Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	eat_v	john_n	9,109	5	6.6439	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30895	An apology for the true Christian divinity, as the same is held forth, and preached by the people, called, in scorn, Quakers being a full explanation and vindication of their principles and doctrines, by many arguments, deduced from Scripture and right reason, and the testimony of famous authors, both ancient and modern, with a full answer to the strongest objections usually made against them, presented to the King / written and published in Latine, for the information of strangers, by Robert Barclay ; and now put into our own language, for the benefit of his country-men.; Theologiae verè Christianae apologia. English	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1678 (1678)	Wing B721; ESTC R1740	415,337	436

participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ than any of them all For Christ in this Chapter perceiving that the Jews did follow him for Love of the Loaves desires them ver 27. to labour not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth for ever but forasmuch as they being carnal in their apprehensions and not understanding the Spiritual Language and Doctrine of Christ did judg the Manna which Moses gave their Fathers to be the most excellent Bread as coming from Heaven Christ to rectifie that mistake and better inform them affirmeth first that is not Moses but his Father that giveth the true Bread from Heaven ver 32 48. Secondly This Bread he calls himself ver 35. I am the Bread of Life and ver 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven Thirdly he declares that this Bread is his Flesh ver 51. This Bread that I will give is my Flesh And ver 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Fourthly the necessity of partaking thereof ver 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you And lastly ver 33. the blessed fruits and necessary effects of this communion of the Body and Blood of Christ This Bread giveth life to the world ver 50. He that eateth thereof dieth not ver 58. he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever ver 51. who so eateth this Flesh and drinketh this Blood shall live for ever ver 54. and he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him ver 56. and shall live by Christ ver 57. From this large description of the origin nature and effects of this Body Flesh and Blood of Christ it is apparent that it is Spiritual and to be understood of a Spiritual Body and not of that Body or Temple of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which he walked lived and suffered in the land of Judea because that it is sa●d both that it came down from Heaven yea that it is he that came down from Heaven Now all Christians at present generally acknowledg that the outward Body of Christ came not down from Heaven neither was it that part of Christ which came down from Heaven And to put the matter out of doubt when the carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly ver 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth but the Flesh profiteth nothing This is also founded upon most sound and solid reason because that it is the Soul not the Body that is to be nourished by this Flesh and Blood Now outward Flesh cannot nourish nor feed the Soul there is no proportion nor analogy betwixt them neither is the communion of the Saints with God by a conjunction and mutual participation of Flesh but of the Spirit He that is joyned to the Lord is One Spirit not by Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transported by a metaphor to be understood Spiritually can only partake of Flesh as Spirit of Spirit as the Body cannot feed upon Spirit neither can the Spirit feed upon Flesh and that the Flesh here spoken of is spiritually understood appears further in that that which feedeth upon it shall never die but the Bodies of all men once die yea it behoved the Body of Christ himself to die that this Body and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ is to be understood of that Divine and Heavenly Seed before spoken of by us appears both by the nature and fruits of it First it 's said it is that which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world now this answers to that Light and Seed which is testified of Joh. 1. to be the Light of the World and the Life of Men. For that Spiritual Light and Seed as it receives place in mens hearts and room to spring up there is as Bread to the hungry and fainting Soul that is as it were buried and dead in the lusts of the World which receives life again and revives as it tasteth and partaketh of this heavenly bread and they that partake of it are said to come to Christ neither can any have it but by coming to him and believing in the appearance of his Light in their hearts by receiving which and believing in it the participation of this body and bread is known And that Christ understands the same thing here by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the Light inlightening every man and the Life c. appears for the Light and Life spoken of John 1. is said to be Christ he is the true Light and the Bread and Flesh c. spoken of in this 6 of John is called Christ I am the Bread of Life saith he Again they that received that Light and Life John 1.12 obtained power to become the Sons of God by believing in his Name so also here John 6.35 He that cometh unto this bread of Life shall not hunger and he that believes in him who is this bread shall never thirst So then as there was the outward visible Body and Temple of Jesus Christ which took its origen from the Virgin Mary so there is also the Spiritual Body of Christ by and