THE EATING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, Considered in its PRINCIPLES.  
By JOHN DESPAGNE Minister of the Gospel.  
Translated out of French into English, by John Rivers of Chaford in Sussex, Esquire.  
LONDON. Printed by T. N. for Anthony Williamson, and are to be sold at the sign of the Queen's Arms in Pauls-Church-yard, near the West end. 1652.   

The following Lines are part of the Epistle Dedicatory which the Author sent to a Prince, lately deceased.  
GLORIOUS are all the Movables of the Spiritual Tabernacle, all the Doctrines of Christian Religion: but the Table of Shewbread, the point of the Eucharist, is one of those three things which the Law hath honoured with a Crown of Gold. This is that Bread, which sustained David amidst his military travels. This is that Honey, which the Nazarite of God found out, having rend asunder the Lion. This is that hidden Manna, which is promised to the Conqueror. After so many others which are gone before me, I make plain the way of this Bethlem. And in these my exercises, my supplication is, that the Sun may stop his course to lengthen the victories of Josuah; that at the sound of his trumpets, the strongest Rampires may fall down and fill up their trenches; that his Squadrons may scale the highest Towers; that the Rivers may run back towards their Cataracts at the presence of the Ark; that the sword of God may prosper in the hand of Gedeon; that the Stars may fight for Barak; that Zebulon may triumph over the Ships of Tyre and Tharsis. And that David having served in the Council of God, may departed hence full of days, to enter into the joy of his Master.   

The Argument and Apology of the Treatise following.  
I Know it will be noted with divers names: with Superfluity, with Novelty, with Nullity and Rashness: And at the first sight its brevity will render it contemptible.  
With Superfluity; because men have already wrote so much upon this matter, and have digged so much in this Mine, that it seems to be fully exhausted. Though it be not my design to write nothing but what was said before, and present a Mess that hath been served in so many times; that the world hath good reason to be cloyed therewith.  
With Novelty; because I lay such principles, and introduce such matters, as men have not been accustomed to see in those who handle the point of the Eucharist.  
With Nullity, because being unheard of to many, they will seem to be to far fetched, and nothing appertaining to the Subject.  
With Rashness, because I have observed the errors of many great Doctors, which men take no notice of. For are we greater than those Patriarches, who gave us this well, and have drank of it themselves, and their children, and their flocks?  
Truly, I reverence those valiant Champions, unsheathing the sword of the Spirit, who environ the bed of Solomon, whose pillars be of silver, and cover of purple. But excepting their birthrights and other prerogatives, although their wisdom be of as large an extent as the sand of the Sea, they have not drained the Ocean. They themselves have not thought they have said all, nor to be perfect in what they have said. We have not yet surrounded Jerusalem, nor measured its towers, nor counted all its battlements. Of the plentiful harvest of these rich men, may remain some ears, which we may be permitted to glean.  
As for the Novelty which men will charge me with, I know that many, seeing Jesus Christ walk upon the Sea, and not the common way, do prejudg it forthwith to be a vision: But it is not the tree of the forbidden fruit, but the true tree of life, whereto I have fastened my Meditations. I open no new Springs in the desert; 'tis a long time since they were broached. If they are new to any, they ought not to complain that they are showed unto them. By my language I shall be taken for a Galilaean. It is all that I can fear, and all that I do desire.  
As for other censures, I shall answer them in the Treatise itself. As I have built upon the institution of the supper, so also have I promoted nothing which answers not this foundation; which to verify there's no need to ascend into heaven, nor descend into the bottomless pit. The materials which I employ in this structure, are to be found in the very words of Jesus Christ, instituting this Sacrament. These words are near us, and in our mouth.  
The First Sect prepares us the entrance to them. The Second measure them. The Third considers the circumstances of the Eucharist; its resemblance to the Passover; their differences, and some questions which concern them. The Fourth touches some points of a Christians practise in this matter In the Fifth I give certain general addresses, which serve not only for the understanding of the point of the Supper, but of the whole New-Testament also.  
In sum; men will find that these doctrines are as ancient as the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper, sith, that they are contained there. In this regard, and laying aside what there is of mine own, I may say that here are the mountains of incense. It is nothing but myrrh and aloes: they are nothing but pearls and carbuncles. Here is that well-furnished chamber, in which our Master celebrated his Passover: It is here that we shall enter, as it were cross a cloud, to see the wonderful things of the Sanctuary.  
I regard not those who respect rather the quantity of the paper, than the quality of the work; who esteem rather of the greatness of a Flint, than the Beauty of a Diamond It were as easy for me, as for many others, to produce a volumn extended with words, and swelling with allegations. But 'tis not my end to enlarge my Phylacteries This is to abuse time, and wander out from the way where one may go straight outright: Especially, sigh, I undertake no complete and entire Treatise of the Eucharist, but only a supplement of that which seems to want in other Authors, who have wrote upon this subject.  
Finally, although I am not that learned Scribe in the Kingdom of Heaven, who draws, from the Treasure of his heart, things both ancient and modern: I hope nevertheless to please those whom ignorance or passion hath not prepossessed, and their approbation will give me wings to pass to other matters.   

To his Friend the Translator, on the Subject of his Book.  

1  
WHAT stricter Jews durst not assay,  
The Life of Beasts we now convey  
(Misprising the Mosaic Rites,)  
Into our licenc'd Appetites.  
Our Stomaches are our Altars; All Days, Feasts;  
To sacrifice the blood of slaughtered Beasts.   

2  
What Heathens moralised would hate,  
Man's flesh with greedy mouths we eat;  
And then we breathe forth purest Notes,  
When first Man's blood has smoothed our throats.  
Our Stomaches are grown stronger; and we can  
Digest th' unsodden flesh and blood of Man.   

3  
What Cannibals could not devour,  
The Blood of very God we pour  
Upon our guiltless Tables; where  
Nor blood nor flesh of God we spare.  
Digestion is sublimed; Our inward fire  
Concocts what Cherubs did, and do, admire.   

Th' old Childish Jew so long is schooled  
By th' Law his Pedagogue, till fooled.  
The merely moralist still Shrinks  
At th' fancy of our horrid Drinks.  
Yet we keep on our Diet. Our dry Souls  
Drink their own Healths in blood from th' hallowed Bowls.   
WIL BEAU.   

The Eating of the BODY of CHRIST Considered in its PRINCIPLES.  

The First Sect.  

CHAP. I.  
To what the Instruction of Christians is now reduced, as concerning the Point of the Supper.  
Of an abuse which is found in many Divines treating of the History of the Passion.  
Of many circumstances of the Passion, of which we are ignorant of the particular Causes.  
THere is nothing of Religion this day more studied, and peradveuture less understood among the common sort of Orthodox Divines, then that of the Eucharist. Men learn nothing of it but what reaches to controversy; as if all the Doctrine of this Sacrament consisted in that. To this very end many labour to inform themselves of nothing but of the belief of the Fathers; as if it were belonging to the purpose of the Supper, to know the opinion of Tertullian or St Ambrose. Let this be spoken without diminishing the praise of those who have so profitably Wrote of this Controversy. It is indeed necessary in these times; but it is not that which nourishes the Soul. A man who receives the holy Supper, aught at that time to think of other things, then to reason with himself whether accidents may subsist without a Subject; whether or not mice can eat the Body of Christ, whether Transubstantiation were before the Council of Verceil or Lateran; and other ordinary questions. Or to dispute Philosophically upon the words of Concomitance, Locally, Circumscriptively, and such like Terms.  
Many also study Tracks of Piety on the Subject of the Supper, in the most part of which we may behold much discourse, but little matter: Or if there be some substance, it is but the Rudiments and Alphabet of Christianity, amplified with a multitude of words. In such sort, that, after having read a hundred such books which are cried up among the people, we shall find heaped together much speech, but little Doctrine. They who greatly esteem them, deceive themselves in many respects.  
I must advertise them of one abuse which cannot be dissembled. We have some Writers who cause Metaphors to pass for Mysteries, and allusions of words for very real matters, yea for demonstrative Reasons. When they treat of the Passion of Christ (which is the true Subject of the Holy Supper) with its particulars and circumstances, behold how they specify unto us the Causes! If they speak of the kissing of Judas, they seek the reason from the mouth of Adam, who sinned with his lips. If there be question of the Reed which was put into the hand of Christ; it is (say they) to show, that he breaks not the bruised Reed. If they talk of his Vestments which were divided into four parts; they tell us they are the four parts of the World, to whom our Lord hath communicated his blessings. That he was stripped of his Garments, is as much as that one day he will restore the Kingdom to God his Father. If they discourse of his Purple Robe, it is because he wipes away our sins which are as red as Scarlet. If he were pierced in the Side, it is to the end that we should have him near our heart. If he were smoat on the face, it is as much as that we have disfigured our face, (i. e.) the Image of God. Oh subtle Imaginations! Such allegories are tolerable in an oratorical Discourse, but certainly they are impertinent and abusive when there is question made of teaching exactly. This Style, instead of framing a distinct and articulated voice, produces not hang but a confused and extravagant noise; holding the minds of men in a childish ignorance, and rendering the most important matters of Religion contemptible and ridiculous; Yet nevertheless, the ignorant sort find these Conceits to be very high, and take them for very solid Doctrines and currant money.  
It is to be noted that many labour in vain to give a particular reason of all the Circumstances of the death of Christ. Certainly many of them have their Causes pointed out by the very finger of God. That our Lord was fastened to the wood; That he was lifted up; That he suffered among thiefs; That the place of his punishment was without the City; That they cast lots upon his Garments; That his bones were not broken; That his side was pierced; That his hands and his feet were boared through; That Gall was given him to drink, etc. All these particularities have their allusion to some Oracle, or to some Figure which hath preceded them, from whence may be drawn Theological demonstrations. But as for other Circumstances, whereof special reasons are not taught in the Scripture, or verified by certain analogy, it sufficeth to consider them simply as parts of the humiliation of Christ, and carry them up to the general causes of his Passion. Otherwise 'tis as much as to feed on imaginary meats.   

CHAP. II. Of an Usual expression among Christians subject to evil Consequences.  
I Have yet this to give advertisement of; That, in the common language of Christians, there is a form of speech touching this matter of the Supper, in which we ought to use no little caution. As for example: We say ordinarily; The Altar of the Cross; The Cross is the Altar (say we) on which Christ was sacrificed. This phrase is authorized by the pen of many excellent Authors: But we must know that their end hath been to apply themselves to the Vulgar. For they are not ignorant that (to speak properly) the Cross was not the Altar of the Sacrifice of Christ. Otherwise this speech would be dangerous for those that know not its importance. And if we should dispute against a Jew, he would force us to disavow it.  
It is a Rule of Divine Right (Exod. 29. 37. Mat. 23. 18, 19) That the Altar is more excellent than the Offering. The reason is, because the Offering is sanctified by the Altar. Whereupon we ought to observe, that the ancient Fathers, giving the name of Altar to the Table of the Lord, show, that they mean not there to sacrifice the Body of Jesus Christ for the expiation of sins. For an Altar of wood or stone doth not sanctify the Body of our Lord. Therefore they so call the holy Table; but not in a sense that doth in any wise favour Transubstantiation, or the dependences thereon. Finally, it is true that Jesus Christ was offered on the Cross, but it is false that it was held for an Altar in the act of this venerable Sacrifice.  
For 1. This wood on which Jesus Christ suffered, did it sanctify the Offering of his Body? Was the Cross more excellent or more holy than the Sacred body of the Son of God? 2. Add to this, that the Cross was a mark or token of malediction; (Gal. 3. 13.) a quite contrary quality from that of the Altar, which is to bless and to sanctify. 3. Also the holy Scripture, speaking of the same Cross on which our transgressions were expiated, never gives it the Title of Altar: and the holy Ghost always abstains from this phrase, although that, in many places of the New Testament, it seems to come much to the purpose. 4. Men speak very inconsiderately, to say that the Altar of Burnt-Offerings, or that of Incense did represent the Cross on which Jesus Christ ought to be sacrificed. There is more appearance, that the Cross, on which Jesus Christ was put, was signified by the wood on which they placed their Victims. And indeed Isaac, carrying the wood on which he was to be sacrificed, was a figure of Jesus Christ bearing the Cross on which he was to die.   

CHAP. III. What is the Subject of the thoughts which Christians ought to have when they receive the holy Supper. The Spiritual presence ill understood among the Vulgar.  
TWo men shall produce an action of the same kind and the same quality, in which nevertheless the one hath more noble thoughts then the other. And for example; both may give Alms with like sincerity of heart, equal measure of charity, and with the same resentment of affection, and yet nevertheless in this act one carries more fair and rich conceptions. So among many Christians, who receive the Sacrament by faith, and are carried to this action by motions tending to salvation, there are some whose thoughts surpass those of others, being more sublime and complete, and so of a higher dignity, and which render them nearer to the bosom of Jesus Christ. Now the most excellent thoughts, which a Christian, communicating at the Supper, can have, are those which Jesus Christ had and did suggest unto us in this action, expressing them in words full of an incomparable richness. To know then what cogitations are there required, the words of Jesus Christ rightly understood, will furnish us with the Subject of them. But such a one presumes best to understand them, who is not yet topic enough in every point appertaining to this matter.  
For I let alone the superficial intelligence; wherewith Idiots content themselves. When they can say that as the bread nourishes our bodies, so the flesh of Christ nourishes our souls; they think they know enough. Even so many do very ill understand this spiritual presence of Christ that is now so much disputed of. Then, when they present to themselves a man nailed to a Cross, they imagine by this Idea Christ is made present to their thoughts and that in this act consists the participation of the body of Christ. 'Tis true, we cannot call to mind his death and the manner of it, but by conceiving such an object, namely a humane body, as it is painted in the history of the Passion; his side being pierced, and the blood streaming from the wound, etc. But all this is but an historical representation, much different from the spiritual communion of the body of Christ. For when I represent unto myself Jesus Christ dying on the Cross in the most lively manner possible for me to do; this figure or image, which I have in my mind, is not all this while Jesus Christ himself.   

CHAP. III. A Brief of all that men teach touching the Point of the Lords Supper.  
ALL that we consider in this Doctrine, is reduced principally to these things. The divers names by which this Sacrament is called. It's Institution and the time of it. The two Signs employed at this Table, and the Censure of those who deny the Cup to the people. The Analogy between the Bread and the Body of Christ; between the Wine and the Blood; The breaking of the one and the pouring forth of the other, with their signification. The Thanksgiving or blessing by which Jesus Christ consecrated these Elements. The difference between the corporal reception of the sign, common both to the faithful and the wicked, and the Spiritual Communication of the Body of Christ peculiar to believers. The examining of these words, wherein we find that there is a Figure; the name of the thing signified being attributed to the Sign, according to the ordinary custom of Sacramental locutions. That the substance of the Signs remain entire. That the Body of Christ is not enclosed in the Bread of the Eucharist, nor in any place of the earth. That this bodily presence is not requisite to the true and real Communication of it. That this Communion is made by the efficacy of the Spirit, on the behalf of Christ; and by the Organ of Faith, on our part. That this Faith reacheth even unto Heaven, and doth truly join us unto Christ. That the end of this action is not there to make an Expiatory Sacrifice, but a Commemoration of him. That this Commemoration is not idle and vain, but full of efficacy and affection. That the Supper is unto us a Seal of a new Covenant; an earnest of our Resurrection; a tye of our Union with the Church, and a Badge of our Profession. To these are joined the precepts which show the preparatory Exercises; the examination which every one ought to make of himself, for to partake worthily of it; and finally the acknowledgement or thanksgiving which we ought to make for it.  
But, as this matter is now almost all reduced to controversy, the most part of those who undertake an exact description of all that may be said upon the Point of the Eucharist, do make stop principally at those things which are in dispute. And in this regard it is a hard matter to add to their writings, having there neither question which they have not discussed; error which they have not encountered; difficulty which they have not cleared; syllable which they have not culled; argument which they have not pressed; objection which they have not dissolved. But we shall find that we may yet bring hither many other important considerations, and without which this Doctrine cannot be complete.   

