away Men's sins is most frequently made use of to denote the forgiveness of sins and that outward sign therefore to which such a washing is attributed intended as a sign of the forgiveness of them I conclude therefore that whatever else may be thought to be excluded from the signification of the Water of Baptism yet it hath the relation of a sign to the forgiveness of sin and that forgiveness therefore to be look'd upon as one of the Graces signified by it And I shall only add that this was always so acknowledg'd in the Church that even the Pelagians themselves though they deny'd all sin in Infants and consequently left no place for the forgiveness of sin in them yet did allow of their being Baptiz'd for the remission of sins according to the rule of the Vniversal Church and the tenour of the Gospel as appears from the words of Pelagius himself (b) Vid. Voss Hist Pelag. li. 2. part 2. Thes 4. and those of his Scholar Coelestius There being therefore no doubt to be made that forgiveness of sin is one of those inward and Spiritual Graces which are signified by Baptism it may not be amiss for the farther clearing of that Grace to say somewhat concerning the nature of it both as to those sins it pretends to assoile and the measure of its forgiveness But because I have elsewhere (c) Expl. of the Creed Art of The forgiveness of sins given no contemptible account thereof and shall have occasion to resume it when I come to shew what farther relation the outward visible sign of Baptism bears to this and its other inward Graces I shall content my self to observe at present that as that forgiveness which is signified by it hath a relation to all our past sins so it relates in particular to Original Sin and consequently tends alike to the cancelling of its Obligation Witness not only the Churches applying this sign of it to Infants as that too as was before noted for the remission of sins but S. Paul's making that quickning (d) Ephes 2.1 which we have by Baptism to save us as well from that wrath which we were the Children of by Nature as from our own vain conversation and the punishment thereof For other sense than that as the generality of the Latins (e) Vid. Voss Pelag. Hist li. 2. part 1. Thes 2. did not put upon the Apostles words so neither is there indeed any necessity for or all things considered any probability of Partly because the Apostle might intend to aggravate the sinfulness of Men's former estate from their natural as well as contracted pollutions even as David aggravated his (f) Psal 51.5 where he deplores his Adultery and Murther and partly because there is sufficient evidence from other Texts of Men's being sinful by their birth as well as practice and which as S. Paul's Children of wrath by Nature is more strictly agreeable to so is therefore more reasonable to be interpreted of And I have insisted so much the longer both upon this particular and the Text I have made use of to confirm it because as Original Sin is one main ground of Baptism and accordingly in this very Catechism of ours represented by our Church as such so she may seem to make use of that very Text to evidence the being of Original Sin and the efficacy of Baptism toward the removing of it Her words being that as we are by nature born in sin and the Children of wrath so we are by Baptism made the Children of Grace From the Grace of forgiveness of sin pass we to that which tends to free us from its pollution entitled by our Church a death unto it A grace which as the corruption of our Nature makes necessary to be had so cannot in the least be doubted to be signified by the outward sign of Baptism It being not only the affirmation of S. Paul that all true Christians are dead (g) Rom. 6.2 to sin but that they are buried by Baptism (h) Rom. 6.4 into it that they are by that means planted together into the likeness (i) Rom. 6.5 of Christ's death and that their Old Man even the Body of sin is crucified (k) Rom. 6.6 with Christ in it For as that and other such like Texts (l) Col. 2.12 of Scripture are a sufficient proof of Baptism's having a relation to our death unto sin as well as unto the death of Christ So they prove in like manner that it had the relation of a sign unto it and consequently make the former death to be one of the Graces signified by it Because not only describing the Rite of Baptism under the notion of a death and Burial which it cannot be said to be but as it is an image of one but representing it as a planting of the Baptized person into the likeness of that death of Christ which is the exemplar of the other For what is this but to say that it was intended as a sign or representation of them both and both the one and the other therefore to be look'd upon as signified by it The same is to be said upon the account of those Texts of Scripture which represent the Water of Baptism as washing (m) Acts 22.16 away the sins of Men or if that expression may not be thought to be full enough because referring also to the forgiveness of them as sanctifying and cleansing (n) Eph. 5.26 27. the Church to the end it may be holy and without blemish For as that shews the Water of Baptism to have a relation to that grace which tends to free the Church from sinful blemishes so it shews in like manner that it was intended as a sign of it and of that inward cleansing which belongs to it There being not otherwise any reason why the freeing of the Church from sin by means of the Baptismal water should have the name of cleansing but upon the account of the analogy there is between the natural property thereof and the property of that Grace to which it relates One only Grace remains of those which tend more immediately to our spiritual welfare even that which our Catechism entitles a new birth unto righteousness Concerning which I shall again shew because that will be enough to prove that it is a Grace signified by it that the Water of Baptism hath a relation to it and then that it hath the relation of a sign I alledge for the former of these S. Paul's entitling it the laver of regeneration (o) Tit. 3.5 as our Saviour's affirming (p) Joh. 3.5 before him that we are born again of that as well as of the Spirit For the latter what hath been before shewn in the general concerning its having been intended as a sign of the things to which it relates For if the Water of Baptism were intended as a sign of those things to which it relates it must consequently have bin intended as
elsewhere * Expl. of the Crced Art I believe in the Holy Ghost said concerning the necessity of the divine Grace in order to it But as Christianity doth every where pretend to the doing of it and which is more both represents that effect under the name of a death unto sin and compares Men's thus dying with that natural death which our Saviour underwent so it may the more reasonably pretend to the producing of it because it also pretends to furnish Men with the power of his Grace to which such an effect cannot be suppos'd to be disproportionate The only thing in question as to our present concernment is whether as the outward work of Baptism hath undoubtedly the relation of a sign unto it so it hath also the relation of a means fitted by God for the conveying of it and what evidence there is of that relation Now there are two sorts of Texts which bear witness to this relation as well as to its having that more confessed relation of a sign Whereof the former entreat of this Grace under the title of a death unto sin the latter of a cleansing from it Of the former sort I reckon that well known place to the Romans where S. Paul doth not only suppose all true Christians †Rom. 6.2 to be dead to sin and accordingly argue from it the unfitness of their living any longer therein but affirm all that are baptized into Jesus Christ * Rom. 6.3 to be baptized into that death yea to be buried by Baptism (a) Rom. 6.4 into it to be planted together (b) Rom. 6.5 by that means in the likeness of Christs death and to have their old Man (c) Rom. 6.6 or the body of sin crucified with him For shall we say that S. Paul meant no more by all this than that the design of Baptism and the several parts of it was to represent to us the necessity of our dying and being buried as to sin and that accordingly all that are baptized into Christ make profession of their resolution so to do but not that they are indeed buried by Baptism as to that particular But beside that we are not lightly to depart from the propriety of the Scripture phrase which must be acknowledg'd rather to favour a real death than the bare signification of it That Apostle doth moreover affirm those whom he before describ'd as dead to be freed (d) Rom. 7.18 from sin yea so far (e) Rom. 7.18 as to have passed over into another service even that of righteousness and to have obeyed from the heart (f) Rom. 7.17 that form of Doctrine into which they had been delivered Which suppos'd as it may because the direct affirmation of S. Paul will make that death whereof we speak to be a death in reality as well as in figure and accordingly because Men are affirmed to be baptized into it shew that Baptism to be a means of conveying it as well as a representation of it Agreeable hereto or rather yet more express is that of the same Apostle to the Colossians (g) Col. 2.11 though varying a little from the other as to the manner of expression For having affirmed them through Christ to have put off the body of the sins of the flesh by a circumcision not made with hands and consequently by a spiritual one he yet adds lest any should fancy that spiritual Circumcision to accrue to them without some ceremonial one in the Circumcision of Christ even that Baptism which conformably to the circumcision of the Jews he had appointed for their entrance into his Religion by and wherein he accordingly affirms as he did in the former place that they were not only buried with him but had risen together with him by the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead From whence as it is clear that the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh which is but another expression for a death unto them is though accomplished by a spiritual Grace yet by such a one as is conveyed to us by Baptism so it becomes yet more clear by what he adds concerning Men's rising with him in the same Baptism even to a life contrary to what they had before deposited through the faith of the operation of God For as we cannot conceive of that rising with Christ as other than a real one because there would not otherwise have needed such a faith as that to bring it about So neither therefore but think the like of that death which it presupposeth and consequently that that Baptism to which it is annex'd is a means of conveying it as well as a representation of it But so we may be yet more convinc'd by such Texts of Scripture as speak of this death unto sin under the notion of a cleansing from it Of which nature is that so often alledged one (h) Eph. 5.26 27. concerning Christ's sanctifying and cleansing his Church with the washing of water by the word For as it appears from what is afterwards subjoyn'd as the end of that cleansing even that the Church might not have any spot or wrinkle but that it should be holy and without blemish As it appears I say from thence that the Apostle speaks in the verse before concerning a cleansing from the filth of sin which is but another expression for the putting off the body of sin or a death unto it So it appears in like manner from S. Paul's attributing that cleansing to the washing of water that the outward sign of Baptism is by the appointment and provision of God a means of conveying that spiritual Grace by which that cleansing is more immediately effected and that death unto sin procur'd From that death unto sin therefore pass we to our new birth unto righteousness that other inward and spiritual Grace of Baptism and the complement of the former A Grace of whose conveyance by Baptism we can much less doubt if we consider the language of the Scripture concerning it or the Doctrine as well as practice of the Church The opinion the Jews had of that which seems to have been its type and exemplar or the expressions even of the Heathen concerning it For what less can the Scripture be thought to mean when it affirms us to be born of the water (i) Joh. 3.5 of it as well as of the spirit yea so as to be as truly spirit (k) Joh. 3.6 as that which is born of the flesh is flesh What less can it be thought to mean when it entitles it the laver of (l) Tit. 3.5 Regeneration and which is more affirms us to be saved by it as well as by the renewing of the Holy Ghost What less when it requires us to look upon our selves as alive (m) Rom. 6.11 unto God by it as well as buried (n) Rom. 6.4 by it into the former death or as the same Apostle elsewhere expresseth it as
therefore there can be any doubt concerning the Law we speak of it must be as to its having been given to Adam in his publick capacity and as he may be suppos'd to have been the representative of all Mankind Which I shall endeavour to evince first by shewing what I mean by his publick capacity secondly by shewing that Adam was set in such a capacity and thirdly that the Law we speak of was given to him as considered in it By the publick capacity of Adam I mean such a one whereby as he was design'd to be the Father of all Mankind so God made him a kind of Trustee for it In order thereunto both giving him what he did for their benefit as well as his own and obliging him for their sakes as well as his own to see to the preservation of it and act agreeably to it Which if he did his Posterity as well as himself should have the benefit thereof and God's favour together with it but if not forfeit together with him what God had so bestow'd upon him and incurr the penalty of his displeasure Now that Adam was set in such a capacity which is the second thing to be demonstrated will appear from the Scriptures making him the cause of all Men's death by his offence and disobedience For the effects of another disobedience being not otherwise chargeable upon any Man than as that other may be suppos'd to be appointed to act for him If the effects of Adam's disobedience were to fall upon all his Posterity he also must be supposed to have been appointed to act for them and consequently to have been set in that publick capacity whereof I speak Which will leave nothing more for us to shew upon this Head than that that Law which requires a pious and innocent temper was given to Adam in that capacity But as we can as little doubt of that if his contracting a contrary temper was as fatal to his Posterity as to himself So that it was will need no other proof than his producing the like temper in them and that temper 's proving as deadly to them The former whereof is evident from what I before said to shew that Original Sin had its beginning from Adam the latter from S. Paul's (p) Rom. 7.24 calling it a Body of Death or a Body that brings it The Genitive Case (q) Grot. in loc among the Hebrews and Hellenists being usually set for such Adjectives as betoken a causality in them Even as the Savour of Death is us'd for a deadly one or that which bringeth death and the Tree of Life for a life-giving one or that which was apt to produce or continue it I deny not indeed that I may now pass to those Exceptions that are commonly made against it that it may seem hard to conceive how Adam should be set in such a capacity as to involve all mankind in happiness or misery according as he either continued in or fell from that integrity wherein God created him I deny not therefore but that it is equally hard to conceive how God should give him such a Law the observation or transgression whereof on his part should redound to the account of his Posterity But as every thing that is hard to be conceiv'd is not therefore to be deny'd if it be otherwise strengthen'd with sufficient proofs So it would be consider'd also whether it be not much more hard to conceive how God should otherwise involve Infants and Children in those calamities into which they often fall especially in National Judgments It being certainly more agreeable to the divine Justice to conceive those to have some way or other offended and consequently thereto to have fallen under the displeasure of it than to conceive them to suffer it without any offence at all For why then should we not think especially when the Scripture hath led the way that God oblig'd them in Adam to a pious and innocent temper and which they losing in him they became obnoxious with him to the same sad effects of his displeasure And though it be true that there is this great imparity between the cases that the effect of God's displeasure upon occasion of Original Sin is made to reach to eternal misery as well as to a temporal one whereas the case we before instanc'd in concerns only a temporal punishment Yet as they do thus far agree that a punishment is inflicted where there is no actual sin to deserve it which is sufficiently irreconcileable with the understanding we otherwise have of the divine Justice So that great imparity may be much abated by considering that God hath provided a Plaster as large as the Sore even by giving his Son to dye for all Mankind and appointed the Sacrament of Baptism to convey the benefit of it For as the consequents of Original Sin will be thereby taken off from so many Infants at least as are admitted to that Sacrament so that mercy of his to those and the assurance we have from the Scripture of his giving his Son to dye for all may perswade us to believe that though he hath not reveal'd the particular way to us yet he hath some other way to convey the benefit of that death to those who are not admitted to the other But it will be said it may be which is a no less prejudice against the being of Original Sin that all sin to make it truly such must have the consent of the will of those in whom it is as well as be the transgression of a Law A thing by no means to be affirm'd concerning that which we call Original Sin because not only contracted before we had a being and therefore also before we had so much as the faculty of willing but moreover conveyed to us when we had neither reason to apprehend it nor any power in our wills either to admit or reject it And indeed how altogether to take off the force of that Objection is beyond my capacity to apprehend or satisfie the understandings of other Men Because as I cannot see how any thing can be a sin which hath not also the consent of the will of those in whom it is so I am as little able to conceive how Original Sin should have the consent of ours either when it was first contracted or when it was transmitted to us But as I am far less able to conceive how Infants and Children should come to be so severely dealt with without any offence at all or therefore without having some way or other consented to one So I think first that that difficulty may well be laid in the ballance against the other yea alledged as a bar to the supposed force of it For why should my inability to apprehend how Infants and Children could consent to Original Sin prevail with me to deny the being of it when a far greater inability to apprehend how the same persons should come to be so severely dealt withal
