תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

done by God, who does nothing superfluously. 14. It seems to contradict an article of faith, viz. of Christ's sitting in heaven in a determinate place, and being contained there till his second coming. Upon these considerations, and upon the account of all the particular arguments, which I have and shall bring against it, it is not unreasonable, neither can it seem so, that we decline the letter, and adhere to the spirit in the sense of these words. But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution, and the whole nature of the thing.

SECTION VII.

Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution.

1. THE blessed sacrament is the same thing now, as it was in the institution of it: but Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sense, when he ate his last supper; therefore neither does he now. The first proposition is beyond all dispute, certain, evident, and confessed; "Hoc facite" convinces it: "This do;" what Christ did, his disciples are to do. I assume,-Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last supper, therefore neither does he now; the assumption I prove by divers arguments.

2. First: If then he gave his natural body, then it was naturally broken, and his blood was actually poured forth before the passion; for he gave τὸ σῶμα κλώμενον, τὸ ποτή ριον, οι αἷμα ἐκχυνόμενον, “ his body was delivered broken, his blood was shed:' now those words were spoken either properly and naturally; and then they were not true, because his body was yet whole, his blood still in the proper channels; or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sense, and so it was true (as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake): for that, which he then ministered, was the sacrament of his passion.

3. Secondly: If Christ gave his body in the natural sense at the last supper, then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; if it was not, then it is not now, and then their dream of the mass is vanished: if it was propitiatory at the last supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and

mankind was redeemed before the passion of our blessed Saviour: which, therefore, would have been needless and ineffective: so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine.

4. Thirdly: If Christ gave his body properly in the last supper, and not only figuratively and in sacrament, then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his passion, but a real exhibition of it: but that it was a sacrament only, appears by considering that it was then alive; that the passion was future, that the thing was really to be performed upon the cross, that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world. In the last supper, all this was in type and sacrament, because it was before, and the substance was to follow after.

5. Fourthly: If the natural body of Christ was in the last supper under the accidents of bread, then his body, at the same time, was visible and invisible in the whole substance, visible in his person, invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired, what it was which the apostles received, what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally; or whether it be imaginable, that the apostles understood it in the literal sense, when they saw his body stand by, unbroken, alive, integral, hypostatical.

cross,

6

6. Fifthly: If Christ's body were naturally in the sacrament, I demand, whether it be as it was in the last supper,or as upon the -or as it is now in heaven? Not as in the last supper;'-for then it was frangible, but not broken; but typically, by design, in figure and in sacrament, as it is evident in matter of fact. 2. Not as on the cross;for there the body was frangible and broken too, and the blood spilled; and if it were so now in the sacrament, besides that it were to make Christ's glorified body passible, and to crucify the Lord of life again: it also were not the same body, which Christ hath now; for his body that he hath now, is spiritual and incorruptible, and cannot be otherwise; much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly, and yet be the same body. 3. Not as in heaven,'-where it is neither corruptible nor broken; for then in the sacrament there were given to us Christ's glorified body; and then, neither were the sacrament a remembrance of Christ's death, neither were the words of institution verified, “This

[ocr errors]

is my body, which is broken;" besides, in this we have Bellarmine's confession; "Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi, ut est in cœlo." But then if it be remembered, that Christ hath no other body but that which is in heaven; and that can never be otherwise than it is, and so it cannot be received otherwise properly; it unanswerably follows, that if it be received in any other manner (as it must if it be at all), it must be received, not naturally or corporally, but spiritually and indeed. By a figure, or a sacramental, spiritual sense, all these difficulties are easily assoiled, but by the natural never.