CHAP. V Observations extracted out of the Jews Liturgy.  
THey, who have read the Books of the Rites of the ancient Jews, have drawn from them some lights, which show the reason of many particulars expressed in the Institution of the Supper. For the proceeding of jesus Christ in the Eucharist, answers to that which the Hebrews observe in the Passeover. Now besides the Divine Laws which prescribe the form of this sacred Feast; the Jews had Rules for those Circumstances which were not mentioned in the Law. As for example: Moses having pronounced nothing touching the Drink of this Solemn Feast, their Ecclesiastical Canons ordained that which was convenient for the Action. They relate therefore among the ordinary Formalities of this Banquet.  
That at the beginning the Master of the house took the Cup, and, praising God, caused it to pass from hand to hand, to the end that all who sat at the table might taste of it. Thus Saint Luke relates, that jesus Christ began his last supper.  
That after that, he took bread in his hands, and blessing the Divine Majesty, broke it, and then gave it to every one that was present at the banquet, telling them, that it was the bread which their fathers had eaten in Egypt.  
That for the Close of the Repast, he took again the Cup, and presenting the Wine, said, that it was the fruit of the Vine and the blood of the Grape. Terms borrowed of the old Testament (Gen. 49. 11. and Deut. 32. 14.) and to which our Saviour made allusion, when, giving the Wine, he said, that it was Blood. Whereupon is to be observed in what the last Cup is different from the first. Also why Christ blessed not the Wine and Bread both together, but the bread by itself apart, and so the Wine.  
That in this Feast there was a Dish composed of Raisins and other Fruits bruised and beaten together, seasoned with vinegar and made clammy like unto clay (in remembrance of the Bricks of Egypt) wherein they dipped their bread. It may be, it was the platter wherein Judas his sop was dipped.  
That the washing of Feet, frequent among those of the East, was not practised at the end of all Feasts, but only in that of the Passeover. From thence it comes, that after Supper jesus Christ washed the feet of his Disciples.  
That their Custom was to close this Action with the singing of Psalms, the 113, and the 114. which is without doubt that Hymn which jesus Christ and his Disciples sang before they went forth.  
That speaking of the Passeover, they oftentimes give it a name which signifies Annunciation, which is the Term which St Paul transfers to the holy Supper, when he saith, Ye shall Show the Lords death.  
Without these observations drawn from the Ecclesiastical discipline of the Jews, it is impossible to attain to a perfect understanding of the actions of jesus Christ in the Institution of the Eucharist. But the sense of his words, touching his Body and his Blood, aught to be drawn from a higher Fountain.   

CHAP. VI Necessary suppositions for the understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper.  
THat which jesus Christ said touching the Communion of his Body and of his Blood, all that (I say) depends on certain Maxims, which our Lord hath laid for a Basis and Foundation of this Communion. Now there are very few people which observe these suppositions, without which nevertheless it is impossible to understand fully the Terms of the Son of God, and to know the importance of them.  
The words of the Institution advertise us that this Sacrament is a New Covenant (in as much as it is the Seal of it) and by consequence, that it contains, or presupposes articles quite new, quite different from those which are contained in the old.  
For we must know that the old Testament, speaking of the Blood of the Covenant, of the effusion of it for the remission of sins, and of the flesh of the expiatory Sacrifice (Symbols of the Body and of the Blood of Christ) did contain certain Ordinances which prohibited that which jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist. Let us retain this carefully. That which the Son of God commands us to do in the Supper, is founded upon Maxims opposite to those of the old Testament. And in this opposition consists the Foundation and the Life of the words of jesus Christ. I conclude then that it is impossible, without the conferring of these clauses carried through the two Testaments, to construe exactly the mysterious words of the Institution.  
Further, Let not men think that here I mean to bring in Allegories. For the relations and differences between the old and new Testament are not Allegorical. And if any one will call them by that name, let him know, that without such Allegories he shall never understand perfectly what jesus Christ had a mind to say. For these words, the Testament, the Blood of the Testament; the Eating of the Flesh given for us; the effusion of Blood for the remission of sins; are terms of the Mosaical Law. It is therefore necessary to learn that, which the Law ordained touching the communication of the Flesh and Blood destined to the expiation of sinners, and compare this Ordinance with that of jesus Christ in the Supper.  
This will furnish me with an answer to those, who would impose upon me to have here introduced matters estranged from the subject of the Eucharist, under colour of being far removed from their own thoughts. The considerations which I have to produce, are immediately fastened to the words of the holy Supper, and show to what properly jesus Christ had regard unto in pronouncing them, as we shall see hereafter. On the contrary, many treat of the Eucharist, who embroil it with an infinite number of other points, whilst they omit a good part of the true substance of the Sacramental words, whereof they never express the entire sense. None here refuseth to hear spoken of daemon strative pronouns, of a verb substantive, of a subject, and of an attribute, of synecdoches, of Metanomyes', and other scholastic Terms, which serve only for the grammatical understanding. Why then shall the proper names of things which jesus Christ aimed at in the Eucharist, be reputed strangers in this matter? The new Testament and the old; the blood shed for our sin, and the blood of legal expiations; the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the eating of offerings, are terms correlative in the words of the Eucharist, and do answer one another with a loud voice. The understanding of the one depends on the knowledge of the other.   

CHAP. VII. A preparatory question to the following Considerations.  
THere is none but knows, that our Saviour explained himself more formally when he spoke of his blood, in presenting the Cup; and when he spoke of his body, in giving the bread: For these last words expound the former, and teach us in what quality his body is produced unto us, and given in the Eucharist; namely, in as much as it is the sacrifice of the new Testament offered for the remission of our sins.  
Now these words express the subject and the cause of our Communion with him: For it is not enough to know that we have the body of Christ to eat, and his blood to drink: we ought to know the reason and the virtue of it. Otherwise we shall never understand the point of the Eucharist. This reason is manifest. Our Saviour in the 26 chapter of St Matthew, speaks thus touching the Cup, Drink ye all of it: For this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But there are but few who know the meaning of jesus Christ, and wherein consists the knot and connexion of his purpose, That we ought to drink his blood, Because it is the blood of the new Testament, shed for the remission of our sins. And likewise why from the oblation of his body do we conclude the eating of it? What is the consequence of the one to the other? Here we have many excellent mysteries contained in these words of jesus Christ to discover.    

The Second Sect.  

CHAP. I. The first Consideration on the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper.  
DIvines affirm that jesus Christ, knowing the Law which forbids eating of blood, hath expressly mentioned a new Covenant which obligeth us to drink his blood. In which he maketh the two Testaments to oppose one the other. The one which forbids the eating of blood, the other which commands the drinking of blood.  
But I observe one point which is not so common, although very notable, touching the reason by which jesus Christ invites us to drink his blood.  
There is a Law in the 17 of Leviticus, verse 11, and 12, which we must compare with the Ordinance of jesus Christ in the 26 of Saint Matthew.  
The Law saith, Jesus Christ saith, I have given you the blood to offer upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood which shall make an atonement for the soul. It is shed for the remission of sins, and therefore I said to the children of Israel, none among you shall eat blood. Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  
This Comparison shows that jesus Christ commanding to drink his blood, employs the same reason for which it was forbidden to eat any blood at all. The Law saith, eat no blood; for it is shed for the remission of your sins. Jesus Christ saith; drink blood; for it is shed for the remession of your sins. It is then expedient for us to drink his blood for the same reason which seems to forbid it us.  
From whence comes it, that the prohibition of the Law and the Commandment of Christ are found to be built on the same foundation? Why doth the same cause which obligeth men to abstain from blood, oblige us to participate of it? How can one and the same reason serve to two contraries? that it should be forbidden to eat blood, because it is expiatory; and commanded to drink the blood because it is expiatory?  
Some will tell us, that we must distinguish between blood and blood; between that of Christ and that of living creatures; between the spiritual perception of the one, and the corporal eating of the other; between the typical expiations, and the real expiations. That Moses spoke of a blood which was but a Seal and Symbol of expiaation, and on the contrary, jesus Christ proposes unto us a blood by which expiation hath been made. That the one speaks of an eating which was done by the mouth; the other of a reception which is in the soul; And that thus they are two different reasons. But all this takes not away the difficulty; the question remains still: For behold what I have to say thereupon.  
The Law forbids to partake of blood, because it is the seal of the remission of sins. And Jesus Christ commands to partake of the cup, because it is the seal of the remission of sins. Why do two so contrary consequences result from the same quality The precedent distinction hath no place here.  
Moreover, we must know that the Law, speaking of the blood of living creatures, which it says to be expiatory, considers this blood in the union or correspondence it hath with that of Christ, which alone is truly expiatory. So that forbidding the corporal eating of the sign that hath relation to the blood of Christ, the same forbidding touches the spiritual Communion of the blood of Christ represented by the sign.  
Truly the terms by which they express the cause of the Commandment, are equivalent to those by which the Law expresseth the reason of the prohibition. And 'tis not without some great reason that the Son of God commanding to drink his blood, would speak as the Law doth when it prohibits the eating of blood.  
We shall therefore see from whence is derived this injunction on us to drink the blood of the new Covenant, by the same reason which forbids us to eat that of the old. But for as much as this question is linked with many other points, we ought to propose them conjointly, before we dissolve the difficulties. Behold then another which ought carefully to be considered, as being the centre of this matter, and the last of the words of jesus Christ in the Supper.   

CHAP. II. The Second Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ.  
WE speak of eating the Body which was given for our sins. Many Orthodox Divines have these terms in their mouths, who know not their importance, nor to what jesus Christ had regard in uttering them.  
It is a RULE in the old Testament, That a man cannot eat of that which is offered for him for the remission of his sins. It is, I say, a point of Divine Right, and a fundamental clause of the first Testament. That none can eat of that which is offered for the remission of his sins. The same flesh cannot be our atonement and our nourishment. These are terms which the Law declares incompatible. And nevertheless against this Maxim, jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body Sacrificed for our sins; his body, I say, represented by expiatory oblations, whose eating was forbidden. This here is one of the highest mysteries of Religion, and the foundation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
Every one knows that the old Testament had two sorts of Sacrifices, distinguished by the ends to which they were offered; The one the Eucharistick; the other the Expiatory. The one for the Benefits of God; the other for the Evil deeds of man. Now concerning the Eucharistick Sacrifice, all those, for whom it was by name offered, had a right also to eat of it. This meat, sanctified by the Altar and distinguished from common nourishments, was a most favoury Mess unto them, as being sent from God's Table, for an earnest of that Communion which they had with him. And we even there meet with an admirable correspondence with the subject of the holy Supper. For, by the Rule of the Law, the flesh of such Sacrifices ought to be eaten either the same day it was sacrificed, or the day after. But on the third day it was not permitted to eat of it. It is an axiom of the old Testament, That no Sacrifice should be eaten on the third day, Levit. 7. verse 16, 17, 18. This Law seems to have an eye upon the eating of the flesh of Christ; which is meat to us, in as much as dead for us. For he exhibits unto us his body; but in as much as broken. So that the object of this eating is Jesus Christ, in as much as dead. Now for as much as the third day, which is that of his Resurrection, represents him unto us living, the Sacrifices, by which he was represented dead, might not be eaten the third day.  
But the Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sins, was yet of a higher dignity, and much more mysterious. In this action Jesus Christ was the entire body of the Figure, and was there represented more to the life. And the flesh of this sacrifice is honoured with a Title which is not given to the other. For 'tis said, that it was most holy. An Epithet, which, according to the Style of the Law, signifies not only a superlative degree in this quality, but expresseth abundance of efficacy which it had (by divine institution) to sanctify those who eat of it, Levit. 6. 27. But (that which is carefully to be observed) none of those for whose sin it was offered, had permission to eat of it. so that this meat was ordained to sanctify sinners, and notwithstanding it was forbidden them.  
For either a sacrifice was made for the sins of any one who was not of the order of the Priests. And in this case one part of the sacrifice was burnt upon the Altar, and the other the Priests did eat. For the Law gave them a portion of the offering which they presented for other men. Leu. 4. v. 22. and Leu. 6. v. 26. 29. Leu. 7. v. 1. etc. But the sinner, for whom the sacrifice was made, did not taste of it at all. Or it was done to expiate the sins of the Priest himself, who offered for his own transgressions. And then neither he, nor any else might eat of the Sacrifice, but it was to be wholly consumed with the fire. Leu. 4. v. 8, etc. Or it was sacrificed for the whole Body of the Church: either annually for the universal expiation of sins, which was done in the name of the whole Congregation; or ordinarily at some notable meetting, which required a general sacrifice for the sins of all the people. And in such a case sometimes the Priests did eat the sacrifice which was offered in common for the sins of the Nation; Leu. 10. v. 17. but none of the Israelites, for whom this sacrifice was made, had permission to eat thereof. Most times, & ordinarily such offerings passed wholly through the fire, to be there consumed; so that no body eat of it. Leu. 4. v. 13. and Leu. 16.  
For the better understanding of all these diversities, we must remember that there were two sorts of Sacrifices for sin. The One, whose blood was carried within the Tabernacle: The Other, whose blood was not admitted the holy place. As for the first, it was a general Rule, that none should eat of it. For there was a Law which did expressly forbid the eating of that sacrifice whose blood was carried into the Tabernacle for the expiation of sins. Leu. 6. v. 30. This first kind of sacrifice is mentioned by the Apostle to the Hebrews, chap. 13. v. 10. As for the Other, whose blood came not into the holy place, they burned one part of it, and the rest was for the eating of the Priests, For this cause the sinners for whom the expiatory sacrifice was offered, had never the power to eat any portion thereof.  
Whereupon we are to observe one very considerable distinction in the Old Testament. There were other signs representing the Body of Christ, of which the eating was permitted to the people of the Jews. They eat Manna, which was (in Figure) the Body of Christ; and drank of the Rock, which was Christ. They eat the Passover, which was Christ. They eat the Eucharistick sacrifices, wherein Jesus Christ was figured. But as for the Expiatory sacrifice, which also represents Christ, it was unlawful for them to eat of it. Now we must know that all these Sacrifices and Sacraments did not represent Jesus Christ in the same respect, but every one of them had its different and particular signification; one representing him in one quality, and another in another, according to the diversity of his Offices and Benefits. As one and the same King may have divers seals, all bearing his image, but under divers habits, and in different postures. The ancient people than had power to communicate of all these Sacraments and Sacrifices, in some respect, as they should represent Christ, except only in that which represented him in as much as an Expiatory Sacrifice, which is the quality wherein he is given to us in the Eucharist.  
It is also to be noted, that among the Oblations which were represented for sins, there was one of Bread and Wine, which are the same Elements which we have in the Eucharist, Num. 15. v. 24. This Bread, and this Wine were also Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as for the Bread, the Law divided it between the Priest and the Altar, reserving nothing for the sinners, for whom by name it was offered. The Wine also was forbid them: for it was all poured forth upon the Offering and served for nothing but to sprinkle upon it. But, at this day the Bread and Wine, Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, are exhibited to them for whom Jesus Christ offered himself in an Expiatory Sacrifice.  
From all these Statutes which prescribe the forms and solemnities of Expiations, it appears; that the Law permits not men to eat that which is offered for the remission of their sins. It is an universal Rule, drawn from Mosaical Right.  
Here then is very considerable the Opposition which is seen between the maxim of the Law, and that of Jesus Christ. The Law saith, Eat not that which is offered for the remission of your sins. Jesus Christ saith, Eat that which is offered for the remission of your sins. For our Saviour inviting sinners to the eating of his Body, establishes a Principle unheard of before, and which is among the Paradoxes, That man should eat the Sacrifice offered for his sins.  
We shall see anon the importance of it. In the mean while I shall pass to another point, which we have already a little obsetved in this here.   