without it doth not prevail with me to deny that severe usage of them Neither will it avail to say which is otherwise considerable enough that we have for the belief of this last the testimony of our Senses which is not to be alledged as to the other For the question is not now whether the severe usage of Infants and Children may not more reasonably be believ'd than their Original Sin upon the account of the greater evidence there may be of it But whether we can any more deny the Original Sin of Infants and Children upon the account of our inability to apprehend how they should consent unto it than we can deny the severe usage of the same persons upon the account of our inability to apprehend how they should come to be so dealt with without the other Which that we cannot is evident from hence that we are equally at a loss in our apprehensions about the one and the other that I say not also more at a loss about the latter than about the former And indeed as we find it necessary to believe many things notwithstanding our inability to apprehend how they should come to pass and ought not therefore to deny the being of any one thing upon the sole account of that inability So our apprehensions are so short as to the modes of those things of the being whereof we are most assured that it will hardly be deemed reasonable to insist upon the suggestions of them against the affirmations of the Scripture Partly because of the Authority of him from whom it proceeded and partly because we cannot so easily fail in our apprehension concerning the due sense of the affirmations of it as in the deductions of our own reason concerning the things affirmed Nothing more being required to the understanding of the one than a due consideration of the signification of the words wherein they are expressed whereas to the right ordering of the other there is requir'd a due understanding of the Nature of those things about which we reason which is both a matter of far greater difficulty and in many cases impossible to be attain'd Whatever difficulty therefore there may be in apprehending how Original Sin could have the consent of those in whom it is supposed to be and consequently how it should be truly and properly a sin Yet ought not that to be a bar against our belief of it if the Scripture hath represented it as such and which whether it hath or no I shall leave to be judg'd by what I have before observ'd from it From such Objections as are level'd more immediately against the being of Original Sin pass we to those which impugne the derivation of it from Adam and from whom we have affirmed it to proceed Which Objections again do either tend to shew that it had its Original from something else or that it cannot be suppos'd to have its Original from Adam An opinion hath prevail'd of late years that that which we call Original Sin took its rise from the sins of particular Souls in some praexistent estate and from those evil habits which they contracted by them And certainly the opinion were reasonable enough to be embrac'd if the praeexistence of Souls were but as well prov'd as it is speciously contriv'd For that suppos'd it would be no hard matter to give an account of the rise of that Corruption which is in us nor yet of God's afflicting those on whom no other blame appears That corruption as it is no other than what particular Souls have themselves contracted so making them as obnoxious to the vengeance of God as any after sins can be supposed to do But do they who advance this hypothesis think the plausibleness thereof a sufficient ground to build it on Or are problems in Divinity no other way to be determin'd than those of Astronomy or other such conjectural Arts are I had thought that for the resolution of these we ought rather to have had recourse to that word of God which was design'd to give us an understanding of them to have examin'd the several assertions of it and acquiesced in them how difficult soever to be apprehended I had thought that we ought to have done so much more where the Scripture professeth to deliver its opinion and doth not only not wave the thing in question but speaks to it Which that it doth in the present case will need no other proof than the account it gives of the Original of Mankind and then of the Original of Evil. For as it professeth to speak of Adam not only as created by God but as appointed by him (r) Gen. 1.28 to give being by the way of natural Generation to all that after him should replenish the Earth which how he should be thought to do if he were only to be a means of furnishing them with a Body who had the better part of their being before is past my understanding to imagine so it professeth to speak of the same Adam as one by whom sin and death (Å¿) Rom. 5.12 1 Cor. 15.21 22. enter'd into the World as well as the persons of those on whom it seizeth And can there then be any place for a precarious hypothesis about the Original of Mankind or the evils of it Can there be place for advancing that hypothesis not only beside but against the determinations of the Scripture Do not all such hypotheses proceed upon the uncertainty of the matter about which they are conversant Do they not come in as a relief to the understandings of Men where they cannot be satisfied any other way But how then can there be place for such a one where the Scripture hath determin'd How can there be any place even for the most specious and plausible For as that cannot be suppos'd to be uncertain which the Scripture hath determin'd So no plausibility whatsoever can come in competition with the determinations of God such as those of the Scripture are But such it seems is the restlesness of some Men's minds that if they cannot satisfie their scruples from what the Scripture hath advanced they will be setting up other Hypotheses to do it by Wherein yet they are for the most part so unlucky as to advance such things themselves as have nothing at all of probability in them For who can think it any way probable that if mens Souls had an existence antecedent to their conception in the Womb they should not in the least be conscious of it nor of any of those things which were transacted by them in it Is it as one hath observ'd who seems to have been the first broacher of it in this latter Age is it I say for want of opportunity of being reminded of their former transactions as it happens to many who rise confident that they slept without dreaming and yet before they go to bed again recover a whole series of representations by something that occurr'd to them in the day But who can
other words Yet is not that essence or being to be adapted to the nature of that to which it is affixt Now wherein consists the essence or being of such a relative thing as a sacred sign but in the relation which it bears to the thing signified and consequently in its signifying that which it is appointed to mark out And if the essence or being of a sign consists in the relation which it bears to the thing signified may it not as such be said to be that thing which it is intended to signifie For who if ask'd concerning this or that Picture as for instance the Picture of Alexander or Julius Caesar would describe it by a piece of Paper or Cloath or Wood so and so Painted but as such or such a person who did such admirable things in the World Nay who is there that when he sees this or that Picture though he knows them to be but inanimate things doth so much as ask What it is but Who So naturally and almost necessarily do Men take the very being of such a thing to consist in its relation to the person it represents and accordingly do as naturally express themselves in that manner concerning it And if that be the case as to other signs why not in like manner as to this Sacred sign of Christ's Body the Bread Especially if as I shall by and by shew it hath a yet nearer relation to it In order whereunto I will now proceed to shew 3. What the word Is imports in that figurative sense whereof we speak And here in the first place it is easie to observe that the word Is imports that to which it is attributed even the Bread of the Sacrament to be a sign of that Body of Christ which it is affirmed to be Which I do not only affirm upon account of the notion that all Men have of it but upon account of the likeness there is between the Bread broken and the Mortifying of our Saviour's Body and upon account also of the same Body's being affirmed by St. Paul in his History of the Institution to be broken for us There being otherwise no ground for that expression as to the Body of Christ but that the breaking of the Bread was intended to signifie or represent the injury that was offer'd to Christ's Body and consequently that that Bread was so far forth intended as a sign of it Which is no more than the Romanists themselves and particularly Estius have said in this affair and therefore I shall not need to insist upon it I say secondly that as the word Is imports that to which it is attributed to be a sign of Christ's Body so also to be such a sign in particular as was intended to bring Christ's Body and the Crucifixion of it to our own Minds or the Minds of others or in a word to be a memorial of it The former being evident from our Saviour's enjoyning his Disciples presently upon these words to do what he had now taught them in remembrance of himself The latter from St. Paul's telling his Corinthians that as often as they ate that bread and drank that cup they did shew the Lord's death till he came I say thirdly and lastly that the word Is doth likewise import that to which it is attributed to be a means of our partaking of the Body of Christ as well as a sign or a memorial of it Which we shall the less need to doubt when St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16 doth in express terms represent the Bread which is broken in the Sacrament as the Communion or Communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which is blessed in it as the Communion of his Blood Now if a sign even where it is hardly such may be said to be that which it signifies How much more such a sign as is also by the Institution of Christ a means of its conveyance and of which whosoever doth worthily partake shall as verily partake together with it of the Body of Christ and of the Benefits that accrue to us thereby I may not forget to add what St. Luke and St. Paul have added to the words This is my Body even This is my Body which is given for you as the former which is broken for you as the latter Both to the same purpose though in different expressions even to mark out to us more clearly how we are to consider that Body that is to say as a crucified one The giving of Christ or his Body being sometime express'd by giving him for our sins (b) Gal. 1.4 and at other times by giving him (c) Tit. 2.10 to redeem us from them which we know by the same Scripture to have been compassed by his death As indeed under what other notion can we conceive the giving of his Body when it is not only consider'd apart from his Blood but that Blood afterward affirm'd to be shed for the remission of sins and accordingly so requir'd to be consider'd here The expression of St. Paul which is broken for you is yet more clear because more manifestly pointing out the violence that was offer'd to Christ's Body With this farther advantage as was before said that it doth not obscurely intimate the breaking of the Bread to have been intended to represent what was done unto his Body and under what notion we are to consider it Though to put it farther out of doubt St. Paul after his account of the History of the Institution affirms both the one and the other Element of this Sacrament to relate to our Saviour's Death and consequently to respect his Body as mortist'd as well as his Blood as shed He relling his Corinthians that he that did eat that Bread as well as he that drank that Cup did thereby shew forth the Lord's Death till he came Only if it be enquir'd why our Saviour should even then represent his Body as broken or given when it was not to be so till the day after the Institution of this Sacrament I answer partly because it was very shortly to be so but more especially because he intended what he now enjoyn'd as a prescription for the time after his Death as his willing his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him doth manifestly imply That importing the thing to be remembred to be past and gone as which otherwise could not be capable of being remembred It follows both in St. Luke and St. Paul Do this and Do this in remembrance of me Words which the Romish Church hath pick'd strange matters out of even no less as was before observ'd out of Baronius than the Priesthood of the A postles as which was collated upon them by these words and the Sacrifice of the Mass For then also saith that Author the Apostles when the Lord commanded them to do the very same thing in remembrance of him were made Priests and that very Sacrifice which they should offer was ordain'd By what Alchymie the
sin is generally Luxury and Vanity If in a City or other place of Trade Deceit and Covetousness If in a mean estate any where repining and murmuring If in a more honourable one oppressing or Lording it over other Men. By one or other of these marks a Man may come to know his prevailing Sin and knowing it to know also the truth of his repentance for them and others For if he finds himself to get ground on such sins he shall not need to doubt of the truth of his Repentance because there cannot be a better proof of that than its leading Men to abandon their sins and particularly such of them as have the greatest force with the committers of them and are therefore the most difficult to be overcome And though it be true that all Men neither have nor can have that proof of their Repentance For they who have but lately begun to make a strict search into themselves must of necessity be without it how true soever their Repentance is Though they ought not therefore if they find no other reason to question the truth of it to condemn or doubt of that their Repentance because true Repentance must of necessity precede the Fruits of it Yet I think they will act most safely for themselves and most for the comfort of their own Souls I do not say if they stay so long from the participation of this Sacrament till they can have the Fruits of their Repentance to justifie the sincerity thereof but if when they may they think betimes and often what Repentance they are to bring with them to this Sacrament and accordingly set themselves as early to improve what they have and bring forth the fruits of it in those instances wherein they have been most peccant and are by their natural inclinations most likely to be so still For so they shall be able to see by the event what the nature of their Repentance is and accordingly be stirred up to labour after a more sincere one or be satisfied by the fruits they have brought forth that they are so far duly qualified for the partaking of this so excellent a Sacrament Having said thus much concerning the examination of our Repentance which I judge of all other things to be most necessary to be enquir'd into I shall need to say the less concerning that which follows even the examination of our stedfast purpose to lead a new Life as well as of the truth of our Repentance For as it is evident from what hath been said elsewhere (t) Part V. that that ought to be enquir'd into because the thing we are to make profession of in the receit of this Sacrament So he who is satisfied of the truth of his Repentance by the fruits which it hath produc'd may by the same fruits satisfie himself of the stedfastness of his present Purpose to abandon his former sins and pursue the contrary Graces There being no great likelihood of his departing from his present Purpose who knows himself to have already produc'd those good fruits which he now resolves upon as that too out of the Conscience of his own obligation to them and the just sense he hath of his former aberrations and the Affront he offer'd to his both Authority and Kindness to whom he now devotes himself anew Only if any Man find not in himself this most sure proof of the stedfastness of his Purpose and yet find in himself a disposition thus to shew forth his Saviour's death and a desire to partake of the several Graces and Benefits of this Sacrament Let him see whether he can by his own earnest Prayers and reflections and God's Blessing upon them both bring himself to resolve as well against the particular ways and means whereby he was formerly train'd into sin as against the sin it self and upon such particular ways and means also whereby it is most certainly prevented For so I do not see why he should not look upon his Resolution as stedfast and such as God will both accept of in the present case and add farther strength to by the participation of this Sacrament those Resolutions which prove in the event to be uncertain and tottering being for the most part only general ones and such as descend not to those particular ways and means whereby men come to be ensnar'd or whereby that seduction of theirs may be certainly prevented Thus for instance if a Man who hath heretofore given himself more liberty in drinking than the Laws of Temperance will allow should reflect so far upon his former failings this way as not only to resolve against the like intemperance for the future but against such Company too so far as he may by which he hath been drawn into it or to keep however within such measures that there can be no danger for him of offending I do not see why that Man may not look upon such a Resolution as a stedfast one and which God the giver of all Grace will add farther firmness and stedfastness to and make it hold out even against those temptations which at present it may be it is not in a condition to grapple with The Catechism goes on to tell us That we ought to examine our selves in the third place whether we have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ As well it way when he who was the Institutor of this Sacrament prompts us to receive the Elements thereof as that Body of his which was broken for us and as that Blood which was shed for the remission of our sins That as it supposeth that we ought to look upon the mercy of God as convey'd to us by Christ's death and accordingly expect that mercy by it and trust upon that death for it which is that our Church understands by Faith (u) See Expl. of Bapt. Part 10. so supposing too that we ought to approach this Sacrament with such a sorrow for sin and resolution against it as so great a Benefit requires which will convert this Faith or trust into a lively and operative one Now whether we have such a lively Faith or no we may easily satisfie our selves by its being attended or not attended with that sorrow and resolution and which how they are to be known I have already accounted for I shall hardly need to say any thing concerning examining our selves in the fourth place whether we have a thankful remembrance of Christ's death Partly because that thankful remembrance is one of the principal things enjoin'd in the celebration of this Sacrament and we therefore to bring that with us to the due receiving of it And partly because it will not be difficult for us to discover whether we have such a Remembrance or no That being to be judg'd in part by our own desire of receiving the present Sacrament but more by the care we take to prepare our selves for it as by other ways and means so by an earnest reflection upon the Benefits of that Death
