Of the sacraments in general, in pursuance of an explication of the catechism of the Church of England by Gabriel Towerson ... Towerson, Gabriel, 1635?-1697. 1686 Approx. 1234 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 197 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A63008 Wing T1973 ESTC R21133 12226343 ocm 12226343 56517

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A63008) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 56517) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 928:3) Of the sacraments in general, in pursuance of an explication of the catechism of the Church of England by Gabriel Towerson ... Towerson, Gabriel, 1635?-1697. [8], 64, [14], 135, [17], 157-304 p. Printed for Richard Chiswell ..., London : 1686. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Separate t.p.: Of the sacrament of baptism, in pursuance of an explication of the catechism of the Church of England. London, 1657. Separate t.p.: Of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ..., London, 1688. Includes errata.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Church of England -- Doctrines. Sacraments -- Early works to 1800. Lord's Supper -- Early works to 1800. Baptism -- Early works to 1800. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-11 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-01 Sampled and proofread 2012-01 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL, In Purſuance of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England.

By GABRIEL TOWERSON, D. D. and Rector of Welwynne in Hartfordſhire.

Imprimatur.

Ex Aedib. Lamb. Julii 24. 1685.

Jo. Battely RRmo P. D. Guil. Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domeſticis.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiſwell, at the Roſe and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCLXXXVI.

TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Biſhop of ELY, AND LORD ALMONER TO His Majeſty. My Lord,

THough I am almoſt aſhamed to make my Addreſs to your Lordſhip with ſo ſmall a Treatiſe as this, yet having no more of it finiſhed, and this little being the Foundation of the reſt, I hope your Lordſhip will accept of it as ſome acknowledgement of thoſe great Condeſcentions with which your Lordſhip hath been pleas'd to honour ſo mean a Perſon as my ſelf.

I might indeed, if I had conceived it better ſo to do, have kept it by me, till it had grown more complete, and ſo have made it a more ſuitable Preſent to a Perſon of your Lordſhip's Character in the Church and in the Court: But I conſidered that what I now humbly offer to your Lordſhip and the Publick, muſt be my Meaſure in the following Tracts, and ſo may need the advice of others as well as my own thoughts to perfect it, and I may gain this advantage by the ſeparate Edition of it, to know from ſome of my Friends, what in it is weak or imperfect: In which if your Lordſhip will further vouchſafe your admonition, it will make what remains the more fit to be preſented to your Lordſhip, by

Your Moſt Obliged, Moſt Obedient, and Moſt humble Servant, Gabriel Towerſon. Welwynne, Nov. 2 . 1685.
THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. Of the Signification of the Word SACRAMENT.

THE Word Sacrament, in the primitive notion of it, the name of the Military Oath; as well that, which came to be afterwards impos'd, as that which was at firſt voluntarily taken by the Souldiers. Which denomination it had both from the ſacredneſs of an Oath in its own Nature, and from thoſe Sacred Ceremonies, wherewith that, and other Oaths were attended. The Word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian ſenſe of it, tranſlated from thence into the Church, and applied to thoſe Inſtitutions of it, which now go under that name. As is made appear from the footing the former ſignification had gotten in the World; From the Scriptures, and the Ancient Chriſtians repreſenting the Life and Inſtitution of a Chriſtian under the notion of a Military one; And, in fine; ſ om the ſame Antients making uſe of that Word in the Military ſenſe. Evidence of this laſt from general applications of it, and an account given thereupon of the particular inſtances; which they gave of the likeneſs of the Chriſtian Sacrament to the parely Military one. pag. 1.

The CONTENTS of the SECOND PART. Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT.

A Sacrament ſhewn to be a Relative thing, more particularly ſuch a Relative thing, as hath the relation of an outward, and viſible ſign of that, of which it is a Sacrament. That therefore aſſign'd as the Genus of a Sacrament; and enquiry thereupon made after thoſe eſſential attributes, which difference it from other outward and viſible ſigns. Which is endeavour'd to be evinc'd from the ſeveral things to which a Sacrament relates, the manner of its relation to each of them, and the foundation of that relation. The things, to which a Sacrament relates, ſhewn in the general to be Sacred, or Divine, more particularly, divine Graces, and humane Duties, that New Covenant, which connects them together, and that body of men, which is confederated by it. To the firſt of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a ſign, a means of conveyance, and a pledge; To the ſecond in the nature of a ſimple ſign, or declaration, and (by means of that Covenant, which it conciliates) as an Obligation to them; To the third in the nature of ſuch a ſign, as ſerves alſo to give being to, or renew it; And to the fourth, and laſt in the nature of a Diſcriminative ſign, or badge, and as a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in it. The foundation of all theſe relations ſhewn to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, as that again, not ſo much as delivered by him, as applied to thoſe elements, in which they are ſubjected, by a declaration of the purport of the Inſtitution, and by doing ſuch other things to them, as either the general precepts of Chriſtianity, or the more particular precepts of the inſtitution oblige to the performance of. A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars, and the eſſential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence, and exemplified in ſeveral definitions of it. pag. 9.

The CONTENTS of the THIRD PART. A farther Explication of the Nature of a SACRAMENT, with a reſolution of ſeveral Queſtions belonging thereunto, or depending more immediately upon it.

THE Nature of a Sacrament brought again under conſideration, and enquiry accordingly made concerning that inward and Spiritual Grace, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation. This laſt more particularly inſiſted upon, and as it was before reſolv'd to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, ſo a more ample account given thereupon of that Inſtitution of his, and of thoſe Commands, and Promiſes, whereof it doth conſiſt. Thoſe Commands again conſidered with reference to the ſacramental Elements, before they put on that relation, or after they are inveſted with it. The former whereof are ſhewn in the general to enjoyn the ſetting them apart for that purpoſe, or Conſecrating them, and enquiry thereupon made by whom they ought to be ſet apart, and whether their intention, or good diſpoſition be requiſite to give force unto it: The latter the Conſecrators diſpenſing them as the Inſtitutor thereof hath preſcrib'd, and the peoples receiving them from them, with the Manner of it. Ʋpon occaſion whereof Enquiry is made, concerning the neceſſity of Sacraments, and in what ſort, or degree they ought to be accounted ſuch. A like particular account given of the Promiſes of the Inſtitution, which are ſhewn in the general to aſſure Chriſt's making what is done both by the Conſecrators, and Receivers to be available for thoſe ends, for which they were enjoyn'd; More particularly his converting that into a Sacrament, which is by the former ſet apart to be ſo (and which how it is done is, upon that account, enquir'd into) and, where the Receivers are rightly diſpos'd, accompanying the diſpenſation of the Sacramental Elements with the Diſpenſation of the Divine Graces. An application of the whole to the buſineſs in hand, and Enquiry accordingly made, how the former Commands, and Promiſes contribute toward the Founding a Sacramental Relation, and how alſo to the efficacy of the elements, after that Relation is produced in them. pag. 31.

The CONTENTS of the FOURTH PART. Of the Jewiſh SACRAMENTS, and the Number of the Chriſtian.

THE Doctrine of the Sacraments drawn down to particulars, and enquiry firſt made concerning the Jewiſh Sacraments, and then concerning the Chriſtian ones. As to the former whereof is ſhewn firſt, that there were indeed ſuch Sacraments among them, and evidence made thereof, from their enjoying the ſame Saving Graces, which our Sacraments pretend to convey, from their being furniſhed alike with External Symbols to convey them, and thoſe Symbols of God, and Chriſt's inſtitution: Secondly, that thoſe Sacraments of theirs were either the extraordinary ones they had in their paſſage from Aegypt to Canaan, as their Baptiſm in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and the Euchariſt of Manna, and the Water of the Rock, or the ordinary ones of Circumciſion, and the Paſsover; Thirdly, That, though they were of the ſame general nature with the Chriſtian, yet they differ'd from them, both as to the manner of their repreſenting the Divine Graces, which was not ſo clear, and as to the meaſure of conveyance of them, which was not ſo full, as in the Chriſtian Sacraments. Thoſe Chriſtian Sacraments, in the next place, brought under conſideration, and evidence made of Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper being the only true, and proper ones, or of general neceſſity to Salvation. p. 43.

ERRATA.

PAge 35. l. 24. for under read on. p. 51. l. 11. r. As appears. p. 55. l. 7. for wherewith r. wherein.

Pag. 2. l. 33. r. dimiſit. p. 3. l. 7. praecedes. p. 16. l. 7. li. 5. p. 50. l. 3. cap. 3. p. 54. l. 3. 2 Tim. 1.1.6.

OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL.
PART I. Of the Signification of the Word SACRAMENT. The Contents.

The Word Sacrament, in the primitive notion of it, the name of the Military Oath, as well that, which came to be afterwards impos'd, as that which was at firſt voluntarily taken by the Souldiers. Which denomination it had both from the ſacredneſs of an Oath in its own Nature, and from thoſe Sacred Ceremonies, wherewith that, and other Oaths were attended. The Word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian ſenſe of it, tranſlated from thence into the Church, and applied to thoſe Inſtitutions of it, which now go under that name. As is made appear from the footing the former ſignification had gotten in the World; From the Scriptures, and the Ancient Chriſtians repreſenting the Life and Inſtitution of a Chriſtian under the notion of a Military one; And, in fine, from the ſame Antients making uſe of that Word in the Military ſenſe. Evidence of this laſt from general applications of it, and an account given thereupon of the particular inſtances, which they gave of the likeneſs of the Chriſtian Sacrament to the purely Military one.

IF it ſhall pleaſe that God, Queſtion. How many Sacraments hath Chriſt ordained in his Church? Anſwer. Two only, as generally neceſſary to Salvation, that is to ſay, Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord. by whom I have been carried on thus far, to continue to me the ſame Health, and Leiſure, and Aſſiſtances, which I have met with in compoſing the three foregoing parts of this Explication, I will endeavour to inform my ſelf, and then others concerning the Sacraments of our Religion, more particularly concerning thoſe two, which (in the opinion of our Church) are the only either proper Art. of Rel. 25., or generally neceſſary Catech. ubi ſupra. ones. Thoſe, as they are the Argument of the fourth and laſt Part of our Churches Carechiſm; ſo being accordingly to be the matter of this fourth and laſt Part of my Explication of it,

I will begin, for that purpoſe, with the ſignification of the word Sacrament, and which, though it will not clear up to us the full Nature of the things intended by it, yet will ſerve to diſcover to us a conſiderable part thereof, and help toward the finding out of the other. Now the word Sacrament, in the Antient intendment of it, ſignified an Oath, and particularly that Oath, which Souldiers took to be faithful to their Generals, and to do all thoſe other things which the duty of their place, or the Diſcipline of War required of them: With this only difference in point of time (which is wont either to contract, or enlarge the ſignification of words) that as that Oath was at firſt voluntarily taken by the Souldiers, ſo the word Sacrament was ſome time ſet to denote ſuch voluntary ones in contradiſtinction to thoſe, which were afterwards impos'd. We have an illuſtrious proof of all this in a paſſage of Livy Hiſt. lib. 22. Milites tunc, quod nunquam antea factum erat, jurejurando à Tribunis militum adacti, juſſu Conſulum conventuros, neque injuſſu abituros. Nam ad eam diem nil praeter Sacramentum fuerat, & ubi ad decuriatum, aut centuriatum conveniſſent, ſuâ voluntate ipſi inter ſe equites decuriati, centuriati pedites conjurabant, ſeſe fugae, atque formidinis ergô, non abituros, neque ex ordine receſſuros, niſi teli ſumendi, aut petendi, ant boſtis feriendi, aut civis ſervandi caus . Id ex voluntario inter ipſos foedere ad legitimam jurisjurandi adactionem tranſlatum., which therefore I ſhall here ſubjoyn. Then firſt (even in the Conſulſhip of L. Aemilius Paulus, and Terentius Varro) were the Souldiers oblig'd by their Tribunes under an Oath to meet together at the command of their Confuls, and not to depart without their leave. For till that time there had been nothing but a Sacrament, and when they were met together by Tens, or by Hundreds, the Horſemen, who met by Tens, and the Footmen, who met by Hundreds, did, of their own proper motion, take an Oath among themſelves, that they would not depart out of fear, or cowardice, nor quit their ranks at any time, unleſs it were to take up their Weapon, to dart at, or ſtrike the Enemy, or to ſave a Citizen. But that which proceeded at firſt from a voluntary Covenant among themſelves, was by the Tribunes altered into a preſcribed, and impoſed Oath, and the Souldiers forc'd to take it from them. Where we have not only the word Sacrament ſet to denote a Souldier's Oath, but ſuch an Oath, as was voluntarily taken by them, and had rather their own free conſent, than the Command of their General to give being to it. But as we find by the ſame paſſage, that what was at firſt but voluntary, came afterwards to be impoſed upon the Souldiers; ſo we find alſo that the word Sacrament came afterwards to ſignifie thoſe impoſed Oaths, as well as the former voluntary ones. For thus it is plain, Cicero De Officiis li. 1. M. Popillius Imperator tenebat provinciam, in cujus exercitu Catonis filius tiro militabat. Quum autem Popillio videretur unam dimittere Legionem, Catonis quoque filium, qui in eadem legione militabat, demiſit. Sed quum amore pugnandi in exercitu remanſiſſet, Cato ad Popillium ſcripſit, ut ſi eum pateretur in exercitu remanere ſecundo eum obligaret Militiae Sacramento, quia, priore amiſſo, jure pugnart cum hoſtibus non poterat. uſed it in the account he gives of Cato's writing to Popillius a General of the Romans, to liſt his Son anew, if he thought good to continue him in his Army; His words, as Tully recites them, being, that if Popillius, who had before diſmiſs'd the Legion, wherein he ſerv'd, thought good to ſuffer young Cato to abide in his Army, he ſhould oblige, or bind him by a ſecond military Sacrament, becauſe the former being made void, he could not lawfully fight with the Enemy. Which paſſage plainly imports the military Sacrament to be of the Generals Impoſing, yea ſo neceſſarily, that had not the General, in whom the right of making War was, given it to young Cato, he could not, in the opinion of his Father have ſtruck a ſtroke againſt the Enemy. Thus the uſe of the word Sacrament ſtood in the days immediately preceding our Saviour; And as the thing intended by it, even the Military Oath, was continued in the ſucceeding Ages, as is manifeſt from the frequent mention there is in Suetonius Suet. in Claud. c. 9. in Othone c. 8. & alibi paſſim., and others of the Souldiers ſwearing to their Generals, ſo it continu'd to be repreſented under the title of a Sacrament, even to late poſterity. As appears, among other things, from Horace's telling

— non ego perfidum Dixi Sacramentum, ibimus, ibimus Ʋtcunque procedes.

Carm. li. 2. Od. 17.

his Mecaenas, that he had not taken a perfidious Sacrament, becauſe (as it there follows) he was reſolv'd to follow him, where ever he led, which we knowDionyſ. Halicarnaſſ. li. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . to have been a great part of a Souldiers Oath: From Juvenal's deſcribing Souldiers Praemia nunc alia, atque alia emolumenta notemus Sacramentorum— Sat. 16. themſelves under the title of Sacramenta; As in fine from the Antients deſcribing Souldiers either departing, or being freed from their former ſervice, by a departure, or freedom from their Sacrament. Of which beſide other proofs Ammianus Marcellinus li. 24. Refiduos duos Tribunos Sacramento ſolvit, ut deſides, & ignavos. Idem li. 26. Et Serenianus, olim Sacramento digreſſus, recinctus eſt., we have a Law of Theodoſius, and Honorius, and which as it is under the title de Veteranis, or ſuch as, by reaſon of their being ſuperannuated, were diſmiſs'd from their former ſervice, ſo expreſſeth the ſame Veteranes under the title of thoſe who have ceaſed Cod. li. 12. tit. 47. l. 4. Nullus eorum qui Sacramentis inhaerere deſierit, &c. to be entangled by their former Sacraments. Other inſtances I doubt not might be produced, if theſe were not enough, to ſhew the word Sacrament to have had for its moſt uſual ſenſe that of a military Oath. But I ſhall only add, that though it were ſet to denote alſo a piece of money left by each of the Litigants Varro de lingua Lat. in Court; Yet as that was in a thing leſs known, than the Oaths of Souldiers were, and ſo the leſs likely to have any influence upon the framing of that mode of Speech, which was afterwards ſo much in uſe among the Chriſtians; ſo it had this in common with the Military Sacrament, that it was an Obligation upon the parties, that depoſited it, to proſecute that ſuit which they had commenced.

But becauſe whatever the uſual ſenſe of the word Sacrament might antiently be, yet it is certain that it did not receive that ſenſe from the literal notation of it, but rather from ſomething of Sacredneſs, wherewith thoſe Oaths were attended: And becauſe the diſcovery of that Sacredneſs may help yet more to diſcover the true nature of thoſe Sacraments of ours, to which that name is now applied; therefore enquire we in the next place what there was in them of Sacred to occaſion that denomination of them. Now as Sacred is nothing elſe than what tends to the honour of God, whether in its own nature, or by inſtitution; ſo there were two things of that quality in thoſe Oaths, whereof we ſpeak, and from whence therefore they may be ſuppos'd to have receiv'd that denomination. Firſt their being in themſelves an acknowledgment of Gods glorious Attributes, and particularly of his Knowledge, Truth, Juſtice, and Power; He who appeals to God as a Witneſs, and a Judge (as every man, that ſweareth doth) implying his believing him to be a competent witneſs, and ſo both Knowing, and True, and one too, who both can, and will aſſert the cauſe of truth in the puniſhment of the party ſwearing, if he ſwear any other, than what he intends, or means. And in this ſenſe as it was that Cicero De Offic. l. 3. Eſt. enim jusjurandum Affirmatio religioſa. Quod autem affirmatè, quaſi Deo teſte, promiſeris, id tenendum eſt. entitled an Oath a Religious Affirmation, becauſe an Affirmation under the teſtimony of God; ſo I no way doubt it was in a great meaſure, that Oaths came to have the name of Sacraments, and particularly all Military ones. But beſides that Sacredneſs which is intrinſecal to all Oaths, and therefore alſo to thoſe, whereof we are now diſcourſing; They had a further ſacredneſs from thoſe religious Rites, wherewith they were attended, and which under the veil of ſenſible things, and ſuch as were ſometime contemptible enough, were intended to inſinuate more valuable, and ſpiritual ones. Of this nature among the Romans was their laying their handsFalfus erit teſtis, vendet perjuria ſummâ Exiguâ, Cereris tangens aram que pedem que Juv. Sat. 14. upon the Altars of their Gods, or, which was yet more ſacred than that, their taking a Stone Feſtus. Lapidem ſilicem tenebant, juraturi per Jovem, haec verba dicentes; Siſciens fallo, tum me Dieſpiter, falvâ urbe, arceque, bonis ejiciat, uti ego hunc lapidem. into their hand, and then throwing it from them, withall praying, that if they falſified in the Oath they then took, Jupiter would throw them out of all, as they themſelves did that Stone from them: By the former whereof they deſign'd to expreſs the reverence they themſelves bare even to things dedicated to them, as well as a belief of their Gods taking care to preſerve them from all pollution; By the latter the quick apprehenſion they had of the power of their Gods over them, and particularly as to the ſpoiling them of their fortunes. And though I am not able to ſay, what were the particular rites of the Military Oath, at leaſt among the Antient Romans; yet as there is reaſon enough to believe, that ſo ſignal an Oath was not without them, and which was upon the matter the foundation of all the Roman greatneſs, ſo there is this farther reaſon to believe it, that the AntientsVulgat. Lat. in Eph. 5.32. & alibi. Tertull. de Animâ c. 20. ubi recitat d. l. ad Epheſios. made uſe of the word Sacramentum to expreſs the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and which as we know to have had a peculiar reference to thoſe Rites, and Ceremonies, which were in uſe in the ſervice of the Gods, ſo muſt conſequently imply the like ſenſe of that word, which was made uſe of to expreſs it, and the like ceremoniouſneſs of thoſe Military Oaths, upon which it was impos'd. I may not forget to add, though appli'd by ſomeIſ. Caſaub. Exercit. 16. c. 43. to another ſenſe, that Herodian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Herod. l. 8. brings in the Emperor Maximus repreſenting the Military Oath as the Venerable myſterie of the Roman Empire. For as that is a farther evidence, that that Oath was not without its Sacred Rites, becauſe myſteries properly ſo called were no other, than ſuch; ſo I know nothing to take off the force of it, but a preſumption of the word's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 admitting a lower ſenſe, and accordingly denoting no more than an Arcanum, or Secret of the Roman State, and by which the Founders thereof cunningly rais'd it to that greatneſs, to which it afterwards arriv'd. But how ill that notion agrees with the intention of him, who ſo entitled the Military Oath, will need no other proof than his prompting the Souldiers in the words before to look upon the Gods, by whom they had ſworn, as the Authors of their preſent peace. For what was this but to intimate, that it was the religious obſervation of their Oaths, which was the cauſe of their proſperity, and conſequently, that if thoſe Oaths were alſo the foundation, and prop of the Roman greatneſs, it was not ſo much by the politick impoſition of them, as by the ſacredneſs thereof, and by the religious obſervation of which the Gods were induc'd to bleſs them with that ample dominion, which they had attain'd? In this ſenſe yet more agreeably to the receiv'd opinion Cicero Orat. de Haruſp. Reſp. —Etenim quis eſt tam vecors, qui aut, cum ſuſpexerit in coelum, deos eſſe non ſentiat, &c. Aut, cum deos eſſe intellexerit, non intelligat eorum numine hoc totum Imperium eſſe natum, & auctum, & retentum? Quàm volûmus licet P. C. ipſi nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hiſpanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique boc ipſo ejus gentis, ac terrae domeſtico, nativoque ſenſu Italos ipſos, ac Latinos, ſed pietate, ac religione, &c. omnes gentes, nationeſque ſuperavimus. of the Romans, becauſe attributing their ſucceſs, not ſo much to their own Wit, and Valour as to their religious veneration of the Gods, and thoſe Gods as having a favourable regard to them becauſe of it. If they look'd upon the Military Sacrament, and the Souldiers religious obſervation of it as contributing more eſpecially to the advancing of their greatneſs, it is the leſs to be wondred at, becauſe it was more immediately by the Arms of their Souldiers, that the Romans became maſters of the World. The reſult of the premiſes is this; The word Sacrament, in its Original intendment, had the ſignification of a Military Oath, it had the ſignification of ſuch a Military Oath, as was attended with Sacred Rites, and ſuch as led men by ſenſible reſemblances to things of a higher nature. But whether or no, and how far it is to be look'd upon as of the like ſignification, in the Chriſtian intendment of it, doth not as yet appear, but will be worth our labour to enquire.

Now that the word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian intendment of it, is to be look'd upon as of like ſignification to what it had before acquir'd, will appear if we conſider firſt, what footing the former ſignification had gotten in the minds of men, before there was any appearance of the latter. For as conſidering the footing the former ſignification had gotten, we cannot but think that it would be apt to ſuggeſt it ſelf, as oft as the word Sacrament was made uſe of; ſo neither therefore but that it would form a like conceit of the Chriſtian Sacraments, and conſequently, if that were ſuch, an erroneous one. Which it being not to be thought, that they would give occaſion to, who firſt appli'd the word to the Chriſtian Sacraments; eſpecially when they might have had other words to expreſs their conception of them: It is but reaſonable to think that they made uſe of it upon occaſion of ſome likeneſs between the one and the other Sacraments, and conſequently that they intended it a like ſignification with the other. I deny not indeed (which is the anſwer Mr. Calvin Inſtit. li. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. makes to this Argument in another inſtance) I deny not, I ſay, but that religion may, and doth very often ſtrangely alter words from their priſtin ſignification; I deny not farther (which is the inſtance he aſſigns) that the word fides, in the Chriſtian uſe of it, is both a very apt, and pregnant proof of ſuch a change. But as it doth not appear to me, that Religion did ever (unleſs in a long tract of time) ſo alter the known ſignification of words, as not to make them bear ſome analogy to the former ſignification of them; ſo the Word, in which that Learned man inſtanceth, is not ſo transform'd by Chriſtianity, but that we may as yet ſee upon it the impreſs of its old ſignification, and be thereby therefore induced to believe, that they, who firſt uſed it in a Chriſtian ſenſe, took their meaſures from the former one. For, as the aforeſaid perſons name-ſake (even John Calvin the Lawyer) hath obſerv'dLex. Juridic. in Verbo fides. , the word fides, among the Latins, ſignified belief Virgil. Aeneid. li. 4. v. 12.

Credo equidem, nec vana fides, genus eſſe deorum.

Liv. Hiſt. li. 1.

Haec ferme, Romulo regnante, domi, militiaeque geſta: quorum nil abſonum fidei divinae originis, divinitatiſque poſt mortem creditae fuit, i. e. quâ creditus eſt natus fuiſſe ex Marte.

Idem Liv. paulo poſt.

Mirum quantum illi viro nuncianti haec fides fuerit.

, as well as veracity, or fidelity, and ſo was not at all removed from one great ſenſe of it in Chriſtianity: And though it was more uſually ſet to denote the other, yet if we may judge ought by the words fido, and confido, which are at leaſt of the ſame linage with it, the word fides came to ſignifie veracity, and fidelity, not ſo much from any other reaſon, as becauſe thoſe vertues are the juſt object of mens truſt, which is another, and no leſs uſual ſignification of it in Chriſtianity. Which notion I am the more confirmed in, becauſe though Tully do in one place De Offic. li. 1. Ex quo (quanquam hoc videbitur fortaſſe cuipiam durius) tamen audeamus imitari Stoicos, qui ſtudioſe inquirunt unde verba ſint ducta; credamuſque quia fiat quod dictum eſt, appellatam fidem. repreſent it as having its name from fit quod dicitur, yet as he doth even there intimate it to be a harſh etymology, and rather a piece of Stoical confidence, than a well grounded conjecture: So he himſelf elſewhereFides autem ut habeatur, duabus rebus effici poteſt, ſi exiſtimabimur adepti conjunctam cum juſtitiâ prudentiam. Nam & iis fidem habemus, quos plus intelligere, quam nos arbitramur. Juſtis autem, & fidis hominibus, id eſt viris bonis, ita fides habetur, ut nulla ſit in his fraudis, injuriaeque ſuſpicio. De Offic. 2. uſeth the word Fides for that truſt we repoſe in another upon the account of his wiſdom, and juſtice. For ought therefore that doth as yet appear, there is not any reaſon to believe, but that Chriſtianity had a reſpect, in it's words, to the Antient ſignification of them; And conſequently but that it had ſo in the uſe of the word Sacrament, and intended it a like ſignification with that, which it before had, and was now very prevalent in the world. But beſide the footing that ſignification of it had gotten, and by which therefore we may reaſonably imagine, that the firſt Chriſtians guided themſelves in the uſe of the ſame word in Chriſtianity, it is as certain that the ſame perſons, led thereto by the language of the Scripture, did both conceive of, and repreſent the life, and inſtitution of a Chriſtian under the notion of a Military one. For if ſo, it is yet more reaſonable to think, that they made uſe of their Sacrament to expreſs ſome of their own Inſtitutions by. Now that the firſt Chriſtians, led thereto by the language of the Scripture, did both conceive of, and repreſent the Chriſtian ſtate as a Military one, will ſoon appear if we look either into thoſe Scriptures, or the Antient Writers. Witneſs for the former, St. Paul's ſpeaking in one1 Cor. 9.26. place of his fighting as one, that did not beat the air, and in another2 Tim. 4.7. of his having fought a good fight; his calling upon Timothy in a third1 Tim. 6.12. to fight the good fight of Faith, as, in fine, upon the generality of ChriſtiansEph. 6.11, &c. to prepare themſelves for that fight, by putting on the whole Armour of God, which therefore he doth there reckon up, and prompts them to buckle on. For theſe, and other expreſſions of the like nature, ſhow plainly enough, that even the Penmen of the New Teſtament had that opinion of a Chriſtian State, and that accordingly they repreſented it under the notion of a military one. The like evidence there is of their opinion of it, who took upon them to hand down that doctrine, which they receiv'd from the other: Witneſs Tertullian's repreſenting the Chriſtians in general as the Militia of GodDe orat. c. 14. , and affirming the Stations, that were in uſe among them, to have had their original from the Military ones; His repreſenting that Souldier, who refuſed to put on his Crown, as more the Souldier of God De coronâ c. 1. , than of the Emperor; His afterwards deſcribing the ſame perſonIbid. as one clad all in red with the hope of his own blood, ſhod with the preparation of the Goſpel, girt with the ſharper Word of God, armed Cap-a-pe out of the Apoſtle, and in a ſhort time to be crowned with the Crown of Martyrdom, and to receive the donative of Chriſt in priſon. For what are theſe but pregnant proofs of the likeneſs they conceived between a Chriſtian, and a Military ſtate, and conſequently that, in agreement thereto, they ſpake of their own Sacraments in the ſame Military ſtrain? Though if neither that will ſuffice, we have their own expreſs applications of the word to warrant us, and accordingly either making the Sacraments a badge of their military ſtate, or arguing from mens taking upon them the Sacraments of Chriſt's warfare, the unlawfulneſs of obliging themſelves by a humane one. For, agreeably to the former of theſe, we find the forequoted Tertullian affirmingVocati ſumus ad militiam Dei vivi, jam tunc cum in Sacramenti verba reſpondimus. Ad Martyr. c. 3. , that we were called even then to the Militia of God, when we anſwered to the words of the Sacrament, meaning that of Baptiſm; As Arnobius yet more plainly Adv. Gentes li. 2. Quod ab dominis ſe ſervi cruciatibus affici, quibus ſtatuerunt, malunt, ſolvi conjuges Matrimoniis, exhaeredari à parentibus liberos, quam fidem numpere Chriſtianam, & ſalutaris militiae Sacramenta deponere., where he repreſents one, who denies the Faith, as one who depoſits the Sacraments of the ſaving Militia of God. For what was this but to ſay, that, in reſpect to that warfare, which Chriſtianity commands us to take up, they call'd the principal inſtitutions of it by the name of Sacraments, and conſequently that they made uſe of the word in a ſenſe analogous to that, in which it had been formerly taken? On the other ſide, when the forementioned Tertullian De Coronâ. c. 11. Etenim, ut ipſam cauſam coronae militaris aggrediar, puto prius conquirendum, an in totum Chriſtianis militia conveniat. Quale eſt alioquin de accidentibus retractare, cum à praecedentibus culpa ſit? Credimuſne humanum Sacramentum divino ſuperinduci licere, & in alium Dominum reſpondere poſt Chriſtum?, where he goes about to prove the unlawfulneſs of a Chriſtians taking upon him a Military life, demands whether any man can think it lawful to ſuperinduce a humane, or Military Sacrament upon a divine one, and to anſwer to another Maſter after Chriſt; What other can he be thought to mean, than that the divine, and humane Sacraments were of one, and the ſame general nature, that the divine Sacraments had therefore the name of the humane ones impos'd upon them, and ſo the word Sacrament of like ſignification in them both. The only thing to be farther enquired into is how far this likeneſs of ſignification may be ſuppoſed to prevail in the divine or Chriſtian intendment of it.

And here in the firſt place it is eaſie to obſerve, that the word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian intendment of it, did equally imply the thing, to which it was attributed to lay an Obligation upon him, that took it, to intend thoſe things, to which it related. For beſides that otherwiſe it could have had little affinity with the Military Sacrament, the principal deſign whereof was to lay an Obligation upon thoſe, that took it; The firſt time we find any mention made of a Chriſtian Sacrament, we find mention alſo madePlin. Epiſt. li. 10. ep. 97. of the Chriſtians obliging themſelves by it, to the doing of thoſe things, that are there remembred. It is no leſs eaſie to ſee, ſecondly, by the account we before gave of the Symbolizing of our Sacraments with the Military one, and particularly by a paſſage before remembred out of Tertullian, that the ſame word, in the Chriſtian ſenſe of it, did equally imply the things, to which it was attributed, to lay an Obligation upon thoſe, that took them, to intend that warfare, to which Chriſtianity called them. I add thirdly, as no leſs evident from the premiſes, the ſame words implying the things, to which it was attributed, to oblige the party, that took them, to be faithful to their General Chriſt, and who was the Captain, as well as the Author of our Spiritual warfare. As is evident, among other things, from Tertullian's making the divine Sacrament to be accompanied with a profeſſion of our obedience unto Chriſt our Maſter, and accordingly arguing from thence the unlawfulneſs of taking upon us the Military one, and ſo anſwering to another Maſter after him. I ſay Fourthly, that as the Military Sacrament did, among other things, oblige the party, that took it, to the avoiding of ſeveral things, which were inconſiſtent with the orderly management of an Army, and particularly to the avoiding of theft, and other ſuch like injuſtices, as appears by the form of it in Gellius Noct. Attic. li. 16. c. 4., ſo the word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian intendment of it, did equally imply that, to which it was attributed, to oblige the perſons, that took it, not to commit Theft, or Robberies Plin. Ep. li. 10. ep. 97. Adfirmabant antem hanc fuiſſe ſummam vel culpae ſuae, vel erroris, quod eſſent ſoliti ſtato die ante lucem convenire, &c. ſeque Sacramento non in ſcelus aliquod obſtringere, ſed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depoſitum appellati negarent., or Adulteries, not to falſifie their truſts, or, when they were called upon to reſtore, to deny any thing that was committed to their cuſtody. I obſerve laſtly, that as the Military Sacrament was attended with religious rites, yea received both its denomination, and a great deal of its force from them; ſo the word Sacrament, in the Chriſtian intendment of it, was meant to denote the like Religious Rites, and the Obligation of thoſe, that took the Sacrament, by them. Which is ſo true, that in Tertullian firſt, and afterwards in other Chriſtian Writers, the word Sacrament came eſpecially to be applied to the ritual part thereof, yea to ſuch things, as had little of a Sacrament properly ſo called, beſide the ceremonies thereof.

Of what uſe theſe Obſervations may be, will then more clearly appear, when I proceed (as I mean to do in the following Diſcourſe) from the ſignification of the word Sacrament to the unfolding of the nature of the things intended by it. The only uſe I ſhall make of them at preſent, is, that if we will conſider the nature of a Sacrament in its full latitude, we ought to conſider it as well with reſpect to our ſelves, and thoſe Obligations it lays upon us, as with relation to God, and Chriſt, and thoſe Graces, which it was intended, on their part, to ſignifie, or convey to the worthy Receiver of it.

PART II. Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT. The Contents.

A Sacrament ſhewn to be a Relative thing, more particularly ſuch a Relative thing, as hath the relation of an outward, and viſible ſign of that, of which it is a Sacrament. That therefore aſſign'd as the Genus of a Sacrament, and enquiry thereupon made after thoſe eſſential attributes, which difference it from other outward and viſible ſigns. Which is endeavour'd to be evinc'd from the ſeveral things to which a Sacrament relates, the manner of its relation to each of them, and the foundation of that relation. The things, to which a Sacrament relates, ſhewn in the general to be Sacred, or Divine, more particularly, divine Graces, and humane Duties, that New Covenant, which connects them together, and that body of men, which is confederated by it. To the firſt of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a ſign, a means of conveyance, and a pledge; To the ſecond in the nature of a ſimple ſign, or declaration, and (by means of that Covenant, which it conciliates) as an Obligation to them; To the third in the nature of ſuch a ſign, as ſerves alſo to give being to, or renew it; And to the fourth, and laſt in the nature of a Diſcriminative ſign, or badge, and as a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in it. The foundation of all theſe relations ſhewn to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, as that again, not ſo much as delivered by him, as applied to thoſe elements, in which they are ſubjected, by a declaration of the purport of the Inſtitution, and by doing ſuch other things to them, as either the general precepts of Chriſtianity, or the more particular precepts of the inſtitution oblige to the performance of. A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars, and the eſſential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence, and exemplified in ſeveral definitions of it.

I Have hitherto entreated of the ſignification of the word Sacrament,

Queſtion. What meaneſt thou by this word Sacrament?

Anſwer. I mean an outward, and viſible ſign of an inward, and ſpiritual Grace given unto us, ordained by Chriſt himſelf as a means, whereby we receive the ſame, and a pledge to aſſure us thereof.

I have ſhewn what they meant by it, who firſt made uſe of it, and what they alſo intended, who firſt applied it to thoſe Chriſtian Inſtitutions, which are now commonly known by that name. But becauſe no names are ſo expreſſive of the nature of things, as to bring men to a clear, and perfect underſtanding of them: And becauſe, though ſome names ſhould be thought to be ſo expreſſive, yet we cannot well conceive ſo of this, by any thing that hath hitherto appeared concerning the ſignification of it; Therefore to ſatisfie our ſelves yet more fully concerning the nature of the thing intended by it, we muſt take another courſe, and particularly by finding out under what head of things it ought to be placed, and what are the eſſential attributes thereof: Whereof the former among the Learned hath the name of its Genus, the latter of the ſpecifical difference thereof.

It is the obſervation of the Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. li. 5. ſect. 57., where he entreats of the nature, and neceſſity of the Sacraments, that as no one part of religion hath been more diverſly interpreted, or diſputed of, ſo that diverſity hath eſpecially ariſen from the mixedneſs of their natures, and from that variety of properties, which flow from it. Which therefore whilſt they, who handled this Argument, have but imperfectly conſidered, they have not only taken up different notions of a Sacrament, but thought themſelves obliged to combat thoſe, who have aſſigned it other properties, than what they themſelves had taken notice of. I find no reaſon to queſtion the truth of that Obſervation of his, either as to the variety of mens conceits concerning a Sacrament, or that mixt nature of a Sacrament, to which he entitles the variety of the other. But neither the one, nor the other will hinder us from diſcovering, under what head of things to place it, which is that we are firſt of all to intend. For whether we conſider a Sacrament, as to Chriſt, or to our ſelves, as a means in his hands to profit us, or in ours to declare our piety toward him; Whether again we conſider it, in the hands of Chriſt, as a means whereby he ſignifies, and ſeals his own graces, or as a means whereby he conveys, as well as either ſignifies, or ſeals them; Yet ſtill it will be found to be in the number of relative things, or ſuch, whoſe very being conſiſts in the reſpect they bear unto another: Becauſe, whatever it may be in it ſelf, yet it is not conſidered as ſuch, but with reſpect to that Grace of Chriſt, which it ſo ſignifies, or ſeals, or exhibits, or with reſpect to that piety, which it is intended on our part to declare. But ſo the Scriptures themſelves will oblige us to conſider a Sacrament, as is evident from what they teach concerning Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, which are, if not the only, yet the moſt undoubted Sacraments of our Religion. For, agreeably thereto, they prompt us to conſider the water of Baptiſm1 Pet. 3.21., not as putting away the filth of the Fleſh (which is the proper conſideration of water, as ſuch) but as waſhing us from Act. 22.16. our ſins, and purifying thoſe conſciences 1 Pet. 3.21., wherein they are; As, on the other fide, the Bread, and Wine of the Lord's Supper, not as intended to ſatisfie 1 Cor. 11.34. our hunger, but asMatt. 26.26, &c. the body, and blood of Chriſt, or rather the communication 1 Cor. 10.16. of it. For well may we look upon thoſe things as relative ones, which we are not only forbidden to conſider in their natural properties, but prompted to attribute to them the properties of others, yea to conſider in the ſame notion with them. I ſay ſecondly, that as a Sacrament is a relative thing, and that therefore to be reputed as the remote Genus of it, ſo it is of the number of thoſe relative ones, which are ſigns, or repreſentations of what they ſo relate unto. As is evident in part from what we were before taught concerning the water of Baptiſm, and will be yet more, when I come to ſhew the Analogy there is between the elements of each Sacrament, and that, to which they do relate. For if the water of Baptiſm, (though not to be conſidered as to any proper purification, yet) is to be conſidered under the notion of a Laver Tit. 3 5., and accordingly as waſhing Act. 22.16. thoſe who are ſprinkled with it, from their ſins, then ought it to be look'd upon under the notion of a ſign of that, to which it doth ſo relate. Becauſe whatever force the Baptiſmal water may have toward the doing away our ſins, yet it cannot be ſuppoſed, becauſe ſin is no corporal ſpot, to waſh us from them; And that term of waſhing therefore attributed to it upon the account of the Analogy there is between the property of water conſidered in its own nature, and that of the ſame water as conſecrated into a Sacrament. Which will conſequently make the water of Baptiſm, (and, by proportion thereto, the elements of other Sacraments) not only to have a relation to ſomething of another nature, but alſo to be a ſign, or repreſentation of it. I ſay nothing at preſent of a Sacrament's being a means of conveying ſomething to us, as well as a ſign of it, and a pledge to aſſure us of it, as well as either; Partly, becauſe that, which hath the nature of a ſign, may alſo be made uſe of as a means of conveyance, and a pledge; And partly becauſe the firſt intention of a Sacrament is to ſignifie that, of which it is ſo, and that therefore by which it comes to do ſo, more commodiouſly aſſigned as the Genus of it. And I ſhall only add, that foraſmuch as a ſign is nothing elſe, than that, which offers it ſelf to the ſenſes, and that, of which it is a ſign, to the underſtanding; Foraſmuch therefore as it muſt be ſubjected in ſome ſenſible being, and (if it be alſo a formal ſign, or that which repreſents the thing, of which it is ſo) in ſuch a being, as is apparent to the eyes; Foraſmuch laſtly as Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper (which are, at leaſt, the moſt conſiderable Sacraments of our Religion) are ſubjected in ſuch ſenſible, yea viſible beings; It cannot but be deemed reaſonable, for the more clear declaring of the nature of a Sacrament, to repreſent it (as our Catechiſm doth) as an outward, and viſible one.

That therefore being to be looked upon as the Genus of a Sacrament, or that general head of things, under which we are to conceive of it; Enquire we in the next place after the eſſential attributes thereof, and by which it will not only be more perfectly known what it is, but alſo be more clearly diſcriminated from thoſe things, which are of the ſame general nature. Now as the eſſence of a relative thing conſiſts in the relation it bears to another, and that relative thing therefore, whereof we ſpeak, in the relation which it bears to that, of which it is a ſign; So the eſſential attributes of a Sacrament cannot therefore be better learned, than by the knowledge of thoſe things, to which it doth relate, the manner of its relation to them, and the foundation of it.

I. In the general I obſerve, that that, to which a Sacrament relates, muſt be ſomething Sacred, or Divine, as both the term of Sacrament, and the known nature of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper perſwade. Which is the rather to be remarked, to diſtinguiſh it from ſuch ſigns, as relate to civil matters, and particularly from the purely military Sacrament. For though even that had a relation to God, as whoſe name it did invoke, and to whoſe truth, and juſtice it did appeal; yet it referr'd to God rather as a witneſs of what it affirmed, than as to the object of it. For the object of a Military Sacrament was no other than the being faithful to thoſe Generals, under which the Souldiers, that took that Sacrament, were.

I obſerve more particularly, that as that may be termed Sacred, or Divine, which hath God either for its principle, or object, and accordingly flows from him to us, or paſſeth from as to him; ſo a Sacrament relates both to the one, and the other, and ought to be looked upon as ſuch. That a Sacrament relates to that, which flows from God to us, is a thing neither denyed, nor forgotten by any, and is evident from what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper. Witneſs, for the former, their repreſenting Baptiſm as the laver Tit. 3.5. of Regeneration, which is a thing we muſt have from GodJoh. 3.5., and as a thing, by which we muſt obtain forgiveneſs of ſins Act. 2.38., which is as undoubtedlyExpl. of the Lords Pr. forgive us, &c. another. For the latter, the ſame Scriptures requiring us to look upon the elements thereof, as that body of Chriſt, which was Luk. 22.19. given for us, and that blood which was ſhed for manyMatt. 26.28., for the forgiveneſs of ſins. For as theſe, and the former benefits are ſuch as manifeſtly come from God, ſo they are alike manifeſtly repreſented as the conſequents of the former Sacraments, and a Sacrament therefore, as ſuch, to be looked upon as having a relation to that, which flows from God to us. The only difficulty, in my opinion, is to ſhew a Sacrament to relate equally to that, which paſſeth from us to God, and imports our duty, and ſervice. But beſides that the Antients apprehended no ſuch difficulty in it, becauſe giving it the title of a Sacrament, in reſpect of that Obligation See the prec. Diſc., which it lays upon the Receivers of it; The Scriptures have ſaid enough concerning Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper, to confirm us in the belief of this relation of them. Only becauſe I would not too much anticipate my Diſcourſe concerning thoſe Sacraments, and, beſide that, may have another occaſion to ſpeak more largely to this Argument, I will content my ſelf at preſent with what St. Peter hath obſerv'd of Baptiſm1 Pet. 3.21., and which I have elſewhereExplic. of the Prel. Queſt. and Anſwers, &c. given a more particular account of. For if, as that Apoſtle inſinuates, and hath accordingly been more largely confirmed, the ſtipulation or anſwer of a good conſcience toward God be a conſiderable part of Baptiſm; If it be ſo conſiderable a part of it, as to give it much of that ſavingneſs which it hath; Then muſt that Sacrament be thought (becauſe the ſtipulation of a good Conſcience is of that nature) to relate to ſomething, that muſt come from us, as well as to thoſe things, which flow from God to us. It is true indeed that our Church, where it ſets it ſelf to define a Sacrament, takes no notice of this object of it; Whether it were through a ſimple inadvertency, and from which our Church doth no where pretend it ſelf to be free, or (which I rather think) that it might give ſo much the more particular an account of that other, and more conſiderable object of it, even that inward, and Spiritual Grace, which it was intended to ſignifie, and exhibit, and aſſure. For that our Church did not wholly forget this ſecond object of a Sacrament (even that duty, and ſervice of ours, which it doth equally ſignifie, and prompt us to declare) is evident from its before minding the Catechumen of his Baptiſmal vowPrelim. Queſt. and Anſw. of the Cat., and from the declaration it elſewhereOffice of Publ. Bapt. makes, that they who are to be baptized muſt alſo for their parts promiſe the renouncing of the Devil, and his works, and both Faith and Piety toward God: That, as it ſhews her to have looked upon Baptiſm as a federals rite, or ceremony, ſo that ſhe equally believed it to relate to our duty, and ſervice, as well as to thoſe divine benefits, we receive from the Author of it. Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth, and the acknowledged Doctrine of our Church, that a Sacrament relates as well to what is to paſs from us to God, as to what is to come from God to us, and that accordingly it may be ſo far forth defined, ſuch an outward, and viſible ſign, whereby we make a declaration of our piety toward God, as Mr. Calvin Inſtit. li. 4. c. 14. §. 1. hath very well obſerved.

I may not forget to add, for the farther clearing of this head, that as a Sacrament relates firſt, and chiefly to that, which paſſeth from God to us; ſo we are to conceive of that, to which it ſo relates, under the notion of a Grace given unto us, yea of an inward, and ſpiritual one. That we ought to conceive of it under the notion of a grace given unto us, is evident from thoſe Texts, which I but now made uſe of to ſhew, that a Sacrament relates to that which paſſeth from God to us. For inſtancing in ſuch things, as have the nature of benefits, and, ſo far forth therefore, are to be looked upon as Graces, or Favours, inſtancing moreover in ſuch benefits, as are manifeſtly the iſſues of the Divine Goodneſs, yea which the Scripture expreſly affirms to be given to us by him (for ſo it doth as to thatLuk. 22.19. Body of Chriſt, which is the foundation of them all) they muſt conſequently oblige us to conceive of that, to which a Sacrament relates, as a Grace given unto us. But neither will there be leſs evidence from thence, if thoſe Texts be well conſidered, that that Grace, to which a Sacrament relates, is an inward and Spiritual one. For as our Church means no other by an inward and Spiritual Grace, than that which conduceth in an eſpecial manner to the welfare of our inward man, or Spirit, (as is evident from its making the Body and Blood of Chriſt the inward, and Spiritual Grace of the Lords Supper, and which it cannot be in any other ſenſe, than that it hath ſuch an effect upon us) ſo the Texts before alledged attribute ſuch Graces to the Sacraments, as are, in that ſenſe at leaſt, inward and Spiritual ones: Witneſs their attributing to them the Graces of regeneration, and forgiveneſs, which are as it were the formal cauſes of our welfare, and the grace of Chriſts Body, and Blood, which is the meritorious cauſe thereof, and under God, and by his acceptation, in the place of an Efficient alſo.

I obſerve farther, that as a Sacrament relates to ſuch things, as have the nature of divine Graces, or humane duties; ſo thoſe graces, and duties being parts of the New Covenant, and receiving all their force from it, a Sacrament muſt conſequently relate to that New Covenant, to which they do belong, and from which they receive all their force. Of which yet if there remain any doubt, it will not be difficult to clear it from what the Scripture aſſures us concerning Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper; St. Peter 1 Pet. 3.21. repreſenting the former under the notion of a Stipulation, or Contract, as our Saviour the Cup of the otherLuk. 22.20. Matt. 26.28. as the New Covenant in his Blood for the remiſſion of thoſe ſins, for which it was ſhed. For that that is in truth the meaning of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not (as we uſually render it) the New Teſtament in it, is not only evident from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being alway ſo uſed by the Greek Tranſlatours of the Old Teſtament, and whom the Writers of the New Teſtament generally follow, but from the oppoſition, which the Scriptures of both TeſtamentsJer. 3, 31. &c. Heb. 8.8, &c. make between the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even whereHeb. 9.15-18. there is the greateſt appearance of its being to be tranſlated a Teſtament. For the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being certainly a Covenant, and accordingly expreſſed by the Hebrews, by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is never uſed in any other ſenſe, it is but reaſonable to believe, that that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is oppoſed to it, is of the ſame nature: Becauſe as it hath the ſame word to expreſs it, and is therefore in reaſon to be looked upon as ſo far the ſame; ſo it would otherwiſe be different from the Old as to its general nature, as well as particular quality, which the ſole mention of its newneſs forbids us to believe; Oppoſitions (like exceptions from a general rule) ſuppoſing an identity there, where no oppoſition is taken notice of. And indeed, though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may ſeem in one place to require a different rendering, even thereHeb. 9.17., where mention is made of its being of no force till he, by whom it was made, was dead; Yet as even that did not hinder our Tranſlatours from rendering it a Covenant both in the foregoingHeb. 8.9, &c. , and followingHeb. 10.29. Chapters, ſo that place will not only admit of the notion of a Covenant, but be found (all things conſidered) to require it of us. For with what ſenſe firſt of all can our Saviour be ſaid to be the Mediatour of the New Heb. 9.15. Teſtament, upon the ſenſe of which expreſſion the following periods do depend. And for this cauſe he is the Mediator of the New Teſtament, that, by means of death for the redemption of the Tranſgreſſions, that were under the firſt Teſtament, they, which are called, might receive the promiſe of an eternal inheritance. For ſhall we ſay that Chriſt may be ſtiled the Mediator of the New Teſtament, becauſe interpoſing himſelf between two perſons, that concurr to the making of it? But as a Teſtament is the Act of one, and not of more, and therefore admitteth not of any ſuch mediation; ſo the New Teſtament is ſuppoſed to be the Act of Chriſt, and he therefore rather the Maker, than the Mediatour of it. Shall we then ſay, that Chriſt is the Mediator of the New Teſtament, becauſe interpoſing between the maker of that Teſtament, and thoſe who are the Legatees in it? But by this means God the Father ſhall become the Teſtator, which, if death be required to make him ſuch, he can by no means be. Shall we ſay laſtly, that Chriſt may be looked upon as a Mediator of the New Teſtament, becauſe by means of that Teſtament of his taking up the difference between God, and Man? But that is rather to make him a Mediator by a Teſtament, than of one, which Chriſt is here affirmed to be. So difficult will it be found to make any tolerable ſenſe of thoſe words, if we underſtand them (as our Tranſlators prompt us) of the Mediator of a Teſtament: Whereas, if we underſtand them of the Mediator of a Covenant, the ſenſe will be clear, and plain; Becauſe as there are two parties required to the making of a Covenant, and ſuch who do, for the moſt part, need a Mediator to bring them to it; ſo God, and Man are manifeſtly the Parties of the New Covenant, and brought to enter into it by the mediation of Chriſt. If it be alſo ſaid, as it is, that the Mediator of the New Covenant brings the Parties concerned to it by his death, it is no more than will be found to be agreeable to the Eaſtern mode of making Covenants, and particularly to the manner of making that Covenant, which was of old between God, and the Iſraelites. For as that Covenant (and indeed all the kindneſs that paſſed between them) was brought about by the mediation of SacrificesExo. 24.5., and the blood of thoſe Sacrifices therefore ſtiled the blood of the Covenant Exo. 24.8., ſo Chriſt; by the blood Col. 1.19. of his Croſs brought about this New Covenant between God, and us, and ſo, as the Author to the Hebrews ſpeaks, became the Mediator of it. If it be ſaid yet farther, that Chriſt became the Mediator of the New Covenant, that they, who were called might receive the promiſe of an eternal inheritance; That alſo will be found to be as agreeable to the notion of a Covenant, as it is to that of a Teſtament: Becauſe, as an inheritance may paſs by other means beſide that of a Teſtament, ſo the Children of Iſrael came to the inheritance of the Land of Canaan by a CovenantGen. 15.7, 8, 18. between God, and their Progenitor Abraham, yea by ſuch a Covenant, as was conciliated by the mediationGen. 15.9. of a Sacrifice. That therefore being the ſenſe of thoſe words of the Apoſtle, and ſo, as I think, evinced to be by no contemptible proofs, it will be but reaſonable to give a like ſenſe to the following onesHeb. 9, 16, 17, 18., becauſe but a proof of the former, if it may be made appear, that they are capable of it. Which that they are, will appear from the Tranſlation I ſhall now ſubjoyn, and which, if it be duly conſidered, will be found to be no forced one. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. where a Covenant is, there muſt of neceſſity [even by that neceſſity which aroſe from the Antient mode of making Covenants] be the death of that Mediator, that made it. For a Covenant becomes firm after thoſe Mediators, that made it, are dead, for it is never of force, whilſt he, who ſo makes it, lives. Whereupon neither the firſt Covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moſes had ſpoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of Calves, and of Goats with water, and ſcarlet Wool, and Hyſſop, and ſprinkled both the Book, and all the people, ſaying, This is the blood of the Covenant Exo. 24.8., which God hath enjoyned unto you. That I render the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the death of the Mediator, that makes the Covenant, is becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks in the verſe before of him, who makes the Covenant, not as a Party, but as a Mediator, and what is here ſaid therefore of the Maker of a Covenant to be underſtood of ſuch a Maker of it. That I render thoſe words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for a Covenant becomes firm, after thoſe Mediators, who made it, are dead, is be cauſe thoſe words are intended as a confirmation of the former ones, and ſo in reaſon to be underſtood of the death of the ſame Mediators. In fine, that I render the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for it is never of force, whilſt he, who ſo makes it, lives, is becauſe thoſe words, as the former, are a continuation, and confirmation of the foregoing Argument, and ſo ſtill to be underſtood with reference to the ſame Mediator. All which things I have laid together, not ſo much out of a deſire of being thought the Author of a new Interpretation (from which no man is more averſe, where there is not ſome kind of neceſſity for it) but to clear up an acknowledged, and important truth, and which the Text, I have ſo long inſiſted upon, hath helped, more than any thing, to obſcure. For as there is nothing more certain from the Scripture, nor more atteſted to by our own Tranſlators, than that the diſpenſation of the Goſpel ought to be looked upon under the notion of a Covenant; As there is nothing, in like manner, of more importance to us to know, and conſider, becauſe it will prompt us to the doing of our part in the Covenant, if we mean that God ſhould do his; ſo, ſetting aſide this Text of the Hebrews, there is not one, where this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is mentioned, which will not as commodiouſly, or more be interpreted of a Covenant, than it can be thought to be of a Teſtament. Only, if ſome men ſwayed by their former prejudices, or by the Latins giving the Codex of the Old, and New Law the title of the Old, and New Teſtament Tertull. de jejun. c. 11. Secundum utriuſque Teſtamenti paraturam. (though they alſo give them the more general title of Inſtrumenta Idem Apol. c. 19. Primam Inſtrumentis iſtis auctoritatem ſumma Antiquitas vindicat. Ib. c. 21. Sed quoniam edidimus antiquiſſimis Judaeorum Inſtrumentis ſectam iſtam eſſe ſuffultam. Adv. Marc. li. 1. c. 13. Quantas autem foveas in iſta vel maxime epiſtola [ad Romanos nempe] Marcion fecerit auferendo quae voluit, de noſtri Inſtrumenti integritate parebit..) But if ſome men, I ſay, ſwayed by the one, or the other, think fit to continue to the former Text, and ſome others the notion of a Teſtament; As I ſhall not contend with them about it, for the reverence I my ſelf bear to the judgment of the Antients, ſo I ſhall ask, as is but reaſon, their acknowledging in like manner that the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do equally import a new Covenant, and particularly, where mention is made of the Cup of the Lord's Supper being the blood of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in it. Partly, becauſe that old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to which it was oppoſed, had the nature of a Covenant, and could not, unleſs very improperly, be ſtiled a Teſtament; And partly, becauſe it was not only ſealed with blood, but that blood alſo ſtiled the blood of Exo. 24.8. the Covenant. For that is enough to perſwade (eſpecially, when we otherwiſe know, that the diſpenſation of the Goſpel is undoubtedly a Covenant) that our Saviour, when he repreſented the Cup of his Laſt Supper as the blood of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , meant the blood of the New Covenant, and conſequently that that Sacrament, and the other have a relation to it.

I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning thoſe things, to which a Sacrament relates, when I have taken notice of its relating to that body of men, with whom this New Covenant is made, as well as to the Covenant it ſelf. For that it doth ſo, we have the former inſtances of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper to aſſure us, or rather what we learn from the Scriptures concerning them: St. Paul giving us to underſtand, that it is into that body, that we are baptized1 Cor. 12.13., as, in like manner, that though we be many, yet we become one bread, and that one body1 Cor. 10.17. by partaking of the bread of the other Sacrament.

II. It appearing from the premiſes, what thoſe things are, to which a Sacrament relates, and the way therefore ſo far plained toward the diſcovery of the properties thereof, enquire we in the next place into the nature of that relation, which I have affirmed it to bear unto the other. For my more advantageous diſcovery whereof I will reſume each of thoſe things, to which it doth relate, and ſhew what kind of relation it beareth to them.

Now as the firſt of thoſe things is an inward and Spiritual Grace, that is to ſay, ſuch a one as conduceth in an eſpecial manner to the welfare of our inward man, or ſpirit; ſo we ſhall find a Sacrament, as to it, to have the nature of a ſign, or viſible repreſentation of it. A thing ſo acknowledged by all, by whom the Sacraments are acknowledged in any meaſure, that it will hardly be worth our while to inſiſt upon it. It may ſuffice here to ſay, that as a ſign is ſo much of the Eſſence of a Sacrament, that it is the very Genus of it, and muſt therefore be ſuppoſed to be ſuch, as to all thoſe things to which it relates; ſo we ſhall find the Sacraments of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper to repreſent even to our eyes thoſe inward and ſpiritual graces, which are attributed to them. For thus the water of Baptiſm doth by that cleanſing quality, which is natural to it, and which, as ſuch, is a repreſentation of that ſpiritual Grace, which purgeth Heb. 9.14. the Conſcience from dead works, which are, as it were, the filth 2 Cor. 7.1., and pollution of it. And thus too the Elements of the Lord's Supper do, as by other ways, and means, ſo by that which is done unto them; The breaking of the one ſerving to ſet forth the breaking of Chriſts body upon the Croſs, as the pouring out of the other doth the ſhedding of his blood at thoſe paſſages, which were made for it by the Nails, and Spear, that pierced him.

But beſide that a Sacrament hath the relation of a ſign to that inward, and ſpiritual Grace, which belongeth to it, it hath alſo the relation of ſuch a ſign, as is moreover an apt inſtrument to convey that grace, which is ſignified by it. I inſtance, for the proof hereof, in the Scriptures attributing ſuch effects to Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, as are the immediate iſſues of thoſe graces, which are ſignified by them. For if it attribute ſuch effects to them, it muſt conſequently intimate them to be the conveyers of thoſe Graces, from whence they reſult, as which otherwiſe they could not be in a condition to produce. Now that the Scriptures attribute ſuch effects to the Sacraments before remembred, as are the immediate iſſues of thoſe graces, which are ſignified by them, will appear, as to Baptiſm, by their attributing to it a power of waſhing away Acts 22.16. the ſins of men. For whether we underſtand thereby the waſhing away their guilt, or waſhing away the pollution of them, we ſhall ſtill find it to be the immediate iſſue of an inward, and ſpiritual Grace; It being the blood of Jeſus Chriſt (as the ScripturesExplic. of the Creed in the word Dead. every where declare) that waſheth us from ſin in the former ſenſe, and the ſanctifying Graces of God's ſpiritExpl. of the Creed, in the words, I believe in the Holy Ghoſt. , which purifie us from it in the other. If therefore the Sacrament of Baptiſm may be ſaid ſo to waſh, and purifie, it muſt be as it is an Inſtrument, whereby it conveys to us thoſe graces, to which that purification doth belong. But ſo the ſame Scriptures do yet more expreſly declare, as to that other Sacrament of our Religion, even the Supper of the Lord; St. Paul telling us1 Cor. 10.16. of the bread of it, that it is the Communion, or Communication of Chriſt's body, as of the Cup that goes along with it, that it is the Communion of his blood. For what other can we well underſtand by that expreſſion of his, than that they are an inſtrument, whereby God conveys, and we accordingly come to partake of that body, and blood of Chriſt, which is ſignified by them? This only would be added, for the clearer Explication of it, that when were preſent the Sacrament as an inſtrument, whereby God conveys to us that grace, which is ſignified by it, we do not mean thereby that it is a natural one, or ſuch as contains that grace in it, as a Veſſel doth liquor, or a cauſe its effect, but rather (as the Judicious Hookes Eccl. Pol. li. 5. ſect. 57. ſpeaks) as a moral inſtrument thereof; That is to ſay, as ſuch a one, to the uſe whereof God hath made a promiſe of his grace, and which accordingly he will accompany with the exhibition of the other.

I deny not indeed but there are, who are otherwiſe perſwaded, and who accordingly either attribute a greater efficacy to a Sacrament, or deny even that, which we have attributed to it. Of the former ſort are they, who not contented to affirm that a Sacrament is an inſtrument, whereby God conveys grace to the worthy receiver of it, do moreover repreſent it under the notion of a Phyſical one, yea of ſuch a Phyſical one, as contains grace in it, as a cauſe doth its effect, and accordingly contributes by its own internal force to the producing of it, as well as to the poſſeſſing us thereof. Even as a Chezil (for ſo theyHiſt. of Counc. of Trent li. 2. explain themſelves) contributes to the formation of a Statue, or as a Hatchet to that Bed,Aquin. ſum. Part. 3. Qu. 62. Art. 1. which is ſhaped by it. But as it appears by Aquinas Ibid., who was it may be the firſt framer of it, that that conceit had its original from the fear of making a Sacrament to be nothing but a bare ſign of grace, contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers; ſo nothing more therefore can be neceſſary toward the overthrowing of it, than to ſhew the groundleſneſs of that fear, which the doctrine before deliver'd will ſufficiently evince. For if it be but a moral inſtrument, whereby God conveys his own graces, it is certainly more than a ſign, yea it may, in ſome ſenſe, be ſaid to be a cauſe, as well as the inſtrument thereof. For as they, who attribute to a Sacrament the efficacy of a cauſe, make it to be no farther a cauſe of grace, than that it produceth in the Soul a diſpoſitionHiſt. of Counc. of Trent li. 2. to receive it (by which means it is not ſo much the cauſe of grace, as of our receiving it) ſo ſuch a kind of cauſality will be found to belong to it, though we make a Sacrament to be no other than a means whereby we attain it: Becauſe it is ſo far forth by the force of a Sacrament, that grace comes to be in us, that without that we cannot ordinarily hope to attain it, nor fear to fail of it, where the other is duly receiv'd. The only difference as to this particular between the one, and the other opinion, is, that whereas the former makes a Sacrament to diſpoſe us to the reception of Grace, as well as to convey it; The latter ſuppoſeth that diſpoſition already produc'd, and conſequently leaves no place for the former operation. In that reſpect yet more agreeably to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, becauſe not only pre-requiring certain qualificationsAct. 8.36, 37. 1 Cor. 11.20. of thoſe, that are to receive it, but aſſuring them, that if they come ſo qualifi'd, they ſhall not failMark. 16.16. Act. 2.38. of that grace, which the Sacrament was intended to convey; Theſe and the like aſſertions, as they ſuppoſe the Soul to be before diſpos'd, ſo leaving no place for any other cauſality in a Sacrament, than its ſerving to us as a means of conveying that grace, which we are ſo diſpoſed to receive. And indeed as it doth not appear by any thing that Schoolman hath alledg'd, that the Antients ever attributed any other cauſality to a Sacrament (for though St. Auguſtine, as he is quoted by him, affirms the power of God to work by a Sacrament, yet he doth not affirm it to do ſo as by a Phyſical inſtrument) As it appears farther, even from that Schoolman, that St. Bernard was of opinion, that Grace is no otherwiſe conveyed by a Sacrament, than a Canonry in his time was by a Book, or a Biſhoprick by Ring; ſo there is no defect in the Inſtances of that Father, ſuppoſing a Book or a Ring to have been as much a means of conveying of thoſe preferments, as we affirm a Sacrament to be of the divine Grace. For in that caſe the delivery of a Ring, or a Book, would not only have been a ſign, whereby the delivery of thoſe preferments was declar'd, as Aquinas argues in the place before, but a ceremony by which they were actually made over, and without which they could not have been Canonically inveſted in them. I conclude therefore, that if a Sacrament be an inſtrument of Grace, it is a moral one, and ſuch as contributes no farther toward our partaking of it, than as it is a means to which God hath annex'd the promiſe of it, and which accordingly he will not fail (where the receiver is rightly diſpos'd) to accompany with the exhibition of the other.

But becauſe there are ſome, who are ſo far from owning a Sacrament to be a phyſical inſtrument of grace, that they will not ſo much as allow it to be a moral one; And becauſe ſuch a conceit may tend as much to the depretiating of a Sacrament, as the other ſeems to tend to the overvaluing of it; Therefore conſider we in the next place the pretenſions of thoſe, that entertain it, and the ſtrength, or rather weakneſs of thoſe pretenſions. There are who have thought (and it were to be wiſh'd that many more did not, who do not perhaps ſpeak it out) that a Sacrament, as to this particular is a bare ſign of the Divine Grace, and accordingly intended by God, only to awaken mens minds to conceive it, and their hearts to the embracing of it. What induced them ſo to opine, I am not able to ſay, unleſs it were, on the one hand an univerſal acknowledgment of its being a ſign; and a fear, on the other, leſt if they made it any thing more, they ſhould approach too near to thoſe exceſſes, into which the former had caſt themſelves. But as it is a very ill way of chooſing opinions in Religion by the diſtance, which they bear to the exceſſes of other men; ſo the fondneſs of this cannot better be made appear, than by thoſe glorious effects, which are attributed to a Sacrament, and which, in ſtrictneſs of ſpeech, are the proper, and immediate iſſues of that which is ſignified by it. For that which is only a ſign being no way capable of producing ſuch effects, nor therefore with any reaſon of having ſuch effects attributed to it, we are in reaſon, where the thing will bear it, to conceive it under ſuch a notion, as will make thoſe effects yet more proper to it. Which we ſhall then, and then only do, when we make it ſuch a ſign, whereby (as was before ſaid) God conveys to us that Grace, by which thoſe effects are produc'd. Only as there are, who think all this may be ſalv'd, by making a Sacrament a ſeal, as well as a ſign of Grace, or rather a ſeal of that New Covenant, by which we are intituled to it; ſo it may not therefore be amiſs to examine that pretenſion alſo, and enquire into the validity thereof. What relation a Sacrament bears to the New Covenant, and how far the notion of a ſeal is competible to it, ſhall be examin'd in another place, and I will not therefore at preſent engage my ſelf in that diſpute. But I ſhall not ſtick to affirm, that how legitimate ſoever that notion of a Sacrament may be, yet it is no adequate one; As will appear in part from the inſufficiency of thoſe grounds upon which it is built, and in part alſo from the nature of that Covenant, whereof they ſpeak, and of which they repreſent it as a ſeal. For the evidencing the former whereof we are to know, that as the ground upon which it is built is a paſſage of St. Paul Rom. 4.11., where he repreſents the Circumciſion of Abraham as a ſeal of that righteouſneſs of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcis'd; ſo that Text, if it be well examin'd, will not be found to be a ſufficient proof of that, for which it is alledg'd. For not to require thoſe that urge that Text (which yet they ſeldom do) to make it appear that the Chriſtian Sacraments are of the ſame nature with Circumciſion, and conſequently that what is ſaid concerning Circumciſion ought to be alike underſtood of the other; Neither is what is there affirm'd concerning Circumciſion affirm'd concerning Circumciſion in the general, but only of the Circumciſion of Abraham, neither is it affirmed concerning his, that it was a ſeal of that Covenant, to which it did more immediately relate, but of that righteouſneſs, which he had before he enter'd into it. Things, which if duly conſider'd, will render that teſtimony perfectly ineffectual, as to what it is deſigned to eſtabliſh. For as if Abraham's caſe were different from that of other Circumciſed perſons, what may have been to him a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, may not yet have been ſuch to them; ſo that Abraham's caſe was ſo far different from that of the generality of Circumciſed perſons, may appear from his having before had that righteouſneſs of Faith, which the other, becauſe Infants, could not be ſuppoſed to have had, or, at leaſt, not till they had it by the ſign of Circumciſion. And indeed, whoſoever ſhall conſider what the Apoſtles deſign in that place is, even to ſhew that the righteouſneſs of Faith is not annexed to Circumciſion, becauſe Abraham had it before he was Circumciſed, muſt conſequently believe that when he afterwards makes that Circumciſion of his a ſeal of that righteouſneſs in him, his meaning was only to ſay, that it was a teſtimony from God to him, and others, that he allowed of the former righteouſneſs, as which if he had not done, he would not thus have entred with him into that other Covenant, of which Circumciſion was a ſign. By which way of arguing, what is here ſaid concerning Circumciſions being a ſeal, muſt not be underſtood of it, as it was in it ſelf, and ſo in a notion common to all that receiv'd it, but with reſpect to that righteouſneſs of Abraham's, which it followed after in time, and which it could not but be look'd upon as ſome Confirmation from God of, becauſe a ſign of that New Covenant which God then enter'd into with him. As for that New Covenant, or any righteouſneſs of Faith accruing to Abraham by it; This St. Paul is ſo far from affirming his Circumciſion to have been a ſeal of, that he may ſeem rather to intimate, that it had no ſuch relation to it: Becauſe affirming it to have been a ſeal of that righteouſneſs, which he had before it, and which therefore he derived not from the Covenant of Circumciſion, or was under any neceſſity of having it ſeal'd to him by the ſign of it. I conclude therefore, that how true ſoever it may be, that a Chriſtian Sacrament is a ſeal of the New Covenant; Yet the Text before mention'd conferrs not at all to the proving of it, and much leſs toward the ſhewing, that it hath no other relation than that of a ſeal either to that Covenant, or the graces of it. But beſide that the ſingle notion of a ſeal, how plauſible ſoever it may appear, hath no countenance from that Text, which is uſually produced for it; It will be found to have as little from the nature of that Covenant, of which it is repreſented as a ſeal. For that Covenant importing as well the conferring of preſent benefits, as a promiſe of future ones, it muſt conſequently if it be tranfacted by any viſible ceremony, make uſe of that ceremony to convey thoſe preſent benefits, as well as to aſcertain the exhibition of future ones; The former whereof a ſeal being no way proper for, or at leaſt not in the uſual notion of it, we are in reaſon to give the reſpective Sacraments of that Covenant another, and a more effectual notion, even that of a means, whereby Chriſt, who is the Author of them, conveys his graces to mankind.