through which he that was the Word in the beginning with God and was and is GOD did reveal himself to the Sons of Men in all ages and whereby men in all ages come to be made partakers of Eternal Life and to have communion and fellowship with God and Christ. Of which body of Christ and flesh and blood if both Adam and Seth and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and Moses and David and all the Prophets and Holy men of God had not eaten they had not had life in them nor could their inward man have nourished Now as the outward Body and Temple was called Christ so was also his Spiritual Body no less properly and that long before that outward Body was in being Hence the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.3 4. that the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual meat and did all drink the same Spiritual drink for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. This cannot be understood otherwise than of this Spiritual body of Christ which Spiritual body of Christ though it was the saving food of the Righteous both before the Law and under the Law yet under the Law it was vailed and shaddowed and covered under divers types ceremonies and observations yea and not so but it was vailed and hid in some respect under the outward Temple and Body of Christ or during the continuance of it so that the Jews could not understand Christ's Preaching about it while on Earth And not the Jews only but many of his Disciples judged it an hard saying murmured at it and many from that

Pelagians for saying that Infants dying unbaptized may be saved And the Manichees were condemned for denying that Grace is universally given by Baptism and Julian the Pelagian by Augustin for denying exorcism and insufflation in the use of Baptism all which things Protestants deny also So that Protestants do but foolishly to upbraid us as if we could not shew any among the Antients that denyed Water-baptism seeing they cannot shew any whom they acknowledg not to have been heretical in several things to have used it nor yet who using it did not use also the sign of the Cross and other things with it which they deny There were some nevertheless in the darkest times of Popery who testified against Water-baptism For one Alanus pag. 103 104 107. speaks of some in his time that were burnt for the denying of it for they said that Baptism had no efficacy either in Children or adult Persons and therefore men were not obliged to take Baptism Particularly Ten Canonicks so called were burnt for that crime by the order of King Robert of France And P. Pithaeus tells in his Fragments of the History of Guienne which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis a Monk who was famous at that time in his Epistle to Oliva Abbot of the Ausonian Church I will saith he give you to understand concerning the Heresie that was in the City of Orleans on Childe●-mass-day foy it was true if ye have heard any thing that King Robert caused to be burnt alive nigh fourteen of that City of the chief of their Clergy and the more noble of their Laicks who were hateful to God and abominable to Heaven and Earth for they did stiffly deny the Grace of Holy Baptism and also the Consecration of our Lord's Body and Blood The time of this deed is noted in these words by Papir Masson in his Annals of France lib. 3. in Hugh and Robert actum Aureliae publice anno incarnationis Domini 1022 regni Roberti Regis 28. indictione 5. quando Stephanus haeresiarcha complices ejus damnati sunt exusti Aureliae Now for their calling them Hereticks and Maniches we have nothing but the testimony of their accusers which will no more invalidate their testimony for this Truth against the use of Water-baptism or give more ground to charge us as being one with Maniches than because some called by them Maniches do agree with Protestants in some things that therefore Protestants are Maniches or Hereticks which Protestants can no waies shun For the question is whether in what they did they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scripture so that the controversie is brought back again to the Scriptures according to which I suppose I have formerly discussed it As for the latter part of the Thesis denying the use of Infant Baptism it necessarily follows from what is above said for if Water-baptism be ceased then surely Baptizing of Infants is not warrantable But those that take upon them to oppose us in this matter will have more to do as to this latter part for after they have done what they can to prove Water-baptism it remains for them to prove that Infants ought to be baptized For he that proves Water-baptism ceased proves that Infant Baptism is vain But he that should prove that Water-baptism continues has not thence proved that Infant Baptism is necessary That needs something further and therefore it was a pitiful subterfuge of Nic. Arnoldus against this to say that the denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the gangrene of the Anabaptists without adding any further probation The Thirteenth Proposition Concerning the Communion or participation of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is inward and Spiritual which is the participation of his Flesh and Blood by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells of which things the breaking of Bread by Christ with his Disciples was a figure which they even used in the Church for a time who had received the Substance for the sake of the weak even as abstaining from things strangled and from Blood the washing of one anothers Feet and the anointing of the Sick with Oyl all which are commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the former yet seeing they are but the shaddows