latter For what need would there have been either of the Baptist's resorting to great confluxes of Water or of Philip and the Eunuch's going down into this were it not that the Baptism both of the one and the other was to be performed by an immersion A very little Water as we know it doth with us sufficing for an effusion or sprinkling But beside the words of our Blessed Saviour and the concurrent practice of those times wherein this Sacrament was instituted It is in my opinion of no less consideration that the thing signified by the Sacrament of Baptism cannot otherwise be well represented than by an immersion or at least by some more general way of purification than that of effusion or sprinkling For though the pouring or sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face may suffice to represent an internal washing which seems to be the general end of Christ's making use of the Sacrament of Baptism yet can it not be thought to represent such an entire washing as that of new-born Infants was and as Baptism may seem to have been intended for because represented as the laver (u) Tit. 3.5 of our regeneration That though it do require an immersion yet requiring such a general washing at least as may extend to the whole Body As other than which cannot answer its type nor yet that general though internal purgation which Baptism was intended to represent The same is to be said yet more upon the account of our conforming to the Death and Resurrection of Christ which we learn from S. Paul to have been the design of Baptism to signifie For though that might and was well enough represented by the baptized persons being buried in Baptism and then rising out of it yet can it not be said to be so or at least but very imperfectly by the bare pouring out or sprinkling the Baptismal Water on him But therefore as there is so much the more reason to represent the Rite of immersion as the only legitimate Rite of Baptism because the only one that can answer the ends of its Institution and those things which were to be signified by it so especially if as is well known and undoubtedly of great force the general practice of the Primitive Church was agreeable thereto and the practice of the Greek Church to this very day For who can think either the one or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a Rite were it not that they were well assured as they of the Primitive Church might very well be of its being the only instituted and legitimate one How to take off the force of these Arguments altogether is a thing I mean not to consider Partly because our Church (w) See the Rubrick in the Office of Baptism before the words I baptize thee c. seems to persuade such an immersion and partly because I cannot but think the forementioned Arguments to be so far of force as to evince the necessity thereof where there is not some greater necessity to occasion an alteration of it For what benefit can Men ordinarily expect from that which depends for its force upon the will of him that instituted it where there is not such a compliance at least with it and the Commands of the Instituter as may answer those ends for which he appointed it And indeed whatever may have been done to Infants which I no way doubt were more or less baptized from the beginning the first mention we find of Aspersion in the Baptism of the Elder sort was in the case of the Clinici or Men who receiv'd Baptism upon their sick Beds and that Baptism represented by S. Cyprian * Epist ad Magn. 76. In Sacramentis salutariâ—â—s necessitate cogente Deo indulgentiam suam largiente totum credentibus conserunt Divina compendia as legitimate upon the account of the necessity that compel'd it and the presumption there was of God's gracious acceptation thereof because of it By which means the lawfulness of any other Baptism than by an immersion will be found to lie in the necessity there may sometime be of another manner of Administration of it and we therefore only enquire whether the necessity of the party to be baptiz'd can justifie such an alteration and what is to be look'd upon as such a necessity And indeed though that Magnus to whom S. Cyprian directed the forementioned Letter seemed to question the lawfulness of such a Baptism and that Father as his manner is spake but modestly concerning it yet there is not otherwise any appearance of the Antient Churches disapproving the Baptism of the Clinicks because they were not loti but perfusi as S. Cyprian expresseth it For even he himself doth there intimate that they †Aut si aliquis existimat eos nihil consecutos eo quod aquâ salutari tantum perfusi sunt c. non decipiantur ut si incommodum languoris evaserint convaluerint baptizentur Si autem baptizari non possunt qui jam Baptismo Ecclesiastico sanctificati sunt cur in fide suâ Domini indulgentiâ scandalizentur Cypr. ubi supra who liked not the Baptism of the Clinicks did not yet care to baptize them again He adds farther that they who had been so baptiz'd were known to have been delivered thereby from that unclean spirit which before possess'd them * Denique rebus ipsis experimur ut necessitate urgenle in aegritudine baptizati gratiam consecuti careant immundo spiritu quo antea movebantur laudabiles ac probabiles in Ecclesiâ vivant plusque per dies singulos in augmentum coelestis gratiae per fidei Sacramentum proficiant Cypr. ibid. and after their recovery gave as good proof as any by their holy living of their being sanctified by that Baptism In fine that they who differ'd from him as to the rebaptization of Hereticks which was the sounder part of the Church in that particular did without any difference admit those who had been baptiz'd by Hereticks †Et tantus honor habeatur haereticis ut inde venientes non interrogentur utrumne loti sint an perfusi utrumne Clinici sint an Peripatetici Cypr. ibid. neither were scrupulous in enquiring whether they were wash'd or sprinkled Clinicks or Peripateticks Which passages alone are a sufficient proof that the generality of the Church look'd upon sprinkling as enough where there was any just necessity to constrain it But so to omit other proofs we may be satisfied even by that Canon (x) Cod. Eccl. Vniv can 57. cum not Just which was made against some of the foremention'd Clinicks The utmost that Canon pretended to do against them being the hindring them from being promoted to the Priesthood as that too not because of any unlawfulness in the manner of their Baptism but because there was sometime a presumption that that Baptism proceeded rather from necessity than choice or that they had as Tertullian
Disciples and requiring them to take and eat of it The words This is my body next taken into consideration and more particularly and minutely explain'd Where is shewn at large that by the word This must be meant This Bread and that there is nothing in the gender of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder it That by body must be meant that body which Christ now carried about him and was shortly after to suffer in and that the sigurativeness of the proposition lies in the word is Vpon occasion whereof is also shewn that that word is oftentime figuratively taken that it ought to be so taken here and that accordingly it imports the Bread to be a sign and a memorial and a means of partaking of Christ's body This part of the Institution concluded with an explication of the words which is given or broken for you and a more ample one of Christ's commanding his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him Where the precept Do this is shewn to refer to what Christ had before done or enjoyned them to do And they enjoyn'd so to do to renew in themselves a grateful remembrance of Christ's death or prompt other Men to the like remembrance of it That part of the Institution which respects the Cup more succinctly handled and enquiry made among other things into the declaration which our Saviour makes concerning its being his Blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in it Where is shewn What that is which our Saviour affirms to be so what is meant by his Blood of the New Testament or The New Testament in it and how the Cup or rather the Wine of it was that Blood of his or the New Testament in it pag. 173. The Contents of the Fourth Part. Of the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper BRead and Wine ordinarily the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper and the Heresie of the Aquarii upon that account enquir'd into and censur'd The kind of Bread and Wine enjoin'd in the next place examin'd and a more particular Enquiry thereupon Whether the Wine ought to be mix'd with Water and what was the Ground of the Antients Practice in this Affair The same Elements consider'd again with respect to Christ's Body and Blood whether as to the Vsage that Body and Blood of his receiv'd when he was subjected unto Death or as to the Benefit that was intended and accru'd to us by them In the former of which Notions they become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood by what is done to them before they come to be administred and by the separate administration of them In the latter by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us Of the Obligation the Faithful are under to receive the Sacrament in both kinds and a resolution of those Arguments that are commonly alleg'd to justifie the Romish Churches depriving them of the Cup. pag. 197. The Contents of the Fifth Part. Of the inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it THE inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it is either what is signified on the part of God and Christ or on the part of the Receiver of it The former of these brought under Consideration and shewn to be the Body and Blood of Christ not as they were at or before the Institution of this Sacrament or as they now are but as they were at the time of his Crucifixion as moreover then offered up unto God and offer'd up to him also as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World The Consequences of that Assertion briefly noted both as to the presence of that Body and Blood in the Sacrament and our perception of them The things signified on the part of the Receiver in the next place consider'd and these shewn to be First a thankful Remembrance of the Body and Blood of Christ consider'd as before described Secondly our Communion with those who partake with us of that Body and Blood Thirdly a Resolution to live and act as becomes those that are partakers of them The two latter of these more particularly insisted on and that Communion and Resolution not only shewn from the Scripture to be signified on the part of the Receiver but confirmed by the Doctrine and Practice of the Antient Church pag. 213. The Contents of the sixth Part. What farther relation the Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the Body and Blood of Christ THE outward Part or Sign of this Sacrament consider'd with a more particular regard to the Body and Blood of Christ and Enquiry accordingly made what farther relation it beareth to it That it is a Means whereby we receive the same as well as a Sign thereof shewn from the Doctrine of our Church and that Doctrine confirm'd by Saint Paul's entitling it the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood and by his affirming Men to be made to drink into one Spirit by partaking of the Cup of it Enquiry next made what kind of Means this Sign of the Lord's Supper is how it conveys to us the Body and Blood of Christ and how we receive them by it To each of which Answer is made from the Doctrine of our Church and that Answer farther confirm'd by the Doctrine of the Scripture The sum of which is that this Sign of the Lord's Supper is so far forth a Mean spiritual and heavenly That it conveys the Body and Blood of Christ to us by prompting us to reflect as the Institution requires upon that Body and Blood of his and by prompting God who hath annex'd them to the due use of the Sign to bestow that Body and Blood upon us In fine that we receive them by the Sign thereof when we take occasion from thence to reflect upon that Body and Blood of Christ which it was intended to represent and particularly with Faith in them What Benefits we receive by Christ's Body and Blood in the next place enquir'd and as they are resolv'd by our Catechism to be the strengthening and refreshing of the Soul so Enquiry thereupon made what is meant by the strengthening and refreshing of the Soul what Evidence there is of Christ's Body and Blood being intended for it and how they effect it The Sign of the Lord's Supper a Pledge to assure us of Christ's Body and Blood as well as a Means whereby we receive them pag. 219. The Contents of the Seventh Part. Of Transubstantiation THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation briefly deduc'd from the Council of Trent and digested into four capital Assertions Whereof the first is that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood The grounds of this Assertion examin'd both as to the possibility and actual being of such a change What is alledgâ—d for the former of these from the substantial changes mention'd in the Scripture of no force in this
of me farther shew that he meant that Body which was shortly to be given or crucified for them It being the Lord's Death as St. Paul himself interprets it (w) 1 Cor. 11.26 that they were to shew forth thereby and consequently that they were to do what they were now taught in remembrance of him and that And indeed as I do not therefore see how we can honestly understand those words my Body of any other than that Body which he now carried about him and was shortly after to offer So I am farther confirm'd in it by the evil consequences of a figurative interpretation of them which are these two especially First that we shall thereby leave no clear account in them nor indeed in any of the words of the Institution of the thing signified by the Sacrament and which all Men acknowledge to be the Crucified Body of Christ And secondly that we shall give more countenance than we are willing to do to that propitiatory Sacrifice which the Romanists advance in this affair For if by the words my Body be meant the memorial of Christ's Body I do not see why we should not in like manner attribute to that memorial as the Romanists do its being given or broken for us and for our Salvation and consequently make it a propitiatory Sacrifice for us Let it therefore be allow'd or at least till we see better reason to the contrary that as by the word This we ought to understand This Bread even the Bread which our Saviour gave to his Disciples so we ought in like manner to understand by the words my Body my Crucified one that which I now carry about me and am shortly after to offer up Which will consequently leave nothing more to enquire than what our Saviour meant by the word Is and how the Bread before spoken was and is that Body of Christ And here I look for no other than that those with whom we have to do should triumph wonderfully as supposing they have in part at least gain'd their purpose The Romanists by allowing in this Sacrament the crucified Body of Christ the Lutherans by our allowing of that and of the Bread But with how little reason will appear if together with us they will enquire into the word Is and how that whereof our Saviour spake was and is that Body of Christ For the better understanding whereof I will shew 1. That the word Is is oftentimes taken figuratively 2. That it ought to be so taken here 3. What it imports in that figurative interpretation of it 1. That the word Is is many times figuratively taken is evident from what is said concerning the seven Kine and seven Ears (x) Gen. 41.26 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Pharaoh's dream being seven Years and the Bones in the Vision of Ezekiel (y) Ezek. 37.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the whole House of Israel And that I may not now name any more concerning the Sower that sowed the good seed in a Parable of our Saviour being * Mat. 13.37 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Son of Man the Field the World the good Seed the Children of the Kingdom and the like These things as they are link'd together by the words Is and Are according to their respective number as This and my Body are So by all Men understood not literally but figuratively and such as rather signified and represented the things they are said to be than were in propriety of nature such Which suppos'd the same word here may be taken in the like sense and we therefore under no necessity of allowing the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ or the Consubstantiation of the Body of Christ with it 2. But it may be though the word Is may sometime be taken figuratively yet there is no reason for taking it so here or at least no necessity for it Therefore enquire we in the next place whether it ought to be so taken here or rather because I have already undertaken to demonstrate it endeavour to shew that it ought Which I shall make it my business to evince First from the impossibility of the Proposition's being true if it be taken in the literal sense Secondly from the sutableness of the figurative sense to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it Thirdly from the fitness of the word Is to express it That the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense is evident from a known rule of Logick and Reason even that two disparates such as Bread and a humane Body are cannot properly be predicated of one another For neither can Bread continuing such be a humane Body any more than it can be a Stone or a Serpent or any thing else Or than a Mouse can be a Lion or Elephant or the like Which is so true and confess'd that they who stand for the proper and literal signification of the words do not only some of them acknowledg it in express terms but indeed also both Romanists and Lutherans offer a greater violence to them for the avoiding of such an absurdity The one by denying the word This to signifie This Bread though that as was before said were the only thing before spoken of and the thing too that was given to the Disciples to eat upon the pronouncing of it The other by representing the sense of it as being rather in this or under this Bread is my Body than This is my body as the words import But beside that the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense and therefore of necessity to have a figurative one assigned to it The figurative sense is extremely sutable to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it For what is it as was before observ'd that our Saviour affirmed to be his Body but that Bread which he had before taken and blessed and broken As that too not considered in its own natural being or use but as a Sacrament or sacred sign of something else and particularly of the Body of Christ Now what sense where there is any doubt of the meaning of a Proposition concerning that can be more sutable to it than a figurative one What more easy or more adapted to the nature of it And if there be none what more reasonable to be pitch'd upon or indeed more necessary to be affixed to it The sense of words being no doubt to be fitted to the nature of those things which they are employed by the speaker thereof to denote But that which will put the thing in controversie yet more out of doubt at least among unprejudiced Men is the fitness of the word Is to express that figurative sense which we have affixed to it For be it that the word Is denotes essence or being which is the utmost that can be made of it by those who are for the proper signification of it and the