One only relation there is beſides, which a Sacrament bears to the Divine Grace, even that of a pledge to aſſure us thereof (as our Catechiſm expreſſeth it) or (as the 25th Article of our Church hath it) a certain ſure witneſs of it. A relation, which ſtands ſufficiently confirm'd by the imperceptibleneſs of the Divine Grace in it ſelf, and the aptneſs of a Sacrament to manifeſt its approaches to us. For as the imperceptibleneſs of the Divine Grace in it ſelf makes it but neceſſary; for the comfort of mankind, to have its approaches manifeſted to them by ſome other ways, and means; ſo a Sacrament as before deſcrib'd, is an apt means to notifie it to us, yea aſſure us of the approaches of it. Partly, becauſe a means to which God hath annexed the exhibition of his grace, and partly becauſe ſuch a means, as is apparent to mens ſenſes, and which therefore whilſt they are ſo aſſured of, they can as little doubt of that Grace, which by the Decree of God is annexed to it.

Of the relation a Sacrament bears to the Divine Grace I have ſpoken hitherto, and ſhewn what kind, or kinds of relation it beareth to it; I come now, according to the method before laid down, to entreat of its relation to our ſelves, and of that piety, and ſervice, which we owe to the giver of it. For the underſtanding whereof we are to know, that as a Sacrament is undoubtedly a ſign of that, of which it is ſuch, ſo if it hath a relation to our piety (as I have before ſhewn it to have, and as the very title of a Sacrament, in the Original notion of it, obligeth us to conceive) it muſt be look'd upon as ſuch a ſign, whereby we may make a declaration of that piety of ours, as was before obſerv'd out of Mr. Calvin. But ſo we do in Baptiſm, as by other ways, and means, ſo eſpecially by our receipt of it, as a mark of our preſent acknowledgment of thoſe Divine Perſons, into whoſe names we are baptized, and a reſolution for ever after to keep a good Conſcience to them: In the Euchariſt, by the grateful commemoration we there make of the death of Chriſt, by a declaration of our intimate union with thoſe, who partake with us thereof, and a reſolvedneſs to maintain it by all the offices of love, and kindneſs. Which things I do now only mention, becauſe I muſt inſiſt upon them more largely elſewhere, and whither it will be more proper to deferr the particular explication of them. Only as a Sacrament appears to have receiv'd its Name from the obligation it layes upon us to the performance of religious duties; ſo I cannot forbear to add, that as it is a declaration of that piety we owe to God, ſo it is alſo an obligation to the continuance of it: Becauſe (as I ſhall afterwards ſhew) it ſerves to conciliate, or renew that New Covenant, by which we are obliged to them.

From that ſecond thing, to which a Sacrament relates, paſs we to the third, even that New Covenant, in which both the former are founded, and to which I ſhall not ſtick to affirm: Firſt, that a Sacrament hath the relation of a ſign, becauſe at once repreſenting the concernments of each party, what God obligeth himſelf to conferr, and what we make profeſſion of performing. But neither ſhall I ſtick to affirm, that it hath moreover the relation of ſuch a ſign, whereby the parties concern'd declare their conſent to it, and ſo make that, which was before but in a diſpoſition, to become a Covenant, or, at moſt, but in a weak, and tottering condition, to become actually, and firmly ſuch. Which if any man ſhall give the title of a Seal unto, I for my part ſhall not be at all diſpleas'd, becauſe ſeals were ſometimeNeh. 9.38. made uſe of, for the declaration of ſuch a conſent. But I have my ſelf avoided to make uſe of the expreſſion, becauſe there may be ſome Ambiguity in it; And becauſe they, who have lately employ'd it, ſeem to look upon it as a thing, which rather adds ſtrength to mens faith concerning it, than to the Covenant it ſelf, and much leſs doth either give being to it, or renew it. Whereas Baptiſm, in my opinion, is that, which firſt ſtrikes the Covenant between God, and man, and the Euchariſt, that which continues, or renews it after it hath been ſhatter'd by our miſcarriages; As is evident; as to the former, by its being the means ofMatt. 28.19. making Diſciples, and the laver of our Tit. 3.5. new birth, and, as to the latter, by our Saviour's entitling it the New Covenant Luk. 22.20. in his blood, and remitting men to it for that remiſſion of Matt. 26.28. ſin, which had been made over to them by the other. This I take to be the true relation of a Sacrament to the New Covenant, and ſo I ſhall continue to do, till I come to be better enlightned in it. For which cauſe I ſhall only add, that as the conſent, we now ſpeak of, is in a Sacrament declar'd by both parties; ſo he, who adminiſters it, is in that caſe in the place of God, and declares his conſent to the Covenant; Becauſe doing what he doth by vertue of that CommiſſionMatt. 28.19., which empower'd the Apoſtles, and their Succeſſors to Baptize all, that ſhould offer themſelves unto it, and made them the diſpenſers of that, and the other1 Cor. 4.1. myſteries of our Religion.

The fourth and laſt thing, to which I affirm'd a Sacrament to relate, is the body of Chriſt, even that myſtical one, which is made up by thoſe, that believe in him, and adore him. Now to this Body it relates, in the general, as a diſcriminative ſign of the profeſſion of it, and by which the ſeveral members thereof may both know, and be known by one another, and accordingly joyn in ſuch acts, as God exacts of their body. For becauſe God, who made men ſociable Creatures, was willing they ſhould worſhip him in ſociety alſo, as for other reaſons, ſo to make him an apt returnExpl. of the fourth Com. Part 1. of praiſe for that bleſſing, which they receiv'd by God's diſpoſing them to a ſociable life; And becauſe (as St. Auguſtine Aug. contr. Fauſt. Manichae. li. 19. c. 11. ſpeaks) men cannot be aſſociated into any Religious body, nor indeed into any other, but by a community of viſible ſigns, and Sacraments (of which, beſide the thus confederating of men of all Religions, we have a proof in men's general inability to judge of the profeſſion of their Aſſociates by any other way, than by ſuch outward notes, or characters) therefore, I ſay, God, and Chriſt, when they meant to erect a Chriſtian body, gave it ſuch ſigns, and notes alſo; Partly, to give beginning to it, and the ſeveral members of it, and partly to continue them in thoſe joynt Offices, and ſervices, which they requir'd the performance of. The former whereof is done by the Sacrament of Baptiſm, the latter by the Sacrament of the Euchariſt. And how much theſe two Sacraments conferr toward the keeping up the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, will appear, on the one hand, from thoſe miſerable Chriſtians, who live under the Turks, and, on the other, from thoſe much more miſerable perſons the Quakers, who live among our ſelves. For as the poor Greeks, by reaſon of the ignorance of their Prieſts, and the unintelligibleneſs, as well as the hudling up of their Liturgies, have little other means beſide thoſe Sacraments, and other ſuch ſymbolical rites to keep up the profeſſion of Chriſtianity among them (which yet, it may be, they are more tenacious of, than thoſe who are better inſtructed among us, would be under the like circumſtances) ſo thoſe much more miſerable perſons the Quakers, having thrown off the viſible ſigns of Chriſtianity, have upon the matter come to throw off Chriſtianity it ſelf, and whatſoever it obligeth us either to believe, or do in order to our obtaining the ſalvation promiſed by it. If they have made a ſhift to rear, or keep up ſo much as their own Profeſſion, it was owing in the beginning to that Quaking, which gave denomination to them, and, ſince that, to their affected looks, and habits, and behaviour, which are, if I may ſo ſpeak, the viſible ſigns, or Sacraments thereof. And, if once they fall off from theſe, as we ſee they begin to do, we ſhall ſoon find their profeſſion to fail together with it, and to be buried in the ſame grave. But to return to that more ſacred body, of which I but now entreated, and to which as I affirm'd a Sacrament to have the relation of a general badge, or diſcriminative ſign of the profeſſion of it, ſo I muſt alſo to be a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in the communion of it: It being into this body (as was before obſerv'd out of St. Paul) that all Chriſtians are baptiz'd, and ſo therefore firſt entred by that Sacrament; And in that body too that they continue by the receipt of the other Sacrament, becauſe it is, by their partaking of the bread of it, that the ſame St. Paul affirms, that they become that one Bread, and Body. For being members of that body by the former Sacrament, they cannot otherwiſe be ſaid to make it up by the partaking of the latter, than as that may ſerve to keep them within the communion of it.

III. An account being thus given of the things, to which a Sacrament relates, together with the nature of that relation it beareth to them; It remains that I enquire what the foundation of that relation is, which is the only thing farther to be known toward the diſcovery of the properties of a Sacrament. For the underſtanding whereof we are to know, that as the relation, whereof we ſpeak, is of different ſorts, to wit the relation of a ſign, of a means of conveyance, and of a pledge (for ſuch I have ſhewn a Sacrament to be, as to that grace of God, to which it principally referrs) ſo it may have different foundations, agreeably to that diverſity, which I have ſaid to be in the nature of the relation. For, as a ſign, it is founded in part in the reſemblance, which it bears to the things ſignified by it (for ſo all ſigns of repreſentation are) and in part alſo in the Inſtitution of him, whoſe the Sacrament is: Becauſe as the former reſemblance is not ſo apparent, as by its own force to have ſuggeſted to us the things ſignified by it, ſo it could not without his inſtitution, whoſe the Sacrament is, have laid any obligation upon us to conſider it in that relation of it. I ſay not the ſame concerning that relation of a Sacrament, whereby it becomes a means of conveying to us the Divine grace, or a pledge to aſſure us thereof: Becauſe each of theſe relations is founded ſimply, and only in the Inſtitution of him, whoſe the Sacrament is. For a Sacrament having no natural aptitude either to convey the Divine Grace to us, or to aſſure us, that if we receive that Sacrament, we ſhall receive the other alſo; It muſt conſequently (if it become ſuch a means, or pledge) become ſo by the Inſtitution of him, by whom it is ſuggeſted to us. But becauſe I have ſaid nothing hitherto, whoſe that Inſtitution is, by vertue of which a Sacrament puts on the forementioned relations; And becauſe it is alike certain, that whoſoever's that Inſtitution is, yet it produceth not thoſe effects by its own immediate force, but by the intervention of ſome Act, or Acts of thoſe, whom he hath intruſted with the diſpenſation of them; Therefore, to ſatisfie our ſelves yet farther concerning the foundation of thoſe relations, enquire we in the next place whoſe that Inſtitution is, upon which they are founded, and how that Inſtitution ought to be appli'd to enable it to produce them.

As concerning the Perſon, whoſethat Inſtitution is, little needs to be ſaid, conſidering what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, which are the only clear Sacraments of our Religion. For Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper being apparently Chriſt's own Inſtitutions, and ſo declared to be by thoſe Scriptures, which give an account of them; Whatſoever hath the relation of a Sacrament, muſt have him for its Author, or (as our Church hath expreſſed it) be ordained by him. Beſides, a Sacrament, as ſuch, being both a conveyer, and a pledge of Grace, the diſpenſation whereof is entruſted unto ChriſtEph. 4, 7. —15, 16., either that, which pretends to be a Sacrament, muſt have him for its Author, or it muſt not be look'd upon under that relation. And thus far we find even thoſe of Rome to go, becauſe not only repreſenting all the Sacraments of the New Law as inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, but pronouncing an Anathema alſoConc. Trid. Seſſ. 7. Can. 1. de Sacr. upon thoſe, that ſhall deny it.

It being therefore not at all to be doubted, whoſe that Inſtitution is, upon which the relations of a Sacrament are founded; enquire we in the next place how that inſtitution ought to be appli'd, to enable it to produce thoſe relations. Which muſt be firſt by a declaration of the purport thereof, and ſecondly by doing thoſe things to the elements, which either the general tenour of the Chriſtian Religion, or the particular precepts of the Inſtitution prompt us to the performance of. That I repreſent the firſt of theſe as one of thoſe things, which makes the Inſtitution of Chriſt to become effectual toward the producing of the former relations, or (as it is more commonly expreſſed) toward the conſecration of thoſe elements, which are to put them on, is partly upon the account of the neceſſity of ſuch a declaration, and partly upon the account of the Commands of him, by whom the Sacraments were inſtituted. For a Sacrament being not ſo clear a repreſentation of that, of which it is ſo, as by its own force to ſuggeſt it to the minds of thoſe, for whom it was intended; Being much leſs ſo clear a repreſentation of it, as to invite thoſe to reflect upon it, who are either ſlow of underſtanding, or otherwiſe indiſpoſed to contemplate it, ſuch as are the generality of men; It cannot but be thought neceſſary, even upon that account, to call in the aſſiſtance of ſuch words, as may declare to thoſe, that are concern'd, for what ends, and purpoſes it was appointed. Otherwiſe men may either look upon the whole as a purely civil action, or (if the Perſon that adminiſters it, and other ſuch like circumſtances prompt them to conceive of it, as a religious one) yet fancy to themſelves ſuch ends, and purpoſes, as are either different from, or contrary to the true intendment of it. Agreeable hereto is the command of the Author of our reſpective Sacraments, as is evident from what he enjoyns concerning Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper; His own expreſs injunction concerning the former being, that his Diſciples ſhould baptize men in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, which could not be done without a rehearſal of thoſe names at leaſt; As concerning the latter, that they ſhould do what they had ſeen, and heard him do, as oft as that Sacrament was adminiſtred, and therefore alſo make a verbal declaration concerning it. For though that be not ſo clear from thoſe words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me, I mean as they lie in St. Luke Luk. 22.19.; yet will it be found to be ſo, if we take in the Comment of St. Paul 1 Cor. 11, 20. &c., where he gives a like account of the Inſtitution of it. For repreſenting what was then ſaid, and done as a preſcription for future1 Cor. 23.25, 26. Sacraments, as well as for that of Chriſt's own immediate conſecration; Repreſenting it moreover as ſuch upon the account of what Chriſt then enjoyn'd concerning their doing the ſame things in remembrance of him, he muſt conſequently (becauſe he brings in our Saviour making a verbal declaration concerning the purport of that Sacrament, and ſubjoyns the former injunction to it) be thought to repreſent it as our Saviour's mind, that they, who conſecrated that Sacrament, ſhould uſe the ſame declarations concerning it. But beſide a declaration of the purport of the Inſtitution, and which the Church hath generally kept ſo cloſe to, as to make that declaration by the very words Conſtit. Apoſt. li. 8. c. 12. of the Inſtitution, it is no doubt alike neceſſary, if not more toward the producing of the former relations, to do thoſe things to the Elements, which either the general tenour of Chriſtianity, or the particular precepts of the Inſtitution prompt us to the performance of. For if Prayer be ſo generally neceſſary toward the procuring of any favour, that it becomes ſuch as to the obtaining of common, and ordinary ones; If it be ſo far neceſſary toward them, as to become ſuch even to the bleſſing of our ordinary repaſt1. Tim. 4.4.5., though that be not without a natural aptitude to nouriſh, and ſuſtain us; How much more may we think it to be neceſſary, as to the making of thoſe elements, which are in no diſpoſition to it, to become the conveyers of the Divine Grace to thoſe, who are to partake of them. But ſo the perpetual practice of the Church will oblige us to believe, and act, as to the one, and other Sacrament, of our Religion. For though there be not any particular injunction concerning conſecrating the water of Baptiſm, and I ſuppoſe becauſe the neceſſity thereof was ſufficiently known by what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning the general neceſſity thereof; Yet as we find Ananias admoniſhing St. Paul Act. 22.16. to waſh away his ſins by Baptiſm calling upon the name of the Lord, and which, no doubt, becauſe he Baptiz'd him, the ſame Ananias went before him in; As we find farther by Juſtin Martyr Apolog. 2., that they, who were to be baptiz'd, were admoniſhed to faſt, and pray, the Brethren praying, and faſting for, and with them (for theſe are ſufficient proofs, that ſome ſort of Prayers did alway precede it) ſo we find by thoſe, who have given a more particular account of the Offices of the Church, that the Prieſt did pray particularlyConſtit. Apoſt. lib. 7. c. 43. Dionyſ. Areop. Eccl. Hier. c. 2., that God would look down from Heaven, and ſanctifie that water, wherein they were to be Baptized by him. The caſe is yet more plain as to the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, as ſhall be made appear, when I come to entreat purpoſely concerning it. And therefore I ſhall only add, that as the Inſtitution of our reſpective Sacraments cannot obtain its effect, without doing thoſe things to the Elements thereof, which the general tenour of Chriſtianity obligeth us to perform, ſo much leſs without the doing of thoſe things, which the particular precepts of the Inſtitution oblige to the practice of. For the force of a Sacrament depending more immediately upon the Inſtitution of him, whoſe the Sacrament is, it muſt conſequently, as to the application of that Inſtitution, depend more upon the doing of thoſe things, which the particular precepts of the Inſtitution oblige to the practice of, than upon thoſe, which the more general, and therefore remoter precepts of Chriſtianity oblige unto. The conſequence whereof, as to the Euchariſt, will be, among other things, a neceſſity of giving God thanks for thoſe gracious boons, which that Sacrament was intended both to convey, and aſſure. The reſult of the premiſes is this; A Sacrament, as ſuch, is a relative thing, it is ſo in an eſpecial manner as to the Divine Grace, as which it ſignifies, and conveyes, and aſſures. But as thoſe relations thereof are founded, rather in the inſtitution of the Author of it, than in the vertue of thoſe elements, in which they are ſubjected; ſo in that again, not ſo much as delivered by our Saviour, as applied to the elements by a declaration of the purport of it, and by ſuch other Acts as the general tenour of Chriſtianity, or the particular precepts of the Inſtitution oblige thoſe, who are the diſpenſers of a Sacrament, to do to the elements thereof.

I do not at all found the relations of a Sacrament in ſuch Act, or Acts, as are requir'd of thoſe, that partake of it; Yea though without ſuch Act, or Acts, they cannot partake of the Graces of it: Partly, becauſe a Sacrament being an inſtitution of Chriſt, it muſt rather depend upon his appointment, and the facts of thoſe, who act in his behalf, than upon the diſpoſition of ſuch as are to partake of it; And partly, becauſe a Sacrament, though not conveying, or aſſuring the Divine Grace to any, but the worthy Receivers of it, yet is as really and truly a Sacrament to thoſe, who are otherwiſe diſpos'd, as it is to the moſt worthy ones. As is evident among other things from St. Paul's affirming the unworthy receiver of the Euchariſt to be guilty of the Body 1 Cor. 11.27., and Blood of Chriſt, and again to eat, and drink Damnation to himſelf, for not diſcerning 1 Cor. 11.29. the Lord's Body. For how come they to be guilty of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt by the meer reception of the elements, if thoſe elements be not even to them a Sacrament of his Body, and Blood? Or how faulty for not diſcerning in them the Lord's Body, and Blood, if thoſe elements, which they receive, have not the relation of a Sacrament to them? Neither will it avail to ſay, that ſuch perſons may become guilty of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, becauſe receiving not as they ought, thoſe elements, which are the ſigns of them. For as it will follow from thence, that thoſe elements, which they receive, are ſo far, at leaſt, a Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, I mean as that is a ſign of them; ſo there is reaſon enough to believe from the way the Apoſtle takes to prove the foremention'd charge, that thoſe elements were as really a Sacrament to them in all other reſpects, as they were in the notion of a ſign: Becauſe he founds that charge of his upon Chriſt's making thoſe elements the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood1 Cor. 11.27., and which therefore he muſt ſuppoſe them to be as much to them, as they are to any perſon whatſoever. That which I conceive hath occaſion'd men to be otherwiſe opinionated, was their conceiving of a Sacrament, not as a means fitted by Chriſt to convey, or aſſure the Divine Grace, and which accordingly, where it is duly receiv'd, actually doth ſo; but as a thing, which is not only in a diſpoſition to it, but, where it is really a Sacrament, infallibly doth ſo to all, that partake of it. Which conceit, it may be, they were the more eaſily betray'd into by the Scriptures repreſenting it rather as a thing, which actually ſanctifies, and ſaves, than as a thing, which is only fitted for it. But as there might be ground enough for ſuch expreſſions, as thoſe, whether upon the account of the perſons, whom it is ſo ſaid to ſanctifie, and ſave, or upon the account of there being enough in a Sacrament to do it, where the parties, that partake of it, are duly qualified for it; ſo the Scripture hath ſometimes ſo qualified its own aſſertions by making the due diſpoſition of the party receiving it to be neceſſary to procure the other, that we cannot but look upon a Sacrament, rather as a thing fitted to produce ſuch effects, than as actually, and infallibly producing them. And indeed, as there is therefore but reaſon to conceive ſo of a Sacrament, even as a means fitted by God, and Chriſt to produce thoſe effects, which are attributed to it; ſo, by thus ſtating it, a way is opened to diſtinguiſh between the Efficacy of a Sacrament, and of the Receiver's faith, and accordingly to aſſign each its proper intereſt in the procuring of thoſe Graces, which are attributed to it. For by this means we ſhall make a Sacrament, with that bleſſing of God, which attends it, to be the ſole conferrer, and aſſurer of thoſe Graces, which is but agreeable to it as an inſtrument in the hand of God; And the faith of the party receiving only the receiver, and applier of the other, which is as agreeable to that hand of man. For as, if a Sacrament be a means fitted by God for the forementioned purpoſes, the conferring, and aſſuring of thoſe Graces will belong to it, and that bleſſing of God, which doth accompany it; ſo nothing therefore will remain to the faith of the party receiving, but to receive, and apply what the other doth ſo conferr, and aſſure. I ſay, ſecondly, that as by this means a due diſtinction will be made between the efficacy of a Sacrament, and that of the receiver's faith; ſo a way will be opened in like manner (without detracting, in the leaſt, from the efficacy of a Sacrament) to return an anſwer to what is advanc'd, on the one hand, for the opus operatum of all Sacraments, and, on the other, for making the elements of the Euchariſt to be that very Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which it was intended to convey. For whereas it is pretendedVid. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. Part. 2. in Can. 7, 8. de Sacram., in the behalf of the former, and accordingly alledged as a proof of it, that the efficacy of a Sacrament depends upon the inſtitution of God, and not upon the dignity of him, that adminiſters it, or the faith of the receiver; I anſwer, that that is indeed true, and agreeable enough to our ſtating the nature of a Sacrament, but of no force at all to ſhew that opus operatum, whereof they ſpeak. For as, if a Sacrament be a means fitted by Chriſt for the conferring of his Graces, the conferring of thoſe Graces will belong wholly to it, and that bleſſing of God, which goes along with it; ſo if it be a means rather fitted for the conferring of them, than that, which actually, and infallibly doth, any otherwiſe than as it is receiv'd, and appli'd, as Chriſtianity admoniſheth, there will be a like neceſſity of the opus operantis, even of that faith, and repentance, which are requir'd in order to the reception of them. And it may not unfitly be illuſtrated by the natural quality of thoſe elements, which are by Chriſt made uſe of for the Sacrament of his own Body, and Blood. For as of what force ſoever thoſe elements may be either to ſuſtain, or refreſh us, yet they cannot be expected to do either, unleſs they be receiv'd, and well digeſted; ſo how well fitted ſoever by the Inſtitution of God the ſame elements may be to conferr to higher purpoſes, yet there is as little reaſon to expect they ſhould, unleſs they be applied by us, as he, who ſo inſtituted them, hath admoniſh'd. In like manner, whereas it is pretendedEſth. Com. in locum. from unworthy receivers of the Euchariſt being guilty of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, that therefore thoſe elements, which they do ſo receive, are really that Body, and Blood, and accordingly are actually partook of; That alſo is taken away by what we have before ſaid concerning the Euchariſts being a means fitted by Chriſt for the conveying of them: Becauſe, if it be only ſuch, there will be place for that guilt, yea though that Body, and Blood of Chriſt be not in it, nor receiv'd by thoſe, who are partakers of the other; In as much as he offers a ſufficient affront to them, who receives thoſe elements unworthily, which were by God, and Chriſt intended, and fitted for the conveying of them. I may not omit to add, if it were only for that hint, which the former obſervation affords us, that we ſhall, by thus ſtating the nature of a Sacrament, imprint alſo in the minds of men a juſt apprehenſion of that guilt, which ariſeth from an unworthy reception of it For as, if it be fitted by Chriſt to convey, or aſſure the Divine Grace, it muſt make thoſe, that partake unworthily thereof, guilty of an equal affront to that Grace, which it is ſo fitted to convey, or aſſure; ſo if it be not ſo fitted, the crime will ſtill be the leſs, by how much the leſs relation it hath to that Grace, which is pretended to be violated by the unworthy reception of it. In fine, by ſtating the nature of a Sacrament, as is before deſcrib'd, we ſhall make our account thereof agree ſo much the more exactly with that, which our own Catechiſm preſents us withall; That, though it repreſent a Sacrament as a means of Grace, and a pledge of it, yet repreſenting it not as actually, and infallibly ſuch, but only as ordained by God to be ſo, and which accordingly, in the event, may prove ſuch, or not, as it ſhall be found to be receiv'd, and appli'd.

For the applying of all which to the buſineſs, that is now before us, even the making up of that Definition, which we have been hitherto making way to, I cannot but admoniſh, that a Sacrament referring to ſo many ſeveral things, and referring to them alſo with ſo many different relations, it will be hard, or rather impoſſible to furniſh out any one definition of it, which ſhall with any exactneſs anſwer to its ſeveral properties. For conſidering a Sacrament with reſpect to the Divine Grace, and to which of all others it ſeems more eſpecially to relate; ſo it may, and ought to be defin'd to be ſuch an outward, and viſible ſign thereof, as is moreover ordained, and fitted by Chriſt to be a means of conveying it to us, and a pledge to aſſure us thereof. Conſidering it again, with relation to our own piety, and to which no doubt it was alſo intended to adminiſter; ſo it will be ſuch an outward and viſible ſign thereof, as is by Chriſt ordained, and fitted for us to make a declaration of it by, and an obligation to the continuance of it. Conſidering it Thirdly, with relation to that New Covenant, by which the Divine Grace, and our piety are ty'd together; ſo it will be ſuch an outward, and viſible ſign as is ordained, and fitted by the ſame Chriſt, for God, and Man to declare their conſent unto it by, and either firſt enter into that Covenant by it, or to renew it. Conſidering it laſtly, with reſpect to thoſe, who are joyn'd together in the ſame Covenant, and ſo connected to Chriſt, and to one another; ſo it will be ſuch an outward, and viſible ſign, as is by Chriſt ordained, and fitted for a general badge of their common profeſſion, and a means of bringing particular men into their Society, or continuing them in the Communion of it. Only if any man deſire a more ſimple definition of it, and which though it will not anſwer to all the properties thereof, yet will at leaſt anſwer the more eſpecial ones; ſo it may not inconveniently be defin'd to be ſuch an outward, and viſible ſign, as is ordained and fitted by Chriſt to ſignifie, and convey, and aſſure the Divine Grace to us, and, on our part, to declare the duty we owe to God, and Chriſt, and oblige our ſelves to the continual practice of it.

PART III. A farther Explication of the Nature of a Sacrament, with a reſolution of ſeveral Queſtions belonging thereunto, or depending more immmediately upon it. The Contents.

The Nature of a Saorament brought again under conſideration, and enquiry accordingly made concerning that inward and Spiritual Grace, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation. This laſt more particularly inſiſted upon; and as it was before reſolv'd to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, ſo a more ample account given thereupon of that Inſtitution of his, and of thoſe Commands, and Promiſes, whereof it doth conſiſt. Thoſe Commands again conſidered with reference to the ſacramental Elements, before they put on that relation, or after they are inveſted with it. The former whereof are ſhewn in the general to enjoyn the ſetting them apart for that purpoſe, or Conſecrating them, and enquiry thereupon made by whom they ought to be ſet apart, and whether their intention, or good diſpoſition be requiſite to give force unto it: The latter the Conſecrators diſpenſing them as the Inſtitutor thereof hath preſcrib'd, and the peoples receiving them from them, with the Manner of it. Ʋpon occaſion whereof Enquiry is made, concerning the neceſſity of Sacraments, and in what ſort, or degree they ought to be accounted ſuch. A like particular account given of the Promiſes of the Inſtitution, which are ſhewn in the general to aſſure Chriſt's making what is done both by the Conſecrators, and Receivers to be available for thoſe ends, for which they were enjoyn'd; More particularly his converting that into a Sacrament, which is by the former ſet apart to be ſo (and which how it is done is, upon that account, enquir'd into) and, where the receivers are rightly diſpos'd, acompanying the diſpenſation of the Sacramental Elements with the Diſpenſation of the Divine Graces. An application of the whole to the buſineſs in hand, and Enquiry accordingly made, how the former Commands, and Promiſes contribute toward the Founding a Sacramental Relation, and how alſo to the efficacy of the elements, after that Relation is produced in them.

NOW though from what hath been ſaid it be competently evident,

Queſtion. How many parts are there in a Sacrament?

Anſwer. Two; the outward viſible ſign, and the inward Spiritual Grace.

what the Nature of a Sacrament is, and we thereby at liberty to go on to other conſiderations concerning it; Yet becauſe there are ſome things in it, which may require a farther Explication, and others, which depend more immediately upon the due underſtanding of it, I purpoſe to go over the definition of it again, or, at leaſt, over ſo much of it, as may require a farther Explication, or Help toward the clearing of the other.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

In the general I obſerve, that as it appears by our own Catechiſm, and the definition before given, that a Sacrament conſiſts of an outward, and viſible Sign, and an inward Spiritual Grace; ſo that more general notion of it ſtands confirm'd to us by the ſuffrage of Irenaeus Adv. haer. l. 4. c. 34., though by him delivered under another form: He repreſenting the Euchariſt, even after the Invocation of God hath paſt upon it, as conſiſting of two things, to wit, an Earthly, and a Heavenly one. And I ſhall only add, that they ſeem not to be over mindful of it, who make the Sign, or Earthly part of the Euchariſt to vaniſh, as ſoon as the thing ſignified by it, or the Heavenly one approacheth: A Sign in the common underſtanding of it, together with that relation whereby it becomes ſo, and thoſe accidents, wherein it is immediately founded, connoting the Subject of them both, and therefore not with reaſon to be predicated of that Sacrament, which hath no ſuch Subject to uphold them.

But becauſe there is otherwiſe no great Controverſie concerning the general notion of a Sacrament, nor yet ſo far, concerning that particular one I before gave, as to its being an outward, and viſible Sign of that, of which it is a Sacrament; Therefore paſs we both from the one, and the other, to that Heavenly thing, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation.

Now as the firſt of theſe hath been before defin'd to be an inward, and Spiritual Grace, as that again declar'd to be ſuch a Grace, or favour of God, as conduceth in an eſpecial manner to the welfare of our inward Man, or Spirit; ſo I muſt now add, for the farther Explication of it, that it is moreover ſuch a Grace, as conduceth immediately to the welfare of it: Whether as purifying the ſoul from the filth of ſin, and introducing the contrary affections, or as delivering it from that guilt, which the filth of ſin had brought upon it. A notion, which ſtands confirm'd to us, not only by the Doctrine of our own Catechiſm, but by the account the Scripture gives us both of Baptiſm and the Euchariſt, and the confeſons of the Romaniſts themſelves. Witneſs for the firſt, its declaring the inward, and Spiritual Grace of Baptiſm to be a death unto ſin, and a new birth unto Righteouſneſs, as the inward grace of the Euchariſt to be the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, and by which (as it afterward follows) our Souls are ſtrengthened, and refreſhed, as our bodies are by the outward elements thereof; Witneſs, for the ſecond, its repreſenting Baptiſm as a thing, which ſanctifies Eph. 5.26., and ſaves 1 Pet. 3.21., and both thatAct. 2.38., and the EuchariſtMatt. 26.28. as things, which tend to the remiſſion of Sins; Witneſs, for the third, their great Schoolman Aquinas Sum. 3. Part. quaeſt. 60. Art. 2. repreſenting a Sacrament as a ſign of ſuch a Sacred thing, as procures the ſanctification of us. Which is the rather to be noted, becauſe of the uſe it will hereafter be of toward the determining the Number of thoſe things, which are to be accounted of as Sacraments of our Religion.

Concerning the relation a Sacrament bears to the object of it, and particularly to that Grace, to which it eſpecially referrs, I have nothing to add, and ſhall not therefore bring it again under conſideration. I ſhall only obſerve, from what hath been before ſaid concerning it, that it is an inſtrument of Grace, as well as a pledge of it, that it is a moral inſtrument thereof, and not a phyſical one, that it is ſuch a moral inſtrument thereof, as is rather apt to convey, or produce it, than that which actually, and infallibly doth; The actual conveying of that Grace depending upon the due diſpoſition of the party receiving it, and who (as St. Paul ſpeaks) if he be not rightly qualified for it, will rather reap Damnation by it, than either the Divine Graces, or the rewards of them. Which things I have this ſecond time made mention of, not becauſe they were not before ſufficiently clear'd, but becauſe they lay diſperſedly in my former account of this relation, and ſo would have been leſs uſeful toward the forming a diſtinct conception of it.

That, which will eſpecially require our ſecond thoughts, is the foundation of that, and other the relations of a Sacrament; The which as I have affirm'd in the general to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, ſo the farther conſideration of that Inſtitution will both lead us to a more diſtinct knowledge of the nature of a Sacrament, and inform us concerning the neceſſity, and efficacy thereof. Now as there are two things, which that Inſtitution doth manifeſtly import, that is to ſay a Command, and a Promiſe; ſo that Command again reſpects the elements of a Sacrament, either as being to put on that relation, or as actually inveſted with it. In the former of theſe regards it commands the ſetting them apart for that purpoſe, but more eſpecially (becauſe that is the principal deſign of a Sacrament) for their becoming a means of conveying the Divine Graces to us. Which, as was before obſerv'd, it either preſcribes particular rules for, or remits men for them to the general precepts of Chriſtianity, ſo far as they are applicable thereto. And I ſhall only add (becauſe thoſe rules were before declar'd) that, to make the elements put on the relation of a Sacrament, there is a neceſſity of applying that part of the Inſtitution to them by the execution of thoſe Commands, which it enjoyns: Becauſe the ſetting them apart for that purpoſe is, by the Inſtitution it ſelf, put into the hands of men. But of what men, and how qualified, I have not as yet declar'd, and ſhall therefore now ſet my ſelf to enquire.

And here in the firſt place it is eaſie to ſee, by what is deliver'd in the general concerning the power of remitting ſins, or in particular concerning the power of Baptiſm, that the Separation or Conſecration of the elements is the proper work of the Miniſters of the Goſpel, and ought accordingly to be left to them to perform: Becauſe as both the one, and the other were by Chriſt committed to his Apoſtles, ſo none can therefore pretend to the power of either, but thoſe who deriv'd it from them, which none but the Miniſters of the Goſpel have. It is no leſs eaſie to ſee ſecondly, that as the Separation, or Conſecration of the elements is the proper work of the Miniſters of the Goſpel, even by the Inſtitution of Chriſt; ſo it cannot therefore, ordinarily at leaſt, be attempted without ſin by others, becauſe a deviation from his Inſtitution. And thus far all, who acknowledge a Miniſterial Function, are at an accord in this particular, and the farther proſecution thereof no way neceſſary to be intended. I ſay therefore thirdly, that as the Separation, or Conſecration of the elements cannot, ordinarily at leaſt, be attempted without ſin by other than the Miniſters of the Goſpel; ſo there is reaſon enough to believe, even from thence, that thoſe elements cannot ordinarily have the relation of a Sacrament by any others Conſecration, than theirs. For beſide that the Promiſe of Chriſt is not to be ſuppos'd to extend any farther, than thoſe Commands, to which it is annexed, are obſerv'd; Neither can we think he will vouchſafe his benediction to that Action, which without any neceſſity at all varies from his own Inſtitution: This being to encourage men to go againſt his own Inſtitution, which no wiſe Inſtitutor can be ſuppos'd to give way to. All therefore, that can be ſuppos'd to admit of a diſpute in this affair, is, whether in extraordinary Caſes (and where a lawful Miniſter cannot be had) other Perſons may take upon them to Conſecrate, and Adminiſter it; And whether, if they do ſo, what they do is ſo far valid, as to make that, which they pretend to Conſecrate, and Adminiſter, to have the relation of a Sacrament. But as it would be conſider'd whether it were not equally adviſable for ſuch Perſons to let alone altogether the Conſecration, and Adminiſtration thereof; Becauſe Chriſt may as well ſupply to men the want of the Sacraments themſelves, as the defects of thoſe, who pretend to Conſecrate, and Adminiſter them: As it would be conſidered farther, whether it were not much more adviſable to do ſo, becauſe he, who omits the Conſecration, or Adminiſtration of a Sacrament, that belongs not properly to him, is certainly guilty of a far leſs error, than he who arrogates to himſelf that, which doth not appear to appertain unto him; ſo if a Sacrament ſo Conſecrated, or Adminiſtred, be either lawful, or valid (as I will not be very forward to deny it, conſidering the AuthoritiesVid. Tert. de Bapt. c. 7. & quae annotavit Hookerus noſter Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 62. it hath for it) it muſt become ſo by the either expreſs, or tacit allowance of thoſe, to whom the Adminiſtration of it is regularly committed. For the Inſtitutor of a Sacrament, and by whom alone it can become ſuch, having put into their hands the preparation of it, I ſee not how any thing can become ſuch, which is not either mediately, or immediately ſet apart by their Authority, and Miniſtry.

It appearing from the Premiſes, to whom the ſeparation, or Conſecration of the elements doth belong, and ſo far therefore alſo the producing of a ſacramental relation in them; Enquire we in the next place how thoſe perſons ought to be farther qualified, to enable them to make that Separation, or Conſecration; Which I ſhall not ſtick to affirm to be ſimply, and only by keeping, as to the outward work, to the Inſtitution of our Saviour. For though much more may be requir'd of them, yea undoubtedly is, to make that Act of theirs available to their own welfare, and acceptance; Even the intending what they are about, not only with a preſent mind, but with a ſound, and religious one; Yet cannot the like be ſuppoſed to be requir'd, to make that Act of theirs available toward the Conſecrating of thoſe elements into a Sacrament: Partly becauſe if ſuch an intention were requir'd in thoſe, that Conſecrate, no man could have any tolerable aſſurance of his receiving a valid Sacrament, becauſe having no ſuch aſſurance of their intention; And partly, becauſe that Act of theirs is a Miniſterial Act, and muſt not therefore depend for its force, upon the perſonal intentions or qualifications of thoſe, that exerciſe it, but upon that Authority, from which it proceeds, and upon its ſerving the ends, and intentions of thoſe principal Agents, to which it is appointed to miniſter. Which ends, and intentions if it can ſerve in this affair by an outward conformity to the rules of Chriſt's Inſtitution, nothing more can be ſuppos'd to be requir'd either of it, or thoſe, that exerciſe it, to give it that force, whereof we ſpeak. That therefore would in the next place be enquir'd into, which accordingly I will now ſet my ſelf to do.

For the clearing whereof we are firſt to know, that as of old the Prieſts under the Law were ordained Heb. 1.5. & Philo de ſpecial. l g 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . by God for men in things pertaining to God, partly to offer up to him, in their names, Gifts, and Sacrifices for ſin, and partly to convey from God to them graces, and benefits; ſo we are, in like manner, to conceive of the Prieſts under the Goſpel, as being not only the Miniſters of God, and Chriſt, but appointed too, on the one hand, to diſpenſe their myſteries 1 Cor. 4.1., and graces to the Church, and, on the other hand, to offer up the Churches Prayers, and Services to them. From whence as it will follow, that thoſe principal Agents, to which they miniſter, are God, and Chriſt, on the one hand, and Chriſts Church, and People under the other; ſo that the end of the former is to convey, by their means, their own graces, and bleſſings, of the latter to offer up thoſe Prayers, and other Services, which are due from the Church to them. Thoſe therefore being the Principal Agents, to which the Evangelical Prieſthood miniſters, and thoſe their reſpective ends, and intentions; the next thing to be enquir'd into is, which of thoſe Principal Agents it is, to which the Evangelical Prieſthood miniſters in thoſe acts which reſpect the Conſecration of a Sacrament. Which I ſhall not ſtick to affirm, from what was before ſaid concerning thoſe Acts, to be the Church, and People of God. For that, which the Miniſter doth toward the Conſecration of a Sacrament, being principally, at leaſt, the offering up of Prayers and Praiſes, he muſt conſequently (becauſe thoſe are the duties of the Church to God, and Chriſt) be thought to miniſter to the Church in them, and ſo have that for his Principal Agent. From whence as it will follow thirdly, that the end to which he is to ſerve, is the offering up, in the behalf of the Church, ſuch Prayers, and Praiſes, as are by the Inſtitution of Chriſt impos'd upon it (becauſe that is the end of the Church in all ſuch Adminiſtrations); ſo he ſhall ſufficiently ſerve that end, who ſhall only rehearſe ſuch Prayers and Praiſes, whereever, or whatſoever his intention be: Becauſe the Church may as well offer up its Prayers, and Praiſes by the voice of him, that intends them not, as by the voice of him, that doth. And I have been the more particular in the Explication of this affair, partly to make it farther evident, that the validity of a Sacrament depends not upon the intention of the Miniſter, but much more to ſhew from thence, that thoſe acts, which are done by him toward the Conſecration of the Sacramental elements, do not, by the either abſence, or perverſeneſs of his intention, ceaſe to be religious, and ſo incapable of inducing God to conſider of them, or give force unto them: Becauſe as thoſe Acts are rather the Churches, than his (the Miniſter being in this affair but the Inſtrument thereof) ſo his want of Intention, and Devotion, may be abundantly ſupply'd by the others, and thoſe Acts thereby become both Religious and valid.

From that Command, which reſpects the elements, before they put on the relation of a Sacrament, paſs we on to that Command, which conſiders them as inveſted with it; Which again we ſhall find to have a double reference. For it may either concern thoſe, in ſpecial, who have ſo ſet apart, or Conſecrated them, or both them (if they are alſo to be the receivers of them) and all others, for whoſe ſanctification they are intended. Upon the former of theſe it enjoyns the diſpenſing, or beſtowing of what they have ſo Conſecrated, as that too in ſuch a manner, and with ſuch ſolemnities, as the Inſtitutor thereof hath preſcrib'd. It enjoyns upon them farther, for their own ſouls health, to diſpenſe them with a ſutable intention, and devotion of ſoul; As without which what they do cannot otherwiſe be profitable to themſelves. But it doth not ſo injoyn that intention, and devotion, that what they diſpenſe, ſhall, for the want thereof, be in like manner unprofitable to others: Becauſe, as we already ſuppoſe the elements to have put on the relation of a Sacrament, and ſo far therefore to be in a capacity to profit thoſe, to whom they are diſpens'd; ſo it is Chriſt, and not the Miniſter, who muſt diſpenſe the Graces of the Sacrament, and the effect of that Sacrament therefore depend, not upon the Miniſter's intention, and purpoſe, but upon the intention, and purpoſe of Chriſt, whoſe Inſtrument, and Miniſter he is. As will appear yet more clearly, when I come to conſider the Promiſes of the Inſtitution, the ſecond thing, whereof I affirmed it to conſiſt. Only, as that Command of it, which I am now entreating of, doth as well reſpect thoſe, for whoſe ſanctification the Sacraments were intended, as thoſe who are the Conſecraters, and Diſpenſers of them; ſo I muſt therefore admoniſh firſt of all, that as that part of the Inſtitution of Chriſt enjoyns upon his Miniſters the diſpenſation of the Sacraments, ſo it muſt conſequently enjoyn the receipt, or uſe of them by all that are capable thereof, as without which the former injunction would be vain. I ſay, ſecondly, that as it enjoyns upon all, that are capable thereof, the receipt, or uſe of the Sacraments; ſo it enjoyns their receipt, or uſe of them under the relation of Sacraments, and particularly (becauſe that is the principal relation of a Sacrament) as a means appointed by Chriſt for the conveying of the Divine Graces. Which is ſo true as to thoſe Sacraments, which are the only clear, and undoubted ones, and by which, if there be any ſuch, the other are to be judg'd, that men are expreſly call'd upon to be Baptiz'd Act. 2.38. for the remiſſion of ſins, and as expreſly admoniſh'd by our Saviour to take the elements of the EuchariſtMatt. 26.26, &c. Luk. 22.19., as that Body which was given for them, and as that Blood, which was ſhed for them, and others, for the ſame remiſſion of ſins. From whence as it will follow, that thoſe Sacraments are of neceſſary uſe, as which both the one, and the other injunction oblige us to believe; ſo they are alſo ſo neceſſary by vertue of the former, that they cannot be neglected without ſin, and by the latter, if not the former, that men cannot hope for the graces of them, where thoſe Sacraments are in like manner neglected. For beſide that every neglect of a Command is, as ſuch, a ſin againſt the impoſer of it, and muſt conſequently not only deſpoil us of his favour, but expoſe us alſo to his Wrath, and Vengeance; Beſide that that neglect muſt be yet more ſinful, and dangerous, which is a neglect of ſuch a Command, as is enjoyn'd for the Subjects profit; He, who commands this, or that particular for ſuch, or ſuch an end, muſt thereby be preſum'd to declare, that he will not give it in any other way, than that, which is preſcribed by him: Becauſe otherwiſe a gap would be open to the Violation of his Authority, which every wiſe Lawgiver muſt be ſuppos'd to provide againſt. Neither will it avail to ſay, that there are other means, beſide Sacraments, for the attaining of the Divine Graces, and ſuch as God hath promis'd to reward with the beſtowing of them; Of which nature are our attendance to the word, and Prayer. For as it doth not appear, that theſe are any where repreſented as ſufficient of themſelves for that purpoſe, and therefore the Divine Graces not to be expected by them alone; ſo they can however be no farther repreſented as ſuch, than as made uſe of by men out of a due regard to his Authority, and wiſdom, by whom they are impoſed on them: Which cannot be ſuppos'd to be there, where any one preſcribed mean is neglected, becauſe the ſame Authority, and Wiſdom will lead to the obſervation of it. As little will it avail to ſay, that the Divine Graces have been ſometime beſtow'd without them, and the Sacraments therefore not to be accounted as neceſſary to the attaining of them. For as the queſtion is not now, Whether Sacraments are ſo neceſſary, that the graces thereof can, in no caſe, be hop'd for without them, but whether they can be hoped for, where the Sacraments are neglected; ſo that they are ſo far neceſſary will need no other proof, than the enjoyning of Baptiſm to thoſe, who may ſeem, if any, to have attain'd the graces thereof without it. For ſo we find St. Peter to have done as to Cornelius Act. 10.48., and his company; Yea though Cornelius had before his Preaching, receiv'd a Divine approbation of his Prayers, and Alms, and, after that, that gift of the Holy Ghoſt, for the procuring whereof we find Baptiſm to have been eſpeciallyAct. 2.38. ordain'd. For well may we look upon that Sacrament as ſo far neceſſary to obtain the Divine Graces, the uſe whereof was commanded even to thoſe men, who had in a great meaſure before attain'd them. The only thing, that ſeems to me to admit of any doubt, is whether Sacraments be ſo far neceſſary, that the Divine Graces cannot be had without them, or at leaſt cannot with any aſſurance be expected by us. But as the ſingle example of the Thief upon the Croſs (to ſay nothing now of that of Cornelius) may ſuffice to perſwade, that no Sacrament is ſo neceſſary, but that the Graces thereof may be had without it: As the benignity of the Divine nature, and thoſe Graces God hath ſometime given even to unbaptized perſons, may ſerve in like manner to perſwade men, that if that, or any other Sacrament be wanting without their fault, it ſhall be otherwiſe ſupplied to them; So I cannot forbear to ſay, that ſuch perſons have not the ſame Aſſurance with that, which Baptized perſons have. Partly, becauſe they have no promiſe to bottom their aſſurance on, and partly, becauſe God, who may annex what conditions he pleaſeth to his own favours, hath made thoſe Sacraments, whereof we ſpeak, the ſtanding means of obtaining them. I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning that part of the Inſtitution, which enjoyns the receipt, or uſe of the Sacraments, when I have admoniſhed in the third place, that it requires our coming to it with certain previous qualifications in order to our receiving the benefit thereof. Which is ſo notorious as to Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, and will hereafter be ſo largely inſiſted on, that I ſhall content my ſelf with the bare mention of it. All that I at preſent aim at, is to give a general account of what it enjoyns, and which having now in ſome meaſure done, I ſhall proceed to conſider of what it promiſeth, which is the ſecond thing whereof I affirmed the Inſtitution of a Sacrament to conſiſt.

For the clearing whereof we are firſt to know, that though thoſe Promiſes, whereof we ſpeak, are not always ſo expreſs, as its Commands muſt be acknowledg'd to have been; Yet will it not be difficult for us to evince the being of ſuch Promiſes, nor, after that, to ſhew what things it makes a promiſe of. For ſuppoſing, as we now may (becauſe I have heretofore evinced it) that the Inſtitution of Chriſt enjoyns the Adminiſtration, and uſe of the Sacraments for the bringing about thoſe gracious purpoſes, which they have no natural aptneſs to produce, and we muſt alſo ſuppoſe it to make a promiſe of Chriſt's making them effectual for thoſe purpoſes, for which they were ſo enjoyned by him. Becauſe otherwiſe thoſe Commands of his would give hope of ſuch things, as were not likely to accrue by the obſervation of them, and ſo (which is not to be ſuppos'd of the Commands of Chriſt) prove deluſory ones. Only as he, who inſtituted thoſe Sacraments for our benefit, cannot well be thought to omit any thing, which may encourage our expectation of it; ſo we find both him, and his Apoſtles ſometime to make expreſs promiſes of thoſe things, which the Sacraments were intended to convey. For thus after our Saviour had commanded the Adminiſtration of the Sacrament of Baptiſm to all, whom they could diſpoſe to the reception of it, the more to encourage them to intend the doing of it, he makes a promiſe of beingMatt. 28.19, 20. with them in it, and conſequently that their miniſtry, at leaſt, ſhould not fail of its intended effect in the Conſecration, and Adminiſtration of it. In like manner, after St. Peter had call'd upon thoſe to be Baptiz'd, whom God had ſtirred up by his precedent Preaching, to enquire after the means of Salvation; He doth not only inſinuate their obtaining remiſſion of ſins by it, by calling upon them to be Baptiz'd in order to it, but aſſure them alſo in expreſs termsAct. 2.38., which he could not have done without a promiſe from Chriſt, that, if they were ſo Baptiz'd, they ſhould receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt.

It appearing from the Premiſes, that the Inſtitution of Chriſt is not without its promiſes, and ſuch too, as are ſometime deliver'd in expreſs terms; Enquire we in the next place what thoſe promiſes are, or rather what things they make a promiſe of. Which, in the general, will be found to be, Chriſt's making what is done both by Miniſter, and People, in obedience to his Commands, to be a vailable to thoſe ends, for which they were enjoyn'd. For neither otherwiſe could he have ſaid, that he would be with the former in thoſe Acts of theirs, and much leſs could St. Peter have aſſur'd to the latter the receiving of thoſe Graces, which Baptiſm was intended to convey. But from thence it will follow more particularly, that the Inſtitution of Chriſt makes a promiſe to the Miniſter, that he will convert that into a Sacrament, which is by him ſet apart to be ſo, and where the party, that is to receive it, is duly qualified for it, accompany his Diſpenſation of it with the Diſpenſation of the Divine Graces; To ſuch of the People again, as receive the Sacrament as they ought, that they ſhall receive together with it, thoſe Graces which it was intended to convey: Thoſe being the ends, for which the former Acts were enjoyn'd, and the Promiſe of Chriſt therefore ſuppoſed to aſſure, that, if thoſe Acts be perform'd, they ſhall become available for them. It will follow laſtly, that, as there is a promiſe of the things before remembred, anſwerably to the ſeveral Acts, which the Commanding part of the Inſtitution enjoyns; ſo that Promiſe being the Promiſe of him, who hath power enough to accompliſh it, and is of too much fidelity, and truth not to fulfill, what he may, it is as little to be doubted, but what he hath ſo promis'd he will not fail to accompliſh, as often as what he enjoyns is perform'd. Which laſt particular I have the rather remark'd, becauſe as the Commands of the Inſtitution cannot make way for the bleſſings of a Sacrament, till they come to be fulfill'd by thoſe, on whom they are impos'd; ſo neither can the promiſes thereof help us to them, till they come to be executed, and appli'd by him, whoſe thoſe Promiſes are: A Promiſe, (becauſe importing only a will to conferr a favour) requiring the reducing of that will to Act, in order to the availableneſs thereof.

An account being thus given of that Inſtitution of Chriſt, which I have ſaid to be the foundation of the relation of a Sacrament, it will not be difficult to ſhew firſt, how that, and each part thereof contribute to the founding of it. For as that Inſtitution of Chriſt may be conſider'd under a double notion, to wit either as ſimply ſuch, or as executed, and appli'd; ſo the Inſtitution of Chriſt, in the former notion of it, is the more remote foundation of it; in the latter the more near, and immediate. For it being by vertue of Chriſt's Command, as ſuch, that the elements come to be ſet apart by men for the purpoſe of a Sacrament, and by vertue of his own Promiſe, that he himſelf gives them the relation of one; That Inſtitution, which is made up of them, muſt, as ſuch, be thought a remote foundation of it, becauſe the foundation of thoſe Acts, which are done by men, and Chriſt toward the producing of it. Again, it being more immediately by what is done by men, that the elements come to be ſo ſet apart, and by what is done, on the other ſide by Chriſt, that they come to have the relation of a Sacrament, the more near, and immediate foundation of it muſt be the ſame Inſtitution not conſider'd as ſuch, but as executed, and appli'd by thoſe, to whom it appertains. From whence as it will follow, that the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and the ſeveral parts thereof contribute to the founding of this relation by that obedience, which is paid to its commands, and by that completion, which is given to its promiſes, becauſe it is by thoſe means that they are executed, and appli'd; ſo nothing more therefore can be requir'd toward the clearing of it, than to ſhew at once what thoſe Commands and Promiſes import, becauſe that will let us know what obedience is due to the one, and what completion, or fulfilling to the other.

Of the Commands of the Inſtitution I have already ſufficiently entreated, and ſhall therefore need only briefly to recapitulate what I have ſaid concerning them. Which, ſo far, as concerns our preſent purpoſe, may be done by ſaying, that they enjoyn in the general the Miniſters ſetting apart the elements in order to their becoming a Sacrament, more particularly by imploring the bleſſing of God, and Chriſt upon them, or (as the Church hath us'd to expreſs it) the ſanctification of them. Which Commands, as they tend rather to prepare the elements to be a Sacrament, than to produce that relation in them (for he, who begs of another the doing of this, or that particular, ſhews the doing of that thing not to belong unto himſelf) ſo will make the Miniſter's compliance with, and execution of them to contribute no farther to the founding of that relation, than as that is, by the Inſtitution of Chriſt, to make way for ſome other Act, or Acts, whereby that relation is to be produc'd.

From the Commands of the Inſtitution therefore, and that obedience which is due to them, paſs we to the Promiſes thereof, and of which alſo I have before given no contemptible account. For which cauſe I ſhall only obſerve here, that there is, among thoſe Promiſes, a Promiſe from Chriſt to the Miniſter, that he will be with him in his miniſtration, and therefore alſo make what he doth, available for thoſe ends, for which it was enjoyn'd; That he will conſequently (becauſe that is the end of his miniſtration in the Conſecration of a Sacrament) make thoſe elements to be a Sacrament, which were by the Miniſter ſet apart to be ſo; But by what way, and means, as I have not as yet taken upon me to ſhew, ſo I know not whether I ought to be over poſitive in defining. I ſhall only repreſent as a thing, which ſeems moſt probable to me, That as God ſanctifies our ordinary repaſt by his own word1 Tim. 4.5., even by that word of command, by which he made the creatures to beGen. 1.3. &c. at firſt, and by which he doth as yet uphold Heb. 1.3. them, ſo when the elements of a Sacrament are before prepar'd by Prayer, and ſuch other means as Chriſt himſelf hath preſcrib'd, the ſame God, or rather Chriſt, by his appointment, paſſeth his word of power upon them, and thereby commands them, not to become actually the conveyers of his Grace (for that requires another word of power, or rather his accompanying the Diſpenſation of them with the Diſpenſation of his Grace) but to be in a readineſs to be ſo. By which means (as was before ſaid) they are fitted for that gracious purpoſe, and accordingly, if they prove not effectual for it, it is not, becauſe they were not before ordained and fitted for it, but becauſe the perſons, to whom thoſe Sacramental elements are diſpens'd being not duly prepar'd for ſuch a favour, He, who commanded the Sacramental elements to be in a readineſs for it, doth not make uſe of them for it, nor accompany the Diſpenſation of them with the Diſpenſation of his Grace. This I take to be that Act, whereby the Inſtitutor of the Chriſtian Sacraments produceth in the elements thereof that Sacramental relation, whereof we ſpeak; But as whatever the Act be, by which that relation is produc'd, moſt certain it is that it cannot be any Act of man, ſo it is evident from thence, and from the promiſes of the Inſtitution, that it muſt be ſome Act of Chriſt in purſuance of them, and which whilſt he doth ſo fulfill, he gives birth to that Sacramental relation, which the Act, or Acts of the Miniſter did only make way for, as that too by the ſole force of Chriſt's Commands.

The elements being thus inveſted with the relation of a Sacrament, and ſo fitted, in particular, to convey the Divine Graces; It remains that the Miniſter diſpenſe them to Gods People in that way and manner, which he hath preſcrib'd, and that they accordingly receive them with thoſe qualifications, which are by the ſame Chriſt required of them. As without the former whereof there can be no hope of the Miniſters approving himſelf unto Chriſt, nor can the people, without both, expect to reap that benefit by them, which they were ſo fitted to convey. For the validity, and efficacy of Sacraments depending upon the good will of him, that inſtituted them, and not upon any vertue of their own, or the power of him that conſecrates them, neither can men expect any benefit thereby, where there is not a due compliance with his Laws, by whom they were ſo inſtituted, and ordain'd. But as if thoſe Laws be compli'd with, there can be no doubt of a happy iſſue, conſidering the Promiſes of Chriſt to the due Adminiſtration, and Reception of them; ſo that is enough to ſhew the efficacy thereof, where they are ſo adminiſtred, and receiv'd: There being no doubt of the efficacy of thoſe things, which have the Promiſes of Chriſt to aſſure them, becauſe no doubt at all of his fulfilling thoſe Promiſes, and ſo giving efficacy to the other. And I ſhall only add, that as what is done by the Miniſter toward the producing of a Sacramental relation, doth rather make way for it, than actually produce it; (this being the proper work of the Inſtitutor of a Sacrament in purſuance of his own Promiſes:) So the like is to be ſaid, as to the efficacy of the elements, after that relation is produced in them. For though thoſe elements become not effectual for the ends, for which they were appointed, unleſs they be both diſpenſed, and received as they ought; yet doth that diſpenſation, and reception rather make way for, than give them their reſpective efficacy; It being God Tit. 3.5., or rather Chriſt, by his appointment (and not either the Miniſter, or our ſelves) which ſaveth us by the waſhing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, and the ſame ChriſtEph. 5.26., who ſanctifieth, and cleanſeth his Church, by the waſhing of water through the word. Which will conſequently oblige us to look upon God, and Chriſt as the Authors of the efficacy of Sacraments, as well as of the Sacraments themſelves, and accordingly depend upon them for it, and return them thanks, when we have obtained it.

PART IV. Of the Jewiſh SACRAMENTS, and the Number of the Chriſtian. The Contents.

The Doctrine of the Sacraments drawn down to particulars, and enquiry firſt made concerning the Jewiſh Sacraments, and then concerning the Chriſtian ones. As to the former whereof is ſhewn firſt, that there were indeed ſuch Sacraments among them, and evidence made thereof, from their enjoying the ſame Saving Graces, which our Sacraments pretend to convey, from their being furniſhed alike with External Symbols to convey them, and thoſe Symbols of God, and Chriſt's inſtitution: Secondly, that thoſe Sacraments of theirs were either the extraordinary ones they had in their paſſage from Aegypt to Canaan, as their Baptiſm in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and the Euchariſt of Manna, and the Water of the Rock, or the ordinary ones of Circumciſion, and the Paſsover; Thirdly, That, though they were of the ſame general nature with the Chriſtian, yet they differ'd from them, both as to the manner of their repreſenting the Divine Graces, which was not ſo clear, and as to the meaſure of conveyance of them, which was not ſo full, as in the Chriſtian Sacraments. Thoſe Chriſtian Sacraments, in the next place, brought under conſideration, and evidence made of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper being the only true, and proper ones, or of general neceſſity to Salvation.

THE Nature of a Sacrament being thus explain'd, and a reſolution given of ſuch queſtions, as belong to it, or depend more immediately on it; It will be but time for us to deſcend to Particular ones, whether they be ſuch, as preceded Chriſtianity, and have the name of Jewiſh, or ſuch as were enjoyn'd by it, and any therefore more properly be termed Chriſtian. This only would be premis'd concerning the former Sacraments, that as we make them to have their birth before Chriſtianity, ſo we muſt therefore ſuppoſe them not to have had the Author of it for their immediate Inſtitutor, or, at leaſt, not as God-Man, which is the notion, wherein Chriſtianity conſiders him: He, to whom we give the title of Chriſt, becoming not God-Man, till long after the Inſtitution of thoſe Sacraments, and when indeed they were to be aboliſhed. Which will conſequently oblige us to conſider thoſe Sacraments (if there were any ſuch) rather as to thoſe purpoſes, for which we have affirm'd all Sacraments to have been ordain'd, than as to the immediate ordainer of them; Or, if alſo as to the immediate ordainer of them, yet not in the ſame capacity, wherein Chriſtianity conſiders him, but only as appointed by God to be ſo, when the time of his Manifeſtation ſhould appear.

Now there are three things to be enquir'd into, as concerning thoſe Sacraments, which are to be the ſubject of our preſent conſideration; Firſt, Whether there were any ſuch among the Jews, Secondly, What thoſe Sacraments were, Thirdly, Wherein they differed from ours.

I. That there were ſuch things, as Sacraments among the Jews, will appear if theſe three things be conſider'd; Firſt, that the ſame Graces, which Sacraments profeſs to convey, prevail'd among them, as well as us, Secondly, That they had external ſigns, or ſymbols to convey thoſe Graces to them, Thirdly, that thoſe external ſigns, or ſymbols were inſtituted by God, and Chriſt.

Of the firſt of theſe I have given an account elſewhereExpl. of the Creed, in the words, Our Lord. , and ſhall therefore referr my Reader thither, for his farther ſatisfaction. All I ſhall obſerve from thence is, that they partook of Chriſt, as well as we, and muſt therefore be ſuppos'd to have partaken of his Graces, which are the Graces all Sacraments were intended to convey.

But neither will there be leſs evidence concerning their being furniſh'd with certain external ſions, to convey from God to them the foremention'd graces. For St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.1, &c. , where he affirms the Jews to have partaken of Chriſt, and his Graces, affirming in like manner that they did it, as by a Baptiſm on the one hand, ſo by eating, and drinking on the other, muſt conſequently be ſuppoſed to affirm, that they did it by the means of ſuch ſymbols, as our Sacraments are, and therefore alſo, that they were not unfurniſhed with them. Other wiſe there could have been no place for giving the former means the name of Baptiſm, and much leſs for expreſſing the latter by the terms of eating, and drinking, or that drinking again by drinking of that Rock, which followed them. For as the foregoing mention of Baptiſm, which was one of the Chriſtian Sacraments, could not but incline the Corinthians to interpret what followed concerning the Jews eating, and drinking, of a Sacramental one, eſpecially, when it is alſo affirm'd that they partook of Chriſt by it; ſo much more, when they ſaw the Apoſtle expreſſing that drinking by drinking of that Rock, that followed them, or rather of the Water, that flowed from it. For that being manifeſtly an alluſion to the Water, that flowed out of that Rock which was ſometime ſmittenNumb. 20.11. by Moſes, and by the drinking whereof the Jews were a long time ſuſtained; Neither could the Corinthians look upon that Rock, to which he alluded, as other than a figure of Chriſt; Nor therefore (conſidering their own Sacraments, as ſuch, which did alſo convey what they were figures of) as other, than ſuch a figure of Chriſt, as convey'd to the believing Jews Chriſt's graces, and benefits, which are the ſpiritual waters, that flow from him. Two things only there are, that may ſeem to prejudice this notion, and which therefore it may not be amiſs to conſider; Firſt, That the former Baptiſm is affirmed by St. Paul himſelf1 Cor. 10.2. to have been a Baptiſm into Moſes, and not into Chriſt, and his Graces; Secondly, That what is affirm'd to have been to the Jews ſpiritual meat, and drink, was alſo their conſtant temporal one, and which therefore if we affirm to have been a Sacrament of Chriſt's graces, and benefits, muſt have made that Sacrament to have been as ordinary, as their Meals: Which how the Jews ſhould be always in a diſpoſition for, is not eaſie to imagine, and therefore as difficult to believe the Inſtitution of. As touching the former of theſe, even that Baptiſm's being ſtil'd a Baptiſm into Moſes, it would not be eaſie to give an account, were it not that the Verſes, which follow, perſwade the deſign of the Apoſtle to have been to ſhew the Jews to have enjoyed the ſame Chriſtian Graces with our ſelves: Becauſe the Baptizing into Moſes ſeems moſt naturally to denote the baptizing into his Religion, as that may ſeem to have been diſtinguiſh'd from, and oppos'd to that of Chriſt; For ſo we know the Oeconomy of Moſes is generally taken by the ScripturesJoh. 1.17., and ought therefore, if there were nothing to hinder it, to be alike interpreted here. But as the ſame is not to be ſaid, where the deſign of the Apoſtle is to ſhew, that the Jews partook with us of the ſame Graces, and Benefits; So nothing there fore can hinder our affixing a like ſenſe to the former Baptiſm, if we can give a tolerable account of its being ſaid to be a Baptiſm into Moſes. Which may be done by repreſenting it as a Baptiſm into that Oeconomy of our Redemption, which prevailed under Moſes, and of which he was the Miniſter of God unto the people, as well as of the Law. For thus the Baptiſm, which John adminiſtred, is repreſented asMatt. 21.25. his Baptiſm, even when it is intimated by our Saviour to have been a Baptiſm from Heaven, and ſo more the Baptiſm of that, than of the other. If therefore there lie any juſt exception againſt the being of theſe Jewiſh Sacraments, it muſt be upon the account of their ſuppoſed Euchariſt's being alſo their conſtant temporal food, and which it is not eaſie to imagin they ſhould be always in a diſpoſition for, or therefore believe it was ever intended by God as ſuch. But as it appears from the Acts of the ApoſtlesAct. 2.46., that our Euchariſt was almoſt of the ſame ordinary uſage at the firſt, which may take off in ſome meaſure from the force of that Objection; So nothing hinders us from believing, that that Meat, and Drink of the Jews being deſign'd for a temporal, as well as a Spiritual refreſhment, it might be ſometime, yea, for the moſt part, appointed only for the former (to wit, when the ſatisfying of their bodily neceſſities call'd for their regard) but at other times, though leſs frequently, appointed, and uſed for the latter, and accordingly accompanied with ſuch Prayers, and Praiſes, as were proper for that conſideration of it, and receiv'd with alike religious preparations, and diſpoſition. For even the elements of our Euchariſt, though appointed by Chriſt as the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood, yet are not always us'd as ſuch; But only, when they are by God's Prieſts ſet apart for that purpoſe, and his ſpiritual Benediction, and Grace invoked on them.

I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning the Being of the former Sacraments, when I have added thereto their being ordained by God, and Chriſt, for the gracious purpoſes before remembred. Of the former whereof as we cannot reaſonably doubt, becauſe nothing leſs than a Divine Inſtitution could make them the conveyers of Chriſt's Graces; ſo as little of the latter, if we conſider what hath been elſewhereExpl. of the Creed, in the words, Our Lord. ſaid concerning Chriſt's governing even then, and the Apoſtles exhorting the Corinthians, immediately after1 Cor. 10.9., not to tempt Chriſt, as the Iſraelites did, and were deſtroy'd by Serpents for it. For as it is not to be imagin'd, how the Iſraelites could tempt Chriſt, unleſs they had been even then under his conduct; So if Chriſt had the conduct of them, there is as little doubt of his being the Inſtitutor of their Sacraments, becauſe that was a conſiderable part of it.

II. There being therefore no doubt of the Being of Sacraments among the Jews, which was the firſt thing we propoſed to conſider; Enquire we in the next place, what thoſe their Sacraments were, and which we ſhall find to be either Extraordinary, or Ordinary. Extraordinary thoſe which were juſt before recited, even their being baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and their partaking of Manna, and of the Water of the Rock; Manna being no doubt the ſpiritual meat St. Paul ſpeaks of, both becauſe their then only repaſt, and the bread Exod. 16.4., that came down from Heaven; As the water of the Rock their ſpiritual Drink, and ſo yet more plainly declared by him. And I have the rather given to them the name of Extraordinary Sacraments, becauſe as they had them only, during their paſſage through the Wilderneſs; ſo they had them too, when their ordinary Sacraments ceaſed, which is the proper ſeaſon for extraordinary ones. As will appear if we can ſhew (what I ſhall by and by endeavour) that Circumciſion, and the Paſsover were their ordinary ones; It being certain from the Book of Joſhua Joſh. 5.5., that, from the time of the Iſraelites going out of Aegypt, till their coming to Gilgal, none of the Iſraelites were circumciſed, and as certain too from the ſame placeJoſh. 5.10., that they had not till then any Paſsover; That, as it is the firſt time wherein the obſervation of it is mention'd after their coming out of Aegypt, ſo being the firſt time alſo, wherein they were in a capacity to obſerve it, becauſe not till then furniſhed, or at leaſt not ordinarily, with that earthly Bread, wherewith their Paſsover was required to be obſerv'd.