CHAP. III. The third Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ.  
THE Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice is mentioned, as an act of great dignity. But it was the Priest's Prerogative. For the Law gave the Sacrifice to be eaten, not to sinners for whom it was offered, but to the Priests which had offered it for the sins of other men. It was the Priest, not the sinner, who had charge to eat of it. Leu. 6. v. 26. and chap. 7. v. 7. The Priest who offereth the sin Offering shall eat it. It belongs to the Priest who shall make propitiation by it. And it was not lawful for any of the people, although the Sacrifice were offered for them, to touch it, or come near it, or to be found in the place where it was eaten. For the Lawgiver permitted not that it should be eaten any where but in the Tabernacle, whether the people entered not. The Prophet Ezekiel (chap. 46. v. 20.) conformable to this Law, speaking of the flesh offered for sins, forbids the carrying it forth into the utter Court, for fear of sanctifying the People.  
Now the privilege of eating the Offering for sin was given to the Priests, for to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make an atonement for them before the Lord. Leu. 10. v. 17. As then the Priests alone had the power of expiating sins; so also to them alone did belong the eating of the Offering.  
Hence follows. First, That the eating of it was a Priestly act, as well as the immolation. Secondly, That this eating made a part of the Expiation itself, or at least was required to the accomplishment of it. The Sinner and the Priest who reconciles the Sinner, are persons much different, and their actions of a very divers nature. In the Old Testament then, the Priest eats that which was offered for the sin of another. But Jesus Christ hath changed this Ordinance: For, by an Order quite new, and unheard of before, he enjoins even Sinners themselves to eat the flesh offered for their sins. So this Right which was only the Priests, is now transported to Sinners themselves. And whereas the Priest eat it, for to accomplish the expiation of sins; now we eat it because the expiation is already made and accomplished. This difference is very notable.   

CHAP. IU. That the precedent considerations cannot be accused of Nullity, without doing injury to the wisdom of the Son of God.  
NOW if any man will affirm that Jesus Christ thought not of all that is above said, or doubt whether these antitheses be the end of his words, instituting this Sacrament, let him again consider, if they be not there formerly declared? If the blood of the New Covenant, which he commands us to drink, be not manifestly opposite to that of the Old, whereof none eat? If the reason wherefore we are enjoined to drink the one, be not the same for which it was forbidden to taste the other? If Jesus Christ commanding Sinners to eat the body offered for their transgressions, thought not of the Law which forbids them to eat the flesh sacrificed for their sins? If he were ignorant that it was an action of the Priests wherein Sinners had no part? If he knew not that the Communion of bread and and wine, representing his Body and Blood, in as much as they were to be offered for Sinners, was absolutely forbidden them? And finally; If he, who knew this Law perfectly, and represented his Body and Blood by the same Elements which the Law employed to this effect, (which is set down in the proper terms of it, to express actions unknown unto it,) hath not seen the consequence thereof, nor perceived that it introduced quite new principles apparently contrary to those of the Old Testament; nor would observe a difference so visible, when he spoke even to men that were Jews, and to all future ages, who might easily take notice of this Novelty?  
Certainly, forasmuch as he layeth down maxims altogether new, which may seem strange unto them, he advertiseth them that he makes a New Covenant, which abolisheth the first; which contains new Clauses, which giveth new Rights; which takes away the conditions held by the precedent, and imposeth others altogether distinct from them. And as the changing of the Sacrificing hath showed that there should be a change of the Law; so the draught of the Covenant being changed, we ought not to wonder that we see new articles, and new orders, which answer not to the form and tenor of the first Covenant.  
It is no more to be doubted, that such is the sense and the end of the words of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and those who see it not therein, do but half understand it. Now the considerations here above produced may it furnish us for what follows.   

CHAP. V The Freface to the fourth Consideration.  
I Treat not here of Controversy, nor touch the famous Dispute of the manner of eating the Flesh of Christ. Every one can say, that the Holy Ghost often speaks by a Figure, and hides a Spiritual sense under the name of corporal things: whereupon nevertheless is to be observed, as we go, that many put Figures into those words, whose propriety may subsist, even in a most excellent sense. The 146. Psalm teacheth that God openeth the eyes of the blind, and maketh straight those that are crooked. Some say that he only speaks of the illumination of the Spirit, and of the health of the Soul. This is the common place, and the wide gate through which they shift, who find themselves brought to a straight in any difficult passage: For not being able to get out otherwise, they cast themselves on a very easy way, saying, That all this aught to be understood spiritually. All this while they eclipse the true light of divers passages, which have no need to be expounded by a figure. Such a one is that which I have produced, which toucheth two excellent miracles, which were reserved to the Son of God, in token of his Divinity. For before him never did any give sight to the blind, nor make straight the bodies which were crooked. Wonders which his Omnipotency hath really accomplished, John 9 Luke 13. v. 11, 12.  
Moreover, we examine not whence it comes that Jesus Christ speaks so often by similitudes; whether because those of the East were accustomed of old to propound their Doctrines under such representations, as we may see in many places of the Old Testament: Or, because the Divine Oracles, observing in what style the Messiah would express himself to men, had foretold that he would open his mouth in Parables. Or, because he would render himself obscure to unbelievers, envelopping his mysteries, and covering them wlth names estranged from the subject. Or, because heavenly things, not having name in the language of the children of men, to whom they are naturally unknown, it was needful, for to make them understood unto them, to speak to them in their own terms: Or, because that supernatural objects do more easily insinuate into the mind, and there form more lively impressions, being produced under the image of those which are more perceptible to the senses, then being nakedly purposed in titles more thin and subtle. As for this phrase which is now in agitation, there is none but can say after St. Augustin, touching the eating of the Body of Christ; That those words, which seem to command a wickedness, aught to be taken in a figure. But this is not our question here.   

CHAP. VI The fourth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper.  
SOME will demand why Jesus Christ would speak in such a figure, employing a speech which seems to denote a wickedness. Why is an act so holy, so noble, expressed by the name of an act the most barbarous, and the most unnatural that can be? For what is there more holy than the action of the Soul which unites itself to Jesus Christ? And what is there more abominable then to eat the flesh of a man, and even to drink his very blood? Moreover, how can a cruelty represent so amiable a Communion? And further, from whence comes it that our Saviour recommended this Communion, would give us a desire to it by the expressing of an act which breeds horror? It sufficeth not to say that it is a comparison. It will be wondered at, why Jesus Christ expresseth himself by so strange a comparison, sith, that he might explain himself in other terms.  
None ought to take it ill, that I handle such a question. There is no man having common sense, into whose thoughts it doth not presently enter. Moreover, we must know how to give an answer to Jews and Atheists, who judge that these words of the Son of God are unworthy even of the language of men.  
Every lawful Similitude or Comparison is founded on the analogy or correspondency which is found between two subjects, or else in some proportion of the one to the other. So (to give some examples of it, and in like terms) David, refusing to drink the water that some of his people had brought him in the peril of their lives, said, that it was as much as if he should drink the blood of these men. 2 Sam. 23. v. 17. So saith the Psalmish, (Psal. 14.) They eat my people as it were bread. Expressing a barbarous act, (to wit, the tyrannical exactions) by another's barbarism, which is to eat men. But to represent an act of Piety under the name of a prodigious Crime, this is (some profane ignorant person will say) to represent a fair face under the shape of a Monster.  
It is a weak answer to say, that Jesus Christ did speak so occasionally, because he gave them to eat: For it will always be demanded, why he would represent the Communion of his Body by the act of eating, giving Bread to this purpose. Certainly, the wisdom of God, which might have used to these ends any other sign than nourishments, and other expressions, which might seem more convenient, hath not used this here without some most important reason, whereof I shall speak hereafter.   

CHAP. VII. The Conclusion of the Precedent Considerations.  
WE find then that the Son of God representing this sacred and most blessed Communion, hath noted it with the name of two acts, the one whereof is repugto the Ceremonial Law, the other to the Law Natural.  
The one that we eat the body Sacrificed for our sins, against all the maxims of the Old Testament; The other, that we eat the Flesh of the Son of man, yea, that we drink his Blood, against all the Laws of Nature and Humanity.  
Now we must re-handle all the points which I have proposed, & examine them summarily. Each of them may be the subject of many large discourses. But mine intention is to run them over but so far as they serve to make known the Positions necessary for the understanding of this Sacrament, and of the words of the Son of God.   

CHAP. VIII. The Clearing of the first Consideration.  
IN The first place we have seen this opposition; The Law saith, This is the Blood which makes atonement for your Souls, wherefore none of you shall taste thereof. Jesus Christ saith, This is the Blood which makes atonement for your Souls, wherefore ye shall all drink of it. From one and the same reason proceed two quite contrary conclusions.  
It is then to be known, that this point of the Law touching the prohibition of the eating blood, depends on the other, which runs — That none might eat of that which was offered for the remission of their sins. For blood was thus offered to such ends; yea, no remission was made without effusion of blood. Now as the Lawgiver had his Reasons for which he forbids all persons to eat that which was offered for their atonement, so for the same causes it was in no wise convenient that they should eat blood; yea, for so much the less, as the blood was the most noble part, and as it were the soul of such offerings, and that in it consisted all the force and virtue of the sacrifice. For, to deprive sinners of it entirely, and to estrange them yet more, the prohibition extended itself even unto the blood; which was not actually offered, nor employed to these holy uses. As if all the blood which was in the world, had been reserved and set a part until the atonement for sins had been accomplished in Christ; For, till the Blood of Christ was shed, it was not lawful to eat any blood. All this then depends on the general rule, which forbids men to eat that which was offered for their sins:  
But Jesus Christ advertiseth us, that he hath changed this clause, and that he hath inserted another in his last Testament, whereby sinners are hereafter enjoined to eat that which was offered for their reconciliation. In consequence of which, they ought also to eat his Blood, as shed for the same purpose. Thus, as concerning blood, the same cause, from whence came the prohibition of Moses according to the Maxims of the Law, serves for the subject of the Commandment of Christ according to the principles of the New Testament.  
But it will be said, was this a point of so great importance to eat, or not to eat the flesh of a sacrifice? What is the prerogative of the one, and the disadvantage of the other? Or what is the mystery contained in these words of Jesus Christ? Great every way: And this is that we ought to consider.   

CHAP. IX. The Clearing of the second Consideration.  
THIS difference is touched in part by the Apostle to the Hebrews, chap. 13. when he saith, That we have an Altar, whereof they who serve in the Tabernacle have no power to eat. All this is reduced to the following observations.  
That the remission of sins which God granted to the Fathers of the Old Testament, was grounded upon the expiation, which should one day be made. Now this expiation remained in suspense, until that jesus Christ himself accomplished it, by the Sacrifice of his Body. Therefore is it, that the ancient Fathers were so careful to inquire the time when jesus Christ should be offered. It is not necessary to show at large how much their condition was inferior to ours. God never pardoned them their sins, but by declaring to them always that payment must be made, and that his justice must be satisfied. All the assurances that they received of their pardon, presupposed always an expiation which was yet to come. This held them in perpetual fear, and made them fervently desire that this atonement might be accomplished in their days, that they might die with this joy, that the prize of their redemption was paid, 1 Pet. 1. v. 10, 11, 12. They then aspired to this oblation of the Body of jesus Christ, and desired he would communicate himself unto them in the same flesh, wherein he should expiate their offences. For they had truly Communion with jesus Christ, but not with jesus Christ Sacrificed for sins, as we have him at this day.  
Now the Law gave then to understand, that as long as it had its force, they should not obtain this grace: for as the way of the holy placed was not yet open, as long as the first Tabernacle was standing, (Heb. 9 8.) because none of the people were suffered to enter in; so the Holy Ghost declared that the Communion of the body of Christ actually sacrificed for sins, was a benefit which we should not enjoy during the subsistence of the first Testament, which permitted not sinners to communicate of the flesh sacrificed for their sins.  
Moreover, it was an infallible consequence that their atonement was not yet made, whilst they were excluded from the Communion of the expiatory Sacrifice.  
For why should they not have been admitted unto it, if by it their transgressions had been already expiated? The Law then taught, that they should not have the true Expiatory Sacrifice, whilst the Communion of Oblations, which represented it: remained forbidden. This prohibition which hindered them to participate of it, was a kind of excommunication, making a part of the Legal Oeconomy, whose severity accompanied the Old Testament, to the end they might desire a new one. From all this it appears,  
That the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ is more complete and entire, then that under the Old Testament; and the application of it more efficatious.  
That we are at this day nearer to God, having communion with his Son exhibited in the flesh.  
That the certainty of the Remission of sins is now more clear and distinct, then before the death of jesus Christ.  
That the Law knew it not: for it shown afar of the flesh of the propitiatory sacrifice, as a most wholesome food, and yet all this while declared to sinners, who had need of this remedy, that they should abstain from it.  
That they who will yet practise the Ceremonial Law, cannot partake of Christ; sith, by the rules of it, it is not permitted unto them to eat of that flesh, the blood whereof was carried into the holy place, for the remission of sins, Heb. 13. v. 10.  
Thus the New Testament established under better promises, and having more favourable clauses, gives us this advantage above the ancient Fathers, This is the New Rite which abrogates the Old Law. This is the difference, by which our Lord, in the institution of the Supper, distinguisheth the two Testaments.  
When we ask the modern jews, from whence it comes that their calamity hath no end, and why they are not restored to their perfection, after so long expectation; They answer, that they have no sacrifice, the only means to appease God's wrath. It is fourteen hundred years, as Origen reports, since they used this Language; our sins remain in us, forasmuch as we have no Sacrifice to expiate them, for want of a Lawful place. But if they could look through the veil which covers the face of Moses, they should find that he himself refusing to make them part of such oblations, would advertise them to aspire both to another Testament, and to another Sacrifice, whereof they should have power to eat. For whilst that Sinners were put by the Table of the Expiatory Sacrifice, it was a most evident sign that their Expiation was not yet made. For to lead Sinners back to Christ, the Law had expressly frustrated them of many benefits necessary to their perfection. The Communion of the propitiatory Sacrifice was one of the principal point which they wanted, and a grace whose dispensation was reserved for the New Testament.   

CHAP. X. The Clearing of the third Consideration.  
IN the Old Testament the Priest did eat the offering which he had presented for the sin of another; whereas now Sinners themselves, for whom it was offered, are charged to eat it. What is the secret of so great a diversity.  
It is a principle not to be doubted, that none can Expiate the sins of another, unless he charge himself with them, and bear the pain of them, which is death. Now none can die for the sin of man, but man himself. It was then necessary that the Priest himself, who was to expiate the sins of others, should sacrifice himself, to the end he might die for them. Now the Levitical Priest did not Sacrifice himself in this action, but a goat or a Sheep died in his stead. But to the end that the death of the Sacrifice should be thought and said to be the death of the Priest himself, the Priest became one with it. For eating of it and incorporating of it into himself, he transported to his proper person the name and the effect of the death which the Sacrifice had suffered. In doing this, he bore the iniquity of the people, and made propitiation for them, Leu. 10. v. 17. This eating then tended to the uniting of the Priest with the Offering, because they were two divers individuals; whereas now the Priest and the Offering are but one and the same person, to wit, jesus Christ.  
But at this day, the atonement being made, another union is necessary, to wit, of Sinners with the Sacrifice; to the end that having incorporated it within themselves, the virtue of its death and passion might be imputed to them for righteousness, even as if they had suffered in their proper persons. It is from hence that we are enjoined to eat the body by which our sins are expiated; whereas the sinners in the time of the Law could not eat it so, sith, their expiation was yet to come.   