Apostles Priesthood and the Sacrifice of the Mass are endeavour'd to be extracted out of these words must be consider'd in another place where such kind of questions will be more fit to be debated At present it may suffice to say that as it doth not appear from the Institution that our Saviour made any other Offering of his Body in the Symbol of Bread than what he did to his Disciples nor indeed how he could unless he meant both to prevent and vacate the future Offering of himself upon the Cross by which yet as the Author to the Hebrews (d) Heb. 10.14 instructs us he perfected for ever them that are sanctified So it can much less therefore appear how the doing what Christ had before done or taught them to do could make the Apostles Priests or the Celebration of this Sacrament to be a Sacrifice All that can be fairly deduced from the words Do this and Do this in remembrance of me is that they should for the future take Bread bless it and break it and when they had done so both eat of it themselves and give it to others to eat of in remembrance of him and of his Death Or if we should think that the words Do this ought to have a nearer Antecedent that they should take and eat what had been before taken and blessed and broken and given to them by the Consecrator of it in remembrance of him That as it is the thing and the only thing just before enjoyn'd upon the Disciples For what he saith concerning the thing given them being his Body doth rather point out what regard they ought to have in the eating of it to that Body of which it was a Symbol than any new injunction or precept concerning it so it is the thing and the only thing therefore which he immediately referr'd to when he said This do in remembrance of me Which St. Paul doth yet more clearly insinuate when immediately after the History of the Institution and which he closeth in each Element with This Do in remembrance of me he adds as by way of explication of that passage For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come This I take to be a clear and natural account of what Christ enjoyn'd the Disciples to do and not any intimation at all either of the Apostles Priesthood or of the Sacrifice of the Mass And what he adds concerning their doing what he now enjoyn'd them in remembrance of him agrees as well to it because as appears from the words but now quoted they were to eat of that Bread as well as drink of that Cup with reference to him and to his Death or as St. Paul expresseth it to shew it forth Which will consequently leave nothing more to be consider'd upon this Head than what our Saviour means by in remembrance of him Do this in remembrance of me Now as there cannot well be any doubt concerning the Object of this Remembrance partly because Christ doth here represent himself as the Object of it and partly because he represents himself throughout this whole Sacrament as giving himself to Death for us and consequently he to be consider'd as such in our remembrance of him So I shall therefore need only to enquire what that remembrance of him doth import and how the thing enjoyned to be done serves to the exciting of it Now there are two things again which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance signifies and which we shall find upon enquiry that it signifies also here The recalling that to our own mind which is the Object of it or recalling it to the mind of others The former of these as it is the most simple and obvious notion of the word so no doubt principally intended here if Christ's giving his Body to death for us be the thing wherein we are to remember him because we are requir'd to take and eat the Bread exhibited to us as a Symbol thereof But therefore as we are to understand by doing what we do in remembrance of him and of his Death or as the Greek (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would perhaps be more commodiously rendred for the remembrance of him of our celebrating this Holy Sacrament so the better to recall him and his Death to our own Minds So it is alike evident from what St. Paul subjoins as a kind of Comment upon these words that we ought to do the same thing to recall it to the Minds of others and prompt them to reflect upon it St. Paul declaring thereupon that as often as we eat that Bread and drink that Cup we do shew forth or declare or preach his Death till he come Only as it is not to be thought that our Saviour would have instituted this Sacrament simply to bring the thing signified by it to our own or others Minds but to stir up in them and us affections sutable to the thing remembred So we are consequently to think because the thing signified by it was Christ's giving his Body to Death for us and for our Salvation that it was design'd to stir up us and other Men to remember his Death and the benefits thereof with a thankful Mind with a Mind sensible of so great a favour and ready to express that sense of its by all the ways it can possibly devise This I take to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance for which our Saviour requir'd his Disciples to do as he himself had before directed and enjoyn'd them And how well fitted that whole Ceremony is to excite such a remembrance in us and others will appear if we consider that remembrance either as a simple remembrance of Christ's Death and the Benefits thereof or as also a grateful one For it serves to the former of these by the representation it makes to our Eyes of the violence that was offer'd to his Crucified Body and by the known Laws and ends of the Institution of it And it serves in like manner to the latter of them by representing that Death of his to our Eyes not in bloody and cruel Rites as the ill usage of some of the Heathen Deities were sometime represented but in the innocent and useful and comfortable Elements of Bread and Wine and which whilst the Partakers thereof reflect upon they cannot but at the same time read in them the both usefulness and comfortableness as to themselves of that Body and Blood which they were intended to represent and be thereby excited to a joyful and thankful remembrance of them both and of the benefits that accrue to them thereby An account being thus given of the Bread of this Sacrament and of all that was said or done about it It remains that I entreat of the other Element thereof represented to us by the three Evangelists and St. Paul under the name of the Cup. Whether it were that they could not otherwise well express what
Covenant which was shed for many for the remission of fins but St. Luke and St. Paul as the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood which was shed for them For which cause I will consider the thing here affirmed under each of these notions and first as Christ's Blood of the New Testament or Covenant which I conceive to be the clearest and most proper declaration of it Because it appears even by that St. Paul who makes use of the other expression that the Blood of Christ is the principal thing signified by it even in that very Chapter where he entitles it the New Testament in his Blood For not only doth he before (i) 1 Cor. 10.16 entitle the Cup the Communion of his Blood as he doth the Bread in the same verse the Communion of his Body but immediately after the words of the Institution declare him who eateth that Bread and drinketh that Cup with due preparation to shew forth the Lord's Death till he come as him who eateth and drinketh unworthily to be guilty of his Body and Bloody The Blood of Christ therefore being the thing principally signified and consequently the principal thing predicated of the Cup by the one and the other reason would that we should enquire what our Saviour meant by it that is to say whether that Blood which now ran in his Veins and was shortly after to be shed or only a memorial of it A Question which will soon be voided not only by what I have before said concerning the Notion of Christ's Body but by the Adjuncts of that very Blood whereof we speak The Blood of the New Testament or Covenant as appears by a Text of the Author to the Hebrews (k) Heb. 9.14 c. and by what I have elsewhere (l) Expl. of the Sacrament in general Part 2. discours'd upon it being no other than that Blood which the Mediator of it shed at his Death For that Author tells us that neither that nor any other Testament or Covenant can be firm without it And the Blood that was shed for remission of Sins the very same It being by means of the same Death that the Redemption of Sins against the First Testament or Covenant is procur'd which is but another Name for the Remission of them And I shall only add for the better explanation of those words even the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant that as of old God would not enter nor did enter into the First Covenant with the Israelites till he was aton'd and they sprinkled by the Blood of their Sacrifices So neither would he enter into the New till he was first aton'd and we sprinkled by the Blood of the Sacrifice of his Son and that Blood therefore conformably to what was said of the Blood of the First Covenant stiled the Blood of the New There will be no great difficulty after what I have said of the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant as to the meaning of that New Testament or Covenant in Christ's Blood which St. Luke and St. Paul bring in our Saviour as affirming the Cup to be Because thereby must consequently be meant that New Covenant which was brought about by the Bloud of his Cross even that by which the same Saint Paul elsewhere (m) Col. 1.20 tells us that Christ made Peace between us and God Which will consequently leave nothing more to us to enquire into upon this Head than the importance of that is which joyns the subject and the foregoing predicates together and how the Cup of this Sacrament was and is his Blood of the New Testament or Covenant and how the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood For the understanding whereof though it may suffice to remit my Reader to what I before said upon the account of the Bread's being Christ's Body because that mutatis mutandis may be apply'd to the Particle Is here Yet I shall add ex abundanti that there cannot well be any doubt of its being taken figuratively here either in the one or the other predication concerning it Because the Cup of this Sacrament cannot literally and properly be both his Blood of the New Testament or Covenant and the New Testament or Covenant in it which yet in some or other of the Sacred Writers it is affirm'd to be Which as it will make it so much the more reasonable to allow of that figurative Sense here which we have attributed to the same Particle Is in This is my Body So consequently make it reasonable to understand by This is my Blood of the New Testament which answers directly to the other This is a Sign and a Memorial and a Means of its conveyance as well as the Bread is of my Body And indeed as the Cup or rather the Wine of it may well pass for a Sign of that Blood as for other Reasons so for that effusion which is attributed to it So that it is both a Memorial and a Means of its conveyance is evident from St. Paul's bringing in our Saviour subjoining the words Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me to the Story of the Cup and elsewhere representing the same Cup as the Communion of his Blood This I take to be a fair account of the Particle Is as it is made use of to connect the Cup and Christ's Blood of the New Tescament or Covenant And it will be no less easie to give as clear an account of it as it is made use of to connect the same Cup and the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood That Cup representing to us God's exhibiting together with it Christ's Blood and the Merits of it and our receiving that Blood and the Merits of it with that thankfulness which doth become us and a Mind resolv'd to walk worthy of those Benefits we receive by it I will conclude this long Discourse concerning the Institution of this Sacrament when I have lightly animadverted upon that which St. Matthew and St. Mark bring in our Saviour subjoining to all he had said concerning the Elements thereof To wit that he would not any more drink of this Fruit of the Vine for so St. Matthew expresseth it until he should drink it new with them in his Father's Kingdom For though it should be granted what Grotius contends for out of St. Luke that these words were spoken just before the Institution of this Sacrament and only plac'd here upon the account of Christ's being again to speak of the Cup Yet thus much must be granted to St. Matthew and St. Mark 's placing it here that it was the Fruit of the Vine that our Saviour gave them and they accordingly drank of even in this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper There being no more reason nor so much neither considering that that is the immediate Antecedent to deny this Fruit of the Vine's referring to what our Saviour gave his Disciples and they all drank of than there would be to deny
its relating to that Cup which he took into his hands and blessed Which if we should there would be no proof either here or elsewhere of the Fruit of the Vine's being one of the Symbols of this Sacrament PART IV. Of the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper The Contents Bread and Wine ordinarily the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper and the Heresie of the Aquarii upon that account enquir'd into and censur'd The kind of Bread and Wine enjoin'd in the next place examin'd and a more particular Enquiry thereupon Whether the Wine ought to be mix'd with Water and what was the Ground of the Antients Practice in this Affair The same Elements consider'd again with respect to Christ's Body and Blood whether as to the Vsage that Body and Blood of his receiv'd when he was subjected unto Death or as to the Benefit that was intended and accru'd to us by them In the former of which Notions they become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood by what is done to them before they come to be administred and by the separate administration of them In the latter by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us Of the Obligation the Faithful are under to receive the Sacrament in both kinds and a resolution of those Arguments that are commonly alledg'd to justifie the Romish Churches depriving them of the Cup. THE way being thus plain'd to the Consideration of the present Sacrament and if I mistake not such a Foundation also laid as may support a better Fabrick than I am likely to superstruct upon it I will now pass on to a more particular handling of it in the method before observ'd in the Sacrament of Baptism as well as in the Sacraments in general In order whereunto I will enquire I. What is the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper II. What is the inward Part or thing signified by it III. What farther relation beside that of a Sign the outward part or Sign hath to the inward part or thing signified IV. What is the Foundation of those Relations V. How and to whom this Sacrament ought to be administred VI. How it ought to be receiv'd I. That which comes first to be enquir'd is what is the outward part Question What is the outward part or Sign of the Lord's Supper Answer Bread and Wine which the Lord hath commanded to be receiv'd or Sign of the Lord's Supper which our Catechism declares to be Bread and Wine which the Lord hath commanded to be receiv'd For my more advantageous handling of which Answer I will again enquire 1. What Evidence there is of Bread and Wine being the outward part or Sign of the Lord's Supper 2. What kind of Bread and Wine we ought to make use of in it 3. Wherein the Bread and Wine were intended as a Sign 4. What Evidence there is of Christ's commanding us to receive them 1. That Bread and Wine are the outward part or Sign of the Lord's Supper is so evident from the Story of the Institution and the account I have already given of it that it would be but lost labour to go about to prove it It may suffice here to add that as Bread and Wine were the Matter of that Jewish Eucharist which in all probability was the Pattern of the Christian one So the Practice of the Church of God hath been always conformable to it neither have any Persons willingly varied from it I will not say that have not been branded for Hereticks but that have not also been look'd upon as either stupidly ignorant or blotches of the Church rather than any part of it Of which nature were those Aquarii mention'd by St. Augustin * De haeres c. 