut of Erasmus Sarcerius in his Scholia, on the place of S. Matthew, thus shuffleth it. The Materiall causes are Bread and Wine, and the things under them understood, and present, the Body and Blood. The Formal causes, are to Eat, and to Drink. The Efficient causes; Christ, who did institute it: and his Word. The Effectuall causes, to have Remission of sins. I say, this may rather go among the finall causes. And to make Effects to be Effectuall causes, introduceth new Logick, new Termes into Logick: Besides, he omitteth the Fi∣nall cause, which is the first mover to the rest. Divinity and the mysteries of it are not to bow down to any ones Logick.
Oh! but will you now say leus in the last Act? in the last Scene? Will you be silent, where he and she Apprentices, where Women and illiterate Tradesmen rayse themselves upon their startups, prick up their eares, and tyre their tongues?
1. I answer, If I should enter into the lists of controversie, and take upon me to decide and determine all the doubts, which concerne the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; and to untye all the knots, which may be made from those words, I am perswaded, you might, sooner see an end of me, than I of this Work. For I am wearied, and tyred already. This toyle, which I have performed, and the labour which I have bestowed, hath cost me full deare: My sedentary life hath made my reines as quarries of stones; my parents knew no such disease, though they lived long: my right hand heretofore carelesly unfenced and undefended from the cold (alas for the time!) hath swelled with the gowt, as if it would break; I have been often sick, always weak, yet have I prevented antelucanam opificum industriam; & nox ad diem accessit: Early, and late have I performed my hard taske. Yea Midnight hath conceived full many of the dayes expressi∣ons, and oft have I arose from my bed, and meales with a Conclusum est, to prevent forgetfulnesse. But the manifold avocations by my own private affaires, and especially by publick employements, both in Ecclesiasticall, and Civill Ju∣stice, have, after their dispatch, set an edge, and sharpned the appetite of my endea∣vours. The unbent bow hath prepared it selfe for the stronger shooting, or de∣livery: Yet now my senses decay; my memory faileth me; I have no courage or incouragement; I am out of heart: I am worne to the stumps, and spent: I must imitate old Ennius his race-horse, to whom age afforded quiet, and exempted from more active exercise: craving pardon, if my book in some passages have par∣taken of my weaknesse, and infirmities, or languishing. And now, thou great Work of mine, concerning the Estate of humane soules from their creation to the day of the generall Judgement exclusively: on which I have bestowed thousands of houres; Lie still and sleep. S. Hierom did seeme always to heare, Surgite Mortui, & venite ad Judicium. Arise you dead, and come to Judgement. And me thinks, I heare the repeated precept, as spoken to my selfe, and such only as are in my case. 1 Thess. 5.17. pray without ceasing: pray always, Luke 21.3••. Yea though I be enfeebled and faint, wronged and distressed, as the widow was;
yet the rather ought I alwayes pray, and not faint, Luke, 18.1.
The very Mcores of Morocco pray six times in 24. houres; And thinck he is not held worthy to beare witnesse to a truth, who hath not said his prayers six times in a naturall day. Seven times a day did David prayse God, Psal. 119. vers. 164. Some have held; and sure that Christian doth best, who saith the Lords Prayer at least seven times in a day. There never was composed a perfecter and sweeter prayer. To what prayer shall God give eare, if not to the prayer composed by his own son? which the extravagant bablings of Pharisees and battologies of those, who Longum precantur, love long prayers (as Tertullian phraseth it:) and the sudden extemporary ebullitions of Lip-holy seeme-Saints are as far inferior, as Hell is to Heaven: which no men, no raptures of Angels or Archangels can mend.
O Lord, prepare my heart to continue in Prayers; and guide my prayers to please thee, through him, in whom thou art well pleased, Jesus Christ our bles∣sed Saviour and Redeemer.
2. I will go briefly to work. Concerning the divisions of these times, and the scruples from these words, I wholly put them off to the Masters of Contro∣versies, and the Anti-Bellarminian Canvasers: and I refer my selfe and my beliefe to the Doctrine of the Church of England: assenting to her wholly, so far as my knowledge reacheth: and in other things, beyond my capacity, implicitly beleeving in her.