of better things they cease in such as have obtained the Substance § I. THe Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is a mystery hid from all natural men in their first faln and degenerate state which they cannot understand reach to nor comprehend as they there abide neither as they there are can they be partakers of it nor yet are they able to discern the Lord's Body And forasmuch as the Christian World so called for the most part hath been still labouring working conceiving and imagining in their own natural and unrenewed understandings about the things of God and Religion therefore hath this mystery much been hid and sealed up from them while they have been contending quarrelling and fighting one with another about the meer shaddow outside and form but strangers to the Substance Life and Vertue § II. The Body then of Christ which believers partake of is Spiritual and not Carnal and his Blood which they drink of is pure and heavenly and not humane or elementary as Augustin also affirms of the Body of Christ which is eaten in his Tractat. Psal. 98. Except a man eat my Flesh he hath not in him Life Eternal and he saith the words which I spake unto you are Spirit and Life understand spiritually what I have spoken Ye shall not eat of this Body which ye see and drink this Blood which they shall spill that crucifie me I am the living Bread who have descended from Heaven he calls himself the Bread who descended from Heaven exhorting that we might believe in him c. If it be asked then what that Body what that Flesh and Blood is I answer it is that Heavenly Seed that Divine Spiritual Coelestial Substance Answ. of which we spake before in the fifth and sixth Propositions This is that vehiculum Dei or Spiritual Body of Christ whereby and wherethrough he communicateth Life to men and Salvation to as many as believe in him and receive him and whereby also man comes to have fellowship and communion with God This is proved from the 6 of John from verse 32 to the end where Christ speaks more at large of this matter than in any other place and indeed this Evangelist and beloved Disciple who lay in the bosom of our Lord gives us a more full account of the Spiritual sayings and Doctrine of Christ and it 's observable that though he speaks nothing of the ceremony used by Christ of breaking Bread with his Disciples neither in his Evangelical account of Christ's life and sufferings nor in his Epistles yet he is more large in this account of the

time went back from him and walked no more with him I doubt not but that there are many also at this day professing to be the Disciples of Christ that do as little understand this matter as those did and are as apt to be offended and stumble at it while they are gazing and following after the outward Body and look not to that by which the Saints are daily fed and nourished For as Jesus Christ in obedience to the will of the Father did by the eternal Spirit offer up that body for a propitiation for the remission of sins and finished his testimony upon earth thereby in a most perfect example of patience resignation and holyness that all might be made partakers of the feuit of that Sacaifice So hath he likewise poured forth into the hearts of all men a measure of that Divine Light and Seed wherewith he is cloathed that thereby reaching unto the Consciences of all he may raise them up out of death and darkness by his Life and Light and thereby may be made partakers of his body and therethrough come to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son § III. If it be asked how Quest. and after what manner man comes to partake of it and to be sed by it I answer in the plain and express words of Christ I am the Bread of Life saith he he that cometh to me shall never hunger Answ. he that believeth in me shall never thirst and again for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed So whosoever thou art that askest this question or readest these lines whether thou accountest thy self a Believer or really feelest by a certain and sad experience that thou art yet in the unbelief and findest that the outward body and flesh of Christ is so far from thee that thou canst not reach it nor feed upon it yea though thou hast often swallowed down and taken in that which the Papists have perswaded thee to be the real Flesh and Blood of Christ and hast believed it to be so though all thy senses told thee the contrary or being a Luthenan hast taken that bread in and with and under which the Lutherans have assured thee that the flesh and blood of Christ is or being a Calvinist hast partaken of that which the Calvinists say though a figure only of the Body gives them that take it a real Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ though they neither know how nor what way I say if for all this thou findest thy Soul yet barren yea hungry and ready to starve for want of something thou longest for Know that that Light that discovers thy Iniquity to thee that shews thee thy barrenness thy nakedness thy emptyness is that body that thou must partake of and feed upon but that till by forsaking iniquity thou turnest to it comest unto it receivest it though thou mayst hunger after it thou canst not be satisfied with it for it hath no communion with darkness nor canst thou drink of the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of devils and be partaker of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 But as thou sufferest that small Seed of Righteousness to arise in thee and to be formed into a birth that new substantial birth that 's brought forth in the Soul naturally feeds upon and is nourished by this spiritual body yea at this outward birthlives not but as it sucks in breath by