6. Ed. Dan. and before him written against by St. Cyprian †Ad Caecil Ep. 63. that offer'd Water in the Cup of the Sacrament instead of that which all the Church doth Whether that they condemn'd the Creation of God as several of the ancient Hereticks did and accordingly abstain'd wholly from Wine as well as from some other things Or as I rather think for the most part by way of exercise upon and mortification of themselves of which sort of Abstinences out of the Sacrament there are frequent Instances in the Antient Christians Little considering that Obedience is much better than such Sacrifices though they were otherwise of far greater worth than they will be found upon examination to be For if St. Paul * 1 Tim. 5.23 could admonish Timothy even for his Stomach's sake and his often Infirmities not to drink any longer Water but to use a little Wine I doubt he would not have heard with any patience of his or other Men's abstaining wholly from the Cup of the Sacrament or using Water instead of it out of a Principle of mortification and self-denial I do not say the same as to the outward part or Sign of the Lord's Supper where one of those Elements is not to be had or at least not without much difficulty as to be sure in many places the Wine of the Sacrament is not For as I find by Cassander (a) Liturg. c. 14. that the Armenians in India where Wine is not to be had do beforehand steep dried Grapes in Water and the next day press out the Juice of them for the use of the Sacrament So I do not see but where neither the one nor the other is to be had Men may lawfully make use of other generous Liquors for the same purpose I do not say only upon the account of Necessity to which all positive Laws must yield but because as I shall afterwards shew they are equally fitted to represent to us those things for which the Fruit of the Vine was here ordain'd Only let not Men make a Necessity where there is none nor think themselves excus'd in the use of other Liquors where the Fruit of the Vine though not the Product of their own Countrey yet may well enough be had from abroad For where our Saviour hath annex'd a Blessing to the use of such and such Creatures I do not see how we can expect it without where we have not a just Necessity to excuse it how convenient soever those other Creatures are which we substitute in the room of them 2. But because question may be made what kind of Bread and Wine we ought to make use of in this Sacrament as well as whether Bread and Wine be the ordinary Matter or Sign of it Therefore I shall admonish as to the former of these that I see little reason to doubt but that the Bread of the place we live in may suffice provided it be of the better and more nutritive sort or at least as good as we are in a capacity to provide For our Saviour having not prescrib'd any thing as to the Grane whereof it is to be made and all sorts of Bread being in their Nature sufficiently fitted for those
Sacramental Purposes to which they are to be appli'd it is a needless superstition to be sollicitous about the kind of it or indeed about any thing else of that nature farther than the Laws of Decency or the general Nature of the Sacrament may seem to exact of us The same is to be said and for the same reasons as to the kind of the Wine though the Wines of Palestine were generally Red (b) Psal 75.8 Prov. 23.31 Isa 27.2 63.2 for which cause it is not improbable that they were stiled the Bloud (c) Deut. 32.14 of the Grape and those therefore the most apt to represent the Blood of our Saviour For whatever the Colour thereof may be they may serve by the Liquidness thereof and the pouring of them from one Vessel to another to denote the shedding of his Blood which is all that the Institution obligeth us to reflect upon Upon which account I shall in this place confine my self to enquire whether it ought to be mix'd with Water or no as which seems to me to be the only material Enquiry in this Affair And here indeed they who think it enough to make use of pure Wine may seem to be hardly press'd whether we do consider the Antiquity of the contrary Usance or the Reason which is alledged for it For it appears from Justin Martyr (d) Apol. 2. p. 97. to have been carefully practis'd in his time And it appears too not only to have been pleaded for by St. Cyprian * Ad Caecil Ep. 63. even where he disputes against the foremention'd Aquarii but to such a degree also as to represent the Sacrament as imperfect without it The mixture of Wine and Water being as he saith (e) Quando autem in calice aqua vino miscetur Christo populus adunatur credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur conjungitur Quae copulatio conjunctio aquae vini sic miscetur in calice domini ut commixtio illa non possit ab invicem separari Nam si vinum tantùm quis offerat sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis si vero aqua sit sola plebs incipit esse sine Christo Quando autem utrumque miscetur adunatione confusâ sibi invicem copulatur tunc Sacramentum spiritale coeleste perficitur intended to signifie the conjunction of Christ and his People and that we can therefore in the sanctifying of the Lord's Cup no more offer Wine alone than we may presume to offer Water only These things to those that have a regard to Antiquity cannot but appear very considerable and I must needs say they weigh so much with me as to believe that the Wine of the Sacrament might have been from the beginning diluted with Water yea that that very Wine might which our Saviour consecrated into it But this rather with respect to the Custom of the Eastern Country and the generousness of their Wines which might be but needful to be temper'd where the same Liquor was to be the Entertainment of their Love-Feasts as well as the Matter of a Sacrament than out of any regard to the Sacrament it self or that particular Mystery in it which St. Cyprian thought to be intended Because there is not any the least hint either in the Evangelists or St. Paul of such a mixture or Mystery but rather an intimation of Christ's employing only the Fruit of the Vine and his having a regard to the sole Properties thereof and of that Blood of his which he shed for our Redemption If there were from the beginning any Mystery in such a mixture it may most probably be thought to have been intended to make so much the more lively a Representation to us of that Blood which it was designed to remember and which we learn from St. John (f) Joh. 19.34 to have issued from his side attended with Water and accordingly particularly remarked by him Upon which account though I cannot press a mixture of Wine and Water as necessary yet neither can I condemn it or those Churches which upon that reason think fit to retain it and enjoin on their respective Members the due observation of it 3. But because there neither is nor can well be a more material Enquiry than wherein the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament were intended as a Sign Therefore it may not be amiss to pass on to the resolution of it and employ all requisite diligence in it For my more orderly performance whereof I will consider those Elements of Bread and Wine with respect to Christ's Body and Blood whether as to the usage that Body and Bloud of his receiv'd when he was subjected to Death for us or as to the Benefit that was intended and accrued to us by them If we consider the Elements of Bread and Wine with respect to Christ's Body and Blood as to the usage they receiv'd when he was subjected to Death for us So we shall find them again to be a Sign of that Body and Blood by what is done to them before they come to be administred or by the separate administration of them when they are For in the former of these Notions the Bread manifestly became a Sign of Christ's Body by our Saviour's breaking of it For which cause as was before observ'd St. Paul in his rehearsal of the Institution attributes that breaking to Christ's Body and describes its crucifixion by it And not improbably the Wine of the Sacrament became a Sign of Christ's Blood by its being poured out of some other Vessel into that Cup which he took and blessed and gave to his Disciples There being not otherwise any thing in it to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood which it appears by the several Evangelists that our Saviour had a particular respect unto Neither will it suffice to say though it be true enough that we do not read either in the Evangelists or St. Paul of our Saviour's before pouring the Wine of the Sacrament out of some other Vessel into that Cup which he made use of for that purpose and consequently cannot with equal assurance make the Wine to be a Sign of Christ's Blood by any such effusion of it For whether we read of it or no such an Effusion must of necessity precede the use of a Cup being not to keep Wine in but to drink out of after it hath receiv'd it by effusion from another and that effusion therefore and the particular mention there is of the effusion of that Blood which is acknowledg'd to be signified by the Wine no unreasonable intimation of that Effusion's being one of those things wherein the Wine of the Sacrament was intended as a Sign or Representation of the other By these means the Bread and Wine become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood as to what is done to them before they come to be administred And we shall find them in like manner to be a Sign of the same Body and
Blood by the separate administration of them when they are For as our Saviour's Body and Blood were parted by Death and accordingly requir'd to be consider'd the one as broken and mortifi'd the other as shed or poured out of it So our Saviour did not only appoint divers Symbols to represent them but administred them apart and by themselves and if there be any force in Do this in remembrance of me commanded them to be so administred afterwards By which means they become even by that separate administration a yet more perfect and lively Representation of Christ's Body and Blood as to the usage they receiv'd when he whose they were was subjected to Death for us But because the Body and Blood of Christ are consider'd in this Sacrament as to the Benefit that was intended and accru'd to us by them as well as to the usage they receiv'd For This is my Body which is given or broken for you say St. Luke and St. Paul and This is my Blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in it which is shed for you say all the Evangelists upon this Argument Therefore enquire we wherein the Elements of Bread and Wine are a sign of his Body and Blood as to that Benefit they were so intended and given for Which will soon appear if we consider what the proper use of those Elements is what we are requir'd to do with them and what is elsewhere said concerning that Body and Blood when consider'd with respect to our welfare and advantage These several things making it evident that they become a sign of Christ's Body and Blood by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us For as we cannot lightly think but that when our Saviour made choice of such things as those to represent the usefulness of his Body and Blood to us he made choice of them for that purpose with respect to their proper usefulness as which is both most notorious in them and most apt to affect the Mind of him to whom they are suggested So much less can we think otherwise of them when he moreover requires us to eat of the one and drink of the other which are the ways by which we are to receive that nourishment and refreshment which we have said them to be so useful for Otherwise any thing else might have been as proper for the purpose as Bread and Wine Or if God who may no doubt make use of what Methods he pleaseth thought good however to make choice of Bread and Wine to represent Christ's Body and Blood yet he might have contented himself to have enjoyn'd upon us the casting our Eyes upon them and not as we find he doth prompted us to eat and drink of them as that too in remembrance of him and them For what need would there be of eating and drinking those Elements in remembrance of his Body and Blood or indeed what aptness in so doing to call them to our own Minds or the Minds of others were it not that there were somewhat in them to represent the usefulness of Christs Body and Blood which was not to be drawn from them or so sensibly perceiv'd in them as by eating and drinking of them This I take to be a competent evidence of Bread and Wine 's becoming a sign by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us But I am yet more convinced of it by what is elsewhere said concerning Christ's Body and Blood when consider'd as they are here as to our Benefit and advantage Even that his Flesh or Body was food * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed and his Blood drink indeed (g) Joh. 6.55 and that accordingly except his Disciples ate that Flesh of his and drank his Blood (h) Joh. 6.53 they could have no life in them but if they did (i) Joh. 6.54 they should have eternal Life In fine that the flesh (k) Joh. 6.51 which he should give for the life of the World was in the nature of Bread to them and so represented by him throughout that whole Discourse For if Christ's Body and Blood be in the nature of Food and drink to us If they be so far such that we are requir'd to eat and drink of them and so also that we cannot promise our selves life without them That Bread and Wine which in the present Sacrament are appointed to signifie and represent them cannot be thought by any more proper way to be a Sign or Representation of them than by their usefulness as Bread and Drink to nourish and refresh our Bodies to maintain them in their present beings and fill them with joy and gladness 4. The fourth thing to be enquir'd as concerning the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament is what evidence there is of Christ's commanding us to receive them A question which one would think might soon be voided by the words of the Institution it self Take Eat This is my Body being the voice of our Saviour concerning the Bread and Drink ye all of it and This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me being the words of the same Jesus in St. Matthew and St. Paul concerning the Cup which one would think to be sufficient expresses of Christ's command concerning it But as nothing is enough to those who are prejudic'd against any Doctrine as it is apparent that the Church of Rome was against the use of the Cup when this business came to be debated in the Council of Trent So that Council did not only determine that whole and entire Christ is contained under either species and particularly under the species of Bread (l) Sess 13. cap. 3. but that the faithful are not oblig'd by any command of the Lord to receive both species (m) Sess 21. cap. 1. and that accordingly if any shall say that all and singular the faithful people of Christ are oblig'd to take both species either by vertue of any command from God or as of necessity to Salvation (n) ib. Can. 1. he ought to be anathematiz'd for it or rather hath already incurr'd it For which cause it will be necessary for us to shew that the faithful are obliged by the Command of Christ to receive the Cup and then answer the principal reasons that are brought against it And here in the first place I would gladly know whether there be or ever were any command from Christ for the receiving of the Cup whether by the Apostles at first or the Priest that consecrates now whatsoever become of simple Laymen or the Priests that do not officiate and are therefore so far forth reckoned in the number of the other The ground of which question is because the Council of Trent doth not say that there is no command from Christ for the faithful's receiving the Cup but that the faithful are not bound by any command of his to the taking of both species and again that if any shall say that all the faithful
necessity nor ever was of any Man 's receiving the Cup whether he be Priest or private Person Consecrater of the Bread and it or only a simple Communicant Then every one too that heretofore did or now doth receive in both kinds doth in one and the same Eucharist receive the Blood twice once in the Species of Bread and again in the Species of Wine In fine by the same Rule and their affirming whole Christ to be contained under either Species Hoc est corpus meum may be as proper to make a Transubstantiation of the Cup as it is a Transubstantiation of the Bread The two former whereof render our Saviour's injunction concerning the receit of the Cup perfectly unnecessary The last gives us occasion to wonder why our Saviour who to be sure affected no change of Phrase did not make use of the same Hoc est corpus meum to make an alteration of the Cup especially when if he had it might have so aptly hinted to us the sufficiency of one only Species to possess us of his Body and Blood These I take to be the natural Consequences of making Hoc est corpus meum to signifie at all times This is my Body and Blood and by vertue thereof to possess the Receivers of that over which they are pronounc'd of whole and entire Christ And if on the other side they with whom we have to do make those words to signifie so only where the Sacrament is administred but in one kind and only to those to whom it is so administred they must consequently make the very same words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie one thing to the Lay-man who receives but in one kind and another to the Priest that consecrates and receives in both Which beside that it will make the signification of those words to be arbitrary and according as the Priest shall intend them will make them vary from the signification they had in the Institution of Christ which is and ought to be the Pattern of all Our Saviour as he both instituted and distributed the Sacrament in both kinds so to be sure making the words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie only This is my Body apart from my Blood as which latter he both appointed a distinct Element for and as they love to speak converted that distinct Element into by words equally fitted for such a Conversion I think I shall not need to say much to shew the Bread of the Sacrament not to be converted into Christ's Body and Blood by the force of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood as if the latter extended to the Species of the former as well as to its own proper Sacrament even the Liquor of the Cup Both because those words are not appli'd even by themselves to the Bread but to the Cup and cannot therefore in reason be thought to have any operation upon the former And because our Saviour in that Eucharist which he consecrated for his Disciples gave them the Bread