For I see no reason but in such things, as the Lay-man and Ignorant must trust in his Priest, by an implicit Faith: so the Clergy man ought to trust in his Church. It is no false ground (whatsoever the ignorant Zelotes do say, or write) but fit to be imbraced; To confesse and follow Scripture expresse, in things ap∣parent, and to beleeve such senses thereof as may be, though to us unrevealed. Not can it be amisse to subscribe to our Church in points beyond our Sphere, Needle or Compasse, but to Follow the Faith of our Governors, Overseers and Pa∣stors.
That which I know, is good; what I know not, I beleeve to be better, said Heraclitus of old. To her I subject, in humblest manner, all my Writings, with my selfe: professing in the sight of God (who searcheth soules, and tryeth consci∣ences) that I beleeve the Church of England to be the purest part of Christs Mili∣tant Church:—pro quâ non metuam mori, as one said, in another case. In the defence whereof I could be well content, if occasion served, to sactifice my dearest blood.
In a more particular expressing, I unbosome my thoughts thus. We have had foure right Reverend and most learned Lords Bishops. Bishop Jewel, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Morton, and Bishop White, who have written polemically and unanswerably of this subject; and may give content to any indifferent Reader. Many other Heroës of our Church of England, have also done excellently well; but the incomparable Mr. Hooker exceeds them all. Let them, who have him not, buy him: who have him, study him: and who is scrupulous concerning these words, This is my Body, &c. let him reade, and diligently consider, and he may safely beleeve what Mr. Hooker writeth in his Ecclesiasticall Polity, lib. 5. Par. 67. I cannot but transcribe part. Thus then divinely he proceedeth, p. 179.
Variety of Judgements and opinions argueth obscurity in those things, where∣about they differ. But that which all parts receive for truth, that which every one having sifted, is by no one denied or doubted of, must needs bee matter of infallible certainty. Whereas therefore there are but three expositions made of This is my Body. The first, This is in it selfe before participation really, and truly the naturall substance of my body by reason of the coëxistence, which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread; which is the Lutherans interpretation. The second; This is in it selfe and before participation, the very true and naturall substance of my body, by force of that
Deity which with the words of Consecration abolisheth the substance of bread, and substituteth in the place thereof my body; which is the Popish construction: The last, This hallowed Food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth, unto Faithfull receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mysticall participa∣tion, whereby as I make my selfe wholy theirs, so I give them in hand an actuall possession of all such saving grace, as my sacrificed body can yeeld, and as their soules do presently need, this is to them, and in them, my body. Of these three rehearsed Interpretations the Last hath in it nothing, but what the rest do all ap∣prove, and acknowledge to be most true; nothing, but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confest to inforce; nothing, but that which the Church of God hath always thought necessary; nothing, but that which alone is sufficient for vvery Christian man to beleeve concerning the use, and force of this Sacra∣ment; finally, nothing, but that wherewith the writings of all Antiquity are consonant, and all Christian Confessions agreeable. And as truth in what kinde soever, is by no kinde of truth gain-faid; so the mind which resteth it selfe on this, is never troubled with those perplexities, which the other do both find by meanes of so great contradiction between their opinions, and true principles of reason grounded upon experience, nature, and sense. Which albeit with boyste∣rous courage and breath they seeme oftentimes to blow away, yet who so obser∣veth how again they labour, and sweat by subtilty of wit, to make some show of agreement between their peculiar conceits and the generall Edicts of Nature, must needs perceive they struggle with that which they cannot fully master. Besides, sith of that which is proper to themselves, their discourses are hungry, and unpleasant, full of tedious and irksome labour, heartlesse, and hitherto without fruit; on the other side, reade we them, or heare we others, be they of our own, or of ancienter times, to what part soever they be thought to incline, touching that whereof there is controversie: yet in this, where they all speak but one thing, their discourses are heavenly, their words sweet as the Hony-comb, their tongues melodiously tuned instruments, their sentences meere consolation and joy; are we not hereby almost even with voyce from Heaven