[ocr errors]

7. Sixthly: At the last supper, they ate the blessed eucharist, but it was not in remembrance of Christ's death; for it was future then, and therefore not then capable of being remembered any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to-morrow; it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a sacrament, or figurative, mysterious representment of a thing, that in the whole use of it was variable by heri' and 'cras,' and therefore never to be naturally verified, but on the cross by a proper and natural presence, because then it was so and never else; at that time it was future, and now it is past, and in both it is relative to his death; therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sense, for that as it could not be remembered then, so neither broken now; that is, nothing of it is natural, but it is wholly ritual, mysterious, and sacramental. For that this was the sacrament of his death, appears in the words of institution, and by the preceptive words, "Do this in remembrance of me."-And in the reason subjoined by St. Paul, 'Ooánis yàp àv ¿odínte, &C. "For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord's death till he come1." Therefore, when Christ said, This is my body given,' or 'broken' on my part, taken, eaten,' on yours, it can be nothing else but the sixwv, the sacramental image of his death;' to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body, that so the substance should become his own shadow: the natural presence be his own sacrament, or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered. His body, given in the sacrament, is the application and memory of his death, and no more; that as Christ in heaven represents k De Euch lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 1. 1 Cor. xi. 26.

6

[ocr errors]

his death in the way of intercession, so do we by our mi nistry but as in heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified, a rememoration of his crucifixion, of his death and passion, by which he reconciled God and man: so it is in the sacrament after our manner, "This is my body given for you," that is, "This is the sacrament of my death, in which my body was given for you." For, as Aquinas said, in all sciences, words signify things; but it is proper to theology, that things themselves, signified or expressed by voices, should also signify something beyond it. • This is my body,' are the sacramental words, or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental; it must, therefore, signify something beyond these words, and so they do; for they signify the death which Christ suffered in that body. It is but an imperfect conception of the mys tery to say, it is the sacrament of Christ's body only, or his blood; but it is ex parte rei,' a sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation, or an exhibition of it, as it became beneficial to us, that is, as it was crucified, as it was our sacrifice. And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing, and the order of the words, and the body of the circumstances, that it is next to that which is evident in itself, and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the institution: especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the sacrament of the passover, and very many other instances; it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery,-it reconciles our duty with the secret,-it is free of all inconvenience, it prejudices no right,-nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent, fit to be discoursed of, and inserted into the rituals of a wise religion.

:

8. Seventhly: He that receives unworthily, receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy sacrament, that is agreed on all sides; therefore, he that receives benefit to his body, receives it by his worthy communicating; therefore the benefit, reaching to the body by the holy eucharist, comes to it by the soul; therefore by the action of the soul, not the action of the body; therefore by faith, not by the mouth: whereas on the contrary, if Christ's body natural were eaten in the sacrament, the benefit would come to the body by his own action, and to the soul by the body. All

that eat, are not made Christ's body,' and all that eat not, are not disentitled to the resurrection; the Spirit does the work without the sacrament; and in the sacrament, when it is done," the flesh profiteth nothing," and this argument ought to prevail upon this account: because, as is the nutri ment, so is the manducation. If the nourishment be wholly spiritual, then so is the eating. But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish; therefore neither is it eaten naturally; but it does nourish spiritually, and therefore it is eaten only spiritually. And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan", though how they will endure it, I cannot understand: "Manducatur verum corpus Christi in sacramento, sed non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr. Spiritualis manducatio, quæ per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sacramento existentem pertingit:" "The true body of Christ is eaten in the sacrament, but not corporally, but spiritually. The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ in the sacrament;"which is very good Protestant doctrine. And if it be absurd to say, Christ's body doth nourish corporally, why it should not be as absurd to say, we eat it corporally, is a secret which I have not yet been taught. As is our eating, so is the nou rishing, because that is in order to this; therefore, if you will suppose that natural eating of Christ's body does nourish spiritually, yet it must also nourish corporally; let it do more if it may, but it must do so much; just as the waters in baptism, although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul, yet because the waters are material and corporeal, they cleanse the body first and primarily so it must be in this sacrament also; if Christ's body were eaten naturally, it must nourish naturally, and then pass further: but, "that which is natural is first, and then that which is spiritual."

9. Eighthly: For the likeness to the argument, I insert this consideration; By the doctrine of the ancient church, wicked men do not eat the body, nor drink the blood, of Christ. So Origen": "Si fieri potest, ut qui malus adhuc perseveret, edat verbum factum carnem, cùm sit verbum et panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in æternum:"""If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness, to eat the Word made flesh, m Opusc. tom, 2, tract. 2. de Euch. c. 5.

[ocr errors]

n In Matt. xv.

« הקודםהמשך »