of it to eat before he proceeded to the Consecration of the Cup and before therefore it could be suppos'd to receive any influence from those words This is my Blood as which were not till some time after pronounced by him One only Device remains to bring Christ's Blood as well as Body under the Species of Bread called by the Schoolmen Concomitancy but ought rather by the Romanists explication of it and indeed by the words natural connexion before us'd by the Council of Trent to be termed a real Vnion By vertue of which if Christ's Blood and Body are brought together under the Species of Bread Christ's Body in the Sacrament even that which the words Hoc est corpus meum produc'd is no more that Body which was broken upon the Cross at least consider'd as such for that to be sure was separated from his Blood but his Body entire and perfect And then farewell not only to the natural signification of Hoc est corpus meum and quod pro vobis frangitur but to the Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which yet they have hitherto so contended for as not to think it to be such only by a Figure or Memorial of it Such reason is there to believe how confidently soever the contrary is affirm'd that Christ's Body and Blood are not contain'd under the single Species of Bread And yet if that could be prov'd it would not therefore follow that it were an indifferent thing whether we receiv'd the Cup or no. For the design of the several Species and our receit of them (u) 1 Cor. 11.26 being to shew forth to others the Lord's Death as well as to possess our selves of his Body and Blood If that be not to be compass'd without the receit of the Cup it will make the use of it to be so far necessary what ever we may gain by the Bread alone He satisfying not his Duty who complies with one end of any thing to the neglect of another as that too which tends apparently to the Honour of the Institutor as to be sure the Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and Passion doth Now that the Death of our Saviour cannot be otherwise shewn forth or at least not as he himself represented it without the receit of the Cup as well as Bread may appear from his own representing his Death as a thing effected by the shedding or pouring out of his Blood For so it is in the several Evangelists as well as by the breaking of his Body Blood shed or poured out of a Body being not to be represented in a Sacrament but by a Species at least distinct from the Species of that Body nor we therefore in a capacity so to represent or shew it forth by our receiving but by the receit of such a distinct one Add hereunto that as it is agreed among all Men that the Death which we are to represent or shew forth hath the nature of a Sacrifice and the Eucharist it self for that reason represented by the Romanists as such So it is alike certain and agreed that there is nothing more considerable in the Sacrifice of Christ's Death than the shedding of his Blood as to which he himself peculiarly attributes the Remission of Sins Which Sacrifice therefore whosoever will shew forth as to that particular by the receit of the Sacrament of it he must do it by the receit of such a Symbol as may represent the Blood of Christ as separated from his Body which nothing but a Symbol distinct from that of the Body can and therefore neither because there is no other here but that Cup whereof we speak I may not forget to represent as a fourth Pretence because suggested by the Council of Trent (w) Sess 21. cap. 2. that the receit of the Cup is not of the substance of the Sacrament and may therefore by the Church be either granted or deny'd as it shall seem most expedient to
her But as if any thing be of the substance of the Sacrament the doing of that must be which tends most apparently to set forth the Sacrifice of Christ's Death upon the Cross as which was one great end of its Institution and the most clearly expressed in it So nothing doth or can tend more apparently to the setting forth of that than Men's partaking of that Cup which was by our Saviour himself intended to represent the Blood of that Sacrifice of his as poured out for our Expiation and Remission PART V. Of the inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it The Contents The inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it is either what is signified on the part of God and Christ or on the part of the Receiver of it The former of these brought under Consideration and shewn to be the Body and Blood of Christ not as they were at or before the Institution of this Sacrament or as they now are but as thâ—y were at the time of his Crucifixion as moreover then offered up unto God and offer'd up to him also as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World The Consequences of that Assertion briefly noted both as to the presence of that Body and Blood in the Sacrament and our perception of them The things signified on the part of the Receiver in the next place consider'd and these shewn to be First a thankful Remembrance of the Body and Blood of Christ consider'd as before described Secondly our Communion with those who partake with us of that Body and Blood Thirdly a Resolution to live and act as becomes those that are partakers of them The two latter of these more particularly insisted on and that Communion and Resolution not only shewn from the Scripture to be signified on the part of the Receiver but confirmed by the Doctrine and Practice of the Antient Church II. THE outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper being thus accounted for Question What is the inward part or thing signified and that shewn to be no other than Bread and Wine which the Lord hath commanded to be receiv'd Reason would as well as the Method before laid down that I should entreat of the inward part thereof or the thing signified by it Answer The Body and Blood of Crhist which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper Which on the part of God and Christ is that Christ's Body and Blood As on our part a thankful Remembrance of them our Communion with those who partake with us thereof and a Resolution to live and act as becomes those that are partakers of them That which our Catechism obligeth us especially to consider is that which is signified on the part of God and Christ and which accordingly it declares to be that Christ's Body and Blood A thing which consider'd in the general admits of no dispute because the plain Assertion of the Scripture as well as the Acknowledgment of all sorts of Men however otherwise divided about the Sacrament thereof or the presence of that Body and Blood in it They all agreeing as they must that the Body of Christ is that which is signified by one of its Signs and the Blood of Christ which is signified by the other But as it is not so well agreed under what Notion we are to consider that Body and Blood nor for ought that I have observ'd much attended to which is it may be the principal Cause of all the Controversie in this Particular So I shall therefore for the farther clearing of the thing or things signified by this Sacrament enquire under what Notion we ought to consider them which if we have a due regard to the words of the Institution will not be so difficult to unfold For from thence it will appear first that we ought to consider Christ's Body and Blood here not in the state wherein they were at or before the Institution of this Sacrament or in that more happy one to which they are now arriv'd but as they were at the time of our Saviour's Crucifixion To wit the one as given to Death or broken and the other as shed for us Which St. Paul farther confirms when he tells his Corinthians * 1 Cor. 11.26 that as often as they ate the Bread of this Sacrament and drank the Cup of it they did shew forth the Lord's death till he came The consequent whereof will be secondly because that Death of Christ is represented by the Scriptures as a Sacrifice that we ought to look upon that Body and Blood of Christ which we have said to be signified by this Sacrament as offer'd unto God by him and as such to be consider'd in it Which they of all Men have the least reason to refuse who do not only affirm †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. cap. 1. with us that this Sacrament was intended for a Memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross but that the Body and Blood of Christ is even now * Ibid. offer'd up to God in it under the respective Species thereof It is as little to be doubted thirdly That as we ought to consider the Body and Blood of Christ here as offer'd up to God for us so we ought to consider them as offer'd up as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of those Persons for whom it is offer'd Which is not only evident from the words of the Institution because representing the Cup of this Sacrament as the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins but abundantly confirm'd by the suffrage of those Men with whom we have most to do in this Affair They not only representing the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are pleas'd to call this Sacrament as one and the same Sacrifice with that which our Saviour offer'd upon the Cross but as a truly propitiatory one (a) Ib. cap. 2. and which accordingly is of force for the sins of the quick and the dead and tends to the remission of them Of what use these Considerations are will more fully appear when I come to entreat of that relation which the outward Signs of this Sacrament have to the inward part thereof or the things signified by them At present it may suffice briefly to note that the Body and Blood of Christ consider'd as broken and shed upon the Cross having now no Existence in the World nor any more capable of having such an Existence than that which is past can be recall'd They cannot be substantially present either to the Sacramental Elements or to the Person that receiveth them nor be substantially eaten and drunken by him that eats and drinks the other That they must therefore be present to the Sacramental Elements in a Figure or Mystery and to the Receiver by their respective Vertue and Efficacy That being as was before said to be consider'd as offer'd up to
Reason and Nature and manifestly prescrib'd by the dictates of it not only we but all Christians whatsoever think themselves licensed if not oblig'd to put a figurative sense upon those words which command the pulling out an offending eye or cutting off an offending hand yea though there should not be as perhaps there is not any so express precept of Scripture against the mutilation of our selves But let us examine yet more nearly the purport of the former Argument as it relates to such divine precepts and promises as may seem to have a more particular regard to the life to come and so may be rather reckoned to supernatural truths than moral ones For neither here is it so clear that the literal sense is to prevail unless some text be produced which shall oblige us to the contrary Neither if it were would it be of force to conclude against a figurative interpretation of those words for which this Argument is alledged I instance for the former of these in what was but even now †Part 7. quoted out of St. Augustine concerning our looking upon that as a figurative expression which enjoyns the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal life For as that Father thought it enough to prove that expression to be such because it seem'd to command a great wickedness without so much as taking notice of any Scripture that represented it as such so I do not see what text can be produc'd that is so express against the eating of humane Flesh and drinking humane Blood as this is for the eating and drinking them in the present instance In which case that wickedness which St. Augustin affirms the former precept to lead to in the literal sense must be pronounc'd as such by the law of Reason and Nature and no necessity therefore of sticking to the literal sense of any Scripture till we can find as express a text elsewhere to take us off from the embracing of it But let us suppose that the literal sense is to prevail till some text of Scripture can be produc'd which shall oblige us to a contrary one Yet will it not therefore follow but that the words we are now upon may and ought to be figuratively taken because there is enough in those that follow to oblige us to it I alledge for this purpose our Saviour's representing the things he gave as his Body broken and Blood shed which his natural Body and Blood were not at the Institution of this Sacrament nor can now be since his Resurrection from the dead For if the Body and Blood of Christ were not then broken or shed nor can be so since his Resurrection from the dead what our Saviour then gave or we now receive cannot be that Body and Blood and therefore to be understood rather as Signs and efficacious Means of conveying the Merit of that Body and Blood to us than as the letter of the words seems to import that Body and Blood it self The same is yet more evident from our Saviour's requiring his Disciples to do that whole action and particularly to eat and drink the things given in remembrance of him and of his death That which is design'd as a memorial of any thing being in reason to be look'd upon as a thing distinct from that which it was intended as a memorial of and design'd to supply the place of Neither will it avail to say as it is in my opinion idly enough that if the last suggestion were true Christ's Body and Blood must have been absent from that Sacrament which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples which it is certain from the Story that they were not For as that Sacrament it self was principally design'd for the times succeeding our Saviour's passion and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance in all probability made use of with a particular relation to them So Christ's Body broken and Blood shed were as much absent from that Table and Sacrament as they are from our Sacramental Tables or any other Those general Arguments of the Lutherans being of no more force let us cast our eyes upon their special ones or at least upon such of them as seem most worthy of our regard Whereof the first that occurs is taken from the nature of a Sacrament which as they say being a thing perfectly new and accordingly unknown to all Men till it come to be reveal'd is in reason to be delivered in proper and literal expressions as concerning which otherwise there can be no certain knowledg Which suppos'd the words that declare this Sacrament must be concluded to be such and as such understood and asserted A Man would wonder to hear Learned Men argue at this rate concerning the Sacraments of our Saviour when it appears by what I have elsewhere (‖) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 4. said that there were several such things before and by which St. Paul tells us that the Jews did all eat the same spiritual meat with us and drank the same spiritual drink even Christ Yea though the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not then in being and consequently could not literally be eaten or drunken For how come our Sacraments to be such new and unknown things when there were the like long before Or how under a necessity of being deliver'd in literal and proper expressions when there were not only such like Sacraments to give light to them though figuratively delivered but the Doctrine of those Antient Sacraments deliver'd even by St. Paul in those very figurative expressions which are thought to be such absurdities in ours For however we may be thought literally to eat and drink Christ's Body and Blood yet they to be sure cannot be thought to have done so who liv'd before that Body and Blood of Christ were in being Though granting that our Sacraments were at first as new and unknown as it is pretended that they are Yet will it not therefore follow but that they might be delivered in figurative as well as in literal expressions Because figurative expressions according to themselves may be easily enough understood if there be but a Key to open them Now whether there be not such a Key to open the figurative expressions of the present Sacrament I shall leave to those to judge who shall reflect upon our Saviour's representing the Symbols of this Sacrament as his Body broken and Blood shed and willing us moreover to eat and drink of them in remembrance of him and of his crucifixion Those two things being enough to assure us that the things given by our Saviour were rather Memorials of that Body and Blood of his and conveyers of the Merits of them than either the substance of that Body and Blood or the Means of communicating it to the Mouths and Stomachs of those who were to partake of them But it may be there is more force in what they argue from the nature of a Testament upon