admonished which wee may safeliest cleave unto? He which hath said of the one Sacrament, Wash and be cleane; hath said concerning the other likewise, Eat and live. If therefore without any such particular and solemne warrant as this is, that poore distressed woman com∣ming unto Christ for health, could so constantly resolve her selfe, May I but touch the skirt of his garment, I shall be whole; what moveth us to argue of the man∣ner, how life should come by bread; our duty being here but to take what is of∣fered, and most assuredly to rest perswaded of this, that can we but Eat, we are safe? When I behold with mine eyes some small and scarce discernable graine or seed whereof Nature maketh promise that a tree shall come; and when after∣wards of that tree any skilfull artificer undertaketh to frame some exquisite and curious work, I look for the event, I move no question about performance either of the one, or of the other. Shall I simply credit Nature in things Naturall? Shall I in things artificiall relye my selfe on Art, never offering to make doubt? and in that which is alone both Art and Nature, refuse to beleeve the Author of both, except he acquaint me with his ways, and lay the secret of his skill before me? where God himselfe doth speak those things, which either for height and sublimity of matter, or else for secrecy of performance we are not able to reach unto: as we may be ignorant without danger, so it can be no disgrace to confesse we are ignorant. Such as love piety, will as much as in them lyeth, know all things that God commandeth, but especially the duties of service which they owe to God. As for his dark, and hidden works, they prefer, as becommeth them in such cases, simplicity of Faith before that knowledge, which curiously sifting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of that which the wit of man cannot search, chilleth for the most part all warmth of zeale, and bringeth soundnesse of beleife many times into great hazard. Let it therefore be sufficient
for me presenting my selfe at the Lords Table, to know what there I receive from him, without searching, or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth his promise; Let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devo∣tion, and hitherto in this cause but over patiently heard, let them take their rest; Let curious and sharp-witted men beat their heads about what questions them∣selves will; the very letter of the Word of Christ giveth plaine security that these mysteries do, as nayles, fasten us to his very Crosse, that by them we draw out, as touching officacy, force and vertue, even the blood of his goared side, in the wounds of our Redeemer; we there dip our tongues, we are died red both within, and without; our hunger is satisfied, and our thirst for ever quenched; they are things wonderfull which he feeleth, great which he seeth, and unheard-of which he uttereth, whose soule is possest of this Pascall Lambe, and made joyfull in the strength of this new Wine: This Bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold; this Cup hallowed with solemne benediction, availeth to the endlesse life, and wel-fare both of soule and body, in that it serveth as well for a medicine to heale our infirmities, and purge our sins, as for a sacrifice of thankesgiving; with touching it sanctifieth, it enlightneth with beliefe, it truly conformeth us unto the Image of Jesus Christ. What these Elements are in themselves, it skilleth not; it is enough that to me, which take them, they are the Body and Blood of Christ; his promise in witnesse hereof sufficeth; his word, he knoweth which way to accomplish. Why should any cogitation possesse the mind of a Faithfull Communicant but this, O my God, thou art true; O my soule thou art happy? So far M. Hooker.
THou art mercifull, oh Heavenly Saviour, thou art mercifull to Mankind, against the fiery and furious temptations, and assaults of spirituall powers, sometimes alluring, sometimes haling, sometimes leading men captive unto sin, and under it. Thou most graciously hast ordained an Host of Holy Angels, to help us, to suggest good thoughts unto us, to free us, to streng then us: that we shall not so much as hurt our foot; and there are more on our side, than against us. But in op∣position of the allurements from the wicked world, and the insurrections, and ebullitions of the skittish civill warre betweene the flesh and our soule, thou hast provided both preservatives that we fall not, and re∣demptives if we fall: even thy powerfull Sacraments replenished with Divine vertue. For thine own sake, most holy Mediator, and Ad∣vocate, let thy blessed Sacraments work effectually in us, be conduit∣pipes of grace, and conveyers of goodnesse into our soules. Let them nourish us up unto true Faith, Hope, and Charity; and let thy sa∣cred Eucharist be our spirituall Food, both in Life, and Death.
Amen Lord Jesus, Amen.