the outward elementary air so this new birth lives not in the Soul but as it draws in and breaths by that spiritual air or vehicle and as the outward birth cannot subsist without some outward body to feed upon some outward flesh and some outward drink so neither can this inward birth without it be fed by this inward flesh and blood of Christ which answers to it after the same manner by way of analogy And this is most agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ concerning this matter for as without outward food the natural body hath not life so also saith Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you And as the outward body eating outward food lives thereby so Christ saith that he that eateth him shall live by him So it is this inward participation of this inward man of this inward and Spiritual body by which man is united to God and has fellowship and communion with him He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood saith Christ dwelleth in me and I in him This cannot be understood of outward eating of outward Bread and as by this the Soul must have fellowship with God so also in so far as all the Saints are partakers of this one body and one blood they come also to have a joynt Communion Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.17 in this respect saith that they being many are one bread and one body and to the wise among the Corinthians he saith the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. This is the True and Spiritual Supper of the Lord which men come to partake of by hearing the voice of Christ and opening the door of their hearts and so letting him in in the manner abovesaid according to the plain words of the Scripture Rev. 3.20 Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come into him and will Sup with him and he with me So that the Supper of the Lord and the Supping with the Lord and partaking of his Flesh and Blood is no ways limited to the Ceremony of breaking Bread and drinking Wine at particular times but is truly and really enjoyed as often as the Soul retires into the Light of the Lord and feels and partakes of that Heavenly Life by which the inward Man is nourished which may be and is often witnessed by the Faithful at all times though more particularly when they are Assembled together to wait upon the Lord. § IV. But what confusion the professors of Christianity have run into concerning this matter is more than obvious who as in most other things they have done for want of a true Spiritual understanding have sought to tie this Supper of the Lord to that ceremony used by Christ before his Death of breaking Bread and drinking Wine with his Disciples And though they for most part agree in this general yet how do they contend and debate one against another How strangely are they pinched pained and straitned to make this Spiritual mystery agree to that Ceremony And what monstruous and wild opinions and conceivings have they invented to inclose or affix the Body of Christ to their Bread and Wine From which opinion not only the greatest and fiercest and most hurtful contests both among the Professors of Christianity in general and among Protestants in particular have arisen but also such absurdities irrational and blasphemous

carnal ordinances no wonder if by their carnal apprehensions they run into heaps and confusion But because it hath been generally supposed that the communion of the body and blood of Christ had some special relation to the ceremony of breaking bread I first refute that opinion and then proceed to consider the nature and use of that ceremony and whether it be now necessary to continue answering the reasons and objections of such as plead its continuance as a necessary and standing ordinance of Jesus Christ. § V. First it must be understood that I speak of a necessary and peculiar relation otherwise than in a general respect for forasmuch as our communion with Christ is and ought to be our greatest and chiefest work we ought to do all other things with a respect to God and our fellowship with him but a special and necessary respect or relation is such as where the two things are so tied and united together either of their own nature or by the command of God that the one cannot be enjoyed or at lest is not except very extraordinarily without the other Thus Salvation hath a necessary respect to Holyness because without Holyness no man shall see God And the eating of the flesh and blood of Christ hath a necessary respect to our having life because if we eat not his flesh and drink not his blood we cannot have life our feeling of God's presence hath a necessary respect to our being found meeting in his name by Divine Precept because he has promised where two or three are met together in his Name he will be in the midst of them in like manner our receiving benefits and blessings from God has a necessary respect to our Praying because if we ask he hath promised we shall receive Now the communion or participation of the flesh and blood of Christ hath no such necessary relation to the breaking of bread and drinking of Wine For if it had any such necessary relation it would either be from the Nature of the thing or from some Divine Precept But we shall shew it is from neither Therefore c. First it is not from the nature of it because to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ is a Spiritual exercise and all confess that it is by the Soul and Spirit that we become real partakers of it as it is the Soul and not the Body that is nourished by it but to eat Bread and drink Wine is a natural act which in it self adds nothing to the Soul neither has any thing that is Spiritual in it because the most carnal man that is can as fully