CHAP. XI. An entrance to the Clearing of the fourth Consideration.  
NOw I must show the reason of this Phrase which seems to sound so ill in men's ears. For to feed on the flesh and on the blood of a man, is an action whose name alone brings horror; and thus as it seems, improper to represent this sacred Communion of the body of Christ. Behold then what we ought to consider. It is true that the Holy Ghost, to make himself understood, most times speaks in terms conformable to the rules which common sense and natural prudence hath been accustomed to observe. For besides the propriety of tongues, wherein he hath been pleased to express himself, there are certain universal Laws which reason dictates unto men, and regulateth their expressions; and the wisdom of God would conform his thereunto. From thence it comes, that to expound the Scripture, we take our measures From arts which show the congruity of language, the accord of figures, the nerves and sinews of discourse. But sometimes the spirit of God hath speeches and purposes altoghether entire, whose form answers not to ordinary rules.  
Thus the holy Bible gins with these words, that the Elohim (which are the Persons of the most blessed Trinity) created the Heaven and the Earth. Terms whose construction is not Grammatical; but which express as excellently, as briefly, the unity of the Divine Essence in the Plurality of persons. Such a Solecism surpasseth all Elegance.  
So among many discourses which Jesus Christ hath uttered, there are found such whose parts seem to be ranged without order; it being as it were impossible to see what agreement there is of one with the other in the prosecution of the same purpose, and to find their jointings and connexion's. They who Analise such passages simply according to their Logic, give them a constrained, and often a ridiculous sense. This stile hath transcendent prerogatives, which we ought to understand, that we may know the method of the Son of God, which otherwise will seem irregular.  
There you find also similitudes which at the first sight seem rude and monstrous; as when the coming of the Lord is compared to that of a thief in the night, 1 Thes. 5. and in other places. In such comparisons we are wont to say, that a comparison should never be pressed to the utmost; For to things alike in one regard are unlike in another. But this caution alone will not content the mind. For there hath been always, whereat to wonder, that two subjects should be compared and put together, and the one invested with the name of the other, between which indeed there is some conformity, yet on the other part there should be so great and so visible a repugnance of qualities, that it renders the comparison enormous. In this then there is a secret, which is not always perceivable. In the language of God, the more a phrase is estranged from our rules, the more it is mysterious. That whereof the question is here, is one of the most strange in all the Scripture. But if, instead of be holding only the superficies, we put it in the balance, its weight will make it known for gold of Ophir.   

CHAP. XII. The clearing of the fourth Consideration.  
WHEN mention is made of Eating the Body of Christ, that speech is not simply drawn from the resemblance which there may be between Eating and Communicating, and ought not to be put into the rank of simple similitudes. This phrase is of a higher derivation. The intention of our Saviour was to revoke a clause of the Old Testament; which was this, that a man should not eat the flesh and blood offered for the remission of his sins. We have seen the sense and importance of it. Jesus Christ would show, that he gives us that which the Law refused us. It was therefore necessary that he should express it in the same terms; that is to say, that he should speak to us of eating the flesh offered for our sins. And that he hath done not only in words, retaining the proper terms of the Testament, but also by the exhibition of a nourishment, whose sensible eating is an expression of this other. We ought then to know, that this word of Eating, denoting the communion of the sacrifice, is not simply used, because there is a resemblance between the two acts; but forasmuch, as in the Law this communion is called Eating. So Jesus Christ hath not introduced this word for a simple Metaphor or comparison, but hath pronounced it as a term of a Testamentary clause, whose repetition was here necessary for the cause abovesaid. For this term being already in the first Testament to express this Communion, must be retained in the second.  
It Boots not to say, that the name of Eating, which denotes an act of the mouth, and of the teeth upon the flesh of Legal offerings, is not convenient to the Communion of a humane body, as is that of Christ's, and that the comparison of it is rude. For to understand this term, we must take the entire sense, which extends itself a great deal farther than a simple comparison. In the institution of the Supper, this Communion is not simply qualifed, Eating of a Body given for Food, but of a body given for the atonement of our sins. Now this speech means, that the Communion of the Body of Christ, which we know to be spiritual, is in effect what the eating of expiatory Sacrifice was in figure. Moreover, that the body of Christ having succeeded Sacrifices, the Communion of this Body hath taken the place of eating (of) Sacrifices. This title than belongs to it, not by simple resemblance, but (if I may so say) both by succession, and in the same sort that Jesus Christ is called Passover and Lamb; the truth taking the name of the Figure. As for the words of Jesus Christ, in the sixth chapter of Saint John, although they have reference to those of the Holy Supper, nevertheless their interpretation requires particular considerations, which I omit, forasmuch as I treat of nothing here but what our Saviour said in the Eucharist. Nevertheless we may observe as we go, that the Communion of the body of Christ, is there called Eating, not by a simple similitude, but is as much as to say, that this Communion is in effect, and in substance, that which the eating of the Manna was in shadow and similitude. For the Jews had objected this eating of the Manna. Finally, for to measure this phrase in all its dimensions, it is not enough there to consider the analogy between the eating with the mouth and the Communicating in spirit. For this resemblance is not the only cause of this expression, nor the only point we ought to draw to in conclusion.  
Moreover, our Lord would show that a spiritual life hath principles much different from a life animal. Both have this common to them, that their subsistence depends on the union of man with some other subject, which we call aliment: But in the life natural man hath no proper aliments, which are not of a kind inferior to his own. such are plants and their fruits, such is the flesh of bruit beasts, which we lodge in our entrails, mingling their blood with ours, and uniting th●m to our own substance. Man is constrained to incorporate into himself these vile things, and which are much below him. On the contrary, in a spiritual life he unites himself to a subject infinitely more excellent than himself, to wit, to the Eternal Spirit; for it is the Spirit which quickens. Now this Spirit Communicates himself unto us in the Flesh of Christ. So that his Flesh is unto us Meat indeed. In which is seen this diversity; That in the Life Natural, man and his food ought to be of different kinds: But in the Life Spiritual, man and his food ought to be of one and the same kind.  
Therefore it is that our Saviour expresseth the Communion of his Body by the name of this act, contrary to Nature, (which is to eat the flesh of man) for to signify, that a Spiritual Life is maintained by a means quite contrary to that which Nature employs in an Animal Life. For to Eat the flesh of the Son of man, signifies not only to have Communicated with him, but signifies also, that this Communion is not according to the Laws of Nature. And the words of the Son of God bear not only a similitude of qualities, but also note an opposition of kind between the food of the Body and the nourishment of the Spirit. All this abovesaid being duly considered, we shall find that this phrase which seemed so strange could not be more pregnant, more complete, nor more convenicent for the subject.   

CHAP. XIII. The fift Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper.  
SINCE Jesus Christ speaks of a Testament whose last seal is the Eucharist, a Christian ought to learn what this Testament is, for to know the importance of the seal which we see put to it: and principally it is necessary to have regard to that which Jesus Christ said thereof when he instituted the Supper. For he advertiseth us that this Testament is New; that is to say, succeeds another, which is abolished by this latter. Moreover, that this Testament is with the Blood of the Testator; that is to say, that he died in this last Will. Now I omit to show, why he would make a second Testament, and if there wanted any thing in the first, it will suffice to observe thence, that the first Testament was of no force in comparison of the second. For a Testament hath no virtue during the life of the Testator; nor can it send forth its effect, unless the death of the Testator intervene, Hebrews 9 v. 16, 17. So that the Old Testament had no force in its time, because that Jesus Christ was not yet dead. But the Testament which we have at this day hath been made efficatious by the death of the Testator.  
Some Jew, who cannot persuade himself that God would abolish the first Covenant by a second, that which nevertheless he ought to have learned of Jeremiah 31. v. 31, etc. will tell us that this will make us doubt, whether or no there shall be yet a third. But this is no reason; For the Covenant of God was conceived in form of a Testament, or of a donation by reason of Death. Now the Testator being once dead, there is no place for another Testament. The last Will wherein he died, remains irrevocable for ever.  
Finally, there is this thing extraordinary; that death permitting none to be executor of his own Testament, Jesus Christ contrarily is come from death to life for to execute his; forasmuch as none was capable of this charge; For he is risen again for our justification. Rom. 4. v. 25.   

CHAP. XIIII. The sixth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ.  
MY Blood, saith he, is shed for the remission of sins. We know that his death ought to be bloody, according to the Maxim, which says, that there is no remission of sins made without effusion of blood, Hebrews 9 Now we demand not here, why this remission could not be obtained otherwise, that is to say, why it behoved that the death of our Saviour, should not only be violent, but also be marked with blood. Nevertheless, that which I have to observe thereupon, deserves to be considered. Death, which is the wages of sin, began by effusion of blood. The first that ever died, (which was Abel) died of a bloody death. As then the blood of man hath been the first fruits of death, so also was it the conclusion and destruction of it. Death began by blood, and ended by blood.  
Between this first blood which was shed upon the Earth, and the Blood of the Son of God, there is a very remarkable opposition, touched by the Apostle to the Hebrews, Chapter 12. to wit, that the Blood of Sprinkling, which is that of Jesus Christ, speaks better things, then that of Abel: For this cried out for the the punishment of sin; but the other cries for the remission of sins.  
It is also observable, that the same man who died first of all, is also the first (in the holy History) who had sacrificed with blood. For he was the first that offered the flesh and fat of living Creatures, Genesis 4. 4. So the first who felt death brought forth by sin, is also the first, who offered the bloody Oblation whereby we should be delivered from sin, which is the sting of death.  
Finally, The Jews, who think it strange that the Blood of a Man is our Expiation, have nevertheless an imagination, which cannot subsist but upon this principle, That there must be an humane Sacrifice to wipe away the sins of man.  
They believe that God will give them grace, in contemplation of the obedience of Isaac, who exposed himself voluntarily to be sacrificed. And they have prayers, wherein they allege the merit of this Sacrifice, as a foundation of the Redemption which they expect. Now as for the offering of this Patriarch, if it had been capable to expiate the sins of his Offspring, even of those who live at this day; why, after this Sacrifice of Isaac, should there be yet need of so many expiatory Sacrifices? To what purpose hath the Law, which is since given, imposed upon them Sacrifices for the obtaining of pardon? But to speak no more of it, Isaac was not sacrificed in effect, and his blood was not shed in this Oblation. Which shows that it is not expiatory. For without an actual effusion of blood, no remission of sins at all is made. The Law tells them, that it is blood which makes expiation for the Soul. Leu. 17.   

CHAP. XV. The seventh Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ.  
THE Institution of this Sacrament is comprised in few words, whereof not one is vain. For Jesus Christ hath said nothing which contains not some great point. Now above all things, he shows what is the virtue and dignity of the Blood which he presents unto us; and this in four divers respects; to wit,  

1. That it is his own Blood, the Blood of the Son of God.  
2. That it is the Blood of the New Covenant.  
3. That this Blood purchases unto us remission of sins.  
4. That this Blood is shed for many.   
As for this last, amongst many other matters therein contained, I think that our Lord would yet touch upon a difference also between the Blood of the Old Testament, and that of the New.  
In the Old Testament, the Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes employed only for the expiation of one man among the people, who had need of a particular sacrifice. Now this Sacrifice which was offered but for one man alone, was many ways inferior to that which was offered for many, that is to say, for the Multitude, or for all the Church. Principally in this, that the Blood shed in Sacrifice for one man alone, never came into the Holy Place; But that did, which was shed for the multitude. Jesus Christ therefore advertiseth us, that his Blood was shed for many, for the Multitude, to the end that we might know that his Blood hath penetrated the Holy Places, and hath opened them, Hebr. 9 v. 12. And in this also is the New Testament more excellent than the Old. For the Blood of the Old Testament did not always enter within the Holy Place.  
Moreover, the Blood of the Old Testament, which was shed for one man alone, was not sufficient even to Expiate (legally) all the sins of such a man, but only a particular offence, for which by name there wholly needed a Sacrifice. On the contrary, the Blood of the New Testament, was not only shed for many men, but hath also Expiated universally all the sins of every one of them. So that if one of my sins hath been Expiated in this Blood, all my other sins have there their Expiation also, for it is general and entire.  
So then the terms of the Institution, if we know how to weigh them, cause us to know that Jesus Christ hath sounded all the profundities of the Old Testament, and draws from thence those points which show the excellency and advantages of the New, by comparing them together.   

CHAP. XVI. The eighth Consideration upon the words of the holy Supper.  
I Intent not to reiterate that which hath been so much written; how the Bread is the Body of Christ; but only to observe something upon a question which is common enough, viz. Why our Lord did not ordain Flesh, rather than Bread, for to represent his Body. For it seems that this Symbol should be more analogick and significative. According to the saying of many, it is forasmuch as Flesh hath served in old time in the Sacrifices, and in the Passeover; and that it behoves that the Sacraments of the Christian Church should be of other Elements than those that have served under the Law.  
But this answer is ill grounded, for 1. The Bread and Wine were also used in Sacrifices. There was by name an Oblation of Bread and Wine, Numb. 15. not to speak of the Shewbread, and of the Offerings of Cakes. 2. The Element of Water served for Legal purifications: Under the Law there was nothing so ordinary as the washing with Water, to signify the cleansing of the Soul. Yet nevertheless God would that Baptism should be with Water. 3. The contrary is rather true, and this is that also which some ancient Fathers say of it, That in this action Jesus Christ useth Bread and Wine, because that these Elements had already been used under the Law to represent his Body and his Blood. And this, to the end we should know, that it is the same Christ represented by the same signs.  
But why then hath not the Flesh of living Creatures as well place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, sigh it hath represented Christ in that of the Passeover, and in so many kinds of Sacrifices? We say indeed that Christ hath rather chosen Bread, because it is the most common, and the most nourishing food, and so most proper to represent his Body. But this excludes not other reasons which we may give thereof. Moreover, the Eucharist represents not the Body of Jesus Christ simply, as nourishment, but also as dead. Now some may say, (which nevertheless is not without contradiction,) that the Death of Christ was in Old time more ocularly represented by the kill of a Lamb, than at this day by the breaking of Bread. So it is, this is the point I am to handle, that Jesus Christ instituting signs of his Dead Body, and of his Blood shed, did choose things without life, and Elements wherein there was not Blood. Whereby he would show, that after him no creature should any more lose his life for the sins of man, and that no other Blood should be shed in Expiation. For the Sacraments of the Old Testament were Bloody, to denote the Blood which was to be shed by the death of Christ. But, this effusion being made, the Sacraments which represent it as done and accomplished, are without effusion of Blood, to show that there shall be no more Blood shed for sins. Hence it is we have no more a Sacrament which requires the kill of any creature, but Signs, wherein death doth not intervene, as being of themselves without life, and of another substance than of Flesh and Blood.   