From thoſe their Extraordinary Sacraments therefore paſs we to their Ordinary ones, and which as I have already intimated to be Circumciſion, and the Paſsover, ſo I muſt now manifeſt to be ſo, but it muſt be by other Arguments, than are commonly alledged for it. For as for what is alledged from St. Paul's repreſenting the Circumciſion of Abraham Tom. 4.11. as a Seal of that righteouſneſs, which he had being yet uncircumciſed, it ſeems to me to make nothing at all for it; Becauſe (as was before Supra Part II. ſhewn) rather intended to denote God's approbation of his particular Righteouſneſs, than any declaration of the nature of the thing it ſelf. But as therefore I cannot ſee, what can be argued from thence toward proving Circumciſion to have been a Sacrament; So I ſhall chuſe rather to evince it from the Inſtitution of it, as where, if any where, the deſign thereof is moſt clearly ſet down. Now the firſt thing obſervable from thence is, that Circumciſion was a Sign, as our Sacraments are, and ſo far therefore of the nature of them. For this (ſaith God) ſhall be a ſign, or token Gen. 17.10. of the Covenant between me and you; That is to ſay, as was beforeGen. 17.7. expreſs'd, between God on the one hand, and Abraham, and his Seed on the other. It is alike obſervable, ſecondly, that as Circumciſion was a ſign, yea a ſign of that Covenant, which God then propos'd between himſelf, and the foremention'd perſons; So it was ſuch a ſign too, as was alſo of the Eſſence of it, and till the paſſing whereof it was not to be look'd upon as ſtruck. Which I gather not only from its being ſtil'd a Covenant Gen. 17.10., as well as a ſign of it, yea more often a Covenant, than the other, but from God's affirming it to be that Covenant, which ought to be keptIbid. between him, and them, and accordingly repreſenting the neglecters of it, as thoſe which had broken Gen. 17.14. his Covenant. From whence as it will follow, that it had a more intimate relation to the Covenant, than that of a bare ſign, or token; So it muſt be either that, which was to ſtrike the Covenant between them, and ſo make it actually ſuch as to thoſe perſons that receiv'd it, or one of thoſe things, which were to be obſerv'd after the Covenant was ſtruck between them, and for which it was enter'd into. But as it appears from thoſe words of God, which uſher in the mention of this Covenant, that the thing ſo agreed upon was a matter of much more weight, even their walking before God, and being perfect; So we are therefore in reaſon to reſolve Circumciſion to be that, which was to ſtrike the Covenant between God, and them, and make it actually ſuch, as to thoſe perſons that receiv'd it. From whence as it will follow farther, becauſe ſtriking the Covenant between God, and them, that it enſur'd to thoſe, that receiv'd it, the future Bleſſings of it, and ſo might not unreaſonably be repreſented as a Seal or a Pledge of them; So that it put them into actual poſſeſſion of ſuch Bleſſings, as were preſently to be beſtow'd, if there were really any ſuch, and accordingly was no leſs a means of conveying them. Which will conſequently leave nothing more to enqui e, than whether that Covenant aſſur'd the ſame Bleſſings with the Chriſtian, and whether any of thoſe Bleſſings were to be immediately beſtow'd by vertue of it. For if that Covenant aſſur'd the ſame Bleſſings with the Chriſtian, then had the ſign thereof relation to the ſame inward Graces with ours, and ſo far forth therefore agreed with them; And if any of thoſe Bleſſings were to be immediately beſtow'd, it was alſo a conveyer of them, and ſo yet more perfectly the ſame. Now that that Covenant, of which Circumciſion was a ſign, aſſur'd the ſame Bleſſings with the Chriſtian ſeems to me to be ſufficiently evident from it's being affirmedGen. 17.7. to import, that God would be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed after him. For that implying at leaſt, that he would be as gracious to him, as he was before, and conſequently (becauſe God dealt with him ſo before) that he would count his Faith to him for Righteouſneſs, it muſt alſo be thought to import his aſſuring the ſame Bleſſings with the Chriſtian Covenant, becauſe that is the ſumm, and ſubſtance of them all. All therefore, that we have farther to ſhew, is, That ſome at leaſt of thoſe Bleſſings were, by vertue of the Covenant it ſelf, to be immediately beſtow'd on thoſe, who entred into it, which will be no hard matter to evince. For thus much at leaſt it muſt be thought to import, that if the party to be Circumciſed receiv'd his Circumciſion with that Faith, which God required of him, that Faith of his ſhould from that very inſtant be accounted to him for Righteouſneſs: Becauſe, the Covenant being ſo far perform'd on his part, there muſt enſue a like completion on the part of God, as which otherwiſe he could not have been ſaid to be punctual to, nor approv'd himſelf a God to the party in Covenant with him. And tho' we cannot make the like Inference upon the part of Children, becauſe there was nothing of Faith in them to procure them ſuch an Imputation; Yet in as much as they were admitted into the ſame Covenant with their believing Parents, and, as they could bring nothing more toward the procuring the Bleſſings of it, than their external Circumciſion, ſo they had nothing more required of them, It is but reaſonable to believe, that they receiv'd the ſame Benefits by it, and had their Circumciſion imputed to them for it. Such Evidence there is for Circumciſion's being a Sacrament, yea of the ſame general nature with the Chriſtian ones; And I no way doubt we ought to think the ſame of the Feaſt of the Paſſover, if not alſo of many of their other Sacrifices: Not, it may be, for any particular evidence there is from the Inſtitution of it, or them, but from the relation they bore to Chriſt's Sacrifice upon the Croſs, and the care it appears God took to convey the Benefits of Chriſt's Sacrifice by thoſe extraordinary Sacraments, which he gave them in the Wilderneſs. For the Sacrifices before mention'd being equally ſigns of that of Chriſt, yea intended by God to remit menSee Expl. of the Creed, in the word, Dead. to him; It is but reaſonable to believe, that God made the ſame uſe of them, and conveyed Chriſt, and his Benefits by them. Otherwiſe their condition in the Land of Cana an would have been worſe, than in the Wilderneſs, becauſe as ſoon as they entred that, their extraordinary Sacraments ceaſed.

III. Only as it is not to be thought, that thoſe Sacraments, tho' the ſame in ſubſtance with ours, did yet agree with them in all other particulars, becauſe belonging to a Diſpenſation, which was manifeſtly inferiour to the Chriſtian; So there are two things, wherein they differ'd from ours, and by which they will appear to have fallen ſhort of them: Firſt, That they did not ſo clearly repreſent the things they were intended to ſignifie, Secondly, That they did not convey, what they ſo ſignified, in ſo ample a manner. For beſide that thoſe ſignifications of theirs were rather hinted, than plainly expreſſed, and much leſs ſo plainly expreſs'd, as the deſigns of the Chriſtian Sacraments; Thoſe ſignifications were not a little obſcur'd by the concomitancy of others, and which they were equally obliged to intend. For thus Circumciſion, becauſe a ſign of that Covenant, by which God did equally oblige himſelf to poſſeſs Abraham, and his natural Seed of the Land of Canaan, was a ſign of God's giving them that promiſed Land, as well as the righeouſneſs of Faith, and that Heavenly Canaan, which belonged to it. And thus too the Paſſover was a ſign of that People's Aegyptian Servitude, and God's delivering them from it, as well as Chriſt's delivering them from the ſlavery of Sin, and Satan, by the ſhedding of his Blood. By which means it is eaſie to ſee, that theſe latter, and more noble ſignifications of them muſt have been yet more obſcured to them, and ſo adminiſter leſs Spiritual Conſolation to them. This I take to be one ſignal difference between the Jewiſh Sacraments, and ours, and wherein therefore they muſt be thought to fall far ſhort of what we now enjoy. But that it is not the only material difference between them, will appear if we conſider the preference the Scripture gives to that Diſpenſation, under which we are, above that of Moſes, or Abraham; And that exuberance of Grace, which was poured out upon the embracers of the Chriſtian Diſpenſation, and of which we find no footſteps under the other. For that is enough to ſhew, that though the Jewiſh Sacraments convey'd the ſame Spiritual Benefits; yet they did not do it in that proportion, wherein the Chriſtian did, and ſo fell yet ſhorter of them. Which will not only oblige us to ſet ſo much the greater value upon our own Sacraments, but be the more curious in enquiring, what ought to be look'd upon as ſuch, which is that I am in the next place to intend.

For the reſolution whereof we are to know (what we need go no farther than our own HomiliesHom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. for the underſtanding) that the word Sacrament may be taken either in a more lax and general, or in a more ſtrict and particular acceptation. If we take it in the former of theſe, ſo the number of the Chriſtian Sacraments will be found to be much greater, than even the Romaniſts themſelves have made it: Becauſe (as our Homily obſerves) in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may, and hath been attributed to any thing, whereby an holy thing is ſignifi'd. Whence it is (as the ſame Homily goes on) that Ancient Writers have given that Name, not only to thoſe Five, which have been added by the Papiſts, but alſo to divers, and ſundry Ceremonies, as to Oyl, waſhing of Feet, and ſuch like. But as the Queſtion between us, and the Papiſts, even in their ownConc. Trid. Seſſ. 7. can. 1. way of ſtating it, is not what may in a more lax, and general ſenſe be look'd upon as Sacraments, but what are ſtrictly, and properly ſuch, ſo that Queſtion cannot better be voided, than by examining thoſe things, which pretend to that dignity by the account we have before given of the Nature of a Sacrament.

Of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper I ſhall ſay nothing at preſent, partly becauſe there is no Controverſie at all concerning their being truly, and properly Sacraments, and partly becauſe we have no other certain means of judging of the Nature of Sacraments, but by that, which is obſervable concerning them. Our buſineſs muſt therefore be to examin the other Five by them, and by what we have before obſerv'd, concerning the Nature of a Sacrament, from them.

To begin with Confirmation, becauſe the firſt Religious Rite after Baptiſm, and becauſe of all the Five beſt deſerving the name of a Sacrament. A Rite, which as our Church receives, and enjoyns, ſo the more ſober ſort of Proteſtants allow to have been an Inſtitution of the Apoſtles, and ſuch as is of ſignal uſe to thoſe, who were baptiz'd in their Infancy, by that examination, which is to precede it, and thoſe ſolemn Prayers, that do attend it. But as the thing it ſelf doth not appear to me to have been inſtituted by Chriſt, which, even by the Doctrine of the Trent CouncilIbid. is made a Character of a Sacrament, ſo there is yet leſs appearance of its having any outward ſign, to which the bleſſings thereof may be ſuppoſed to have been annex'd, which is of the very Eſſence of a Sacrament: That, which was at firſt adminiſtred by a bare Impoſition of hands, and afterwards by the addition of the Chriſm, coming at length to be perform'd by the ſole ceremony of Unction, as the practice of the Greek, and Latine Church declares. Of which variation what account can be given, but that the Church it ſelf did at firſt look upon the Rites of Confirmation as arbitrary, and conſequently not of the ſame nature with the ſigns of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper. For whatever additions, or variations came afterwards to be made in theſe, the Water of the one, and the Bread, and Wine in the other were ever preſerved in them.

The next ſuppoſed Sacrament is that of Penance, or rather (becauſe the form thereof is by themſelvesConc. Trid. Seſſ. 14. c. 13. made to conſiſt in Ego abſolvo te, &c.) the Sacrament of Abſolution. An Inſtitution, which we willingly acknowledge to be an Inſtitution of Chriſt, and which our Church moreover confeſſethHom. of Com. Pray. and Sacr. to have the promiſe of the forgiveneſs of ſins. But differs from a Sacrament in this, that it hath not that promiſe annexed, and tyed to the uſual viſible ſign thereof, even Impoſition of hands. For for the uſe of any ſuch viſible ſign in it we find no Command, and much leſs any declaration from Chriſt, that it ſhould not be available, unleſs it were convey'd by it, or made to depend upon the uſage of it.

But it may be much more may be ſaid for that, which they call the Sacrament of Extreme Ʋnction, becauſe affirmed by the Council of Trent Seſſ. 14. can. 1. to have been inſtituted by our Lord, and publiſhed to the World by St. James. And I no way doubt, that when our Saviour ſent forth his Diſciples by two, and twoMark 6.7, &c. , he gave them power to anoint ſick perſons, as well as to caſt out unclean Spirits, and, it may be too, commanded them, for that time, to make uſe of that particular ceremony toward the healing of them. I as little doubt, for the mention that is made of it in St. James James 5.14., that the ſame ceremony of Unction was continued in the Church, and perhaps preſcrib'd by other Apoſtles, as well as by him, to the Governours of the Church. But it doth not appear to me to have been intended by Chriſt for perpetual uſe, and much leſs for thoſe purpoſes, for which it is alledged. For if it were intended by Chriſt for perpetual uſe, how came the ſame Chriſt to promiſe to thoſe that believe, that if they only laid hands Mark 16.18. on the ſick they ſhould recover? How came he to give his Apoſtles power to cure diſeaſes by the uſe of that only ceremony, as in the caſe of Publius Act. 28.8., by taking infirm people by the hand Act. 3.5., yea by their bareAct. 9.34. word? This being to give encouragement to the neglect of his own Commands, if the ceremony of Unction were to be look'd upon as ſuch. Though granting that Ceremony to have been intended for perpetual uſe, what appearance is there of its having been intended for the purpoſes of a Sacrament, yea to procure, in an eſpecial manner, the forgiveneſs of ſins? For all that St. Mark ſays concerning the Apoſtles anointing with Oyl is, that they thereby healedMark 6.13. thoſe they did ſo anoint; Yea it is, if not the only, yet the principal thing St. James aſſures to thoſe, whom he enjoyn'd the uſe of it. As it appears by his uſhering it in as an application to be made to ſick perſons, his promiſing that that Prayer, which went along with it, ſhould ſave the ſick, and procure God's raiſing of them, in fine by his exhorting men to confeſs their faults one to another, that they might be healed. For theſe things ſhew plainly, that if the healing of ſick perſons was not the only thing intended, yet it was at leaſt the principal one. But ſo the Church it ſelf appears to have underſtood this ceremony, as is evident, among other things, from that Prayer, which did accompany it: That, as Caſſander Conſult. de Artic. Rel. &c. ubi de Unctione infirm. agit. informs us, being, I anoint thee with the holy Oyl in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, imploring the mercy of that one Lord, and our God, that all the griefs and incommodities of thy body being driven away; there may be recovered in thee vertue [or ſtrength] and health, that ſo being cured by the operation of this myſterie, and this Ʋnction of the Sacred Oyl, and our prayer, through the vertue of the Sacred Trinity, thou mayeſt deſerve to receive thy antient, yea more robuſt health through our Lord. Which though it do not ſo directly oppoſe the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, becauſe deſign'd againſt Corporal See Ricdut Preſ. State of the Greek Church c. 12., as well as Spiritual evils, yet doth perfectly overthrow the Extreme Ʋnction of the Papiſts, as which is ſo far from deſigning the recovery of the ſick perſon, that it is not allow'd to be adminiſtred to any, who ſeem not perfectly deſperate. One only paſſage there is in St. James, which may ſeem to give this Ceremony of anointing a higher, and a far better deſign; even his affirming, that that prayer, which did accompany it, ſhould procure for the ſick perſon alſo, that if he had committed ſins James 5.15., they ſhould be forgiven him. But beſide that St. James doth not attribute that forgiveneſs to the ceremony of Unction, but to the prayer that attended, or followed it; The deſign of the Elders viſitation of the Sick being no doubt to procure as well their Spiritual, as Corporal health, it is not unreaſonable to think, that that very Prayer, which they made over them, did not only aim at God's accompanying the former ceremony with the bleſſing, for which it was intended, but extend farther to the imploring for them all thoſe ſpiritual bleſſings, which they wanted, and particularly perfect remiſſion, and forgiveneſs. Which if it did, as is but reaſonable to believe, that Oyl cannot be thought to have had any intereſt in it, and much leſs to have been eſpecially intended as the Sacrament thereof. And indeed, as there are no footſteps in that Antiquity, which is truly primitive, of any ſuch Unction of ſick perſons in order to their ſpiritual welfare; As there is mention moreover in it of another kind of treatment, and particularly of the Elders of the Church giving unto thoſe,Dionyſ. Alex. apud Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. li. 6. c. 44. item Conc. Nic. can. 13. that were under penance the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as their laſt, and neceſſary Viaticum; So I ſee not what neceſſity there is of any ſuch Sacrament as Extreme Ʋnction to confer upon ſick perſons the remiſſion of ſins, or other ſuch like graces, as they may ſtand in need of; There being place, even in them, for the Abſolution of the Church, and the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body and Blood. In fine, ſo far is that Ʋnction, of which St. James ſpeaks, from being any ſtanding Sacrament of our Religion, that it may ſeem to have been only an Appendage of that extraordinary gift of healing.1 Cor. 12.9., which was ſometime depoſited in the Church, and which therefore was to ceaſe, when that, and other ſuch like operations vaniſhed. As appears in part from its being joyned in St. Mark Mark 6.13. with the caſting out of Devils, but more from our Saviours ranking the laying on of hands upon the ſick (which was but another way of adminiſtring it) withMark 16.17, 18. the ſame caſting out of Devils, ſpeaking new tongues, and the taking up of Serpents. For if theſe be to be look'd upon as extraordinary gifts, there is equal reaſon to believe, the anointing, or laying on of hands upon the ſick to have been of the ſame order. Sure I am Tertullian Tert. ad Scapnlam cap. 4. doth not only rank the gift of healing, even in his time, with the caſting out of Devils, but makes mention of one Proculus a Chriſtian adminiſtring this ſuppoſed Sacrament to Severus the Emperor, yea curing him by the Oyl of it.

From Extreme Ʋnction therefore paſs we to that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders, and which is not only affirm'd by the Trent Council to be a trueSeſſ. 13. Can. 3., and proper Sacrament, but as certainly to confer Ib. cap. 3. grace, as the moſt undoubted Sacraments do. It is not my purpoſe, nor was it ever the purpoſe of the Church of England to detract in the leaſt from the force of that, which they entitle the Sacrament of Orders. But that it hath not the nature of a true, and proper Sacrament, will appear in the firſt place from its not having by the Inſtitution of Chriſt any external ſign, to which the grace thereof may be ſuppoſed to be annexed. For if it had, it muſt have been the external ſign, or ceremony of breathing on the perſons to be ordain'd; This being the only one, which our SaviourJoh. 20.22. made uſe of, when he conferr'd the power of Order upon his Apoſtles. But ſo far were the Apoſtles, or the ſucceeding Church from making uſe of that, that we find them, on the contrary, to have made uſe of Impoſition of Hands, yea to have entitled the grace of Orders 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. in a more eſpecial manner to it. Whether it were, that they took their pattern therein from the known uſage of the Jews, and which we find our Saviour himſelf to have followed in other inſtances, or (which I rather think) that they were directed to it by that ſpirit of God, which guided them in all their actions, and to whoſe guidance, and inſtruction our Saviour had left them after his being taken from them. Sure I am there are no footſteps of that external ſign in the firſt Inſtitution of it (as there was, in the Inſtitution of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, of their proper ones) nor any appearance from Scripture of any after command of Chriſt concerning it. But becauſe the external ſign of Ordination, though none of our Saviours Inſtitution, yet is confeſſed by our ſelves to have had a legitimate one; Therefore enquire we in the ſecond place, whether, after the manner of other Sacraments, it be a means of Grace, or (as the Romaniſts love to ſpeak) have the power of conferring it. A thing, which ſeems to them ſufficiently evident, not only from that form of wordsJoh. 20.22., wherewith by the preſcript of Chriſt it hath been always attended, even receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, but from St. Paul's willing Timothy in one place1 Tim. 4.14. not to neglect that gift, or grace, which was given with it, and in another2 Tim. 1.6. to ſtir up that gift, or Grace of God, which was in him by the laying on of his hands. And thus much I willingly yield to the force of the foremention'd Texts, that the Holy Ghoſt ever was, and ſtill is conferr'd upon thoſe men, who are rightly ordain'd by the Governours of the Church. But in what meaſure, and to what purpoſes is the thing in queſtion between us, and particularly whether it is conferr'd, as to its ſanctifying, and ſaving Graces, which I have ſhewn elſewhereSupra, Part 3. to be the proper graces of a Sacrament. Now what is there in any, or all the foremention'd Texts, to evince that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders to confer ſuch graces upon the perſon Ordain'd? If we enquire, as to the firſt of themJoh. 20.22., even that Text which makes Orders to exhibit the Holy Ghoſt, the utmoſt that can be inferr'd from thence is ſuch an exhibition of it, as may be requiſite for the party ordain'd to remit, or retain ſins, as for whichJoh. 20.23., and which alone it is profeſſed to be beſtow'd. But ſo ſure the perſon ordain'd may be qualifi'd to do, without the ſanctifying graces of God's Spirit, even in the opinion of the Tridentine Fathers themſelves: It being their opinionSeſſ. 7. can. 12., as well as oursArt. of Rel. 26., that the perſonal qualifications of the Miniſter do neither add to, nor detract from the force of the Sacraments they diſpenſe. But as therefore no ſuch ſanctifying graces can be ſuppos'd to be deſign'd, though we make the Text to import ſuch an exhibition of the Holy Ghoſt, as is requiſite for the remitting, or retaining of ſins; ſo much leſs, if nothing more were meant by Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, than receive ye Authority from him ſo to do. Which that there was not is at leaſt probable from his referring them to another timeAct. 1.4. &c. for the other powers of the Holy Ghoſt, yea bidding them not to expect them, till after his aſcenſionJoh. 16.7. into Heaven. For that ſuppoſeth them to have been as yet without thoſe powers of the Holy Ghoſt, and conſequently that Chriſt meant no more by Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, than receive ye of his Authority, to whom the power of the Church is committed under me, as ye ſhall in due time of ſuch abilities, and gifts, as may fit you for the exerciſe thereof. And if that were the ſenſe, yea only ſenſe of thoſe words of Chriſt, which contain both the Exemplar, and Inſtitution of Ordination, I know not why we ſhould ſuppoſe that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders, to have a farther deſign in it ſelf, than to communicate a Ghoſtly Authority to thoſe, on whom it is beſtow'd. But let us ſuppoſe, that ſomething more was meant by theſe words, than Receive ye a Ghoſtly Authority, or, at leaſt, that it was the intention of our Saviour (becauſe of what we read1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.16. concerning Timothy) that ſomething more ſhould be afterwards intended by them, when no Apoſtolical Pentecoſt was to enſue, even the communicating of gifts and graces, as well as a Ghoſtly Authority. Yet even ſo it will not follow, that an exhibition of Sanctifying, and Saving Graces was intended, or that even Timothy receiv'd any ſuch Graces by it. For who knows not that there are Gratiae gratis datae, as well as Gratum facientes, yea that the wordRom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4. 1 Cor. 12.9. 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Cor. 12.30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is as often, if not more often the title of the former? Who knows not, that thoſe Gratiae gratis datae are more proper for the Miniſterial Function, than the other can be ſuppos'd to be, yea that they may avail for thoſe ſpiritual purpoſes, for which that Function was intended? In fine, who knows not, that God hath appointed other Sacraments for the conveying of his ſanctifying Graces, and by the participation of which therefore they might be more reaſonably expected? For theſe things being ſuppos'd, there will not only be no neceſſity of underſtanding St. Paul of the ſanctifying Graces of God's Spirit, but not ſo much as any probable reaſon for it. Though granting thirdly, that there were alſo ſome ſanctifying Graces attending it; Yet as we cannot for the reaſons before mention'd underſtand any other ſanctifying Graces, than what may ſerve more immediately for the diſcharge of the Miniſterial Function, ſuch as is a holy Zeal for the welfare of thoſe Souls, which are committed to thoſe that are of it, ſo we can much leſs (as our Homily Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. inſtructs us) expect remiſſion of ſins by it, which is the undoubted fruit of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper. From all which put together it is evident, that if judgment be to be made of Sacraments by Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, Orders will hardly paſs for one of them; As which varies ſo much from them both in the External Sign, and in the Graces, which are ſignified by it.

One only Inſtitution remains of thoſe, which have the name of Sacraments, and which if they, who ſo entitled it, would underſtand only in a general ſenſe, they would not find our Church diſſenting from them, becauſe affirmingThe form of Solemn. of Matrim. God to have conſecrated the State of Matrimony into ſuch an excellent myſtery, that in it is ſignified, and repreſented the Spiritual Marriage, and Ʋnity, that is betwixt Chriſt and his Church. But to make it a true, and proper Sacrament of the Evangelical Law, as the Council of Trent Seſſ. 24. can. 1. doth, is extremely unreaſonable, and neither hinted by St. Paul in that placeEph. 5.25. &c. , from whence they pretend to infer it, nor, any farther than a ſimple repreſentation reacheth, agreeable with thoſe things, whichhave the name of Sacraments either with us, or among themſelves. For neither was that, which they call a Sacrament of the Evangelical Law, inſtituted by Chriſt, but by God, nay St. Paul in the place before quoted founds all the Sacramentality thereof in thoſe paſſagesEph. 5.30, 31. which are repreſented by Moſes Gen. 2.23, 24., as declaring the Identity of Man, and Wife, and the neceſſity that ariſeth thereupon of their adhering to one another, even to the abandoning of all other relations for it. It hath no certain external ſign, as other Sacraments have, to confer that grace, which is ſuppoſed to belong to it; It hath no other promiſe of Grace belonging to it, than may be ſuppoſed to belong to any ſtate of life, which a Man ſhall ſet himſelf to, with a due reſpect to the Commands of God, and uſe with that care, and ſobriety, that becomes him. It hath much leſs any promiſe of the forgiveneſs of ſins, and an Univerſal Holineſs, as Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper undoubtedly have. And if it hath not, nothing can oblige us to look upon it as a true, and proper Sacrament, or indeed but in the ſame degree, wherewith their other Sacraments are. For they, though not perfectly ſuch, have yet ſome more near reſemblance to thoſe, which they pretend to rival.

But becauſe it may be demanded, how, if there be but two ſtrict, and proper Sacraments, ſeveral other things ſhould come to have the ſame name, and honour, and particularly how the Church of Rome ſhould at length advance them to the number of Seven (this ſeeming to be ſome prejudice againſt our aſſerting only two) I anſwer firſt by reaſon of their general cognation with them, and which we know, in other things, to procure the ſame name to things, that are of a very diſſerent nature. Whence it is, that (as was before obſerv'd out of one of our ownHom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. Homilies) not only thoſe five, which we but now mention'd, have obtain'd the name of Sacraments, but whatſoever, in a manner, hath been made uſe of to ſignine a holy thing. Which is ſo true, that Tertullian in one placeDe Animâ cap. 9. gives the name of Sacrament to Dreams, and Viſions, and in othersDe pudic. c. 9. & adv. Marcion. li. 5. c. 4. to Parables, and Allegories. For if even Dreams, and Parables come to have the name of Sacraments by reaſon of their repreſenting things of a higher nature; How much more ſuch Religious Inſtitutions, as were tranſacted by the ſame viſible ſolemnities as Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, as to be ſure the Inſtitutions before remembred were? For though, it may be, they had not the ceremonies now in uſe, or at leaſt had not that number of them, wherewith they are now encumber'd, yet wanted they not ſome, or other, which was of the ſame ſymbolical nature, and particularly Impoſition of hands. For that, as we learn from the Scripture, they made uſe of in Confirmation Act. 8.17., in the gift of healing Act. 28.8., Orders 1 Tim. 4.14., and Abſolution 1 Tim. 5.22.; And that too, as we learn from Grotius Annot in Conſult. Caſſand. ad Art. 9., they made uſe of toward thoſe, who entered into Marriage, and ſtill do in the Eaſtern parts. But beſide that general, and external cognation, which is between Sacraments, and Sacramentals (for ſo I ſhall for the future entitle thoſe things, which are not ſtrict, and proper ones) there is alſo, as to ſome of the latter, a more particular, and intimate cognation, but eſpecially as to thoſe, which are before remembred, and are by the Papiſts advanc'd into true, and proper Sacraments. For ſetting aſide that, which they call the Sacrament of Marriage, and which hath, even among them, rather the name, than nature of one; There is none of the other four, which tend not to the conferring of ſome Divine Grace, or Benefit, as well as to the ſignification of it. For thus Confirmation tends to procure a farther addition of God's ſanctifying Graces, and ſo to ſtrengthen, and perfect the perſon, that ofers himſelf unto it; And thus the Oyl of Ʋnction, as us'd of Old, toward the procuring of the Grace of health, and the removal of the ſick perſons guilt ſo far, as was neceſſary for the procuring of the other. Thus Abſolution tends to the procuring of the forgiveneſs of the Penitent, and Ordination, for the perſon ordain'd, of a ſpiritual, and ghoſtly Authority, if not alſo of ſuch ſpiritual gifts, as are neceſſary for the exerciſe thereof. By which means as they approach yet nearer to the nature of true, and proper Sacraments, ſo it is the leſs to be wonder'd at, that they ſhould obtain the name of Sacraments, yea have the reputation of ſuch in a more eminent manner, than other Sacramentals had: Eſpecially if we conſider thirdly, that thoſe five ſuppoſed Sacraments are upon the matter the only noted Acts, that are adminiſtred by the Church, or, at leaſt, that are attended with ſuch Rites, and Ceremonies. For ſo it is yet leſs difficult to believe, that they might not only come by degrees to be ranked with Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, but together with them to be accounted, if not the only, yet at leaſt the primary ones. Which Peter Lombard Sentent. li. 4. Diſtinct. 2. taking notice of, made the Number of Chriſtian Sacraments to be neither more, nor leſs than ſeven, and the Church of Rome, ſway'd by him, did afterwards Authoritatively confirm. This I take to have been the true Original of that number, to which the Sacraments are now advanc'd, and not either any cogent arguments for the being of ſo many, or indeed any firm belief, even in that Church it ſelf, that they ought all to be look'd upon as true, and proper ones. And I am yet more confirm'd in that belief by the ſilence there wasConſult. Caſſandri ad Art. 13. before Peter Lombard of any certain, and determinate number, and by the Authority of two of the greateſt Fathers of the Latin Church: St. Ambroſe in his tract de Sacramentis, and in another de iis qui myſteriis initiantur, mentioning only Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, and St. Auguſtine not only reſolvingEpiſt. 118. ad Januar. the Sacraments to be numero pauciſſima, and mentioning none but thoſe, but affirming elſewhereDe Doctr. Chriſt. li. 3. cap. 9., that our Lord, and the Apoſtolical diſcipline had delivered ſome few; ſuch as is the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and the celebration of Chriſt's Body, and Blood. For that is enough to ſhew, that though the Fathers might ſometime mention the other Inſtitutions under the notion of Sacraments, yet they look'd upon Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper as the only true, and proper ones, or, at leaſt, were not over confident of the being ſo of the other. If the Church of Rome hath ſince arriv'd at a greater confidence, it will concern her, rather than us to give an account of it; But however not ſo far concern us, as to remove us from an opinion, which ſeems to us to be built upon ſolid, and ſubſtantial grounds. For either ſhe hath arriv'd at that confidence by the means before declar'd, and then her Authority will be very incompetent; Or ſhe hath arriv'd at it by ſome other means, which we are not acquainted with, and which therefore we cannot be ſuppos'd to be influenced by till ſhe ſhall be pleaſed to declare them.

I have inſiſted thus long upon the Number of the Chriſtian Sacraments, not becauſe I was obliged to it by my more immediate task (for our Catechiſm contents it ſelf to declare, that there are two only as generally neceſſary to Salvation) but becauſe our Church affirms elſewhereArt. of Rel. 25. and Homily of Com. Pr. and Sacram., that there are but two ſtrict, and proper ones, and becauſe the joyning of others with them in the ſame rank, and order of Sacraments may help in time to bring them into leſs repute; It being natural for men, where there are ſeveral means tending to the ſame end, either to adhere to ſome of them to the utter rejecting of the other, or to uſe thoſe others with leſs preparation, and reſpect. And whether this be not the caſe of the Euchariſt, where that, which they call the Sacrament of Penance is ſo much in vogue, may be judg'd of by the little care they take to fit themſelves for the one, where they have obtain'd, as they eaſily may, the abſolution of the other. And I ſhall only add, that if our Church did not diſtinguiſh in the preſent Catechiſm between proper, and improper Sacraments, it was not, as I conceive, becauſe ſhe had departed from her own Articles, and Homilies, but becauſe, being to inſtruct thoſe, who were no proper Auditors of higher matters, ſhe contented her ſelf to let them know, what was ſufficient for their purpoſe, that there were but two, that were generally neceſſary to Salvation, even Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord.

Now that there are no more than theſe, that are generally neceſſary to Salvation, (which is all, that remains for me to demonſtrate) will appear if we reflect upon thoſe, which have been added to them by the Papiſts, and ranked in the ſame order with them. For who can think Marriage to be ſuch, who believe, as the Papiſts do, that it is unlawful to the whole Order of Prieſthood, yea who know that there are not a few, who live not long enough to deſire, or need it, or are otherwiſe ſufficiently fortified by God againſt any neceſſity of eſpouſing it? Who can believe Orders to be ſuch, when there ever was, and ever will be a greater number of thoſe, who are to be inſtructed, than there was, or ever will be of thoſe, who are to inſtruct them? In fine, who can believe the Ʋnction of the ſick to be ſuch, when it appears by the former diſcourſe to have had no other deſign, than the recovery of them from their infirmities? For well may that be look'd upon, as not generally neceſſary to Salvation, which appears not to have been intended to miniſter at all unto it. If therefore there be any of the five of that neceſſity, it muſt be Confirmation, and Abſolution, but which how uſeful ſoever they may be, and are ſo eſteemed by our ſelves, yet will not be found to be any more than ſuch. I alledge as to the former of theſe the no precept there appears concerning it, which is one of thoſe things, which induce a neceſſity to Salvation; And I alledge too (which is another) the no appearance there is of any tendency in it to procure ſome bleſſings, for which no other means are appointed. For the Euchariſt having for its end the confirming and ſtrengthning of our Graces, which is all that Confirmation, as now in uſe, profeſſeth to intend; neither can there be any neceſſity of the means to oblige us to the uſe of the latter, or endanger our Salvation by the omiſſion of it. In fine, I alledge, what is with me of no ſmall moment, the no mention there is in Juſtin Martyr Apol. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. of it, even where he takes notice of their bringing the New Baptized perſon to the Aſſembly of the Faithful, and to a Communion with them in their Prayers, and Euchariſt. For though that Father doth not obſcurely intimate, that they had a particular regard in their Prayers to the welfare of the new Baptized perſon, as well as to the more general welfare of the other; Yet he takes no notice at all of any Impoſition of hands upon him, or any other ceremony, that may be ſuppoſed to be analogous to it. Which in all probability he would have done, (eſpecially when he mention'd the Kiſs of Peace, as well as both the other Sacraments) if either the Church had then us'd the Sacrament of Confirmation, or he look'd upon it as a Sacrament of the ſame general neceſſity with the other. Which things I have ſaid, not in the leaſt to detract from the uſe of Confirmation (for I think this very paſſage of Juſtin Martyr doth ſufficiently warrant the more material part of it, even prayer over the new Baptized perſon) but to ſhew that the Church did not then look upon it as a Sacrament, or, at leaſt, not as ſuch a one, as was generally neceſſary for Salvation, as our Catechiſm hath taught us to ſpeak.

But it may be much more may be ſaid for Abſolution, than Confirmation, and ſo no doubt there may, if we conſider Abſolution as comprehending within the compaſs of it the whole power of the Prieſt in remitting ſins. For comprehending within it, in that ſenſe, the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, becauſe the moſt effectual means the Church hath for abſolving offenders from their guilt, ſo far as thoſe Sacraments, or the Prieſts Adminiſtration of them is neceſſary to Salvation (which no doubt they generally are) ſo far alſo his Abſolution muſt be look'd upon as ſuch. But ſo to conſider Abſolution is to make it the ſame with Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, and not (as it is here propos'd) a diſtinct Sacrament from them. If therefore we will ſpeak pertinently either to our own Catechiſm, or the preſent Controverſie, we muſt conſider Abſolution as abſtracting from thoſe Sacraments; which if we do, we ſhall find it to conſiſt either in declaring the word of reconciliation to Offenders, or praying to God for their Pardon, or pronouncing them abſolved from their guilt, or looſing them from the Cenſures of the Church.

If we conſider Abſolution in the firſt of theſe ſenſes, to wit as importing the declaration of the word of reconciliation to Offenders; ſo we ſhall not ſtick to affirm, that it is generally neceſſary to Salvation, but then we muſt ſay withall, that it is no Sacrament, nor eſteemed by the Papiſts themſelves to be ſo.

If we conſider it in the ſecond ſenſe, to wit, as denoting the Prieſt's praying for the Pardon of Offenders (and in which form, as Biſhop Ʋſher Anſw. to the Jeſuits Chall. p. 125. &c. obſerves, Abſolution was antiently wont to be made) ſo it will be found to have a reſpect to that Community, over which he preſides, or to particular perſons in it. In the former of theſe regards it is no doubt as neceſſary to Salvation, as it is for the Prieſt to celebrate, or the people to joyn with him in the publick worſhip of God, of which ſuch prayers as thoſe are a neceſſary part. But as there is no preſumption of that Offices being a Sacrament, ſo it is not the Abſolution our Adverſaries intend; That, which they profeſs to advance, being the Abſolution of particular perſons, after a confeſſion made by them of their particular offences. And yet even here too they make a diſtinction, becauſe profeſſing to reſtrain that Confeſſion, and Abſolution to ſuch ſins only, as are mortal. But who taught them to diſtinguiſh in this affair between Mortal, and Venial? Or what is there in thoſe words of Chriſt, which convey the power of remitting ſins, which can be thought to reſtrain it to the former? What have they to ground the general neceſſity of ſuch a Confeſſion upon, but eſpecially as to that form of Abſolution, whereof we ſpeak? For in praying for the pardon of Offenders the Prieſt is not to be conſidered as a Judge, but as a perſon appointed to mediate between God, and his People, and whom that charity, which belongs to him as ſuch, will oblige him to look upon as penitent, if he knows them not to be otherwiſe, eſpecially if they beg his prayers for their own particular pardon. And indeed neither is this the Abſolution the Papiſts contend for, nay they declareConc. Trid. Seſſ. 14. cap. 3. thoſe very Prayers, which go along with their own, not to be of the Eſſence of it. Which will oblige us to paſs on to

A third ſort of Abſolution, even pronouncing offending perſons to be looſed from their offences. A thing, which though of ſignal uſe, and comfort to men of afflicted minds, and which no doubt ſuch perſons ought to ſeek, when they cannot otherwiſe ſatisfie themſelves, yet cannot be look'd upon as generally neceſſary to Salvation; Partly, becauſe none but deſponding perſons can be ſuppoſed to ſtand in need of it, and partly becauſe ſuch an Abſolution, as that, ſuppoſeth men to be already looſed from their offences, and conſequently not to want any thing, but the ſenſe thereof. Which though it may be an infelicity, yet is no ſin in it ſelf, nor can prove ſo to him, in whom it is, unleſs it do otherwiſe take him off from the due performance of his duty. Though, even in that caſe, ſuch an Abſolution will be neceſſary, rather to prevent future offences, than to procure the forgiveneſs of former ones. And I ſhall only add, that I conceive that form of Abſolution to be ſuch, which occurrs in our Viſitation of the Sick; Partly, becauſe it is ordered by our Church to be applied to men of troubled minds, and partly becauſe it prompts the Prieſt to beg of God the forgiveneſs of the ſick perſons offences, before it allows him to ſay I abſolve thee from all thy ſins; That ſuppoſing the forgiveneſs of God to precede in this affair, and conſequently that the Prieſt rather declares the perſon already abſolved, than abſolves him himſelf from the band of his offences.

The fourth ſort of Abſolution is that, which looſeth men from the cenſures of the Church, and which I ſhall not ſtick to affirm to be generally neceſſary to the looſing of thoſe, who have been before bound, even from the band of their offences before God: Partly, becauſe God hath promis'd to bind that in Heaven, which the Governours of the Church ſhall rightfully bind on Earth; And partly, becauſe the Cenſures of the Church conſiſting eſpecially in reſtraining men from its ſaving Offices, and particularly from the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, till men are looſed from thoſe Cenſures, they muſt be depriv'd of the ordinary means, whereby God hath appointed to tranſmit the pardon of offences. But as the queſtion is not, Whether Abſolution may be neceſſary in a particular caſe, or to particular perſons, but whether it be generally ſo; So we cannot look upon this Abſolution as generally neceſſary to Salvation, unleſs it were ſuch to fall under thoſe Cenſures, from which this Abſolution frees. The reſult of the Premiſes is this; The Church of God is indeed inveſted with a power of Abſolution, and ſuch, as exerts it ſelf in ſeveral Acts, anſwerably to the needs of thoſe, with whom it hath to do: But as it is not inveſted with any ſuch power of Abſolution, as doth actually free the Offender from his guilt, the doing of that pertaining only unto God; As it is not therefore inveſted with any other power of Abſolution, than what may ſerve to declare the pardon of God, or help toward the procuring of it; So what it doth toward either of theſe (unleſs it be in Baptiſm, or the Lord's Supper) is either no Sacrament at all, and ſo falls not under this enquiry, or is no generally neceſſary one. And indeed, however the Church of Rome may ſeem to advance another Abſolution, even that which actually looſeth the ſinner from his guilt; Though ſhe moreover repreſent that Abſolution of her's, as generally neceſſary to the Salvation of thoſe who are under any mortal ſin; yet is there no appearance of any ſuch Abſolution, nor indeed of the neceſſity of any, but what is before deſcrib'd. As is evident, as to the former of theſe, from that very Text, on which it is founded, even a promiſe of looſing that in Heaven, which ſhall be looſed on Earth. For if there muſt be a looſing in Heaven, after that on Earth, that on Earth cannot be look'd upon as actually freeing the Sinner from his guilt, but only as preparatory to it; With this only advantage (which might very well occaſion the ſo entitling it) that that looſing ſhall certainly be followed by a more effectual, and heavenly one. So little reaſon is there to believe, that there is any Abſolution among men, but what is purely preparatory to the Abſolution of God; And we ſhall find there is as little reaſon to ſeek out any other modes of it, than thoſe, which were before deſcrib'd: As will appear if we conſider, who they are, that are to be looſed, and who as they are either ſuch, as are within the Communion of the Church, or ſuch as are excluded from it, ſo, if they be of the former ſort, have either done nothing to deſerve an excluſion, or have committed ſuch offences, as are worthy of it. If the perſons we ſpeak of be ſuch Members of the Church, as have not done any thing to deſerve an excluſion from it; So there cannot lye any engagement upon them to confeſs their ſins to a Prieſt, or ſeek any other Abſolution, than by the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, or other the like ordinary methods of the Church: The Communion, in which they are, and which they have not done any thing to deprive themſelves of, giving them a title to that Sacrament, or any other priviledge of their Religion. But then if they be ſuch, as do really deſerve to be excluded, till they have given ſufficient teſtimonies of their repentance; Either they ought to be excluded, and afterwards looſed as Excommunicate perſons, or, if they be thought fit to be continued in the Church, be look'd upon as Members of it, and allowed the common Abſolutions of it: It being a kind of contradiction in adjecto to continue men in the Communion of the Church, and yet deny them the common priviledges thereof. All therefore, that remains to be accounted for, is the Abſolution of thoſe, who have been ſhut out of the Church; But concerning which as there is no great difference between us, and the Church of Rome, ſo we deny not but that it may require a peculiar form of words, and ſuch as may ſignifie to the perſons concern'd, and the Members of the Church the act of the Officers thereof in it. But that the Eſſence of Abſolution conſiſteth in it, doth not appear to us, nor can indeed be reaſonably affirm'd; Partly, becauſe the very reſtoring Excommunicated perſons to the Communion of the Church will as effectually vacate its former Cenſures, as any expreſs declaration can do; And partly, becauſe Excommunication conſiſting in a deprivation from thoſe methods of Salvation, which God hath depoſited in the Church, the only effectual releaſe of it muſt lye in a re-admiſſion to them, and particularly to the Sacrament of the Euchariſt. But ſo the Antient Church appears to have underſtood it, as is evident both from her language, and practice; She not only expreſſing this Abſolution, bySee Ʋſher's Anſwer to the Jeſuites Challenge. pag. 132. bringing men to the Communion, reconciling them to it, or reſtoring it to them, but taking care above all things, that no Excommunicated perſon generally ſhould go out of the WorldDionyſ. Alex. apud Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. li. 6. c. 44. item Conc. Nic. can. 13. without partaking of the Euchariſt. For what other account can be given of that both language, and practice of hers, than that ſhe conceiv'd the Abſolution of Excommunicated perſons to lye in a re-admiſſion to the common methods of Salvation, and conſequently that they were rather loos'd by the uſe of thoſe methods, than by any judicial ſentence? This however is certain (which is enough for our preſent purpoſe) that Abſolution in this ſenſe cannot be look'd upon as generally neceſſary, becauſe the peculiar refuge of ſuch, as have been ſhut out of the Church. And if that be the caſe of Abſolution, as well as of the other ſuppoſed Sacraments; Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper will continue to be the only ones, that are of that neceſſity to Salvation.

THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England. PART IV.

Queſtion.

HOW many Sacraments hath Chriſt ordained in his Church?

Anſwer.

Two only, as generally neceſſary to Salvation: that is to ſay, Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord.

Queſtion.

What meaneſt thou by this word Sacrament?

Anſwer.

I mean an outward and viſible ſign of an inward and ſpiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Chriſt himſelf, as a means whereby we receive the ſame, and as a pledge to aſſure us thereof.

Queſtion.

How many parts are there in a Sacrament?

Anſwer.

Two: the outward viſible ſign, and the inward ſpiritual grace.

Queſtion.

What is the outward viſible ſign, or form in Baptiſm?

Anſwer.

Water: wherein the perſon is baptized, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt.

Queſtion.

What is the inward and ſpiritual grace?

Anſwer.

A death unto ſin, and a new birth unto righteouſneſs: for, being by nature born in ſin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.

Queſtion.

What is required of perſons to be baptized?

Anſwer.

Repentance, whereby they forſake ſin, and Faith, whereby they ſtedfaſtly believe the promiſes of God made to them in that Sacrament.

Queſtion.

Why then are Infants baptized, when by reaſon of their tender age they cannot perform them?

Anſwer.

Becauſe they promiſe them both by their Sureties: which promiſe when they come to age, themſelves are bound to perform.

Queſtion.

Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained?

Anſwer.

For the continual remembrance of the ſacrifice of the death of Chriſt, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.

Queſtion.

What is the outward part or ſign of the Lord's Supper?

Anſwer.

Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received?

Queſtion.

What is the inward part or thing ſignified?

Anſwer.

The body and blood of Chriſt, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.

Queſtion.

What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?

Anſwer.

The ſtrengthening and refreſhing of our ſouls by the body and blood of Chriſt, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.

Queſtion.

What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper?

Anſwer.

To examine themſelves, whether they repent them truly of their former ſins, ſtedfaſtly purpoſing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Chriſt; with a thankful remembrance of his death, and be in charity with all men.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, In Purſuance of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England.

BY GABRIEL TOWERSON, D.D. and Rector of Welwynne in Hartfordſhire.

Imprimatur.

Ex Aedib. Lamb. Apr. 10. 1686.

Jo. Battely RRmo P. ac Dno Dno Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domeſticis.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiſwell, at the Roſe and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVII.

TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Biſhop of ELY, AND LORD ALMONER TO His Majeſty. My Lord,

YOUR Lordſhip's favourable acceptance of my Diſcourſe of the Sacraments in General, with the deſire I have, if it may be, to put an end to the whole, hath prompted me to make the more haſt to preſent your Lordſhip, and the World with this of Baptiſm in particular.

Two things there are in it, which I thought my ſelf moſt concern'd to clear, and which therefore I have employ'd all requiſite diligence on, the Doctrine of Original Sin, and Infant-Baptiſm: The former being in my opinion the foundation of Chriſtianity, the latter of our intereſt in it. For if there be no ſuch thing as Original Sin, I do not ſee but ſome perſons heretofore might, and may here after live with ſuch exactneſs, as not at all to ſtand in need of a Saviour. And I ſee as little, if Infant-Baptiſm be null, what intereſt any of us can have in him, according to the ordinary diſpenſation of the Goſpel, who have for the moſt part been baptized in our Infancy, or at leaſt have been baptized by thoſe that were.

Throughout the whole Treatiſe I have endeavour'd to retrive the antient notion of Baptiſm, to ſhew what advantages are annexed to it; and what duties it either involves, or obligeth to. To either of which if I have given any light, or ſtrength, I ſhall hope I have done ſome ſmall ſervice to the Church, and which your Lordſhip in particular will take in good part from

Your Lordſhip's Moſt Obliged, Moſt Obedient, and Moſt humble Servant, GABRIEL TOWERSON. Wellwyne, Aug. 23. 1686.
THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. Of the Rite of Baptiſm among the Heathen and the Jews.

THe Heathen themſelves not without the knowledge of another World, and of the inſufficiency of natural Religion to bring them to the happineſs thereof. Occaſion taken by them from thence to enquire after other ways of obtaining it, and by the Devil to ſuggeſt the myſteries of their reſpective Deities as the only proper means of compaſſing it. Thoſe myſteries every where initiated into by the Rite of Baptiſm; partly through Men's conſciouſneſs of their paſt ſins, and which they judged it but meet they ſhould be ſome way purged from, and partly through the policy of the Devil, who thereby thought to procure the greater veneration to them: That as it was a Rite, which was in uſe among God's own people, ſo naturally apt to repreſent to Mens minds their paſſing from a ſinful to a holy Eſtate. Of what Service the Heathens uſe of this Rite is toward the commendation of the Chriſtians Baptiſm, and a tranſition from thence to the uſe of it among the Jews. Which is not only prov'd at large out of the Jewiſh Writings, and ſeveral particulars of that Baptiſm remark'd, but that uſage farther confirm'd by ſeveral concurring proofs; ſuch as is in particular the no appearance there is otherwiſe of any initiation of the Jewiſh Women, the Baptizing of the whole Nation in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and a remarkable alluſion to it in our Saviour's Diſcourſe to Nicodemus. The ſilence of the Old Teſtament concerning that Rite ſhewn to be of no force, becauſe though it take notice of the firſt Jews being under the Cloud, and paſſing through the Red Sea, yet it takes no notice at all of their being Baptized in them, or of their Eating, and Drinking that ſpiritual Repaſt whereof S. Paul ſpeaketh. The Baptiſm of Chriſtians copied by our Saviour from that of the Jews, and may therefore, (where it appears not, that he hath made an alteration) receive an elucidation from it. pag. 1.

The Contents of the Second Part. Of the Baptiſm of the Chriſtians, and the Inſtitution of it.

THe Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Baptiſm more antient, than the Command for it in S. Matthew 28.19. though not as to the generality of the World, nor it may be as to the like explicit Profeſſion of the Trinity. As is made appear from Chriſt, or his Diſciples baptizing in Judea, not long after his own Baptiſm by S. John. Enquiry thereupon made, whether it were not yet more antient, yea as antient as Chriſt's execution of his Prophetical Office. Which is rendred probable from our Saviours making Diſciples before, and the equal reaſon there appears to have been for his making them after the ſame manner with thoſe of Judea; From Chriſt's repreſenting to Nicodemus the neceſſity of being born again of water, and the ſpirit, which is ſhewn at large to be meant of a true and proper Baptiſm; As, in fine, from Chriſt's telling S. Peter, when he ask'd the waſhing of his Hands, and Head, as well as Feet, that he, who had been waſhed, needeth not ſave to waſh his feet. An anſwer to the ſuppoſed ſilence of the Scripture concerning ſo early a Baptiſm, and that ſhewn to be neither a perfect ſilence, nor an unaccountable one. p. 9.

The Contents of the Third Part. Of the outward viſible Sign of Baptiſm.

THe outward viſible Sign of the Chriſtian Baptiſm ſhewn to be the Element of Water, and enquiry thereupon made wherein it was intended as a Sign; Which is ſhewn, in the general, to be as to the cleanſing quality thereof, more particularly as to the uſe it was put to toward new born Infants, and that application of it which was firſt in uſe, even by an immerſion, or plunging the Party baptized in it. Occaſion taken from thence to enquire farther, how it ought to be applyed, more eſpecially whether by an immerſion, or by that, or an aſperſion, or effuſion. Evidence made of an immerſion being the only legitimate Rite of Baptiſm, ſave where neceſſity doth otherwiſe require; And enquiry thereupon made, whether neceſſity may juſtifie the Application of it by an Aſperſion, or Effuſion, and, if it may, whether the caſe of Infants be to be look'd upon as ſuch a neceſſity. What is to be thought of thoſe additions, which were antiently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward ſolemnities of Baptiſm. Where the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm is more particularly conſidered, and anſwer made to thoſe Exceptions that are made againſt it as a Ceremony, as an addition of Men to the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and as a ſuppoſed Relique of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papiſts abuſes of it. p. 17.

A Digreſſion concerning Original Sign, by way of Preparation to the following Diſcourſes. The Contents.

OF the ground of the preſent Digreſſion concerning Original Sin, and enquiry thereupon made, what Original Sin is. Which is ſhewn in the General to be ſuch a corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the off-ſpring of Adam, whereby it becomes averſe from every thing, that is good, and inclinable to every thing, that is evil. The nature of that corruption more particularly enquir'd into, and ſhewn by probable Arguments to be no other, than a Privation of a Supernatural Grace. That there is ſuch a thing, as we have before deſcribed, evidenced at large from the Scripture, and that evidence farther ſtrengthned by the experience we have of its effects, and the acknowledgments of the wiſer Heathen. Enquiry next made from whence it had its beginning, which is ſhewn to have been not from any evil Spirit, or Daemon, the pravity of matter, or the evil habits the Soul contracted in a praeexiſtent ſtate, but from the pravity of our firſt Parents. This laſt at large confirm'd out of the Doctrine of the Scripture, and followed by ſome light reflections upon the means, by which it is conveyed. A more juſt account from the Scripture of its being truly, and properly a ſin, partly from its having the title of a ſin, but more eſpecially from its being repreſented as ſuch, upon the account of our Obligation to the contrary. A conſideration of thoſe Objections, which are commonly made againſt the Doctrine of Original Sin; Which are ſhewn either not to be of that force, whereof they are eſteem'd, or however not to be a ſufficient bar to what the Scripture hath declar'd concerning it. p. 33.

The Contents of the Fourth Part. Of the things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of God, or its inward and ſpiritual Grace.

THE things ſignified by Baptiſm are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which paſeth between God, and Man, and that body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the ſame God doth, by vertue of that Covenant, oblige himſelf to beſtow upon the Baptized, and what thoſe Baptized ones do on their part undertake to perform. Theſe latter ones propoſed to be conſidered, and entrance made with the conſideration of what God obligeth himſelf to beſtow upon the Baptized, called by the Church, An inward, and ſpiritual Grace. Which inward, and ſpiritual Grace is ſhewn to be of two ſorts, to wit, ſuch as tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare, or ſuch as only qualifie us for thoſe Graces, that do ſo. To the former ſort are reckon'd that inward, and ſpiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of ſin, called by the Church forgiveneſs of ſin; That which tends to free us from the pollution of ſin, called by our Catechiſm A death unto it; And that, which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a New birth unto righteouſneſs. To the latter ſort is reckoned our union to that Body, of which Chriſt Jeſus is the Head, and by means whereof he diſpenſeth the former Graces to us. Each of theſe reſum'd, and conſidered in their order, and ſhewn to be, what they are uſually ſtil'd, the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm, or the things ſignified by the outward viſible Sign thereof. p. 65

The Contents of the Fifth Part. Of Forgiveneſs of ſin by Baptiſm.

OF the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to its inward, and ſpiritual Grace, and particularly to Forgiveneſs of ſin; Which is either that of a means fitted by God to convey it, or of a pledge to aſſure the Baptized perſon of it. The former of theſe relations more particularly conſidered, as that too with reſpect to Forgiveneſs of Sin in the general, or the Forgiveneſs of all Sin whatſoever, and Original Sin in particular. As to the former whereof is alledged firſt the Scriptures calling upon Men to be Baptiz'd for the remiſſion, or forgiveneſs of ſin, Secondly the Church's making that Forgiveneſs a part of her Belief, and Doctrine, Thirdly the agreeing opinions or practices of thoſe, who were either unſound members of it, or Separatiſts from it, And Fourthly the Calumnies of its enemies. The like evidence made of the latter from the Scripture's propoſing Baptiſm, and its Forgiveneſs as a remedy againſt the greateſt guilts, and in ſpecial againſt that wrath, which we are Children of by Nature. From the premiſes is ſhewn, that the ſign of Baptiſm is a pledge to aſſure the Baptized of Forgiveneſs, as well as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it. p. 71

The Contents of the ſixth Part. Of Mortification of ſin, and Regeneration by Baptiſm.

OF the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to ſuch inward, and ſpiritual Graces, as tend to free us from the pollution of ſin, or introduce the contrary purity; And that relation ſhewn to be no leſs than that of a means, whereby they are convey'd. This evidenced as to the former, even our death unto ſin (which is alſo explain'd) from ſuch Texts of Scripture, as make mention of our being baptiz'd into it, and buried by Baptiſm in it, or from ſuch as deſcribe us as cleanſed by the waſhing of it. The like evidenc'd from the ſame Scripture concerning the latter, even our new birth unto righteouſneſs; As that again farther clear'd as to this particular by the conſentient Doctrine, and practice of the Church, by the opinion the Jews had of that Baptiſm, which was a Type, and exemplar of ours, and the expreſſions of the Heathen concerning it. The Doctrine of the Church more largely inſiſted upon, and exemplified from Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, and S. Cyprian. p. 77

The Contents of the Seventh Part. Of our Union to the Church by Baptiſm.

OF the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to our Ʋnion to the Church, and that relation ſhewn to be no leſs than that of a means, whereby that Ʋnion is made. This evidenc'd in the firſt place from the declarations of the Scripture, more particularly from its affirming all Chriſtians to be baptiz'd into that Body, as thoſe, who were firſt baptiz'd after the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt upon the Apoſtles, to have been thereby added to their company, and made partakers with the reſt in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. The like evidence of the ſame Union to the Church by Baptiſm from the declarations of the Church it ſelf, and the conſequences of that Ʋnion ſhewn to be ſuch, as to make that alſo to be accounted one of the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of that Baptiſm, by which it is made. p. 85

The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of the Profeſſion that is made by the Baptized Perſon.

THE things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized brought under conſideration, and ſhewn from ſeveral former diſcourſes (which are alſo pointed to) to be an Abrenunciation of ſin, a preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and particularly of the Trinity, and a reſolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws. Our reſolution of acting agreeably to the Laws of Chriſtianity more particularly conſider'd, and the Profeſſion thereof ſhewn by ſeveral Arguments to be the intendment of the Chriſtian Baptiſm. What the meaſure of that conformity is, which we profeſs to pay to the Laws of Chriſtianity, and what are the conſequences of the Violation of that Profeſſion. p. 89

The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the right Adminiſtration of Baptiſm.

AFter a ſhort account of the Foundation of the Baptiſmal relation, and reference made to thoſe places from which a larger one may be fetch'd; Enquiry is made touching the right Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, as therein again, Firſt, Whether Baptiſm ought expreſly to be made in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, Secondly whether Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are valid Adminiſtratours of it, Thirdly, to what, and what kind of perſons it ought to be adminiſtred, Fourthly, Whether it may be repeated. The two firſt of theſe ſpoken to here, and firſt, Whether Baptiſm ought to be expreſly adminiſtred in the form propos'd. Which is not only ſhewn to be under obligation from the expreſs words of the Inſtitution, but anſwer made to thoſe Texts, which ſeem to intimate it to be enough to baptize in the name of the Lord Jeſus only. The Baptiſm of Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks more largely ſhewn to be valid, unleſs where they baptize into a counterfeit Faith, and the ſeveral objections againſt it anſwer'd. p. 95

The Contents of the Tenth Part. Of the Baptiſm of thoſe of riper Years.

TO what, and what kind of perſons Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred; Which, as to thoſe of riper years, is ſhewn to be unto all, that come duly qualified for it. What thoſe qualifications are, upon that account enquir'd into, and Repentance, and Faith ſhewn from the Scripture, as well as from our own Catechiſm to be they. That Repentance, and Faith more particularly conſidered, the definitions given of them by our Church explain'd, and eſtabliſhed. The former whereof is effected, by ſhewing what Repentance doth preſuppoſe, what it imports, and to what it doth naturally diſpoſe us: The latter by ſhewing what thoſe promiſes are, which by the Catechiſm are made the object of our Faith, or Belief, what that Belief of them doth preſuppoſe, what is meant by a ſtedfaſt Belief of them, and what evidence there is of that being the Faith, or Belief requir'd to the receiving of Baptiſm. p. 103

The Contents of the Eleventh Part. Of the Baptiſm of Infants.

WHat ground Infant-Baptiſm hath in Scripture, and particularly in what it ſuggeſts concerning Chriſt's commanding his Diſciples to ſuffer little Children to come unto him. S. Paul's giving the Children of the faithful the title of Holy, and the Circumciſion of Infants. The concurrence of Antiquity therein with the Doctrine of the Scripture, and that concurrence fartherſtrengthned by the Pelagians ſo freely admitting of what was urg'd againſt them from thence. A brief account of that remiſſion, and regeneration, which Infants acquire by Baptiſm, and a more large conſideration of the Objections, that are made againſt it; More particularly of what is urg'd againſt the Regeneration of Infants in Baptiſm, or their ability to anſwer what is prerequir'd to it on the part of perſons to be baptiz'd, or is to be performed by them in the reception of it. Where the Regeneration of Infants is more largely conſidered, and what is promis'd for them by others ſhewn to be both reaſonable, and ſufficient. p. 111

The Contents of the Twelfth Part. Whether Baptiſm may be repeated.

WHat the true ſtate of the preſent queſtion is, and that it is not founded in any ſuppos'd illegitimateneſs of the former Baptiſm, but upon ſuppoſition of the baptized perſons either not having before had, or forfeited the regeneration of it, or fallen off from that Religion, to which it doth belong. Whereupon enquiry is made, whether if ſuch perſons repent and return, they ought to be baptiz'd anew, or received into the Church without. What there is to perſwade the repeating of Baptiſm, and what the Church hath alledg'd againſt it. The Churches arguments from Eph. 4.4. and John 13.10. propoſed, but wav'd. The Churches opinion more firmly eſtabliſhed in the no direction there is in Scripture for re-baptization in thoſe caſes, but rather the contrary, and in the no neceſſity there is of it. The Arguments for rebaptization anſwer'd. p. 131

ERRATA

PAg. 22. l. 1. after do add not. p. 47. l. 46. after of add that. p. 81. l. 3. corruption. p. 109. l. 32. for boyl r. boglt.

Pag. 3. l. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ibid. l. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 23. l. 44. for Sacramentum, r. incrementa. p. 83. l. pmult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
PART I. Of the Rite of Baptiſm among the HEATHEN, and the JEWS. The Contents.

The Heathen themſelves not without the knowledge of another World, and of the inſufficiency of natural Religion to bring them to the happineſs thereof. Occaſion taken by them from thence to enquire after other ways of obtaining it, and by the Devil to ſuggeſt the myſteries of their reſpective Deities as the only proper means of compaſſing it. Thoſe myſteries every where initiated into by the Rite of Baptiſm; partly through Men's conſciouſneſs of their paſt ſins, and which they judged it but meet they ſhould be ſome way purged from, and partly through the policy of the Devil, who thereby thought to procure the greater veneration to them: That as it was a Rite, which was in uſe among God's own people, ſo naturally apt to repreſent to Mens minds their paſſing from a ſinful to a holy Eſtate. Of what Service the Heathens uſe of this Rite is toward the commendation of the Chriſtians Baptiſm, and a tranſition from thence to the uſe of it among the Jews. Which is not only prov'd at large out of the Jewiſh Writings, and ſeveral particulars of that Baptiſm remark'd, but that uſage farther confirm'd by ſeveral concurring proofs; ſuch as is in particular the no appearance there is otherwiſe of any initiation of the Jewiſh Women, the Baptizing of the whole Nation in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and a remarkable alluſion to it in our Saviour's Diſcourſe to Nicodemus. The ſilence of the Old Teſtament concerning that Rite ſhewn to be of no force, becauſe though it take notice of the firſt Jews being under the Cloud, and paſſing through the Red Sea, yet it takes no notice at all of their being Baptized in them, or of their Eating, and Drinking that ſpiritual Repaſt whereof S. Paul ſpeaketh. The Baptiſm of Chriſtians copied by our Saviour from that of the Jews, and may therefore, (where it appears not, that he hath made an alteration) receive an elucidation from it.

THOUGH the Baptiſm of Chriſtians be my proper buſineſs, and ought accordingly to be made the ſubject matter of my Diſcourſe; yet I think it not amiſs to premiſe ſomething concerning the uſe of the like Rite among the Heathen, and (which is of much more conſideration) among the people of the Jews: Partly becauſe Chriſtianity may ſeem to have borrowed her Baptiſm from the Baptiſm of the latter, and we therefore may borrow ſome light from it toward the clearing of our own; And partly becauſe it may appear both from the one, and the others Baptiſm, that Chriſtianity hath laid no other impoſition on us, than what the general reaſon of Mankind, or a more early Tradition prompted others to the imbracing of.

For the underſtanding whereof we are to know, that as the Heathen themſelves were not without a preſenſion of another World, wherein the Souls of Men ſhould be treated according to their demeanour here; So they alike ſaw, or at leaſt ſuſpected, that they could not expect a happy futurity by a bare compliance with thoſe rules, which natural Religion ſuggeſted to them: Partly, becauſe they ſaw but too well that they could never arrive at a perfect compliance with them, by which means they ſhould always ſtand in need of the divine favour, and forgiveneſs; And partly, becauſe they knew it to be in the power of their offended Deities to preſcribe what ways and means they thought good for Men's obtaining a reconciliation with them. This therefore being the general, and indeed natural ſenſe of Mankind, and not a little quickned at the firſt by what they might learn from God's own people concerning the Sacrifices, and other Rites, whereby he appointed them to atone him; Men began to look out every where for proper means to obtain the favour of their Gods; and the Devil, who was willing by all means to precipitate them into deſtruction, did either by himſelf, or his Agents ſuggeſt ſuch, as might gratifie thoſe their hopes, but withal not only no way profit them, but debauch their minds ſo much the more. Only leſt too groſs a deceit ſhould come to be diſcern'd, he took care, among other things, that what he ſuggeſted ſhould be concealed from the generality of Men, and indeed even from thoſe, who were deſirous to underſtand them, till they had approv'd themſelves by a long expectation, and the undergoing of all thoſe things, which were preparatory to them. From hence it was, that the myſteries of the ſeveral Heathen Deities came to have their beginning, and name; Thoſe of the Mother of the Gods in Samothracia, and of Hecate in many places. Hence thoſe famous ones of Ceres and Proſerpina at Eleuſis in Attica, of Bacchus in Boeotia, and of Mithras in Aſia. In fine, hence thoſe of Orpheus almoſt all over Greece, and of Iſis in Aegypt, and many other places: TheyCicero de leg. lib. 2. Mihi autem cum multa eximia, divinaque videntur Athenae tuae peperiſſe, atque in vitam hominum attuliſſe, tum nihil melius illis myſteriis, quibus ex agreſti immanique vita exculti ad humanitatem, & mitigati ſumus, initiaque, ut appellantur, ita revera principia vitae cognovimus, neque ſolum cum laetitia vivendi rationem accepimus, ſed etiam cum ſpe meliore moriendi., who were not without a due eſteem of piety, and vertue making the end of thoſe myſteries to have been the procuring to thoſe that were initiated into them a poſſibility of living happily in the other World, whilſt nothing but extremeſt miſeries attended the neglecters of them.

Sophocles— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

But becauſe myſteries of this nature were not to be communicated to all, no nor yet to any before they were purged from their paſt ſins; Therefore care was taken firſt of all (as we learn from Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 5. p. 424. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.) that they ſhould paſs through certain purgations, or waſhings, and which though (as Tertullian De Baptiſmo. c. 5. ſpeaks) perform'd viduis aquis, that is to ſay, with ſuch, as had not the incubation of God's Spirit, yet were, as he afterwardsIbid. Certe ludis Apollinaribus, & Eleuſiniis tinguntur, idque ſe in regenerationem, & impunitatem perjuriorum ſuorum agere praeſumunt. affirms, both adminiſtred, and receiv'd as effectual Symbols of a new Birth, and a freedom from the puniſhment of their ofences. It was thus in particular, that Men were initiated into the myſteries of Eleuſis, even the leſſer ones, and ſuch as were preparatory to the greater, and he who initiated them into them entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heſvch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . or the Waterer. It was thus, as we learn from Tertullian De Bapt. c. 5. Nam & ſacris quibuſdam per lavacrum initiantur Iſidis alicujus, & Mithrae., that they initiated Men into the rites of Mithras, and ſo too into thoſe of Iſis: The Chief Prieſt of that Goddeſs (as Apuleius Mileſi. 11. citat. à Seldene de ſucceſſ. ad leg. Haebr. c. 26. deſcribes his own initiation) leading the party, that was to be initiated, in the Company of that Religious band to the next Bath. Where having firſt delivered him to the uſual waſhing, and ask'd pardon of the Goddeſs, he ſprinkled him all about, and bringing him back to the Temple, after two parts of the day were ſpent, plac'd him before the feet of the Goddeſs.

How this way of initiation by Baptiſm came to prevail ſo generally, is hard to ſay, and I will not therefore be over poſitive in defining. That, which ſeems to me to be the moſt probable, is, that thoſe myſteries, to which this way of initiation belonged, came all out of the ſame forge, even the contrivance of the Devil, and his dependants, to whom, though ignorantly, the Heathen offered1 Cor. 10.20. Sacrifice; That he ſuggeſted ſuch an initiation to them, partly in imitation of thoſe Baptiſms, or waſhings, which God had appointed among his own people, and partly as a Symbol, which did moſt naturally repreſent to their minds their paſſing from a ſinful to a holy Eſtate: Sin, by reaſon of the odiouſneſs thereof, coming to have both the eſteem, and name of Pollution, and that therefore, which profeſſed to do it away, beſt repreſented by that Element, which was moſt proper to purge away the natural one; In fine, that they, to whom that form of initiation was propos'd, being thereby poſſeſs'd with a good opinion of the ſacredneſs of thoſe myſteries, to which it led, and a hope of its alſo purging them from their former guilt, greedily embraced it, and made it as ſacred in their own eſteem, as it ſeemed to be in the deſign of thoſe, that inſtituted it. Which moreover they were more eaſily perſuaded into, becauſe they found it much more eaſie thus to waſh away their Sins, than to purge their ConſcienceHeb. 9.14. from dead works by repentance, and amendment. By theſe degrees, I ſuppoſe, it was, that Baptiſm came, even among the Heathen; to be the general form of initiating them into their reſpective myſteries; And had thoſe myſteries been as ſacred, as their initiation into them was ſpecious, it might have ſerv'd to them for a perpetual monument of that inward, and far better purity, which it becomes all thoſe to put on, who hope for approbation from the Divine Majeſty. But as that initiation of their's had for its Inſtitutor ſome falſe God, or other, or rather ſome Evil Spirit, who acted the part of one; As it was moreover an Introduction into abominable myſteries, as well as into unprofitable ones; Witneſs in particular thoſe ſo much talk'd of myſteries of Eleuſis Arnob. adv. Gent. li. 5. & Clem. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 10. , and which I will favour chaſt Ears in concealing: ſo I have inſiſted on it for no other reaſon, than to ſhew, how willing the Devil was to procure credit to his myſteries by it, and how eaſily Men were prevailed upon by the ſpeciouſneſs thereof to engage themſelves in the purſuit of them. Which, though it were no commendation to thoſe myſteries, to which it was apply'd, yet is a ſufficient one of the Rite it ſelf, and will add yet more luſtre to that Baptiſm of ours, which leads to a Religion, that is as ſpotleſs as it ſelf.

From the Baptiſm of the Heathen paſs we to that of the Jews, and ſo much the rather, becauſe if ſuch a Baptiſm can be prov'd, it will not only be a farther commendation to our own, but it may be alſo give light to it: He, who came not to deſtroy the Law, and the Prophets, but to fulfill them (as Chriſt himſelf declar'dMat. 5.17. in the very entrance upon his Miniſtry) being likely enough to have had a regard to their Baptiſm alſo, and to have copied out his own Baptiſm by it. And indeed if any credit may be given to the moſt Authentick writings the Jews now have, and to oneMaimonides. of the moſt ſober Rabbins, which that Nation hath ever produc'd, there will be no reaſon to doubt of the Jews having, even from Antient times, the ſame way of initiating Men into their Religion, which Chriſtianity doth now preſcribe. For from their Writings it hath been obſerv'd, (and the expreſs words of their reſpective Authors alledgedSeld. de Jure Nat. & Gent. li. 2. c. 2. &c. Ham. in his Quaer. concern. Inf. Baptiſm. for it) that the Males of the native Jews were of Old initiated into that Religion by Baptiſm, or waſhing of the whole body, as well as by Circumciſion, and an Oblation, and the Females by Baptiſm, if not alſo by an Oblation; That the Males of their Proſelytes of Juſtice (ſutably to the Males of thoſe native Jews, into whoſe Religion they were admitted) were initiated by Baptiſm, and an Oblation, as well as by Circumciſion, and the Females by Baptiſm, and an Oblation; That the Baptiſm of Proſelytes was to be perform'd in a natural receptacle of Waters, as in a River, a Pool, or a Fountain, and the whole body waſhed in it; That there were three Men appointed to preſide over their Baptiſm, and who, as the Baptiſed perſons ſtood in the water, were to lean over them, and twice explain to them ſome of the more weighty, and lighter precepts of the Law; That where the Proſelyte was a Female, ſhe ſhould be encompaſſed with other Women to preſerve her from being ſeen by the Triumviri, and they to depart, when ſhe was to come out of the water; That this Baptiſm being rightly perform'd was not to be repeated, and that in what condition Proſelytes were baptiz'd, that is to ſay, whether in a ſervile or free condition, (for that was then to be profeſs'd) in that they were to abide; That, from the time of their being thus proſelyted, they were for the main accounted of as Jews, and had the title of ſuch, that they were accounted of as perſons new born, yea ſo far, that after that time they were not to own any of their former Relations; In fine, that that new birth was look'd upon as ſo ſingular, that it gave occaſion to their Cabaliſtical Doctors to teach, that the old Soul of the Proſelyte vaniſhed, and a new one ſucceeded in its place. For all theſe particulars have been obſerv'd concerning that Baptiſm whereof we ſpeak, and the Baptiſm it ſelf not only made as antient as Moſes, but deduced by them from that command of God Exod. 19.10., whereby Moſes was enjoyn'd to ſanctifie the Iſraelites, and cauſe them to waſh their Cloaths, againſt the time that God declar'd from Mount Sinai that legal Covenant, which they were then to enter into.