as perfectly and as wholly eat Bread and drink Wine as the most Spiritual Secondly their relation is not by nature else they would infer one another but all acknowledg that many eat of the bread and drink of the wine even that which they say is consecrate and transubstantiate into the very body of Christ who notwithstanding have not life eternal have not Christ dwelling them nor do live by him as all do who truly partake of the flesh and blood of Christ without the use of this ceremony as all the Patriarchs and Prophets did before this ordinance as they account it was instituted neither was there any thing under the Law that had any direct or necessary relation hereunto though to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ in all ages was indispensibly necessary to Salvation For as for the Paschal Lamb the whole end of it is signified particularly Exod. 13.8 9. to wit that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt Secondly it has no relation by Divine Precept for if it had it would be mentioned in that which our Adversaries account the institution of it or else in the practise of it by the Saints recorded in Scripture but so it is not For as to the institution or rather narration of Christ's practice in this matter we have it recorded by the Evangelist Matthew Mark and Luke In the first two there is only an account of the matter of fact to wit that Christ brake bread and gave it his Disciples to eat saying this is my Body and blessing the cup he gave it them to drink saying this is my blood but nothing of any desire to them to do it In the last after the bread but before the blessing or giving them the wine he bids them do it in remembrance of him what we are to think of this practice of Christ shall be spoken ofhereafter But what necessary relation hath all this to the believers partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ The end of this for which they were to do it if at all is to remember Christ which the Apostle yet more particularly expresses 1 Cor. 11.26 to shew forth the Lord's death But to remember the Lord or declare his death which are the special and particular ends annexed to the use of this ceremony is not at all to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ neither have they any more necessary relation to it than any other two different Spiritual duties For though they that partake of the flesh and blood of Christ cannot but remember him yet the Lord and his death may be remembred as none can deny where his flesh and blood is not truly partaken of So that since the very particular and express end of this ceremony may be witnessed to wit the remembrance of the Lord's Death and yet the flesh and blood of Christ not partaken of it cannot have had any necessary relation to it else the partaking thereof would have been the end of it and could not have been attained without this participation But on the contrary we may well infer hence that since the positive end of this ceremony is not the partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ and that whoever partakes of the flesh and blood of Christ cannot but remember him that therefore such need not this ceremony to put them in remembrance of him But if it be said that Jesus Christ calls the bread here his body and the wine his blood Obj. therefore he seems to have had a special relation to his Disciples partaking of his flesh and blood in the use of this thing I answer his calling the bread his body and the wine his blood Answ. would yet infer no such thing though it is not denyed but that Jesus Christ in all things he did yea and from the use of all natural things took occasion to raise the minds of his Disciples and hearers to Spirituals Hence from the Woman of Samaria her drawing water he took occasion to tell her of that living Water which whoso drinketh of shall never thirst which indeed is all one with his blood here spoken of Yet it will not follow that that Well or Water had any necessary relation to the Living Water or the Living Water to it c. So Christ takes occasion from

the Jews following him for the Loaves to tell them of this Spiritual bread and flesh of his body which was more necessary for them to feed upon It will not therefore follow that their following him for the Loaves had any necessary relation thereunto So also Christ here being at supper with his Disciples takes occasion from the bread and wine which was before them to signifie unto them that as that bread which he brake unto them and that wine which he blessed and gave unto them did contribute to the preserving and nourishing of their bodies so was he also to give his body and shed his blood for the Salvation of their Souls and therefore the very end proposed in this ceremony to those that observe it is to be a memorial of his Death But if it be said that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 calls the bread which he brake the communion of the body of Christ and the cup the communion of his blood I do most willingly subscribe unto it but do deny that this is understood of the outward bread neither can it be evinced but the contrary is manifest from the context for the Apostle in this chapter speaks not one word of that ceremony for having in the beginning of it shewn them how the Jews of old were made partakers of the Spiritual food and water which was Christ and how several of them thro' disobedience and idolatry fell from that good condition he exhorts them by the example of those Jews whom God destroyed of old to flee those evils shewing them that they to wit the Corinthians are likewise partakers of the body and blood of Christ of which communion they would rob themselves if they did evil because they could not drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils and partake of the Lords table and of the Table of devils ver 21. which shews that he understands not here the using of outward bread and wine because those that do drink the cup of devils and eat of the table of devils yea the wickedest of men may partake of the outward bread and outward wine For there the Apostle calls the bread one ver 17. and he saith we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread Now if the bread be one it cannot be the outward or the inward would be excluded whereas it cannot be denyed but that it 's the partaking of the inward bread and not the outward that makes the Saints truly one body and one bread And whereas they say that the one bread here comprehendeth both the outward and inward by vertue of the Sacramental union that indeed is to affirm but not to prove As for that figment of a Sacramental union I find not such a thing in all the Scripture especially in the New Testament nor is there any thing can give a rise for such a thing in this chapter where the Apostle as is above observed is not at all treating of that ceremony but only from the excellency of that priviledg which the Corinthians had as believing Christians to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ dehorts them from Idolatry and partaking of the Sacrifices offered to Idols so as thereby to offend or hurt their weak brethren But that which they most of all cry out in this matter Obj. and are alwaies noising as from 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle is particularly treating of this matter and therefore from some words here they have the greatest appearance of Truth for their assertion as ver 27. where he calls the Cup the cup of the Lord and saith that they who eat of it and drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and ver 26. eat and drink their own damnation intimating thence that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body flesh and blood of Christ. Though this at first view may catch the unwary Reader Answ. yet being well considered it doth no ways evince the matter in controversie As for the Corinthians being in the use of this ceremony why they were so and how that obliges not Christians now to the same shall be spoken of hereafter it suffices at this time to consider that they were in the use of it Secondly that in the use of it they were guilty of and committed divers abuses Thirdly that the Apostle here is giving them directions how they may do it aright in shewing them the right and proper use and end of it These things being premised let it be observed that the very express and particular use of it according to the Apostle is to shew forth the Lord's death c. But to shew forth the Lord's death and partake of the flesh and blood of Christ are different things He saith not as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye partake of the body and blood of Christ but ye shew forth the Lord's death So I acknowledg that this ceremony by those that practise it hath an immediate relation to the outward body and death of Christ upon the Cross as being properly a memorial of it but it doth not thence follow that it hath any inward or immediate relation to believers communicating or partaking of the Spiritual body and blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3.20 for though in a general way as every religious action in some respect hath a common relation to the Spiritual Communion of the Saints with God so we shall not deny but this hath a relation as others Now for his calling the cup the cup of the Lord and saying they are guilty of the body and blood of Christ and eat their own damnation in not discerning the Lord's body c. I answer that this infers no more necessary relation than any other religious act and amounts to no more than this that since the Corinthians were in the use of this ceremony and so performed it as a religious act they ought to do it worthily else they should bring condemnation upon themselves Now this will not more infer the thing so practised by them to be a necessary religious act obligatory upon others than when Rom. 14.6 the Apostle saith He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord it can be thence inferred that the days that some esteemed and observed did lay an obligation upon others to do the same but yet as as he that esteemed a day and placed Conscience in keeping it was to regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he dedicated it unto the Lord the Lord's day he was to do it worthily and if he did it unworthily he would be guilty of the Lord's day and so keep it to his own damnation so also such as observe this ceremony of bread and wine it is to them the bread of the Lord and the cup of the Lord because they use it as a religious act and forasmuch as their

it not the same way be urged that the drinking of wine is accidental as being the natural product of that Country and so be pleaded that in those Countries where Wine doth not grow as in our Nation of Scotland we may make use of Beer or Ale in the use of this ceremony or bread made of other grain than that which Christ used And yet would not our Adversaries judge this an abuse and not right performing of this Sacrament Yea have not scruples of this kind occasioned no little contention among the Professors of Christianity What great contest and strife hath been betwixt the Greek and Latine Churches concerning the bread While the one will have it unleavened reckoning because the Jews made use of unleavened bread in the Passover that it was such kind of bread that Christ did break to his Disciples the other leavened therefore the Lutherans make use of unleavened bread the