CHAP. XVII. The ninth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ.  
MEn, principally the common people, do naturally love Similitudes, because they are drawn from things perceptible to the senses, or otherwise common and easy to be conceived. But similitudes represent not the essence of a subject, and do not say what a thing is, but what it resembles. So our Lord would not tell us simply, that his Body had resemblance unto Bread, nor only that the Bread is a Seal unto us of the Communion of his Body, but also hath showed us the causes and qualities of this Communion. These words, To eat the Body of Jesus Christ, signify not only to take it for the Sustenance of our Souls, as we take food for the nourishment of our Bodies. This Similitude, if we specify no more, teacheth us but very generally the nature of this Communion, and doth not set forth the entire sense of the words of Jesus Christ. For in the Eucharist our Lord doth not propound himself as Flesh in general, but as Flesh sacrificed for our sins, which is a point of great consequence in this matter.  
I have already said that the word Eating is attributed to the Communion of the body of Christ, which is as much as to say, that this Communion is in substance that which was in Figure the eating of Sacrifices, of the Manna, of the Passeover, etc. And namely, that in this Communion we have that which the Law forbade us, to wit, the eating of the Flesh offered for our sins. They, who content themselves with the general similitudes between the Food of the Body, and the nourishment of the Soul, attain not unto the specific difference of the subject of the Eucharist. But I have yet somewhat to say of an abuse which is committed in the deduction of this Similitude. For as many omit that which is contained in the words of the holy Supper, so there are some (I speak even of Orthodox Divines) who add thereto something of their own.   

CHAP. XVIII. The tenth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper.  
We know that we ought not to carry a Similitude beyond its end. For when two divers things are compared to one another, it is never in all, and through all, but only in some regard. When (for example) our Lord in St. Matth. 13. v. 46. compares the kingdom of Heaven to a Pearl of great price, his intention is but to express the greatness of the value and richness of the Gospel. Now he that would, under pretence of this word Pearl, dispute philosophically of all the kinds and proprieties of Pearls, search of what matter they are made, and how they are form, and subtly fit all this to the kingdom of Heaven would surpass the bounds wherein Jesus Christ hath confined the similitude. For he doth not in all qualities compare the kingdom of Heaven to a Pearl, but only in the price or esteem which men have of it. Notwithstanding there are few found among those who expound the Scriptures, who keep themselves within these limits. There are even of those who regard no measure when they handle a comparison. If our Saviour say that he is a Vine, they will name all sorts of Vines, and their differences, and tell you what territory is proper to them, when they are to be planted, how they are to be pruned and kept; Also, what are the parts of this Plant, even unto the least leaf. And likewise, if their text speak of the Sour, they will display all husbandry. On a time a knowing man, expounding unto us that which is said of the Longitude, and Latitude, depth and heigh of the love of God, Ephes. 3. v. 18. preached unto us all the Matheticks, from a Point even unto the Squaring of a Circle; so that one would have thought him an interpreter of Euclid, and not of Saint Paul.  
Also many handle the doctrine of the Supper, who teach that among the Analogies by which the bread represents the body of Christ, this is one; That as the Bread was baked in the Oven by the heat of the fire, so the Body of Jesus Christ passed through the furnace of torments, and of death. Also, that as the Bread is made of Wheat which was ground and broken, so the Body of Jesus Christ was broken to be made bread for us. Likewise, as for the other sign; that as the Wine warms the entrails, so doth the Blood of Christ warm our hearts to Charity. That as the Wine doth lose the tongue, so the Blood of Christ makes us eloquent to confess his name. That as the Wine makes ruddy the face of man, so the Blood of Christ drives away the paleness of death.  
Now, saving the respect due to Predecessors, and not to speak of that which would seem ridiculous in such Allegories, I cannot abstain from saying that they stretch this analogy beyond the intention of the Son of God; for first his death is not represented unto us by the baking of Bread, but rather by the breaking of it, nor by the bruising of the grain under the millstone. Moreover, in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not considered universally in all their proprieties and conditions. For bread and wine have also qualities, wherein they have no analogy with the body and blood of our Lord. And even all the qualities wherein the bread and wine have any similitude with the body and blood of Christ, are not sacramental, but only those that are comprised in the Institution. That, which is Sacracramentall in them, is, that they are Meat and Drink, that we Eat the one, and Drink the other; in which respect they are signs of our Communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The other conformities which are to be found between the body of Christ and the bread, between the blood of Christ and the wine, have no place in the Eucharist, neither are there to be considered. We ought not to multiply the analogy between the sign inasmuch as a sign, and the thing signified. And finally, when these analogies, which we there meet with, are not proposed as Sacramental, but only as terms serving to illustrate or amplify, we see manifestly that in the most part of them, in stead of fitting the Similitude to the Subject which they would represent, they fit the Subject to the Similitude, drawing it by force into the Comparison. Now this is not to clear, but to make more intricate. And in such amplifications there is more words, than substance.    

The Third Sect.  

CHAP. I. Of the difference between the Evangelists reciting the Institution of the Supper.  
THe Apostle St. Paul and the three Evangelists who have wrote this History, do report something diversely the words of Jesus Christ. This difference may easily be perceived by hearing them speak together. Now it is not necessary to repeat what the Expositors answer thereupon. The whole being well considered, there will always be found an excellent harmony, and one and the same sense. But, forasmuch as the Jews object unto us this diversity as a note of discord among the writers of the New Testament, we must bring to their remembrance the difference which is found between Moses and Moses writing the Decalogue in two several places, viz. in the 20. of Exodus, and the 5. of Deuteronomy. By Comparison of both, we see not only that there is diversity of terms, but also in the one there are things which are not expressed in the other. I omit the difference which we see in the order of words contained in the last Commandment. We must observe that God doth never repeat the same thing, but it is with some diversity, at least for the most part. This is seen by comparing the Histories which treat of the same subject; as Deuteronomy with the three precedent books; the books of Chronicles, with those of Samuel, and of the Kings; the Evangelists one with the other; Besides an infinite number of passages which are of like sort, wherein is always observed some difference. It is an effect of the care which God hath of us, explaining himself by divers ways, by a divers order, by divers terms, and by divers matters, to the end that those things which are obscure unto us in one place, should be made intelligible unto us by another. And indeed, the sense of Sacramental words is better known by the diversity wherein they are propounded unto us, than if they we●● all rendered in the same syllables throughout all the Evangelists.  
Finally, it may be observed as we go, that as the Decalogue (wherein God speaks unto us,) is written twice at large, in the Law; so the Lords Prayer, in which we speak to God, is written twice at large, in the Gospel, and also with some diversity, viz. in St. Matth. 6. and St. Luk. 11.   

CHAP. II. Of the first and last Sacrament of the Eating of the body of Christ.  
FRom the fall of man, even until Moses, there was no Sacramental Eating, during all that time the Church had no Sacrament which consisted in eating, nor yet any Sacrifice whereof it was ordained to eat. Before Moses, they spoke ordinarily of nothing but of Sacrifices, laid whole on the Altar, whereof none was eaten. For this kind of Sacrifice was entirely burned. The first Sacrifice which was ordained for meat, was the Paschall Lamb. The eating of Sacrifices is come up since, as that of Manna, which yet was extraordinary.  
Now this is worthy to be observed, that in one and the same supper Jesus Christ celebrated the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of his body, viz. the Passeover and the Eucharist. And from the same bread and wine which made part of the Supper of the Passeover, he hath taken the signs whereof is composed the holy Supper. So the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of the body of Christ are met and touch one another at the same Table; and the first resigning his place to the other, hath furnished it with matter whereof it is form.   

CHAP. III. Of the first and last Passeover mentioned in Scripture.  
ALthough the Passeover was celebrated yearly among the people of God, nevertheless holy history recites particularly certain memorable Passovers amongst others, solemnised at divers times.  
The first, when the Israelites prepared themselves to go out of Egypt, Exod. 12.  
The second, in the Desert, the year after their going out of Egypt, Numb. 9  
The third, when they were entered into the land of Canaan, Jos. 5.  
The fourth, at the Reformation of the Church, made by Ezekias, 2 Chronic. 30.  
The fift, under King Josiah, 2 Chron. 35.  
The sixth, after the Return from the Captivity, Esdras 6.  
This is the number of those which were mentioned in the Old Testament, four whereof were celebrated in the Land of promise: But the seventh, which is the perfection of all the rest, was yet to come. And it is that which Jesus Christ hath celebrated, the last of all, whereto immediately succeeded the Supper.  
In this last Passover, the Lamb itself is there found in the very Flesh, which had been represented by the Lambs of former Passovers.  
We must also note that Jesus Christ, who celebrated the last Passover, was there where the first was celebrated, to wit, in Egypt. Neither is it without a mystery, that, as the Passover came from Egypt, so Jesus Christ, who is the true Passover, was called out of Egypt. Matth. 2. 15.   

CHAP. FOUR Of the time of the Institution of the Supper, and that its durance surpasseth that of the Mosaical Ceremonies.  
AS for the Circumstance of time wherein the Eucharist was instituted, although it be not of the Essence of it, nevertheless it is very considerable in that it concurs with the time of the most notable Ceremonies of the Law. There are some Chronologers who think that the same year, wherein Christ was put to death, was a year of Jubilee; For from the Conquest of the Land of Canaan, by Josuah, until the death of Christ, they account 1400. years, which contain 28. Mosaical Jubilees; the last whereof fell just in the year wherein our Lord made overture of the spiritual Jubilee, the day after the Institution of the Supper. We might quote many other the like conformities. The hour wherein Jesus Christ gave up the Ghost upon the Cross was the third in the afternoon, which the Jew accounted the ninth hour of the day. The Law names it the time between two evenings. And in that hour there was a daily Sacrifice for all the people, Exod. 29. v. 39 So that our Lord presented his Body in Oblation in the same hour wherein they offered according to the Law the last Sacrifice of the day, making it also the close of all Sacrifices. But besides, the Sacraments of the Christian Church have already dured longer than the Legal Ceremonies to which they succeeded. For it is certain that from the first Supper until this day, there is more time passed then between the first Passover, and the last destruction of the Temple. And these Ceremonies of Moses have been already buried longer than they subsisted. But this last Sacrament of Eating of the Body of Christ, shall remain till he comes, 1 Cor. 11. v. 26.   

CHAP. V Of the difference of the style betwixt the Institution of the Passover, and that of the Eucharist.  
WE way see in the 12th Chapter of Exodus, the Institution of the Passover recited very amply, whereas that of the Eucharist is comprised in very few words. Now this difference proceeds certainly from this, that the one contains a multitude of Ceremonies, which requires many more articles, and the other consists in the simplicity of an action which may be declared in few words. Hereby also we see that the Church hath been discharged of many burdensome observations. The Jews having calculated all the Commandments contained in the Law of Moses, as well Moral as Ceremonial and Politic, have found them to amount to the number of 613. Among which there are many which are yet subdivided into divers branches. Now of so many Commandments it is not possible for them at this day to observe so much as the one half of them.  
But I observe that the Institution of the Passover speaks much more of the sign than of the thing signified. For Moses' having described at large all that concerned the Lamb and its eating, when he comes to the thing signified he expressth it very summarily. Exod. 12. v. 26. 27. It is also the style of the law to be prolix in the narration of Sacrifices, of washings, and outward purifications, and to speak very briefly of spiritual graces represented under such figures. Now this was the Method of the legal Pedagogy to teach men rather by Emblems and rudiments, than by an exact doctrine, Gal. 4. v. 3.  
On the contrary, the Sacraments of the Christian Church are proposed unto us with less Ceremonies and more doctrine.   

CHAP. VI That the Holy Supper consists in signs and actions common and natural.  
I Will add a Reason to those which are more ordinary upon this subject. We know that there are many points of the Ceremonial Law, which the Jews cannot practise at this day; not because they have no more a Temple; but because they are gnorant of the form, and the qualities of many things which the Law had prescribed to their forefathers. Among the examples which may be given in great number, I shall observe only one or two. The Jews think themselves obliged (by the words of the 30. of Exod. v. 13.) to pay yearly, for pious works, half a shekel for each head. Now, as they say, they know not what a shekel was, its weight, and its value. So that the practice of this Commandment, and of many others whose sense is unknown, is altogether impossible for them. And if suffices not to say, that they might give more than the shekel was worth. For this is to be always ignorant of the point wherein the Law consists, and whose observation. (as of all the other Ceremonies) ought to be exact and precise, under pain of non-acceptance. Likewise it is uncertain whether the Phylacteries which the Jews will yet wear according to the Law, were of fringe, or else of filleting or bordering; and of what colour the thread or twist was, whether of Purple, or of Skie-colour, or Sea-green. For they are not agreed of it. I omit the disputes which there are concerning the Cubits and measures of the Altar; concerning the figures of the Cherubims; the ingredients destined for the anointing of the Highpriest; Urim and Thummim, and things of like sort.  
Now we must know, that God giving this Law, and nevertheless having an intention to abrogate it after a certain time, and foreseeing also the stubbornness of this people, who would never quit these Ceremonial Rudiments, composed them of matters and forms subject to change and forgetfulness, to the end that of themselves they might be abolished. For the weights and measures, colours, and fashions of vestments, of Embroydereries and Portraitures, and other differences, wherein consisted a great part of Ceremonies, are changeable things, and which are destroyed with the time, as being more of Art than of Nature.  
But on the contrary our Saviour willing to Institute Sacraments which should remain to the end of the world, made them of matters and actions, which never change nor vary, as being natural, simple, uniform, universal, and common to all ages: Such is the washing with water, such is eating and drinking. Forasmuch as they are actions invariable and perpetual, Jesus Christ hath chosen them for Signs, to the end that our Sacraments should not be subject to change, and that the time might not make us forget a form.   

CHAP. VII. That our Saviour hath not prefixed any time for the Celebration of the Supper.  
THe Passover could not be Celebrated but at a set time of the year. But Jesus Christ substituting the Supper to the Passover, advertiseth us, that without distinction of time, as often as we shall take this Bread and this Cup in remembrance of him, we shall receive the Supper of the Lord. It is to be noted, that the difference of Times, of Places, and of Persons, to which God hath restrained the most notable Ceremonies of the Old Testament, tended to the end which we have named; to wit, to facilitate their abrogation. For he tied the Sacrifices to one place alone; whose possession coming to destruction, all the Sacrifices ought to cease. And consequently bound the Priestly office to one family alone; which coming to be extinguished of itself, (as races are destroyed in time) there ought to be no more a Priest. The which is also come to pass. For if at this day the the Jews should recover, and build again the Temple, they would find no Priest according to the Law: forasmuch as their Tribes having been confounded, there is none left who can term himself of the family of Aaron. Touching the distinction of times (without speaking of Confusions which have since happened by the ignorance of the course of the heavens, and of the continual retrogradation of the Equinox) the Jews have lost the knowledge of the year of Jubilee one of the great points of the Law, and know not how any more to find it.  
But the Sacraments of the Christian Church were not subject to this inconvenience, nor to divers others which followed the Mosaical Ceremonies. Our Baptism is not fixed to the eighth day, nor our Lord's Supper to the full Moon, or to the Spring time, or unto the Sabbath itself. If some Christians should be under those Climates where one day dures many months, and the night as long, they would there have no week nor Sabbath day: and nevertheless might celebrate the Supper of the Lord, and his resurrection as well as we upon Easter day.   