Whether the Jewiſh Writers might not ſomewhat overlaſh in making their Baptiſm ſo very ancient, or err in aſſigning the former Command as the Original thereof, is a thing I mean not to diſpute, and much leſs will I concern my ſelf ſo far in it, as to vindicate them againſt all oppoſers. But as it is hard to believe, they would attribute ſo great an antiquity to that, which was not at leaſt ſomewhat antienter than our Saviour's time, which is all we are concerned to aſſert; So it will be much more hard to detract altogether from their teſtimony, if it hath any concurring proofs, and be otherwiſe fairly defenſible againſt the adverſaries thereof. Now that the teſtimony of the Jewiſh Writers is not without ſome concurring proofs, and ſuch as will at leaſt add to the probability thereof, will appear if we conſider firſt, that though Circumciſion both was, and was intended as a means of initiating the Jews, yet it was ſuch a form of initiation, as was competible only to the Males. By which means, if there had been no other form of initiation, all of the Female Sex, who were undoubtedly as much in Covenant with God, as thoſe of the other, muſt have been debar'd of any viſible Sacrament to aſſure them of their intereſt in it. Which though it be not ſo great an inconvenience, as to enforce altogether the uſe of ſomewhat beſide Circumciſion, becauſe the Females might be initiated in their Fathers, yet will make it reaſonable enough to believe, that God, with whom there is no reſpect of Sexes, appointed ſome form of initiation, by which they might be alike admitted. I ſay Secondly, that as Circumciſion was not competible to thoſe of the Female Sex, and not unlikely therefore that there might be ſome other ceremony for their initiation; So it is apparent from S. Paul 1 Cor. 10.2., that however God might deal with the Jews before, or after, yet all of them, in their paſſage from Aegypt unto Canaan, were baptized into Moſes in the Cloud, and in the Sea. For being ſo, it is not difficult to believe, that the ſame form of initiation might afterwards have force in thoſe, who were not capable of Circumciſion, yea even in them, that were capable of it, after the Rite of Circumciſion was over, if it were only to put them in mind, of that deliverance they receiv'd by it: Eſpecially, when their Euchariſtical Manna, though thence forward not enjoyn'd to be us'd, becauſe it ceaſed from among them, was yet laid up in the Ark of GodExod. 16.32, &c. to put them in mind of God's nouriſhing them by it. I ſay Thirdly, that though Baptiſm might not be enjoyned at the firſt, or at leaſt enjoyn'd only for the uſe of thoſe, who were not capable of Circumciſion, yet it might by the advice of their Governors, and the approbation of thoſe Prophets whom God raiſed up among them, be afterwards added to Circumciſion, both upon the account of their Fore-fathers being commanded to ſanctifie themſelves, and waſh their Cloaths when they appear'd before God at Mount Sinai, and as a farther declaration to them of the impurity of their Nature, and of that pure, and holy eſtate, which they entred into. For if their Fore-fathers were, even by the command of God, to ſanctifie themſelves with waſhings toward their entring into Covenant with God at Mount Sinai, what ſhould hinder ſuch of their poſterity, as preſided over that Nation, to make an addition of the like Baptiſm? Eſpecially, when all was little enough to admoniſh them of their own natural impurity, and of the neceſſity that lay upon them of purging themſelves from it. I obſerve Fourthly, that though there be not any expreſs mention in the Scripture of that Baptiſm whereof we ſpeak, nor indeed of any like it beſide that of John the Baptiſt, which being immediately from Heaven ought not to be drawn into example; yet is it ſufficiently intimated by our Saviour, where, upon Nicodemus's wondring how a Man could be born of Water, and the Spirit, he with equal wonder demandedJoh. 3.10., Art thou a Maſter of Iſrael, and knoweſt not theſe things? For as that is a ſufficient indication, that the notion our Saviour advanc'd was no ſtranger to the Iſraelites, and therefore neither ſuch a Baptiſm, as was the ſubject of it; So it became yet more clear by the Jewiſh Writers repreſenting the Baptiſm of a Proſelyte as giving a new birth unto him: That as it is the ſame in effect with the product of Chriſt's Baptiſm, ſo making it yet more reaſonable to believe, that our Saviour had an eye to it, when he wondred ſo much at Nicodemus for ſtumbling at that property in his. All which put together, becauſe tending toward the ſame thing, will make it yet more reaſonable to believe, that the Jewiſh Writers ſpake not at adventure, when they repreſented the Rite of Baptiſm as a Rite of their own Nation, and by which both themſelves, and their Proſelytes had been of old initiated, no leſs than by the Rite of Circumciſion. If there be any thing to hinder the admiſſion of it, it muſt be the ſilence of the Old Teſtament concerning it, or at leaſt concerning the Inſtitution of it. But as we find no great mention, even of Circumciſion it ſelf after the five Books of Moſes, and may therefore the leſs wonder at the no mention of Baptiſm, eſpecially if, as it might be, inſtituted, after his time; As we find as little mention, even where it might have been more reaſonably expected, of the firſt Jews being baptized into Moſes in the Cloud, and in the Sea, or of their Eating, and Drinking that ſpiritual repaſt, whereof S. Paul ſpeaketh1 Cor. 10.3, 4.: So there is as little reaſon therefore to wonder at its ſilence concerning this Rite, eſpecially conſidering, what is notorious enough from thence, that God from time to time rais'd up Prophets among them. For their Authority, and Preaching might ſuffice to conſtitute, or confirm a matter of greater moment, than the Rite of Baptiſm, as added to Circumciſion, can be ſuppoſed to have been.

There being therefore no great doubt to be made of a Baptiſm among the Jews antecedent to that of John the Baptiſt, and our Saviour, it will not be difficult to believe firſt, that our Saviour had an eye to it, when he appointed the ſame Rite to initiate Men into his Religion: Partly becauſe it was his avowed Profeſſion, that he came rather to reform, than deſtroy their former Oeconomy; and partly becauſe he might the more reaſonably hope to bring them over to that faith, which it was an initiation into. It will be as eaſie to believe, Secondly, upon the ſcore of the ſame condeſcenſion, and compliance, that Chriſt departed as little as might be from their manner of Adminiſtration of it, or from the ends, which it was appointed for among them; ſuch a compliance being equally neceſſary to carry on his deſign of bringing them over to his Religion. The conſequence whereof will be thirdly, that where it doth not very plainly appear that Chriſtianity hath made an alteration in it, we interpret the Baptiſm thereof conformably to that of the Jews, from whence it appears to have been tranſcrib'd. How much more then, where there are any fair hints in Chriſtianity of its ſymbolizing with the Doctrine of the other? The reſult of which will be fourthly, our having recourſe upon occaſion to the Baptiſm of the Jews for the better clearing, or eſtabliſhing the Doctrine of our own. Which as I ſhall therefore not fail to do as often as their Writings ſhall furniſh matter for it; ſo having ſaid thus much concerning their Baptiſm, and that of the Heathen, I will paſs on to the Baptiſm of the Chriſtians, and confine my ſelf yet more ſtrictly to the conſideration of it.

PART II. Of the Baptiſm of the Chriſtians, and the Inſtitution of it. The Contents.

The Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Baptiſm more antient, than the Command for it in S. Matthew Matt. 28.19., though not as to the generality of the World, nor it may be as to the like explicit Profeſſion of the Trinity. As is made appear from Chriſt, or his Diſciples baptizing in Judea, not long after his own Baptiſm by S. John. Enquiry thereupon made, whether it were not yet more antient, yea as antient as Chriſt's execution of his Prophetical Office. Which is rendred probable from our Saviours making Diſciples before, and the equal reaſon there appears to have been for his making them after the ſame manner with thoſe of Judea; From Chriſt's repreſenting to Nicodemus the neceſſity of being born again of water, and the ſpirit, which is ſhewn at large to be meant of a true, and proper Baptiſm; As, in fine, from Chriſt's telling S. Peter, when he ask'd the waſhing of his Hands, and Head, as well as Feet, that he, who had been waſhed, needeth not ſave to waſh his feet. An anſwer to the ſuppoſed ſilence of the Scripture concerning ſo early a Baptiſm, and that ſhewn to be neither a perfect ſilense, nor an unaccountable one.

NOW the firſt thing to be enquired after is the Inſtitution of it, and ſo much the rather, becauſe though there is no doubt as to the thing it ſelf, yet there is as to the firſt beginning of it. For there are, who have thought this Sacrament to have been firſt inſtituted by our Saviour immediately before his Aſcenſion, and when he gave command to his DiſciplesMatt. 28.19. to go, and teach, or diſciple all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. And I willingly grant (becauſe our Saviour was ſent only Matt. 15.24. to the loſt ſheep of the Houſe of Iſrael) that that was the firſt inſtitution of it, as to that more general extent it was to have in the World, and it may be too as to that clear, and explicit profeſſion of the Trinity, into the Names of which our Saviour afterwards commanded to baptize: Becauſe ſuch Doctrines as that were to be poured into the Diſciples by degrees, and according as they ſhould be able to receive them. But that the Sacrament it ſelf had a more early Inſtitution, will appear from the mention there is of our Saviour's baptizing long before, or at leaſt of his Diſciples doing it by his Commiſſion, and Appointment.

For the clearing whereof we are to know, that whatſoever he may be thought to have done, before he firſt paſſed into Judaea after his own Baptiſm by John the Baptiſt, yet there heJoh. 3.22., or his Diſciples Joh. 4.2. baptized; yea to ſo great a number, that John's DiſciplesJoh. 3.26. affirmed to their Maſter, that all men came to him, and it; and news was afterwards brought to the Phariſees Joh. 4.1., that he made, and baptized more Diſciples, than John himſelf. Into what profeſſion is not difficult to conjecture from our Saviour's being ſaid to make Joh. 4.1. Diſciples by it, and from the Baptiſt's affirmming in allowance of our Saviour's Baptiſm, that he that believed on the SonJoh. 3.36., ſhould have everlaſting Life, but he, that believed not the Son, ſhould not ſee life, but, on the contrary, have the wrath of God abiding on him. For what could that aſſertion have ſignified toward the legitimating of our Saviour's Baptiſm, eſpecially when John himſelf admoniſh'd Men by his to believe on him, that ſhould come after him Acts 19.4., that is, on Chriſt Jeſus? Were it not, that our Saviour, or his Diſciples did expreſly baptize Men into the belief of him, and of that Auguſt Authority, and ſaving power, which was veſted in him as the Meſſiah. Which makes me wonder ſo much the more, that Tertullian De Bapt. c. 11. ſhould make that Baptiſm of the Diſciples but of the ſame nature with that of John, but above all at his asking, how Chriſt could be ſuppoſed to baptize into himſelf, when he at that time made it his buſineſs to conceal who, and what he was. For as John the Baptiſt was not wantingJoh. 1.29, &c. to diſcover what he was; ſo our Saviour was ſo far from being reſerv'd as to that particular, that the very firſt of thoſe Diſciples, that came to him, did both acknowledge himJoh. 41.45. as the Meſſiah immediately, and repreſent him as ſuch to other Men.

But let us riſe yet higher, than Chriſt's baptizing in Judaea, though that be not far remov'd from his firſt ſetting up for Diſciples, becauſe whilſt John was yetJoh. 3.22, 23. baptizing, which is the time, from whence the ScriptureAct. 1.22. — 10.37. makes our Saviour's preaching to commence. Not that there are any expreſs proofs before that time of his baptizing any Diſciples, but that it may be ſome probable proofs may offer themſelves for it, and ſuch as we cannot reaſonably refuſe. Of which nature I reckon firſt his making Diſciples before that time, and particularly thoſe Diſciples, whom he made uſe of to baptize in the Land of Jury. For if our Saviour made Diſciples before, why not after the ſame manner, wherein he made thoſe of Judaea? He had to induce him to it the cuſtom, that then prevail'd among the Jews, of making Diſciples by that ſolemnity, as appears both by their ſo admitting Proſelytes, and the Baptiſm of his Forerunner. He had to induce him to it the greater likelihood there was thereby of inviting others to the ſame Baptiſm, than if thoſe, who were the firſt, and chief, and moreover made uſe of by himſelf to baptize, had not firſt been baptiz'd themſelves: Becauſe ſo there could have been no pretence to refuſe the Baptiſm he propos'd, whereas otherwiſe they might have rejected it as a thing unneceſſary to be had, or ſcrupled it as proceeding from incompetent Adminiſtrators of it. In fine, he had to induce him to it that, which prevail'd with himſelfMatt. 3.15. to receive the Baptiſm of John, even their fulfilling all righteouſneſs, who were not only the firſt of his Diſciples, but ordained by himſelf to be a pattern unto others. Which inducements as they are of no ſmall force to perſuade his baptizing from the beginning, becauſe but ſuitable to his own proceedings, or the common reaſonings of Mankind; ſo will no doubt be accounted ſuch, if there be not equal probabilities to the contrary, as which are the only things, that can take off the edge of them. Now what is there of that nature, that can perſwade Chriſt's omiſſion of Baptiſm, unleſs it be either the Scripture's ſilence, which ſhall be afterwards conſidered, or his willingneſs thereby to intimate, that he had not ſo tied his own Graces to an external Rite, but that he could, and would upon occaſion conferr them without it? But beſide that there was a like fear thereby of Men's neglecting his appointments upon a preſumption of their receiving his Graces as the Apoſtles did; This may ſeem to have been too early a ſeaſon for ſuch an intimation, becauſe before Men were well confirm'd in his Authority, or ability to conferr them, even by the ordinary ſolemnities. For if they were not as yet well confirm'd in that, how ſhould they dream of a greater power, yea not rather be thereby tempted to queſtion altogether his Authority, becauſe departing ſo far even from the example of John the Baptiſt, whom all MenMatt. 21.26. accounted as a Prophet?

But beſide that our Saviour made Diſciples before, and may therefore not improbably be thought to have made them after the ſame manner; We find yet farther, that before he baptiz'd thoſe of Judaea, he repreſented the ſolemnity of Baptiſm as a thing neceſſary to enter Men into that Kingdom of God, to which he invited them: Our Saviour not only telling Nicodemus, that except a Man were born again Joh. 3.3., he could not ſee the Kingdom of God, but yet more plainly, that except he were born again of Water Joh. 3.5., and of the Spirit, he could not poſſibly enter into it. For how could Chriſt repreſent that as neceſſary, which he himſelf had not afforded to his firſt, and chiefeſt Diſciples, nor, for ought that doth appear, ever after did? For if he did, he would certainly have done it before he made uſe of them to baptize others; Partly becauſe they were the firſt Diſciples he had, and partly becauſe ſo they would have been more apparently qualified to have adminiſtred the ſame Baptiſm unto others. If therefore Chriſt repreſented Baptiſm as neceſſary, even before his baptizing in Judaea, it is not unreaſonable to think he had both inſtituted, and adminiſtred it before: Eſpecially, when the Diſciples he before had cannot well be thought to have had it afterwards, as in reaſon they muſt have had it, if it were ſo neceſſary as our Saviour affirm'd it. And poſſibly neither would they, who are otherwiſe perſwaded, have in the leaſt ſuſpected the force of this argument, had it not been for an opinion of theirs, that our Saviour ſpake not in this place of Baptiſm, but of Men's being born again of that ſpirit of God, which hath the ſame cleanſing quality with water: So making that ſpeech of our Saviour to be that, which the Rhetoricians call an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and conſequently reſolvable into a watery, or cleanſing Spirit, as Virgil's pateris libamus & auro, is into pateris aureis, or golden Diſhes. Even as they ſuppoſe the ScriptureMatt. 3.11. meant when it affirm'd, that Chriſt ſhould baptize with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire, that is to ſay, with that Holy Ghoſt, which hath the purifying, and warming qualities of that Element. I will not now ſay, though I might, that that figure might have been more allowable here, if that ſpeech of Chriſt could have been ſo fairly reſolv'd into a watery Spirit, as pateris & auro may be into pateris aureis; Which that it cannot be, is ſufficiently evident from Gold's being the proper Material of thoſe Diſhes, whereof the Poet ſpeaks, which water to be ſure is not of the other. But neither will I any more than ſay, that Chriſt's baptizing with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire doth not make at all for this figure, becauſe it is certain that at the day of Pentecoſt, which was the moſt notorious deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, and particularly referr'd to by that BaptiſmAct. 1.5., Chriſt baptized his Diſciples with a material fire, as well as that. But I ſay, which is more material, that there is great reaſon to underſtand our Saviour here of that Baptiſm by water, which we have affirmed his words to import. For ſo firſt (as Mr. Hooker Eccl. Pol. li. 5. §. 59. did long ſince obſerve) the Letter of the Text perſwades, and which we are not lightly to depart from, unleſs we will make the Scripture a very uncertain Rule, and indeed to prove any thing, which wanton wits would have it. So ſecondly (as the ſame Hooker Ibid. obſerves) the Antients Juſtin Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 94. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 13. Cyprian Epiſt. 73. without exception underſtood it, yea heTertul. ubi ſupra., who makes the Baptiſm now under conſideration, even the Baptiſm of Chriſt before his Aſcenſion, to be but of the ſame nature with S. John's. So thirdly, we have cauſe to underſtand Chriſt here, becauſe expreſſing what he here intended by a new birth from water, which is the property Tit. 3.5. of that Baptiſm, he afterwards commanded the Apoſtles to adminiſter. In fine, ſo ſeveral circumſtances both of the Text, and Context perſwade, and ſome too, that are not ſo ordinarily taken notice of. Of which nature I reckon as none of the leaſt that, which gave occaſion to them, even Nicodemus's coming to Jeſus by night Joh. 3.2., and there, and then acknowledging to him, that he was a teacher come from God, and that he himſelf was induced to believe it by the miracles our Saviour wrought. For that ſecret confeſſion of his being not only not agreeable to that more publick oneMatt. 10.32., which our Saviour requir'd, but (as appears by the anſwer he return'd to it) intimated by him to be inſufficient, becauſe letting him know, that except he was born again of water, and the ſpirit, he could not enter into the Kingdom of God; Nothing can be more agreeable to our Saviour's mind, than to underſtand thoſe Words of his of Men's making a more publick confeſſion of him in order to their Salvation, if the Words can with any reaſon be thought to admit of it. Which that they may is evident from hence, that, whatever our Saviour now underſtood by them, the like expreſſionTit. 3.5. became afterwards an uſual periphraſis of Baptiſm, which was a publick confeſſion of our Saviour. I ſay ſecondly, that as the occaſion of the words doth naturally lead to ſuch a ſenſe, as will make them import a more publick Confeſſion of our Saviour; So it will conſequently prompt us to underſtand them of ſuch a new Birth, as is perform'd by Water, and the Spirit, rather than of that, which is perform'd by the Spirit alone: That, as it is a Birth, which manifeſts it ſelf to the Eyes of others, which this cannot be ſuppoſed to do, ſo being a Birth therefore, which may publickly declare our Confeſſion of him, by whoſe appointment we are born again. Agreeable hereto thirdly, is the ſenſe of the words themſelves, if thoſe Jews, of whom Nicodemus was ſometime a Ruler, may be liſtned to in this affair; They not only affirming their own Proſelytes to have been admitted by Baptiſm, but that Baptiſm alſo repreſented as a thing, which gave them a new birth, yea ſo far, as to make them put off their old relations by it. For what then can be more reaſonable, than to think, that our Saviour, when he ſpake to a Jew, ſpake the ſame Language with them, and conſequently, that, as he ſpake of being born of Water, as well as the Spirit, he meant a like Baptiſm by it. Eſpecially, when it is obſervable, fourthly, that our Saviour ask'd Nicodemus, not without ſome amazement,Joh. 3.10., Art thou a Maſter in Iſrael, and knoweſt not theſe things? For what was this, but to intimate yet more, that the new Birth, whereof he ſpake, was no ſtranger to themſelves, and conſequently, becauſe he ſpake of being born of Water, that he meant a Baptiſm by it? Add hereunto, fifthly; our Saviour's affirming himſelf in the former Diſcourſe to have ſpoken of earthly Joh. 3.12. things, and (as one would think) therefore of ſuch a Birth, which though influenced by God's Spirit, yet had ſomething of earthly, as that is oppos'd to heavenly, adhering to it: As, in fine, the Evangeliſt's ſubjoyning to this Diſcourſe of a new Birth by Water the mention of our Saviour'sJoh. 3.22. paſſing into Judaea, and there baptizing; There being not a fairer account either of that connexion, or our Saviour's proceedings, than that, agreeably to what he had ſaid concerning the neceſſity of Men's being ſo born again, he went into Judaea, and baptized, and ſo made way for their entrance into God's Kingdom. Such evidence there is of our Saviour's meaning a proper Baptiſm, when he ſpake of the neceſſity of Men's being born again of water, and of the Spirit; And if our Saviour meant ſuch a Baptiſm, there is as little doubt of his having before both inſtituted, and adminiſtred it, yea even from the time of his ſetting up for Diſciples; There being not the leaſt appearance of Chriſt's baptizing thoſe firſt Diſciples afterwards, which yet he muſt have done, conſidering the neceſſity thereof, if they had not been baptiz'd before.

I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning the earlineſs of our Saviour's Baptiſm, when I have added from a paſſage of Chriſt to S. Peter the farther probability there is of his, and the other Apoſtles having receiv'd it, and therefore, if they did ſo, of their having receiv'd it from the beginning of their Diſcipleſhip: That I mean, whereupon S. Peter's begging of Chriſt to waſh not only his feet, but his hands, and his head, if (as our Saviour had told him) he could have no part in him, unleſs he waſh'd him, Chriſt is ſaid to have made anſwerJoh. 13.10., that he, that had been waſh'd, even by a more general waſhing, needed not ſave to waſh his feet. For as our Saviour intimates by that expreſſion, that he, and the reſt had paſſed under the former waſhing, and conſequently did not need ſuch a general waſhing a ſecond time; ſo he may not improbably be thought to have meant the waſhing of Baptiſm, and which though in it ſelf an outward purification, yet was attended with an inward, and ſpiritua lone: Partly, becauſe it is certain that our Saviour had before this time madeuſe of the Baptiſm of Water to purifie Men unto himſelf, and may therefore be well enough ſuppoſed to allude unto it; And partly, becauſe that Baptiſm, or waſhing will be more directly oppoſed to that, which our Saviour now intended, and which though deſign'd by him to ſignifie a more ſpiritual purgation, even that of the affections, or actions, yet was performed by him by an outward waſhing. For why then ſhould we not think, that the Apoſtles had that more general waſhing of Baptiſm? Eſpecially when we know that about this time Chriſt adminiſtred to them the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and which as it is in order of nature after that of Baptiſm, and may therefore not unreaſonably be thought to have been preceded by theirs, ſo is an evidence that Chriſt meant, in ſome meaſure at leaſt, to conduct them by the ſame Rites, and Ceremonies, wherewith he intended to bring other Men unto himſelf.

One only thing there is, which can any way prejudice the former Diſcourſe, even the ſilence there is in the New Teſtament of any Baptiſm by Chriſt before that in Judaea, yea the ſilence there is of it in that very Evangeliſt, who takes ſuch particular notice of the other. And ſurely ſuch a ſilence would have been of no ſmall force, if it had been either a perfect ſilence, or an unaccountable one. But as that ſtory cannot be look'd upon as perfectly ſilent, which affords ſo many probable proofs of what it is pretended to be ſilent in; ſo there may be reaſon enough given of its aſcending no higher in its account of Chriſt's adminiſtration of Baptiſm, than that, which was performed by him in Judaea: Partly, becauſe the Author of it had before acquainted his Readers with Chriſt's repreſenting it as generally neceſſaryJoh. 3.5. to Salvation, and from which, and the following practice of our Saviour in making Diſciples, Men might reaſonably enough collect his having ſo made the former ones; And partly, becauſe he knew, that what was defective in his account of our Saviour's Baptiſm, might be abundantly ſupplied to poſterity (to whom he, and the other Evangeliſts principally wrote) by what thoſe other Evangeliſts Matt. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. had ſaid concerning Chriſt's giving command to his Apoſtles of baptizing all Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. For that, together with his own account of our Saviour's Baptiſm, was enough to let them know (and therefore enough for their own purpoſe) that as Chriſt himſelf initiated Men by Baptiſm, yea repreſented it as neceſſary to Salvation, ſo it was his abſolute will, and pleaſure, that thoſe, to whom his Apoſtles, and their Succeſſors publiſhed his Goſpel, ſhould be initiated by the ſame means, if they meant to enter into the Kingdom of God.

PART III. Of the outward viſible Sign of Baptiſm. The Contents.

The outward viſible Sign of the Chriſtian Baptiſm ſhewn to be the Element of Water, and enquiry thereupon made wherein it was intended as a Sign; Which is ſhewn, in the general, to be as to the cleanſing quality thereof, more particularly as to the uſe it was put to toward new-born Infants, and that application of it which was firſt in uſe, even by an immerſion, or plunging the Party baptized in it. Occaſion taken from thence to enquire farther, how it ought to be applyed, more eſpecially whether by an immerſion, or by that, or an aſperſion, or effuſion. Evidence made of an immerſion being the only legitimate Rite of Baptiſm, ſave where neceſſity doth otherwiſe require; And enquiry thereupon made, whether neceſſity may juſtifie the Application of it by an Aſperſion, or Effuſion, and, if it may, whether the caſe of Infants be to be look'd upon as ſuch a neceſſity What is to be thought of thoſe additions, which were antiently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward ſolemnities of Baptiſm. Where the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm is more particularly conſidered, and anſwer made to thoſe Exceptions that are made againſt it as a Ceremony, as an addition of Men to the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and as a ſuppoſed Relique of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papiſts abuſes of it.

BUT becauſe whatever doubt there may be of the firſt Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Baptiſm,

Queſtion. What is the outward viſible ſign or form in Baptiſm?

Anſwer. Water, wherein the perſon is baptiz'd in the name of the Father, &c.

yet there neither is, nor can be any doubt of our Saviour's inſtituting it then, when he was about to take his leave of his Diſciples; Therefore paſs we on to the Sacrament it ſelf, which (agreeably to the procedure of our own Catechiſm, and the method before obſerved, when I entreated of the nature of a Sacrament in the general) I will conſider, I. As to its outward and viſible Sign. II. As to its inward and Spiritual Grace, or the thing ſignified by it. III. As to that relation, which its outward, and viſible Sign bears to its inward, and Spiritual Grace. IV. As to the Foundation of that Relation. For as the nature of the Sacrament of Baptiſm will be found to lie within theſe four, ſo I no way doubt we ſhall be able to reduce to one, or other of theſe generals whatſoever is any way neceſſary to be known concerning it.

Now there are four things to be enquir'd concerning the firſt of theſe, even the outward and viſible ſign of Baptiſm. Firſt, what that outward and viſible ſign is. Secondly, wherein it was intended as a ſign. Thirdly, how it ought to be applied. Fourthly, what is to be thought of thoſe additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward ſolemnities of Baptiſm.

1. As touching the outward, and viſible ſign of Baptiſm, there is no doubt it is the Element of Water, as is evident from the native ſignification of the word Baptiſm, which ſignifies an immerſion, or dipping into ſome liquid thing, from the matter of thoſe Baptiſms, which were in uſe among the Jews, and which our Saviour (becauſe making uſe of the ſame word to expreſs his own Baptiſm by) is in reaſon to be ſuppos'd to have ſo far conform'd it to, but more eſpecially from the account we have of the Adminiſtration of it, both whilſt our Saviour continu'd here, and after his Aſcenſion into Heaven. For thus after S. John had ſaidJoh. 3.22., that our Saviour, preſently after his entring upon his Prophetick Office, came into the Land of Judaea, and there baptized, he immediately ſubjoyn'dJoh. 3.23., that John the Baptiſt alſo was then baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, becauſe there was much water there. For as it is evident from thence, as well as from other placesMatt. 3.6. —13., that the Baptiſm of John was a Baptiſm by Water; ſo the Evangeliſt mentioning John the Baptiſt as practiſing the ſame thing with our Saviour, ſhews the Baptiſm of our Saviour to have been ſo far like it, and conſequently to have had Water for the Inſtrument thereof. The ſame is yet more evident as to the practice of our Saviour's Diſciples, after his more general CommandMatt. 28.19. of Baptiſm, and his own Aſcenſion into Heaven. For thus we find Philip and the Eunuch going down into a certain water Act. 8.38., by which they paſs'd in order to the Baptiſm of the latter; As that too, after the Eunuch had admoniſhed himAct. 8.36., See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And thus too we find S. Peter Act. 10.47, 48., before he gave order for Cornelius, and his companies being baptized in the name of the Lord, demanding of thoſe of the Circumciſion, that came with him, whether any Man could forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which had receiv'd the Holy Ghoſt, as well as themſelves; Thereby intimating, or rather expreſly declaring, that our Saviour's Baptiſm was, as to the outward, and viſible ſign, the ſame with that of John the Baptiſt, and other the Baptiſms of the Jews.

2. Water therefore being no doubt the outward and viſible ſign of Baptiſm, and ſo declared to be by the manner of its Adminiſtration; The next thing to be enquir'd into is, wherein it was intended as a ſign, which will appear to have been in theſe three particulars: Firſt in reſpect of that cleanſing quality, which is natural to it, ſecondly in reſpect of that uſe which it was put to about new-born Infants, thirdly in reſpect of that manner of Application of it, which was firſt us'd, and no doubt generally intended, I mean the dipping of the Party baptized in it.

That the Water of Baptiſm was intended as a ſign in reſpect of the firſt of theſe, will need no other proof, than Ananias's admoniſhing Paul to ariſe and be baptized, and waſh Act. 22.16. away his ſins, calling upon the name of the Lord. For it appearing, on the one hand, that the Baptiſm, to which Paul was invited, even the Chriſtian one, was a Baptiſm by Water, and, on the other hand, that it was at leaſt ordained for the remiſſion Act. 2.38. of ſins, and ſo the putting away their guilt; Nothing can be more reaſonable, than to think, that when Ananias ſubjoyn'd to the precept of being baptiz'd that of waſhing away his ſins, he meant his waſhing them away by Baptiſm, and conſequently that the Water of Baptiſm was both a ſign of ſomething relating to the putting away of his ſins, and a ſign too in particular in reſpect of that cleanſing quality, which is natural to it, becauſe that Baptiſm, to which it belongs, is deſcrib'd as waſhing away the other.

But beſide that Water was intended as a ſign in reſpect of that cleanſing quality, which is natural to it; There is equal reaſon to believe, that it was alſo intended as ſuch in reſpect of the uſe it was then put to about new-born Infants, even the waſhing away of thoſe impurities, which they contracted from the Womb. We have (as Mr. Mede did long ſince obſerveDiſc. on Tit. 3.5. ) an alluſion to this cuſtome in the deſcription, which God gives of the poor and forlorn condition of Jeruſalem, when he firſt took her unto himſelf, under the parable of an expoſed Infant. For as for thy Nativity, ſaith he, Eze. 16.4. in the day that thou waſt born, thy Navel was not cut, neither waſt thou waſhed in water to ſupple thee, thou waſt not ſalted at all, nor ſwadled at all: Thereby intimating what was then done to Infants in their Nativity, and particularly the waſhing them from their impurities. And how generally receiv'd this cuſtom was, even among the Heathen, may appear (as the ſame Mr. Mede Ʋbi ſupra. hath obſerved) from what was done to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who were perſonsHeſych. in utramque vocem., to whom the Rites of Burial had been perform'd as dead, but did afterwards appear again in the World. For as theſe were look'd upon as born anewPlutarch Quaeſt. Rom. ſtatim ab initio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —. into the World, ſo like new-born Infants they were to be waſh'd with Water before they could be admitted to the converſation of Men, or allowed to enter into the Temples of their Gods. But ſo that the Water of Baptiſm was intended for a ſign, is evident from its being ſtil'd the laver Tit. 3.5. of regeneration, or a new Birth, and from the addition, that was made to it in after times of giving milk Tertul. de Coronâ c. 3. Inde [nempe poſt immerſionem] ſuſcepti, lactis & mellis concordiam praeguſtamus. and hony to the new-baptized perſons, as that too to declare their Infancy Idem adv. Marcion. li. 1. c. 14. Sedille quidem uſque nunc nec aquam reprobavit creatoris qua ſuos abluit, nec oleum quo ſuos uncuit, nec mellis & lactis ſocietatem, quo ſuos infantat, &c. . For this evidently ſhews this ſecond Birth to relate to the firſt, and conſequently, that the Element of Water, and the Regeneration by it, though borrowed more immediately from the Baptiſm of the Jews, yet was intended by our Saviour (as I no way doubt it was alſo by the Jews) as of like uſe with that, which was apply'd to newborn Infants, and to repreſent alike waſhing away of natural pollutions.

One other particular there is, wherein I have ſaid the Water of Baptiſm to have been intended as a ſign, and that is in reſpect of that manner of application, which was ſometime us'd, I mean the dipping, or plunging the party baptized in it. A ſignification, which S. Paul will not ſuffer thoſe to forget, who have been acquainted with his Epiſtles. For with reference to that manner of Baptizing we find him affirmingRom. 6.4., that we are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm into death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even ſo we alſo ſhould walk in newneſs of life; And againRom. 6.5., that if we have been planted together in the likeneſs of his death, we ſhall be alſo in the likeneſs of his reſurrection. To the ſame purpoſe, or rather yet more clearly, doth that Apoſtle diſcourſe, where he tells usCol. 2.12., that as we are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, ſo we do therein riſe alſo with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raiſed him from the Dead. For what is this but to ſay, that as the deſign of Baptiſm was to oblige Men to conform ſo far to Chriſt's Death, and Reſurrection, as to die unto Sin, and live again unto Righteouſneſs, ſo it was perform'd by the ceremony of immerſion, that the perſon immers'd might by that very ceremony, which was no obſcure image of a Sepulture, be minded of the precedent death, as in like manner, by his coming again out of the Water, of his riſing from that death to life, after the example of the Inſtituter thereof? For which cauſe, as hath been elſewhereExpl. of the Creed, in the words, And Buried. obſerv'd, the Antient Church added to the Rite of immerſion the dipping of the party three ſeveral times to repreſent the three days Chriſt continued in the Grave (for that we find to have been the intention of ſome) and made the Eve of Eaſter one of the ſolemn times of the Adminiſtration of it.

3. The third thing to be enquir'd concerning the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm is, how it ought to be apply'd, where again theſe two things would be conſidered. Firſt, whether it ought to be applyed by an immerſion, or by that, or an aſperſion, or effuſion. Secondly, whether it ought to be applyed by a threefold immerſion, or aſperſion, anſwerably to the names into which we are baptiz'd, or either by that, or a ſingle one.

The former of theſe is, it may be, a more material queſtion, than it is commonly deem'd by us, who have been accuſtomed to baptize by a bare effuſion, or ſprinkling of water upon the party. For in things, which depend for their force, upon the meer will, and pleaſure of him, who inſtituted them, there ought, no doubt, great regard to be had to the commands of him, who did ſo; As without which there is no reaſon to preſume, we ſhall receive the benefit of that ceremony, to which he hath been pleaſed to annex it. Now, what the command of Chriſt was in this particular, cannot well be doubted of by thoſe who ſhall conſider firſt the words of ChriſtMatt. 28.19. concerning it, and the practice of thoſe times, whether in the Baptiſm of John, or of our Saviour. For the words of Chriſt are, that they ſhould Baptize, or Dip thoſe, whom they made Diſciples to him (for ſo, no doubt, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly ſignifies) and, which is more, and not without its weight, that they ſhould baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: Thereby intimating ſuch a waſhing, as ſhould receive the party baptized within the very body of that Water, which they were to baptize him with. Though, if there could be any doubt concerning the ſignification of the words in themſelves, yet would that doubt be remov'd by conſidering the practice of thoſe times, whether in the Baptiſm of John or of our Saviour. For ſuch as was the practice of thoſe times in Baptizing, ſuch in reaſon are we to think our Saviour's command to have been concerning it, eſpecially, when the words themſelves incline that way; There being not otherwiſe any means either for thoſe, or future times to diſcover his intention concerning it. Now what the practice of thoſe times was as to this particular, will need no other proof than their reſorting to Rivers, and other ſuch like receptacles of waters for the performance of that ceremony, as that too becauſe there was much Water there. For ſo the Scripture doth not only affirm concerning the Baptiſm of John Matt. 3.5.6.13. John 3.23., but both intimate concerning that, which our Saviour adminiſtred in Judaea (becauſe making John's Baptiſm, and his to be ſo far forth of the ſame ſortJoh. 3.22, 23.) and expreſly affirm concerning the Baptiſm of the Eunuch, which is the only Chriſtian Baptiſm the Scripture is any thing particular in the deſcription of: The words of S. Luke Act. 8.38. being, that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into a certain water which they met with in their journey, in order to the baptizing of the 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 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 ChurchSee 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 ſalutari •• 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 theyAut 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 Cod. Eccl. Ʋniv. 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 De Poenit. cap. 8. ſpeaks) deferr'd the receiving of it, that they might in the mean time indulge to their ſins, as nothing doubting, but their future Baptiſm would wipe off all. There being therefore no doubt to be made (ſo far as the judgment, or practice of the Church can warrant us) that neceſſity doth juſtifie a bare Aſperſion in Baptiſm; Enquire we, for our farther confirmation in it, what there was in the Scripture to induce them to it, or eſtabliſh us in the belief of it. Which I conceive to be their underſtanding from thence1 Pet. 3.21., that though Baptiſm was the thing, that ſav'd, yet it was not ſo much by its waſhing away the filth of the fleſh, as from that anſwer of a good Conſcience, which it did involve; That, though the external waſhing was alſo neceſſary in its kind, and, where it might be had, in thoſe circumſtances alſo, wherein it was inſtituted, yet ſince God had declar'dMatt. 12.7., That he would have mercy, and not ſacrifice, there was reaſon enough to believe, that he requir'd no farther a compliance in this particular, than was conſiſtent with the ſafety of Mens lives to afford; eſpecially, when what was wanting in the application of the outward viſible ſign might be made up by the form of words, wherewith it was adminiſtred, and Men admoniſhed thereby of thoſe ſignifications of Baptiſm, which the viſible ſolemnities thereof did not ſuggeſt. For, the ſeveral ends of Baptiſm being thus ſecur'd, there was ſtill the leſs reaſon to be ſcrupulous about the means, or think God would be rigorous in exacting them. But ſo they might be yet more aſſur'd (as it appears St. Cyprian Ubi ſupra. was) by what the Prophet Ezekiel Ezek. 36.25. brings in God as ſpeaking concerning the times of the Meſſiah; Even that he would ſprinkle clean Water upon them, and they ſhould be clean from all their filthineſs, and from their Idols. For as it appears from what followsEzek. 36.26, 27., even that God would give the perſons there ſpoken of a new heart, and a new Spirit, take away their ſtony heart from them, and put his own ſpirit within them, that this whole paſſage was ſpoken more particularly with reference to the times of the Meſſiah, Maimonides himſelfExplic. Tract. Sanb. c. 10. a pud Pocock. Port. Moſis, p. 160.1. ſo applying this, and the like paſſages; So we cannot therefore better interpret the ſprinkling of clean Water upon them in order to it, than of the Water of Baptiſm, and which the Spirit of God expreſſing by the term of ſprinkling of Water ſhews it to have foreſeen a neceſſity of its being ſo adminiſtred oftentimes, and his own allowance of it. All which things whoſoever ſhall conſider, will, I doubt not, ſee reaſon enough to think, that neceſſity may juſtifie an Aſperſion in Baptiſm, and nothing more therefore left to enquire upon this Head, than what may be look'd upon as ſuch a neceſſity, which will bring the queſtion yet nearer to our ſelves. Now as there can be no doubt of ſickneſs being ſuch, and particularly ſuch a ſickneſs, as faſtens Men to their Beds; So we ſhall therefore have nothing more to conſider of, than the caſe of Infants, and to whom as Baptiſm is generally adminiſtred, ſo it is alſo perform'd by an effuſion, or ſprinkling. With what neceſſity, is the thing we are to enquire, and ſo much the rather becauſe the Greek Church uſeth immerſion, or dipping to this very day, and the Muſcovitiſh Church after its example. For if the coldneſs of any Clime may be thought to make that Rite dangerous to ſuch tender Bodies, one would think they of the latter ſhould find it to be ſuch, and therefore ſee a neceſſity of changing it. For the clearing whereof we are to know, that as they, who uſe the Rite of immerſion, even in warmer Countries, are ſo ſenſible of the tenderneſs of Infant Bodies, that they make uſe of warm Water to baptize them; So the Muſcovites making uſe of it without any danger (if yet they always do ſo) will not make it ceaſe to be ſuch to Infants of other Countries: There being, as every one knows, no ſmall difference between the Bodies of Infants, as well as thoſe of Men, and to ſome of whom therefore, and in ſome Countries that may be exceeding dangerous, which Infants of other Countries find no ſuch inconvenience by. And indeed as ſuch an Immerſion of Infants, eſpecially in theſe Northern parts, cannot generally be thought to be without its hazard, how warily and carefully ſoever managed; As it may be yet more hazardous to weaker Infants, and whom, as it would not be thought fit to deny Baptiſm to, ſo as little, to do any thing to ſend them out of the World; ſo I am apt enough to believe upon ſecond thoughts (for I have elſewhere Expl. of the Creed, in the Words, And Buried. ſpoken more harſhly concerning it) that that Rite came to be diſuſed here after a ſufficient proof of the inconveniencies thereof; Becauſe (as Eraſmus notesVid. Pamel. in not. ad Cypr. epiſt. ad Magnum.) it was in uſe among us, even in his time, and the Liturgies, that have been in force ſince, not excepting the preſent one, ſeem rather to perſwade the uſe of it. For our Fore fathers being ſo ſtrangely tenacious of that Rite, and both they, and their poſterity not without a venerable opinion of it, it cannot well be thought they ſhould come at length ſo generally to diſuſe it, but that they found by experience, that it was not without its hazard, and ſo more prudently omitted. However it be, our Church hath acquitted it ſelf from all blame, becauſe manifeſtly licenſingSee the Rubr. of Bapt. before the Words, I baptize thee, &c. the ſprinkling of Infants with reſpect to the weakneſs of their State; And I have the more carefully noted both that, and the ground of our practice, the better to defend our ſelves from a retort of the Romaniſts, when we charge them with Sacrilege in the matter of the Euchariſt for taking away the Cup from the Laity. For why not (as they ſometime anſwer) as well as change the Rite of Immerſion in Baptiſm into that of ſprinkling? Eſpecially, when a great part of the Symbolicalneſs of that Sacrament lies in the manner of the application of its ſign. Which Anſwer of theirs were not in my opinion eaſie to be repel'd, were it not, that we have that neceſſity to juſtifie our practice, which they cannot pretend for their own.

Having thus ſaid enough concerning the applying of the outward ſign of Baptiſm, whether by an Immerſion, or Aſperſion, which was the firſt thing I had to conſider; Enquire we in the next place how often that application ought to be made, that is to ſay whether as many times as there are perſons in the God-head, into which we baptize, or once for all into the three. The ground of which queſtion is not only that diſtinct profeſſion of the Trinity, which Baptiſm was intended to declare, but the appearance there is of the Churches uſing a threefold immerſion from the beginning. For, not to mention any other proofs, Tertullian, who flouriſhed within an hundred years after the laſt of the Apoſtles, doth not only mention the threefold immerſion, as a thing in uſe in his time, but as a thing which was derived to them fromTert. de Coronâ, c. 3. Ergo quaeramus, an & Traditio niſi ſcripta non debeat recipi. Plant negabimus recipiendam, ſi nulla exempla praejudicent aliarum obſervationum, quas ſine ullius ſcripturae inſtrumento, ſolius traditionis titulo, & exinde conſuetudinis Patrocinio vindicamus. Denique, ut à Baptiſmo ingrediar, Aquam adituri ibidem, ſed & aliquanto prius in Eccleſiâ ſub Antiſtitis manu conteſtamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, & pompae, & angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid reſpondentes, quàm Dominus in Evangelio determinavit. Item adv. Praxeam c. 26. Tradition, and which, conſidering the time wherein he liv'd, cannot well fall ſhort of an Apoſtolical one. And thus much certainly ought to be allow'd to this, and other teſtimonies, that in or near the Apoſtolical Age, the more fully to expreſs that diſtinction of perſons, into the Faith of which Chriſt commanded to baptize, Men were with the command, or allowance of thoſe who preſided in the Church, plunged into the Baptiſmal Water at the mention of each perſon's name. But as that threefold immerſion cannot be collected from the command of Chriſt, becauſe ſimply enjoyning to baptize into the Faith of the Trinity, and which one immerſion may declare as well as a threefold one; As there is as little appearance of ſuch a threefold immerſion from the account we have in the Scripture of the adminiſtration of it: So it is but reaſonable to think, that as ancient as it was, yet it was poſtnate to the ſingle one, and had its riſe from ſome Men's beginning to call the Doctrine of the Trinity in queſtion (as we find by Tertullian they did very early) and, the better to colour their own errour, as well as to overthrow the other, admoniſhing Men from S. Paul, that Baptiſm was peculiarly intended to baptize Men into Chriſt's death. For beſide that they, who conſider the primitive face of Chriſtianity, will need no other proof than that to perſwade them to believe, that the more ſimple any Rite is, ſo much the more ancient it ought to be thought to be; That Apoſtolick Canon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. 50., which commands the depoſing of him, who ſhould not uſe a threefold immerſion, but a ſingle one, doth not ſo much as preferr the threefold immerſion to the ſingle one ſimply, and abſolutely conſidered, but as oppoſed to that ſingle one, which was made uſe of to baptize Men into the death of our Lord, and not into the Faith of the Trinity. Thereby not only not condemning the ſingle immerſion conſidered in it ſelf, but alſo intimating the triple one to have been rather inſtituted at firſt to obviate that heretical opinion. And if this were the riſe of the triple Immerſion, as is probable enough from the premiſes; The ſingle one, abſtracting from any command of the Church to the contrary, will at leaſt be as lawful as that, and nothing therefore left to us to enquire, but what is to be thought of thoſe additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward ſolemnities of Baptiſm.

4. As touching the additions, which were anciently made in this particular, and concerning which they, who deſire an account, may meet with an ample one in Dr. Cave's Primitive Chriſtianity Part 1. c. 10.; They were either ſuch, as they thought more peculiarly warranted to them by an Apoſtolical Tradition, of which nature till better information I muſt needs think the triple Immerſion to have been, or ſuch as were brought into the Church by thoſe, who preſided in it, the more effectually to declare the intention of that Sacrament, to which they were added by it. Which they thought they might moſt aſſuredly do, if they made uſe of ſuch farther Rites, as did repreſent yet more to their ſenſes what that Sacrament was intended to declare. And indeed, as that way of Inſtruction was in part warranted by the Sacraments themſelves, becauſe profeſſing by ſenſible things to teach Men Spiritual ones; As it became yet more neceſſary by the groſneſs of the Vulgar ſort, and that infinity of Ceremonies, to which they had been before accuſtomed: So that, which afterwards made them faulty, was either the exceeding multitude thereof (and which experience aſſures us doth rather obſcure, yea overwhelm the thing ſignified by them, than help toward the declaration of it) or their advancing by degrees into the ſame repute, or neceſſity with the ſigns of Chriſt's own Inſtitution. Which is ſo true, that they came in fine to be repreſented, as means, and conveyers of Grace, as well as ſignificative thereof; Thereby making them Sacraments, rather than appendages of ſuch; and which whoſoever goes about to do, muſt neceſſarily uſurp the place of God, and Chriſt, as to whom alone it doth belong (becauſe the only givers of Spiritual Graces) to make any ceremony the conveyer of them. But as that Church, whoſe Catechiſm I explain, hath been ſo far from multiplying Rites in Baptiſm, that ſhe hath contented her ſelf with one ſingle one, even the Sign of the Croſs; So ſhe hath ſo explain'd her own meaning in it, both in that form of wordsIn the Office of Bapt., wherewith ſhe appointeth it to be made, and in a CanonCan. 30. deviſed expreſly for that purpoſe, that it will not be eaſie for conſiderate Men to believe, that ſhe repreſents it as a Sacrament, or indeed that ſhe may not require the conformity of her Children to it. Only, becauſe they, who ſeparate from the Church, have made the injunction of that Ceremony one of the particular reaſons of their ſeparation, and occaſion may well be taken from thence to ſhew the ground both of that, and others, which are as yet retained in the Church of England, I will ſet my ſelf to conſider the exceptions, that have been made againſt it, and return a particular anſwer to them.

Now there are three ſorts of charges, which are brought againſt this Ceremony, and which therefore it will be neceſſary to conſider; Its being a Ceremony, and ſo Ieſs agreeable to a ſpiritual, and ſubſtantial Religion; Its being an addition to the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and therefore implying ſomething of imperfection in that; As laſtly, its being a relique of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the errors of it.

The firſt of theſe is certainly one of the moſt unreaſonable charges, that were ever advanced againſt our Church by the Adverſaries thereof. As will appear if we conſider the nature of thoſe, for whoſe edification that, and the like Ceremonies were intended, The uſe ſuch things are of to procure reſpect to thoſe Inſtitutions, to which they are annexed, And the nature of that Religion, with whoſe Offices they are intermixed.

That I alledge as one ground of this, and the like Ceremonies the very nature of thoſe Men, for whoſe edification they were intended, is their being compoſed of Fleſh, as well as Spirit, and conſequently the need they ſtand in of ſuch ſenſible helps to awaken their underſtandings to conſider, and their affections to embrace what they were deſigned to repreſent. For being ſo fram'd, it is not eaſie to believe, that, if there were not ſomewhat in all actions of moment to affect Men's ſenſe, they would intend them as they ought, or be duly affected with them. Of which yet if any doubt be made, we have the conſtant practice of the World to juſtifie it, becauſe rarely, if ever, ſuffering that, which was ſuch (though there wanted not words to expreſs their meaning) to paſs without ſome viſible ſolemnities. Thus, as Mr. Hooker Eccl. Pol. li. 4. §. 1. did long ſince obſerve, Abraham proceeded with his Servant, becauſe not only obliging him to take a Wife for his Son out of his Kindred, but to accompany that Oath of his, with the putting of his HandGen. 24. 2-9. under his Maſter's Thigh. And thus too Iſrael made Joſeph ſwearGen. 47.29., that he would not bury him in Egypt: Both of them, as is not unlikely, from ſome received cuſtom of that time, becauſe as they ſay Vatabl. in Gen. 24.2., yet obſerved in ſome of the Eaſtern parts, and as a token of the homage the Party ſwearing ow'd to thoſe to whom they ſwore, and of their readineſs to execute it in the thing ſworn to by them. In like manner, as the ſame Mr. Hooker Ʋbi ſupra. hath alſo obſerv'd, it was an Ancient manner in Iſrael concerning redeeming, and exchanging, for the Man, who refus'd to redeem, to pluck off his Shoe, andRuth 4.7. give it to him, that would; As among the Romans, when they made any Man Free, not only to declare before the Magiſtrate, that they intended to make him ſuch, but to ſtrike him on the Cheek, to turn him round, and have his Hair ſhav'd off, the Magiſtrate, after that, touching him with a White Rod, and beſtowing a Cap, and a White Garment on him. Of which, and infinite other inſtances, that might be produced, what account can be given, but that Men have generally thought ſuch ſolemnities but requiſite to imprint the things, to which they were annexed, upon the minds of thoſe, that were concern'd, and procure a due eſtimate thereof? But ſo it appears, that they themſelves were in a great meaſure perſwaded, who ſhew'd themſelves the greateſt Enemies of the Ceremonies of the Church; Becauſe obliging thoſe, that took their ſolemn League, and Covenant, to ſwear to the Contents thereof with their hands lift up to the moſt High God, as is expreſſed in the very entrance of it. For why that Ceremony of lifting up of the hands, eſpecially in a Covenant, that was intended to beat down the ſuppoſed ſuperſtition of the Church of England, were it not that they themſelves found it in a manner neceſſary to awaken the minds of Men to intend the Religion of it?

But beſide that humane nature doth, by the very contexture of it, require ſuch kind of ſolemnities to awaken their minds, and affections; It is not a little to be conſidered of what uſe they are to procure reſpect to thoſe Inſtitutions, to which they have been at any time annexed. For may not Men obſerve that uſefulneſs in the ſolemnities of all civil affairs, and particularly in thoſe ſolemnities, which are obſerv'd in Courts of Judicature? Doth not the very raiſing high of thoſe Benches, on which the Judges ſit, admoniſh Men of their Superiority over them? Do not thoſe Robes, whereby they are differenced from other Men, draw the Eyes of the Vulgar to them, yea mind them of that greater difference there is between the Judges, and themſelves, as to that power, wherewith they are alſo inveſted? Have not the ſame perſons therefore (whatever clamour hath been rais'd againſt things of that nature) kept up them, and the like ſolemnities among them? Have they not done it in thoſe very inſtances, which have been ſcrupled at in the Church? For how ſuperſtitious a thing in a Biſhop, or other Clergy Man hath the uſe of that Cap been, which theſe earthly Gods the Judges, and when they are about their great Maſter's work, do not only not ſcruple at, but diligently retain? As knowing, that ſuch marks of diſtinction do naturally lead Men to conſider thoſe perſons, or things, to which they are apply'd, as of a peculiar nature, and accordingly, if they deſerve it, to reſpect them. And if ſuch be the uſefulneſs of external ſolemnities in other matters, why ſhould they be excluded from our Religion? Nay, why ſhould they not (conſidering the momentouſneſs thereof be rather applied to it?

Eſpecially if we conſider thirdly the nature of that Religion, with whoſe Offices they are intermixed by us. For though that do more peculiarly call us to the intending of ſpiritual things; Though it do loudly proclaim the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law of Moſes, and not obſcurely condemn the ſubſtituting of any the like burdenſome one: Yet as it no where condemns ſuch a number of Ceremonies, as may ſerve the better to lead Men to the contemplation, and regard of ſpiritual things, ſo it gives a ſufficient countenance to them by the Sacraments I am now upon, and by thoſe other uſances, which were in vogue with the firſt Profeſſors of it. For how can that Religion be look'd upon as an enemy to Ceremonies, which requires Men to be initiated into it by the water, and immerſion of Baptiſm? Yea to keep up their intereſt in it by partaking of the Bread, and Wine of the Euchariſt, thoſe ſigns of our Saviour's Crucified Body, and of the ſpiritual benefits we reap by it? And though we do not find that our Saviour inſtituted any other Ceremonies, or at leaſt not with a deſign of giving them the ſame laſting obligation; Yet as we find our Saviour giving command to his Diſciples, when he firſt ſent them out to Preach, to ſhake off the duſt of their Feet Mark 6.11. againſt thoſe that would not hear them, as a teſtimony of their contempt of God's word, and of their own reſolution not to have to do with them in the like kind, which was a kind of Excommunication of them; So we find that Paul, and Barnabas (though under no obligation from the former command, becauſe but a temporary one) ſhook off the duſt of their feet Acts 13.51. againſt thoſe Jews of Antioch, that rejected, and expelled them, as the ſame S. Paul after that, when the Jews of Corinth oppoſed themſelves, and blaſphem'd, ſhaking his raiment at themActs 18.6., as a teſtimony of his rejecting them, in like manner, and leaving them to go unto the Gentiles. For what was this but to declare by a ſignificant Ceremony, that as they had rejected the Counſel of God toward themſelves, ſo God had rejected them in like manner, neither would that his Miniſters ſhould make the like propoſals to them? The ſame is yet more to be ſaid upon the account of Impoſition of hands, and which, though from no Command of Chriſt, was either uſed, or approved by the Apoſtles themſelves, both in the Ordination of Miniſters2 Tim. 1.6., and receiving penitent Sinners to Abſolution1 Tim. 5.22., and pardon. For theſe being noted Acts of that Religion, which we profeſs, and yet by the allowance of the Apoſtles themſelves tranſacted by the Ceremony of Impoſition of Hands, make it evident, that our Religion doth rather commend, than reject ſuch viſible ſolemnities, where they are ſparingly, and diſcreetly apply'd.

That firſt charge againſt the ſign of the Croſs being thus wip'd off, even that which pretends to diſcard it upon the account of its being a Ceremony; Let us ſee, whether it be likely to ſuffer any more by the pretence of its being an addition of Men to the Inſtitution of Chriſt, yea to one, that is not without viſible ſolemnities of his own appointment: Such additions ſeeming to imply the imperfection of that, to which they are made, and which there is the leſs reaſon to believe in the preſent affair, becauſe care hath been taken by our Saviour as to the outward form of its Adminiſtration, as well as to more material things. And ſurely ſo ſuch Additions might very well be thought to do, if either they were repreſented as of the Eſſence of the Sacrament, or our Saviour had profeſſed to preſcribe, or direct the whole form of the Adminiſtration of it. But as it is notorious enough, that the Church of England doth not repreſent the ſign of the Croſs as pertaining to the Eſſence of the Sacrament, becauſe adminiſtring it after Baptiſm firſt given, yea after the mention of the Miniſter's receiving the baptized perſon into the Congregation of Chriſt's flock; So our Saviour is ſo far from preſcribing the whole external form of its Adminiſtration, that he hath left us to the general tenour of his Doctrine, and the directions of our own reaſon, even for thoſe things that are more material, yea for ſuch as are directedSee the Directory in the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm. by thoſe very Men, who cry out againſt us for adding to Chriſt's Inſtitution. For where, I beſeech you, is there any preſcription of other words concerning Baptiſm, than what is imply'd in that ſhort belief, into which he commands to Baptize? Where to admoniſh all, that are preſent, to look back to their own Baptiſm, and to repent of the violations of the Covenant they made with God in it? Where any directions for requiring the Parent of the Child to bring him up in the nurture of the Lord, yea to require the Parents ſolemn promiſe for the performance of it? Nay where, which is of all others the moſt material, any Prayer to Almighty God for the ſanctifying of the Water he is going to make uſe of, and which I no way doubt is neceſſary to the Conſecration of it? All, that the Inſtitution of Baptiſm repreſents to us, being the baptizing thoſe, that offer themſelves to it, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. Now if our Saviour hath not profeſſed to preſcribe, even as to the things before directed, but left Men to the general conduct of his Doctrine, and the guidance of their own reaſon; What appearance is there as to his preſcribing after what external form, and order, all theſe things were to be done, and which if he hath not, there is no doubt the Governours of the Church may order, as they ſhall ſee fit, yea do ſo without any fear of being thought to charge his Inſtitutions with imperfection? They being not to be thought to do ſo, who preſcribe rules concerning thoſe things, which the Inſtitutions of Chriſt profeſs not to give perfect directions in. The only thing, which hath occaſion'd Men's miſapprehenſions firſt, and then their paſſing ſo ſevere a Cenſure upon humane preſcriptions in this kind, is an haſty opinion they have taken up of Chriſt's being as particular in directing the external management of ſacred Duties, as Moſes appears to have been as to the ſervices of the Law. For which yet they have had no other pretence, than a miſapplied Text of the Author to the Hebrews Heb. 3.2., even Chriſt's being as faithful in that houſe of God, which was committed to his charge, as Moſes was in his. But beſide that there appear not any ſuch particular directions from God to our Saviour, as there were ſometime given to Moſes, and our Saviour therefore not to be look'd upon as unfaithful, for not reaching out ſuch particular directions to us; Beſides that, if our Saviour did not furniſh ſuch particular directions, yet he hath furniſhed his Church with a far greater portion of his Spirit, and which may ſerve to it as a guide to fit thoſe Services for its reſpective members; Beſide laſtly that the Services he enjoyn'd, becauſe to be exerciſed among people of ſeveral Nations, and humours, were not capable, as to circumſtances, of ſuch ſtrict limitations, as that, which was to be exerciſed in one ſingle Nation only: There is nothing more evident to thoſe, that read the Scriptures, than that Chriſt hath given no ſuch particular directions, and all Arguments from Chriſt's fidelity therefore of no more avail in this affair, than thoſe, which the Papiſts are wont to draw from the wiſdom and goodneſs of God, toward the proving of an Infallible Guide. For as no wiſe Man will be perſwaded by ſuch Arguments againſt the Teſtimony of his own ſenſes, which aſſure him of the errours of thoſe, whom they would have to be Infallible; So no conſidering Man will be perſwaded by the other into a belief of thoſe particular directions, which are not any where to be ſeen, nor which they themſelves, who maintain thoſe directions, have yet been able to ſhew. For when they have ſaid all they can toward the evincing of their Concluſion, the utmoſt they are able to prove is, that Chriſt hath given ſome general directions concerning the Adminiſtration of religious Offices, and which as it doth not prejudge the giving of more particular ones, ſo doth much leſs make them to reflect any imperfection upon the Inſtitution of Chriſt, becauſe pretending not to concern it ſelf about them.

One other Charge there is, which is more peculiar to the ſign of the Croſs, and that is its being a relique of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papiſts abuſes of it. But as they, who advance the former of theſe, make Popery much more Antient, than it is for the advantage of Proteſtantiſm to allow; It being certain from Tertullian De Coronâ cap. 3. , that this Ceremony was in uſe in his time in almoſt all the actions they ſet about: So our Church hath taken care to prevent in its own Members all miſapplications of it, or the giving the leaſt encouragement to thoſe, that are made of it by others; Partly by confining the uſe of it to the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and partly by repreſenting it as only a token of Men's being not aſhamed to own the Faith, and reproaches of him, who ſuffered upon it. Which is certainly a more proper courſe to diſcountenance Popery, than it can be thought to be to remove the uſe of it altogether: Becauſe at the ſame time we diſavow the errors of that, we ſhew by our Practice our allowance of the Ceremony it ſelf, and, together therewith, our accordance with the Primitive Church, which is the only plauſible thing the Papiſts have to boulſter up their own cauſe, or reproach us with the neglect of.

A DIGRESSION CONCERNING Original Sin By way of PREPARATION To the Following DISCOURSES. The Contents.

Of the ground of the preſent Digreſſion concerning Original Sin, and enquiry thereupon made, what Original Sin is. Which is ſhewn in the General to be ſuch a corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the off-ſpring of Adam, whereby it becomes averſe from every thing, that is good, and inclinable to every thing, that is evil. The nature of that corruption more particularly enquir'd into, and ſhewn by probable Arguments to be no other, than a Privation of a Supernatural Grace. That there is ſuch a thing, as we have before deſcribed, evidenced at large from the Scripture, and that evidence farther ſtrengthned by the experience we have of its effects, and the acknowledgments of the wiſer Heathen. Enquiry next made from whence it had its beginning, which is ſhewn to have been not from any evil Spirit, or Daemon, the pravity of matter, or the evil habits the Soul contracted in a praeexiſtent ſtate, but from the pravity of our firſt Parents. This laſt at large confirm'd out of the Doctrine of the Scripture, and followed by ſome light reflections upon the means, by which it is conveyed. A more juſt account from the Scripture of its being truly, and properly a ſin, partly from its having the title of a ſin, but more eſpecially from its being repreſented as ſuch, upon the account of our Obligation to the contrary. A conſideration of thoſe Objections, which are commonly made againſt the Doctrine of Original Sin; Which are ſhewn either not to be of that force, whereof they are eſteem'd, or however not to be a ſufficient bar to what the Scripture hath declar'd concerning it.

AN account being thus given of the outward viſible Sign of Baptiſm, Queſtion. What is the inward, and ſpiritual Grace? Anſwer. A death unto Sin, and a new birth unto Righteouſneſs. For being by nature born in Sin, and the Children of wrath, we are hereby made the Children of Grace. which is the firſt of thoſe things I propoſed to entreat of; Reaſon would, (as well as the method before laid down), that I ſhould conſider the things ſignified by it: Which, on the part of God, and Chriſt, are an inward and Spiritual Grace, as, on the part of the baptized, an Abrenunciation of their former ſins, and a reſolution to believe, and act, as Chriſtianity obligeth them to do. But becauſe both the one, and the other of theſe ſuppoſe the baptized perſons to have been before in a ſinful Eſtate, and our Catechiſm in particular to have been born in it, and by that, as well as by the ſins they afterward contracted, to be made the Children of wrath; Therefore it will be but neceſſary for us to premiſe ſomething concerning that ſinful Eſtate, as which Baptiſm both preſuppoſeth, and profeſſeth to provide a remedy for.

Now as that ſinful State, whereof we ſpeak, is beſt known by the name of Original Sin, and will therefore moſt commodiouſly be deſcribed by it; So I will make it my buſineſs to enquire What that is, and what appearance of the being of it, from whence it had its beginning, and by what means it is conveyed, whether, as it hath for the moſt part the name of a Sin, ſo it be truly, and properly ſuch, and what is to be ſaid to the Objections, that are made againſt it.

I. To begin with the firſt of theſe, even what Original Sin is, and which, in the general, may be defin'd to be ſuch a Corruption of the nature of every Man, that is naturally ingendred of the offſpring of Adam, whereby it becomes averſe from every thing, that is good, and inclin'd to every thing, that is evil. I call it a Corruption of nature to diſtinguiſh it from nature conſidered in it ſelf, and as it was in the firſt formation of it: Partly, becauſe Nature being, as ſuch, the work of God, cannot be ſuppoſed to be corrupt; And partly becauſe the Scripture aſſures us, that whatſoever it now is, God made it uprightEccl. 7.29., and ſo free from all corruptions whatſoever. But ſo alſo do I entitle it the Corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally ingendred of the off-ſpring of Adam: Partly, becauſe the Scripture, where it entreats of it, repreſents all Men as under the Contagion of it, and partly to exempt our Lord, and Saviour from it, who was ingendred after another manner, and whom the ſame Scripture aſſures to have been free 2 Cor. 5.21. from all ſin, yea to have been ſo Luk. 1.35. from his Birth. I call it laſtly ſuch a Corruption of humane Nature, whereby it is averſe from every thing, that is good, and inclin'd to every thing, that is evil. Which I do upon the account of the Scripture's repreſenting it as a ſinful Pſa. 51.5. one, and which, as ſuch, will make thoſe in whom it is, averſe from good, as well as inclinable to evil, yea averſe from all, that is good, and inclinable to all evil: Becauſe good, yea all good is oppoſite to ſuch an eſtate, and evil, yea all evil connatural to it. If they, in whom that corruption of nature doth as yet abide, be not always actually prevail'd upon to reject that good, from which we have affirm'd them to be ſo averſe, or to purſue that evil, to which we have affirm'd them to be inclinable, it is not becauſe they want any averſeneſs for the one, or inclination to the other, but for ſome other collateral conſiderations: Such as is, for example, the reputation, or advantage, that may accrue to them from the eſpouſing of any thing, that is good, or the omiſſion of any thing, that is evil. For all good, and all evil being of one uniform nature, becauſe becoming good or evil by the conformity they bear to the divine Laws, or by their deviation from them; where there is an inclination to any thing, that is good, there muſt be an inclination to all, that is of the ſame nature; as on the other ſide where an averſeneſs from any thing, that is evil, an averſeneſs for all that, which is alike a tranſgreſſion of the Divine Laws. But as therefore nothing can hinder us from repreſenting natural corruption as making Men averſe from all that is good, and inclinable to every thing that is evil; So neither can any thing oblige us to extend the force of it ſo far, as to make it to determine them in all their actions, and accordingly to carry them to an actual rejection of all, that is good, or a purſuance of all, that is evil: Partly becauſe Men may, and often do act contrary to their natural averſions, or inclinations, where there is hope of temporal advantage, or fear of any temporal evil; And partly, becauſe we do not only find few natural Men proceeding to the extremity of Impiety, but find alſo great variety among them in the omiſſion of good Actions, or the commiſſion of thoſe that are evil. Of which variety what account could be given, when the Corruption of Nature is, and muſt be equal, becauſe all Men were alike in, and are alike deſcended from Adam, were it not that even that Corruption leaves place for the performance of many good, and the avoiding of many things, that are evil? For to aſcribe that variety either wholly, or principally to the different degrees of God's reſtraining Grace, is not only to ſpeak without all Authority, that I know of, but to take away all diverſity between the evil demerits of natural Men, and, together therewith, all different degrees of puniſhment; yea to make the Corruption of Nature the only proper ground of puniſhment. For as, if there be nothing but God's reſtraining Grace to take off natural Men from falling into the worſt of ſins, the greateſt actual ſinner cannot deſerve more puniſhment, than he who offends in a far leſs degree; Becauſe all demerit ariſeth from the pravity of the will, which is not more or leſs for the meer abſence, or preſence of God's reſtraining Grace: So the greateſt actual ſinner cannot become obnoxious to puniſhment upon the ſcore of any other Corruption than that of Nature; That as it makes all his actual ſins to be neceſſary, and therefore in reaſon to bear the whole blame, and puniſhment, ſo receiving no new aggravation from the want of that reſtraining Grace, which might have withheld the party from them, in as much as that want (if it be a fault) is no leſs the reſult of his natural corruption, than his actual offences are. But therefore alſo as we cannot look upon natural corruption as determining Men to all their actual errours, without taking away all diverſity between the demerits of natural Men, yea making natural Corruption the only proper ground of their puniſhment; ſo they, who do ſo, will be found to contradict the declarations of the Scripture, as well as the allowed practice of the World. For why, if there be no difference between the demerits of natural Men, ſhould thoſe, that are in Authority, mete out different puniſhments to them according to the different degrees, or kinds of thoſe offences, which they commit? Nay, why ſhould the Scripture affirm, that it ſhall be more tolerable for ſome ſinnersMatt. 11.22, 24., than for others at the great day of judgment? That, as it is a judgment of righteouſneſs, ſo being conſequently to mete out equal puniſhments to all ſinners, if there be but an equality in their demerits. Again, if natural Corruption be upon the matter the only proper ground of puniſhment, as it muſt of neceſſity be, if it be the unavoidable cauſe of actual ſins; How comes the Scripture to declare, that God will reward every Man according to his worksRom. 2.6., yea the wickedRom. 2.8. according to his works, as well as the righteous according to theirs? For if natural Corruption be the only proper ground of puniſhment, the works of Men in propriety of Speech can have no concernment in it, and much leſs (as the Scripture declares) be the principal object of judgment, and therefore of that puniſhment, which it ſhall award. The utmoſt in my opinion, that can be ſaid in this particular, is that as Men by the Corruption of their Nature are averſe from every thing, that is good, ſo that averſeneſs will indiſpoſe thoſe, in whom that Corruption abides, to all good actions whatſoever, and infallibly take them off from them, where either ſome work of God upon their minds doth not thruſt them on to them, or the comelineſs, or profitableneſs thereof ſhall not more ſtrongly impel them to the practice of them. The former whereof will make the conſent of ſuch perſons even to thoſe good actions, which they perform, incomplete, and imperfect, and indeed a conſent to them rather as expedient, than good; whence it is that our ChurchArt. 13. repreſents them as having the nature of ſins: The latter cauſe them to neglect all ſuch, as are not in a manner thruſt upon them by God, or have not one of the former motives to incite them to the practice of them, yea preſent to their minds, when they ought to make uſe of them. Which will occaſion ſuch perſons for the moſt part to neglect all good actions, where there is not place for ſerious thoughts, as in caſes of ſurpriſe, or where they have not been habituated to the practice of vertue, or to the conſideration of the comelineſs or profitableneſs thereof. But as where there is place for ſerious thoughts, there may be place alſo for the former motives to impel Men to the practice of that, from which they are otherwiſe ſufficiently averſe; So it is not unlikely that the minds of thoſe, who have been before habituated to the practice, or contemplation of Vertue, may be thruſt on by the former motives to purſue many things, that are good, yea acquit themſelves ſingularly in them. Of which yet if any doubt be made, we have the laudable example of ſeveral Heathens to convince us thereof, and who, becauſe Heathen, cannot be ſuppoſed to be free from the power of natural Corruption, or to be thruſt on by other motives, than the former, to the doing of ſuch actions, from which they are naturally ſo averſe. In like manner, As Men by the Corruption of their Nature are inclin'd to every thing that is evil, as well as averſe from every thing that is good; So that inclination will diſpoſe thoſe, in whom it is, to an allowance of all evil actions, and infallibly betray them into them, where God's reſtraining Grace doth not withhold them, or the indecency, or dangerous conſequences of the other do not alike keep them back. The former whereof will make their abſtaining even from thoſe evil actions, which they avoid, to be but an imperfect abſtinence from them, and indeed an abſtinence from them rather as inexpedient, than evil; The latter cauſe them to fall into all ſuch, from which they are not reſtrain'd by God, or by a preſent, and intenſe conſideration of the indecency, or danger of them. Which will occaſion ſuch perſons for the moſt part to fall into all evil actions, where there is not room for ſerious thoughts, as in caſes of ſurpriſe, or where they have not been habituated to the avoiding of vice, or the conſideration of the indecency, or dangerouſneſs thereof. But as, where there is room for ſerious thoughts, there may alſo be place for the former reaſons to take them off from the practice of that, to which they are otherwiſe ſufficiently inclin'd; So it is not unlikely, that the minds of thoſe, who have been before habituated to the avoiding of Vice, or the conſideration of the indecency, or dangerouſneſs thereof, may be taken off by the former reaſons from the purſuit of evil things, yea acquit themſelves ſingularly in it. As is farther evident from the reſiſtance, that hath been made by ſeveral Heathens to all the temptations of ſin, and who, becauſe Heathen, cannot be ſuppos'd either to have been free from natural Corruption, or to have been taken off by other means, than the former, from the doing of thoſe evil actions, to which they were ſo ſtrongly inclin'd.