Calvinists of leavened and this contest was so hot when the Reformation was beginning at Geneva that Calvin and Ferellus were forced to flee for it But do not Protestants by these uncertainties open a door to Papists for their excluding the People from the Cup Will not Do this infer positively that they should do in the same manner and at the same time which Christ did it as well as that they should use the cup and not the bread only Or what reason have they to dispence with the one more than the Papists have to do with the other O! what strange absurdities and inconveniencies have Christians brought upon themselves by superstitiously adhering to this ceremony Out of which difficulties it is impossible for them to extricate themselves but by laying it aside as they have done others of the like nature For besides what is above-mentioned I would gladly know how from the words they can be certainly resolved that these words Do this must be understood to the Clergy take bless and break this bread and give it to others but to the Laity only take and eat but do not bless c. If it be said that the Clergy was only present Obj. Then will not that open a door for the popish argument against the administration of the cup to the People Answ. Or may not another from thence as easily infer that only the Clergy ought to partake of this ceremony because they were only those present to whom it was said Do this But if this Do this be extended to all how comes it all have not liberty to obey it in both blessing breaking and distributing as well as taking and eating Besides all these even the Calvinian Protestants of Great Brittain could never yet accord among themselves about the manner of taking it whether sitting standing or kneeling whether it should be given to the sick and those that are ready to die or not Which controversies though they may be esteemed of small moment yet have greatly contributed with other things to be the occasion not only of much contention but also of blood shed and devastation so that in this last respect the Prelatick Calvinists have termed the Presbyterians Schismatical and Pertinacious and they them again Superstitious Idolatrous and Papistical Who then that will open their eyes but may see that the devil hath stirred up this contention and zeal to busie men about things of small moment that greater matters may be neglected while he keeps them in such ado about this ceremony while they lay aside others of the like nature as positively commanded and as punctually practised and from the observation of which half so many difficulties will not follow § VIII How then Have we not reason not finding the nature of this practice to be obligatory upon us more than those other our adversaries have laid aside to avoid all this confusion since those that use it can never agree neither concerning the nature efficacy nor manner of doing it And this proceeds because they take it not plainly as it lies in the Scripture but have so much mixed in their own inventions For would they take it as Lies it would import no more than that Jesus Christ at that time did thereby signifie unto them that his body and blood was to be offered for them and desired them that whensoever they did eat or drink they might do it in remembrance of him or with a regard to him whose blood was shed for them Now that the primitive Church gathered immediately after his ascension did so understand it doth appear from their use and practice if we admit those places of the Acts where breaking of bread is spoken of to have relation hereto which as our Adversaries do so we shall willingly agree to As first Acts 2.42 And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of bread c. This cannot be understood of any other than of their ordinary eating for as nothing else appears from the text so the context makes it plain for they had all things in common and therefore it is said verse 46. And they continuing daily with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart Who will not wilfully close their Eyes may see here that their breaking being joyned with their eating shews that nothing else is here expressed but that having all things in common and so continuing together they also did break their bread and eat their meat together In doing whereof I shall not doubt but they remembred the Lord to follow whom they had with so great zeal and resignation betaken themselves This is further manifest from Acts 6. For the Apostle having the care and distribution of that money which the Believers having sold their possessions gave unto them finding themselves overcharged with that burthen appointed Deacons for that business that they might give themselves continually to Prayer and to the Ministry of the Word not leaving that to serve Tables This cannot be meant of any Sacramental eating or Religious Act of Worship seeing our Adversaries make the distributing of that the proper act of Ministers not of Deacons and yet there can be no reason alledged that that breaking of bread which they are said to have continued in and to have done from House to House was other than those Tables that the Apostles served but here gave over as finding themselves overcharged with it now as the increase of the Disciples did incapacitate the Apostles any more to manage this so it would seem their further increase and dispersing in divers places hindered the continuance of that practice of having things in common But notwithstanding so far at lest to remember or continue that ancient community they did at certain times come together and break bread together Hence it is said Acts 20.7 that Paul coming to Troas And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them ready to depart on