any way contribute to those Contentions or the ruine of Souls by them by those figurative Expressions which he made use of in the present instance Those Coverings wherein the Doctrine of the Sacrament is suppos'd to be wrap'd up being not so thick or obscure but that they may be seen through by Men of unprejudiced Minds I know not why it is added unless it be to fill up the number of its forces that our Saviour was near to death when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore no doubt well weighed before-hand what he spake concerning it For who but a blasphemous Heretick ever thought or said that our Saviour under any Circumstances knew not what he spake And therefore I shall only take notice of that which concludes the present Argument even that our Saviour was so far from giving any indication of other than a literal interpretation that after he was advanced to Heave he reveal'd the Doctrine of it in the same words wherein it was at first delivered For not to say any thing at present to the latter part of this Allegation Our Saviour as was before shewn gave sufficient Indications of a figurative Interpretation when he represented the things given as his Body broken and Blood shed which they were not then nor can be now and moreover willed his Disciples to partake of what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his death A fourth Argument for the literal sense of the words in question is the great Conformity there is between the several Historians of the Institution as to the words we are now upon It being not to be thought but that if they had been to be taken in other than a simple and proper sense one or other of those holy Men would have added an Explication of them But neither is there that Conformity between them as to the words whereof we speak neither can it be said that none of those Historians have given an Explication of them For though for instance This is my Body is indeed in all of them and we so far forth oblig'd to acknowledge a Conformity between them in their account of the present words Yet St. Luke and St. Paul add to those words which is given for you and which is broken for you which are not only Additions but if what I have elsewhere said (g) Part 5. be well weigh'd due Explications of them also and such as shew them not to be capable of that literal Interpretation which they are so willing to put upon them There is as little truth in what is added that none of those Historians have given any explication of them For not to repeat what was but now said concerning the words which is given or broken for you St. Luke and St. Paul take care to remark that our Saviour enjoin'd his Disciples to eat what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his Death which is no obscure Indication of those words being to be figuratively understood The fifth Argument for the literal Sense is the supposed Absurdity of the figurative Which the better to evince it is pretended that there is no place for any Figure either in the Subject Predicate or the Copula that ties them together And if there be no Figure in either of these there is no Figure at all and the Propositions therefore that are compos'd of them to be literally understood Now as I have elsewhere (h) Part 3. affirm'd the figurativeness of these Propositions to consist in the word Is as which I have there shewn to be the same in sense with signifies and accordingly so us'd in Speeches of the like nature So I shall therefore content my self to return an Answer to what is objected as to the figurativeness of that word whether it be from Logick or from the Scripture Now the first thing that is objected from the former of these Heads is that the Copula or the word Is is no part of a Proposition according to Aristotle and others and therefore the figurativeness of the whole not to be placed in it I will leave it to the Sophisters to answer to Aristotle's Authority because I think that Office is fitter for them than for a Divine It shall suffice me to make answer that as a Man of good natural Understanding would take that to be a part of a Proposition without which in many Propositions the Subject and Predicate could have no connexion nor any more constitute a Proposition than Stone and Timber and other Materials do a House till they are united to one another and compacted into a Building of that Shape and use So men that have had a Name for this Art of Reasoning have been of a quite different opinion from the Objectors and not only not look'd upon the word Is as no part of the Proposition but as the very Soul of it For the Copula saith Petrus à Sancto Joseph (i) Idea Phil. Ration li. 2. Art 4. is to the Subject and Predicate as the Form is to the material parts of any thing and gives them the Essence of a Proposition After the same manner as the formal part of a House is not the Stones and Timber of it but that by which they are connected And Burgersdicius an Author better known and as terrible a Man at the Art of Reasoning is not only of the same Mind with the former as to the word Is being part of a Proposition but tells us moreover (k) Instit Log. li. 1. cap. 27. that it is a part of the Predicate and indeed the very Form and Soul of it Which he proves by a thing that is agreed on among the differing Parties even that the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate For if saith he the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate why shall it not be a part of the Predicate when it is set by it self Which with the Instance which he subjoins and another Reason for it I shall leave to the Logicians of the other side to answer But beside that more remote Objection of the Copula's being no part of a Proposition and therefore the figurativeness of the present ones not to be placed there It is farther added that this Copula or the word Is is a word of no certain signification in it self For I forbear the mention of that hard Name which the Logicians give it whereas Tropes and Figures can have place only in words of certain signification because altering them from their native signification to a foreign one And it must be granted that the word Is is so far forth of an uncertain signification that it may and is wont to be appli'd to several sorts of Predications and particularly to such as are only accidental as well as to those that are essential For thus we may and do affirm that Socrates for instance is of this or that Colour which denotes only an Accident as well as
that Doctrine savours at all of Popery because the signification we give to the breaking of the Bread is of a quite different nature from what the Papists suggest and indeed no other than the Institution it self offers to us For we no more than the Lutherans believe that the Host ought to be broken into just three parts or for the reasons that are given by them for it so I see as little how our Doctrine ministers to Socinianism even in the point that is now before us Because though we declare the breaking of the Bread to have been intended for a representation of our Saviour's crucified Body yet we do not believe as they do that that was the sole intendment of that and other the usances of the present Sacrament but that as Christ meant we should shew forth by them what he suffered in his Body so we should also thereby be made partakers of it and of the Benefits thereof 2. But not any longer to insist upon the breaking of the Bread because as I suppose sufficiently clear'd Let us go on to enquire because a Question of far greater moment whether he who administers this Sacrament is oblig'd by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an Offering to God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as to make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men The Council of Trent as is well known avowing that to be the importance of the words Do this in remembrance of me and that the Apostles were by the same words appointed Priests to offer them For my more advantageous resolution whereof I will shew 1. What they who advance this Offering declare concerning it 2. The vanity of those Grounds upon which it is built and 3. Oppose proper Arguments to it 1. That which the Council of Trent teacheth concerning this pretended Offering is that it hath for the matter of it the Body and Blood of Christ (h) Sess 22. cap. 1 2. Can. 3. or rather Christ himself under the Species of Bread and Wine That the Offering which is made of it is no simple tender of it to the Father but the offering of it up by way of a Sacrifice and accordingly he himself sacrificed or slain in it but after an unbloody manner That this Sacrifice is not only an Eucharistical or Commemorative Sacrifice but a truly propitiatory one for quick and dead and by which God is so far appeas'd as to grant Pardon and Grace to the one and a Refrigerium to the other 2. How well these things agree either with one another or with that Sacrifice which Christ made of himself upon the Cross shall then be considered when I come to oppose proper Arguments to it My present Business shall be to examine the Grounds upon which it is built and shew the vanity thereof Where again I will insist upon no other Grounds than what the same Council of Trent offers for it and which therefore those of the Roman Communion must think themselves obliged either to stand or fall by Now that which the Council of Trent principally founds it self upon in this Affair is on the one hand the conversion of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ as without which there could be no Pretence for the offering of them up under the Species of the other And on the other hand those known words of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors Do this in remembrance of me These words as that Council tells us having been always understood and declar'd by the Catholick Church as a Command of Christ to them to offer up his Body and Blood But as enough hath been said already (i) Part 7. to shew the unsoundness of the former of these grounds and that therefore no just foundation of the offering of Christ's Body and Blood in the present Sacrament So we shall find there is as little solidity in that supposed Command of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors in the words Do this in remembrance of me For neither can those words be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood neither doth it appear whatever is pretended that the Catholick Church hath had that understanding of them That the words themselves cannot be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood will appear if we consider them either as referring to the several things before spoken of and particularly to what he himself had done or enjoined them to do or as referring only to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them and in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them If we consider the words Do this in remembrance of me as referring to the several things before spoken of even those which Christ himself had done or enjoined them to do So there is no appearance of their being a Command to the Apostles or their Successors to offer up his Body and Blood unless there had been any precedent mention of Christ's offering them up himself or any kind of intimation of his enjoining them to do it The latter of which two as it is not to by affirm'd by those who make the words Do this in remembrance of me to be those which constituted both the Sacrifice and the offerers of it So I see as little reason for the affirming of the former how confidently soever the Church of Rome advanceth it For what mention can we expect for instance of Christ's offering up his Body under the Species of Bread when till he had spoken the words This is my Body which was not till he had done all appertaining to that Element there was no such thing under the Species of Bread for Christ to offer up because not to be till those words had pass'd upon it But it may be there is more force in the words Do this as referring to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them And so no doubt there is or they will be found to have little force in them But what if we should say first that there is as little appearance of their referring to the words Body and Blood as what St. Paul subjoineth to them and the very Canon of the Mass perswades For St. Paul inferring upon those words that as oft as they ate that Bread and drank that Cup they did shew forth the Lord's death till he came And again that whosoever should eat that Bread and drink that Cup of the Lord unworthily should be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord He doth not obscurely intimate that when our Saviour said with relation to each Element Do this in remembrance of me his meaning was that they should do what he had before enjoin'd them concerning each in remembrance of himself and particularly that they should eat and drink them with that design Which they of all Men
ought not to refuse who are taught by the Canon of the Mass to look upon the words Hoc est enim corpus meum and Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei for so the Roman Missal expresseth them as a Reason of what is before enjoin'd and particularly of the Disciples eating and drinking the things given to them For if those very words referr'd to what was before enjoyn'd and particularly to their eating and drinking the things given to them The words Do this in remembrance of me ought in reason to referr to the same eating and drinking and no otherwise to the Body and Blood of Christ than as that was an inducement to them to do what they did in remembrance of Him and of his Death But let us suppose however because some of the Roman Communion will have it so that the words Do this c. referr to the Body and Blood of Christ and that it must therefore be somewhat about those that this Precept of Christ must be thought to enjoin Yet how doth it appear which is the only thing that can advantage them that we are to understand thereby Sacrifice or make an Offering of them For though I grant that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be considered with respect to Christ's Body and Blood it must have another sense than we are wont to put upon it Yet why should it not signifie make as well as sacrifice especially when that sense is both the most natural and the most obvious one For so it will yet more agree with the opinion these Men have of their converting the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ and accordingly producing that Body and Blood out of them And indeed as one would think that they who give the Priest the priviledge of making his God should be willing to understand the words in that sense because setting those aside there is nothing else from whence that Power can be colourably deduc'd So one would think too that they should secure to themselves that Power before they pretend to offer him as without which there can be no place for it But let that Notion also how natural soever even in their own opinion be laid aside with the rest if it be only to make way for that other of sacrificing or offering Yet how will it appear that this latter one ought to have place here or if it hath that it denotes such a sacrificing or offering as they advance For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeably to the notion of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie to sacrifice or offer for so it doth Lev. 15 15-30 and in other places according to the Septuagint Version * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet as even there it comes to have that sense rather from the matter intreated of than from any natural signification of the word So there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to that sense or oblige us to such an understanding of it Though if that also should be allow'd which yet there is not the least necessity of doing yet will not the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reach that Sacrifice which is intended to be superstructed upon them Because he who commands Men to sacrifice or offer in remembrance of himself doth rather enjoin a Commemorative than Expiatory one and consequently not that Sacrifice which is intended So little is there in the words themselves how favourably soever consider'd to oblige us to understand them of such an Offering as the Church of Rome advanceth And we shall find them to signifie as little though we take in the sense of the Catholick Church upon them how conformable soever the Council of Trent affirms it to be unto its own Because though the Antients did all agree upon a Sacrifice and which is more look'd upon those words as either directly or indirectly obliging to the offering of it yet as hath been elsewhere (k) Part 2. shewn they advanc'd other kind of Sacrifices than what the Church of Rome now doth and consequently cannot be suppos'd to give any countenance to it And I shall only add that though Justin Martyr (l) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 259 c. represented that Offering of fine Flour which was offer'd for those that were cleansed from the Leprosie as a Type of the Bread of the Eucharist Though he moreover appli'd the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Bread and if any of the Fathers therefore did affirm'd Christ to command us to make or offer that Bread to God Yet he adds that he commanded us to do so in remembrance of that Passion which he suffered for those that were cleansed in their Souls And again that we might at the same time give thanks to God for his having made the World and all things in it for the sake of Man and for his having delivered us by Christ from that wickedness in which we sometime were and dissolv'd all noxious Principalities and Powers Which shews him not to have thought in the least of our being commanded to offer Christ's Body and Blood under the Species of Bread or indeed of any other Sacrifice than a Commemorative or Eucharistical one The principal Argument of the Tridentine Fathers being thus discharg'd and the Sacrifice of the Mass so far forth depriv'd of its support We shall the less need to concern our selves about those which are of an inferiour rank and in truth rather Assistants to the former Argument than any proper proofs of the Sacrifice it self For what boots it to alledge that our Saviour's Priesthood like that of Melchizedek being not to be extinguished by death we are in reason to presume that upon his departure hence he appointed his Apostles and their Successors to offer up continually that Offering which Melchizedek first and after him our Saviour offer'd For beside that there is no appearance of Melchizedek's offering up Bread and Wine and we therefore not to argue from the Bread and Wine which he brought forth that our Melchizedek was either to offer or appoint any such Sacrifice Our Melchizedek was to abide for ever as well as his Priesthood yea he was to abide in his Priesthood for ever as well as in his Person Witness not only the Psalmist's affirming that he was to be a Priest for ever but St. Paul's affirming also that (m) Heb. 7.23 24. whereas the Aaronical Priests were of necessity to pass over their Priesthood from one to another because no one of them could continue by reason of Death our Melchizedekian Priest because he was to abide for ever was invested with an unchangeable Priesthood and such as should not pass away from him For what was this but to say that he should keep his Priesthood in his own Person and should not therefore either need or be in a capacity to appoint other Priests in his room