CHAP. VIII. Why Jesus Christ is represented unto us in the Supper as he was on the Cross, and not as he is in heaven; also why he hath not Instituted a Sacrament which should represent him in his glory, as he hath ordained two, which represent him dead.  
ALL the Sacraments speak of Death. As for Baptism it is said, that we are baptised in the death of Christ, Rom. 6. v. 3, 4. As for the Supper, We show thereby the Lords death, 1 Cor. 11. 26. And both were Instituted when Jesus Christ was yet mortal. For no Sacrament was established by Jesus Christ glorified; but only he confirmed those which he had Instituted before his death.  
We know then that in the Supper Jesus Christ is exhibited unto us as dead, and not as glorified. Now this serves to show the falsity of the corporeal presence for which there is so much dispute. For if the body of Jesus Christ be in the Host, he is not there living, sigh that he is in this action as dead. It makes us also see the nakedness of that which is called Concomitance, and of the unbloody Sacrifice. For the Blood of Jesus Christ is presented unto us as separate from his body. This likewise makes unprofitable the exception whereby it is maintained that a glorious body may be corporally in divers places at one and the same time. For were it so, the body of Jesus Christ is not exhibited unto us as glorious, nor yet as living; but as dead, as broken; and his blood as shed. Let this be said by the way; For Orthodox divines have made these reasons of force enough.  
But it may be demanded why Jesus Christ is represented unto us as dead, and not glorified? Is it there spoken of his Death, and not rather of his Resurrection? Why had he rather Institute a memorial of his ignominious humiliation, than of his glorious exaltation? Why have we no Sacrament which represents unto us his body glorious, as we have two which represent him dead? For it is very true, that the consideration of his humiliation excludes not that of his exaltation; on the contrary, it leads us to it: But properly and formally the Body of Jesus Christ is not represented, nor considered in the Supper but as dead & broken.  
This question is easy to be resolved. The Sacraments are Instituted in favour of men. And the end of a Sacrament is to assure us of our good and salvation. So in the Supper, the intention of Jesus Christ was thereby to seal and ratify that which concerns us, not that which concerns himself. And for this reason he presents himself in this action inasmuch as he procured the glory of others, not so much as he possesseth his own. Now it is by his death, that he hath procured our glory. True it is that his exaltation is also our Salvation; But he hath received this Glory both for us and for himself, whereas his Death was wholly for us. Moreover it is by virtue of his Death, that his Glorification is profitable unto us. For that he hath taken possession of the heavens in our name, and that he intercedes for us at the right hand of God, all this comes from the merit of his Blood, Heb. 9 v. 12. Furthermore Jesus Christ doth give himself unto us in the Eucharist inasmuch as he was delivered up for us, Luke 22 : v 19, 20: Now it was in his Death that he was delivered; So that he gives himself unto us as Dead. Finally he would leave us a remembrance of the love which he bore us. Now the greatest effect wherein this love appeared, was that he gave himself to Death for us. It is for this cause, that he represents unto us rather his Death, than his Exaltation. From thence it is that in the Supper, although we ought to lift our hearts up to heaven where he is now living in full Majesty, nevertheless his body broken and his blood shed are the proper and formal object of our contemplation. And the act of our mind consists in this, that we there consider his Death past, rather than his present Glory. This will furnish an answer for the following question.   

CHAP. IX. Why in the Supper Jesus Christ instituted not more illustrious Signs; and why they are not miraculous.  
THere is none of us who hath not this thought, when he sees that this Sacrament, as well as Baptism, consists in such abject matters; Our eye is astonished to see nothing more glorious. The Bow in the heaven which God made Noah to see for assurance that from thenceforth there should no more an universal deluge appear; The Pillar of fire, and the Cloud which witnessed the presence of God among the Israelites; The going back of the Sun to confirm the faith of Ezekias; had a more famous appearance than our Sacraments. We will say, as it is true, that the elements whereof they are composed, are more important to man. For the use of water, eating and drinking are more necessary for us, than the sight of more majestical objects. Now it is that God would represent unto us benefits necessary for the soul, under the image of those which are most necessary for the body. I omit the other reasons for which it was necessary that the Eucharist should consist of Nourishment, of which I have spoken here above, and could also allege them for the Water of Baptism.  
But we think further, wherefore were not those Elements used in some extraordinary fashion; or why are they not sent us from Heaven as the Manna; or produced miraculously as the Wine at the Marriage in Cana? Or why was there not some Miracle shown, as in the Loaves which Jesus Christ multiplied for the satisfying of many thousands of persons? Or why hath not the bread of the Holy Supper the virtue of sustaining us forty days after, without eating or drinking, as that which God caused to be brought to Elias? And likewise, why did not an Angel descend into the water of Baptism, as in the pool of Bethesda, for to heal corporal maladies? Why was Naaman healed of his Leprosy in the water of Jordan; and nevertheless if a Leper be Baptised, his Leprosy is not wiped away?  
To all this may be given one common answer touching the causes of the Cessation of miracles. But there are particulars touching our Sacraments, by name touching the Supper. The end of a miracle, is to show the greatness and power of God: On the contrary, the end of our Sacraments, particularly of the Eucharist, is to show the infirmity, the death and humiliation of Christ. Now the disgrace could not be represented by a glorious spectacle and full of splendour; nor the weakness by tokens of infinite power, such as miracles are; nor the death and passion, by acts of an unchangeable life; nor the humiliation of the Humanity, by the glorious demonstrations of the Divine Nature. Therefore it is that our Saviour who had multiplied the bread and turned the Water into Wine, at other feasts, and for other occasions, hath done nothing so in this here, but makes use of Bread and Wine produced naturally, and such as they are in their ordinary proprieties, without adding thereto any thing miraculous. This aught to render the tales which men make of apparitions and other wonders seen in the Eucharist, altogether suspected. For it is credible that if our Saviour would have authorized it by miracles, he would have rather employed them in the first Supper, when the establishing of the New Sacrament was in agitation. Finally, as the Sacraments which were instituted to be ordinary and perpetual in the Judaical Church, viz. the Circumcision and the Passeover, had nothing supernatural; So the Sacraments which at this day take place of those, and which are ordinary and perpetual in the Christian Church, ought not to consist in extraordinary and miraculous signs or operations. Moreover the Eucharist succeeded the eating of Sacrifices, which was truly a sacred action, but wherein no miracle did intervene. And lastly, because men have used to turn into idols the signs whereby God hath produced some wonder, (witness the Brazen Serpent) or to make a stay there, as if the Grace and power of God were there enclosed: if he had given us Sacraments of a more illustrious appearance, or if some miracle had been done thereby, long ago Superstition would have deified them; which yet is not left undone.    

The Fourth Sect. Wherein are handled certain points concerning the practice of a Christian in the receiving of the Supper.  

CHAP. I. Of our ignorance or errors in some Cirstances of the death of Christ.  
THe doctrine of the Roman Church bears in its consequences, That a man may eat the body of Jesus Christ without knowing or thinking of it. For it may happen that an host fallen into the hands of such an one, who knowing not that it was consecrated may swallow it down, and remain ignorant of its being Jesus Christ. And though he should think it, he would not know how to make it evident; sigh that if he should put it into scales, against one that were not consecrated, this would be found to weigh as much as the other. Finally, a mouse which devours the host thinks not to eat a Sacrament.  
But this is an assured Maxim to us, That the flesh of Jesus Christ cannot be eaten, without knowing of it or thinking of it. From whence follows, that whosoever knows not Jesus Christ is incapable of this eating. Now I need not repeat that which is notorious to all, whereto at the least ought to extend the knowledge of a Christian; but only to speak of that which I have laid down in chief. The end of the Supper is, that we declare the death of the Lord. This requires the historical intelligence of the particularities of it, whereof none is of any small importance. For it is not enough to know in general or summarily that Jesus Christ is dead; but we must have a distinct knowledge of the place, time, and other circumstances of his death. It is not in vain that the Holy Spirit hath so carefully marked them. They are all as so many stars to guide us in the search of our salvation, and have every one some particular influence. Nevertheless if a Christian comprehend them not exactly, this ignorance (so that it be not wilful) will not hinder but he may communicate to salvation. It is a point which imports us, to know how long our Saviour was on the Cross. The durance of his last sufferings is considerable in all sorts. It is also represented more than once in holy History, viz. in St. Mark 15. v. 25. & 33. and in St. John 19 v. 14. Nevertheless all Christians understand it not. For some with more ground hold that Jesus Christ was upon the Cross for the space of three hours; Others double the time, and believe he remained there six hours. Now as 'tis known this difference comes from this, that the Evangelists having used divers terms to express the same thing, expositors have taken them diversely.  
But if we did know perfectly all the circumstances of this death, we should not know all the particular reasons, nor all the mysteries there contained. As for Example; upon that which was observed that our Saviour gave up the Ghost at the hour of the Evening Sacrifice, there are few who think of that which is said in the 9 of Daniel v. 21. to wit, that the hour wherein the Angel declared the time of the death of Christ to come, many ages before, was that of the Evening Sacrifice; which is to be admired, and full of Consolation.  
Now our ignorance in such matters is no small fault. And we ought not to flatter ourselves with this pernicious Maxim of the vulgar, viz. we have no need of so much knowledge. But on the other side, a Christian who strives to instruct himself more and more ought not to think that these omissions which he is forced to make up, do deprive him of the saving Communion of the Sacrament. Not without cause doth the scripture give us to know that even the Apostles themselves when Jesus Christ gave them the Eucharist with his own hands, were defiled with notable errors. Luke. 22. v. 24. And it is certain that we know more of the mystery of this Sacrament, and understand better the grounds of this doctrine, and the causes of the death of Christ Jesus, than his disciples did, when they were admitted to that first supper.   

CHAP. II. Why doth not the reading of the Passion of Jesus Christ move us so much as the reading of many other histories of the Scripture.  
WE know that the Remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ which we declare in the Supper ought not to be naked and idle, or to remain in the Brain. It must descend into the heart, and stir up the affections. Now there is nothing which ought to move us equally with the Passion of the son of God: and the least of his anguishes ought to be more sensible unto us than those of all men together. Nevertheless if we read that sad preparation of Abraham going to sacrifice his son; or the pitiful words of Jacob, when they told him that some beast had devoured Joseph; or the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, yea how they handled that miserable King Zedekias, we are touched more lively, and these stories will draw more tears from our eyes, than the history of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. And as there are tears of joy, they will sooner fall from our eyes in reading how Joseph met with his brothers, and of the cry which he cast forth when he made himself known unto them, than in hearing of Christ coming forth of the sepulchre, and the joy which his Disciples had to see him risen again. Yet so it is, that neither the knife which was to cut Jsaacks throat, nor the bloody coat of Joseph, nor the desolations and crying in the streets of Jerusalem, are not to us of such importance as the sufferings of the son of God. And his Resurrection is more considerable to us than the exaltation of Joseph. For to resolve this question we have divers things to consider.  
First the sufferings of those who were but men, do easily move us, because there is nothing more natural than to have a fellow-feeling in the Calamities of those who are like us; but the griefs of Jesus Christ present themselves unto us in a person which cannot be the object of any commiseration or natural commotion. For we think of God himself suffering in form of a servant. This is the reason wherefore he forbade the tears of those who bewailed him as a man whose affliction is pitied, or the loss of whom is much lamented, Luke. 23. v. 28.  
Whereupon it is that the history of the Passion is not written in a pitiful and pathetic style, as the Lamentations of Jeremiah, or the complaint of David over Saul and Jonathan; or the ulcers of Job; or the sad solitude of the Jsraelites by the Rivers of Babylon. For the Gospel doth not propound unto us a spectacle of human calamity, but a point of higher consideration.  
Moreover this condoling which hath place in other subjects, is found either excluded or swallowed up in this here, by more noble and more spiritual motions, as are the horror of our sins which have crucified the Prince of glory; the terror of that dreadful severity which God hath displayed upon his own Son; the admiration of his incomparable wisdom, who could join his Mercy with his Justice; the unspeakable joy of salvation which is derived from thence unto us; and the ardent Love which we bear towards the Father who hath given his Son, and towards the Son who hath given himself to death for us. For these are the true resentments which we ought to have of the sufferings of Jesus Christ.  
Now the subject of the spiritual resentments is not naturally perceptible of our affections, but is a stranger unto them. Therefore it is that they are not moved towards it but as they are drawn unto it by the finger of God. And even this is the cause they are not carried thither with so full a vigour, and so much readiness, as towards those objects whereto they are enclineable of themselves.  
Moreover the spiritual affections, although they are strong and vehement, are not so easy to be moved and to be felt. For forasmuch as they lodge as it were in the centre of the Soul, they are far from the sensitive faculty, which is the source of tears: so that they come not thither so soon nor so easily. That which I have yet to say belongs to the question following.   

CHAP. III. From whence comes it that the Superstitious are sometimes more moved with the Death of Jesus Christ, than true Christians.  
WE see sometimes Idolaters who, having but very little understanding in the mysteries of redemption, will weep at the reciting of the Passion of Jesus Christ; And nevertheless a well-instructed Christian, and who prizes the Sufferings of his Saviour a great deal more than they that are ignorant, will very hardly be moved with it. This difference proceeds hence, that the Superstitious have before their faces the Passion of Jesus Christ as a tragical accident, which doth easily touch those hearts that are endued with any humanity. But the Christian contemplates it with another eye than that wherewith we regard the Calamities of other men. The one brings thereunto an humane Commiseration, which tears do naturally follow: But the other finds there the subject of many spiritual affections, whereof our heart is not so easily susceptible, because they proceed not from flesh and blood. And the means of framing them to it consist rather in instructions and doctrines whereby we must handle this matter, than in the oratorical representations of those who reduce it into a Tragedy.  
Moreover, it is not an assured proof that he bears most Love towards Jesus Christ that shall have shed most tears for him. For oftentimes they proceed as soon from a tenderheartednes which is more natural to some than others, as from the abundance of piety. Many who never wept for the love of Christ, nevertheless suffered Martyrdom for the love of him. Such a one could not give him so much as one Tear, who gave him all his Blood.   

CHAP. IU. Offa the vehemency of the thoughts, and of the attention required in the action of the Communion. And of the weakness of the humane spirit herein.  
I do not here refute those, who for want of well understanding our Doctrine, think that the spiritual Communion of the Body or Christ consists only in thought of imagination: we could object unto them the Souls which they believe to be in Purgatory, which according to the saying of the Roman Church enjoy the Communion of Christ, and so of his Flesh and Blood. A Communion which cannot be otherwise than in spirit. For these Souls have neither mouth nor stomach.  
Neither do I content myself with that which is alleged for proof of the true Communion; that sometimes some have fallen into an Ecstasy in the receiving their host, through admiration of pretended wonders which they there presuppose. Such Enthusiasms are neither sufficient, nor necessary for the Communion of the Body of Christ. For although it be supernatural: yet notwithstanding it is not done by a miraculous transport, nor by a motion so vehement, as that of the Prophets when they were ravished in Spirit, until they had even lost their sense and remained unmoveable; all the functions of the soul (except in those of the Intellect) being at that time in their intermission.  
Nevertheless we know that a Christian ought to bring the most strong and vehement thoughts that he is able to so high a mystery. All other cogitations ought to be suspended, all other objects excluded. But it comes to pass often that a Christian, after having duly prepared himself for the Holy Supper, will find himself all on the sudden and unawares surprised with doubts and scruples, at the same moment when he receives the Eucharist. I omit the inadvertencies, the extravagancies, and the enormous thoughts which overtake men in this action. These phantasms possess the place which ought to be reserved entire for Jesus Christ: and although men strive to drive them away, it is nevertheless impossible for them. This shows that a human spirit is not Master of itself, sigh that it cannot stop its own thoughts, and that they depend not on his will. Now although they are not voluntary, nevertheless sigh that they are ours, and that they cross the attention which is due to an action of so great importance, they offend the dignity of the body of Christ. And in this also is seen the infirmity of man, who sins even against the Sacrifice which brings him the remission of his sins. But if he condemn these evil cogitations, if he strive to scare them as Abraham did the Birds of prey which came to devour his Sacrifice; although (notwithstanding this) they intervene in the instant and at the very act of the eating of the Sacrament, Jesus Christ will not refuse to lodge in the soul of this weak Christian. For he who is dead for our transgressions, hath also expiated those which we commit even in applying this expiation unto ourselves.   