But becauſe what we have hitherto ſaid concerning the Corruption of our Nature doth rather tend to ſhew what effects it hath upon us, than what that Corruption is; And becauſe that word, whereby we have choſen to expreſs it, is but a Metaphorical one, and will therefore ſerve yet leſs clearly to declare the thing intended by it; Therefore it may ſeem but reaſonable to enquire yet farther, what it is, and wherein it doth conſiſt, as without which we ſhall diſcourſe but imperfectly concerning it. Now as that queſtion cannot otherwiſe be ſolv'd, than by the knowledge of that Eſtate, of which it is affirm'd to be a Corruption; So I ſhall therefore enquire again what that Eſtate was, and then what relation this Corruption beareth to it. As touching that eſtate, wherein God did at firſt create our Nature, moſt certain it is firſt (for ſo Solomon Eccl. 7.29. affirms it to be) that it was an eſtate of uprightneſs, that is to ſay ſuch an eſtate as fitted Man for the obedience of all thoſe Laws, which God had obliged him to perform. That, as it is the moſt uſual ſignification of the word we render upright, and accordingly rendred by the Chaldee Paraphraſt right, and innocent before God, ſo beſt anſwering the account before given concerning the depravation of humane Nature, and particularly in thoſe of the Female Sex. For Solomon ſpeaking in the 26th verſe of the deceitfulneſs of that Sex, and of the influence that deceitfulneſs of theirs would have upon ſinful Men; Affirming afterwards becauſe repreſenting the event of his ſearch as contrary to the deſires of his Soul, that though he could find one Man among a thouſand of a better temper, yet he could not find One ſuch Woman among them all; He muſt conſequently, when he comes to ſay that he found only that God made Man upright, be thought to mean ſuch an uprightneſs, as was oppoſite to that general depravation, whereof he before complain'd. There being therefore no doubt to be made that God created our Nature in a ſtate of uprightneſs, even in ſuch a one as fitted Man for the obedience of all thoſe Laws, which he was obliged to comply with; Enquire we in the ſecond place wherein that ſtate of uprightneſs conſiſted, but which we ſhall not find to be of ſo eaſie a reſolution, as the former: Becauſe there is ſome preſumption of its conſiſting in a right diſpoſition of our natural faculties; And there is ſome preſumption of its conſiſting in a ſupernatural Grace over-ruling, and directing thoſe natural faculties to thoſe pious purpoſes, for which they were chiefly deſign'd. We have to perſuade the former of theſe the natural ability of the underſtanding to diſcern the inviſible things of God by the things, which he hath made, and the natural propenſion of the Will to embrace that, which is good, and therefore alſo the chiefeſt good, where that is clearly apprehended, and where there is no depravation in the Will (as to be ſure there was not at firſt) to draw it to leſſer ones. In fine, we have to perſwade it the power the ſuperiour faculties of the Soul have even now over the Inferiour ones, and which we may well believe in that ſtate of Innocency to have been of ſufficient force to keep them within thoſe bounds, which God, and Nature had ſet them. This, I ſay, we have to perſwade that uprightneſs, wherein our firſt Parents were Created, to have conſiſted in a right diſpoſition of their natural faculties; And we are not without reaſon on the other hand to perſwade the ſame uprightneſs of Nature to have conſiſted in its being over-ruled, and directed by a ſupernatural Grace: Becauſe without ſuch a ſupernatural Grace our firſt Parents could not have come to the knowledge of God, but by the knowledge of Created Beings, and the excellencies thereof, and (what that knowledge would have produc'd) a love, and affection for them. Which would not only have made God to be lov'd after his Creatures, who as being the firſt, and chiefeſt good ought to have the precedency thereof, but endangered alſo the diminution of our affections to him by the prepoſſeſſion of them by the other. To which of theſe two reaſonings to give the preeminency is hard to ſay, and I will not therefore be over poſitive in determining concerning the force of them, nor therefore, whether Original Righteouſneſs were a right diſpoſition of our natural faculties, or a ſupernatural Grace overruling, and directing them. But as how equal ſoever thoſe reaſonings may be in themſelves, yet nothing will hinder our inclining rather to the one, than the other, if the Scripture, which is the beſt judge of things of that nature, ſeem to favour ſuch an inclination; So I muſt needs ſay that the ScriptureGen. 1.28, &c. Gen. 2.19, &c. ſeems to favour thoſe reaſonings, which makes Original Righteouſneſs to be a Supernatural Grace: Becauſe not only repreſenting Adam as imbued from the very firſt with the knowledge of God, which yet he could not be without a revelation from him, but as moreover freely converſing with God, and receiving both Laws, and priviledges from him. For as it appears from thence, that God did immediately ſhine upon his mind, and ſo far forth therefore influenced him by a ſupernatural Grace, ſo it is not unlikely that he, who ſo ſhone upon his mind, did as immediately influence his will, and affections, and ſo diſpoſe him to a compliance with thoſe Laws he impos'd upon him: That, as it was but agreeable to the immediate illumination of his underſtanding, ſo becoming yet more neceſſary by the different inclinations of his Fleſh, and Spirit, and which the preſence of a Supernatural Grace may ſeem but requiſite to bring to a due compliance with each other, and with thoſe Laws, which God had impos'd upon them both. And I ſhall only add, that if that uprightneſs, wherein our Nature was at firſt Created, were no other than a Supernatural Grace, as is at leaſt highly probable from the former reaſonings, and the declarations of the Scripture; We ſhall need to aſſign no other relation of that Corruption of Nature, whereof we ſpeak, than that of a ſimple privation of the other. For if the deſires of the Fleſh could ſo far prevail even under a ſupernatural Grace, as to carry our firſt Parents to the eating of that fruit, which God had ſo ſeverely forbidden them; The ſimple privation of that ſupernatural Grace may well ſuffice to give birth to all our evil inclinations, and conſequently paſs for a ſufficient account of that Corruption of our Nature, whereby, as I ſaid before, we become inclinable to Evil, as well as averſe from Good, and which what evidence we have of the being of, is in the next place to be enquir'd.

II. Now as we cannot certainly better inform our ſelves concerning the preſent ſtate of our Nature, than from him who, as he was the Author of it, ſo is intimately preſent to it; So I will therefore begin with that account, which he hath given us of it, and which we ſhall find to bear an ample Teſtimony to that Corruption, whereof we ſpeak. For the evidencing whereof I will ſhew Firſt, that it affirmeth all Men whatſoever to be under ſin, yea under a perpetual courſe of it. Secondly, that it affirmeth them to be ſo from the time they begin to be in a capacity to offend. Thirdly, that they are ſo from a principle bred in them, and derived to them from their birth.

1. That all Men are under ſin S. Paul doth ſo fully declare, that we ſhall need no other Teſtimony than his to evince it; More particularly, where he affirmeth that both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 3.9. are all under ſin; That though the former may ſeem of all others to have been moſt free from it, yet the LawRom. 3.19. had not ſtuck to affirm, that there was none Rom. 3.10, &c. righteous, even among them, no not one; That there was none that underſtood, none that ſought after God; That they were all gone out of the way, they were altogether become unprofitable, that there was none, that did good, no not one; In fine, that all the World muſt therebyRom. 3.19. be look'd upon as guilty before God, becauſe, as he afterwardRom. 3.23. ſpeaks, all have ſinned, and come ſhort of the glory of God. But ſo the ſame Scripture did long before declare, with an addition of all Men's being under a perpetual courſe of ſin, as well as in ſome meaſure tainted with it; It being not only the voice of God concerning that part of Mankind, that liv'd before the flood, that every imagination Gen. 6.5. of the thought of their heart was only evil continually, but alike intimated by him concerning that part, which was to follow, even to the end of the World. For affirming, as he dothGen. 8.21., that he would not any more drown the World, becauſe the imagination of Man's heart is evil from his youth, he both ſuppoſeth that Mankind would again give occaſion to it by their evil imaginations (as without which otherwiſe there could be no occaſion for God's ſuſpending it) and that Mankind would do ſo alſo in every individual, and Generation of it: The former, becauſe he ſpeaks of the imaginations of Mankind in the general, and which are therefore to be extended to all the individuals of it; The latter, becauſe if any Generation of Men were likely to be free from thoſe imaginations, there would ſo far forth have been no need of his declaring, that he would not drown the World, becauſe no ground for bringing it on the Inhabitants thereof. But therefore, as we have reaſon to believe from the places before recited, that the World always was, and will be under ſin, yea under a conſtant courſe of it; So we ſhall be yet more confirmed in it, if we compare the latter place with the former, as the likeneſs, that is between them, will oblige us to do: There being not a more apt ſenſe of that latter Speech of God, than that he would not again drown the Earth, becauſe he knew the imaginations of Men would be as evil as they had before been, and he therefore, if he were diſpos'd to take that vengeance, to bring a flood often upon it, to the no profit of thoſe, that inhabited it, as well as to the defacing of the Earth it ſelf. Which will make the condition of Man to be ſo ſinful, that it cannot be otherwiſe, unleſs by ſome powerful means delivered from it.

2. But ſo alſo may we inferr from thence, which was the ſecond thing to be prov'd, that all Men are under ſin from the time they begin to be in a capacity to offend: That, as it affirms the imagination of Men's heart to be evil, ſo to be evil from their Youth, and, as I ſhould therefore think, from the time they begin to be in a capacity to be guilty of it. Not that that Age, to which we are wont to give the denomination of Youth, is the firſt wherein Mankind begins to be in a capacity to offend (for there is but too much evidence of that in the riper years of Childhood) but that we cannot well underſtand that Text of any other youthful Periode, than that wherein Mankind begins to be in a capacity to reaſon, and conſequently alſo to offend: Partly, becauſe the word we render Youth is ſometime us'd even for infancyJudges 13.7. Exod. 2.6., and ought not therefore without manifeſt reaſon to be removed too far from it; But more eſpecially becauſe it is the manifeſt deſign of God in the place we ſpeak of to aggravate the evil of Men's imaginations from the earlineſs thereof, and that earlineſs therefore to be carried as high, as the capacity Men are in to imagine evil will ſuffer the doing of it.

3. Now as nothing therefore can be wanting toward the proof of Original Corruption, than that they, who are ſo univerſally, and ſo early under ſin, are ſo alſo from an inward principle, and ſuch an inward principle too, as was derived to them from their birth; ſo we ſhall not it may be need any other proof of that, than their being ſo univerſally, and early under the other: The former of theſe perſwading Men's being under ſin from ſome inward principle, the latter from ſuch an inward principle, as is deriv'd to them from their Birth. That I make Men's being ſo univerſally under ſin, an argument of their being ſo from ſome inward principle, is becauſe as ſo general an effect muſt be ſuppoſed to have ſome general Cauſe, ſo no external Cauſe, how general ſoever, can be ſuppoſed to produce it without the aſſiſtance of the other. As will appear if we conſider the force of example, and which as it is the moſt general, and the moſt effectual external Cauſe, that can be aſſign'd, ſo is that, into which they who deny the Corruption of Nature, are wont to reſolve the univerſality of ſin. For neither firſt is even Example of ſo great force, as infallibly, and univerſally to draw Men to the imitation of it; For ſome Men are Vertuous, even when they have an ill example before them, and others as Vitious, where they have a good. Neither ſecondly hath it any force, but what it receives from Men's aptneſs to imitate thoſe, with whom they converſe. Which as it will make it neceſſary for us to have recourſe to an inward principle, even for thoſe effects, which are produc'd by the mediation of example, ſo make our very aptneſs to imitate the evil examples of others, a branch of that inward principle, which we affirm to be the cauſe of ſo univerſal an impiety. Only becauſe we are yet upon Scripture proofs, and which the more expreſs they are, ſo much the more convictive; Therefore I ſhall yet more particularly endeavour to evince from thence, that as all Men are under ſin, ſo they are ſo by an innate principle. But ſo S. Paul gives us clearly enough to underſtand, becauſe both aſſerting ſuch a principle, and that all actual ſins are the iſſues of it: The former, where he repreſents even the Man, who was under the conviction of the Law (and who therefore might be ſuppos'd to be moſt free from the contagion of ſin) as Carnal, yea ſold under it Rom. 7.14., as one, who had ſin dwelling in him (for ſo he affirms no leſs than twiceRom. 7.17. Rom. 7.20,) and as one too, who had a law in his members Rom. 7.23, that warred againſt the law of his mind, or (as he afterwards entitles it) a law of ſin; The latter, where he repreſents that carnality, and ſinful captivity, under which the Jew was, as the cauſe of his doing what he would not Rom. 7.15., and omitting what he would, That ſin, which dwelt in him, as doing all the evil Rom. 17.20. he committed, And that law, that was in his members, as warring againſt the law of his mind Rom. 17.23., and bringing him into Captivity unto the law of ſin. For what more could be ſaid on the one hand to ſhew the thing S. Paul there ſpeaks of to be an inward evil principle, and which, becauſe even in thoſe, who were under the Law, is much more to be ſuppoſed in the Gentiles? Or what more on the other to ſhew that evil principle to be the parent of our actual ſins, yea that which gives being to them all. And I know nothing to take off the force of it, but a ſuppoſition of St. Paul's ſpeaking in that place of Evil habits, and which as they muſt be confeſſed to be of the ſame pernicious efficacy with Original Corruption, ſo to have been for the moſt part the condition both of Jew, and Gentile, before they came to be overtaken by the Goſpel. But how firſt ſuppoſing the Apoſtle to have ſpoken only of evil habits (for nothing hinders us from aſſigning them a part in that Body of ſin) How firſt, I ſay, doth that agree with the account he before gave concerning ſins entring in Rom. 5.12. by Adam, and our being conſtituted Rom. 5.19. ſinners by him. For though Original Corruption may come from him, yet evil habits can be only from our ſelves, and conſequently thoſe ſins, that flow from them? How ſecondly ſuppoſing none but evil habits to be here intended, can we make that Body, or law of ſin, whereof S. Paul ſpeaks, to be the portion of all, that are under an obligation to Baptiſm, as that Apoſtle plainly ſuppoſeth, when he makes the deſign of BaptiſmRom. 6.6. to be the deſtruction of it? For to ſay nothing at preſent concerning the caſe of Infants, becauſe the beſt evidence of their Obligation to Baptiſm is the Corruption of their Nature, and that Obligation therefore rather to be prov'd from Natural Corruption, than Natural Corruption from it; Neither can it be deny'd, even from the CommandmentMat. 28.19., that our Saviour gave concerning Baptiſm, that all adult perſons are under an Obligation to it, nor therefore but that they carry about them that body of ſin, which Baptiſm was intended for the deſtruction of. But ſo all adult perſons cannot be ſuppoſed to do, if that body of ſin be no other, than evil habits; Becauſe it muſt be ſometime after that maturity of theirs before they can come to thoſe evil habits, or therefore to be under an Obligation to that Sacrament which is to deſtroy it. In fine, how ſuppoſing none but evil habits to be intended by that body, or law of ſin, whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaks, can we give an account of ſo holy, and juſt a Law, as that of Moſes is, ſtirring Rom. 7.9. Concupiſcence in thoſe, that are under it, and not rather hindring it from coming to effect. For as nothing hinders the propoſing of that Law before ſuch perſons come to any evil habits, and therefore alſo before there is any thing in them to ſtir them up to ſuch a Concupiſcence; So nothing can hinder that Law, when duly propoſed to them, from preventing all ſuch Concupiſcence, as it was the deſign of the Lawgiver to forbid: Becauſe as the perſons we ſpeak of muſt be ſuppoſed to be without any contrariety in their Nature to the matter of that Law, which is propos'd; So they muſt alſo be ſuppos'd to be in that ſtate, wherein God had ſet them, and (becauſe God cannot be thought to place Men in any other eſtate, than that of uprightneſs) in ſuch a ſtate, as will make them willing to liſten to the divine Laws, and receive their directions from them. By which means the divine Laws ſhall rather keep Men's Concupiſcence from coming to effect, than give any occaſion for the ſtirring of it. I conclude therefore from that, as well as the former arguments, that the evil principle ſpoken of by S. Paul cannot be evil habits, and conſequently nothing more left to us to demonſtrate, than that it is derived to us, from our Birth, or rather from our Conception in the Womb, which is all, that is affirmed concerning Original Corruption. Now that that evil principle, whereof we ſpeak, is derived to us from our Birth, will become at leaſt probable from what was before ſaid concerning the earlineſs of Men's being under ſin, yea their being ſo, as the Scripture inſtructs us, even from their Youth. For as it is hard to believe, that all Men ſhould be ſo early under ſin, if it were not from ſome inward principle, that was antecedent to that Age (For what ſhould otherwiſe hinder ſome of them at leaſt from preſerving their integrity for ſome time, eſpecially ſuppoſing, (as that tender Age maketh it reaſonable to ſuppoſe) a more peculiar watchfulneſs of the Divine Providence over it?) So it will be much more hard to believe, ſuppoſing that evil principle to be antecedent to their Youth, that it ſhould not be derived to them from their Conception, and Birth: The Ages preceding that being not in a capacity to produce in themſelves ſuch an evil principle, and therefore to be ſuppos'd to have had it tranſmitted to them together with their Nature, and ſo alſo by the ſame means, and from the ſame time, in which that their Nature was. And indeed, as even the tendereſt age falls under death, and not unreaſonably therefore concluded to be ſome way, or other under ſin, if (as S. Paul Rom. 5.12. ſpeaks) death enter'd by it, and ſo paſs'd upon all Men, for that all have ſinned; So there want not ſome places of Scripture, which do yet more directly evince, that the firſt beginnings of our Nature are tainted with that, of which we ſpeak. Of this ſort I reckon that of Job Job 14.4., which is ſo commonly apply'd to this affair, even his demanding of God, with reference to himſelfJob 1, &c., and all other Men, who could bring a clean thing out of an unclean? and thereby therefore intimating that it was not to be done. For as it is manifeſt from his alledging that the better to countenance his own expoſtulation concerning God's bringing him into judgment, tha by the unavoidable uncleanneſs there intimated muſt be meant a ſinful one, as which alone could either diſpoſe him to ſuch actions, as could be a proper matter for judgment, or be alledged in bar to a ſevere one: So it is alike manifeſt from Job's asking, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, that Men are not only ſo unclean in their Nature, but that they become ſo by thoſe evil principles, out of which they are brought, and ſo alſo from the time that they were ſeparated from them. Of the ſame Nature is that of our Saviour, where he aſſerts the neceſſity of Men's being born again of water, and the Spirit, upon the account of their being before but fleſh Joh. 3.6., becauſe born of fleſh. For as we cannot well underſtand our Saviour of any other fleſh, than fleſh corrupted, or rather of the whole Nature, that is ſo; Partly becauſe of the oppoſition, that is there madeIbid. between a fleſhly, and ſpiritual temper, and partly becauſe that is the moſt uſual notion of it in the NewRom. 7.18, 25. Gal. 5.19, 24. Teſtament: So neither therefore but conclude all Men to become ſuch fleſh by thoſe fleſhly perſons, from whom they are born, and ſo alſo from the time that they receive their being from them. But of all the Texts of Scripture, which are commonly alledged in this affair (even the earlineſs of that evil principle, wherewith we have ſaid all Men to be imbued) there is certainly none of greater force, than the profeſſion, that David makesPſal. 51.5., that he was ſhapen, or born in iniquity, and conceiv'd by his Mother in ſin; That, if it entreat of the Corruption of humane Nature, making it as early as the firſt beginnings of it, becauſe ſpeaking as manifeſtly of its ConceptionHam. Annot. in locum., and Birth. And indeed as we have no reaſon to believe from any thing the Scripture hath ſaid concerning David, or his Parents, that what he ſpake of his own formation was to be underſtood of that alone; ſo we have much leſs reaſon to believe, that he intended any other thing by the ſin, and iniquity thereof, than that Original Corruption, whereof we ſpeak. For beſide that the letter of the Text is moſt agreeable to that notion, and not therefore without manifeſt reaſon to be diverted to another; Beſide that that ſenſe is put upon it by the moſt eminent Fathers Voſſ. Pelag. Hiſt. l. 2. Part. 1. Theſ. 1. of the Church, and the Doctrine contained in it confirm'd by the concordant Ibid. Theſ. 6. teſtimonies of them all; Beſide that that ſenſe hath the ſuffrage of one of the moſt learnedHam. ubi. ſupra. of the Jewiſh Writers, as the thing it ſelf the conſentient belief of all the reſt; Aben Ezra reſolving the meaning of the Pſalmiſt to be, that in the hour of his Nativity the evil figment was planted in his heart, even that Concupiſcence (as he afterward interprets himſelf) by which he was drawn into ſin: Beſide all theſe, I ſay, it is no leſs agreeable to the ſcope of the whole Pſalm, and particularly to the care he takes in the Verſe before to condemn himſelf for his offences, and ſo juſtifie the ſeverity of God, if he ſhould think good to take vengeance of them. For what could be more ſutable to that, than to lay open, together with his actual ſins, that polluted Fountain from whence they came, and ſo ſhew himſelf to be vile upon more accounts, than one, and God to have as many reaſons to chaſtiſe him? And I ſhall only add, that as that ſenſe cannot therefore be fairly refus'd, becauſe conformable to the deſign of the Pſalmiſt, as well as to the letter of the Text it ſelf, and to the interpretation of the Antients, as well as either; So they ſeem to me to add no ſmall confirmation to it, who can find no other means to elude it, than by making the words of the ſame ſence with that hyperbolical expreſſion of the ſame Author, where he affirmsPſal. 58.3., that the wicked are eſtranged from the Womb, and that as ſoon as they are born, they go aſtray ſpeaking lies. For as it cannot be deny'd that there is a very wide difference between Men's being conceived, and born in ſin, and their going aſtray from their Mother's Womb, and their own birth; This latter expreſſion importing that iniquity, which follows after it, whereas the former denotes the condition of the Conception, and Birth it ſelf: So it is evident from what the Pſalmiſt adds in the place alledged concerning the wicked's ſpeaking lies, that he there entreats of actual ſins, which as no Man denies to require a more mature Age for the perpetration of, ſo make it neceſſary to allow an Hyperbole in it; Whereas the place we inſiſt upon hath not the leaſt umbrage of actual ſins, and is therefore under no neceſſity of being interpreted conformably to it.

But becauſe it can hardly be imagin'd, but if there be ſuch a thing as Original ſin, it will produce ſutable effects in thoſe, in whom it is; And becauſe it can as little be thought, but that thoſe effects will lye open to the obſervation of all, that ſhall take the pains to reflect upon them; Therefore enquire we in the next place, whether that Original Sin, whereof we ſpeak, doth not diſcover it ſelf by ſutable effects, and ſo add yet farther ſtrength to what the Scripture hath affirm'd concerning it. A thing not to be doubted of, if we reflect upon the behaviour of Children, as ſoon as they come to have any uſe of reaſon. For do not ſome of thoſe, as the Pſalmiſt ſpeaksIbid., go aſtray from their Mothers Womb, ſpeaking lies? Do not others diſcover in their actions as much of malice, and revenge? Are not a third ſort as refractory to the commands of their Superiours? Doth not a fourth equally pride it ſelf in all its ſuppoſed excellencies? Now from whence, I beſeech you, proceeds all this untowardneſs of behaviour, but from as untoward a principle, and ſuch a one too, as is interwoven with their very Being, and derived to them with it? For ſhall we ſay from the force of Example? But experience aſſures us of the contrary, becauſe viſible in ſuch Children, as have no ſuch examples before them, and who moreover do not want a ſevere education to prevent, or correct it. Shall we then ſay from ſome previous habits? But the ſame experience aſſures us of the contrary, becauſe it is antecedent to any evil habits, and therefore not imputable to them. Shall we ſay laſtly (and more than that we cannot ſay) that it proceeds from their natural temperament? But as I no way doubt, and ſhall not therefore ſtick to confeſs, that the Corruption of our Nature runs out that way, which our natural temperament leads it; So I ſee no neceſſity to grant, that that natural temperament hath any other intereſt in our untowardneſs, than by inclining our natural Corruption to that particular evil, to which we are carried. For to make it any other way the cauſe of that untowardneſs is to charge it upon God, becauſe he muſt be confeſs'd to be the Author of all that is purely natural in us. Only if it be ſaid, that that natural temperament may incline Children, before they have any free uſe of reaſon, to thoſe untowardneſſes, whereof we ſpeak, and ſo at length by the means of thoſe untowardneſſes produce ſuch an habitual inclination to them, that their more free reaſon, when they come to it, ſhall not be able to ſurmount it; I anſwer, that that indeed might well enough be granted, if we had no reaſon to believe, that God would ſo watch over them by his providence, as to hinder their natural temperament from having ſuch an influence upon them. But as we have reaſon enough to believe, from the love God bears to his own Workmanſhip, as well as to Piety, and Vertue, that he would not be wanting in that particular to the eſtate of Children, if it were no other than ſuch as he himſelf had plac'd them in; So we muſt therefore believe alſo, that that temperament of theirs is not the cauſe of their miſcarriages, but ſomewhat elſe that is not from God, and which, becauſe not from him, he doth not think himſelf under any neceſſity to provide againſt.

And indeed though ſome, who call themſelves Chriſtians, have notwithſtanding the former evidences, oppos'd themſelves againſt that, which we have offered as the Original cauſe thereof; Yet have the more ſober Heathen, though ignorant of the occaſion of it, both acknowledg'd, and lamented it, and ſo furniſh'd us with a farther argument for the belief of it. For thus (as Dr. Jackſon Coll. of his Works Book 10. Ch. 8. did long ſince obſerve) we find one of them affirming that the nature of Man is prone to luſt, and another, that nature cannot ſeparate juſt from unjuſt. Thus a third (as the forementioned Author remarks) that to Man of all the creatures is ſorrow given for a portion, to him luxury in innumerable faſhions, and in every Limb; To him alone ambition, and avarice, to him alone an unmeaſurable deſire of living; In fine, that whilſt it is given to other creatures, yea the moſt ſavage ones, to live peaceably, and orderly together, Man is naturally an enemy to thoſe of his own ſtock. To the ſame purpoſe are thoſe, which are quoted by Grotius De jure Becti ac. Pac. li. 2. c. 20. ſect. 19. & in Annot. intocum., if they are not alſo yet more worthy of our remark; Such as are, that among the other incommodities of mortal nature there is the darkneſs of Men's minds, and not only a neceſſity of erring, but a love of errours; That we have all ſinned, ſome in weightier inſtances, others in lighter, ſome of ſet purpoſe and deſign, others it may be carried away by other Men's wickedneſs; That we do not only offend, but we ſhall offend to the end of our lives, and although ſome one may have ſo purg'd his mind, that nothing ſhall any more diſturb, or deceive him, yet he comes to innocency by offending; That this evil diſpoſition is ſo natural to Men, that, if every one be to be puniſhed, that hath it, no Man ſhall be free from puniſhment; That there is therefore a neceſſity upon thoſe, who are entruſted with the power of Chaſtiſement, to wink at ſome errours; He, who puniſheth Men, as if they could be free from all ſin, exceeding the meaſure of that correction, which is according to nature, or (as another hath expreſſed it) ſhewing himſelf injurious to the common infirmity of Men, and forgetful of that infirmity, which is humane, and univerſal. For as it is evident from theſe, and the like paſſages, that they, from whom they fell, had the ſame opinion of the State of Nature, which Chriſtianity obligeth us to take up; So that opinion of theirs cannot but add to the confirmation of our own, and to the belief of that depravation, which it is the deſign of this Diſcourſe to evince: Becauſe not taken up either in whole, or in part from prejudices imbib'd from Books, but from the experience they had of its effects, and which as they themſelves could not but feel, and acknowledge, ſo we have no reaſon to queſtion, becauſe conſcious of the like effects of it in our ſelves.

III. There being therefore no doubt to be made, but that there is ſuch a thing as Original Sin, becauſe ſufficiently atteſted by the Doctrine of the Scripture, and our own, and other Men's experience; It cannot but be thought reaſonable to enquire, from whence it had its beginning, and ſo much the rather becauſe both Scripture, and reaſon aſſure us, that it cannot be thought to have had its Original from God. Now there are but four things, from whence it can be ſuppoſed to proceed, and within the conſideration whereof therefore this Enquiry of ours will neceſſarily be bounded; ſome evil Daemon, or Spirit, which concurrs with God to our production, or the natural pravity of that matter, which God makes uſe of in order to it; Some evil habits, which Souls contracted, before they were ſent into their preſent bodies, or ſome pravity in thoſe from whom they firſt deſcended, and which is tranſmitted from them to particular ſouls, and perſons. The firſt of theſe opinions is attended with this great inconvenience among many others, that it chargeth God either with malignity, or impotency; With malignity, if willingly ſuffering any evil ſpirit to mix it ſelf in his productions; With impotency, if not able to hinder it, though he would. The ſecond, as it is alike injurious to the power of God, becauſe ſubjecting that power of his to the indiſpoſition of the matter, ſo it makes Original Sin to be natural, and unavoidable, and conſequently alſo thoſe actual ſins, that ſlow from it. By which means it not only renders all our endeavours againſt them uſeleſs, but caſts a blemiſh upon thoſe divine Laws, which pretend to forbid them, and upon thoſe divine judgments, which pretend to puniſh them. For neither can God without great unreaſonableneſs forbid what is not to be avoided, nor puniſh it without the imputation of injuſtice. But it may be though Original Sin had not its beginning either from ſome evil ſpirit, or the pravity of the matter, which are the two firſt opinions, which pretend to give an account of it; yet it might, as is ſuggeſted in the third, ariſe from ſuch evil habits, as Men's ſouls contracted before their deſcent into this World, and into thoſe bodies, wherewith they are inveſted. That indeed might yet more reaſonably be believ'd, that I ſay not alſo (abſtracting from the Authority of the Scripture) much more reaſonably, than the account, that is given of it from Adam, if there were but equal reaſon to believe, that Men's Souls had any ſeparate exiſtence antecedently to their conception in the Womb. But as that is a thing for which there is not any ſolid ground either in reaſon, or Scripture, and the ſuppoſition of it therefore the meer iſſue of fancy, and conjecture; So it is ſufficiently confuted by the ignorance Men's Souls are under of any ſuch previous eſtate. For why, if Men's Souls had any ſuch previous exiſtence, ſhould they not be conſcious of it, and of the things, that were performed by them in it? Nay, why ſhould not God take care to fix ſuch a remembrance in them, that ſo what was wanting in their former eſtate might be ſupply'd by them in their following one? For as it is not eaſie to ſuppoſe, that the corruptible body ſhould ſo far ſtupefie the Soul, as to hinder it from emerging in time out of ſleep, in which it may ſeem to have been caſt, and accordingly from calling to mind what had been before tranſacted within it; Becauſe though the Body may be ſome hindrance to the faculties of the Soul, yet it doth not hinder them from coming in time to exert their proper operations: So it is much leſs eaſie to ſuppoſe, that God ſhould not however bring to it's memory its paſt State, and Actions, by which it offended againſt him; Partly to make it ſenſible of its former guilt, and God's chooſing to puniſh it by thruſting it into a Body, and partly to make it ſo much the more careful to break off from thoſe ſins, by which it had before offended him; Theſe, as they are the only imaginable ends, why God ſhould thruſt an offending Soul into ſuch a Body, ſo being perfectly loſt to that Soul, in which there is no conſciouſneſs of it's former ſtate, and of thoſe enormities, which were contracted in it. I conclude therefore, that whatever may be ſaid as to this particular concerning Original Sin, yet it did not take its riſe from the evil acts, or habits of the Soul in any praexiſtent eſtate, and nothing therefore left to us to reſolve it into, but the depravedneſs of thoſe, from whom we all deſcended, and from whom it is tranſmitted to particular Souls, and Perſons.

I deny not indeed, that even this Account is not without its difficulties, and ſuch as it will be hard, if not impoſſible perfectly to aſſoile. I deny not farther, that thoſe difficulties are much enhanc'd by the ignorance we are under concerning the Original of humane Souls, and which whilſt we continue under, it will not be eaſie for us to ſhew, how that depravedneſs of Nature ſhould paſs from them to us. But as thoſe difficulties are no ways comparable to the difficulties of two of the former, even thoſe, which reſolve Original Sin into the malignity of ſome evil ſpirit, or the pravity of matter; So they can much leſs be thought to be of force againſt the teſtimony of the Scripture, if that (as I ſhall afterwards ſhew) favour its ariſing from the pravity of our firſt Parents: Partly becauſe the thing in queſtion is a matter of fact, and therefore to be determin'd rather by teſtimony, than the force of reaſon, and partly becauſe the teſtimony of Scripture is the moſt Authentick one, as being no other than the teſtimony of God. Now that there wants not ſufficient evidence from thence, that that Original Sin, whereof we ſpeak, ariſeth from the pravity of thoſe, from whom we firſt deſcended, will appear if theſe three things can be made out; Firſt, that the ſin of all mankind enter'd in by Adam; Secondly, that it enter'd in by Adam not meerly as the firſt that committed it, or tempted other Men by his ill example to do the like, but as more, or leſs the cauſe of all their ſins by his own; Thirdly that he became the cauſe of all their ſins through his, by depraving thereby his own Nature, and then communicating that depravation to thoſe, that deſcended from him.

That the Sin of all Mankind enter'd in by Adam, will need no other proof, than that known Text of S. Paul Rom. 5.12., even that by one Man ſin enter'd into the World, and death by ſin, and ſo death paſſed through unto all Men, for that all have ſinned. For as we cannot well interpret the word ſin of any other, than the ſin of all Men, becauſe there is nothing in the Text to limit it to any particular Man's, ſo much leſs, when S. Paul doth afterwards affirm, that that death, which enter'd in by it, paſſed thorough unto all Men, for that, or becauſe all had ſinned by the means of him; That as it makes death to paſs upon all Men with reſpect to their ſeveral ſins, and conſequently their ſeveral ſins to be the immediate door by which it enters, ſo making thoſe ſeveral ſins therefore to be included in that ſin, which he before affirmed to be the cauſe of that death, and, together with it, to have enter'd in by Adam.

But becauſe among thoſe at leaſt, by whom the Scripture is acknowledg'd, the queſtion is not ſo much, whether all ſin enter'd by Adam, but after what manner it enter'd by him; And becauſe, till that be known, we cannot ſpeak with any certainty concerning the derivation of the corruptneſs of our Natures from that of our firſt Parents or Parent; Therefore paſs we on to ſhew, according to the method before laid down, that as the ſin of all Mankind enter'd in by Adam, ſo it enter'd in by him, not (as ſome have vainly deem'd) meerly as one, who firſt committed it, or tempted others by his example to do the like, but as one alſo, yea eſpecially, who by the malignant influence of his ſin was more or leſs the cauſe of all thoſe ſins, that followed it. That the ſin of all Mankind enter'd not in by Adam either meerly, or principally as one, who firſt committed it, will need no other proof than his being not the firſt committer of ſin even in this ſublunary World, but that Serpent, who tempted our firſt Parents to it. For as he, and his fellow Angels ſinned before them in thoſe glorious ſeats, in which they were firſt beſtow'd; So he ſinned alſo before them here by that temptation, which he ſuggeſted to them, and without which they had not fallen from their integrity. Which as it is an evidence of ſin's not entring in by Adam in that ſenſe, and conſequently that that was not the ſenſe intended by S. Paul; So is the more to be conſidered, becauſe S. John attributes this entrance of ſin to the Devil 1. Joh. 3.8., yea makes all the committers of ſin to be therefore of him. But beſides that Adam was not the firſt of thoſe that ſinned, and we therefore not ſo to underſtand S. Paul, when deſcribing ſin as entring by him; Neither was he the firſt of humane kind that ſinned, which will be a yet farther prejudice to the former ſurmiſe. For (as we learn from the ſtory of the FallGen. 3.6., yea from this very Apoſtle elſewhere)1 Tim. 2.14. Adam was not deceiv'd, that is to ſay, was not the firſt that was ſo, but the Woman being deceiv'd was in the tranſgreſſion. Which what is it but to ſay, that ſin did not enter in by Adam in that ſenſe, and conſequently that that was not the ſenſe intended by the Apoſtle in it? Only if it be ſaid (and more than that cannot be ſaid in it) that we are not ſo to underſtand S. Paul, when deſcribing ſin as entring by Adam, as not alſo to ſuppoſe him to connote the Partner both of his Bed, and of his tranſgreſſion; As I will not be forward to deny the ſuggeſtion altogether, becauſe believing them both to have contributed to the production of our tranſgreſſions, as well as Nature, ſo I cannot forbear to ſay upon the account of that which follows, that we ought to conſider Adam as the more eſpecial inſtrument in it. Becauſe S. Paul not only repreſents himRom. 5.14. in particular as the Type, or Figure of him, that was to come, but both deſcribes him all along under the notion of one Man Rom. 12.15, 16. &c. , yea makes a great part of the likeneſs, that was between him and Chriſt to conſiſt in it. Which could by no means have been proper, if he had meant no other by ſin's entring in by Adam, than entring in by him as one of the firſt committers of it. For in this ſenſe Eve muſt neceſſarily have had the preeminence, becauſe not only offending before her Husband, but tempting even him to do the ſame. From that firſt ſenſe therefore paſs we to the ſecond, and which indeed is both more antient, and plauſible, than the former. For as it is as old as that Pelagius Vid. Voſſ. Hiſt. Pelag. li. 2. parte 2. Theſ. 1. , who firſt call'd Original Sin in queſtion, ſo it allows the ſin of Adam to have had an influence upon other Men's ſins, as well as to have given beginning to the being of it. But that it hath as little ſolidity, or pertinency to the words, whereunto it is apply'd, will appear if we reflect upon the ſequel of S. Paul's Diſcourſe, or the ſubject matter of that, which is offered as the interpretation of it. For is there any reaſon to think (without which that interpretation can be of no avail) that Adam by his ſin tempted all his poſterity to offend? Nay, is there not reaſon enough to believe, that that example of his contributed little to Men's following ſins, yea contributed nothing at all to many of them? For how many Men have there been, to whom the knowledge of his ſin never reach'd? How many are there yet, who are under the ſame ignorance, or may hereafter be? And muſt not theſe therefore be look'd upon as exempted from the influence of his ill example, and conſequently, if their ſins entred in by Adam, be acknowledg'd to have entred ſome other way? And though the ſame be not to be ſaid of thoſe, to whom the Scriptures have come, becauſe thoſe are not without the knowledge of his ſin, nor incapable of being influenc'd by his example; Yet is there as little reaſon to think, that that example of his contributes much to their ſins, or indeed ever did to theirs, who lived nearer to him, and ſo were more likely to have been inflicted by him. For beſide that a ſin ſo chaſtis'd, as that was, was not very likely to draw their thoughts towards it, and therefore as little likely to tempt them to the imitation of it; Beſide that many of them might have no actual conſideration of it, as no doubt many now have not, even when they offend in the like kind; They might have been influenc'd, and no doubt were by other ſins of his, as much, or more than by his firſt tranſgreſſion, or by the ill examples of thoſe, that were nearer to them, rather than by any of his. In fine they might have been, and no doubt often were influenced by the baits of pleaſure, or profit, and thereby drawn aſide from their integrity; Theſe having been as apt to influence them, as the example of that ſin, by which their ſeveral offences are ſuppos'd to have entred into the World. And I ſhall only add, that as that ſenſe cannot therefore be reaſonably impos'd, if we regard, as no doubt we ought, the ſubject matter of it; So we ſhall find as little encouragement for it from the ſequel of his Diſcourſe, whoſe words are now under conſideration. For beſide that he himſelf may ſeem ſufficiently to obviate it by affirming preſently afterRom. 5.14., that there were many of thoſe, that ſinned, that did not, nor well could ſin after the ſimilitude of Adam's tranſgreſſion, becauſe knowing nothing at all of any ſuch poſitive law, as he tranſgreſs'd; It is the main deſign of his Diſcourſe to compare the good, that Chriſt brought by his obedience, with the hurt which that type of his did by his tranſgreſſion. Which compariſon had been but a frigid one, if all the hurt, that Adam did us, was by the force of his ill example: Becauſe it is certain that Chriſt's obedience was of a much more efficacious influence in the kind of it, as well as in the degree, and would therefore rather have been vilified, than any way illuſtrated, or commended by the compariſon, if the malign influence of Adam's ſin had reach'd no farther, than that of an example. I conclude therefore, that what ever was meant by ſin's entring in by Adam, yet ſomething more was meant by it, than its entring by him either as the firſt committer of it, or as one, who by his ill example tempted others to do the like. And indeed as the inſtance but now alledg'd, even the likeneſs, that is between Adam's ſin, and Chriſt's obedience, makes it but reaſonable to look upon all ſin as entring alſo by Adam, as more, or leſs the cauſe of it, ſo it ſtands yet more confirm'd by what S. Paul affirms in the ninteenth verſe, eſpecially as it lies in the Original: The purport thereof being, that Men are conſtituted ſinners by his diſobedience, yea that they are ſo conſtituted ſinners by it, as Men are conſtituted righteous by the obedience of Chriſt. For though the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may in themſelves be capable of a ſofter ſenſe, and accordingly ſignifie no more, than Men's being reputed, and us'd as ſinners upon the account of that tranſgreſſion, which Adam committed; Yet I ſee not how that ſenſe can be thought to fit them here, or indeed any other than that of conſtituting, or making Men ſinners: Partly becauſe their being conſtituted ſinners by Adam's diſobedience is rendred by S. Paul Rom. 5.18, 19. as the reaſon of their condemnation by it, and ought therefore to be diſtinguiſhed from it; And partly becauſe they are ſaid to be conſtituted ſinners by Adam's diſobedience, as they, who belong to Chriſt, are conſtituted righteous by his obedience. For the obedience of Chriſt procuring Men's being really righteous, as well as their being reputed ſuch, yea procuring their being really righteous in ſome meaſure, that they may be ſo accounted of, and us'd; What can be more reaſonable than to think, that that diſobedience of Adam, which is affirmed to be like it, is of the ſame cauſality, and accordingly conſtitutes, or makes Men ſinners, as well as accounted of as ſuch.

One only thing remains towards the clearing of the matter in hand, even the derivation of the corruptneſs of our Nature from that of our firſt Parent, or Parents; And that is, that as all ſin entred in by Adam as more, or leſs the cauſe of it by his own, ſo he became the cauſe of it by his own by thereby depraving his own Nature firſt, and then communicating that depravation to thoſe, that deſcended from him. Of the former whereof as there cannot well be any doubt, conſidering the hainouſneſs of that ſin, which he committed (That as it could not but occaſion the withdrawing of the Divine Grace from Adam, ſo neither but draw after it the depravation of his Nature, as which receiv'd all its rectitude from the other) ſo there will be as little doubt of the latter, if we compare what S. Paul here ſaith concerning Adam's being the cauſe of all our ſins by his own, with what he afterward ſaithRom. 7.17-20. concerning Men's falling into actual ſin by vertue of an evil principle, that dwelleth in them. For if all actual ſin proceed immediately from ſuch an evil principle, that evil principle muſt be alſo from Adam, as without which otherwiſe he could not be the cauſe of our ſins by his own, nor conſtitute us ſinners by it.

IV. I will not be over poſitive in defining by what means this evil principle is convey'd, becauſe I am not well aſſur'd how our very Nature is. It ſhall ſuffice me to repreſent (what may tend in ſome meaſure toward the clearing of it) That Original ſin, cleaving to our nature from the firſt beginnings of it, muſt conſequently be conveyed to us by the ſame general means, by which our nature is, even by natural generation, yea that the Scripture teacheth us ſo to reaſon, where it affirms Men to be conceiv'd in ſin Pſal. 51.5., to become fleſh by being born Joh. 3.6. of fleſh, and unclean Job 14.4.1. by being brought out of thoſe Parents, that are ſo; That, though the more particular means, by which Original Sin is convey'd, cannot with any certainty be aſſign'd, becauſe it is alike uncertain, whether thoſe Souls, in which it is moſt reaſonable to place it, be either traduced, or immediately created, yet there would not be any uncertainty as to this particular, if we believ'd the Souls of Men to be traduc'd, as ſeveral of the AntientsVid. Voſſi. Hiſt. P lag. Lib. 2. Parte 3. Theſ. 1. , and not a few of the Moderns have believ'd (For ſo it would not only not be difficult to apprehend the particular means of the others conveyance, but almoſt impoſſible to overlook them, becauſe making it to paſs together with thoſe Souls, to which it adheres, and diffuſe it ſelf from thence to thoſe Bodies, to which they are united) That, though the traduction of Souls be not without its difficulties, and ſuch as I ſhall not be ſo vain as to attempt the ſolution of, yet it is in that particular but of the ſame condition with the immediate Creation of them, that I ſay not alſo leſs exceptionable, as to the buſineſs of Original Sin; In fine, That, as it hath nothing from Scripture to prejudice the belief of it, as appears by the ſolutions, which have been long ſince Hotham's Introd. to the Trent. Philoſophy. given to the Objections from it; So it ſeems to me much more agreeable to that account, which it gives of the Creation, and indeed to the Nature of a Parent. For what can be more clear from the Story of the Creation, than that God deſigned once for all to Create all the Beings, which he intended, leaving them, and particularly Man, to carry on the Succeſſion by thoſe productive principles, which he had planted in them? For if ſo, what ſhould hinder us from believing, but that Men produce their like after the ſame manner, that other Creatures do, and by the ſame Divine Benediction, and concurence. Sure I am, as they will otherwiſe fall ſhort of the powers of inferiour beings, as well as be an anomalie in the Creation, ſo they will be but very imperfectly in the condition of Parents, becauſe contributing only to that part, which is the leaſt conſiderable in their Poſterity. Only as I liſt not to contend about any thing, of which I my ſelf am not more ſtrongly perſuaded; So I ſhall leave it to thoſe, whom the immediate creation of Souls better pleaſeth, to make their advantage of it, and ſatisfie themſelves from it concerning the means of Original Sin's conveyance. Which if they do, they ſhall do more, than the great S. Auguſtin could after all his travails in this Argument; Becauſe profeſſing that he could not find either by reading or praying, or reaſoning Ep. 157. ad Optatum., how Original Sin could be defended with the opinion of the Creation of Souls.

V. I may not diſmiſs the Argument that is now before us, or indeed ſo much as attend to the conſideration of thoſe Objections, that are made againſt it, before I have alſo enquir'd, whether that, which hath the name of Original Sin, be truly, and properly ſuch, and not rather ſo ſtiled in reſpect of that firſt ſin, from which it proceeded, or in reſpect of thoſe ſins, to which it leads. For beſide that that Church, whoſe Catechiſm I have choſen to explain, leads us to the conſideration of it, becauſe both there, and elſewhereArt. of Relig. 6. affirming it to have the nature of a Sin, to make us the Children of Wrath, and to deſerve God's Wrath and Damnation; The reſolution of it is of no ſmall moment toward the right ſtating of our duty, and the valuableneſs of that remedy, which Chriſtianity hath provided for it. For neither otherwiſe can we look upon Original Sin as any proper matter for our Repentance, whatſoever it may be for our lamentation, nor upon Baptiſm as bringing any other pardon to Infants, than that of the Sin of their firſt Parents, and which they who look upon Original Sin as rather our unhappineſs, than fault, are generally as far from charging them with. This only would be premis'd for the better underſtanding of it, that by Sin is not meant any actual tranſgreſſion of a Law (for no Man was ever ſo abſurd, as to affirm that concerning Original Sin) but that which is contrary to a Law in the nature of an evil habit, and both imports an abſence of that Righteouſneſs, which ought to be in us, and an inclination to thoſe evils, from which we ought to be averſe; This, as it is no leſs the tranſgreſſion of a Law, than any actual ſin is, ſo making the perſon, in whom it is, as obnoxious to puniſhment, and conſequently to be look'd upon as yet more properly a ſin. Now that that, which we call Original Sin, is really ſuch in this latter notion, will appear if theſe two things be conſidered; Firſt, that the Scripture gives it the title of ſin, Secondly, that it repreſents it as ſuch upon the account of our being obliged by the Law of God to have in us a contrary temper. That the Scripture gives that, whereof we ſpeak, the title of ſin, is evident from thoſe Texts, which we before made uſe of to prove the being of it; More particularly from thatPſa. 91.5., which repreſents David as conceiv'd, and born in ſin, and thoſeRom. 7.17-20., which repreſent us all as having ſin dwelling in us. For theſe having been before ſhewn to ſpeak of Original Sin make it evident that the Scripture gives it the title of Sin, becauſe in the former places repreſenting it under that notion. And though I will not from that only Topick conclude it to be properly ſuch, becauſe the Scripture makes uſe of figurative expreſſions, as well as proper, yea doth ſo in this very particular whereof we ſpeak (for thus it ſometimes gives the title of ſin to that, which is intended only as the puniſhment thereof) yet as we may lawfully inferr from thence, that there is more cauſe to believe Original Sin to be properly, than figuratively ſuch, till the contrary thereof be made appear, The proper ſenſe being otherwiſe to be preferr'd before the figurative; So that there can be no place for the figurative ſenſe, if that, which is there repreſented as a ſin, be elſewhere repreſented as ſuch upon the ſuppoſition of our being obliged to have in us the contrary temper. Which that it is will appear from ſuch Texts, as do more immediately affirm it, or ſuch as affirm thoſe things, from which it may by good conſequence be deduced. Of the former ſort I reckon that, which is immediately ſubjoyn'd by David to the mention of his being conceiv'd in ſin, and brought forth in iniquity Pſa. 51 6.. Behold thou requireſt truth in the inward parts, and ſhalt, or rather haſt made me to underſtand wiſdom ſecretly. For as we cannot but look upon what is there ſaid concerning God's requiring truth in the inward parts as ſpoken with relation to that ſin, whereof he before complains, and to the mention whereof he ſubjoyns the mention of the other; So neither (conſidering it to have been his intent to aggravate his ſinfulneſs before God) but look upon it as alſo his intent to aggravate the ſinfulneſs of his frame by that piety which God required of him. Which ſuppos'd, Original Sin will not only be found to be ſo entituled by the Scripture, but to have had that name beſtowed upon it upon the account of Men's obligation to the contrary, and conſequently to be truely and properly ſuch. And though there be not it may be many more Texts of that nature, or which therefore can be thought ſo directly to affirm, that it becometh the ſin of thoſe, in whom it is, upon the account of their obligation to the contrary; Yet will it not be difficult to find others, which do as clearly aſſert thoſe things, from which it may by good conſequence be deduced. Such as are thoſe which make Original Sin to be a proper matter for confeſſion, yea to induce a guilt upon the perſon, in whom it is. But ſo the Prophet David doth plainly ſuppoſe in that very Pſalm, which we but now made uſe of; Becauſe not only confeſſing Pſa. 51.5. the ſinfulneſs of his Nature together with that of his external actions, but begging of God, immediately after that confeſſion of his, that he would purge him Pſa. 51.7. with Hyſſop from it. For as we have no reaſon to exclude that from the matter of the deſir'd purgation, which immediately precedes the Prayer that is put up for it; So much leſs reaſon to doubt, after that Prayer for the purgation of it, of its inducing a guilt upon the perſon, in whom it is: The uſe of Hyſſop in the Old Law (as appears by ſeveral placesExo. 12.22. Lev. 14.6. in it, and a conſentient Text in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews Heb. 9.19. &c. ) being to ſprinkle the Blood of the Sacrifices upon thoſe, who were any way obnoxious to its cenſures, and ſo deliver them from the ſeverity thereof. For what other then could the Pſalmiſt mean by that Prayer of his, than that God would purge him from that, and his other ſins by the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice? Or ſo meaning be thought to intimate more clearly, than that that, from which he deſir'd to be purg'd, ſtood in need of ſuch a Sacrifice, and conſequently was no more without its guilt, than his actual tranſgreſſions were. Only, if that notion may not be thought to be of ſufficient clearneſs to build ſo important a Concluſion on, it will not be difficult to ſtrengthen it yet more by the word the Hebrew makes us of for purge, and thoſe Prayers, which the Pſalmiſt ſubjoyneth to it; By the former becauſe literally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifying a purification from ſin, by the latter, becauſe importing it to be his deſirePſal. 51.7, 8, 9., that God would waſh him from it, that he would cauſe thoſe bones, that had been broken by it, to rejoyce, and in fine, that he would hide his face from his ſins, and blot out all his iniquities: Theſe, as they are known and uſual expreſſions for the remiſſion of ſins, and conſequently importing the guilt of thoſe, to whom they are apply'd, and their purification from it, ſo with this farther reaſon to be ſo taken here, becauſe the Pſalmiſt afterwards begsPſal. 51.10., that God would purifie him from the filth of them, and renew a right ſpirit within him.

VI. Now though from what hath been ſaid it be competently evident, that the Doctrine of Original Sin is not without good Authority to warrant it, yet becauſe that Doctrine hath been impugned by the Pelagians of Old, and ſince that by the followers of Socinus, therefore it may not be amiſs for the farther clearing of it to conſider their Objections againſt it, and either return a direct, and ſatisfactory anſwer to them, or at leaſt ſhew, that they ought not however to be admitted as a bar againſt what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning it. To begin with thoſe Objections which reſpect the being of it, or rather tend to ſhew that it hath no being in the World; Which are either ſuch, as conſider it as a ſimple corruption of humane Nature, or ſuch as do alſo conſider it as a ſinful one. Of the former ſort are thoſe, which repreſent it as a thing unconceivable, how it ſhould come into humane Nature, which the better to perſuade, they alledge plauſible reaſons againſt all thoſe means, whereby it may be ſuppos'd to find admittance. For theſe being deſtroy'd, they think they may lawfully inferr, that there is indeed no ſuch depravation upon humane Nature. Of what force thoſe reaſons are will be then more ſeaſonable to enquire, when I conſider what is objected againſt the fountain of Original Corruption, or the means by which it is convey'd. At preſent it may ſuffice to ſay, that of what force ſoever they may be thought to be, yet they are not of ſufficient force to deſtroy the being of Original Corruption, which is the thing for which they are here alledg'd; Partly, becauſe many things may be, yea be aſſur'd to us, of the original, or conveyance whereof we our ſelves are perfectly ignorant (for who doubts of the being of humane Souls, though he neither knows, nor well can, whether they be traduc'd, or infus'd) and partly becauſe the teſtimony of Scripture, with the experience we have of its effects, is a much more forcible argument of the being of it, than all the former reaſons are of the other: Theſe being direct, and immediate proofs of its exiſtence, whereas the other are only indirect, and mediate. From ſuch objections therefore as conſider Original Sin as a ſimple Corruption of humane Nature, paſs we to thoſe, which conſider it alſo as ſinful, and which indeed ſeem moſt hardly to preſs upon it: Such as are, that all ſin is the tranſgreſſion of a Law, which Original Sin ſeems not to be; That it requires the conſent of the will of him, in whom it is, which cannot well be affirm'd of that; As in fine, that the Scripture it ſelf may ſeem to make that, which we call Original Sin, rather the Parent of Sin, than ſin it ſelf, becauſe making ſin to ariſeJames 1.13, &c. from the conception, and parturition of it. As to what is objected from the forementioned Scripture, it is either nothing at all to the purpoſe, or very much againſt the purpoſe of thoſe, that alledge it: Partly becauſe by the ſin there ſpoken of can be meant no other, than actual ſin, and nothing therefore to be concluded from thence, but that all actual ſin is the product of Men's Luſt, and partly becauſe that Text makes even actual ſins to be the product of Men's Luſt, yea of ſuch a luſt as draweth them aſide, and enticeth them. For who can well think the Parent of ſuch Children to be of a better Nature, than the Children themſelves, eſpecially when ſhe is deſcribed as giving birth to them by falſe, and deceitful Arts? Such Arts as thoſe reflecting no great honour upon the Mother, but on the contrary making her to be altogether as criminal, as the other. If therefore they, who impugn Original Sin as ſuch, would do it with any advantage, it muſt not be by Arguments drawn from Scripture, which will rather hurt, than profit them, but by Arguments drawn from reaſon, and particularly by ſuch as repreſent Original Sin as no tranſgreſſion of a Law, and therefore no ſin properly ſo call'd, or as a thing which hath not the conſent of the will of him, in whom it is, and therefore yet farther removed from it. As concerning the former of theſe, even that which repreſents Original Sin as no tranſgreſſion of a Law, I anſwer that they, who ſo ſpeak, muſt deny it to be ſuch, either becauſe it is no Act, or becauſe there is no Law, which it can be ſuppos'd to be a tranſgreſſion of. If the former of theſe be their meaning, I willingly grant what they alledge, but I ſay withall, that it will not from thence follow, that it is no ſin at all. For if Men are obliged by the divine Law to a pious, and innocent temper, as well as not to ſwerve from it in their actions, the want of that happy temper, or the having a contrary one will be as much the tranſgreſſion of a Law, as the want of the ſame piety in their actions. Which will conſequently devolve the whole force of that Objection upon the ſuppoſition of there being no ſuch Law of God, which requires the former temper, or which therefore Original Sin can be thought to be a tranſgreſſion of. But as I have already made it appear in ſome meaſure, that there is in truth ſuch a Law, as requires a pious, and innocent temper, ſo I ſhall now endeavour to ſtrengthen it by ſome more particular proofs, and by anſwering thoſe exceptions, that are made againſt it.

In order to the former whereof we are to know, that as the Law we ſpeak of muſt be ſuppoſed to have been given to Adam, as that too not only in his private, but publick capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the repreſentative of all Mankind (there being no other Law, which can be ſuppos'd to concern us, before we come to be in a capacity to apprehend, and obey it) ſo I ſhall endeavour to make it appear firſt, that there was ſuch a Law given to Adam, and then that it was given to him not only in his private, but publick capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the repreſentative of all Mankind. Now that there was a Law given to Adam, requiring a pious, and innocent temper, as well as the preſerving that piety and innocency in his actions, will need no other proof than God's creating him in it, and the love he may be ſuppoſed to bear unto it. For as we cannot think God would have ever intruſted ſuch a Jewel with Adam, if it had not been his intention that he ſhould preſerve, and exerciſe it; ſo much leſs, when the holineſs of the divine Nature perſuades his love to it, as well as the declarations of his word. For what were this, but to make God indifferent, what became of his moſt excellent gifts, which no wiſe perſon, and much leſs ſo hearty a lover of them can be ſuppoſed to be? If 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'sRom. 7.24. calling it a Body of Death, or a Body that brings it: The Genitive Caſe 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 himGen. 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 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 think, when the Souls of Men muſt be ſuppoſed to carry in them the ſame evil tendencies, and inclinations, that they ſhould never light upon any one thing, which might bring back to their minds what they had formerly tranſacted, or but ſo much as that they had a being antecedent to their preſent one? For whoever was ſo forgetful of his dreams, as not to remember he was ſometime in a dreaming condition, yea that he actually dreamed in it? Is it ſecondly (as the ſame Learned Man goes on) by a deſuetude of thinking of their former actions, and whereby it ſometimes comes to paſs, as he there obſerves, that what we have earneſtly meditated, labour'd for, and pen'd down with our own hands, when we were at School, becomes ſo loſt to our memories, that if we did not ſee our own handwriting to it, we ſhould not acknowledge it to be our own? But doth this come home to the preſent caſe? Doth it perſuade ſuch a forgetfulneſs in the Souls of Men, as not only not to remember their particular actions, but not ſo much as that they were in a condition to act any thing, or acted any thing under it? For though a Man may forget the particular exerciſe he did at School, yet can any Man (though he ſlept an Age, and never ſo much as dream'd in all that time of being at School, or any other thing, be ſuppoſed, if he awoke in his right wits, to forget he was ſometime in ſuch a place, and performed ſome exerciſes in it? Is it laſtly by means of ſome diſtemper, that happens to the Soul by coming into an earthly Body, and by which the foremention'd perſon conceives the Soul may ſuffer in its memory, as we ſee it ſometime doth in its preſent ſtate by caſualties, and diſeaſes, yea ſo far as to make the perſon forget his own name? But though the Soul ſhould be ſuppoſed to fall into ſuch a forgetfulneſs by entring into a body (as we ſee it is a long time before it comes to exerciſe its reſpective faculties) yet is there any reaſon to think it ſhould continue in it after it hath gotten above the infirmities of the other, yea ſo far as to reaſon with that clearneſs, wherewith this Author doth in many things, and with great plauſibility in all others? For though Men may happen to be ſo ſtricken by a diſeaſe, as to forget even their own names, yea have undoubtedly ſuffered in that nature; yet is there no evidence from ſtory that I know of, or indeed preſumption for the ſuppoſition of it, that though the parties did again recover the free uſe of their faculties, yet they were unable to look back to their priſtine ſtate, or call to mind any of the paſſages thereof. So much more ſpecious, than ſtrong are the reaſons that Author alledgeth to ſhew the Soul to be in a natural incapacity to call to mind its priſtin ſtate, and actions. And yet if they prov'd what they intended, they would hardly make it credible, that it ſhould be without all knowledge of them: God, who thruſts it down into its preſent ſtate by reaſon of its former errours, being likely enough to bring them to its mind, though it ſhould be otherwiſe ignorant of them. Otherwiſe he ſhould neither make it ſenſible of its own guilt, and his chooſing thus to puniſh it, which is one ſuppoſed end of his thruſting it down, nor careful to break off from it, which is another. And I ſhall only add, that as we cannot therefore be in any great danger from thoſe Objections, which pretend to derive Original ſin from another principle; So ſhall we not now be much incommoded by the force of thoſe Objections, which profeſs more directly to impugn the derivation of it from Adam. For as thoſe Objections are principally founded upon the incompetency of Adam to involve all mankind in the guilt of his tranſgreſſion, ſo I have not only made it appear already, that Adam was no way incompetent for that purpoſe, becauſe appointed by God as the repreſentative of all mankind, but ſaid enough, though not to anſwer, yet to ſilence what is objected againſt it from the ſuppoſed want of our conſent to his tranſgreſſion. Which will leave nothing more for us to do, than to conſider what is objected againſt the means, we have before aſſign'd of the conveying of that Original Sin whereof we ſpeak. But as I have not been poſitive in aſſigning the particular means of its conveyance, and muſt therefore be the leſs concern'd to anſwer what is objected againſt them; So I ſhall oppoſe to all thoſe Objections the aſſurance we have from the Scripture of our having it in us from our Conception, and Birth, yea contracting it from thoſe fleſhly, and unclean perſons, from whom we are deſcended: That, as it is enough to ſhew that it is conveyed to us by the ſame general means, by which our very nature is, ſo making it at leaſt probable that it paſſeth from them to us together with our Souls, and from thence diffuſeth it ſelf unto our Bodies. And how far a probability ſo founded ought to prevail againſt all the Arguments, which are oppos'd to the traduction of Souls, eſpecially when the Scripture ſeems to favour that traduction alſo, will be no hard matter for him to judge, who ſhall conſider on the one hand the ſhortneſs of our own reaſonings, and on the other what difficulties attend the Creation, and Infuſion, as well as the traduction of Souls. For as thoſe very difficulties will oblige us to ſit down after all with a probable aſſent in this affair, ſo the ſhortneſs of our own reaſonings to guide that aſſent rather by probable teſtimonies of Scripture, than by probable arguments from Reaſon: Becauſe as we are more aſſur'd of the truth of thoſe teſtimonies, than we can be of the truth of any of thoſe arguments, which we ground our ſelves upon in this affair; So we cannot ſo eaſily fail in our apprehenſions concerning the other; Nothing more being requir'd toward the apprehending the force of the former, than the due conſideration of the ſenſe of the words, wherein they are expreſſed, whereas to the apprehending of the force of the latter we muſt have a clear knowledge of the nature of thoſe things, about which they are converſant, which is certainly a matter of far greater difficulty, and wherein therefore we may more eaſily miſtake. Only if what is ſaid in this particular may not be thought to be ſatisfactory, becauſe rather a bar to what is objected againſt the traduction of Souls (and conſequently of Original Sin) than any direct anſwer to it; I ſhall deſire thoſe, who are diſſatisfi'd with it, to give ſuch an anſwer, as they themſelves demand to what is objected by the other party againſt the immediate Creation, and infuſion of them: It ſeeming not ſo eaſie to imagine (that I may not now preſs them with any other inconveniencies) that God ſhould create a Soul on purpoſe to infuſe it into ſuch inceſtuous conceptions, as he himſelf cannot but be thought to abhor. For my ſelf, as I can with equal eaſe digeſt the traduction of Souls with all its inconveniencies, or rather acquieſce in that evidence, which the Doctrine of the Scripture, and the ſimple nature of a generation do ſeem to ſuggeſt; So I ſhall hardly think it reaſonable to quit it, till they, who aſſert the Creation of Souls, free it from the former inconvenience, and other ſuch difficulties, wherewith it is alike encumbred. For till that be done, the traduction of Souls will not only be of greater probability, but ſerve more clearly to declare how that corruption, which our firſt Parents contracted, paſſed from them unto their Children, and ſo on to ſucceding Generations.

PART IV. Of the things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of God, or its inward and ſpiritual Grace. The Contents.

The things ſignified by Baptiſm are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which paſſeth between God, and Man, and that body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the ſame God doth, by vertue of that Covenant, oblige himſelf to beſtow upon the Baptized, and what thoſe Baptized ones do on their part undertake to perform. Theſe latter ones propoſed to be conſidered, and entrance made with the conſideration of what God obligeth himſelf to beſtow upon the Baptized, called by the Church, An inward, and ſpiritual Grace. Which inward, and ſpiritual Grace is ſhewn to be of two ſorts, to wit, ſuch as tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare, or ſuch as only qualifie us for thoſe Graces, that do ſo. To the former ſort are reckon'd that inward, and ſpiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of ſin, called by the Church forgiveneſs of ſin; That which tends to free us from the pollution of ſin, called by our Catechiſm A death unto it; And that, which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a New birth unto righteouſneſs. To the latter ſort is reckoned our union to that Body, of which Chriſt Jeſus is the Head, and by means whereof he diſpenſeth the former Graces to us. Each of theſe reſum'd, and conſidered in their order, and ſhewn to be, what they are uſually ſtil'd, the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm, or the things ſignified by the outward viſible Sign thereof.

BUT to return to that, from which I have diverted, even the things ſignified by the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, which are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which paſſeth between God, and Man, and that Body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the ſame God doth by vertue of that Covenant oblige himſelf to beſtow upon the Baptized, and what thoſe Baptized ones do on their part make profeſſion of. Of thoſe more general things I have given ſome account alreadyOf the Sacraments in general, Part 2., and ſhall have occaſion, as I go, to add yet farther light to them; I will therefore proceed forthwith to the conſideration of the more particular ones, ſuch as are on the part of God an inward and Spiritual Grace, and on the part of the Baptiz'd an abrenuntiation of their former ſins, and a reſolution to believe, and act, as Chriſtianity obligeth them to do.

Now the inward and Spiritual Grace of Baptiſm is of two ſorts, to wit, ſuch as tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare, or ſuch as only qualifie us for thoſe Graces, that do ſo. Of the former ſort again is that inward and Spiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of ſin, beſt known by the name of forgiveneſs, or that which tends to free us from the pollution of ſin, called by our Catechiſm a death unto it, or laſtly that which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a new birth unto Righteouſneſs. Of the latter ſort is our union to that body, of which Chriſt Jeſus is the head, and by means of which he diſpenſeth the former Graces to us. For that each of theſe is ſignified on the part of God by the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, and conſequently is a part of its inward and Spiritual Grace, will appear if we deſcend to particulars, which therefore I will now ſet my ſelf to do.

To begin with thoſe inward, and Spiritual Graces, which tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare; Among which as I aſſign'd the firſt place to forgiveneſs of ſin, ſo I ſhall make it my buſineſs to ſhew firſt, that that is a Grace which is ſignified by the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, and Secondly give a more particular account of the nature of that forgiveneſs, which I have ſaid to be ſignified by the other.