be Bread before the pronunciation of it and the word This therefore denote no other than that Bread which our Saviour before took and blessed and brake and gave unto them But is it then possible that so many wise Men should be otherwise perswaded without very great reason to the contrary And neither are they as they surmise because the word which we render This is both in the Greek and the Latin of a different Gender from the word which signifies Bread and is indeed of the same Gender with that Body which it is afterwards affirm'd to be even the Neuter one As if on purpose to let us know that the word This was intended to signifie no other than This is my Body even now or was in an Instant to be transubstantiated into it But is there then no other account to be given of the word This being in the Neuter Gender when the Bread which we suppose it to referr to is of the Masculine Nay is there not an easie and obvious one if Men will take the pains to find it out For is it so strange that the word which we render This should be of the Neuter Gender even when it is intended to represent a thing of another especially in inanimate Beings Nay is it at all strange to have the word This to conform rather to the Gender of that which is predicated of it than of that thing which it is set to denote There is in one single Text of Genesis an instance of each of these and many instances elsewhere of the latter of them For where (p) Gen. 28.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jacob is brought in saying How wonderful is this place This is no other than the House of God and this is the Gate of Heaven Though the word which we render Place be of the Masculine Gender and the This that is joyned with it consequently of the same yet when the Seventy come to translate This is no other than the House of God they make use of the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express it as again when to render And this is the Gate of Heaven they make use of the Feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express it answerably to the Gender of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gate which is predicated of it In like manner the same Septuagint where they give an account of what Adam said concerning the Woman when she was first brought to him even This is (q) Gen. 2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bone of my Bone and Flesh of my Flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man Though they speak of her before and after in the Feminine Gender they make use of the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express her though one would think that should be less answerable to the subject matter of what he spake In fine when the same Septuagint would describe to us Moses his Conceit (r) Exod. 16.15 concerning the Manna before spoken of and which they themselves entreat of under the Neuter Gender To the Israelites asking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or What is this they bring in Moses answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Bread which the Lord hath given you Making the Particle This to answer rather to that Bread which was predicated of it than either to the Israelites Question concerning it or the thing it was intended to denote After this manner did the Greeks express themselves when they never dream'd of any such Mystery And our Crackanthorp (s) Defens Eccles Angl. contra Spalat c. 72. though aliud agens hath produc'd two like instances for the Latines out of those two great Masters of Language Lactantius (t) Instit lib. 4. c. 40. and Cicero (u) Orat. pro Cluent The former whereof after those words Sola igitur Catholica Ecclesia est quae verum cultum retinet which shew what it is whereof he entreats hath these no less remarkable words Hic est fons veritatis hoc est domicilium fidei hoc templum Dei c. The latter where he entreats of the Law or Laws Hoc enim vinculum est hujus dignitatis quâ fruimur in republicâ hoc fundamentum libertatis hic fons aequitatis So that for ought that doth appear it is both usual and elegant to conform the Pronoun This rather to the Gender of that thing which is predicated of it than to the Gender of that which it is intended to denote And if so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hoc est corpus meum may without any violence to the known Rules of Speech yea with propriety enough import This Bread is my Body which was the thing to be demonstrated by us The subject of the Proposition being thus found out and shewn to be no other than the Bread which our Saviour gave The next thing to be explain'd is the predicate thereof or that which is affirmed of it This is my Body For the better understanding whereof I will enquire what our Saviour meant by his Body and then what he meant by is or how the Bread before spoken of was and is the Body of Christ In the accounts which I have seen in some of our own Church concerning these words is my Body I do not only find the words is and my Body commonly joyn'd together in their explanation of them but I find it affirm'd also where they enquire whether the predication be proper or figurative that it is indifferent whether we place the Figure in the word is or in the words my Body I must needs say I do not think it so indifferent a thing as they seem willing to believe whether we have a regard to the words my Body as they lie in the Text or whether we have a regard to the consequents of a figurative interpretation of them For that I may speak my mind freely and clearly as every honest Man ought to do in a matter of so great importance I do not see how those words my Body can be otherwise than literally understood even for that Body which he was now about to offer upon the Cross and presently after did offer up upon it for the Salvation of Mankind For how could our Saviour though he were never so dispos'd to describe that Body how I say could he more clearly and plainly describe it than by that Body which was or was shortly to be given or broken for them Especially when he immediately calls upon them to do what he had now taught them in remembrance of himself For do this saith he in remembrance of me For was the Bread which he affirms to be his Body however blessed or broken the thing that was given for them or their salvation and not rather that Body which he now carried about him and was shortly after to suffer in Nay doth not our Saviour's subjoyning to This is my Body which is given or broken for you This do in remembrance
seems to do that that cannot be thought to derogate from Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross which is taught by themselves to be a Means whereby the fruits of the other are most plentifully convey'd For either it is such a Means as doth also propitiate God and then it will however derogate from the Propitiation and Redemption of the other or it is not such a Means and then it is not a Propitiatory Sacrifice at all If there be any thing to hinder this pretended Sacrifice from entrenching upon that of the Cross it must be by attributing to it another and a lower sort of Propitiation than they think to be due unto the other But as the Council of Trent seems so far from allowing that that it professeth to believe that God is so far appeas'd with the Oblation of this Sacrifice as to grant Repentance and Pardon of Sin upon it and as one would think too by the Reason annexed with little difference from what is granted upon the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross For it is saith that Council one and the same Host that is offer'd it is one and the same Person that now offers it by the ministry of his Priests who then offer'd up himself upon the Cross only after a different manner of offering so the great Trust their People are prompted to repose on this Oblation even when they do not communicate at it as that too upon the account of its being offer'd up for all the Faithful and for those in particular that are mention'd by name in it gives cause enough to believe that they think not much otherwise of it than they do of that Oblation which Christ made of himself upon the Cross if yet because of the more particular application of it to themselves they do not entertain a higher opinion of it II. The manner of the Administration of this Sacrament being thus accounted for and consideration therein had of what is most in controversie in it It remains that I enquire To whom it ought to be administred Which in the general are such as have given up their Names to Christ for so our Saviour first administred it and no doubt therefore intended that it should afterwards be More particularly those of them who are qualified by their Understanding and Life to partake worthily of it to do what they do in remembrance of Christ and to the comfort and benefit of their own Souls the salvation whereof was thereby intended Which both general and particular Qualifications Justin Martyr seems not obscurely to insinuate (x) Apol. 2. pag. 97. when immediately after the account he gives us of the Administration of this Sacrament in his time he tells us that the Eucharistical Food thereof was lawful for none to partake of but him that believ'd those things to be true that were taught by them who was moreover wash'd in that Laver which was appointed for remission of Sins and liv'd also as Christ deliver'd to us If there be any considerable difficulty in this Affair it is about the Administration of this Sacrament to Infants and which as some Ages of the Church seem to believe to have been necessary so one (y) Jer. Taylor 's Worthy Communicant cap. 3. sect 2. among our selves hath taken upon him to defend as to the lawfulness thereof As touching the necessity of its Administration to Infants little needs to be said because it is manifestly built upon a Text which considered without prejudice cannot tend in the least to the support of it That I mean where it is said that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood we can have no Life in us For it appearing from the Text it self and from what I have elsewhere (z) Part 7. said upon it that this Passage relates not to a Sacramental Manducation but rather to a Spiritual one the Communion of Infants is so far from being established by it that the Communion even of elder Persons cannot be concluded from it But because the Question is not so much at present concerning the necessity of administring this Sacrament to Infants as concerning the lawfulness thereof And because he who professeth to deny the one hath taken upon him to defend the other and the Practice of several of the Antients in it I think it not amiss to make that also the subject of my Discourse and both shew why I look upon it as a thing no way lawful and examine the Arguments that are brought in the behalf of it That which makes me look upon it as no way lawful to administer this Sacrament to Infants is their being not in a capacity to answer what is requir'd on the part of Communicants whether before or in the receiving of it For neither can they as St. Paul requires examine themselves before they address themselves to this Sacrament neither can they which is more material and requir'd by Christ himself do what they do in it in remembrance of Christ and of his Death By which means as they must be look'd upon as no way qualified for it so as such therefore excluded from the participation of it by him who was the Instituter thereof Neither will it avail to say as the forequoted Author objects that the former of these Precepts concerns those only that need an examination and have an ability for it and consequently cannot concern Infants in whom no such need or ability is For as I willingly grant that that Precept doth not concern Infants so I think therfore that they have as little concernment in that Sacrament to which such an Examination is pre-requir'd He who cannot do that which is prerequir'd to the receiving of any Sacrament being to be look'd upon as one for whom that Sacrament was never intended and consequently as one who ought not to be admitted to it Otherwise we must suppose Christ to have intended his Sacraments for those who are not in a condition to perform such things as are prerequir'd by himself to the partaking of it I am yet less concern'd at what the same Author seems to answer to what our Saviour enjoins concerning the doing what we do in this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his Death For as all the Answer he makes to it is that one may shew forth Christ's Death by the very Act of Communicating and consequently that Infants because capable of that Act may shew forth Christ's Death also So that Answer is defective in this that it supposeth the shewing forth of Christ's Death to others to be all that our Saviour requir'd by doing what we do in remembrance of him The contrary whereof is evident because he commands the Communicant but just before to take what is given him as his Body and Blood and his Apostle St. Paul adjudge some Communicants to condemnation for not discerning in themselves the Lord's Body Both which Passages suppose that the Communicant ought to reflect in his own Mind upon the
Death of our Lord and Saviour as well as shew it forth to other Men. If therefore the Communion of Infants receive any relief it must be from those Arguments that are alledg'd in its behalf and which accordingly I come now to consider And first it is alledg'd that the Sacraments of the Gospel are the great Chanels of the Grace of God Which is willingly granted if it be understood as to those Persons for whom they were intended But whether this in particular was intended for Infants is a thing which for the Reasons before mentioned may very well be made a Question but ought however to be otherwise made appear Which it will hardly be by alledging as it is in the second place that that Grace doth always descend upon them that do not hinder it Because if God require some positive qualifications in him that receives the Sacrament the not putting a bar to the Grace of it will not suffice the Party for the receiving of it There was therefore but need of adding thirdly that to Baptism there are many acts of predisposition requir'd as well as to the Communion and yet the Church who very well understands the obligation of those Precepts supposeth no Children to be obliged to those predispositions to either but fits every Commandment to a capable subject The meaning of which Argument setting aside what is there said of the Church is that if the want of such Dispositions as are prerequir'd to Baptism do not hinder Infants from being admitted to it neither ought the want of the like predispositions to the Communion to debar them of that or hinder us from believing that our Saviour did intend it for them And I willingly grant there would be the same reason for both if there were the like presumption of God's dispensing with his own Law in both and admitting Infants notwithstanding those wants to the participation of the Lord's Supper as there is for his admission of them to Baptism Which that there is not will appear as from the Arguments I have elsewhere produc'd for the Baptizing of them so from the necessity there is of the one above what there can be of the other For whereas there is a necessity of Baptism to bring Infants out of their natural estate and give them a title to his Kingdom For except a Man be born again saith our Saviour (a) Joh. 3.5 of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven There cannot be the like necessity of their receiving the Lord's Supper because before delivered from that their natural estate and entitled to his heavenly Kingdom Whereas again the Grace of Baptism ordinarily speaking is absolutely necessary so that no one can without that be presum'd to be in a salvable estate The Lord's Supper may seem to be only conditionally so and on supposition (b) See Part 1. of our falling into new Errors and so needing a new Remedy against them and a new assurance against the guilt of them Which new Errors falling not upon an Infant estate neither can there be any such need of that either Remedy or Assurance and therefore neither of that second Sacrament which was intended to convey them Though therefore God should admit Infants to Baptism without the previous dispositions of it because of the necessity of that Sacrament Yet there is not the like Reason to presume because there is no such necessity of the Sacrament it self of his so admitting them to the Lord's Supper and therefore neither for arguing from the administration of Baptism to Infants that we may as well administer to them the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper also It is alledged fourthly That whereas in a Sacrament there is something done on God's part and something on ours what belongeth to us obligeth us then when we can hear and understand but not before but what is on God's part is always ready to them that can receive it Which Allegation is indeed true but no way pertinent to the matter in hand unless it could be prov'd which hath not as yet been that this Sacrament belongs to Infants either as to its Obligations or Graces It is alledged fifthly and with as little pertinency That though Infants cannot come alone to Christ yet the Church their Mother can bring them in her Arms. For though the Church can bring them in her Arms yet she will bring them with little effect if she bring them to other Sacraments than Christ hath appointed for them It is alledged sixthly That they who are capable of the Grace of a Sacrament may also receive the Sign and therefore the same Grace being convey'd to them in one Sacrament may also be imparted to them in the other But as I do not see how Infants are capable of the Grace of the Lord's Supper because intended to supply those defects which the neglect of the former hath occasioned So I see as little what need or expectation there is of their receiving that Grace by a second Sacrament which hath been already imparted to them by a former It is alledged seventhly That as Infants can be born again without their own consent so they may be fed by the hands of others and what begins without their own actual choice may be renewed without their own actual desire Both parts of which Allegation suppose that Infants stand in need of Spiritual Supplies which I for my part see no necessity to grant nor indeed any reason to believe Because till they come to years they are out of the reach of those temptations which occasion our spiritual decays It is alledged eighthly That if upon pretence of figurative Speeches Allegories and Allusions and the Injunction of certain Dispositions the holy Communion be deny'd to Infants there may be cause enough to fear that a gap may be opened upon equal pretence to deny them Baptism The latter part of which Argument as I have already return'd a sufficient Answer to so I shall leave it to those who trade in figurative Speeches and Allegories and Allusions to answer to the former It is alledged ninthly which looks somewhat more like an Argument than many of the former That since the Jewish Infants being circumcised is used as an Argument that they might be baptiz'd their eating of the Paschal Lamb may also be a competent Warrant to eat of that Sacrament in which also as in the other the sacrificed Lamb is represented as offer'd and slain for them But as the Parallel is not so clear in the Scripture between the Paschal Lamb and the Lord's Supper as it is between Circumcision and Baptism and we therefore not to argue with the same freedom from the Paschal Lamb to the Lord's Supper as we do from Circumcision to Baptism So it is much farther from being clear that the Jewish Infants partook of the Paschal Lamb which is that upon which the present Argument proceeds For all that is said in the Book of Exodus is that it was