CHAP. V That the act of the Communion consisteth not in mourning for the death of Christ, but rather in joy and contentment of Spirit.  
THere is no need of disputing whether the faithful who lived before the passion of Jesus Christ, had reason to be perplexed, not knowing whether they ought to wish that the Son might suffer death, or rather desire with St. Peter, that this might not happen unto him. They were invited to the one, for the Love of their Salvation; and to the other, as it seems, for the Love of their Saviour. Our Lord decided this question, both before his death by that sharp censure which he made of it to his Disciples, and afterwards when he alleged the Oracles importing that Jesus Christ must suffer, to the end he might enter into his glory.  
But it may be demanded whether the Holy Supper be an action of joy or rather of sadness. Certainly the death of Jesus Christ, wherein we declare the horrible anguishes of his Soul, the strokes of that holy Body broken with griefs, the effusion of that innocent blood which we there consider as if it were poured forth before our eyes, are a subject of Sadness unto us. And that for as much more as acknowledging ourselves to be the cause of his sufferings, we cannot but be touched with regrete that we have procured them. Now these resentments seem to exclude from our minds all manner of Joy in the act of the Communion. The Law forbade the putting of incense and oil, which is the Symbol of Joy, upon the Flesh sacrificed for sins. And the Jews at this day observe so precisely, that which heretofore was enjoined them in the feast of expiations, viz. to afflict their souls; that on all that day they refrain from reading even any passage of Scripture which contains any matter of joy; as the coming forth out of Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, etc. On the contrary, their reading is of nothing but sorrowful things, as are the destruction of Jerusalem, the curse of the Law, and such like points.  
But omitting that which might be said of this Superstition, there is none who knows not that the Eucharist is an acknowledgement of a benefit which is offered unto us in this action, which we cannot receive but with joy. Also this Sacrament is instituted for our consolation. True it is we ought to come unto it with sadness, for the Reasons above said; That is a necessary fore runner: But the proper act, wherein lies the Communion or reception of the Body of Christ, consists not in that; but in the joy and contentment which our Soul receives in that Jesus Christ hath given himself for it. The Superstitious deceive themselves who believe that the Commemoration of his death consists only in much mourning. For in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is not simply propounded unto us as dead, but as dead for us. To the end that as his death is our life, so it should be also our joy.   

CHAP. VI Of an advantage which we have above those of the Church of Rome, in the instruction required for the Communion, and of the distinctions, which the Orthodox observe in this matter of the Sacrament.  
A Roman Catholic hath need of a great deal more time to learn his Religion, than one that is Orthodox hath to understand his.  
Let a man behold a volume wherein is comprised the whole Roman Religion, as the Doctors thereof have reduced their Divinity into one Body; he shall see that it much surpasseth the ordinary bulk of those wherein ours is contained. For I speak not here of writings of Controversy; sigh that Faith consists not in the Negative of Errors, but in the Affirmative of Truths. It is to be understood of positive Divinity; whose extent if it be compared with that of our adversaries, theirs willbe found much more vast and swelling than ours. Their Religion is composed of a greater number of articles: For they have many which our Theology doth not acknowledge; and in those which are common to us both, they have heaped up a number of matters which also our Religion nullifies. Briefly the Roman Theology contains almost all our Affirmative, but over and above that which it professeth to acknowledge with us, it hath its own additions. From thence it comes that that is more prolix than ours.  
This is seen above all, in the doctrine of the Sacraments, wherein the learned of the Roman Church are more copious than in other points. For amongst them almost all Religion is reduced to Sacraments, and the Grounds of their Divinity consist in this matter. Moreover as they have multiplied the Sacraments even unto the number of seven, they have need of more stuffs to  them, than we who have but two. And as for the Eucharist, besides that which they hold with us, they have added to the Sacrament the Expiatory Sacrifice; to the spiritual eating of the body of Christ, the eating with the mouth; to the Analogy between the sign and the thing signified, the transubstantiation of the one and the other; to the adoration of Christ, the adoration of the Sacrament itself; and of other additions which have infinite consequences, all which enter together huddled up in this point of the Eucharist. And as they are full of Labyrinths, and rugged ways, wherein we cannot walk without either endangering Faith or Natural Reason, or sense; The Roman Church hath conceived many distinctions, which it gives for marks and directions to walk by in assurance. Now the multitude alone of them (leaving all that may be said of them otherwise) shows that an Orthodox will sooner learn all that he ought to believe of the Eucharist, than a Roman Catholic will the tenth part of that which his Religion teacheth concerning this point.  
Nine distinctions, such as are these following, will clear to us all this business. We put a difference between a Sacrament and a Figure. Every Sacrament is a Figure, but every Sign is not a Sacrament.  
Between the Sacramental eating and the Spiritual eating; The one regards the Signs, the other the thing signified.  
Between the Substantial being of Sacraments, and their Significative being. The Bread is the Body of Christ Sacramentally, as the rock was Christ, that is to say in a mystical signification.  
Between Real and Corporal. All that is Corporall is Real: but all that is Real is not Corporal. Spiritual actions amongst which is the eating of the Body of Christ are Real but not Corporal.  
Between the divers manners of Presence. Many things are present to the Memory, and to the Understanding, which are not to the Corporal senses. Many objects are even present to us corporally, which are remote from us, by a greater distance of places; witness the Sun and the Stars.  
Between the divers degrees of our Conjunction with Christ; which considered in three regards, is either Natural, or Mystical, or Glorious.  
Between Faith and the Communion of the Body of Christ. Faith is not the Communion, but the Organ by which it is made.  
Between a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. The Sacrament is a gift which God bestows on man, Sacrifice is a present man which makes to God. In the Eucharist it is not Man who offers Jesus Christ to God; but it is God who offers Jesus Christ to Man.  
Between a Sacrifice of Expiation, and a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving. This is done in the Eucharist, the other was done only on the Cross.    

The Fift Section. Which is the subject of a greater treatise serving not only for the understanding of the Eucharist, but also of all the New Testament.  

CHAP. I. The Style of the New Testament is woven and composed of six kinds of Phrases and terms of different original.  
BY these terms and speeches I understand not (after the order of Grammarians) the sound of words, or their Etymologies in the tongue wherein the New Testament is written; but rather the sense and subject of expressions employed in it. They come therefore from divers Sources, to wit,  
1. Either from the common use of men, which is as it were a language universal to all Nations. As are the terms which represent the objects and the acts of sense; Fire, water, the sun, the head, the feet, eating, drinking; and generally all that is naturally and ordinarily known to men. For the new Testament touches many things of this Nature either expressly, or occasionally.  
2. Or from the Old Testament; which is either cited, or explained, or applied in the New.  
3. Or from the 27 Interpreters, who having translated the Old Testament into Greek, before the coming of Jesus Christ, have often expressed the Hebrew by certain phrases particular to themselves; which are also entered into the New Testament, because that the Apostles did often employ this Translation, which was very common in their time.  
4. Or from the Divinity or Ecclesiastical Discipline of the ancient Jews, of their Synagogue, Policy etc. This Divinity being the same with that of the Prophets. But to make it more intelligible, and more easily to prevent heresies, the Jewish Doctors introduced terms which were not in the Old Testament, signifying nevertheless the same things in substance. Or else they had transferred by analogy some words of the Old Testament beyond their ordinary signification. Now Jesus Christ and the Apostles have retained them in part in the New Testament.  
5. Or from the Morality of the Greeks, and their Arts, Proverbes and Sentences, many of their terms are in the New Testament, because the greatest part of the Gentiles to whom the Gospel was preached at the beginning, were either Greeks by Nation, or seasoned with the wisdom and custom of the Greeks.  
6. Or from the Style particular to the New Testament. For besides the expressions drawn from the precedent fountains, Jesus Christ and the Apostles have also many others, which are proper and particular unto them.  
All this willbe cleared by the following examples already observed by the Expositors; whereunto I have added some few which my observations have furnished me withal.  

Terms of the common Language of men.  
THese examples are infinite in number, and the common sense will make them manifest enough. When Jesus Christ said unto Thomas, Put thy hand into my side. When he commanded the Disciples to cast the net on the right side of the ship. And those which were about the Sepulchre of Lazarus, to take away the stone which was at the going in. All these speeches, and a thousand others the like, bear simply the sense which they have in the ordinary language; and there ought not any other to be given them, as do they who disguise them by allegories; saying that Jesus Christ spoke of the Absolution of sinners, when he commanded that Lazarus which was newly risen again should be unbound.   

Terms of the old Testament.  
THE finger of God Luke. 11. signifies his mervelous power, so expressed in Exod. 8. v. 19  
He who is, who was, and who is to to come, Revel. 1. v. 4. This is the expression of the name Jehovah, explained in Exod. 3. 14. Eheje, I am that I am, or that shallbe.  
The Conclusion of the Lords Prayer, for thine is the kingdom etc. is taken from the seventh of Daniel. v. 14. and to him was given Dominion, Glory and Kingdom etc. and his Dominion is everlasting.  
Many Hebrew words, as Hallelujah, Amen, come also from the Old Testament.   

Terms of the 70 Interpreters.  
I Touch not here the passages of the Old Testament which are related in the New with some difference, as being so found in the Translation of the Septuagint, which the Apostles have retained in many places. The particulars and questions which may be moved thereupon, have passed the examination of the learned.  
We will observe only for a pattern that the word Prophet, the word Church, and divers others, are come from the Seventy, who have employed them in the Greek Traslation of the Old Testnament from whence they are passed into the New.   

Terms of the Divinity and Discipline of the Jews  
THE names of Paradise and of Gehenna are not in the Old Testament, in the sense which they have in the New viz. to denote the places of Joy and Torment after this life. Neither do we there read these words, The world to come, The day of Judgement, The second death, The bosom of Abraham, and others which are come from the Judaical school, which had put them into use against the Sadduces, denying the immortality of souls, and the points which presuppose it.  
Now Jesus Christ hath sanctified these terms, and would have them inserted into the New Testament.  
The Jews before the coming of the Messiah were wont in their prayers to pray for the Coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ also hath put this Petition into the prayer which he hath taught us.  
The same Jews speaking of this Kingdom of the Messiah which they expected, called it the Kingdom of Heaven. Now they had drawn this phrase from hence, that in Daniel this Kingdom was represented under the figure of Stars, Chap. 8. v. 10. And on the contrary the Empires of this world were set forth under the form of earthly beasts. This name of the Kingdom of Heaven, as used among the Jews, is also frequent in the mouth of the Son of God.   

Terms from the Morality of the Greeks.  
THis is very remarkable, the word VIRTUE, inasmuch as it signifieth the habit of good manners, is not found in the Old Testament. For the Hebrews have no term which answers precisely to this here. The Greek word which hath the same signification is used in the New Testament, yet very seldom, for reasons whose consideration belongs to another discourse.  
Likewise we have the particular names of many Virtues, as also of many Vices which are not read in the Old Testament. Such are the words of Temperance, of Chastity, and divers others; which also come from the Moral of the Greeks.  
Even from thence is come the word of Alms, which is not also in the Old Testament. The Hebrews express it by a more general name. For instead of Alms, they say Justice. From thence comes it that the Syriack translating these words of S. Matthew 6. Give not your Alms before men, hath translated, do not your Justice before men.   

Terms particular to the New Testament.  
I Will give but one example among many, The habitation of the most blessed is called the. Third Heaven, 2 Cor. 12. This name is not given to it in the Old Testament. The holy tongue, wherein Moses and the prophets have written, naming the Heavens, expresseth them in the dual number; as if it should be said the two Heavens. The name of the third is come up thereupon, only since that Jesus Christ is entered therein. I omit other contemplations which may be brought hitherto.  
Finally all the writers of the New Testament, have also every one his style, and particular terms, whereof it is not necessary to speak at this time.  
Now as of all these expressions whereof we have seen the Originals, some carry the proper sense and natural to the terms, and others are drawn (by a figure) to a quite divers signification, so we ought also to see the matters wherefrom the figurative speeches are extracted.    

CHAP. II. The Figurative speeches which are in the New Testament are taken from five divers sorts of matters.  
THe way which we have here held above, is almost the same which conducts us hither. Every phrase which bears a Figure in the New Testament, is drawn from some of these subjects here mentioned, or from many of them, viz.  
1. Either from things which are of the general knowledge, and common to the most part of men.  
2. Or from matters of the Old Testament, as Washings, Sacrifices, etc.  
3. Or from Customs, Conditions and other things particular to the people of the Jews, when Jesus Christ and the Apostles were in the world.  
4. Or from the Customs of those of the Eastern people, Greeks and other nations with whom the Church of God hath conversed heretofore.  
5. Or even from the proper matters of the New Testament, the one taking the name of the other.  
The New Testament contains then five Orders or Categories of figurative terms, whereof we must give some examples.  

I. Examples of the first Order.  
Hence comes the similitude of the Sour, of Leven, of Occupying, etc.  
The Apostles are called the Salt of the Earth, God is called Light, Jesus Christ is named the Vine, the Dove.  
The Holy Ghost is designed by the name of Water, of Fire.   

II. Examples of the second Order.  
Jesus Christ is called the Tree of Life, the Manna, Rev. 2. The first fruits of those that sleep. 1 Cor. 15. Alms is called an Offering of a sweet smelling savour. Phil. 4. by a term borrowed from the perfumes that were used upon the Altar of Incense.  
In this rank are many allusions: Jesus Christ in St. Luke 19 v. 42. upbraided Jerusalem that they knew not the things which belonged to their peace, that it was hid from their eyes. The agreement which is found in these words, is not visible to any except those who know that Jerusalem (in the language of the Old Testament) signifies vision of peace. For these words mean that quite contrary to her name she saw not her peace, that Jersulalem was not in Jerusalem.  
Some Hebraisms may be referred hither. In the 13. of Leviticus, when the Law would say that the Priest shall pronounce him clean who was healed of the Leprosy, it saith, that the Priest shall cleanse him; and when it would say, That the Priest shall declare such a one defiled with a Leprosy, it saith, the Priest shall defile him. So Jesus Christ saith that his Disciples shall pardon or retain sins, that is to say, shall pronounce that they are pardoned or retained.   

III. Examples of the third Order.  
The Parable of the Virgins; of the Children fitting in the market-places, and divers others, taken from the Customs of the Jews.  
The Degrees of punishments used among them, viz. Of Judgement, of the Counsel, and of Hell fire, are named for to represent the difference of pains whereunto God condemneth sinners, Matthew 5.  
Our Saviour saith that one jota or one Jod of the Law, that is to say the least article of it, shall not pass away without being accomplished. This word is taken from the Alphabet of the Hebrews, whereof the least letter of all is called Jod.  
St. Paul 1 Cor. 16. v. 22. denounceth Maranatha against whomsoever loved not the Lord Jesus, This was the term of the greater Excommunication used among the Jews.  
The Scribes and interpreters of the Law had the Key of the Chests and Archives where were kept the sacred books. To this our Saviour makes allusion, when he upbraids them with having withdrawn the Key of knowledge and not to have entered into it.  
When a Doctor of the Law was created, they spoke to him after this manner, as the Rabbins relate it; Receive the Authority to pronounce bound whatsoever shall be bound, and to pronounce unbound whatsoever shallbe unbound. This explains the words of Jesus Christ speaking to his Disciples, whom he would constitute Doctors: That which ye bind on earth, shallbe bound in Heaven, and that which ye shall unbind on earth, shallbe unbound in Heaven.  
In the 3. of the Revel. Jesus Christ promiseth to them that shall overcome, that they shall walk with him in white Raiments. These White raiments, say we, are the token of purity and innocence; But some learned men have observed that this term was taken from a formality used among the Jews, when any one was installed into the Priesthood. For the Council having examined the genealogy and other qualities required in him who pretended to this charge; if he were judged incapable, they sent him back clad with a black robe, to signify that he was rejected from the Altar. But if he gained his cause, they clad him with a white robe, which was the habit of the Priests, and he entered the Temple with his Colleagues. Our Saviour seems to have a regard to this Custom, when he promises the white Garment to those whom he made Priests, and assures them that they shall walk with him. Revel. 1. v. 6.   