That forgiveneſs of ſin is a Grace ſignified by the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, will appear if theſe two things can be made out; Firſt, that the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath a relation to the forgiveneſs of ſin, and Secondly that it hath the relation of a ſign unto it. For if the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath the relation of a ſign to the forgiveneſs of ſin, Forgiveneſs of ſin, as being its correlatum, muſt be look'd upon as ſignified by it. That the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath a relation to the forgiveneſs of ſin, S. Peter will not ſuffer us to doubt, becauſe admoniſhingAct. 2.38. the Jews to be baptiz'd for the remiſſion of ſins; And as little doubt can there well be of its having the relation of a ſign unto it, which is the only thing we are at preſent to conſider: Partly, becauſe Baptiſm hath been beforeOf the Sacraments in general, Part 2. ſhewn to have been intended by God as a ſign of many things, and why then not as a ſign of that forgiveneſs, to which I have ſhewn it equally to relate, and partly becauſe it is propos'd to us as waſhing away Acts 22.16. the ſins of thoſe, that are ſprinkled with it. For as if the Water of Baptiſm be to be conſidered as waſhing away Men's ſins, it muſt be upon the account of its being a ſign of that inward Grace thereof, that doth ſo, as which alone can be a juſt foundation of attributing ſuch a property to it (for neither can the Water of Baptiſm put away Men's ſins, but by means of that Grace, which it conveys, nor with any propriety even ſo be ſaid to waſh them away, but upon the account of the likeneſs there is between its own natural property, and that of the divine Grace, which will make the Water of Baptiſm a ſign, or repreſentation of it) So if the Water of Baptiſm be to be conſidered as waſhing away Men's ſins, it will equally lead us to believe, that it ought to be conſidered in particular as a ſign of that forgiveneſs, whereof we ſpeak: Partly, becauſe that forgiveneſs is an undoubted correlatum of Baptiſm, and partly becauſe the term of waſhing 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 Ʋniverſal Church, and the tenour of the Goſpel, as appears from the words of Pelagius himſelfVid. 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 elſewhereExpl. 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 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 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 hisPſal. 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 Rom. 6.2. to ſin, but that they are buried by Baptiſm Rom. 6.4, into it, that they are by that means planted together into the likeneſs Rom. 6.5, of Chriſt's death, and that their Old Man, even the Body of ſin, is crucified Rom. 6.6. with Chriſt in it. For as that, and other ſuch like TextsCol. 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 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 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 Tit. 3.5., as our Saviour's affirmingJoh. 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 a ſign of our new birth, becauſe by the former Texts as manifeſtly relating to it. But ſo we ſhall be yet more fully perſwaded, if it carry in it a repreſentation of that new birth, to which it doth relate. Which that it doth will need no other proof, than its being an apt repreſentation of that ſpiritual purity, which the Soul puts on at its firſt converſion, and wherein indeed its new birthEph. 4.24. conſiſts. For ſo it is in part by that cleanſing quality, which is natural to it, and which induceth a purity in thoſe bodies, to which it is applied; But eſpecially by the uſe that was formerly made of it toward the waſhing of new-born Infants from thoſe impurities, which they contracted from the Womb: This laſt ſerving to ſet forth the firſt beginnings of our ſpiritual purity, as well as the former doth that purity it ſelf. And I ſhall only add, that as a reſurrection from the Dead is alſo a kind of new Birth, and accordingly ſo repreſented by the Scriptures themſelves (witneſs their entituling our Saviour upon the account of his Reſurrection the firſt-begotten Col. 1.18. from the dead, yea making that Reſurrection of his to be a completionActs 13.33. of that ſignal prediction of GodPſal. 2.7. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee) So the ſame Scriptures do not only repreſent our new birth unto Righteouſneſs under the notion of a Reſurrection, but ſufficiently intimate that whether Birth or Reſurrection to be a Grace ſignified by it: Becauſe not only admoniſhing us to look upon our ſelves as alive unto God by BaptiſmRom. 6.11., as well as dead unto ſin in it, but as riſen Col. 2 12. with Chriſt therein through the faith of the operation of him, who raiſed him from the dead. For how come Men by reaſon of their being alive unto God through Baptiſm to be affirmed to have riſen with Chriſt in it, but upon the account of that Baptiſm of theirs being a repreſentation of that new life, or birth, which we have by the means of it, as well as of the Reſurrection of our Saviour?

I will conclude what I have to ſay concerning the inward, and Spiritual Grace of Baptiſm, when I have taken notice of that, which though it do not immediately tend to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare, yet qualifies us for thoſe Graces, that do; Even our union to that Body, of which Chriſt Jeſus is the Head, and by means of which he diſpenſeth the other graces to us. For that that is alſo ſignified by the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, will appear if we conſider that viſible ſign as having a relation to it, and then as having the relation of a ſign. Of the former whereof as S. Paul will not ſuffer us to doubt, becauſe affirming all1 Cor. 12.13. whether Jews or Gentiles to be baptiz'd into that body; So there will be as little doubt of the other from the general deſign of its inſtitution, and from what S. Paul intimates in the former place concerning it: That expreſſion of being baptized into the body of Chriſt importing our being receiv'd by Baptiſm within it, as the body of the Baptized is within thoſe waters, wherein he is immerſed. Which will conſequently make that Rite a true, and proper ſign of Our Union to Chriſt's Body, and that union therefore a thing ſignified by it.

Such are the things, which are by Baptiſm ſignified on the part of God, and Chriſt, or (that I may ſpeak in the language of our Church) the inward, and ſpiritual Graces thereof. It remains that I alſo ſhew the things ſignified by it on the part of the Baptized, even an Abrenunciation of their former ſins, and a reſolution to believe, and act, as Chriſtianity obligeth them to do. But becauſe both the one, and the other of theſe will be more clearly underſtood, if they be handled apart, and whatſoever is to be known concerning each of them laid as near together as may be; Therefore having begun to entreat of the inward and ſpiritual Grace of Baptiſm, I will continue my Diſcourſe concerning it, and accordingly go on to enquire what farther relation the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath to its inward and Spiritual Grace, or Graces, and firſt of all to Forgiveneſs of ſin.

PART V. Of Forgiveneſs of ſin by Baptiſm. The Contents.

Of the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to its inward, and ſpiritual Grace, and particularly to Forgiveneſs of ſin; Which is either that of a means fitted by God to convey it, or of a pledge to aſſure the Baptized perſon of it. The former of theſe relations more particularly conſidered, as that too with reſpect to Forgiveneſs of Sin in the general, or the Forgiveneſs of all Sin whatſoever, and Original Sin in particular. As to the former whereof is alledged firſt the Scriptures calling upon Men to be Baptiz'd for the remiſſion, or forgiveneſs of ſin, Secondly the Church's making that Forgiveneſs a part of her Belief, and Doctrine, Thirdly the agreeing opinions or practices of thoſe, who were either unſound members of it, or Separatiſts from it, And Fourthly the Calumnies of its enemies. The like evidence made of the latter from the Scripture's propoſing Baptiſm, and its Forgiveneſs as a remedy againſt the greateſt guilts, and in ſpecial againſt that wrath, which we are Children of by Nature. From the premiſes is ſhewn, that the ſign of Baptiſm is a pledge to aſſure the Baptized of Forgiveneſs, as well as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it.

NOW as the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath, beſide that of a ſign, the relation of a means fitted by God to convey the inward, and ſpiritual Grace, and of a pledge to aſſure the Baptized perſon of it; So being now to entreat of its relation to that of the Forgiveneſs of ſins, we muſt therefore conſider it under each of them, and firſt as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it.

In the handling whereof I will proceed in this method; Firſt, I will ſhew that it hath indeed ſuch a relation to Forgiveneſs in the general, Secondly, that it hath ſuch a relation to the Forgiveneſs of all ſins whatſoever, and particularly of Original.

That the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath ſuch a relation to Forgiveneſs in the general, will appear from the enſuing Topicks.

I. From the plain, and undoubted Doctrine of the Scripture. II. From the conſentient Doctrine, and Belief of the Church. III. From the whether practices, or opinions of the unſound members of it, or Separatiſts from it. IV. From the Calumnies of the open Enemies thereof.

I. What the Doctrine of the Scripture is in this affair cannot be unknown to any, who have reflected upon what S. Peter ſaid to thoſe Jews, who demanded of him, and his fellow Apoſtles what they ſhould do to avert the guilt they had contracted, and what Ananias ſaid to Paul, who was remitted to him upon the ſame account. For to the former S. Peter made anſwer among other things that they ſhould be baptiz'dActs 2.38. for the remiſſion of ſins; Which ſhews what Baptiſm was intended for, and what therefore, if they were duly qualified, they might certainly expect from it: To the latter Ananias, that he ſhould ariſe, and be baptized, Acts 22, 16. and waſh away his ſins. Which effect as it cannot be thought-to referr to any thing but the preceding Baptiſm, and therefore neither but make that Baptiſm the proper means of accompliſhing it; So can much leſs be thought to exclude, or rather not principally to intend the waſhing away the guilt of them: Partly becauſe (as was before obſerv'd) that is the moſt uſual ſenſe of waſhing away ſins, and partly becauſe moſt agreeable to the diſconſolate condition Paul was then in, as well as to the foregoing declaration of S. Peter.

II. To the Doctrine of the Scripture ſubjoyn we the conſentient Doctrine, and belief of the Church, as which though it cannot add to the Authority of the other, yet will no doubt conferr much to the clearing of its ſenſe, and of that Doctrine, which we have deduced from it. Now what evidence there is of ſuch a conſent will need no other proof than the Doctrine of her Creed Creed in the Communion-ſerv., and the uſe ſhe made of the ſimple Baptiſm of Infants to eſtabliſh againſt the Pelagians the being of that Original Sin they call'd in queſtion. For how otherwiſe could the Church call upon Men to declare, that they believ'd one Baptiſm for the remiſſion of ſins? Yea, though ſhe thought it otherwiſe neceſſary to inculcate Baptiſm, as well as remiſſion, and the ſingle adminiſtration of it, as well as either. For beſide that both the one, and the other might have been declar'd by themſelves, as well as in the tenour, wherein they are now exhibited; Had it not been a thing otherwiſe certain that remiſſion of ſins was an effect of Baptiſm, to have ſubjoyn'd it to Baptiſm, as it is now, would have been a means to render it uncertain, and conſequently all the hopes of a Chriſtian together with it. Again, if there had been any the leaſt doubt in the Church concerning this relation of Baptiſm, I mean as a means to convey remiſſion of ſins to the Baptized party; How could ſhe have made uſe of the ſimple Baptiſm Voſſ. Hiſt. Velag. li. 2. Part. 2. Antitheſ. 4. of Infants to eſtabliſh againſt the Pelagians the being of that Original ſin, which they call'd in queſtion? For that Argument of hers proceeding upon the ſuppoſition of remiſſion of ſins by Baptiſm, as that again upon the ſuppoſition of ſomething to be remitted in the party baptized, which in Infants could be no other than that Original Sin, which ſhe aſſerted; If Baptiſm had not been certainly intended for the remiſſion of ſins, that argument of hers had been of no force, yea rather weakned, than any way ſtrengthened that Original Sin, which ſhe maintain'd: Eſpecially, when it was a like certain, and accordingly reply'd by the Pelagians, Voſſ. ibid. Theſ. 4. that Baptiſm had other uſes, and for which it might be ſuppos'd to have been conferr'd upon Infants, though they had nothing at all of ſinful in them.

III. But beſide the ſuffrage of the Church of God, which both publiſh'd this Doctrine in her Creed, and argued others from it; It is farther to be obſerv'd, that thoſe, who were none of the ſoundeſt members of it, nor indeed as yet perfect ones, confirm'd it by their opinions, and practices, as they alſo did in ſome meaſure, who yet ſeparated from it in this affair. Witneſs, for the former, their deferring their Baptiſm to their death beds; Whether (as the Fathers Tertul. de Poenitent. c. 8. ſometime charg'd them) that they might ſin ſo much the more ſecurely in the mean time, or (as I rather think for the moſt part) becauſe they were not well aſſur'd of the like efficacious means for the forgiveneſs of them. For which ſoever of theſe two were the occaſion of that delay, manifeſt it is even from thence, that they had a high opinion of the forgiveneſs of ſin by Baptiſm, but much more from the hazard they ran of going out of the World without it, and the contrariety of that their delay to the practice of the firſt ChriſtiansActs 2.41., as well as to the ſentimentsCod. Eccl. Ʋniv. can. 57. of their own times concerning it. It being not to be thought, that Men of ordinary prudence would run upon ſo great an irregularity, as well as danger, unleſs they alſo believ'd, that if they hapned to obtain Baptiſm, they ſhould obtain together with it ſo plentiful a forgiveneſs, as would make ample amends for the other. And though we cannot ſo reaſonably expect the like evidence from Hereticks, and much leſs from thoſe, whoſe buſineſs was in a great meaſure to depretiate the value of Baptiſm, as it is certain the Pelagians was; Yet as even they (as was beforeExpl. of Bapt. Part 4. obſerv'd) allow'd the Baptizing of Infants into the ſame rule of Faith with thoſe of riper years, and conſequently into remiſſion of ſins; So they denyed not, as to Men of riper yearsVoſſ. Hiſt. Pelag. li. 2. Part. 2. Theſ. 4. , that Baptiſm was efficacious toward it, and that as they were baptiz'd into the belief of remiſſion of ſins, ſo they receiv'd that remiſſion by it.

IV. In fine, ſo notorious as well as prevalent was the Doctrine of forgiveneſs of ſin by Baptiſm, that the adverſaries of the Church, and of Chriſtianity took occaſion from thence to calumniate them for it, and made that Doctrine of theirs one of their greateſt crimes. Of which, to omit others, we have a remarkable proof in Julian Orat. cui tit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 53. , who makes Conſtantius, or rather Chriſtianity in him, thus to beſpeak the World. Whoſoever is a corrupter of Women, or a Murtherer, or impure, or abominable, let him come with confidence. For having waſh'd him with this water, I will make him preſently clean; And though he be afterward guilty of the like crimes, yet I will take care to cleanſe him from them, if he will but ſmite his breaſt, and knock his head. The former part whereof is a manifeſt alluſion to Baptiſm, and its effects, the latter to the penitential diſcipline of the Church. And it ought the rather to be taken notice of, becauſe as it bears witneſs to that forgiveneſs of ſin by Baptiſm, which hath been hitherto our deſign to advance, ſo it will contribute in part toward the proving, what comes next in order, even

That the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm hath that relation, whereof we ſpeak, to the forgiveneſs of all ſins whatſoever, and particularly of Original Sin: There being little doubt as to the formerof theſe, if (as Chriſtianity is there made to ſpeak) adultery, and murther were waſh'd away by the waters of it. But ſo that Chriſtianity it ſelf taught, as well as was affirmed by this its adverſary to do, is not only evident from what hath been elſewhere ſaidExpl. of the Creed. Art. The forgiveneſs of ſins. concerning its tendering forgiveneſs of ſins indefinitely, and particularly in the laver of Baptiſm, but from the quality of thoſe criminals, whom it invited to forgiveneſs by it. For thus we find it to have done thoſe Jews Acts 2.38., whom it before charg'dActs 2.23. with the murther of our Lord, and him in particularActs 22.16., who elſewhere1 Tim. 1.13. confeſſeth himſelf to have been a blaſphemer, a perſecuter, and injurious, yea was intent upon that execrable employment at the time he was firſt invited to forgiveneſs. But therefore as I cannot either conceive, or allow of any other abatement in this forgiveneſs, than that which is to be made upon account of the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, and which what it is, hath been elſewhereExpl. of the Creed. Art. The forgiveneſs, &c. declar'd; So I ſhall need only to take notice of the reference it hath to that Original Sin, which is the unhappy parent of all the reſt. Not that there can be any great doubt as to the pardon of that, where it appears that the moſt heinous actual ſins are pardoned, but becauſe Baptiſm hath been thought by our Church See the Office of Bapt. and the Catechiſm. to have a more peculiar reference to it, and becauſe if it can be prov'd to have ſuch a reference to its forgiveneſs, it will be of ſignal uſe to ſhew the neceſſity of baptizing Infants, in whom that ſin doth alike predominate. Now though it be hard to find any one Text of Scripture, where that forgiveneſs, whereof we ſpeak, is expreſly attributed to Baptiſm; Yet will it not be difficult to deduce it from thatEph. 2.1. &c. , which I have before ſhewn to entreat of our becoming the children of wrath by nature, as well as by the wickedneſs of our converſations. For oppoſing to the corruption, or rather deadneſs, which accrues by both, the quickning we have together with Chriſt, and which quickning he elſewhereCol. 2.12. as expreſly affirms to be accompliſhed in us by Baptiſm; Affirming moreover that quickning to bring ſalvation Eph. 2.5-8., and peace Eph. 2.14-17., and reconciliationEph. 2.16. (for ſo he diſcourſeth of it in the following Verſes of that Chapter) he muſt conſequently make that quickning, and the means of it to tend to the forgiveneſs of both, and particularly of natural corruption: Becauſe as that quickning is by him oppos'd to both, ſo it muſt in this particular be look'd upon as more peculiarly oppoſed to the latter, becauſe that is more peculiarly affirm'd to make Men the Children of wrath, and vengeance.

Such evidence there is of the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm being a means fitted by God to convey that forgiveneſs, whereof we ſpeak; And we ſhall need no other proof than that of its being alſo a pledge to aſſure the baptized perſon of it. For ſince God cannot be ſuppos'd to fit any thing for an end, which he doth not on his part intend to accompliſh by it; He, who knows himſelf to partake of that, which is fitted by God to convey forgiveneſs of ſin, may know alike, and be aſſur'd as to the part of God of his receiving that forgiveneſs, as well as the outward means of its conveyance. For which cauſe in my Diſcourſe of its other inward, and ſpiritual Graces I ſhall take notice only of that outward, and viſible ſign as a means fitted by God to convey them, becauſe its being alſo a pledge may be eaſily deduced from it.

PART VI. Of Mortification of ſin, and Regeneration by Baptiſm. The Contents.

Of the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to ſuch inward, and ſpiritual Graces, as tend to free us from the pollution of ſin, or introduce the contrary purity; And that relation ſhewn to be no leſs than that of a means, whereby they are convey'd. This evidenced as to the former, even our death unto ſin (which is alſo explain'd) from ſuch Texts of Scripture, as make mention of our being baptiz'd into it, and buried by Baptiſm in it, or from ſuch as deſcribe us as cleanſed by the waſhing of it. The like evidenc'd from the ſame Scripture concerning the latter, even our new birth unto righteouſneſs; As that again farther clear'd as to this particular by the conſentient Doctrine, and practice of the Church, by the opinion the Jews had of that Baptiſm, which was a Type, and exemplar of ours, and the expreſſions of the Heathen concerning it. The Doctrine of the Church more largely inſiſted upon, and exemplified from Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, and S. Cyprian.

I Have conſidered the ſign of Baptiſm hitherto in its relation to Forgiveneſs, that Grace, which tends to free men from their guilt, and is for that purpoſe convey'd by Baptiſm to us; I come now to conſider it in its relation to thoſe, which either tend to free them from the pollution of ſin, beſt known by the name of a Death unto it, or to introduce the contrary righteouſneſs, and is call'd a new birth unto it. Where again I ſhall ſhew in each of them, that as the outward work of Baptiſm hath the relation of a ſign unto them, ſo it hath equally the relation of a means fitted by God to convey them, and where it is duly receiv'd, doth not fail to introduce them.

To begin (as is but meet) with that, which hath the name of a Death unto ſin, becauſe ſin muſt be firſt ſubdu'd, before the contrary quality can be introduc'd; Where firſt I will enquire what we are to underſtand by it, and then what evidence there is of the ſign of Baptiſm's being fitted to convey it.

For the better underſtanding the former whereof we are to know, that as Men by the corruption of their nature are inclined unto ſin, and yet more by the irregularity of their converſations, ſo thoſe inclinations are to the perſons in whom they are, as a principle of life to a living Creature, and accordingly do both diſpoſe them to act ſutably thereto, and make them brisk, and vigorous in it. Now as it cannot well be expected, that where ſuch inclinations prevail, Men ſhould purſue thoſe things, which piety, and vertue prompt them to, ſo it was the buſineſs of Philoſophy firſt, and afterwards of Religion, if not wholly to deſtroy thoſe inclinations, yet at leaſt to ſubdue them in ſuch ſort, that they ſhould be in a manner dead, and the perſons, in whom they were, ſo far forth dead alſo; They neither finding in themſelves the like inclinations to actual ſin, nor hurried on by them, when they did. How little able Philoſophy was to contribute to ſo bleſſed an effect is not my buſineſs to ſhew, nor indeed will there be any need of it, after what I have elſewhereExpl. 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 ChriſtiansRom. 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 Rom. 6.4, into it; to be planted together Rom. 6.5, by that means in the likeneſs of Chriſts death, and to have their old Man 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 Rom. 7.18. from ſin, yea ſo farRom. 7.18. as to have paſſed over into another ſervice, even that of righteouſneſs, and to have obeyed from the heart 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 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 oneEph. 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 Joh. 3.5. of it, as well as of the ſpirit, yea ſo, as to be as truly ſpirit 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 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 Rom. 6.11. unto God by it, as well as buried Rom. 6.4. by it into the former death, or (as the ſame Apoſtle elſewhere expreſſeth it) as riſen with Chriſt in it Col. 2.12. through the faith of the operation of God, who raiſed him from the dead? In fine, what leſs when it affirms us to be ſanctified with the waſhing Eph. 5.26. of it, as well as it elſewhere doth by the influences of God's Spirit. For theſe expreſſions ſhew plainly enough, that Baptiſm hath its ſhare in the producing of this new birth, as well as the efficacy of God's Spirit; And conſequently that it is at leaſt the conveyer of that Grace, by which it is more immediately produc'd.

And indeed as, if men would come without prejudice, they would ſoon ſee enough in thoſe expreſſions to convince them of as much as I have deduced from them; So they might ſee yet more (if they paſs'd ſo far) in the doctrine, and language of the Church, to confirm them in that Interpretation of them. For who ever even of the firſt, and pureſt times ſpake in a lower ſtrain concerning Baptiſm? who ever made leſs of it, than of a means, by which we are regenerated? I appeal for a proof hereof to their ſo unanimouſly See Part 2. underſtanding of Baptiſm what our Saviour ſpake to Nicodemus concerning the neceſſity of men's being born again of water, and of the ſpirit. For as all men whatſoever interpret that of our new birth unto righteouſneſs, and, ſo far, as the ſpirit of God is concerned in it, of the means, by which it is produc'd; So they muſt therefore believe, that if the Antients underſtood it of Baptiſm, they allotted that its ſhare in it, and conſequently made it at leaſt a conveyer of that Grace, by which this new birth is produc'd. I appeal farther to the particular declarations of ſome of the moſt eminent among them, and which whoſoever ſhall ſeriouſly conſider, will wonder how it ſhould come to fall back to a naked, and ineffectual ſign. For Juſtin Martyr Apolog. 2. p. 93, 94. ſpeaking concerning thoſe, who had prepar'd themſelves for Baptiſm, affirms them to be brought by the brethren to a place, where water is, and there to be regenerated after that way of regeneration, wherewith they themſelves were. Which what it was, and of how great force he afterwards ſhews, by affirming them thereunto to be waſh'd in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, as that too conformably to what our Saviour ſpake concerning the neceſſity of men's being born again, To what the Prophet Iſaiah meant, when he ſaid, Waſh you, make you clean, put away wickedneſſes from your ſouls; And in fine, to procure their deliverance from that, whether natural, or habitual corruptions they were under the power of. For theſe things ſhew plainly enough, that as he ſpake of the Baptiſmal regeneration, ſo he ſpake of it too as a thing, which procur'd, as well as figur'd the internal regeneration of them. To the ſame purpoſe doth Tertullian diſcourſe, and particularly in his Tract de Baptiſmo; Witneſs his calling it, in the very beginning thereof, that happy Sacrament of our water, wherewith being waſh'd from the faults of our preſent blindneſs, we are freed into eternal life; His affirming preſently after, that we the leſſer fiſhes, according to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or greater one Jeſus Chriſt, are born in the water, neither can continue ſafe, unleſs we abide in it; That we ought not to wonder, if the waters of Baptiſm give life, when that Element was the firſt, that brought forth any living creature; That, as the Spirit of God moved at the beginning upon the face of waters, ſo the ſame ſpirit of God, after the invocation of his name, doth deſcend from Heaven upon thoſe of Baptiſm, and having ſanctified them from himſelf gives them a power of ſanctifying others. For theſe and the like paſſages ſhew as plainly, that that Authour look'd upon the outward ſign of Baptiſm as contributing in its place to the production of our new birth, or ſanctification, as well as to the repreſentation of it. But of all the Antient Fathers, that have entreated of this affair, or indeed of that Sacrament, which we are now upon the conſideration of, there is no one, who hath ſpoken more, or more to the purpoſe than S. Cyprian, or whoſe words therefore will be more fit to conſider. Only, that I may not multiply teſtimonies without neceſſity, I will content my ſelf with one ſingle one, but which indeed for the fulneſs thereof will ſerve inſtead of many, and be moreover as clear a teſtimony of our dying unto ſin by Baptiſm, as of our regeneration by it. For when (ſaith heEpiſt. ad Donat.) I lay in darkneſs, and under the obſcurity of the Night; When uncertain and doubtful I floated on the Sea of this toſſing World, ignorant of my own life, and as great a ſtranger to truth, I thought it exceeding difficult, as the manners of Men then were, that any one ſhould be born again, as the divine mercy had promis'd, and that being animated to a new life by the laver of ſalutary water, he ſhould put off that which he was before, and whilſt the frame of his body continu'd the ſame, become a new Man in his heart, and mind. For how (ſaid I) is it poſſible, that that ſhould be ſuddenly put off, which either being natural is now grown hard by the natural ſituation of the matter, or contracted by a long cuſtom hath been improv'd by old Age, &c. To theſe, and the like purpoſes I often diſcours'd with my ſelf; For as I was at that time entangled with many errours of my former life, which I did not then think it was poſſible for me to put off; So I willingly gave obedience to thoſe vices, that ſtuck to me, and through a deſpair of better things, I favour'd my evils, as though they had been my proper, and domeſtick ones. But after that through the aſſiſtance of this generating water the blemiſhes of my former life were waſh'd off, and my mind thus purged had a light from above poured into it; After that the ſecond birth had chang'd me into a new Man through the force of that ſpirit, or breath, which I ſuck'd in from above; Then thoſe things, which were before doubtful, became exceeding certain, and manifeſt; things; which were before ſhut, were then laid open, and dark things made light. Then that, which before ſeemed difficult, appear'd to help, rather than hinder, and that, which ſometime was thought impoſſible, as poſſible to be done. So that it was not difficult to diſcern, that that was earthly, which being carnally born did before live obnoxious to faults, and that that began to be God's, which the Holy Ghoſt now animated. You your ſelf verily know, and will as readily acknowledge with me, what was either taken from, or beſtow'd upon us by that death of crimes, and life of vertues. Which as it is an illuſtrious teſtimony of the force of Baptiſm in this particular, and with what reaſon we have affirm'd it to be a means of procuring the former death, and birth; So I have the more willingly taken notice of it, becauſe it comes ſo near even in its expreſſion to what our Catechiſm hath repreſented as the inward and ſpiritual Grace thereof: There being no great difference between a death of crimes, and life of vertues, which is the expreſſion of that Father, and a death unto ſin, and a new birth unto righteouſneſs, which is the other's. And I ſhall only add, that as the Doctrine of the Church muſt therefore be thought to bear ſufficient teſtimony to Baptiſm's being a means of our regeneration; So its practice is in this particular anſwerable to its Doctrine, and though in another way proclaims the ſame thing. Witneſs what hath been elſewhere obſerv'd concerning its giving Milk, and Hony See Part 3. to the new Baptized perſon, as to an Infant new-born, its requiring him preſently after Baptiſm to ſay Expl. of the Lord's Prayer in the words Our Fa he . De vitâ B. Martini c. 1. Necdum tamen regeneratus in Chriſto agebat quendam bonis operibus Baptiſmatis candida um. Our Father, &c. as a teſtimony of his Son-ſhip by it; And in fine its making uſe of the word regenerated to ſignifie Baptized: As is evident for the Greek Writers from what was but now quoted out of Juſtin Martyr, and from Sulpit us Severus among the Latins. Which things put together make it yet more clear, that whatever it may be now accounted, yet the Church of God ever look'd upon the Sacrament of Baptiſm as a mean of our internal regeneration.

And indeed as it is hard to believe, that it ought to be otherwiſe eſteem'd, conſidering what hath been alledg'd either from Scripture, or the declarations of the Church; So it will appear to be yet harder, if we conſider the opinion of the Jews concerning that, which may ſeem to have been both it's Type, and exemplar. For as I have made it appear beforePart 1., that even they were not without their Baptiſm, and ſuch a one, as was moreover intended for the ſame general ends, for which both their Circumciſion was, and our Baptiſm is; So I have made it appear alſoIbid., that the perſons ſo baptiz'd among them were accounted as perſons new-born, yea ſo far, that after that time they were not to own any of their former relations; In fine, that that new birth was look'd upon as ſo ſingular, that it gave occaſion to their Cabaliſtical Doctors to teach, that the old ſoul of the Baptized Proſelyte vaniſhed, and a new one ſucceeded in its place. For if this was the condition of that Type of Chriſtian Baptiſm, how much more of the Antitype thereof? Eſpecially when it is farther probable (as hath been alſoPart 2. noted from the diſcourſe of our Saviour to Nicodemus) that he both alluded in it to that Baptiſm of theirs, and intimated the conformity of his own Baptiſm to it in that particular.

And though after ſo full an evidence of this relation of Baptiſm to regeneration it may ſeem hardly worth our while to alledge the expreſſions of the Heathen concerning it; Yet I cannot forbear, for the conformity thereof to the preſent argument, to take notice of one remarkable one of Lucian Lucian. Philopatr. p. 999. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., who brings in one Triepho thus diſcourſing after his ſcoffing manner. But when (ſaith he) that Galilean lighted upon me, who had a bald Pate, a great Noſe, who aſcended up to the third Heaven, and there learn'd the moſt excellent things (meaning, as is ſuppos'd S. Paul) he renewed us by water, made us to tread in the footſteps of the bleſſed, and deliver'd us from the Regions of the ungodly. In which paſſage under the title of renewing men by water he perſonates the Chriſtian Doctrine concerning their being regenerated, or renewed by Baptiſm, and accordingly makes it the ſubject of his reproach.

PART VII. Of our Ʋnion to the Church by Baptiſm. The Contents.

Of the relation of the ſign of Baptiſm to our Ʋnion to the Church, and that relation ſhewn to be no leſs than that of a means, whereby that Ʋnion is made. This evidenc'd in the firſt place from the declarations of the Scripture, more particularly from its affirming all Chriſtians to be baptiz'd into that Body, as thoſe, who were firſt baptiz'd after the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt upon the Apoſtles, to have been thereby added to their company, and made partakers with the reſt in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. The like evidence of the ſame Union to the Church by Baptiſm from the declarations of the Church it ſelf, and the conſequences of that Ʋnion ſhewn to be ſuch, as to make that alſo to be accounted one of the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of that Baptiſm, by which it is made.

HAving thus given an account of ſuch inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm, as tend more immediately to our ſpiritual, and eternal welfare; It remains that I ſay ſomewhat of that, which though of no ſuch immediate tendency, yet is not without all, becauſe qualifying us for the reception of the other: That Ʋnion I mean, which we thereby obtain to Chriſt's myſtical body the Church, and by which we, who were before Aliens from it, as well as from God, and Chriſt, become members of the Church, and partakers of the ſeveral priviledges thereof. Which Ʋnion if any Man ſcruple to reckon among the inward, and ſpiritual Graces of Baptiſm properly ſo call'd, I will not contend with him about it; Provided he alſo allow of it as a thing ſignified by it on the part of God, and Chriſt, and as moreover a Grace, and favour to the perſon, on whom it is beſtow'd. For as that is all I ask at preſent concerning the Union now in queſtion; So what I farther mean by it's being an inward, and ſpiritual Grace ſhall be clear'd in the proceſs of this Diſcourſe, and receive that eſtabliſhment, which it requires. In order whereunto I will ſhew the outward and viſible ſign of Baptiſm to be a means, whereby that Union is made, and then point out the conſequences of that Union.

That the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm is in the nature of a means, whereby we are united to the Church, will appear if we reflect upon what the Scripture hath ſaid concerning it; or the agreeing declarations of the Church it ſelf. For what elſe (to begin with the former) can S. Paul 1 Cor. 12.13. be thought to mean, where he affirms all whether Jews, or Gentiles, or of what ever other outward differences, to have been baptiz'd by one ſpirit into one body? For as it is plain from the foregoing1 Cor. 12.12. verſe, or verſes, that S. Paul entreats of Chriſt's Body the Church, and conſequently that the baptizing here ſpoken of muſt be meant of our Baptizing into it; So it is alike plain from what it was deſigned to prove, as well as from the natural force of the expreſſion, that it was ſet to denote alſo our being united to it thereby. For as we cannot impoſe a more natural ſenſe upon Baptized into that body, than our being receiv'd by Baptiſm into it, as the Baptized perſon is within the water, and conſequently ſome way united to it; So much leſs if we conſider what it was intended to prove, even1 Cor. 12.12. that Chriſtians, how many ſoever, are but that one body. For how doth their being baptiz'd into it prove them to be that one Body, but that that viſible ſign, by which they are ſo, unites them to one another, and to the whole? A meer ſign of Union, though it may ſhew what the partakers thereof ought to be, yet being no juſt proof of what they are, and much leſs (as S. Paul ſeems to argue) that they are ſo by the means of it. And indeed, as it will therefore be hard to make the ſign here ſpoken of to be any thing leſs than a means of our Union to the Church; So eſpecially, if we conſider what is elſewhere ſaid concerning thoſe, who firſt after the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, were baptized in the name of Chriſt: S. Luke not only affirming of thoſe new baptiz'd ones, that they were added to Acts 2.41. the Apoſtles, and their other company, (which he afterwards expreſſethActs 2.47. by added to the Church) but that they were partakersActs 2.42. with the reſt in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread, and in Prayers. For this ſhews their having an intereſt in all the priviledges of that Body, and therefore much more their being united to it. But ſo it appears that the Antient Church eſteemed of it, whoſe determination is of the more force, becauſe it is only about the ſuppoſed means of Union to its own Body; Juſtin Martyr, after he had ſpoken of the baptizing of ſuch as offer'd themſelves to the Chriſtian Church (which he himſelf expreſſeth, when ſo baptiz'd, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or conjoyned with themſelves) affirming that they were immediately brought where the brethren were aſſembled, there to partake with them of the common Prayers, that were then offer'd up, of the kiſs of peace, and of the Lord's Supper. Which laſt particular I have the more confidently repreſented the new baptized perſons as then admitted to, becauſe the ſame Father doth not only make no diſtinction between them, and the other brethren in it, though he ſubjoyns the buſineſs of the Euchariſt to the former Prayers, and kiſs of peace, but affirms the ſame Euchariſt preſently after to be lawful to none to partake of, but thoſe that believ'd their Doctrine, receiv'd the laver of regeneration, and liv'd as Chriſt delivered. For as he intimates there by the admiſſion of thoſe that believ'd, and were baptiz'd, if they were alſo ſuch as liv'd as Chriſt deliver'd, which the new baptized were in reaſon to be accounted, till they had given proof to the contrary; So there is reaſon to believe from the uſe of Excommunication in the Church, that that addition of living as Chriſt deliver'd was not made to bar the new baptized from it, till they gave farther proof of ſuch a life, but to intimate the excluſion of thoſe, who, after they had been admitted to it, liv'd otherwiſe, than Chriſtianity preſcrib'd: So making the perſons excluded the unbaptiz'd, or ill living Chriſtians, and conſequently the contrary thereto admitted. I deny not indeed, that the Rite of Confirmation did very antiently come between the receiving of Baptiſm, and the Euchariſt. I deny not farther, becauſe of what was beforeExpl. of the Sacrament in general. Part 4. quoted from Juſtin Martyr concerning the particular Prayer that was made for the new baptized perſon, that the ſubſtance thereof was then in uſe, even prayer for grace for him to live as he had but now profeſs'd. But as the deſign of Confirmation appears to have been to procure for the new baptiz'd a more plentiful effuſion of God's Graces, which is no intimation at all of his having been before no perfect Chriſtian, or not perfectly united to the Church, ſo Baptiſm may for all that be look'd upon as the means of our Union to the Church, which is all, that I have taken upon me to aſſert. For the farther evidencing whereof I will in the next place alledge a paſſage of Tertullian De Bapt: c. 6. , which will, though not ſo directly, prove the ſame thing; That I mean where he ſaith, that when the profeſſion of our faith, and ſponſion of our ſalvation are pledged under the three witneſſes before ſpoken of, there is neceſſarily added thereto the mention of the Church, becauſe where thoſe three are, even the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, there is alſo the Church, which is the body of the Three. For as it is evident from thence, that Men were even from his time baptiz'd expreſly into the belief of the Church, as well as into the belief of the Trinity; So it will not be difficult to inferr, that they were alſo baptiz'd into the unity thereof, and made members of the Church by it: Becauſe as he affirms the Trinity to become Sponſors of our Salvation in Baptiſm, as well as either Witneſſes, or objects of our Profeſſion; So he affirms thoſe Sponſors to be as it were embodyed in the Church, and conſequently to exert their ſaving influences within it, which ſuppoſeth Men's being united to it by Baptiſm in order to their partaking of the ſalutarineſs of the other. And indeed, though in that form, which our Saviour preſcrib'dMatt. 28.19. for Baptiſm, there is mention only of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, yet inaſmuch as he preſcrib'd that very form for the making of Diſciples Ibid. by, he muſt conſequently be ſuppos'd to propoſe it for the aggregating them to that body, which he had already begun to frame, and making them alike members of it.

There being therefore no doubt to be made of the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm being a means of our Ʋnion to Chriſt's myſtical body the Church, it may not be amiſs (if it were only to manifeſt the great advantages thereof, as to that particular) to ſhew the conſequences of that Ʋnion. Which we ſhall find in the general to be a right to all thoſe priviledges, which Chriſt hath purchas'd for it; More particularly to the partaking of its Sacred Offices, and in, and through the means of them of thoſe inward, and ſpiritual Graces, which thoſe Sacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. For every member of a Society being by that memberſhip of his entituled to all the priviledges, that belong to it as ſuch; He, who becomes a member of Chriſt's Body, the Church (as every Man, who is united to it by Baptiſm, doth) muſt in his proportion be entituled to all thoſe priviledges, which Chriſt hath purchas'd for it, and particularly to the priviledge of partaking of its ſacred Offices, and in, and by the means of them, of thoſe inward and ſpiritual Graces, which thoſe ſacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. Which how great a commendation it is of our Ʋnion to that Body, and conſequently of that Baptiſm, by which it was made, will need no other proof than the Scripture's aſſuring us that Chriſt is the Saviour Eph. 5.23. of that Body, and the promiſes it makes to thoſe PrayersMatt. 18.19, 20., that are made by it, and to that EuchariſtMatt. 26.26, &c., which is adminiſtred in it; The purport of thoſe promiſes being no other, than the granting what is asked by it, and particularly all thoſe benefits, which Chriſt's Body and Blood were intended for the procuring of. And if theſe be, as no doubt they are, the conſequences of our union to the Church by Baptiſm, yea ſo far (as I have elſewhereExpl. the Creed, Art. of The forgiveneſs ſins. ſhewn) that they are not ordinarily to be attained out of it; That very Union may not improperly be ſtil'd one of its inward and ſpiritual Graces, becauſe leading to thoſe, that are moſt ſtrictly ſuch, and indeed the only ordinary means of obtaining them.

PART VIII. Of the Profeſſion that is made by the Baptized perſon. The Contents.

The things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized brought under conſideration, and ſhewn from ſeveral former diſcourſes (which are alſo pointed to) to be an Abrenunciation of ſin, a preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and particularly of the Trinity, and a reſolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws. Our reſolution of acting agreeably to the Laws of Chriſtianity more particularly conſider'd, and the Profeſſion thereof ſhewn by ſeveral Arguments to be the intendment of the Chriſtian Baptiſm. What the meaſure of that conformity is, which we profeſs to pay to the Laws of Chriſtianity, and what are the conſequences of the Violation of that Profeſſion.

HAving thus conſider'd the things ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of God, and Chriſt, beſt known by the name of its inward, and ſpiritual Graces; It remains that I give the like account of the things ſignified by it on the part of the baptiz'd, or the things the baptized perſon maketh Profeſſion of by it. Which, as was before obſerv'd, are an Abrenunciation of ſin, a preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and a reſolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws.

That ſomething is ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized, as well as on the part of God, and Chriſt, is evident from what was before ſaidOf the Sacrament in general, Part 2. concerning the nature of a Sacrament in the general, and Baptiſm'sIbid. relating as well to ſomething to be perform'd by the baptiz'd, as to thoſe divine Graces, or priviledges which we expect from the other.

That the things before mentioned are the things thus ſignified by it, hath alſo been elſewhereExpl. of the Apoſtles Creed. declar'd, and ſo, that it would not be difficult for a diligent Reader to ſatisfie himſelf from thence. But becauſe what I have ſaid concerning them lies diſperſedly in my former Diſcourſes, and would therefore require more pains, than I ought to impoſe upon my Reader, to find it out, and apply it to the preſent Argument; I will here, though very briefly, conſider them anew, and if not (which would be too tedious) repeat all that I have ſaid concerning them, yet point him as I go, to the particular places, from whence they may be fetch'd.

That Abrenunciation of ſin is one of the things ſignified by Baptiſm is not only evident from the manner of adminiſtring it in the Primitive times, and which together with the form of their Abrenunciation, and our own are ſet down in my account of the Preliminary queſtions, and anſwers of the Catechiſm, but alſo from the general tenour of that Religion, which Baptiſm is an initiation into; That requiring the renouncing of all ſin, and wickedneſs, and therefore ſuppoſing the baptized perſon to do ſo, when he takes that Religion upon him. For which cauſe as an expreſs Abrenunciation was heretofore requir'd, and continues ſo to be to this very day; So it was ſignified, as by other Rites, and particularly by the baptized perſons putting off his cloaths in order to his Baptiſm, as putting off together with them the Old Man, and his deeds, ſo by the Rite of Baptiſm it ſelf: He, who ſubmits to that, implying thereby his looking upon ſin as a Moral impurity, and which therefore for the future he would not have any thing to do with.

The ſecond thing ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized is his preſent belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, more eſpecially of the Doctrine of the Trinity. As is evident from that Baptiſm's being commanded by our Saviour to be made in, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. For to be baptiz'd into the name of thoſe perſons importing the owning of thoſe perſons as our Maſters Expl. of the Creed. Art. I believe in the Holy Ghoſt. , and our ſelves as the Diſciples of them; To be ſo baptized moreover importing the owning of thoſe perſons as alike Ibid. Maſters of us, and conſequently, becauſe the Father cannot be own'd in any lower relation, as partakers of the ſame divine Nature, and Authority; Laſtly, to be ſo baptiz'd importing the owning of them in particular by a belief of the Chriſtian Doctrine, that being the moſt ſignal inſtance of that Diſcipleſhip, we receive by it; The belief of the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and of the Trinity in particular muſt be look'd upon as ſignified by Baptiſm on the part of the baptized, and thoſe baptized ones conſequently as making profeſſion of that belief by it. For which cauſe as the rule of Faith, or the Creed Introd. concerning Catechiſing, &c. was given to thoſe to learn, who were willing to be initiated into Chriſtianity, ſo they were particularly interrogatedExpl. of the Prel. Queſt. and Anſwers. as to their belief of the Articles thereof, and then, and not till then baptiz'd into it, and the priviledges thereof.

The third and laſt thing ſignified on the part of the baptized is a reſolution for the time to come to continue in the belief of Chriſtianity, and act agreeably to its Laws. Both which will receive a ſufficient confirmation from S. Peter's affirming Baptiſm to be the Anſwer, or ſtipulation of a good conſcience toward God, and from what I have elſewhereIbid. ſaid concerning it. For as it is evident from thence, that Baptiſm ſignifies on the part of the baptized a ſtipulation, or promiſe of ſomewhat to be done by him; So it will not be difficult to inferr from thence, that it ſignifies alſo a ſtipulation, or promiſe to continue in that belief of Chriſtianity, into which he is baptiz'd, and act agreeably to its laws. As will appear, whether we conſider that ſtipulation as having a good conſcience toward God for the object of it (in which ſenſe I ſhould think S. Peter ought to be underſtood) or, as I find many others to do, as proceeding from ſuch a conſcience. For a good conſcience having a due regard to the ſeveral parts of that Religion, which it makes profeſſion to eſpouſe; He, who with relation to Chriſtianity ſtipulates from a good conſcience, or makes that good conſcience the object of his ſtipulation, muſt conſequently be thought to ſtipulate, or make a promiſe of anſwering the ſeveral parts of it, and therefore alſo (becauſe they are parts of Chriſtianity) of continuing in its Faith, and acting agreeably to its Laws. And hence, (as was beforeExpl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 1. obſerv'd) this, and the other Inſtitution of our Religion had of old the name of Sacraments, as importing a Vow, or promiſe to Chriſt of believing in him, or obeying him. And hence alſo, that the Antients arguedIbid. the unlawfulneſs of ſuperinducing an humane, or military Sacrament upon a divine one, and anſwering to another Maſter after Chriſt. Which we ſhall the leſs need to wonder at, if we remember that that Baptiſm, whereof we ſpeak, was copyed from the Baptiſm of the Jews Expl. of Baptiſm, Part 1., and particularly from that of John the Baptiſt. For concerning the former of theſe it hath been obſerv'dIbid., that thoſe three men, that preſided over it, lean'd over the baptized perſons as they ſtood in the water, and twice explain'd to them ſome of the more weighty, and lighter precepts of their Law. For what reaſon think we, but to let them know, that they were baptiz'd into the obedience of the one, and the other, and that they accounted that Baptiſm of their's as a Profeſſion of it? And though we do not find the like affirm'd concerning the Baptiſm of John the Baptiſt, which becauſe an extraordinary one, and immediately from Heaven, I have diſtinguiſhed from the other; Yet, which will come all to one, we find it entituled the Baptiſm of Repentance Mark 1.4. Acts 13.14., and (which is more) that Baptiſt enjoining upon thoſe Publicans Luk. 3.12, &c., who came to be baptized by him, to exact no more than was appointed them, as upon thoſe Souldiers, that came upon the like errand, to do violence to no man, to accuſe no man falſly, and to be content with their wages: Such affirmations as theſe being pregnant proofs, that a reſolution of living piouſly, and vertuouſly was a thing ſignified on the part of the baptized, and that their taking upon them the former Baptiſms was a profeſſion of it. Now if that Profeſſion were the intendment of the former Baptiſms, and particularly of that of John the Baptiſt, why not alſo of the Baptiſm of Chriſt? Eſpecially, when John's Baptiſm of Repentance was to prepare men for the Kingdom of Chriſt, and to which therefore we may ſuppoſe a ſtricter piety to belong, and they, who were baptiz'd into that Kingdom, plung'd more deeply into the Profeſſion of the other. I will conclude this affair, when I have added, that it appears from the Inſtitution of Baptiſm, that the deſign, and end of it was to make DiſciplesMatt. 28.19. unto Chriſt. For it appearing from other words of his, that they, and they alone can be his Diſciples, who take up their Croſs Luk. 14.27., and follow him, forſake all Luk. 14.33. for him, and in fine abide Joh. 8.31. in his words; If the deſign, and end of Baptiſm were to make men Diſciples unto Chriſt, it muſt conſequently oblige thoſe, who take it upon them, to take upon them alſo the performance of the other, as to which that Diſcipleſhip obligeth them.

Now though therefore there can be no great doubt concerning the baptized perſon's making profeſſion of acting agreeably to the Laws of Chriſt, yet there may be as to the meaſure of that conformity to them, to which his Baptiſmal Profeſſion obligeth him; That imperfect ſtate, wherein we are, and the baptized perſon's being from the beginningExpl. of the Lords Prayer in the words, Our Father, &c. taught to pray for the forgiveneſs of his Treſpaſſes ſeeming to require an abatement of it; And becauſe too I have more than once oblig'd my ſelf to enquire, what keeping of God's holy Will, and Commandments, is incumbent upon us from our Baptiſmal Profeſſion, and that Chriſtianity, which it enters us into; Therefore for the farther clearing this part of our Baptiſmal Profeſſion, as well as for the anſwering my own obligations, I will now ſet my ſelf to enquire, what the meaſure of that conformity is, which we profeſs to pay to the Laws of Chriſt, and what are the conſequence of the violation of that Profeſſion.

As concerning the former of theſe I ſhall not doubt to affirm it to be adaequate for the matter of it to the ſeveral ſpecies of thoſe Laws, which Chriſtianity obligeth us to; S. Paul having expreſly told usTit. 2.11, 12., that that Grace, which bringeth ſalvation, teacheth men to deny all ungodly, and worldly luſts, and to live righteouſly, godlily and ſoberly in the preſent World. I ſhall not ſtick to affirm, Secondly, that that Conformity, which we make profeſſion of, ought to anſwer ſo far as we can carry it, the ſeveral particularities of the Chriſtian Laws, as well as the ſeveral ſpecies thereof: Leſs than that being not to be ſuppos'd to be the Profeſſion of thoſe, who make profeſſion of a good Conſcience toward God; A good Conſcience, as ſuch, prompting him in whom it is to conform ſo far as he can to every particular of his Law, to whom he profeſſeth an obedience. But neither Thirdly ſhall I ſtick to affirm, that that conformity, which we make profeſſion of, ought to be ſo entire, and full, as not to be interrupted at any time by a wilful violation of any Law, or a violation of them in ſcandalous inſtances; Such as thoſe are, concerning which S. Paul hath affirm'dGal. 5.21., that they, which do ſuch things, ſhall not inherit the Kingdom of God: He anſwering not the divine law, ſo far as he can, who proceeds to either of thoſe, becauſe the Grace of Baptiſm, with a moderate care, muſt be ſuppos'd to be of ſufficient force to preſerve men both from the one, and the other. Such I take to be the Conformity, which Chriſtianity obligeth us to, and which conſequently the baptized perſon muſt be ſuppos'd to make profeſſion of. And I would to God, that as all Chriſtians make profeſſion of ſuch a one, ſo their lives, and converſations were more anſwerable to it, than the experience both of our ſelves and others aſſures us it is. But as the contrary thereof is too apparent to need any farther proof, ſo I think it therefore but reaſonable, for the better awaking of thoſe baptized ones, to ſet before them in the next place the conſequences of the violation of their profeſſion.

Whereof the firſt, that I ſhall aſſign, is, that ſo far as they depart from that Profeſſion of theirs, ſo far forth they ſin againſt that very Baptiſm of theirs, which was intended for their recovery from ſin, and againſt that ſaving Religion, into which it admits them: That Baptiſm, which enjoyns upon them the making profeſſion of a good Conſcience, enjoyning conſequently the anſwering that profeſſion by a ſutable piety, as without which that Profeſſion would be but an hypocritical one. From whence as it will follow, that there will be little reaſon to believe, that they ſhall enjoy the benefits of Baptiſm, who anſwer not the Profeſon of it; So much leſs if we conſider what that was, that made their Profeſſion to be of any avail at the firſt, even the preſumption it gave, that the perſon, that made it, would (as occaſion offer'd it ſelf) give ſutable demonſtrations of it. For if that preſumption were the thing, which made the Profeſſion of a good Conſcience to be of any avail at the firſt; Thoſe demonſtrations failing, thoſe benefits muſt be ſuppos'd to fail, which were collated upon the preſumption of them. But from thence it will follow Thirdly, that they, who anſwer not their former profeſſion, can much leſs promiſe to themſelves farther ſpiritual bleſſings here, or an intereſt in the other World; They, who could not be admitted to the firſt priviledges of Baptiſm but upon a preſumption of their future piety, being much leſs likely to be admitted to the participation of others, after that preſumption appeareth to be null. It will follow Laſtly, that they who anſwer not the Profeſſion of Baptiſm by a piety ſutable to it, muſt conſequently fail altogether of the benefits thereof, if that Chriſtianity, into which it entred them, had not provided them of a remedy againſt the violations of their Profeſſion. Which, though it will not make the caſe of thoſe violators deſperate, yet will ſhew it to be ſo dangerous, as to oblige all, who have a care of their Salvation, to prevent what they may ſuch violations of it, or endeavour to repair them afterwards by a ſpeedy, and ſevere repentance, and a more fixed, and ſetled piety: Leſt, as it may ſome time happen, they be cut off before they can make uſe of the remedy propos'd, or by reaſon of their former violations have not the grace given them to do it.

PART IX. Of the right Adminiſtration of Baptiſm. The Contents.

After a ſhort account of the Foundation of the Baptiſmal relation, and reference made to thoſe places from which a larger one may be fetch'd; Enquiry is made touching the right Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, as therein again Firſt, Whether Baptiſm ought expreſly to be made in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, Secondly whether Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are valid Adminiſtratours of it, Thirdly, to what, and what kind of perſons it ought to be adminiſtred, Fourthly, Whether it may be repeated. The two firſt of theſe ſpoken to here, and firſt, Whether Baptiſm ought to be expreſly adminiſtred in the form propos'd. Which is not only ſhewn to be under obligation from the expreſs words of the Inſtitution, but anſwer made to thoſe Texts, which ſeem to intimate it to be enough to baptize in the name of the Lord Jeſus only. The Baptiſm of Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks more largely ſhewn to be valid, unleſs where they baptize into a counterfeit Faith, and the ſeveral objections againſt it anſwer'd.

I Have hitherto entreated of the outward viſible ſign of Baptiſm, of its inward and ſpiritual Grace, or the things ſignified by it, and the farther relation that outward ſign beareth to them. It folllows that I entreat of the foundation of that relation, the Fourth thing propos'd to be conſider'd.

Now as the Foundation of that relation hath been ſhewnExpl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 2. to be no other, than the Inſtitution of Chriſt, as that again not ſo much as deliver'd by him, as appli'd to that water in which it is ſubjected; So I have in the ſame diſcourſe ſaid Ibid. Part 2, 3. ſo much concerning the Inſtitution of this, and the application of that Inſtitution to the outward viſible ſign thereof, that I ſhall need to ſay the leſs here. It may ſuffice briefly to obſerve from thence, that what the Miniſter hath prepar'd the water of Baptiſm by a declaration of the end of its Inſtitution, and by imploring the Holy Spirit on it, Chriſt, who hath promiſed to be with him in that miniſtration of his, gives it the relation of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and conſequently makes it apt to convey the ſeveral graces thereof to thoſe, who are to partake of it. Which will leave little more for us to conſider, as to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, than the right Adminiſtration of it, or what may without any violence be reduced to it.

Now there are Four things, which are eſpecially to be enquir'd in order to the clearing of that, which is now before us.

I. Whether Baptiſm ought expreſly to be adminiſter'd in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. II. Whether Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are valid Adminiſtratours of it. III. To what, and what kind of perſons it ought to be adminiſtred. IV. Whether it may be repeated.

I. The ground of the firſt of theſe, even whether Baptiſm ought expreſly to be adminiſtred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, is not any the leaſt doubt of thoſe being the expreſs words of the Inſtitution, or of their not admitting, conſider'd in themſelves, of any variation from it, but the accounts we have from the Scripture of the adminiſtration of that Sacrament either by the hands, or at the command of the Apoſtles, and other ſuch inſpired men: Thoſe ſeeming to intimate it to be enough to baptize in the name of the Lord Jeſus, as comprehending within it an acknowledgement of the other two perſons, and indeed of all other the ſubſtantial Articles of his Faith, in whoſe name we are ſo baptiz'd. For thus when thoſe Jews, to whom S. Peter Preach'd on the day of Pentecoſt, were wrought upon ſo far, as to ask what they ought to do in order to their Salvation; S. Peter's anſwer wasActs 2.38. that they ſhould be baptiz'd in the name of the Lord Jeſus: Which accordingly we may believe to have been done by thoſe, that gladly receiv'd the word, becauſe it is afterwardsActs 2.41. ſaid of them, that they were baptiz'd, that is, as one would think, in that, and that only name, which had been preſcrib'd. Thus again it is ſaidActs 8.16. of thoſe, who had been baptiz'd by Philip at Samaria, that they were baptiz'd in the name of the Lord Jeſus, without any the leaſt hint of their being baptized in any other name: As in like mannerActs 10.47., that S. Peter gave order for the baptizing of Cornelius, and his company, after that the Holy Ghoſt had by his preaching deſcended upon them. In fine thus we find, that the Diſciples of Epheſus Acts 19.5. were, who it ſeems till that time had not only no gifts of the Holy Ghoſt upon them, but not ſo much as any knowledge, whether there were any Holy Ghoſt, or no. Which place is the more to be ſtood upon, becauſe thoſe Diſciples having before ſo little knowledge of a Holy Ghoſt, one would think he that told the ſtory of their taking upon them the Chriſtian Baptiſm at the hearing of what was ſaid to them by S. Paul, ſhould have expreſs'd that Baptiſm of theirs by their being baptiz'd into the belief of the Trinity, and particularly of that Holy Ghoſt, which they ſeem before to have been ignorant of. But as we are not lightly to think, nor indeed without an irrefragable reaſon, that thoſe firſt Diſciples of Chriſt made uſe of, or countenanc'd any other form of Baptiſm, than what their Maſter had ſo clearly, and expreſly preſcrib'd; So there is nothing of any ſuch moment in the places before alledg'd to perſuade their making uſe of, or giving countenance to any other. On the contrary the Text laſt mention'd, if taken in all its parts, ſeems rather to perſuade thoſe Diſciples having been baptiz'd in the very words of the Inſtitution, than only in the name of the Lord Jeſus. For S. Paul asking, as by way of wonderment, unto what they had been before baptiz'd, if they had not (as they ſaid) ſo much as heard of any Holy Ghoſt, ſeems to intimate that all, that then receiv'd the Chriſtian Baptiſm, could not but know from the very form of it, that there was ſuch a thing as a Holy Ghoſt. Neither will it avail to ſay, as was before objected, that if that had been S. Paul's intention, or the certain form of Baptiſm, S. Luke, who tells the ſtory, ſhould in reaſon have expreſs'd it by their being baptiz'd into the Trinity, and particularly into the name of him, whom they were before ſo ignorant of. Becauſe S. Luke's buſineſs was not ſo much to give an account of the form of their Baptiſm, as to acquaint us, that whereas before they had been only baptiz'd into John's Baptiſm, upon their underſtanding from S. Paul, that John himſelf directed thoſe, that came to it, to believe on him that ſhould come after him, that is on Chriſt Jeſus, they were then expreſly baptiz'd into the Baptiſm of Chriſt, or (as S. Luke there expreſſeth it) into the name of Jeſus Chriſt: So oppoſing the baptizing into the name of Jeſus Chriſt not to the baptizing in any other form, and particularly into the name of all the three perſons, but to the Baptiſm of John only, and as the name of Jeſus Chriſt might diſcriminate their preſent Baptiſm from it. And though it be true, that the like is not to be ſaid as to the foregoing Texts, becauſe there is no oppoſition in them between the Baptiſm of John, and that of Chriſt. Yet may a fair account be given, without ſuppoſing that to have been the form of Baptiſm, of the Scriptures expreſſing thoſe primitive Baptiſms by baptizing into the name of Jeſus only; Becauſe our Saviour was the immediate Author of that Religion, into which thoſe Baptiſms were made, and the baptizing into his name therefore no improper expreſſion of a baptizing into the whole of it, and into every part, and particle thereof. I will conclude this affair, when I have added that as it appears from Juſtin Martyr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Apolog. 2. p. 94. one of the Antienteſt Writers the Church hath, that Baptiſm was in his time adminiſtred in the name of the three perſons; So all, that have mentioned the Creed, have repreſented it as a thing given to thoſe, who were to be baptized, and into which therefore we are to think, that if men were not minutely, and particularly baptiz'd, yet they were at leaſt into the capital Articles thereof.

II. It appearing from the premiſes, that Baptiſm ought expreſly to be adminiſtred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, which is the firſt of thoſe things we propoſed to conſider; Paſs we on to enquire, who are valid Adminiſtrators of it, or rather whether Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are. A queſtion which will beſt be voided by conſidering the force of thoſe Arguments, which the condemners of their Baptiſm have produc'd, and particularly which S. Cyprian their chiefeſt Champion hath. Now thoſe are, that Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, are by that their Schiſm, and Hereſie deprived of the Spirit of God themſelves, and cannot therefore be ſuppoſedQuis autem poteſt dare quod ipſe non habeat? aut quomodo poteſt ſpiritalia. agere, qui ipſe amiſerit ſpiritum Sanctum? Ad Januarium. Ep. 70. to conferr it upon others. That Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks, as ſuch, are out of the Church, and conſequently can neither themſelves enjoy any priviledges that belong Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam aeternam, & remiſſionem peccatorum per Sanctam Eccleſiam, intelligimus remiſſionem peccatorum non niſi in Eccleſiâ dari, apud Haereticos autem ubi Eccleſia non ſit, non poſſe peccata dimitti. Cypr. ubi ſupra, & alibi paſſim. to it, nor be inſtrumental toward the procuring of them for others; That by their Schiſm and Hereſie they are ſinners Sed & Baptizato quam precem poteſt facere ſacerdos ſacrilegus, & peccator? Cum ſcriptum ſit, Deus peccatorem non audit, ſed qui eum coluerit, & voluntatem ejus fecerit, illum audit. Cypr. Ib. before God, and whom therefore we cannot ſuppoſe that God will hear for other perſons; In fine, that Hereticks in particular deprave that Faith Vid. Cypr. ad Jubaian. Ep. 73. , into which Baptiſm is requir'd to be made, and conſequently muſt be ſuppos'd to baptize into a falſe, and counterfeit one. But how little force there is in theſe Arguments, as to the invalidating the Baptiſm of Schiſmaticks, or Hereticks, will appear upon a more narrow inſpection into them.

For be it firſt that Schiſmaticks and Hereticks are by that Schiſm, or Hereſie of theirs deprived of the Spirit of God themſelves; Be it that they cannot therefore be ſuppos'd to conferr it upon others: Yet will it not from thence follow, but they may be valid Adminiſtratours of Baptiſm, and they, who receive it from them, receive the Spirit of God with it. Becauſe that Spirit of God, which goes along with Baptiſm, is not conferred by them, but by him, whoſe Inſtitution Baptiſm is, and conſequently no way depending upon their having the Spirit of God themſelves. All, that the Miniſter confers on his part toward the procuring of that Spirit, is to prepare that Baptiſmal Water, which it is by the Inſtitution of Chriſt to accompany, and to adminiſter it, when ſo prepar'd, to thoſe who are to be baptized with it. Which if the Miniſter doth according to the Inſtitution of Chriſt, there is no doubt the Spirit of God will follow of courſe, whether he, who adminiſters Baptiſm, partake of that Spirit, or no. Otherwiſe a ſinful Miniſter would be as invalid an Adminiſtrator of Baptiſm, as the moſt Schiſmatical, or Heretical one.

But it may be there is more of weight in Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks being out of the Church, and as ſuch in no condition either of enjoying in themſelves thoſe priviledges, that belong to it, or being inſtrumental toward the procuring of them for others. And ſo no doubt there would, if they were fully, and perfectly out of the Church, nor retain'd in any meaſure to it. But how firſt, if Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks were fully, and perfectly out of the Church, could S. Cyprian Ad Quintum, Ep. 70. himſelf allow the receiving of ſuch without a new Baptiſm, who had after their Baptiſm in the Church fallen into Schiſm, or Hereſie? Theſe, as they were no leſs Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks than thoſe, that were baptiz'd by Hereticks, and conſequently alike out of the Church; So being, if to be receiv'd again, to be receiv'd after the ſame manner, that is to ſay by a new Baptiſm. Neither will it avail to ſay (as that Father Ibid. pleads for himſelf) that thoſe, who have been baptiz'd in the Church, are to be look'd upon as wandring ſheep, and as ſuch, when they return, to be receiv'd into the Fold, whereas the other are wholly aliens, and profane. For if Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks be fully, and perfectly out of the Church, thoſe alſo, what ever they before were, muſt ceaſe to be look'd upon as Sheep, and conſequently, if admitted, be admitted as aliens, and profane, as well as thoſe, who were baptiz'd out of the Church. And indeed as it appears by the ſame Father Ad Quintum, Ep. 71. , that thoſe who oppos'd him, and the Biſhops that took part with him, argued the validity of the Baptiſm of Hereticks from the Churches receiving thoſe without a new one, who had fallen after her Baptiſm into Schiſm or Hereſie; So if we will allow the Baptiſm of the latter, we muſt allow the Baptiſm of the former, or find out ſome other reaſon to overthrow it. For if the rightly baptized Schiſmatick, or Heretick were a Sheep, though a wandring one, notwithſtanding his Schiſm, or Hereſie; The Schiſmatick, or Heretick, whom that wandring Sheep ran after, might as well be a Paſtor, though a wandring one too, and conſequently be in a condition, following the order of the Inſtitution, to bring new Sheep to the great Shepherd, and Biſhop of our Souls. That, which I ſuppoſe occaſion'd that Father's miſtake (for ſo I hope I may now have leave to call it, becauſe the Church of God hath generally done ſo ſince) but that I ſay, which occaſion'd S. Cyprian's miſtake, was his not diſtinguiſhing between being fully, and perfectly out of the Church (which I ſhould think none but Apoſtates can be, if they alſo are) and being only partly, and imperfectly ſo, as Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are. For as Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks muſt be ſuppos'd to retain ſo far to the Church, as they do not ſeparate from it in Communion, or belief; So it is but a juſt piece of charity to think that Chriſt who knows men's infirmities, and prejudices, will not invalidate ſuch acts of theirs, as are purely charitable ones, and wherein moreover they conſent with the Church of God (whatever they may do as to other things) and with his his own bleſſed Inſtitution. I deny not indeed, but that to be even ſo out of the Church, as Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks are, is a very dangerous thing, and doth without a ſpecial mercy of God make them liable to Damnation. But as I do not therefore think, that we ought to look upon it as a deſperate one; So there may be ſo much of honeſt ſimplicity of mind even in them, and a readineſs to embrace the truth, whenſoever they are convinced of it, that Chriſt, who laid down his life for the worſt of men, may ſo far at leaſt conſider them, as to give his bleſſing to thoſe acts of theirs, which are both charitable in themſelves, and manag'd with a juſt conſent to his own inſtitution, and the practice too of that Church, from which in other things they have departed.

And this anſwer, with a little variation, will furniſh one to that objection, which repreſents Schiſmaticks and Hereticks as ſinners before God, and whom therefore we cannot ſuppoſe God will hear for the perſon to be baptiz'd. For though I grant that ſuch perſons are ſinners before God, yea that whatever they do by way of ſeparation from the Church, is to be look'd upon as of the ſame nature, and conſequently that their very baptizing alſo may be; Yet as I do not think that every thing, that is ſinfully done, is therefore invalid (for ſo for ought I know many true Churchmens good actions alſo might be) So Chriſt may hear even ſuch perſons, when they act agreeably to his own Inſtitution, both for the regard he bears to that, and for that honeſt ſimplicity, and good meaning, which is, if not in them that adminiſter Baptiſm, yet in thoſe that joyn with them, and whoſe Miniſter I have before ſaidExpl. of the Sacram. in gen. Part 3 the Conſecratour to be in that affair.

One only Objection remains on the part of Hereticks, and that is their depraving that Faith, into which Baptiſm is requir'd to be made, and conſequently thereto, as is ſuppos'd, baptizing into a falſe, and counterfeit one. And I no way doubt that, if Hereticks baptize into a falſe, and counterfeit Faith, their Baptiſm is null, becauſe contrary to that Inſtitution, which gives validity to all. Upon which account we muſt look upon the Baptiſm of thoſe perſons as null, who have baptiz'd in any other form, than in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. Of which ſort was that of the Hereticks ſpoken of by Irenaeus Adv. Haereſ. li. 1. c. 18. , who inſtead of baptizing according to the form of the inſtitution, did baptize their Diſciples into the name of the unknown Father of all things, into truth the Mother of all things, into him that deſcended into Jeſus for the union, and redemption, and communion of powers. To which others it ſeems added certain Hebrew names, the better to amuſe thoſe, that were initiated by them. The like may reaſonably enough be thought of the Baptiſm of many other of the Antient Hereticks, although we have not it may be ſo certain grounds from Antiquity for their depraving the very form of Baptiſm. For being, as appears from their tenents, Chriſtians in name, rather than in reality, and beſide that advancing ſuch uncouth, and monſtrous ones, it is not eaſie to think they ſhould have ſuch a regard to Chriſt, or his Inſtitution, as to keep to that form, which he preſcrib'd. Which ſuppos'd, there is not the leaſt difficulty in giving an account of thoſe 46 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 47 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.. Canons of the Apoſtles, which do ſo far reprobate the Baptiſm of Hereticks, as to require a reiteration of it. For if the Hereticks there intended were ſuch as are before deſcribed (as is not unreaſonable to believe even from the words of the Canons themſelves) there is no doubt their Baptiſm was, and ought to be look'd upon as null, becauſe deviating from that Inſtitution, which gives validity to all. But becauſe it appears from a paſſage of S. Auguſtine Caeterum quis neſcit non eſſe Baptiſmum Chriſti, ſi verba Evangelica, quibus ſymbolum conſtut, illic defuerint? Sed facilius inveniuntur haeretici, qui omnino non baptizant, quam qui illis verbis non baptizant. De Bapt. contra Donat. li. 6. c. 25. , that whatever the antienter Hereticks did, yet later ones, or at leaſt for the moſt part, kept to the words of the Inſtitution; Therefore we muſt go on to enquire, whether Hereticks may not however, be preſum'd to baptize into a falſe, and counterfeit Faith, even that which they themſelves advance, and conſequently give ſuch a Baptiſm as is null, and void. And to ſpeak my mind freely, though with ſubmiſſion to better judgments, I conceive ſuch Hereticks may be preſum'd to do it, who advance a Hereſie, that directly, and manifeſtly contradicts the Faith of Baptiſm, and particularly the Faith of the Holy Trinity. Which I do in part upon the Authority of the Nicene CouncilCan. 19., and in part alſo upon the Authority of Reaſon. For though there be not the leaſt preſumption, that the followers of Paulus Samoſatenus made uſe of any other form of Baptiſm, than the Catholicks did; Though there be ſome preſumption on the contrary, that they made uſe of the very ſame form, becauſe though they deny'd a Trinity of Perſons, yet they aſſerted one, and the ſame God to be rightly entitled by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; Yet did the Nicene Council notwithſtanding, (becauſe of their direct, and manifeſt denial of the Trinity, and their affirming Chriſt to be a meer Man) ſo far diſallow their Baptiſm, as to require the reiteration of it. As indeed why ſhould it not, when thoſe Paulianiſts did ſo directly and manifeſtly contradict the ſenſe of that form, whereby they pretended to proceed? That direct, and manifeſt contradiction of theirs proclaming to the World, that though they baptiz'd in the ſame form of words with the Orthodox, yet in a perfectly different ſenſe, and conſequently departed alike from that Inſtitution, which was to give force to it. I ſay not the ſame of the Baptiſm of the Arians, where they made uſe of the ſame form of words, which the Inſtitution preſcrib'd, as it is certain that manyDe Arianis, qui propriâ ſua lege utuntur, ut baptizentur placuit. Si ad Eccleſiam aliqui de hac haereſi venerint, interrogent eos ſidei noſtrae ſacerdotes ſymbolum. Et ſi perviderint in Patre, Filio, & Spiritu ſancto eos baptizatos, manus eis tantum imponatur, ut accipiant ſpiritum ſanctum, &c. Concil. Arel. c. 8. of them did; Partly becauſe the Church receiv'd thoſe, that had been ſo baptized by them without any new Baptiſm; And partly becauſe neither ſo directly, and manifeſtly contradicting the Doctrine of the Trinity by their own, nor varying from the preſcribed form, as ſome other of them did, they may be reaſonably preſum'd to have left the form by them us'd to its proper ſenſe, whatever that was, and to what he, who preſcrib'd it, did intend it. Which ſuppos'd, what ſhould hinder Chriſt from giving force to that Baptiſm which is ſo adminiſtred by them? Theſe, as they do not at all vary from the Inſtitution of Chriſt, ſo in this particular, even in the application of the Baptiſmal water to the Baptized parties, acting not in their own, or in their peoples names, but in the name of Chriſt, and who therefore may the rather be ſuppoſed to give force and vertue to it. The reſult of the premiſes is this. A Heretick is indeed oblig'd to baptize into the truly Chriſtian Faith, neither can any man otherwiſe promiſe force from that act of his. But if he baptize into that faith (as he may even whilſt he continues ſuch) his Baptiſm is valid, neither can any man doubt of a bleſſing from it, who comes prepared for it, and, when he comes to know in what company he hath been engag'd, renounceth that, and their Hereſie, and both ſubmits himſelf to the diſcipline of the Church, and keeps to the communion of it.

PART X. Of the Baptiſm of thoſe of riper Years. The Contents.

To what, and what kind of perſons Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred; Which, as to thoſe of riper years, is ſhewn to be unto all, that come duly qualified for it. What thoſe qualifications are, upon that account enquir'd into, and Repentance, and Faith ſhewn from the Sripture, as well as from our own Catechiſm to be they. That Repentance, and Faith more particularly conſidered, the definitions given of them by our Church explain'd, and eſtabliſhed. The former whereof is effected, by ſhewing what Repentance doth preſuppoſe, what it imports, and to what it doth naturally diſpoſe us: The latter by ſhewing what thoſe promiſes are, which by the Catechiſm are made the object of our Faith, or Belief, what that Belief of them doth preſuppoſe, what is meant by a ſtedfaſt Belief of them, and what evidence there is of that being the Faith, or Belief requir'd to the receiving of Baptiſm.

III. BEing now to enquire,

Queſtion. What is required of perſons to be haptized?

Anſwer. Repentance whereby they forſake Sin, and Faith, whereby they ſtedfaſtly believe the promiſes made to them in that Sacrament.

according to the method before laid down, to what, and what kind of perſons the Sacrament of Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred, for my more advantageous reſolution thereof I will conſider it firſt as to thoſe of riper years, and then as to Infants, and Children.

That I give the precedency to thoſe of riper years, though ſuch Baptiſms as thoſe are little known among us, is becauſe there is no doubt Baptiſm began with them, and could not indeed have found any other entrance into the World; The Baptiſm of Infants, in the opinion of thoſe, who do moſt ſtrongly aſſert it, depending upon the Baptiſm of their Parents, or of thoſe, who are in the place of them. Of whom, if ſome had not been baptiz'd in their riper years, thoſe Infants, that claimed by them, could not with reaſon have pretended to it. Of thoſe of riper years therefore I mean firſt to entreat, and ſhew to what, and what kind of perſons among them the Sacrament of Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred.

Now as it is clear from our Saviour's injunctionMatt. 28.19. of diſcipling, and baptizing all Nations, that none of what condition ſoever are to be excluded from it, who are qualified, as Chriſtianity requires, for the receiving of it; So the only thing therefore farther neceſſary to be enquir'd into on this Head, is how men ought to be qualified for it, or (as our Catechiſm expreſſeth it) what is required of them. For ſuppoſing thoſe praerequiſites of Baptiſm, he who enjoyns the diſcipling, and baptizing all Nations, muſt conſequently be ſuppos'd to enjoyn the adminiſtring of it to all ſuch, in whom thoſe praerequiſites are.

Now there are two things again, as our Catechiſm inſtructs us, which are requir'd of all thoſe, that are to be baptized; Repentance, whereby they forſake ſin, and Faith, whereby they ſtedfaſtly believe the promiſes made to them in that Sacrament. And for theſe two things at leaſt it hath the aſtipulation of the Scripture, and I may add alſo of that Profeſſion, which is made by the baptized perſon in Baptiſm, and which having before eſtabliſh'd, I may now the more ſecurely argue from. Witneſs, for the Scripture, S. Peter'sActs 2.38. enjoyning thoſe Jews, (who demanded of him, and the reſt, what they ought to do in order to their ſalvation) to repent, and ſo be baptiz'd in the name of the Lord Jeſus; And Philip's replying upon the Eunuch, who ask'd what did hinder him to be baptiz'd, that if he believ'd Acts 8.37. with all his heart, he might: Thereby more than intimating that, if he did not, he could not be baptiz'd at all, though all other things concurred to the receiving of it. And indeed, what leſs can be ſuppos'd to be requir'd of ſuch perſons, when (as was beforeExpl. of Bapt. Part 8. obſerv'd) the baptized perſon makes Profeſſion in his Baptiſm of renouncing all ſin, and wickedneſs, and of a belief in that Jeſus, into whoſe Religion he is admitted? That Profeſſion of his ſuppoſing Repentance, and Faith to have been before in him, as without which otherwiſe he could not there make a ſincere Profeſſion of renouncing ſin, or of believing in the name of the Lord Jeſus. But ſo (that I may add that by the way) the Antient Church appears to have requir'd, before ſhe admitted, men to the participation of Baptiſm; Juſtin Martyr, where he profeſſeth to give a ſincere account of her doings in this affair, telling thoſe he wrote his Apology to, that ſuch as were perſuaded, and believ'd that the things taught and ſaid by the Chriſtians were true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apol. 2. p. 93. and moreover took upon them ſo to live, were taught to pray, and ask of God with faſting the forgiveneſs of their former ſins, and then, and not till then brought by them to the place of Baptiſm, and there regenerated after the ſame manner with themſelves. Which is ſo clear a proof of the Antients believing Repentance, and Faith to be prerequiſites of Baptiſm, that nothing need to be added to it.

For the clearing of the firſt of which we are to know, that though Repentance, in ſtrict ſpeech, be nothing elſe than a ſorrow of mind for thoſe ſins we ſtand guilty of before God; Yet as even ſo it preſuppoſeth a right apprehenſion of thoſe ſins, as without which we could never be brought to a due ſorrow for them, ſo taking Repentance (as our Catechiſm, and the Scripture alſo ſometime doth) as one of the two prerequiſites of Baptiſm (For S. Paul in one placeActs 20.21. makes that Repentance, and Faith the ſum of his Preaching to the Jews, and Greeks, and in anotherHeb. 6.1. the foundation of our Chriſtianity) it will be found to imply in it whatſoever that ſorrow for ſin doth naturally diſpoſe men to, as well as that ſorrow it ſelf: The ſame S. Paul elſewhere profeſſing that he ſhewed both to the Jews, and Gentiles, that they ſhould turn unto God, as well as Repent; and do works meet for Repentance, as well as either. To attain therefore a due underſtanding of this Repentance, as well as to clear that definition of it, which our Catechiſm hath given us, it will be neceſſary for us to enquire what this Repentance doth preſuppoſe, what it imports, and to what it doth diſpoſe us.

That, which Repentance doth moſt manifeſtly preſuppoſe, is a right apprehenſion of that ſin, about which it is to be converſant; And may be fetch'd in part from the dictates of our own reaſon, but more eſpecially from the declarations of Chriſtianity concerning it. Such as are, that ſin is the tranſgreſſion of a Law, and particularly of that of God, and that, as ſuch, it juſtly expoſeth us to his wrath, and indignation: Partly, as it is a violation of his Authority, to whom we are naturally ſubject, and partly as an equal affront to his goodneſs, who gives us our being, and all things elſe, and who therefore ought more diligently to have been attended to. In fine, that it hath for its wages Death both temporal, and eternal, and under each of which, without the mercy of God in Chriſt, the ſinner muſt neceſſarily fall. For as theſe are known in part, from the dictates of our own reaſon to be the properties of that ſin, whereof we ſpeak; So they are much more known to be ſo from the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and conſequently to be known by us toward a right apprehenſion of that, which ought to be the matter of our ſorrow.

But from hence it will be eaſie to collect, what that ſorrow for ſin doth import, which is requir'd of all thoſe, that take upon them the Profeſſion of Chriſtianity. Even that it importeth ſuch a ſorrow of mind, as hath a regard to the violation of God's Authority and Goodneſs by it, as well as to the evils which are like to ariſe to it from our ſelves; Our ſorrow being in reaſon to be ſuited to that, which is moſt conſiderable in the object of it. And indeed, as otherwiſe it will be rather a ſorrow for puniſhment, than ſin, becauſe ſin, as ſuch, is a tranſgreſſion of God's Law, and conſequently our ſorrow for it to have a more eſpecial regard to the affront, that is offer'd him thereby; So it will much leſs deſerve thoſe titles, which are given it by the Scripture of being a ſorrow, or repentance toward Acts 20.21. God (for ſo it is ſometime ſtil'd) and a ſorrow 2 Cor. 7.9. according to God, or a Godly one, as it alſo is: That being neither toward God, nor according to God, which hath not a regard to that affront, which is offer'd to him by ſin, as well as to the evils, which are like to accrue unto our ſelves.

But becauſe even ſuch a ſorrow will not qualifie us for Baptiſm, unleſs we add thereto what the ſame ſorrow doth naturally diſpoſe us to; Therefore to make out more fully the true nature of Repentance, as well as to clear our Churches definition of it, I will proceed to that, and ſhew what thoſe things are. Of which nature I reckon firſt an ingenuous confeſſion of ſin, and earneſt prayer to God for the pardon of it; Sorrow for ſin, when conſidered only with reference to its appendant puniſhment, being likely enough to diſpoſe us ſo to confeſs, and ask pardon of it, if it were only to unburthen our ſelves, and free our ſelves by that, and prayer from the puniſhment we have deſerv'd. How much more then, when conſider'd as a ſorrow for that affront, which we have by means of our ſin offer'd to God's both Authority, and Goodneſs? He, to whom ſuch an affront is matter of ſorrow, being likely enough to be thereby diſpos'd ſo far to acknowledge that Authority, and goodneſs, as to own them upon the poſtfact by confeſſion, and prayer for pardon: He who confeſſeth, and asketh pardon of God, acknowledging that God had, and hath an Authority to command, and puniſh him, as he, who doth the latter, that God is of equal goodneſs, as of whom otherwiſe it would be in vain for him to ask pardon for his offences. Whence it was, that when the Church proceeded by ſtrict, and ſafe meaſures, ſhe not only taught thoſe, that offer'd themſelves to Baptiſm, to ask of God with faſting the forgiveneſs of their forepaſt offences, but (as we learn from Juſtin Martyr Ʋbi ſupra. added her own prayers, and faſts to theirs, ſo the better to encourage, and give force unto the others. I reckon of the ſame nature ſecondly, a reſolution to forſake ſin, and purſue the contrary vertues. Which I do not only upon the Authority of the foremention'd Father, who reckons thatLoco prius citato. alſo as a prerequiſite to Baptiſm, but as it is a thing, to which ſorrow for ſin, doth alike naturally diſpoſe us; He, to whom ſin is ſo irkſome, needing no other motive, than that irkſomeneſs, to oblige him to forſake it, and pay a more perfect ſubmiſſion to that Authority, and goodneſs of God, which he hath before ſo ſhamefully violated. I reckon thirdly, as a thing, to which ſorrow for ſin doth equally diſpoſe us, a preſent forſaking of thoſe ſins, which we are under a temptation to commit, as well as a reſolution to do ſo for the time to come; There being the ſame force in a due ſorrow for ſin to diſpoſe men to that, as there is to a reſolution of afterward forſaking it. For which cauſe the Antient Church did not only refuſe ſuch perſons Baptiſm, as were of any unlawful Profeſſion Introd. concern. Catech. &c. , till they actually abandon'd it, but made proofIbid. alſo for a conſiderable time of the reſolutions of others, and, till they had given her ſuch proofs, did not admit them to it. They finding no doubt by manifold experience, that many that offer'd themſelves to Baptiſm, made little Conſcience afterward of avoiding thoſe ſins, which they had before ſo ſolemnly reſolv'd againſt, and made publick profeſſion of abandoning. And though it do not appear, that the Apoſtles themſelves took this courſe, they baptizing men immediately upon the bare profeſſion of their Repentance, and a reſolution afterward to bring forth fruits meet for it: Yet as the reaſon of that poſſibly might be, either becauſe of that exuberance of Grace, which was then beſtow'd upon their new Converts, or becauſe, by means of their Ambulatory life, they could not well deferr the Baptiſm of thoſe, that offer'd themſelves, till they had made ſome conſiderable trial of them (which will exempt ſuch Churches from their example, where there is no ſuch exuberance of Grace, and where moreover they have ſetled Paſtors to intend the affairs of them) So we cannot think the Apoſtles would have ever given Baptiſm to ſuch perſons, as ſhould before that Baptiſm of theirs have fallen into thoſe ſins, which they erewhile made profeſſion of abandoning: Sorrow for ſin, where it is hearty, and real, no doubt diſpoſing men as well to a preſent forſaking of it, as it doth to a reſolution concerning it. Which will make the Repentance pre-required to Baptiſm to be (as our Catechiſm expreſſeth it) a Repentance, whereby as occaſion offers, we actually forſake ſin, as well as reſolve for the future to abandon it.

An account being thus given of the firſt thing pre-requir'd to Baptiſm; and our Churches definition of it both explain'd, and eſtabliſhed; Paſs we on to that, which is alike pre-required to it, even that Faith, whereby we ſtedfaſtly believe the promiſes made to us in that Sacrament. Where again I will enquire, I. What thoſe promiſes are, which we are ſo to believe. II. What that belief of them doth pre-ſuppoſe. III. What is meant by a ſtedfaſt belief of thoſe promiſes. IV. What evidence there is of that being the Faith, or belief, which is pre-requir'd by Chriſtianity to the receiving of that Sacrament.

I. Now though that Catechiſm, which I have choſen to explain, give no other account of thoſe Promiſes, than that they are ſuch as are made to us in that Sacrament; Yet is it not difficult to collect from thence, and from what is before ſaid concerning the Parts of a Sacrament, that the Catechiſm means no other promiſes, than thoſe which make a tender of its inward, and ſpiritual Graces. For a Sacrament being before divided into an outward, and viſible ſign, and an inward, and ſpiritual Grace as the only proper parts of it; And the outward, and viſible ſign being in like manner repreſented in it as no farther of value, than as conducing to poſſeſs us of the other: No other promiſes can be ſuppos'd to be intended here, than ſuch as make a tender of thoſe inward, and ſpiritual Graces, as which indeed are the only things conſiderable in it. Which will conſequently make the promiſes here intended to be thoſe, which make a tender for the preſent of remiſſion of ſins, and ſanctification, and in the end, of everlaſting life.

II. Thoſe therefore being the promiſes, which are to be the object of the Catechumens Faith, and which accordingly he is ſtedfaſtly to believe; It will not be difficult to ſhew, what that belief of them pre-ſuppoſeth, which is the ſecond thing to be enquir'd into. For that belief of them muſt at leaſt pre-ſuppoſe a belief of all that, which is neceſſary to bring us to the belief of the other. More particularly it pre-ſuppoſeth, as to our ſelves, that we believe our ſelves to be naturally under a ſtate of ſin, and death, as without which there could be no place for that ſanctification, and remiſſion, which is promiſed in Baptiſm; And that we are yet farther off from any title to Everlaſting life, as which if we had, there would have been no need of a Promiſe in Baptiſm of it. It preſuppoſeth again as to Chriſt, in whom all the promiſes of God are Yea, and Amen, a like ſtedfaſt belief that there was ſuch a perſon as Jeſus Chriſt, and that he was appointed by God to convey ſuch graces to us; That, agreeably to the predictions of the Scripture, and the will of God concerning him, he took upon him our nature, and ſuffer'd in it to purchaſe thoſe Graces, and that he ever ſince intends the exhibiting of what he hath ſo purchas'd; The belief of theſe, and the like Articles of our Faith being as manifeſtly preſuppos'd to the belief of thoſe Promiſes, which in this place we are required to intend.

III. That which will it may be more concern us to enquire, is what our Catechiſm means by a ſtedfaſt belief of them. For my more orderly reſolution whereof I will enquire firſt what it means by belief, and then by a ſtedfaſt one.

Now by belief may be meant either a ſimple aſſent of the mind, and in which fenſe there is no doubt it is oftentimes taken in Chriſtian Writers; Or there may be meant alſo a belief with affiance, and ſuch as beſide the aſſent of the mind, or underſtanding to them, doth alſo connote a truſt in them, or in God becauſe of them. By vertue of which (as I have elſewhere diſcours'dExpl. of the Decal. Com. 1. Part 3. concerning the grace of truſt) the heart, or will is prompted to deſire, as well as aſſent to the matter of the divine promiſes, and acquieſce in thoſe for the obtaining of it. And indeed if we may judge any thing by our Homilies, (to which the ArticlesArt. 11. of our Church do alſo particularly referr us in the point of juſtifying Faith) this latter belief muſt be here intended; Becauſe a belief, which hath for its end the remiſſion of ſins in Baptiſm, and conſequently a juſtifying one. For the right, and true Chriſtian Faith (ſaith one of ourHomily of Salvation. Part 3. Homilies) is not only to believe that the Holy Scripture, and all the forecited Articles of our Faith, are true, but alſo to have a ſure truſt, and confidence in God's merciful promiſes to be ſaved from everlaſting damnation by Chriſt. And it is not only, ſaith anotherHom. of Faith., the common belief of the Articles of our Faith, but it is alſo a ſure truſt, and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and a ſtedfaſt hope of all good things to be receiv'd at God's hands. In fine, ſaith the ſameIbid. Homily, the very ſure, lively Chriſtian faith is not only to believe all things of God, which are contained in holy Scripture, but alſo to have an earneſt truſt, and confidence in God, &c. Which ſuppos'd (as we may, becauſe we can have no more Authentick interpretation of it) to be the ſenſe of the belief here intended, it will not be difficult to ſhew, what our Catechiſm means by a ſtedfaſt one.

For conſidering the belief of theſe Promiſes as an Aſſent of the mind to them, ſo a ſtedfaſt belief will imply that, which is free from all doubts, and which the mind of man gives to thoſe Promiſes without any the leaſt fear of there being any Colluſion in them; Which the mind of man may well give, conſidering whoſe thoſe Promiſes are, and that they have both God, and Chriſt for the Authors of them. On the other ſide, if we conſider the belief intended as including in it alſo an affiance, or truſt, and by vertue of which the heart, or will is prompted to deſire, as well as believe the matter of thoſe Promiſes, and acquieſce in thoſe Promiſes for the attaining of it; So this ſtedfaſt belief will alſo imply ſuch a one, as is firmly rooted in the heart, or will, and can no more be rooted out of it by the force of temptations, than the other by doubts, or ſcruples. And indeed, as I do not ſee how any other belief, than that, can anſwer ſuch glorious promiſes as are made to us in the Sacrament of Baptiſm; ſo I ſee as little reaſon to doubt,

IV. What evidence there is of that being the Faith, or belief, which is pre-requir'd by Chriſtianity to the receiving of it. For though S. Luke may ſeem to intimate by the account he gives of the Baptiſm of the Samaritans Acts 8.12., that they were baptiz'd upon a ſimple belief of what Philip preach'd concerning the things of the Kingdom of God; Yet he doth much more clearly intimate afterward, that Chriſtianity requir'd another ſort of belief, and ſuch as was accompani'd with an adherence of the will unto them: He making it the condition of the Eunuch's Baptiſm afterward, that he ſhould believe with all his heart Acts 8.37.; Which is an expreſſion, that in the language of the Scripture referrs rather to the will, and affections, than to the underſtanding, but however cannot well be thought not to include them there, where the believing with all the heart is requir'd. And indeed, as I do not ſee, conſidering the Doctrine of our Firſt Reformers, why this notion of Faith ſhould be ſo exploded, as it ſeems to me lately to have been; As I do much leſs ſee why men ſhould ſo boyle at that Juſtification, which was wont to be attributed in an eſpecial manner to it: So, if I live to finiſh the work I am now upon, I will in a Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Philippians (which I have almoſt gather'd ſufficient materials for) endeavour to clear both the one, and the other, that men may neither take occaſion from thence to diſcard good works as unneceſſary, nor yet ſtay themſelves upon any other, than the promiſes of Chriſt, and on which the holieſt men upon earth, when they have been approaching near God's tribunal, have found themſelves oblig'd to caſt themſelves. In the mean time a little to repreſs the youthful heats of thoſe, who can hardly forbear ſmiling at ſuch antiquated notions, I will ſet before them the advice, which was order'd to be given to ſick perſons, when good works to be ſure were not without their juſt repute. It is among the Interrogatories, which are ſaidField of the Church, Append. to the 3d. Book p. 303. to have been preſcrib'd by Anſelme Archbiſhop of Canterbury, and particularly after that, which prompts the Prieſt to ask, Doſt thou believe, that thou canſt not be ſav'd, but by the death of Chriſt, and the ſick perſons Anſwer, that he did ſo. Go too therefore (as the Prieſt was taught to proceed) and whilſt thy ſoul remaineth in thee, place thy confidence in this death alone, and in no other thing, commit thy ſelf wholly to it, cover thy ſelf wholly with it, immerſe, fix, and wrap thy ſelf wholly in it. And if the Lord God will judge thee, ſay, I put the death of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt between me, and thy judgment, otherwiſe I contend not with thee. And if he ſay that thou art a ſinner, ſay, Lord I put the death of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt between me, and my ſins. If he ſay to thee thou haſt deſerv'd damnation, ſay, Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt between me, and my evil deſerts, and I offer the ſame death for that merit, which I ought to have had, and have not. If he continue as yet to ſay, that he is angry with thee, ſay, Lord, I oppoſe the death of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt between me, and thy diſpleaſure. Words, which ſhew what kind of Faith was ſometime thought to be a juſtifying one, and what ſtreſs was laid upon it, before ever Fanaticiſm, or any thing of that nature was heard of in the World.

PART XI. Of the Baptiſm of Infants. The Contents.

What ground Infant-Baptiſm hath in Scripture, and particularly in what it ſuggeſts concerning Chriſt's commanding his Diſciples to ſuffer little Children to come unto him. S. Paul's giving the Children of the faithful the title of Holy, and the Circumciſion of Infants. The concurrence of Antiquity therein with the Doctrine of the Scripture, and that concurrence farther ſtrengthned by the Pelagians ſo freely admitting of what was urg'd againſt them from thence. A brief account of that remiſſion, and regeneration, which Infants acquire by Baptiſm, and a more large conſideration of the Objections, that are made againſt it; More particularly of what is urg'd againſt the Regeneration of Infants in Baptiſm, or their ability to anſwer what is prerequir'd to it on the part of perſons to be baptiz'd, or is to be performed by them in the reception of it. Where the Regeneration of Infants is more largely conſidered, and what is promis'd for them by others ſhewn to be both reaſonable, and ſufficient.

FRom the Baptiſm of thoſe of riper years,

Queſtion. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reaſon of their tender age they cannot perform them?

Anſwer. Becauſe they prentiſe them both by their ſureties, which promiſe, when they come to age, themſelves are bound to perform.

paſs we to that of Infants, or Children, the only Baptiſm upon the matter now celebrated, and therefore ſo much the more carefully to be clear'd and eſtabliſh'd. In order whereunto I will enquire, I. What ground it hath in Scripture. II. What countenance from Antiquity. III. What Infants acquire by it. IV. What the principal objections againſt it are, and how they are to be ſolv'd.

I. Now as it is plain to me both from Tertullian'sDe Baptiſmo c. 18. 〈…〉 Dominus, Nolite illos prohibere 〈…〉 Veniant ergo, dum adoleſcunt, 〈…〉 quo veniant docentur. 〈…〉 Chriſtum noſſe potueri •• . arguing againſt that Text, and the Apoſtolical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . li. 6. c. 15. Conſtitutions alledging it, that the Antient Church grounded the Baptiſm of Infants upon Chriſt'sMark 10.13. &c. commanding his Diſciples to ſuffer little Children to come unto him, and bleſſing thoſe, that came; So I am yet more confirmed in it by the unprofitable pains Tertullian took to take off the force of that Text, or rather the pitiful evaſion he made uſe of in order to it. For had not the Church laid great ſtreſs upon that paſſage of the Scripture, why did not he, as the World hath ſince learn'd to do, wholly omit the mention of it, as a Text no way pertinent to the buſineſs of Infant-Baptiſm? Or, if he thought good to take notice of it, why did he not turn the force of it another way, and ſay, as others have, that nothing more was intended by it, than to let men know they muſt put on the property of little Children, if they meant to enter into Chriſt's Kingdom? For either of theſe certainly had been more proper, than what we find him to alledge in theſe words, as to the delaying of the Baptiſm of Infants. The Lord indeed ſaith, Forbid not Children to come unto me. Let them come therefore, when they are grown, let them come when they may learn, and when they may be taught whither they are to come. Let them be made Chriſtians, when they may be able to know Chriſt. For what is this to the purpoſe of our Saviour, who check'd his Diſciples for hindering thoſe from coming to him, who were brought to him before they were in a condition to learn, who in all probability were brought to him in their Parents arms, and were both taken by him into his own, and bleſſed by him even then? For if the Diſciples were check'd for going about to hinder ſuch Children, his meaning was that they ſhould ſuffer ſuch to come unto him, and not keep them back from coming, till they ceaſed to be ſuch. But of ſuch force it ſeems was that Text then thought, that ſome reply however muſt be made to it; Or the deference men had for the Church, that urged it, would have ſpoil'd his device of delaying the Baptiſm of them, till they came of years. Which will make it ſo much the more reaſonable to enquire, what there is in the Text it ſelf, which might juſtifie the confidence of the one, or give occaſion to the impertinent anſwer of the other.

For the better diſcovery whereof we are to know, that when certain perſons not named, but it ſeems who look'd upon our Saviour as a man of God, brought their Children to Chriſt, that he might touch them, that is to ſay, as our Saviour expounded their meaning, that he might lay his hands upon them, and bleſs them; His Diſciples, whether as looking upon it as no way beſeeming their Maſter to concern himſelf about Children,Aret. in locum. Primum rem Chriſto indignam judicare videntar; nam judicio, & ratione carent, Chriſtum non intelligunt. Deinde majoraſunt, quae agat; adſunt enim turbae, quas docere debet. Major hic fructue, major etiam & dignitas, & labor. or that he had greater buſineſs then in hand, even the inſtructing of the Elder ſort, rebuked thoſe that brought them for that their ſuppos'd unſeaſonable deſire, and offer. But as our Saviour who better underſtoodAret. ubi ſupra. Sed expendi debet Chriſti officium, qui pro omnium ſalute natus eſt in hunc mundum. Deinde infantes etiam ad foedus dei pertinent; Nam Abraamo dixit, Ero & tui, & ſeminis tui poſt te, Deus. Et quia una eſt ratio ſalutis, unum oſtium, una janua, debuit etiam infantum haberi ratio. his own ſalutary office, and Childrens pertaining to the Covenant, did with as much, or more diſpleaſure rebuke them for that their rebuke, and ſignified it both by his countenance, and voice; So he charged them, that they ſhould by no means hinder Children from coming unto himAretius iterum. Eſt enim ratio cur arcendi a Chriſto non ſint: Quia talium eſt regnum coelorum, hoc eſt, ſunt haeredes vitae aeternae; ergo à Chriſto, qui janua eſt ad vitam, non debent arceris Deinde cum talium ſit regnum dei, ergo horum magis eſt, ad quorum ſimilitudinem alii, ut accipiant, iidem redire debent., becauſe the Kingdom of God belong'd to ſuch as they: Thereby intimating, that even thoſe Children had a right unto it, and were not therefore to be hindred from coming to him, who was the way, or rather the gate into it. For if the Kingdom of God belong'd to ſuch as they, much more to thoſe Children, to whom elder perſons ought to become like, that they might be in a capacity of obtaining it. As indeed otherwiſe, what force is there in the reaſon alledg'd for the ſuffering, and no way forbidding young Children to come unto him? For they, who have in purpoſe of heart what the other have only naturally, may both be invited to tend toward, and be poſſeſs'd of the Kingdom of Heaven, though the other be no way brought to Chriſt, nor receive any bleſſing from him. In as much as their humility, and innocency is the reſult of God's ſpirit, and of their own will, and conſequently more likely to be acceptable, whereas the other's is only the reſult of their conſtitution, and age. And I cannot therefore but think, that the true reaſon of our Saviour's making uſe of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or ſuch, inſtead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or theſe (for of ſuch, ſaith our Saviour, is the Kingdom of heaven) was not in the leaſt to exclude Children from having a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, as who alone were directly, and immediately concern'd in the preſent Argument; But to let the World know at the ſame timeAret. in Matt. 19.13, &c. Nec juvat quod aliqui hic urgent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , talium, & non horum. Nam communem oſtendit modum juſtificationis, &c. Amplius igitur aliquid dicere voluit, & bos pueros vitae haeredes eſſe, & ad illorum ſimilitudinem nobis etiam redeundum eſſe., that elder men ought to put on the properties of Children to make them partakers of it. As he afterwardMark 10.15. more expreſly ſignifies, when he tells them, that whoſoever ſhall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child, he ſhall not enter therein. Which ſuppos'd a way is opened for the inferring of that Baptiſm of Infants, which, this paſſage both now, and of old was made uſe of to evince. For it appearing from the premiſes, that Infants have a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, and upon, and by vertue of that right to be brought to Chriſt alſo; They muſt conſequently have a right alſo to thoſe means, which are by the ſame Chriſt appointed to put them into the poſſeſſion of his Kingdom. Which Baptiſm certainly being, and ſo, that, ordinarily at leaſt, none can enter into that Kingdom withoutJoh. 3.5. being born again by it, it cannot without injuſtice be withheld from thoſe Children, to whom the other doth appertain. Neither will it avail to ſay, though the Objection be not to be deſpis'd, that by this rule our Saviour ſhould either himſelf have baptiz'd, or order'd his Diſciples to baptize thoſe Children, that were now brought unto him for his bleſſing. For beſide that one Argument will not ſolve another, and much leſs hinder the matter thereof from being true, or concluſive; There might be reaſon enough, though the premiſes be allow'd, for our Saviour's not baptizing, or requiring his Diſciples to baptize thoſe Children, who were now brought unto him for his bleſſing: Partly, upon the account of the incompetency of thoſe, that brought them, and who being not Diſciples themſelves, but as is probable, of the multitude Mark 10.1. Matt. 19.2. that followed him, could not claim from our Saviour, nor he ſo regularly beſtow Baptiſm upon their Children; And partly to let the World ſee, that he was not ti'd to any methods himſelf in the diſpenſing of the graces of that Kingdom. For that our Saviour, by that bleſſing which he gave them, gave thoſe Children rem Sacramenti, or the Graces of Baptiſm, and ſo ſhew'd yet more the title Children have to it, cannot well be doubted of by any, who ſhall conſider how zealous he was for their being brought to him, as that too upon the account of the title they had to the Kingdom of Heaven. For conſidering that zeal of his, and the ground of it, what can be more reaſonable than to think, that our Saviour agreeably thereto did by his bleſſing conferr upon them that Evangelical regeneration, which was to fit them for the Kingdom of Heaven, and without which conſidering the impurity of their nature, and the neceſſity of being thus born anew, they could not regularly obtain it. And I have been the more particular in deducing, and preſſing the preſent argument; Partly becauſe led thereto by the meer force of the Text it ſelf, and the Authority of the Church that imployed it, till by accident I fell upon thoſe things I have before quoted out of Aretius; And partly becauſe I think it a better ſervice to the Church of God to ſtrengthen one old Argument, than deviſe many new ones: Such a courſe procuring the more reſpect to the Church's both opinion, and practice, as ſhewing it to proceed upon ſubſtantial Arguments, and ſuch as in themſelves are not lightly to be refus'd.

My ſecond Argument for the Baptiſm of Infants ſhall be taken from that holineſs, which S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14. attributes to the Children of Chriſtian Parents (yea where only one of them is ſuch) upon the account of their deſcent from them. For S. Paul having before perſuaded the believing party to continue with the unbelieving one, ſuppoſing that unbelieving one to be as willing to continue with the believer, as a motive to the doing of it alledgeth, that the unbelieving party is ſanctified by the believing, and proves that ſanctification again by the holineſs of the Children, that come from them, as which otherwiſe thoſe Children could not have in them, but the contrary. Now I demand what that holineſs is, which S. Paul ſuppoſeth to be the property of thoſe, who come from ſuch a ſanctified couple, that is to ſay, whether an inward holineſs, or an outward one? If they, who would avoid the force of this Text as to the Baptiſm of Infants, ſay an inward holineſs, they ſay more than we deſire, or can with truth be affirmed, becauſe though Original Sin be traduc'd from the Parents, yet inward holineſs is not, as being the product of the Spirit of God, and his inſtrument Baptiſm. But if they do however attribute ſuch a holineſs to thoſe Children, they ſay enough to evince, that Baptiſm ought not to be deny'd to them. For who (as S. Peter ſpakeActs 10.47. upon another occaſion) can forbid the water of Baptiſm to thoſe, who have receiv'd the Holy Ghoſt, as to be ſure all, that are internally holy, have? It remains therefore, that if the Children of ſuch matches be not internally holy, they are externally ſo, and that external holineſs therefore, if it may be, to be inveſtigated by us. Now I demand Firſt, what external holineſs can be imagin'd in thoſe Children, but ſuch by which they come to belong to God in a more peculiar manner, than the Children of other matches do? This being the nature of all things, that are externally holy, whether by the voluntary conſecration of men, or the Inſtitution, or choice of God. I demand ſecondly, ſuppoſing thoſe Children to belong more to God, than the Children of other matches, whether by their thus becoming the peculiar property of God, they may not be ſuppos'd to be more dear to him, than the Children of other matches are? Every one naturally having an affection to ſuch, as belong to him, ſuitably to that nearneſs, wherein they belong to him. I demand Thirdly, ſuppoſing the Children of ſuch matches to be more dear to God than the Children of others, whether we are not to think he will take a more particular care of them, than of others? The care of any perſon being always ſuitable to the affection he bears to thoſe, who are the object of his care. I demand Fourthly, whether, ſuppoſing ſuch a particular care of the Children of ſuch matches, he will not take a more particular care of them as to their eternal welfare, than he doth of the Children of other men; All other care, without this, being of little value to the party cared for, and, beſide that (as experience ſhews) equally extended by God to the Children of other matches, as well as to the deſcendants of Chriſtians. I demand Fifthly, ſuppoſing ſuch a particular care as to their eternal welfare, whether he will not alſo allow them more means toward the compaſſing of it, than he can be ſuppos'd to allow to the Children of other Parents? All care, where it is reaſonable, and juſt, employing ſutable means to bring that care of its unto effect. Now what peculiar means doth, or can God allow to the Children of Chriſtian Parents, as to the procuring of their eternal welfare, ſuppoſing them to die before they come of years, as the generality of them do, unleſs it be the Sacrament of Baptiſm? For as theſe, no more than other Children, are capable of the benefits of the Goſpel by the graces of Faith, and Repentance; So they have no other way therefore, ſave the Sacrament of Baptiſm, either to be deliver'd from the guilt of Original Sin, or enſtated in Chriſts heavenly Kingdom. I conclude therefore, that the Children of Chriſtian Parents, or of either of them being holy, they do by that holineſs of theirs acquire a right to a greater holineſs, I mean the holineſs of Baptiſm. And indeed however Tertullian could in his bookCap. 18. De Baptiſmo argue the delay of Infants Baptiſm, as that too upon their no need of it, or not being qualified for it; Yet as he could ſee enough elſewhere to make him believe, that every ſoul is reckoned in Adam, till he be anew enrolled in Chriſt by the receit of the Sacrament of BaptiſmDe animâ c. 39. Hinc enim & Apoſtolus ex ſanctificato alterutro ſexu ſanctos procreari ait, tam ex ſeminis praerogativâ, quam ex inſtitutionis diſciplinâ. Caeterum, inquit, immundi naſcerentur, quaſi deſignatos tamen ſanctitati, ac per hoc etiam ſaluti intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus ſpei pignore matrimoniis, quae retinenda cenſuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioquin meminerat Dominicae de finitionis, Niſi quis naſcetur ex aquâ, & ſpiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, id eſt, non erit ſanctus. Ita omnis anima eouſque in Adam cenſetur, donec in Chriſto recenſeatur, &c. , ſo he could ſee enough too in the Text I am now upon, to make him acknowledge, that the Children of theDe animâ c. 39. Hinc enim & Apoſtolus ex ſanctificato alterutro ſexu ſanctos procreari ait, tam ex ſeminis praerogativâ, quam ex inſtitutionis diſciplinâ. Caeterum, inquit, immundi naſcerentur, quaſi deſignatos tamen ſanctitati, ac per hoc etiam ſaluti intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus ſpei pignore matrimoniis, quae retinenda cenſuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioquin meminerat Dominicae de finitionis, Niſi quis naſcetur ex aquâ, & ſpiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, id eſt, non erit ſanctus. Ita omnis anima eouſque in Adam cenſetur, donec in Chriſto recenſeatur, &c. faithful are holy by the prerogative of their ſeed, as well as by the diſcipline of their Inſtitution, and by that holineſs of theirs deſign'd, or mark'd out for a better holineſs, and ſo for ſalvation. Which as it is the holineſs, that I have been all along enforcing, and endeavouring to evince from thence Children's right unto another; So of what force it is toward the inferring of it, will need no other light, than that, which we have from Tertullian. For with what face can any man deny them the holineſs of Baptiſm, who are deſign'd, or mark'd out for it by the prerogative of their birth, and (as it may happen, and often doth) can no other way attain that holineſs, or that ſalvation, which is conſequent upon it? But becauſe ſome men have advanc'd another, and a more improper holineſs, even that by which Children become the iſſue of a lawful marriage, and not of an unlawful mixture; And becauſe too they have in part advanc'd that holineſs upon the difficulty of comprehending, how the unbeliever can otherwiſe be ſanctified by the believer, than by making the match between them two to be lawful; Therefore I will both ſet my ſelf to ſhew, that the unbeliever may be otherwiſe ſanctified by the believer, than by making him, or her to be a lawful match to the believer, and that the holineſs, which S. Paul attributes to the Children of ſuch a match, cannot be underſtood of ſuch a holineſs, whereby they become a lawful, or legitimate Iſſue. And I alledge for the former of theſe the unbelieving Husband's, for inſtance, being ſo ſanctified by the believing Wife, as not only to become a lawful Husband to her, but a Chriſtian one, and ſo, as to entitle the Iſſue of them both to the common priviledges of Chriſtianity. Which is brought about by the unbelieving Husband's becoming one fleſh, not any longer with an unbelieving Wife, but with a believing, and Chriſtian one, and from whom that ſanctification is derived to him. Even as the ſame S. Paul affirms1 Cor. 6.16. him, that converſeth with an Harlot, to become one fleſh with that Harlot, with whom he doth ſo converſe, and ſo receive pollution from her. Neither will it avail to ſay (as poſſibly it may be) that the believing Wife is as much one fleſh with the unbelieving Husband, as the unbelieving Husband is with her, and may therefore be as unclean by him, as he can be ſuppos'd to be ſanctified by her. For neither firſt is the believing Wife as much one fleſh with the unbelieving Husband, as the unbelieving Husband is with her, unleſs it be as to the uſe of, or power over one another's Bodies: Partly, becauſe, where there is ſo great an inequality in the match, the denomination is in reaſon to be taken from the better party, which to be ſure the believer is; And partly, becauſe that conſent of mind from which this union proceeds, and by which it is to be upheld, is more entire, and full upon the part of the unbelieving Husband, than it is upon the part of the believing Wife. For whilſt ſhe conſents to dwell with him meerly as the Partner of her Bed, and conformably to the offices of ſuch a one, of which ſhe gave a ſufficient proof by abandoning him as to his Religion, and continues to do the like by the continuance of that abandoning; The unbelieving Husband, on the other ſide, by being (as S. Paul expreſſeth it)1 Cor. 7.12, 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . well pleaſed to live with her notwithſtanding, conſents in ſome meaſure to dwell with her as a Chriſtian, and gives no contemptible indication of a farther conſent with her in that Religion: There being otherwiſe no great likelihood of his continuing his Complacency, as well as cohabitation to her, who had abandon'd him as to his. But therefore as the believing Wife is not ſo much one with the unbelieving Husband, as he is with her, and cannot therefore be ſo likely to be polluted by him, as he is to be ſanctified by her; So ſhe becomes yet leſs likely to be polluted by him, becauſe communicating with him in ſuch Act, or Acts, as are not only lawful in themſelves, but moreover the indiſpenſible duties of that marriage, which ſhe had contracted, and which, whilſt he is thus pleas'd to dwell with her, ſhe is by our Apoſtle himſelf obliged to maintain. And indeed as from ſuch a match there is more reaſon to expect ſanctification to the unbeliever, than there is of any fear of pollution to the other; So there will be yet leſs doubt of it, if we conſider the ſanctification here ſpoken of, not as an inward, but an outward one, and ſuch an outward one too, by which the party ſanctified attains only the priviledge of being accounted of as a Chriſtian Husband, and accordingly of conveying to thoſe Children, that deſcend from them both a right to the Sacrament of Baptiſm. For what leſs can be expected from a merciful God, where the unbeliever, though continuing ſuch, yet takes pleaſure notwithſtanding that in his Chriſtian Conſort? And ſhe, on the other ſide, though abominating his Infidelity, yet in compliance with that marriage, wherein Chriſtianity found her, cohabits with him notwithſtanding, and no doubt both doth, and will employ all her kindneſs, and endeavours to gain him to a farther approbation both of her, and of the Religion ſhe hath eſpous'd? Which ſuppos'd, a way will be open to give a clearer account of the thing intended, and withal of the force it is of to perſuade the believing Wifes continuing with the unbelieving Husband, if he (as is ſuppos'd in the preſent caſe) is as willing to dwell with her: The force thereof lying in this, that the believing Wife ſhould in that caſe be ſo far from being polluted by the converſe of the unbelieving Husband (which was no doubt theſe Corinthians fear, when they put this caſe to S. Paul) that on the contrary the unbelieving Husband ſhould be ſo far ſanctified by her, as to be to her in the place of a Chriſtian one, and enjoy all the priviledges of ſuch; The unbelieving Husband by becoming one fleſh with the believing Wife becoming ſo far Chriſtian alſo, and ſo accounted of both by God, and the Church. Of which they had this undeniable proof, that the Children of thoſe matches were not look'd upon as unclean, or heathen (which they muſt have been in part, if the unbeliever had not been ſome way ſanctified, as well as the believer) but accounted of as ſo far holy, or Chriſtian, as to be admitted to thoſe priviledges, to which the Children of Chriſtian Parents were, and particularly to that Baptiſm, by which a better holineſs is convey'd. This I take to be a fair, and clear account of the Apoſtle's words, and particularly of that holineſs, which he attributes to thoſe Children, that deſcend from the forementioned Parents. And I am yet more confirmed in it by the fondneſs of that notion, which hath been ſet up to ſupplant it, and by which the Children of ſuch matches become the iſſue of a lawful marriage, and not of an unlawful mixture. For beſide that they, who advance this notion, make the words Elſe were your Children unclean, &c. to referr rather to the precept of the believer's cohabiting with the unbeliever, than to the unbeliever's being ſanctified by the believer, to which laſt yet it apparently referrs, and is aſſign'd by S. Paul as a proof of; They ſuppoſe that in this notion of theirs, which there is not the leaſt ground for, and which indeed this very place doth ſufficiently confute. For who ever ſaid, or could ſay that the marriages of the Heathen were unlawful, which yet they muſt have been, if there needed the cohabitation of the faithful to make them lawful, and the Children that were born of them to be legitimate? Nay who ſeeth not that S. Paul ſuppoſeth thoſe marriages to be lawful, when he requires the believing party to cohabit with the unbeliever? For otherwiſe no doubt he would rather have advis'd to break off all commerce with the Infidel, or proceed to a new contract. Both which yet he is ſo far from, that he ſeems to me not very willing to allow of a perfect breach, even when the unbeliever doth depart from the believer. For though he ſaith1 Cor. 7.15. that a brother, or ſiſter is not in bondage in ſuch a caſe, and may therefore, if they pleaſe, look upon themſelves as loos'd from the unbeliever; Yet he tells themIbid. withall that God hath called us to peace, and therefore, (as I underſtand him) that breaches of that nature would be avoided as much as might be; And he tells them too1 Cor. 7.16., that if they would not be over forward to make uſe of that liberty, which the unbeliever gave them by deſerting them, there might be hopes of the unbelieving Wife, or Husband being wrought upon by the believer's patience, and forbearance, and reconcil'd both to them, and their Religion. However as there is no pretence from this place of the believer's making the marriage between the unbeliever and themſelves to be a lawful one, as which was ſo before; Nor therefore for making the holineſs of their Children to be no other than a civil one, and by which they only became a legitimate iſſue; So there is the more reaſon ſtill to underſtand the holineſs of that match, and the iſſues of it, as one that entitles them to the outward priviledges of Chriſtianity, and by which the unbelieving whether Husband, or Wife, comes to be accounted of as a Chriſtian one, and the Children of both parties as having a right to that Sacrament, by which all are to be initiated into Chriſtianity, and partake of its Regeneration and Remiſſion.

My third and laſt argument for the baptizing of the Infants, or Children of Chriſtian Parents ſhall be taken from the Circumciſion of thoſe Infants, or Children, which deſcended from the poſterity of Abraham, and after which I do not ſee what doubt can be well made of the other: Partly, upon the account of the Analogy there is between Circumciſion, and Baptiſm, and partly upon account of the Children of Chriſtian Parents having as good a right to the bleſſings exhibited in them, as the Children of thoſe, who were of the poſterity of Abraham. For ſuppoſing (as was beforeExpl. of the Sacram. in general. Part 4. ſhewn, and may hereafterAnſw. to the object. againſt Infant-Baptiſm. be farther clear'd) that Circumciſion relates to the ſame ſpiritual bleſſings with Baptiſm, and particularly to the righteouſneſs of Faith; And ſuppoſing farther that the Children of Chriſtian Parents have as good a right to thoſe bleſſings, and that righteouſneſs, as the Children of thoſe, that were of the poſterity of Abraham; By the ſame reaſon that the Children of theſe were intitled to that Circumciſion, which was intended to exhibit thoſe bleſſings, and that righteouſneſs among them, the Children of the other ſhall be admitted to that Baptiſm, which was intended to exhibit them among us: Thoſe Children, which have an equal right to the bleſſings exhibited, having an equal right to thoſe means, which were intended for the exhibition of them. Now that the Children of Chriſtian Parents have as good a right to the former bleſſings, and righteouſneſs, as the Children of the Poſterity of Abraham, will appear from thoſe Parents of theirs being equally the Children Rom. 4.11. of Abraham with thoſe, that were of his poſterity. For being equally his Children, they muſt conſequently be ſuppos'd to give their Children as good a right to the former bleſſings, and the means that was intended to exhibit them among us, as the poſterity of Abraham did their Children to the like bleſſings, and that means which among them was intended for the exhibition of them.

II. The Baptiſm of Infants being thus made out from the Scripture, and by ſuch paſſages thereof alſo, as cannot be eaſily avoided; Paſs we on to enquire, what countenance it hath from Antiquity, as which if it be any thing conſiderable, will the more firmly eſtabliſh it. Where the firſt, that I ſhall take notice of, is a paſſage of Juſtin Martyr, I do not mean what is commonly quoted out of his Queſtions, and Anſwers, ad Orthodoxos Quaeſt. 56. , it being queſtionable enoughVid. Coci Cenſur. quorund. Script. in Script. Juſt. Martyr. whether that Book were his, or at leaſt as we now have it, but what may be found in his ſecond Apology Pag. 62. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., and concerning which there is not any the leaſt controverſie in the Church. In which Apology ſpeaking of the excellency of the Chriſtian Law above that of any humane ones, in ſetting bounds to the carnal deſires of men he hath theſe words. And there are many men, and women of ſixty, and ſeventy years of Age, who having from their Childhood been diſcipled unto Chriſt, have all their time continued uncorrupt, or Virgins; And I boaſt that I can ſhew ſuch among all ſorts of men. For why ſhould we alſo ſpeak of that innumerable multitude of men, who have chang'd from intemperance, and ſo have learnt theſe things? For Chriſt called not the juſt, or temperate to repentance, but the ungodly, and intemperate, and unjuſt. Which words to an unbiaſt Reader cannot well ſignifie leſs, than Childrens being then baptiz'd into Chriſtianity; That Father not only making mention of certain perſons, who had from their childhood been diſcipled unto Chriſt, which we know from our SaviourMatt. 28.19. to have been effected by Baptiſm, and continu'd too all their time uncorrupt, or Virgins (which yet is a competent proof of their being baptiz'd, when Children) but oppoſing them to ſuch perſons as had chang'd from intemperance, and rather learnt that purity afterward, than been diſcipled into it at the very firſt: That oppoſition of his making it yet more evident, that he meant ſuch perſons as were diſcipled to Chriſt from their very childhood, and before they were in a capacity of learning him, and his doctrine by inſtruction. To this of Juſtin Martyr ſubjoyn we another of Irenaeus, which is yet more clear for the Baptiſm of Infants. For Chriſt (ſaith that Father Omnes enim venit per ſemetipſum ſalvare: Omnes, inquam, qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum, infantes, & parvulos, & pueros, & juvenes, & ſeniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus, ſanctificans infantes, & in parvulis parvulus ſanctificans hanc ipſam habentes aetatem. Adv. haereſ. li. 2. c. 39. ) came to ſave all perſons by himſelf; All I ſay, who by him are born again to God, Infants, and little ones, and Children, and Young Men, and Old. Therefore he came in every Age, and was made an Infant to Infants, ſanctifying Infants, and a little one among little ones, ſanctifying thoſe of that age, &c. Where we have him not only affirming Chriſt to have come to ſave Infants, as well as others, yea to have been made an Infant himſelf to ſanctifie them, which ſhews them in his opinion to have had a general right to the bleſſings of Chriſtianity, but ſpeaking of ſeveral of them as born again unto God by Chriſt, which is as much as to ſay baptiz'd: That as it is the way, by which all are to be ſo born, even by the Doctrine ofJoh. 3.5. our Saviour, ſo the way too, by which the Antients apprehended it to be effected. For thus where Juſtin Martyr intreats of the Baptiſm of thoſe of his time, he tells usApolog. 2. p. 93.4. that they, who were to partake of it, were brought by the Chriſtians to a place where water was, and there regenerated after that manner of regeneration, wherewith they themſelves had been. And to the ſame purpoſe alſo this very Irenaeus Adv. haereſ li. 1. c. 18. , becauſe not only attributing the ſame regeneration to it, but repreſenting it as the Doctrine of the Gnoſticks, as to that Baptiſm which they ſet up againſt our Saviour's, that it was neceſſary for thoſe, who had received perfect knowledge, to be ſo regenerated into that vertue, or power, which is above all things. Which paſſage, with the former one, makes it yet more manifeſt that Irenaeus meant by ſuch Infants, as were born again by Chriſt unto God, ſuch as had been regenerated by Baptiſm, and conſequently that the Baptiſm of ſuch was no ſtranger in his days. I think I ſhall not need to inſiſt upon the days of Tertullian, becauſe what the practice of that time was is evident from his diſputing againſt Infant Baptiſm, or at leaſt adviſing to delay it: There being no place for ſuch a diſpute, or advice, if the thing it ſelf had not been then in uſe, and in uſe too (as he himſelf intimates) in obedience to that precept of our Saviour, which enjoyn'd the ſuffering little Children to come unto him in order to their partaking of his bleſſing, and Kingdom. And indeed as Origen, who liv'd not long after him, doth not only aſſert the ſame practice of Infant Baptiſm, but affirmIn Rom. 16. the Church to have receiv'd it as a Tradition from the Apoſtles; So Tertullian's Scholar, and great admirer S. Cyprian Epiſt. 59. gives ſuch an ample teſtimony to it, that I know not what need to be added to it. For one Fidus having queſtion'd him concerning the cauſe of Infants, who he thought ought not to be baptiz'd till the eighth day according to the law of Circumciſion, S. Cyprian in a Council of ſixty ſix Biſhops made this following Anſwer to his demand; That he, and the whole Council that was with him, had quite other thoughts of that affair, they univerſally judging that the mercy, and grace of God was to be deny'd to none, that was born of men. And again, that if remiſſion of ſins were upon the faith of the parties given to the greateſt Offenders, neither was any of them debar'd from Baptiſm, and grace, how much leſs ought a new-born Infant to be debarred of it, who had no other ſin to anſwer for, but what he drew from Adam, and who came ſo much the more eaſily to receive pardon of ſin, becauſe it was not his own proper ſins, but thoſe of others, that were to be forgiven him? For which cauſe the opinion of the Council was, that no one ought to be debar'd by them from Baptiſm, and the Grace of God, and that, if that were to be obſerv'd, and retain'd as to all perſons whatſoever, it was much more to be obſerv'd, and retain'd as to Infants, and new-born perſons, whoſe very tears wherewith they enter'd the World, ſeemed more to deſerve it both from them, and the divine mercy. I omit for brevity ſake the many teſtimonies of S. Auguſtine to the ſame purpoſe, and his affirmingAug. Serm. 10. de verbis Apoſt. in particular, that the Church always had it, always retain'd it, and receiv'd it from the faith of it's predeceſſors; And ſhall content my ſelf, as to this particular, with his, and the Church's preſſing the Pelagians Voſſi. Hiſtor. Pelag. li. 2. part. 1 Theſ. 5. with the practice of Infant Baptiſm, and thoſe Pelagians, how much ſoever ſtraitned by it, yet chooſing rather to evade the force of it, than to deny in any meaſure the truth of the thing alledg'd: It being not to be thought, that, if there had been any the leaſt ſuſpicion of the Antiquity of Infant Baptiſm, or indeed of its being derived to the Church from the Apoſtles, either the Catholicks would have ſo confidently alledged it againſt the Pelagians, or the Pelagians ſo eaſily, and without any the leaſt oppoſition have admitted it.

III. Now as if we allow Infants to be capable of Baptiſm, we muſt conſequently allow them the graces of that Sacrament, becauſe Baptiſm was intended to convey them; So I muſt needs ſay, I do not ſee why (ſuppoſing Original ſin, which hath been before ſufficiently eſtabliſh'd) we ſhould ſcruple to attribute to them the graces of that Sacrament, and particularly remiſſion, and regeneration. For if Infants are naturally under the guilt of Original ſin, there is ſo far forth place for, and a neceſſity of remiſſion; And if the ſame Infants are naturally under the pollution of it, or (as our Catechiſm expreſſeth it) are by nature born in ſin, and the children of wrath, they are alike capable by Baptiſm of being regenerated, or made the children of grace. Not that there is, or can be even in baptiz'd Infants any actual perception of, or adheſion to that, which is ſpiritually good, but a diſpoſition to both, and by vertue whereof the ſoul is fitted, and inclin'd to each, when years, and opportunity invite: As the ſame ſoul is to reaſon, and will, when it arrives at years of maturity, by vertue of thoſe natural faculties, that are from the beginning in it. Which is a ſort of regeneration, that is moſt ſutable to the ſtate of Infancy, and beyond which therefore, whilſt they continue in that ſtate, we are not reaſonably to expect; But is withal as true a regeneration as that, which is wrought in thoſe of riper years, and by which the ſouls of the parties regenerated actually perceive, and cleave to that good, which the other is only diſpoſed to: That actual perception, and adheſion being not ſo much any part of their regeneration, or new birth, as the effects, or iſſues of it.

IV. But becauſe how clear ſoever Infant Baptiſm may thus far ſeem, yet it cannot be deny'd to be encumbred with many, and great difficulties, or at leaſt ſuch as appear ſo to men of prejudiced minds; Therefore it will be but neceſſary, before I leave this head, to ſelect ſuch of them as ſeem to be moſt preſſing, and return a ſatisfactory Anſwer to them: Whether they be ſuch as relate to the grounds, on which I have endeavour'd to eſtabliſh it, or ſuch as ſtrike more directly at the thing it ſelf.

That, which is moſt to be conſider'd of the former ſort, is thatSee Jer. Tayl. Liberty of Proph. Sect. 18. num. 13. which pretends to evacuate the Argument from the Circumciſing of the Infants of Abraham's poſterity to the Baptizing of the Children of Chriſtians. Which it endeavours in part from Circumciſions being but a Type, or figure of Baptiſm, and ſo either proving nothing at all without ſome expreſs to ſignifie ſuch a thing to be its purpoſe, or after the nature of ſuch things, directing us rather to a ſpiritual childhood in order to Baptiſm, than ſhewing a natural childhood to be a due ſubject of it; And in part alſo from Circumciſions being not in all things a rule to the Chriſtians Baptiſm, and particularly not in the perſons, that are to be baptized (Women as well as Men being confeſſedly the ſubject of the latter) nor in the time of their receiving of it. For if Circumciſion be a ſufficient direction for the baptizing of Infants, why not alſo a like direction for the confining of it to the Males? And if it were to be a direction as to the baptizing of Infants, why not alſo as to the baptizing of them upon the eighth day (which was the day of adminiſtring Circumciſion) as that Fidus, whom S. Cyprian anſwer'd, ſeemed to be perſuaded, and accordingly argued it from the like adminiſtration of Circumciſion.

As to what is objected concerning Circumciſion's being but a type of Baptiſm, and ſo either proving nothing at all without ſome expreſs to ſignifie ſuch to be its purpoſe, which is not pretended in the preſent caſe, or if proving any thing as to the matter of childhood, yet directing rather to a ſpiritual, than a natural one; I anſwer that as I ſee not why Circumciſion ſhould be look'd upon as only a type of Baptiſm, nor indeed as any type at all, unleſs it be in a general ſenſe, and as a thing that is like unto another may be look'd upon as a type of that, to which it is ſo, in which ſenſe I my ſelf have alſo us'd the word, and allow it ſo to be, ſo we do not at all argue from Circumciſion, as it may be ſuppoſed to be a type of Baptiſm, but as a ſign of the ſame righteouſneſs of Faith, of which Baptiſm is, and of the ſame gracious Covenant, that aſſures it. And in this ſenſe as nothing hinders us to argue from Circumciſion's being beſtowed upon Infants then, that that which is a ſign of the ſame righteouſneſs of faith under the Goſpel is in reaſon to be extended to the ſame perſons; So there is this in particular to enforce it, that Chriſtian Parents would otherwiſe fall ſhort, in the account of God, of the priviledges of the natural deſcendants of Abraham. Of which what account can be given, when Abraham, from whom they both claim, is declared to be the Father of them both, yea is ſaid by S. Paul to have receiv'd the ſign of Circumciſion, not only as a ſeal, or aſſurance to himſelf of that righteouſneſs of faith, which he before had, but a ſeal, or an aſſurance alſo of his being to the ſame purpoſes a FatherRom. 4.11. of thoſe that believe, though they be not circumciſed, as well as a Father of thoſe that were.

There is as little reaſon to be ſtagger'd by what is alledged in the ſecond inſtance, that if Circumciſion be a ſufficient direction for the baptizing of Infants, it may as well be a direction for the confining of it to the Males, and for the confining of it too to the eighth day after the Infants birth. Becauſe firſt the Sacrament of Baptiſm hath nothing in it to confine it to the Males, as Circumciſion had, but on the contrary is equally fitted to be adminiſtred to both Sexes. And ſecondly becauſe it appears from what was before ſaidPart 1. concerning the Rite of Baptiſm among the Jews, that the want of Circumciſion was afterwards ſuppli'd to the Females by Baptiſm, and they thereby even in their Infancy initiated into the ſame Covenant with the other. For this ſhews yet more, how little reaſon there is to argue from Circumciſions being confin'd to the Males, that therefore Baptiſm ought to be ſo; Or rather how much more reaſon there is to extend it both to Male, and Female, and ſo to all of the ſame Infant eſtate. If therefore there be any thing to hinder our arguing from Circumciſion in this particular, it muſt be its not being pretended by our ſelves to be a direction as to the day of its adminiſtration, as well as to the perſons, to whom it ought to be adminiſtred. But beſide that there is a vaſt difference between the perſons, to whom any Sacrament is to be given, and the preciſe day, on which it is to be ſo, and therefore not the like reaſon for Circumciſion's directing as to this, as there is for its directing as to the other; What Circumciſion directs as to the caſe of Infants is more a favour, than a command, whereas what is directed as to the preciſe day is rather a command, than a favour. Now it being a rul'd caſe, That Favours are rather to be enlarg'd, than reſtrain'd, eſpecially under a Diſpenſation, which is ſo manifeſtly gracious, as that of the Goſpel is, there may be reaſon enough for our interpreting what is ſaid concerning the Circumciſion of Infants to the equal, or rather greater benefit of Infants now, and conſequently that Sacrament, which came in place of it, to be rather haſtned, than deferred to a day, to which poſſibly they may not arrive, but however to be given them as ſoon, as a convenient opportunity preſents it ſelf. Add hereunto the difference there is between Circumciſion, and Baptiſm as to the trouble, or danger, which may attend the adminiſtration of them to ſuch tender bodies, as thoſe of Infants are. For there being a greater trouble, and danger to Infants from the Rite of Circumciſion, than there is from the Rite of Baptiſm; There might be greater reaſon for the deferring of that to the eighth day, than there is for the deferring of this. And what is therefore, as to that particular, directed concerning Circumciſion, not to be drawn into example in the matter of Baptiſm, though other more material, and more advantagious circumſtances are.

But leaving what is commonly urg'd againſt the Argument from the Circumciſing of Infants, becauſe, as I ſuppoſe, ſufficiently aſſoil'd by the foregoing diſcourſe. Let us take a view of ſuch Objections as ſtrike more directly at Infant Baptiſm, or at leaſt of the more material ones. Such as I take to be firſt the want of an expreſs command, or direction for the adminiſtring of Baptiſm to Infants; Secondly, their being incapable of that regeneration, which is the great intent and end of Baptiſm, or giving no ſutable indications of it afterwards; Thirdly, their being as incapable of anſwering what is prerequired to it on the part of the perſons to be baptized, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it.

That which ſeems to ſtick much with the Adverſaries of Infant Baptiſm, and is accordingly urg'd at all turns againſt the Friends, or Aſſerters of it, is the want of an expreſs command, or direction for the adminiſtring of Baptiſm to them. Which objection ſeems to be the more reaſonable, becauſe Baptiſm, as well as other Sacraments, receiving all its force from Inſtitution, they may ſeem to have no right to, or benefit by it, who appear not by the inſtitution of that Sacrament to be intitled to it, but rather, by the qualifications which it requires, to be excluded from it. And poſbly more might be of the opinion of the Objecters, if there had not been before an expreſs Law for admitting Infants to that righteouſneſs of Faith, of which Baptiſm is a ſign, and a means of conveyance, and for admitting them too by ſuch an outward ſign, as that of Baptiſm is. But ſuch an expreſs law having been before given by God, and that law as notorious as any law in either Teſtament, there was no reaſonSee Stillingfleet's Irenicum. Part 1. cap. 1. §. 3. for God to give any ſuch expreſs law for the ſo adminiſtring of Baptiſm, or for us to expect it from him: It being eaſie to collect from the Analogy there is between the two Sacraments, and the great graciouſneſs of the preſent diſpenſation, that what was communicated to the Children of Abraham's poſterity by the ſign of Circumciſion, which was then the ſtanding way of adminiſtring it, was alike intended for the Children of thoſe, who were to as good, or better purpoſe the Children of the ſame Abraham, and intended too to be tranſmitted to them by their particular Sacrament, and to which (as was before obſerv'd) the great graces of the Goſpel were annex'd by our SaviourJoh. 3.5. himſelf. Which Argumentation is ſo much the more reaſonable, becauſe it appears by what was but now ſuggeſted, that our Saviour, whoſe Inſtitution Baptiſm was, gave a ſufficient indication of his own kindneſs to that tender eſtate, yea of his owning thoſe, that were of it, to have a right to that Kingdom of Heaven, to which Baptiſm by his own appointment was intended to admit men.

The next great Objection againſt the Baptiſm of Infants is their ſuppos'd incapacity of that regeneration, which is the great end, and intent of Baptiſm, or giving no ſuitable indications of it, when they begin to be in a natural capacity to exert it. The former whereof the Anabaptiſts argue from the Scripture's ſpeaking of it1 Pet. 1.23. as produced by the word of truth, and other ſuch rational means; As the latter by the little appearance there is of it in many of thoſe, that are baptiz'd, after they arrive at the years of diſcretion: Eſpecially where, as it often happens in the Dominion of the Turks, they are taken away from their Parents, before they come to be of any years, and bred up in the Mahumetan Religion. For under this they are ſo far from giving any indications of a Chriſtian regeneration, that our Religion hath no greater, or more implacable enemies, than they.

As to what is argu'd toward the proof of Infants incapacity of regeneration from the Scriptures ſpeaking of it as produc'd by the word of truth, and other ſuch rational ways of procedure, I muſt needs ſay I do not ſee why it ſhould be alledg'd in this particular, unleſs it any where intimated, that there was no other way of producing it, no not in the Souls of Infants. For the Scripture ſpeaking to, and of men converted from Judaiſm, or Heatheniſm to Chriſtianity, and conſequently brought to it in a rational way; What is ſpoken of their regeneration, is not to be drawn into example here, unleſs the ſame Scripture did any where intimate that there was no other way of regeneration than that, or it could not be otherwiſe produced. Which beſide the affront it offers to the omnipotency of God's ſpirit, and which even in men muſt be ſuppoſed to have the chiefeſt ſtroke, will need no other confutation, than Gods creating man at firſt after his own image without any concurrence of his, and producing in our Saviour, even in his conception, that perfect holineſs, which was in him. For why may not God produce in an Infant that imperfect regeneration, whereof we ſpeak, as well as he did that more perfect Righteouſneſs, and true Holineſs, wherewith our firſt Parents were created, or that more excellent, as well as more durable one, which he did in our Saviour from the very beginning, and which the Scripture it ſelf attributes to the Holy Ghoſt's overſhadowing his Mother's Womb? But it may be, though Infants are not incapable of regeneration, and ſo far forth cannot with reaſon be debarr'd the Sacrament of it; Yet there is evidence enough upon the poſtfact, that no ſuch thing is collated in their Baptiſm, and that Baptiſm of theirs therefore not to be look'd upon as a legitimate one. For if the regeneration we ſpeak of were collated in the Baptiſm of Infants, it would, (becauſe all Infants are alike qualifi'd for that Sacrament) be collated in ſome meaſure upon all of them, which yet the future behaviour of many of them doth render juſtly queſtionable: Many of them being untoward enough, when they firſt come of years, though advantaged by a ſutable education, and others (as was before ſaid) taken away early from their Chriſtian Parents, and both educated in a contrary Religion, and made zealous Proſelytes of it. Which things how they ſhould be conſiſtent with that regeneration, whereof we ſpeak, is at leaſt very difficult to apprehend. And poſſibly theſe two things have ſtuck more with conſidering men than moſt of the other Arguments that have been brought againſt Infant Baptiſm, and have perhaps given as much trouble to all thoſe, who have duly conſider'd them. But whether they are in truth of that force, which they ſeem to be of, may well be doubted by thoſe, who ſhall conſider this regeneration as the ſtate of Infants requires, or at leaſt makes it reaſonable enough to do; I mean as a weak, and imperfect thing, and rather as the ſeed of a more ſtrong, and perfect regeneration, than a thoroughly form'd, and well ſetled one. For ſo if we conceive of it, we ſhall find no great difficulty to apprehend firſt, that where there is not only nothing of a Chriſtian education to excite, and improve it, but a contrary one from the very beginning, and ſuch a one in particular as Chriſtian Children have from the Turks; So, I ſay, it will not be difficult to apprehend, but it may be perfectly overwhelm'd, and choaked by it: As that ſeed in the Parable was, that was ſown among Thorns, or as that may be ſuppos'd to be, that is covered over with rubbiſh, and hindred by it from ſprouting forth. And though I cannot ſay the ſame of the regeneration of ſuch perſons, as have afterwards had a Chriſtian, and it may be a careful education to excite it (for here one would think it ſhould every where more forcibly exert it ſelf) yet this I may, which will be of equal force, that in that caſe it may equally fail for want of thoſe perſons exciting it, in whom that ſeed is ſown, or of their anſwering by their care, and endeavour that education, which is made uſe of in order to it. For Baptiſm (as hath been often ſaid) being in the nature of a ſtipulation, or Contract, where ſomewhat is to be perform'd by the party Baptized, as ſoon as he is in a capacity to do it, as well as by him, with whom the contract is made; No wonder if, when the baptized perſon comes to be in a capacity to perform his part, and doth not, he with whom the Contract is made, do firſt withdraw his bleſſing from that, which he hath before ſown in him, and afterward the ſeed it ſelf. For in either of theſe caſes we cannot expect ſuch indications, or effects of the Baptiſmal regeneration, as otherwiſe we might, and as do actually ſhew themſelves in many of thoſe, who have been made partakers of it. It may be enough that God hath furniſh'd ſuch perſons with a regeneration, which during their minority will qualifie them for, and ſecure them to his Kingdom, and a regeneration too which, if well improv'd, will grow into a more complete, and effectual one, and in fine bring them to a due holineſs, and unto God. If the baptized perſons will, when they are in a capacity to do better, neglect to excite it, or will oppoſe it, they muſt thank themſelves, if they miſcarry, and not lay the blame upon any failure on Chriſt's part, and much leſs deny his having conferred it on them.

The third, and laſt great Objection againſt the Baptiſm of Infants is their being incapable of anſwering what is prerequired to it on the part of the perſons that are to be baptized, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it. Which incapacity they argue, as to the former of theſe, from the Scripture's pre-requiring Faith, and Repentance to it, as the latter from that ſtipulation, which Baptiſm involves, and which Infants are equally incapacitated to make.

The Anſwer, which our Catechiſm makes to theſe difficulties, or at leaſt to the former, is, that they promiſe them both by their ſureties, which promiſe, when they come to Age, themſelves are bound to perform. And poſſibly this Anſwer might be better digeſted than it is, if the minds of thoſe, who argue againſt Infant-Baptiſm, were more free, and unprejudic'd, than they commonly appear to be. Becauſe firſt what is urg'd againſt Infant-Baptiſm upon the account of its being a ſtipulation, or Contract is equally of force againſt the Circumciſion of Infants, becauſe that was equally a Covenant, or rather a ſign of it, and a means of entring into it. Which notwithſtanding, the Infants of Abraham's poſterity were by the Command of God himſelf admitted to it, and thereupon reckon'd as in Covenant with him. Now if the Infants of Abraham's poſterity were by the Command of God admitted into Covenant with him; What ſhould hinder the Infants of Chriſtians from Covenanting in like manner with him, and ſo far forth from being admitted to the participation of that Sacrament, which is a ſign of the ſame gracious Covenant, and a means of entring into it? Again Secondly, though Infants cannot in ſtrictneſs Covenant with God, becauſe neither having reaſon enough to apprehend the terms of it, nor will to determine themſelves to the performance of them; Yet as they may by favour be admitted to a partnerſhip in a Covenant, and where God, or Chriſt is the perſon, with whom they contract, obliged when they come of years to anſwer their part in it, ſo by the ſame favour of him, with whom they contract, what is done to them, or for them, may be interpreted as a promiſe on their part for the performance of it. By which means though they ſhould not be capable of a ſtrict, and proper ſtipulation, yet they may of that, which is interpretatively ſuch. The only farther doubt in this affair is, whether God accepts of ſuch a ſtipulation, which his accepting of it under the Covenant of Circumciſion, and from the Children of Abraham's natural poſterity will eaſily remove. For the Covenant of Baptiſm being no way inferior in it ſelf to (or rather but the ſame Covenant in a different dreſs with) the Covenant of Circumciſion, nor the Children of Abraham's ſpiritual ſeed inferior to thoſe of the natural one; What was accepted of under the Covenant of Circumciſion, and from the Children of Abraham's natural ſeed may as reaſonably be preſum'd to be accepted of under Baptiſm, and from the Children of his ſpiritual. How much more, when (as was before ſhewn) his Son, and our Saviour ChriſtMark 10.14. hath commanded Children to be brought to him for his benediction, and grace, and his Apoſtle and our great Inſtructer S. Paul declar'd the Children of Chriſtians to be holy, yea where but one of the Parents is ſo? Thus we may rationally anſwer what is objected againſt the ſtipulation of Infants, and conſequently againſt their taking upon them what is requir'd of them in the receiving of Baptiſm; Which will leave nothing to us to make anſwer to, but their ſuppoſed incapacity for that faith, and repentance, which ſeem to be pre-required to it, and which one would think they, that are to be baptiz'd, ſhould bring with them in ſome meaſure, as well as make a promiſe of. But beſide that thoſe TextsMark 16.15, 16. Acts 2.38. Acts 8.37., which ſpeak of theſe prerequiſites, do all manifeſtly relate to adult perſons, and ſuch as are brought to Baptiſm by the preaching of the Goſpel, and therefore not lightly to be urg'd in the caſe of Infants; There are theſe three ſubſtantial reaſons to make a difference between Infants, and Men as to this particular. Firſt, that Infants are not admitted to Baptiſm, and the graces of it upon the account of any right in themſelves, but of the right of their Parents. Secondly, that they are admitted for the preſent to a leſſer portion of the Divine graces, than adult perſons are, and ſuch as are rather the ſeeds of them, than any throughly form'd, or well ſetled ones. Thirdly, that what right they receive by their Baptiſm to future, and more perfect priviledges, depends for their actually attaining them upon their exhibiting that faith, and repentance, which at the time of their Baptiſm they only made a promiſe of. For if (as is alledged in the firſt reaſon) Infants are not admitted to Baptiſm and the Graces of it, upon the account of any right in themſelves, but of the right of their Parents; What ſhould hinder the Church from lending Accommodatillis mater Eccleſia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut faceantur, ut quoniam quod aegri ſunt alio peccante praegravantur, ſic cum hi ſani ſunt alio pro eis confitente ſalventur. Aug. de Verb Apoſt. Serm. 10. , or Infants from borrowing from it the feet of other men, that they may come, the heart of others that they 〈◊〉 believe, the tongue of others that they may confeſs, that becauſe, in that they were ſick, they were preſſed down by anothers ſin, they may, when they are made whole, be ſaved by the confeſſion of another? If again (as is alledged in the ſecond reaſon, and prov'd before in the matter of regeneration) Infants are admitted for the preſent to a leſſer portion of the divine Graces, than adult perſons are, and ſuch as are rather the ſeeds of them, than any throughly form'd, or well ſetled one; Who can think but that a like difference ought to be between them as to the prerequiſites of their Baptiſm, and that therefore not to be urg'd as to the caſe of Infants, which was prerequired of the other? In fine, if (as is alledged in the third reaſon) what right Infants receive by their Baptiſm to future, and more perfect priviledges, depends for their attaining of them, upon their exhibiting that Faith, and Repentance, which at the time of their Baptiſm they only made a promiſe of; It may be time enough, when that right is to be actuated, to exhibit that Faith, and Repentance, and ſo make way for it, as they, who are of years, do. Otherwiſe more ſhall be ſuppos'd to be requir'd of Infants, than is of adult perſons themſelves; Becauſe that Faith and Repentance is not requir'd of the latter, till the full priviledges of Baptiſm are to be beſtow'd upon them. And I ſhall only add, that if care were taken that the Faith, and Repentance of thoſe, who were baptiz'd in their Infancy, were as well enquir'd into, and prov'd as their knowledge in the Catechiſm is, before they were allow'd to be confirm'd; The Church would not only better diſcharge the truſt, that is repoſed in her as concerning thoſe perſons, whoſe Faith and Repentance were not before prov'd, nor could be, but more effectually ſtop the mouths of the Anabaptiſts, than all the Arguments ſhe, or her Sons offer for Infant Baptiſm, will ever be able to do. For ſo ſhe would make it appear, that though ſhe contented her ſelf in their Baptiſm with the promiſe that was made for them, or rather with that tacit ſtipulation, which their very Baptiſm involves; Yet ſhe was as mindful, when they came of years, to oblige them to the performance of it, and to give due proofs in their own perſons of all thoſe things, which Baptiſm in adult perſons doth either pre-ſuppoſe, or oblige to the performance of.