FOUR Examples of the fourth Order.  
In St. Matthew 5. v. 41. Jesus Christ saith, if any one compel thee to go a mile, etc. where the word translated (Compel) signifies to constrain one to run post; The word came from the Persians, who called those (Angari) whom we call Posts or Posters.  
In the Revel. 2. v. 17. the white stone is taken from the manner whereby the Greeks and the ancient Romans gave their voices in Criminal Judgements. The black stone was the mark of Condemnation, The white of the contrary.  
I omit the similitudes drawn from the Istthmian sports and the like, viz. from the Race, from the Wrestling, from the Combats of the Amphitheatre, and other Customs of the Greeks. 1 Cor. 9 v. 24, etc. & chap. 15. v. 32.  
In Revel. 16. It is foretold that the River Euphrates should be dried up, that the way of the Kings and people of the East might be prepared. It is an allusion to the Stratagem whereby Cyrus made himself master of the City of Babylon, having diverted the River Euphrates by many little channels.  
In divers places of the Revelation our Saviour expressing the beginning and the end of all things, takes the name of Alpha and Omega, which are the first and the last Letters of the Greek Alphabet.   

V Examples of the fift Order.  
The phrase which imports that we are Crucified to the world▪ is borrowed from the kind of death that Jesus Christ suffered. Many things which are said properly of his person, are transferred to his Church; as when it is said, that we shall come to the age of perfect man, and the measure of the perfect stature of Christ.  
In the 13. of St. Luke the Parable saith, these three years I come seeking fruit of this fig tree and find none. Some Chronologers observe, that Jesus Christ makes allusion to the time of his ministry. For when he pronounced these words, he had already preached three years to the people of the Jews, exhorting them to bear fruit.    

CHAP. III. The term of eating used to signify the Communion of the Body of Christ, is in the second Order of Figurative Speeches.  
ONe and the same figure may be taken from divers matters; and so one and the same phrase may be found in divers ranks, in divers regards; but in the one more properly than in the other. The point itself, for the understanding whereof I have laid down these distinctions, will explain that which I intent to say.  
When the Communion of the Body of Christ is expressed by the word of Eating, this phrase is not simply and immediately drawn from this act natural and common to all men, yea to other living Creatures, whereby we take our nourishment; but of the action of the Israelites communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices and other sacred meats. An action which was truly natural Materially, if we may so speak, sigh that it consisted in eating; but Formally and properly it was a sacred action, and a point of the Ceremonial Law. So that this speech, to eat the Body of Christ is amongst those which are drawn from the matters of the Old Testament. The which appears also (not to repeat all that which I have said before) in that Jesus Christ hath retained the terms of it. For among others, speaking of his Blood, he explains himself after the manner of the words of Moses in Exod. 24. v. 8. Behold the Blood of the Covenant. I shall conclude this with a very notable consideration.   

CHAP. IU. Why do the two Sacraments of the Christian Church consist the one in Washing, the other in Nourishment.  
WE use to say that these are two similitudes or analogies, wherein our Saviour hath shut these two Sacramennts; because that the washing and the eating represent very properly the application of Jesus Christ, who is a spiritual washing and nourishment unto us. But this reason goes not far enough in the intention of our Saviour. The Water is employed in Baptism, not simply because of its natural propriety of washing and cleansing, but for a more particular Reason. Likewise the nutritive virtue which is in the Bread, and in the Wine, is not the only cause, nor the immediate cause, wherefore they were chosen for signs of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
We must therefore know, that in the old time under the Law, amongst the Acts which represented the Application of future Redemption, there were two common and ordinary, viz. Washing and Eating. There were indeed but these two acts, whereby the people participated of Holy things. For they were exhibited to them either in Washing; as the Water of sprinkling, and the Blood wherewith they besprinkled unclean persons: or in Nourishment; as the Paschall Lamb, the Flesh of Eucharistick Sacrifices, and other food sanctified by the Law. Also the Apostle to the Hebrews Chap. 9 v. 10. teacheth us that all these legal matters consisted either in washings or in meats and drinks.  
Now this shows clearly why Jesus Christ hath Instituted the Sacraments to the number of two; and why in these two manners abovesaid, the one of Washing, the other of Nourishment. It is to the end that the same acts which had in times past represented the Application of Jesus Christ in these two divers regards, should still represent it.  
This Application was truly figured also by the Circumcision, whereto Baptism succeeded: But we have seen that our Sacraments ought not to have any more any thing bloody. Moreover, as I said, Our Saviour seems to have regard to this point, that all holy things, those which the Law made communicable to every one of the people, were applied personally unto him in the one or in the other of these two actions only, viz. either in their Washings, or in their Sacred Banquets; To these two sorts of actions, wherein consists all the participation of holy things answer Baptism and the Eucharist. If we contemplate there but a resemblance between the Water, the Bread and the Wine, of the one part, and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of the other; this consideration is too wand'ring and general, and doth not observe distinctly enough the intention of our Saviour. We know that the Communion of Jesus Christ is represented in Scripture under the Similitude of divers conjunctions; as of the Head with the Members; of the Vine with the Branches; of the Husband with the Wife; of the foundation with the edifice; of the Clothing with the Body; of Washing, and of Nourishment. But it is a question to know why among so many similitudes, our Saviour would choose these two, viz. that of Washing, and that of Nourishment, rather than any other, whereof to make the Sacraments of the New Testament. I believe therefore we must seek the reason in the correspondence which they have with these two actions of the Old Testament, wherein only lies the personal application of holy things which the Law distributed to the people.  
To Conclude, I shall add touching the Water of Baptism, that which I said touching the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist. Many Divines dispute Philosophically of the proprieties of Water, by reason whereof our Saviour would it should serve for Baptism. For (say they) as Water or watery matter is the principal of all natural production, so the Holy Ghost, represented by Water, is the principal of our regeneration. Also as Water doth fructify the Earth, and make it fit to bear fruit, so the Holy Spirit bedewing our Souls, makes us capable to bring forth the fruit of good works. Moreover, as Water doth quench the thirst, so the Holy Ghost doth quench the thirst of earthly things. To which is referred that which our Saviour saith in St. John 7. If any one Thirst, Let him come unto me and drink. But certainly they who thrust 〈◊〉 Similitudes into Baptism are extravagant in divers kinds. Water is used in Baptism, inasmuch as it washeth and cleanseth, not as it refresheth, nor as it allays the thirst being drank. Otherwise we ought to consider it as drink, and confound the Baptism and the Eucharist. Water is not considered in Baptism, but as Washing. The other proprieties which it may have, are our of the Sacramental analogy. If this Element should have yet more qualities proper to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, they are not of the Sacrament, and it is not for us to place them there.    
FINIS.   

AN Epitome of this Treatise, comprised in these Aphorisms following.  
I. MAny are learned in the Controversy of the Eucharist, who nevertheless have not Knowledge enough of the grounds and mysteries of this Sacrament.  
II. Many Treatises of Devotion, which have the vogue among the people, namely touching the holy Supper, serve rather to foment ignorance, than to augment instruction.  
III. They are ridiculous, who, endeavouring to specify all the particular Causes of the Circumstances of the Passion, give us Allegories for Reasons, and Metaphors for Mysteries.  
iv This ordinary Phrase, the Altar of the Cross, is improper and subject to evil Consequences.  
V The Historical representation whereby we call to mind a Man nailed to the Cross, is not this Act whereby Jesus Christ is made present to ours Souls.  
VI The Reason why Jesus Christ invites us to eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, is understood of very few, viz. why we ought to drink his Blood, forasmuch as it is the Blood of the New Testament; & why from the Oblation of his Body we conclude the eating of it.  
VII. The Reason consists of Maxims opposite to those of the Old Testament. For the Law contained certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist.  
VIII. Jesus Christ invites us to drink his Blood for the same reason which forbids us to eat blood. For the Law saith, Ye shall eat no blood; because it is shed for the remission of sins. Jesus Christ saith, Drink ye this Blood; because it is shed for the remission of sins.  
IX. It is a Maxim of the Old Testament, that none can eat of that which hath been offered for him for remission of sins. But Jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body given for our sin.  
X. In the Old Testament the Priests were to eat the Sacrifice, which they offered for the sins of other men. But Jesus Christ hath transferred this Rite to sinners themselves.  
XI. The Communion to which Jesus Christ invites us is marked with the names of two acts, whereof one is repugnant to the Ceremonial Law, viz. to eat that which hath been sacrificed for our sins; the other contrary to the Law of Nature, viz. to eat the flesh of man.  
XII. God had ordained that we should not eat of any Blood, until the Blood of Christ should be shed.  
XIII. The Law forbidding Sinners to eat the Sacrifice of their Expiation, shown that the true Sacrifice was not yet exhibited, nor their Expiation accomplished.  
XIV. In the Old Testament, the Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice was a Sacerdotal Act, required for Expiation. But at this day this Eating is an effect of Expiation already made.  
XV. In the Scripture the more a phrase is remote from the ordinary Rules of the Language of men, the more mysterious it is.  
XVI. The Communion of the Body of Christ is represented by the act of Eating, not simply by similitude, but to retain the Term of this Testamentary Clause, which Jesus Christ hath revoked in this Sacrament, which forbade man to eat the Sacrifice of his Expiation. And this speech means; That the Communion of the Body of Christ is in effect that which the eating of Sacrifices was in Figure.  
XVII. In the Life Natural man and his meat are different Kind's; but in the Life Spiritual man and his nourishment ought to be of the same kind.  
XVIII. The Old Testament had no force in comparison of the New, because the Testator was not yet dead.  
XIX. Whereas death permits not any man to be Executor of his own Will, Jesus Christ is risen again to execute his.  
XX. He who died first of all men, died of a bloody death. The death of Jesus Christ was signed with blood.  
XXI. The first Blood which was shed on Earth and the Blood of Jesus Christ are opposite one to the other in some respect.  
XXII. The first that felt death is also the first that sacrificed with Blood, representing the bloody Oblation of Jesus Christ.  
XXIII. The Blood, which was shed for one man alone, or for some small number of persons, never entered into the Holy Place; but only that which was shed for many; (i. e) for the multitude, or for the Church in general. The Blood of Jesus Christ hath pierced the Holy Places, as having been shed for many.  
XXIV. That, which moved our Saviour to ordain Bread rather than Flesh to represent his Body, is not because that Flesh hath served heretofore in Sacrifices. For Bread and Wine were also employed in Legal Oblations. But it is, that he would show that after him no creature should any more die for the sin of man. Therefore it is that he hath ordained Sacraments which require not the slaughter of any Creature, as being compounded of signs which are of themselves without life, and of other substance than of flesh and blood.  
XXV. All the properties of Bread and Wine enter not into the Analogy or Sacramental relation which these Elements have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Many similitudes which the Learned introduce in this matter, are impertinent and abusive, as when they represent the violent death of Jesus Christ by the Baking of Bread in the Oven, etc.  
XXVI. God never repeats the same thing but it is with some diversity. It is to the end that things which are obscure in one place, may be made unto us intelligible by another. This is the scope of the difference which is found among the Evangelists, reciting the Institution of the Supper.  
XXVII. Before the Passeover there was no Sacramental Eating. Jesus Christ celebrated the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of his Body, viz. the Passeover and the Eucharist on one and the same table.  
XXVIII. The Passeover that Jesus Christ celebrated is the seaventh and last of those which are recited in the Scripture, as being the perfection and conclusion of all those aforegoing. In this last Passeover the true Lamb is there found in person. Moreover as the Passeover came from Egypt, there where it was first celebrated, so Jesus Christ also was called out of Egypt.  
XXIX. The Sacraments of the Christian Church have already dured longer time than the Mosaical Ceremonies have subsisted.  
XXX. The Institution of the Passeover is recited very largely, this of the Eucharist is comprised in very few words. It is because That contained many Ceremonies, This here but a very few. But finally the Institution of the Passeover speaks much more of the sign than of the thing signified. This is the style of the Law to be prolix in the narration of Ceremonies, and to speak very briefly of spiritual graces represented under such figures.  
XXXI. The Sacraments of the Christian Church were form of matters and actions simple, natural and Common; to the end that they might not be subject unto Change, but remain unvariable to the end of the world.  
XXXII. The difference of times, of places, and persons, whereto God had bound the most notable Ceremonies of the Law▪ tended to facilitate their abrogation. But on the Contrary, our Saviour hat● not prefixed any time for the Celebration of the Supper, to the end that it might be universally practised in all times and in all places.  
XXXIII. That in the Supper, Jesus Christ is represented as he was on the Cross, and not as he is in Heaven, as dead, and not as glorified, this is, because the Sacraments tend rather to assure us of the glory that Jesus Christ acquired unto us, than to describe that which he possesseth himself. Now it is by his death that he hath gotten us this glory. From thence it comes, that, having Instituted two Sacraments which represent him dead, he hath not ordained any one which might represent him glorified.  
XXXIV. That Our Saviour hath not Instituted more illustrious Signs, and the reason why they are not miraculous, is, among other reasons, forasmuch as the end of Miracles is to show the greatness and power of God: But, on the contrary, the end of our Sacraments, chief of the Eucharist, is to show the infirmity, the death and humiliation of Christ.  
XXXV. According to the Maxims of the Roman Church, a man may, without thinking of it, and not knowing any thing of it, eat the Body of Christ Jesus.  
XXXVI. There is none of us who knows all the particular Reasons of all the Circumstances of the Passion.  
XXXVII. That the History of the Passion of Jesus Christ doth not move us so much, as that of many others, whose afflictions are recited in Scripture, is, forasmuch as the sufferings of Jesus Christ are not the Object of any natural Commotion, such as we may have for other men, but of another kind of resentment, which being Spiritual, is not so easy to be raised.  
XXXVIII. From thence it also comes that the superstitious are sometimes more moved at the rehearsal of the Passion of Jesus Christ, than the true Christians.  
XXXIX. Here we consider why it hath been easier for many to resolve to suffer death for the love of Christ, than to shed so much as one tear for the love of him.  
XL. Although the Spiritual Communion of the Body of Christ be a Super natural Act, nevertheless it is not done by a miraculous transportation and ravishment of Spirit, as was that of the Prophets.  
XLI. A Roman Catholic hath need of much more time to learn his Religion, than an Orthodox to understand his. And particularly concerning the Eucharist, An Orthodox man will sooner learn all that he ought to know concerning it, than a Roman Catholic the tenth part of that which his Religion teacheth him concerning this point.  
XLII. The style of the New Testament is composed of six kinds of phrases and terms of different original; some proper, others figurative.  
XLIII. The Figurative Speeches which are in the New Testament, are drawn from five divers sorts of matter.  
XLIV. The Figure which is in this word [Eating] for to denote the Communion of the Body of Christ, is not simply derived from the natural Act of Eating in general, but from the Action of the Faithful of the Old Testament, Communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices, and other Sacred meats.  
XLV. In the Old Testament there were but two other Holy, For they were exhibited either by Washing, or by Nourishment. Baptism and the Eucharist do answer to these two kinds of Actions. This i● the Reason wherefore we have these two Sacraments, and in these two manners abovesayd.  
FIN●S.