PART XII. Whether Baptiſm may be repeated. The Contents.

What the true ſtate of the preſent queſtion is, and that it is not founded in any ſuppos'd illegitimateneſs of the former Baptiſm, but upon ſuppoſition of the baptized perſons either not having before had, or forfeited the regeneration of it, or fallen off from that Religion, to which it doth belong. Whereupon enquiry is made, whether if ſuch perſons repent and return, they ought to be baptiz'd anew, or received into the Church without. What there is to perſwade the repeating of Baptiſm, and what the Church hath alledg'd againſt it. The Churches arguments from Eph. 4.4. and Joh. 13.10. propoſed, but wav'd. The Churches opinion more firmly eſtabliſhed in the no direction there is in Scripture for rebaptization in thoſe caſes, but rather the contrary, and in the no neceſſity there is of it. The Arguments for rebaptization anſwer'd.

IV. THE fourth, and laſt queſtion relating to the right Adminiſtration of Baptiſm is whether it may be repeated. Which queſtion is not founded in any ſuppos'd illegitimacy of the former Baptiſm (for that is here taken for granted to have been good, and valid) but upon ſuppoſition of the baptized perſons either having not before receiv'd, or forfeited the regeneration he acquir'd by it, or fallen off altogether from that Religion, into which he was baptized. In which caſes, ſuppoſing the perſon to repent of his former either impiety, or Apoſtaſie, it is enquir'd whether he may be baptiz'd anew, or receiv'd into the Communion of the faithful without it.

Now though, if Men would abide by the Doctrine of the Church, this queſtion would be of eaſie reſolution; S. Cyprian Epiſt. 71. Ad Quintum. Nos autem dicimus eos, qui inde veniunt, non rebaptizari apud nos, ſed baptizari. Neque enim accipiunt illic aliquid, ubi nihil eſt, ſed veniunt ad nos, ut hîc accipiant, ubi gratia, & veritas omnis eſt, quia & gratia & veritas una eſt. himſelf, who was ſo fierce for the rebaptizing of thoſe, who had been baptiz'd by Hereticks, yet advancing not that Aſſertion of his upon a belief of Baptiſm's being to be repeated, provided it were a legitimate one, but on ſuppoſition of the former Baptiſms being no true, and genuine one; Yet will it not be of ſo eaſie a reſolution, if that Authority be laid aſide, and the thing in queſtion weigh'd rather by Arguments, than ſuffrages. For what do they differ in effect from Heathen, or Inſidels, who either never before had, or have fallen quite off from the regeneration, or faith of Baptiſm? And if they differ not at all from them, why ſhould they not, if they repent, and return, be received as Heathen, or Infidels, I mean by the Sacrament of Baptiſm? Eſpecially, when in the ordinary diſpenſation of God the graces of the Sacrament are annexed to the Sacrament, nor can be expected without it. For, that ſuppos'd, why ſhould not theſe men, being to begin their Chriſtianity a-new, come a ſecond time under that Sacrament, which is to enter beginners into it, and give them the regeneration, and remiſſion of it?

Of what force theſe Objections are, ſhall be afterward conſidered; The only reaſon of my preſent mention of them is to ſhew, that the queſtion is not without its difficulty, and that if we will ſatisfie our underſtandings ſo, as to be able to ſatisfie others, we muſt enquire into the grounds of the Churches opinion, as well as be ſatisfied, that the Church hath been ſo perſuaded. Which we ſhall find the more reaſon for, becauſe one principal Text, which hath been alledged, ſeems not to come up to it, nor indeed to have any relation to that affair; That I mean, which ſuggeſts one Baptiſm Eph. 4.5. as well as one Lord, and one Faith in him. For the deſign of the Apoſtle in that place being to perſwade the Epheſians to unity, and peace among themſelves, as that too, among other things by there being one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptiſm, cannot ſo reaſonably be thought to mean any other, than that they all had one common Lord, to whom they related, one common Faith in that Lord, and one common Baptiſm, or mode of initiating into it: That unity, as it beſt agrees with that one hope of their calling, by which they are alſo preſt, becauſe declared to be one Eph 4.4., in which they were all called; So moſt naturally, and moſt immediately enforcing that agreement with one another, for the inculcating whereof they are all ſuggeſted. I ſay not the ſame, nor can of that unity of Baptiſm, which imports only a ſingle adminiſtration of it to one, and the ſame perſon; That unity, though it may oblige the perſon to ſtick cloſe to his Religion, and to the profeſſion he hath made of it in that one Baptiſm of his, yet perſwading not any adheſion to, or unity with other Baptized perſons, than as they may be ſuppos'd to partake in common with him in it. But it may be there is more force in what is alledged from our Saviour, where he ſaithJoh. 13.10., that he, that is waſhed, even by a more general waſhing, needeth not ſave to waſh his feet. And ſo no doubt there is, if by the former waſhing be meant the waſhing of Baptiſm, as ſome of the Antients conceiv'd, and as I have elſewherePart 2. made it probable. But there is this exception againſt it, as to the thing we are now about, that it ſeems to ſuppoſe the more general purity procured by it to abide, and mens affections, or actions only to have ſome pollution in them. Whereas thoſe, concerning whoſe rebaptization we intreat, either never had, or have forfeited their baptiſmal regeneration, or fallen off altogether from that Religion to which it belongs.

Now that, which in my opinion ought to have the firſt place in our thoughts is the no direction there is in Scripture for the repetition of Baptiſm, where the like Apoſtaſie, or impiety hath happened, but rather a direction to a contrary courſe. And I inſtance for the proof thereof in Simon Peter, after he had deny'd, and forſworn his Maſter; And in Simon Magus, after he had proceeded to ſo great a degree of impiety, as to offer the Apoſtles money for the gift of the Holy Ghoſt. For to the former of theſe, even S. Peter, we find no other waſhing directed, ſave thatLuk. 22.61. of penitential tears; Nay we find him admoniſhedLuk. 22.22., as well as licenſed after that converſion of his to ſet himſelf to the ſtrengthning of his brethren. Which in all probability he would not have been without a foregoing Baptiſm, if our Saviour had meant for the future, that nothing but a new Baptiſm ſhould be able to convert ſuch Apoſtates to himſelf: His paſſing over ſo great an Apoſtaſie in a prime diſciple of his upon his bare repentance being apt to encourage other men to preſume of the ſame unto themſelves. Neither will it avail to ſay, that this inſtance will not reach the caſe, becauſe it doth not appear, that S. Peter was baptiz'd before. For ſuppoſing that he were not, which yet (as was heretoforePart 2. obſerv'd) in all probability he was, the caſe of the Rebaptizers will not be render'd better, but rather ſo much the worſe for it. For if he was not baptiz'd before, there was the more reaſon he ſhould be baptized now, if nothing but a new Baptiſm generally can waſh away Apoſtaſie. The inſtance of Simon Magus is yet more clear, and unexceptionable, where the regeneration of Baptiſm hath not been before receiv'd, or forfeited after the receiving of it. For that Simon Magus either never receiv'd, or had now loſt the Baptiſmal regeneration, is evident from the words of S. Peter to him; That holy man not only curſing himActs 8.20. for his offer of money, but telling him in expreſs terms, that he had neither lot, nor part in the matter Acts 8.21. of Chriſtianity, and that his heart was not right in the ſight of God, in fine that he perceiv'd, that he was in the gall of bitterneſs Acts 8.23., and in the bond of iniquity. Which notwithſtanding, the ſame S. Peter directed him onlyActs 8.22. to repent of that his wickedneſs, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him. Which how could S. Peter have done, eſpecially in ſo notorious a caſe, if a ſecond Baptiſm had been neceſſary to waſh away that ſinful eſtate, which the former Baptiſm had not purg'd, or at leaſt which had returned after it.

My ſecond Argument againſt the repetition of Baptiſm is the no neceſſity of it in either of the foremention'd inſtances. As will appear whether we conſider it as a means of obliging us to that piety, which our Religion requires, or as a means of conveying the graces of it. For in the former notion it is as really, and effectually an obligation to a Chriſtian life in an unſincere perſon, or one who afterwards apoſtatizeth, as if it had been never ſo heartily intended; The obligation thereof ariſing not from the ſecret ſentiments of the perſon, that is baptized, or his conſtancy to his profeſſion, but from the nature of the thing it ſelf, and the Inſtitution of God, that preſcrib'd it. Provided therefore we take upon us the Sacrament it ſelf, we tie our ſelves by it without remedy, neither can there therefore be any need of our obliging our ſelves by it a ſecond time, unleſs he, who inſtituted it, ſhould require it of us. It is true indeed ſo far as we have departed from it whether by Apoſtaſie, or impiety, ſo far it will concern us to own it again to our Lord, and Maſter, by our repentance of the breaches of it, and a repetition of the ſame vows unto him; And it will concern us too, if the Church requires it, to ſatisfie that alſo, that we do ſo repent, and will amend. But as both the one, and the other may be done without the repetition of our Baptiſm, ſo a frank acknowledgment with our mouths, together with the receit of the Lord's Supper, may very well ſerve for thoſe purpoſes, becauſe ſerving a like to declare them. But it may be, the principal difficulty in this affair lies in what concerns Baptiſm as a means of conveying the graces of it, and particularly our regeneration, and new birth. And I muſt confeſs I was for ſome time at a loſs what to think in it, till I conſider'd that the Sacrament of Baptiſm was not either a phyſical cauſe, or conveyer of Grace, that we ſhould think the grace of it could not be in the receiver of Baptiſm, unleſs it were either preſently produced in him, or conveyed to him, but a moral inſtrument thereof, or a means to which God hath annexed the promiſe of it. For ſuch a one by the favour of that God, who hath annexed the promiſe of his Grace unto it, may operate at a diſtance, as well as in preſence, and accordingly may convey it to the receiver of Baptiſm, as well after his Baptiſm, as together with it, yea convey it after the baptized perſon hath loſt it, as well as it did at firſt. Which ſuppos'd, the only remaining difficulty will be, whether we may reaſonably expect it from God, ſuppoſing the baptized perſon to return, and repent. A thing, which they have little reaſon to queſtion, who believe God to allow a ſecond Baptiſm upon it, and we ſhall have far leſs, if we reflect upon the former inſtances of Peter, and Simon Magus. For if God will allow of the remedy of a ſecond Baptiſm upon repentance, why not alſo allow the firſt Baptiſm to be the means of conveying his graces, and our health, and ſoundneſs? Eſpecially, when the breaches of it come to be acknowledged, and the vow thereof renewed. And if God accepted of S. Peter upon his bare repentance, and directed Simon Magus to no other remedy, than that, and prayer; We may as well ſuppoſe, that if he accept us at all, he will accept us upon that, and our old Baptiſm, and ſo make that co-operate to the reſpective graces of it.

Theſe I take to be ſufficient Arguments againſt the repetition of Baptiſm, and the more, becauſe they alſo ſuggeſt as ſatisfactory anſwers to what hath been before alledged for it. For neither can they be look'd upon as Heathen, and conſequently as ſtanding in need of a new Baptiſm, who however they may have renounc'd the old, whether by their Impiety, or Apoſtaſie, yet ever were, and ever will be under the obligation of it. And much leſs after their repentance, and return can they be thought to want it toward the producing of that regeneration, which they are without: Their former Baptiſm, through the favour of him who annex'd the promiſe of regeneration to that Sacrament, being as effectual for that purpoſe, as any new Baptiſm whatſoever. Baptiſm is indeed generally neceſſary to regeneration, it is ſo neceſſary that no man living can promiſe it to himſelf without it; But if it be of as much value, as neceſſity, it may, and no doubt will induce him, who is the diſpenſer of his own graces, to confer it upon a former, as well as upon any new adminiſtration of it.

FINIS.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

For a Concluſion of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England.

By GABRIEL TOWERSON, D. D.

IMPRIMATUR

Liber cui Titulus, [Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, &c. By Dr. Gabriel Towerſon.] H. Maurice RRmo in Chriſto P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris.

Octob. 24. 1687.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiſwell, at the Roſe and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVIII.

TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Biſhop of ELY. My Lord,

I Am now at an end of a long, and laborious Work, begun and carried on in the more proſperous times of our Church, but finiſhed with no leſs Zeal for that Religion, which ſhe profeſſeth, and with an equal, if not greater regard to Your Lordſhip, who to your own immortal Honour, and the ſatiſfaction of all good Men, have ſo firmly adhered to it.

The Argument, that is now before me, hath (I doubt not) been handled by much better Pens, and, if I may judge by thoſe few Treatiſes which I have ſeen, in a way worthy of the Age we live in, and of that Religion, which we have the honour to profeſs. But whether any one Man hath ſpoken to the ſeveral parts thereof, which is my proper Buſineſs, is more than I my ſelf have obſerved, or receiv'd any intimation of from other Men. However, I have been ſo fearful of tranſcribing the Conceptions of others, that I have avoided to look into many things, which I my ſelf might have profited by; As conceiving that a Man's own natural thoughts, how ſlight ſoever, may be more uſeful, and acceptable, than a repetition of far better ones of other Men. If, whilſt I too eagerly purſue my own thoughts, I ſometime happen to ſtumble, they, who conſider the honeſty of my Deſign, will, I hope, be more ready to pity, and pardon, than any way inſult over my Infirmities. Which hopes I am the more confirmed in, becauſe I have all along had the Scripture in my Eye, and particularly thoſe parts thereof, which give an account of the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, and by which, if by any thing, we muſt attain a due underſtanding of it.

If what I have offer'd upon this, and the other parts of our Churches Catechiſm, may be ſo uſeful to its Members, as to furniſh them with a General Idea of the Doctrines it contains, and ſufficient Arguments to confirm them, I ſhall think my Pains to have been as profitably beſtow'd, as a Man of my Circumſtances was capable of employing them: That, which in my poor Opinion hath been the great Bane of the Church of England, being the neceſſity the Members thereof have been under of laying the foundation of their Knowledge in foreign Syſtemes, which have not only much alienated their Affections from the Religion profeſs'd among us, but ſo prejudic'd their Minds againſt it, as to make them proof againſt the greateſt Convictions, which the beſt of our Writers have been able to offer to them. Which therefore if theſe my Labours may ſerve in any meaſure to prevent, I have as much as I deſire; But however, ſhall reſt ſatisfi'd in this, that I have done the beſt ſervice I could to the Church of England, and have therefore little left me to do, ſave to pray for the Proſperity thereof, which is, and ſhall be the daily employment of

Your Lordſhip's Moſt Obliged, Moſt Obedient, and Moſt Humble Servant, GABRIEL TOWERSON. Wellwyn, March 6. 1687.
THE CONTENTS OF THE EXPLICATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
The Contents of the Firſt Part. Of the general Grounds of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm, and of his choice of that of the Lord's Supper in particular.

ENquiry firſt made into the ground of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm; And that ſhewn to be, the Sacrament of Baptiſm's leaving place for the entring in of new, and groſs Errours, and which being not ſo conſiſtent with the Vow thereof, made it ſo much the more difficult to believe, that there was any remedy to be had from the Graces of that Sacrament, becauſe forfeited by the violation of its Vow. The want of an undoubted remedy from thence the occaſion of providing a new, and, becauſe the former was apparent to our Senſes, of a like outward, and viſible one. The ground of our Saviour's choice of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in particular ſhewn at large to have been a like uſance among the Jews in their more ſolemn Feſtivals. Pag. 157.

The Contents of the Second Part. Of the Names antiently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reaſons of the Impoſition of them.

THE Lord's Supper antiently one of the Names of this Sacrament, and Evidence made from 1 Cor. 11.20. that S. Paul gave that Name to it, and not to thoſe Agapae, or Love-feaſts, that accompanied it. The reaſon of that Name it's being a Feaſt, though a ſpiritual one, inſtituted at Supper-time, and inſtituted by our Lord. The Euchariſt another Name of it, and of like Antiquity with the former, which it receiv'd from thoſe Thankſgivings, which were antiently made over it, whether for the Fruits of the Earth, or the Bleſſing of our Redemption. Breaking of Bread a third Name of the ſame Sacrament; One Species thereof, and one noted Circumſtance about it being by an uſual Hebraiſm ſet to denote the whole. Enquiry next made into ſuch Names, or Titles of it, as are moſt inſiſted on by the Romaniſts; ſuch as that of The Body of Chriſt, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Maſs. The firſt whereof this Sacrament is ſhewn to have had from the intimate relation there is between it and the Body of Chriſt, which it conveys; The ſecond from its containing in it a Thankſgiving for, or Commemoration of Chriſt's Sacrifice of himſelf upon the Croſs; The third from that ſolemn diſmiſſion, which was given to thoſe that attended at it, after that Service was finiſhed. pag. 163.

The Contents of the Third Part. Of the Inſtitution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

THE Story of the Inſtitution firſt ſet down out of the Evangeliſts, and St. Paul, and animadverted upon in the ſeveral parts of it. Where, after an account of the time of it, the conſequents whereof are alſo declar'd, entrance is made with the conſideration of the Bread, and both the quality of that Bread, and Chriſt's taking it, explain'd. This followed by a more ample declaration of Chriſt's bleſſing it, and that Bleſſing both ſhewn to have the Bread for its object, and to conſiſt in making it uſeful for the purpoſes of a Sacrament, or rather in Chriſt's addreſſing himſelf to his Father to make it ſuch. That addreſs of his thereupon carefully enquir'd into, and (becauſe it appears from St. Luke, and St. Paul to have been by Thankſgiving) enquiry alſo made what benefits he ſo gave thanks for, what uſe that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the bleſſing deſir'd, and whether it did not alſo contain ſome expreſs requeſt to God for the granting of it. Of Chriſt's breaking the Bread, its ſignification, and momentouſneſs, as alſo of his giving it to his 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. Ʋpon 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 Ʋſage 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 alledg d for the former of theſe from the ſubſtantial changes mention'd in the Scripture of no force in this particular, becauſe there is no appearance of the actual exiſting of thoſe things, into which the change was made at the inſtant the other were chang'd into them. As little force ſhewn to be in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements, whether we conſider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread, and Wine, or The thing I now give you. That ſuppoſed change farther impugned by ſuch Scriptures, as repreſent the Bread of the Euchariſt as remaining after Conſecration, by the concurrent Teſtimony of Senſe, and the Doctrine of the Antient Fathers. Enquiry next made into that Aſſertion, which imports, that the ſubſtances of the Sacramental Elements are ſo chang'd, as to retain nothing of what they were before, ſave only the Species thereof. Where is ſhewn, that if nothing of their reſpective Subſtances remain, there muſt be an annihilation, rather than a change, and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them, either from the nature of thoſe Species, the words of Conſecration, or the Teſtimony of Senſe. That the true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, a third Capital Aſſertion in this Matter, but hath as little ground in the words of Conſecration, as either of the former. Firſt, becauſe thoſe words relate not to Chriſt's glorified Body, and Blood, which are the things affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, but to Chriſt's Body, as broken, and to his Blood as ſhed at his Crucifixion. Secondly, becauſe however they may import the being of that Body, and Blood in the Euchariſt, yet they ſpecifie nothing as to the modus of it, and much leſs intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof. That that Body, and Blood (which is the fourth Capital Aſſertion in this Matter) are truly, really, and ſubſtantially under the Sacramental Species, ſhewn to be as groundleſs; and Evidence made of the contrary by ſuch Arguments from Senſe, and Reaſon, as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation. Some brief Reflections in the cloſe upon the Worſhip of Chriſt in the Sacrament, and more large ones upon what the Romaniſts advance concerning the real eating of him in it. Where is ſhewn that that, which they call a real eating, is a very improper one, that it is however of no neceſſity, or uſe toward our ſpiritual nouriſhment by him, and not only no way confirm'd by the diſcourſe of our Saviour in the ſixth of St. John's Goſpel, but abundantly confuted by it. pag. 227.

The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of Conſubſtantiation.

AN account of that Doctrine, which is by us called Conſubſtantiation, out of the Auguſtan Confeſſion, and Gerhard; And as it is founded by him, and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, ſo Enquiry thereupon made firſt, whether thoſe words ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe; Secondly, whether, if ſo taken, Conſubſtantiation can be inferred from them. That the former words ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general, and ſpecial Arguments, and thoſe Arguments therefore propos'd, and anſwer'd. What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal ſenſe of Scripture being for the moſt part to be preferr'd before the figurative, willingly allow'd; But that no exception ought to be made, unleſs where the Scripture it ſelf obligeth us to depart from the literal ſenſe, ſhewn to be neither true in it ſelf, nor pertinent to the preſent Texts, becauſe there is enough in the words, that follow them, to oblige us to preferr the figurative ſenſe before it. The Lutherans ſpecial Arguments next brought under Conſideration, and Firſt that, which is drawn from the ſuppoſed newneſs, and ſtrangeneſs of the Chriſtian Sacraments at the firſt, and which conſequently requir'd, that they ſhould be deliver'd in proper, and literal Expreſſions, as without which otherwiſe there could have been no certain knowledge of them. Where is ſhewn, that the Chriſtian Sacraments were neither ſuch new, and ſtrange things at the firſt Inſtitution of them, as is pretended (There having been the like under the Old Teſtament) nor under any neceſſity, if they had been ſuch, of being delivered in literal, and proper Expreſſions, becauſe figurative Expreſſions, with a Key to open them, might have ſufficiently declar'd the nature of them. What is urg'd in the ſecond place from the nature of a Teſtament, under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20. to have been inſtituted, ſhewn to be of as little force; Partly, becauſe it is juſtly queſtionable, whether what we there render Teſtament, ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant; and partly becauſe even Civil Teſtaments are ſhewn to admit of figurative Expreſſions. A ſhort Anſwer made to what is alledg'd in the third, and fourth place from the Majeſty of him, that inſtituted this Sacrament, and from the ſuppoſed Conformity there is between the ſeveral Evangeliſts, and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in queſtion; And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to ſhew the abſurdity of a figurative Senſe from the no place there is for it either in the Subject, Predicate, or Copula. The Copula, or the word [Is] thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in, and anſwer made to what is objected againſt it from the Rules of Logick, and from the Scripture. That the literal Senſe is not, as is pretended in the ſixth Argument, the only one that can quiet the Mind, or ſecure the Conſcience, briefly ſhewn; And Enquiry next made, whether though the literal Senſe of the words ſhould be allow'd, conſubſtantiation could be inferred from them. Which that it cannot, is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This, to denote that complexum quid, which Conſubſtantiation advanceth. p. 249.

The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the foundation of that relation, which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper.

THE foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of this Sacrament, ſhewn from ſome former Diſcourſes, to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, not ſo much as delivered by him, as applied to thoſe Elements, that are to put it on, by the Miniſter's executing the Commands of it, and Chriſt's fulfilling the Promiſes thereof. What is the foundation of this relation, on the part of the former, the ſubject of the preſent Enquiry, and his pronouncing the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, and, Hic eſt calix, &c. ſhewn not to be it, from the inſufficiency of thoſe grounds, on which it is built. What is urg'd in the behalf of thoſe words more particularly conſidered, and evidence made, that as there wants not in the Prayers, and Praiſes of the Communion-Office, that which may tend to the founding of this Relation, ſo that the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. neither now have, nor, when Chriſt himſelf uſed them, had in them the power of producing it. What the true foundation of this relation is, or what that is, which conſecrates thoſe Elements, which are to put it on, endeavour'd to be made out from ſome former Diſcourſes; And thoſe Elements accordingly conſidered, either as being to become a Sign of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, or as being to become alſo a Means of Communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to aſſure us thereof. The former of theſe relations brought about by a declaration of thoſe Purpoſes, for which the Elements are intended, whether in the words of the Inſtitution, or any other; The latter by Thankſgiving, and Prayer. The uſefulneſs of this Reſolution to compromiſe the Quarrels, that have ariſen in this Argument upon occaſion of what the Antients have ſaid on the one hand for attributing the Power of Conſecration to the Prayers, and Thankſgivings of the Prieſt, and, on the other hand, to the words of the Inſtitution; Thoſe Quarrels being eaſily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Inſtitution rather as applied, than as delivered, and as applied alſo by Prayer, and Thankſgiving, more than by the rehearſal of it. pag. 261.

The Contents of the Tenth Part. Of the right Adminiſtration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

ENtrance made with enquiring, How this Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred, and therein again whether that Bread, wherewith it is celebrated, ought to be broken, and whether he, who adminiſters this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Inſtitution, or otherwiſe to make an offering unto God of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken, as that too for the better repreſentation of the breaking of Chriſt's Body, aſſerted againſt the Lutherans, and their Arguments againſt it produc'd, and anſwered. Whether he, who adminiſters this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Inſtitution or otherwiſe, to make an offering to God of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquir'd into, and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair, conſideration had of thoſe grounds, upon which the Fathers of that Council eſtabliſh it. The words, Do this in remembrance of me, more particularly animadverted upon, and ſhewn not to denote ſuch an Offering, whether they be conſider'd, as referring to the ſeveral things before ſpoken of, and particularly to what Chriſt himſelf had done or enjoyn'd the Apoſtles to do, or as referring only to that Body, and Blood, which immediately precede them. In which laſt Conſideration of them is made appear, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may as well, and more naturally ſignifie make; That there is nothing in the preſent Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing, or, if there were, that it muſt import rather a Commemorative, than Expiatory one. What is alledg'd by the ſame Council from Chriſt's Melchizedekian Prieſthood, &c. more briefly conſider'd, and anſwer'd; And that Sacrifice, which the Council advanceth, ſhewn in the cloſe, to be inconſiſtent with it ſelf, contrary to the preſent ſtate of our Lord, and Saviour, and more derogatory to that Sacrifice, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Croſs. The whole concluded with enquiring, To whom this Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred, and particularly, whether it either ought, or may lawfully be adminiſtred to Infants. Where the Arguments of Biſhop Taylor, for the lawfulneſs of Communicating Infants are produc'd, and anſwered, and particularly what he alledgeth from Infants being admitted to Baptiſm, though they are no more qualified for it, than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. pag. 267

The Contents of the Eleventh Part. How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be receiv'd.

THE receit of this Sacrament ſuppos'd by the preſent Queſtion, and that therefore firſt eſtabliſhed againſt the Doctrine of thoſe, who make the ſuppoſed Sacrifice thereof to be of uſe to them, who partake not Sacramentally of it. Enquiry next made, How we ought to prepare our ſelves for it, how to demean our ſelves at the celebration of it, and in what Poſture to receive it. The preparation taken notice of by our Catechiſm the Examination of our ſelves, whether we truly repent us of our ſins, ſtedfaſtly purpoſing to lead a new Life, &c. and the both neceſſity, and means of that Examination accordingly declar'd. The examination of our Repentance more particularly inſiſted upon, and that ſhewn to be moſt advantageouſly made by enquiring how we have gain'd upon thoſe ſins, which we profeſs to repent of, and particularly upon our moſt prevailing ones, which how they are to be diſcover'd, is therefore enquir'd into, and the marks, whereby they are to be known, aſſigned, and explain'd. A tranſition from thence to the examination of the ſtedfaſtneſs of our Purpoſes to lead a new Life, of our Faith in God through Chriſt, our remembrance of his Death, and Charity; Where the neceſſity of that Examination is evinced, and the Means whereby we may come to know whether we have thoſe Qualifications in us, diſcover'd, and declar'd. How we ought to demean our ſelves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquir'd into, and that ſhewn to be by intending that Service, wherewith it is celebrated, and ſuiting our Affections to the ſeveral parts of it. The whole concluded with enquiring, in what poſture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd; Where is ſhewn, firſt, that the Antients, ſo far as we can judge by their Writings, receiv'd in a poſture of Adoration, and particularly, in the poſture of ſtanding; Secondly, that ſeveral of the Reformed Churches receive in that, or the like poſture, and that thoſe, that do not, do not condemn thoſe that do; Thirdly, that there is nothing in the Example of Chriſt, and his Diſciples at the firſt Celebration of this Supper, to oblige us to receive it ſitting, nor yet in what is alledg'd from the ſuitableneſs of that Poſture to a Feaſt, and conſequently to the preſent one: This, as it is a Feaſt of a different nature from common ones, and therefore not to receive Laws from them, ſo the receit thereof intended to expreſs the grateful reſentment we have of the great Bleſſing of our Redemption, and ſtir up other Men to the like reſentment of it; Neither of which can ſo advantageouſly be done, as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in ſuch a poſture of Body, as ſhews the regard we have for him, who is the Author of it. pag. 289.

ERRATA

PAge 158. line 36. r. they had. p. 160. l. antep. from of old. p. 174. l. 26. a Tranſubſtantiation. ib. l. 34. too. p. 190. l. 1. for hardly r. barely. p. 202. l. 38. after Saviour add in S Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Paul. p. 231. l. 45. r. opinion. p. 234. l. 4. for Blood r. what. ib. l. 5. for what r. Blood. p. 241. l. 12. r. corporally. p. 242. l. 46. for door r. doer. p. 247. l. 21, 22. for e receive him with Faith r. when we receive it by Faith. p. 265. l. 29. r. interlaced. p. 272. l. 19. after manner add with Chriſt. ib. l. 22. r. which follows. p. 287. l. 25. for their r. the. p. 296. l. 2. after he add thereby. p. 301. l. 37. r. had had.

Page 195. lin. 4. Sacraments. p. 242. l. 1. for 17. r. 7.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
PART I. Of the general Grounds of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm, and of his choice of that of the Lord's Supper in particular. The Contents.

Enquiry firſt made into the ground of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm; And that ſhewn to be, the Sacrament of Baptiſm's leaving place for the entring in of new, and groſs Errours, and which being not ſo conſiſtent with the Vow thereof, made it ſo much the more difficult to believe, that there was any remedy to be had from the Graces of that Sacrament, becauſe forfeited by the violation of its Vow. The want of an undoubted remedy from thence the occaſion of providing a new, and, becauſe the former was apparent to our Senſes, of a like outward, and viſible one. The ground of our Saviour's choice of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in particular ſhewn at large to have been a like uſance among the Jews in their more ſolemn Feſtivals.

BEING now to enter upon the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the only Sacrament beſide Baptiſm, that our Church allows, or indeed that Chriſtianity knows, I think it but neceſſary to premiſe ſomething concerning the general grounds of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm, and of his choice of the Lord's Supper in particular; Concerning the names, that were antiently given to that Sacrament; And concerning the Inſtitution of it: Each of theſe being of uſe toward the diſcovery of the nature of that, which I am now upon the inveſtigation of.

That which ſeems to me to have been the general ground of our Saviour's inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm, is that firſt Sacrament's leaving place for the entring in of new, and groſs Errors, and conſequently a kind of neceſſity, on the part of Chriſt, of new ſenſible means, and aſſurances of that Grace, which is to remove them, and a like neceſſity, on our part, of ſuch new declarations of our renouncing our former Errors, and giving up our ſelves to his Service. For though Baptiſm (as was beforeExpl. of Bapt. Part 6. obſerv'd) profeſs to mortifie our Corruptions, and regenerate our Natures; Though it do it in ſuch a meaſure as to make us Conquerours over the former, and change the latter for the main into pious, and holy: Yet as it leaves placeExpl. of the Lord's Prayer, in the words, Forgive us, &c. in the beſt of Men for new Errours to enter in, and which accordingly they are enjoyn'd to ask daily the forgiveneſs of; ſo it is equally apparent from the experience of the World, and from the care the Scripture2 Cor. 2.6. Gal. 6.2. takes for the reſtoring of lapſed men, that Baptiſm doth not ſo reform mens Natures, but that through the prevalency of temptations, or their own careleſneſs they may fall into great and ſcandalous Errours, and ſuch as cannot therefore be ſuppos'd to be conſiſtent with that Holineſs, which in Baptiſm they made profeſſion of. Now as in ſuch a caſe it is eaſie to ſee, that men would have been apt to deſpond, if they had had nothing but their Baptiſm to truſt to, becauſe having by the breach of their Baptiſmal Vow forfeited their title to the Graces of it: So it ſeem'd therefore little leſs than neceſſary to have ſome new Remedy aſſign'd them, and ſuch as ſhould be as apparent to their ſenſe, as their former was, as which otherwiſe could not have been ſo ſatisfactory to them. For by the ſame reaſon that it came to be thought needful to make uſe of ſenſible means to convey, or aſſure to mankind God's Pardon, and Grace upon their firſt converſion to Chriſtianity; By the ſame, or a greater Reaſon it muſt be judg'd to be ſo to make uſe of the like ſenſible means to convey, or aſſure the ſame Grace, and Pardon, after men have in any meaſure forfeited the intereſt they have in the other. By the ſame reaſon again that it came to be thought needful to exact of us ſenſible declarations of our renouncing the Errours of our unconverted eſtate, and giving up our ſelves to Chriſt's ſervice; By the ſame, or a greater Reaſon muſt it be judg'd to be ſo to exact of us the like ſenſible declarations, after we have by our diſobedience departed from, and prevaricated the former ones. It is true indeed Chriſt might, if he had ſo pleas'd (For no man dreams of any abſolute neceſſity of either) have convey'd, and aſſur'd to us the divine Pardon, and Grace by the ſole Miniſtry of his Word; And he might too have receiv'd us to both upon the like verbal declarations from our ſelves: But as he might as well have done both upon our firſt converſion to Chriſtianity, and yet choſe rather to do it by the mediation of Baptiſm; So if there were any reaſon for the former (as to be ſure Chriſt doth not act without one) there is equal reaſon for the latter, and an equal neceſſity conſequently of his inſtituting another Sacrament after Baptiſm to ſupply thoſe defects, which Baptiſm could not ſo well provide for. Sure I am, whilſt the Precepts of Chriſtianity were yet freſh in the minds of men, and they therefore as ſenſible of the leaſt violations of them; ſuch was their opinion of the neceſſity of another Sacrament after Baptiſm, that they paſs'd immediately from thatJuſtin Martyr, Apol. 2. to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and (which is more) were ſo intent upon it, that no day paſs'd them without the receit of it, but however no day, wherein there was an opportunity of aſſembling themſelves for the publick Worſhip of God, and celebrating the other parts of it.

But becauſe the former defects might have been provided for by other Sacraments, and thoſe defects therefore no proper ground of Chriſt's choice of this particular one; Therefore it will be requiſite for us to find out ſome other ground of it, and which, all things conſider'd, cannot better be fix'd, than in an uſage of the Jews, and which being ſo, might with their better liking be converted by him into a Sacrament, and more readily receiv'd and embrac'd.

From Paulus Fagius we have it, as I find it both in himſelf Annot. in Deut. 8.10., and in Caſſander Liturgic. in initio., that in the more ſolemn Feaſts of the Jews the Father of the Family preſently after his ſitting down with his Gueſts took a Cup full of Wine in his right hand, praying over it in theſe words, Bleſſed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, who createſt the Fruit of the Vine. Which ſaid, he firſt of all taſted of it himſelf, and then reach'd it out to all, that ſate with him. Preſently after he took a Loaf of Bread, and holding it with both his hands conſecrated it in theſe words, Bleſſed be thou O Lord our God, who bringeſt Food out of the Earth. Which ſaid, he brake it, and after he had eaten a piece of it himſelf, gave the like to each that ſate with him. Thus that Learned Man informs us, that the Father of the Family did at their ſitting down at their more ſolemn Feaſts; As after the Feaſt was over, that he, or ſome other perſon, to whom he committed it, taking a ſecond time a Cup full of Wine into both his hands, prayed, Let us bleſs him, who hath fed us of his own, and by whoſe goodneſs we live: Paſſing on from thence to other Bleſſings, and Prayers, and particularly to bleſs God for the Food, which he had afforded to them all, and for all the Benefits beſtow'd either on their Fathers, or themſelves, and to pray unto him in like manner for the ſtate of their Nation, for the reſtoring of Jeruſalem, for the coming of Elias, and the Meſſiah, and particularly for their Domeſticks, and Kindred. After which the ſame perſon began as before, Bleſſed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, who createſt the Fruit of the Vine, and thereupon again drank a little of the Wine himſelf, and then gave it in order to his Gueſts.

Now as it is eaſie to gueſs by the likeneſs there is between our Sacrament, and this Uſance, that our Sacrament, or rather the Author thereof took his Pattern from thence, if that Uſance be ancienter than the Sacrament it ſelf; So there is juſt ground to believe it was, both from what we find in St. Luke's account of Chriſt's celebration of the Paſſover, and this Sacrament, and from the manner wherewith this Sacrament was celebrated in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity. For St. Luke in his account of the former Solemnities takes notice of our Saviour's taking a Cup, giving thanks over it, and diſtributing it among his DiſciplesLuke 22.17, 18. with this farther Remark, that he ſaid he would not drink any more of the fruit of the vine (the particular title here us'd) until the kingdom of God ſhould come. And the Ancients in their mention of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, ſpeak of the Symbols thereof as alike intended for memorials of their thankfulneſs to God for the Bleſſings of this World, as well as for the Bleſſing of their Redemption. For thus Juſtin Martyr firſt affirms the Bread of the Euchariſt to have been given by our Saviour to usDial. cum. Tryph. pag. 260. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., that we might at the ſame time give thanks to God for having made the World with all things in it, for the ſake of Man, and for delivering us from the evil, in which we ſometime were, by him, whom he made paſſible for us. As Irenaeus Adv. haereſ. lib. 4. c. 32. Sed & ſuis diſcipulis dans conſilium primitias deo offerre ex ſuis creaturis non quaſi indigenti, ſed ut ipſi nec infructuoſi, nec ingrati ſint, eum, qui ex creatura panis eſt, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc eſt corpus meum. Et calicem ſimiliter, qui eſt ex ea creatura, quae eſt ſecundum nos, ſuum ſanguinem confeſſus eſt, & novi Teſtamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Eccleſia ab Apoſtolis accipiens in univerſo mundo offert deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praeſtat, primitias ſuorum munerum in novo Teſtamento. in like manner, that Chriſt giving his Diſciples counſel to offer to God the Firſt-fruits of his Creatures, not as to one, that wanted them, but that they themſelves might not be ungrateful, or unfruitful, he took Bread, and gave thanks, ſaying, This is my Body. And the Cup in like manner, which is of that Creature, which is according to us, he confeſſed to be his Blood, and taught a new oblation of the New Teſtament. Which Oblation the Church receiving from the Apoſtles, offers in all the World to God, even to him who gives us Food, the Firſt-fruits of his Gifts in the New Teſtament. Agreeable hereto is that of Origen, though not ſo clearly expreſs'd as the former paſſages were. For theſe Reaſons, ſaith heContr. Celſ. lib. 8. p. 399. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., Let Celſus, who knows not God, pay the teſtimonies of his thanks to Devils, even for the Benefits of this World. But we being deſirous to pleaſe the maker of the Ʋniverſe, eat even thoſe Loaves, which are offered with Thankſgiving, and Prayer over the things beſtow'd upon us, being now made by Prayer a certain Holy Body, and one which ſanctifies thoſe, who uſe it with a good intention: Plainly intimating by the oppoſition he there makes between Celſus's paying the teſtimonies of his thanks to Devils for the Benefits of this World, and our eating of the Euchariſtical Bread with reſpect to the maker of the Ʋniverſe, that the Chriſtians of old ate of it with regard to the Creation of the World, and the Benefits thereof, as well as with reſpect to the redemption of it by the Body of his Son. Now from whence, I pray, conſidering the no intimation there is of any ſuch thing in the Inſtitution of Chriſt, or Saint Paul's rehearſal of it; from whence, I ſay, that regard to the Creation of the World, and the Benefits thereof, but from thoſe Thankſgivings, which from old deſcended to them from the Jews, together with the Inſtitution of Chriſt? And which being ſo will prove the Uſance before remembred not to have been the Uſance of the latter Jews only, but of thoſe, who were as old as our Saviour's time, and that Paſſover, which he celebrated among them. Add hereunto, what is apparent from the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, the Prayers of the Euchariſt deſcending to ſuch Interceſſions for all ſorts of men, as the Prayers of the Jews over their Euchariſt appear to have done. For theſe are a yet farther proof of the Antiquity of that Jewiſh Service, and that our Saviour copied his own Inſtitution by it.

What uſe theſe Obſervations may be of, will be more fit to declare elſewhere, neither ſhall I therefore at this time ſet my ſelf to the inveſtigation of it. At preſent I deſire only it may be remembred, that in this Exemplar of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper both the one, and the other Element thereof were conſecrated with Thankſgivings, and the Bread of it, though conſecrated in the maſs or lump, was yet carefully broken off from it in order to a diſtribution of it; That as the Cup, as well as the Bread had a place in that Euchariſt, ſo it was alike diſtributed among the Communicants, yea diſtributed at the end, as well as at the beginning of that Solemnity; In fine, that the Ancient Fathers look'd upon our Euchariſt as in part of the ſame nature with it, and accordingly both repreſented it as an Euchariſt for the Fruits of the Earth, and profeſſed to eat of the Bread of it, after it was become the Body of Chriſt, as a teſtimony of their thankfulneſs to God for the other.

PART II. Of the Names antiently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reaſons of the Impoſition of them. The Contents.

The Lord's Supper antiently one of the Names of this Sacrament, and Evidence made from 1 Cor. 11.20. that S. Paul gave that Name to it, and not to thoſe Agapae, or Love-feaſts, that accompanied it. The reaſon of that Name it's being a Feaſt, though a ſpiritual one, inſtituted at Supper-time, and inſtituted by our Lord. The Euchariſt another Name of it, and of like Antiquity with the former, which it receiv'd from thoſe Thankſgivings, which were antiently made over it, whether for the Fruits of the Earth, or the Bleſſing of our Redemption. Breaking of Bread a third Name of the ſame Sacrament; One Species thereof, and one noted Circumſtance about it being by an uſual Hebraiſm ſet to denote the whole. Enquiry next made into ſuch Names, or Titles of it, as are moſt inſiſted on by the Romaniſts; ſuch as that of The Body of Chriſt, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Maſs. The firſt whereof this Sacrament is ſhewn to have had from the intimate relation there is between it and the Body of Chriſt, which it conveys; The ſecond from it's containing in it a Thankſgiving for, or Commemoration of Chriſts Sacrifice of himſelf upon the Croſs; The third from that ſolemn diſmiſſion, which was given to thoſe that attended at it, after that Service was finiſhed.

THAT, which comes next in order to be conſider'd, is the Names antiently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reaſons of the Impoſition of them. Both which I will the more accurately conſider, becauſe Names being intended for the declaration of thoſe things, which they are ſet to denote, ſome light may accrue from thence toward the diſcovery of the nature of that, which we are upon the inveſtigation of.

Now the firſt Name I ſhall take notice of is that of the Lord's Supper, becauſe a name given to it by our ſelves, and by the reſt of the Reformed alſo. But with what regret of the Romaniſts, Baronius'sAnnal. Eccl. Ad. Ann. Chriſt. 34. Num. 45. charging the Reformed with the abuſe of it, and Maldonate's Not. in Mat. 26.26. affirming it to be done without any Authority from Scripture, or Antient Authors, doth ſufficiently declare. How much Maldonate was out in what he ſaid as to Antient Authors, I refer my ſelf to Iſaac Caſaubon Exercit. 16. s. 32., who hath ſaid enough to wipe off that calumny. It ſhall ſuffice me to eſtabliſh that title of the Lord's Supper from the Authority of St. Paul, where he tells his Corinthians 1 Cor. 11.20. that what they did, when they came together, was not to eat the Lord's Supper. For though that, which he reproves in them, even1 Cor. 11.21. every one's taking before other his own Supper, pertained not to the nature, or ſubſtance of the Sacrament, and ſo may ſeem to refer the title of the Lord's Supper, rather to thoſe Agapae, or Love-feaſts, that then accompany'd it, than to the Sacrament it ſelf; Yet will it not from thence follow, but that we may, and ought to underſtand St. Paul there of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the Corinthians violating it by that means.

That we may underſtand St. Paul there of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the Corinthians violating it by taking before other their own Supper, is probable firſt from what St. Paul affirms, both here1 Cor. 11.10. and elſewhere1 Cor. 3.4. concerning their diviſions, and from the proof they gave of it in their taking before other their own Supper. For being divided into ſeveral factions, and ſuch as were each of them under their peculiar head, it is not unlikely but they, who took before other their own Supper, took before other in their reſpective parties the ſacred Myſteries alſo, and ſo did yet more nearly offend againſt the ſanctity of that Sacrament, and gave occaſion to St. Paul to tell them, that that was not to eat of it. But let us ſuppoſe that that was not the fault of the Corinthians, but only their taking before other their own ſupper only; Yet will not that hinder but St. Paul might tell them, that that was not to eat the Lord's Supper, yea though he underſtood only the Sacrament thereof. Becauſe, ſecondly, thoſe Agapae, or Love-feaſts (if it be lawful ſo to call the Feaſts of theſe Corinthians) being joyned with the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, did by that very conjunction of theirs caſt a blemiſh upon that Sacrament, wherewith they were ſo conjoyn'd. And what then ſhould hinder St. Paul from telling them, that that was not to eat the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but rather contrary to it, becauſe by that near conjunction of their's offering a particular affront to it? Which reaſon will be yet more valuable, if we conſider, Thirdly, That the principal end of theſe Men's coming together in the Church, yea to thoſe very Agapae in it, was to celebrate the Sacrament, and other ſuch exerciſes of piety, and devotion. For being ſo, what was found to be contrary to that end was ſo much the more neceſſary to be taken notice of, and they, who were guilty of it (as they ought to be) reproached with it.

But why ſtand I ſo long to prove that we may underſtand St. Paul in that place of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, yea though what is ſaid concerning it relate more immediately to the abuſe of their Agapae? For there wants not reaſon enough to believe, that we ought to underſtand St. Paul of it, as well as have liberty to do ſo. Partly, becauſe that title belongs not at all to thoſe Love-feaſts, as being not inſtituted by Chriſt, but taken up, as is probable, in imitation of the Jews, who celebrated their Euchariſt at Feaſts, or in imitation of our Saviour's celebrating his at the Feaſt of the Paſſover; But more eſpecially becauſe St. Paul preſſeth the Corinthians there with the firſt inſtitution of the Euchariſt1 Cor. 11.23., and calls upon them to reflect upon, and conſider it. For to what purpoſe all that, unleſs that were the Lord's Supper he ſpake of before, and which he affirm'd their practice to be contrary to the due eating of? And I ſhall only add, that as that notion of the Lord's Supper is the more reaſonable to be embraced here, becauſe St. Paul but juſt before1 Cor. 10.21. repreſented this Sacrament as the Table of the Lord; So there was reaſon enough for the impoſition of that name upon it, whether we do conſider it as a Feaſt, a Supper-feaſt, or a Supper-feaſt of the Lord: Becauſe intended as a Communion of that Body, and Blood, by which we are to be nouriſhed to eternal life, inſtituted at firſt at Supper time, and both inſtituted by, and intended for a Commemoration of our Lord.

Next to the name of the Lord's Supper, reckon we that of the Euchariſt, or Thanksgiving, for ſo the word Euchariſt imports. A name thought to have been given to it in the time of the Writel of the New Teſtament, but however following cloſe after it. For thus they are wont to interpret what we find in St. Paul 1 Cor. 14.16, 17., where he diſputes againſt praying in an unknown tongue. Elſe when thou ſhalt bleſs with the Spirit, how ſhall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned ſay Amen at thy Euchariſt, or giving of thanks, ſeeing he underſtandeth not what thou ſayeſt? For thou verily giveſt thanks, or celebrateſt the Euchariſt well, but the other is not edified. Where we have not only the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which are made uſe of to denote what our Saviour did to the Elements of this Sacrament, but an intimation of that Amen, which we ſhall underſtand afterwards from Juſtin Martyr to be return'd to the office of it. However that be, moſt certain it is that this name of Euchariſt followed preſently upon thoſe times, as appears by the familiar uſe of it in Ignatius's Epiſtles. For thus he tells us in one placeEp. ad Smyrn. pag. 5. ed Voſſ., That certain hereticks abſtain'd from the Euchariſt, and prayer, becauſe they confeſs'd not the Euchariſt to be the fleſh of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt. And preſently after ib. pag. 6., Let that Euchariſt be accounted firm, which is under the Biſhop, or to whom he ſhall commit it. As without whom (as it follows) it is not lawful to Baptize, or celebrate a Love-feaſt, but only what he ſhall approve. In fine (ſaith the ſame Ignatius elſewhereEp. ad Phil. pag. 40. ) endeavour therefore to uſe one Euchariſt. For there is one fleſh of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and one Cup for the union of his Blood. Agreeable hereto, that I may not now deſcend any lower, was the language of Juſtin Martyr's time, as may appear from theſe following teſtimonies; Where he doth not only ſhew this to have been the name of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but acquaints us with the reaſons of their ſo denominating it. After prayers (ſaith he) Apol. 2. pag. 97. are done, we ſalute one another. Then is offer'd to him, who preſides over the Brethren, Bread, and a cup of Water and Wine. Which he taking, ſendeth forth praiſe, and glory to the Father of the Ʋniverſe, through the name of the Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and maketh a large Thanksgiving unto God, for that we have been made worthy of theſe things by him. Having thus completed the prayers, and Thanksgiving, all the people preſent ſignifie their Aſſent to it by an Amen, which in the Hebrew Tongue is as much as, So be it. After that the Preſident hath thus given thanks, and the people anſwer'd Amen, they, who among us are called Deacons, give to every one, that is preſent, of that Bread, and Wine, and Water, over which thanks hath been given, and carry it to thoſe that are abſent. And this Food (ſaith he) is among us called the Euchariſt, to wit becauſe of the Thankſgivings before remembred. To the like purpoſe doth the ſame Father diſcourſe elſewhereDial. cum Tryph. Jud. pag. 259, &c. , ſpeaking ſtill of the ſame Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And that offering of fine flowre, which was delivered to be offered for thoſe, that were cleanſed from the Leproſy, was a type of the Bread of the Euchariſt, which Jeſus Chriſt our Lord commanded us to celebrate in remembrance of that paſſion, which he ſuffered for thoſe, that are cleanſed in their Souls from all the wickedneſs of Men; That we might at the ſame time give thanks, or keep an Euchariſt to God both for his having made the World, and all things in it for the ſake of man, and for his having delivered us from that wickedneſs, in which we ſometime were, and having perfectly diſſolv'd Principalities and Powers, by him, who was made paſſible according to his will. From which places it is evident, that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had at that time the title of the Euchariſt, or Thanksgiving, ſo it receiv'd its name from thoſe Thankſgivings, which were us'd over the Elements thereof, and which what they were I ſhall in another place have a more fit occaſion to enquire. All I deſire to obſerve at preſent is, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper receiving one of its moſt noted names from thoſe Thankſgivings, that were us'd over the Elements thereof, we are in reaſon to think that thoſe Thankſgivings contribute in a great meaſure to that ſaving nature, and efficacy they put on.

I may not forget to add, becauſe that ſeems as antient as any, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was alſo known by the name of breaking of Bread; Not only the Syriack verſion, but reaſon alſo obliging us ſo to underſtand St. Luke, where he tells us that the firſt Converts of the ApoſtlesActs 2.42. continued ſtedfaſt in the Apoſtles doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in prayer; As again of the Diſciples of Epheſus Acts 20.7., that they came together on the firſt day of the week to break Bread. For what other breaking of Bread can we underſtand there, where it is joyn'd with the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, and prayers, and moreover made the ſpecial buſineſs of the Aſſemblies of that day, which was from the beginning ſet apart for the honour, and ſervice of Almighty God? Agreeable hereto was the language of Ignatius's time, as appears by this following teſtimony: He deſcribing thoſeep. ad Epheſ. pag. 29. , who communicate with the Biſhop, and his Presbytery in the exerciſes of Religion, as breaking that one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, an antidote againſt death, and a means of living in Jeſus Chriſt for ever. And it had no doubt its original from the Hebrews manner of ſpeaking, who (as I have elſewhereExpl. of the Lord's Prayer, in the words, Give us this day out daily Bread. ſhewn) under the title of Bread comprehended the whole of their entertainments, and from the breaking of the Bread of the Euchariſt's being one ſpecial ceremony about it, and intended (as St. Paul remarks)1 Cor. 11.24. to ſignifie the Breaking of Chriſt's body. After which, if any Man can think fit to make uſe of ſuch like paſſages to juſtifie a Communion in one kind, he may as well hope to ſhew, that even the Feaſts of the Hebrews (for of ſuch I have ſhew'nExpl. of the Lord's Prayer ubi ſupra. the word Bread to be us'd) were dry entertainments, or that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks were only drinking ones.

But becauſe it cannot be deny'd that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had other kind of names of old, and ſuch as may ſeem to be of a higher ſtrain, than any I have as yet aſſign'd; And becauſe Cardinal Baronius Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 34. n. 48. &c. hath inſiſted much on them to juſtify from thence the Doctrine of his Church concerning it; Therefore I will inſtance in three, on which he ſeems to lay the greateſt ſtreſs, I mean thoſe of the Body of Chriſt, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Maſs.

That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had antiently the name of the Body of Chriſt, ſeveral places are alledged out of Tertullian, and two in particular out of his book de Oratione, cap. ult. Similiter & ſtationum di bus non putant plerique ſacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod ſtatio ſolvenda ſit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum deo, obſequium Euchariſtia reſolvit, an magis deo obligat? Nonne ſolennior erit ſtatio tua, ſi ad aram dei ſteteris? Accepto corpore Domini, & reſervato, utrumque ſalunm eſt, & participatio ſacrificii & executio officii. which cannot be otherwiſe underſtood. And God forbid, that any ſhould deny that name to the element, which Chriſt himſelf hath declar'd to be his Body. But as the queſtion is not, Whether the outward element either is, or hath been called by the name of Chriſt's Body, but in what ſenſe we are to underſtand it either to be, or to be ſo called: ſo what Tertullian meant, is evident from what he ſaith upon that argument againſt Marcion, who made our Saviour's natural body to have been a phantaſtical one Therefore (ſaith heAdv. Marc. lib. 4. c. 40. Profeſſus itaque ſe concupiſcentiû concupiſſe edere Paſcha ut ſuum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupiſceret Deus) acceptum panem, & diſtributum diſcipulis corpus illum ſuum fecit, hoc eſt corpus meum dicendo, id eſt figura corporis mei. Figura autem non ſuiſſet, niſi veritatis eſſet corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod eſt phantaſma, figuram capere non poſſet.) profeſſing himſelf with deſire to have deſir'd to eat that Paſſover as his own (for it were unworthy that God ſhould deſire that, which is another's) he made that Bread, which he took, and diſtributed to his diſciples, to be his own Body, ſaying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. Now it could not have been a figure, unleſs the body were of truth. But an empty thing, ſuch as a phantaſm is, could not be capable of any figure. Now can any Man think after this, that Tertullian, when he call'd the Euchariſt the Body of Chriſt, underſtood it to be ſuch in propriety of ſpeech? Or that they do other than tranſubſtantiate his, and the Church's meaning, who make ſuch an inference from his words? His, I ſay, who made the words, This is my Body, to ſignifie, This is the figure of my Body, and argued againſt Marcion from that very figure, the reality of that Body, of which it was one. How much more proper had it been for Tertullian, if he had ſo underſtood this title of the Euchariſt, or our Saviour's words, to have preſt him with the Euchariſt's being in truth, and in the ſenſe of the Church his true and ſubſtantial body, and therefore alſo, becauſe the ſame with that, which was given for us, that that was a true, and ſubſtantial one? or rather, how much more proper had it been for that Father not at all to have argued from Chriſt's body there? Leſt Marcion ſeeing no true, and ſubſtantial body of a Man in it, he ſhould have been more confirm'd in his opinion of Chriſt's having had only an imaginary one? But as it appears from hence, that Tertullian had not ſo groſs a conceit of that Auguſt Title, which was given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; So that Title had, no doubt, its original from the intimate relation there is between the ſign, and the thing ſignified by it: It being not unuſual, or improper to give unto the ſign the name of the thing ſignified, but eſpecially to ſuch a ſign as is alſo a conveyer of thoſe Bleſſings it declares. For thus Baronius himſelf obſerves out of St. Auguſtine De peccat. merit. lib. 1. c. 24. Optimè Punici Chriſtiani Baptiſmum ipſum nihil aliud quàm ſalutem, & Sacramentum corporis Chriſti nihil aliud quàm vitam vocant., That the Carthaginian Chriſtians called Baptiſm it ſelf health, or ſalvation, and the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt, life. Which they could not be in any other ſenſe, than as the means of the conveyance of them, or (as St. Paul expreſſeth it concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) the Communion, or Communication of them. For from whence (as the ſame St. Auguſtine Ʋnde niſi ex antiquâ, ut exiſtimo, & Apoſtolicâ traditione, quâ Eccleſiae Chriſti inſitum tenent praeter Baptiſmum, & participationem dominicae menſae non ſolum non ad regnum Dei, ſed nee ad ſalutem, & vitam aeternam poſſe quenquaem hominum pervenire. goes on) thoſe titles of Salvation, and Life, but from an antient and Apoſtolical Tradition in the Church, That no Man can come to ſalvation, and eternal life without the participation of thoſe Sacraments; any more than he can do to the kingdom of God?

But becauſe the foremention'd Baronius tells us that the Sacrament, whereof we ſpeak, had alſo the name of an Oblation, or Sacrifice, as that too becauſe of the offering there made for ſin, or an expiatory one; Therefore it will be neceſſary for us to go on to enquire into that name, and ſo much the rather, becauſe the ſame Author is ſo copious in his Quotations concerning it. And I readily grant that this Sacrament is frequently ſo call'd by the Antients, but that it was call'd ſo for the reaſon alledg'd, is utterly deny'd, neither can there be produc'd any convincing proof of it. The utmoſt, that is ſaid by thoſe, who are the moſt antient, is, that it is an Euchariſtical oblation, as that too for the bleſſings of this World, and particularly for the fruits of the earth, as well as for the bleſſing of our Redemption. And to that purpoſe, and no other are the ſayings before quoted out of Juſtin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and Origen. Which how they agree with their deſigns, who repreſent this Sacrament as an expiatory Oblation, or Sacrifice, I ſhall leave to all indifferent Men to judge. And though it be true, that ſome of thoſe, who followed, ſpake in another ſtrain, and repreſented it alſo as an oblation for the benefit of the Offerers, and others, as well as an Euchariſtical oblation for benefits receiv'd; yet it is evident from Mr. Mede, Diſc. on Mal. 1.11. cap. 9. that the Antients meant no more by that Oblation, or Sacrifice, than a Commemorative one, by that ſacred rite of Bread and Wine repreſenting to God, and the Father, the expiatory Sacrifice of his Son upon the Croſs, and as it were putting him in mind of it, that ſo he would for the ſake of that Son, and the valuableneſs of his ſacrifice be propitious to them, and to all thoſe, whom they recommended to his grace, and favour. And indeed as it is not difficult to conceive, that they, who meant no more, when they call'd the Euchariſt the body of Chriſt, than its being a figure, and a memorial, and a means of its conveyance, meant no more, when they entituled it a ſacrifice, than a Commemoration of that great one, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Croſs; So it is evident that St. Cyprian, (with whoſe authority Baronius begins his proofs) meant no more, than ſuch a Commemorative Sacrifice. For in that very EpiſtleAd Caecil. de ſacr. Dom. Cal. Ʋt calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.—Et quia paſſionis ejus mentionem facimus in ſacrificiis omnibus (paſſio eſt enim Domini ſacrificium, quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quam quod ille fecit, facere debemus:— Quotleſcunque ergo calicem in commemorationem Domini, & paſſionis ejus offerimus, id quod conſtat Dominum feciſſe, ſaciamus. Epiſt. 63. which he ſeems ſo much to ſtand upon, St. Cyprian affirms, That the cup of that Sacrament is offer'd in commemoration of our Lord, and that, becauſe we make mention of his paſſion in all ſacrifices (For the paſſion of the Lord is the ſacrifice, that we offer) we ought to do no other thing, than what he himſelf did; And again, Therefore as often as we offer the cup for a commemoration of the Lord, and his paſſion, let us do that, which it is manifeſt that the Lord did. I will conclude this affair with the words of Peter Lombard Lib. 4. Diſt. 12. G., becauſe they not only ſhew the former notion to have been the ſenſe of the Antients in this particular, but make it evident alſo that that of an expiatory Sacrifice is but a novelty in the Church of Rome it ſelf. After theſe things, ſaith he, it is enquir'd, whether what the Prieſt doth be properly call'd a Sacrifice, or Offering, and whether Chriſt be every day offer'd, or only once. To this it may be ſaid in ſhort, that that, which is offer'd, and conſecrated by the Prieſt, is called a Sacrifice, and Oblation; Becauſe it is the Memorial, and Repreſentation of the true Sacrifice, and the Holy Offering that was made upon the Croſs. And Chriſt died once upon the Croſs, and was there offered in himſelf. But he is every day offered in the Sacrament, becauſe in the Sacrament a remembrance is made of that, which was once done. Whereupon St. Auguſtine: We are aſſur'd that Chriſt riſing from the dead doth not now die any more, &c. Yet leſt we ſhould forget what was once done, it is every year done in our memory, to wit, as often as the Paſchal Feaſt is celebrated. Is Chriſt then ſo often kill'd? But only an anniverſary Remembrance repreſents what was heretofore done, and ſo cauſeth us to be mov'd, as if we ſaw the Lord upon the Croſs. This, and more doth that Author alledge out of St. Auguſtine and Ambroſe, which ſhews what notion they, as well as he, had of this Sacrament's being alſo a Sacrifice. And if they, who inſiſt ſo much upon its having been intituled a Sacrifice, will content themſelves with this, and the former ſenſe, we will allow that they have the Fathers on their ſide, but otherwiſe to have no title to them in this affair.

I ſhall not need to ſay much concerning the name Miſſa, or Maſs, though that hath for a long time been appropriated to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: Partly, becauſe antiently it was common to other ſervices with it, and nothing therefore, that is ſingular, to be inferr'd therefrom toward the clearing of the nature of this; And partly, becauſe it had its Original, not (as Baronius would have it) from the Hebrew, or Chaldee word Miſſah, which he ſaith is us'd Deut. 16.10. for that Free-will Offering, which the Iſraelites offer'd to God in gratitude for the Fruits of the earth, but from the diſmiſſion of thoſe, who pertain'd to the ſame ſervice, after that ſervice was finiſh'd. For thus we read in Antient AuthorsVid. Juſtel. in notis ad Cod. Eccl. univ. can. 123. of the Miſſa Catechumenorum, as well as of the Miſſa Fidelium, of the Maſs of thoſe, who were not ſuffer'd to be preſent at the Lord's Supper, as well as of thoſe, who were invited, and admitted to it. If in tract of time the word Miſſa, or Maſs came to be reſtrain'd to the ſervice of the Lord's Supper, it was in all probability becauſe as the diſcipline of the Catechumens wore outCave's Primit. Chriſt. Part 1. cap. 9., ſo their Maſs, or Service wore out alſo, and thereby nothing left to give that title to, but that, which was of old entitled the Maſs of the Faithful; Or becauſe the Maſs of the faithful was the more eminent part of the Chriſtian ſervice, and ſo in time came to appropriate to it ſelf that name. And though Baronius out of Reuchlin (for I find by Polydore Virgil De invent. rerum lib. 3. c. 11. , that he was the firſt Author of that fancy) derive the word Miſſa, or Maſs from the Hebrew, or Chaldee word Miſſah, which, as they ſay, ſignifies a free-will Offering in the place but now quoted; yet is there in truth no ground for ſuch a conceit, if either the due ſignification of that word, or the text it ſelf be more nearly conſider'd. Becauſe the word Miſſah neither in that place, nor in any other ſignifies a free-will Offering, but only ſufficientia vid. Grot. in Deut. 16.10. & Lexicogr. or quantum ſufficit, and is in that particular place ſet only to denote that, which might ſuffice, according to their reſpective abilities, for ſuch a Nibdath Jadeka, or free-will Offering of their hand, as the Iſraelites were then oblig'd to celebrate the Feaſt of weeks with. Whence it is, that the ſame word is in the Chaldee Paraphraſe frequently made uſe of to render the Hebrew Dai, or ſufficient, and the Septuagint expreſs it here by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according as thy hand ſhall be able. But therefore as that account of the word Miſſa, or Maſs muſt be look'd upon as a very idle one, and only agreeable to thoſe dawning times, wherein it firſt appear'd; So there is ſtill the more reaſon to believe what Polydore Virgil ubi ſupra., and after him many others have ſuggeſted, that it had its original from the diſmiſſion, that was given to thoſe, who pertained to any ſervice, after that ſervice was finiſhed. Which may the more reaſonably be believ'd, becauſe Ite, Miſſa eſt, is the concluſion of the Maſs even now, and which, conſidering the place it hath in this ſervice, as well as the word Ite, to which it is joyn'd, cannot be thought to denote any other thing, than that the Deacon doth by thoſe words of his, Miſſam, or Miſſionem facere, give leave to the people to depart, and ſo juſtifie yet more the account we have before given of the title of that ſervice. For when it is evident from the ſtory of the Church, and particularly from Dionyſius the Areopagite Eccl. Hierarch. c. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., that the Catechumens, and others were formally diſmiſt the congregation upon the finiſhing their reſpective ſervice; When it is farther evident from the preſent Canon of the Maſs, that the faithful were alike diſmiſt after that their ſervice was over, and not only ſo, but by theſe very words, Ite, Miſſa eſt, Depart you, for you have now a diſmiſſion, or free leave to do ſo: What can be more clear, than that the word Miſſa, or Maſs, had its original from that diſmiſſion, and that the ſeveral ſervices of the Church, and this of the faithful in particular had that name, becauſe they, who pertained to it, and attended on it, were at the end thereof ſolemnly diſmiſt, and ſent away to their own home? Only if any be fond of that Rabbinical notion, which makes it to import a voluntary oblation, becauſe of the near cognation it may ſeem to have to that ſacrifice, which they are willing to advance; Let them in God's name enjoy it, provided they look upon it as only an Euchariſtical one (of which nature the Miſſah in Deuteronomy was) or a commemoration of that voluntary oblation, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Croſs. For whatever may be ſaid againſt that Etymology of the word, nothing can be ſaid from Antiquity againſt the ſuppoſed ſenſe of it; Becauſe all Antiquity acknowledg'd that, which hath the title of the Maſs, to be either an Euchariſtical, or commemorative Oblation.

PART III. Of the Inſtitution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Contents.

The Story of the Inſtitution firſt ſet down out of the Evangeliſts, and St. Paul, and animadverted upon in the ſeveral parts of it. Where, after an account of the time of it, the conſequents whereof are alſo declar'd, entrance is made with the conſideration of the Bread, and both the quality of that Bread, and Chriſt's taking it, explain'd. This followed by a more ample declaration of Chriſt's bleſſing it, and that Bleſſing both ſhewn to have the Bread for its object, and to conſiſt in making it uſeful for the purpoſes of a Sacrament, or rather in Chriſt's addreſſing himſelf to his Father to make it ſuch. That addreſs of his thereupon carefully enquir'd into, and (becauſe it appears from St. Luke, and St. Paul to have been by Thankſgiving) enquiry alſo made what benefits he ſo gave thanks for, what uſe that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the bleſſing deſir'd, and whether it did not alſo contain ſome expreſs requeſt to God for the granting of it. Of Chriſt's breaking the Bread, its ſignification, and momentouſneſs, as alſo of his giving it to his 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 figurativeneſs of the propoſition lies in the word is. Ʋpon 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.

IT is very obſervable,

Queſtion. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordain'd?

Anſwer. For the continual remembrance of the ſacrifice of the death of Chriſt, and of the benefits we receive thereby.

and was accordingly long ſince taken notice of by Iſaac Caſaubon Exercit. 16. s. 28., That when Baronius was to give an account of the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, which three Evangeliſts, and St. Paul had carefully deſcrib'd, inſtead of producing the words of thoſe Scriptures, as he often doth upon leſs occaſions, and beſtowing (as was but reaſonable) a juſt Commentary upon them, he ſlubbers it over with this imperfect ſtoryBaron. Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. Chriſti 34. num. 45. ſhall I ſay, or rather with this perverſe interpretation of it. In which Supper (ſpeaking of that of the Paſchal Lamb) that ineffable Sacrament was inſtituted, whereby Tranſubſtantiation was made of Bread, and Wine into the Fleſh, and Blood of Chriſt, into the very body of Chriſt entire under both ſpecies. Then alſo 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. A Man would have thought that, whatever interpretation he had afterwards made of it, one, who pretended to be an Hiſtorian, ſhould at leaſt have given a more particular, and perfect account of that whole action, and, as near to as might be in the words of ſome of thoſe Holy Men, that had tranſmitted it to poſterity. And ſo no doubt this Hiſtorian would have done, if there had not been ſomewhat in the words of the Inſtitution, to which the practice of his Church had made a non obſtante to be neceſſary. But as he ſaw but too well how ill the practice of his Church anſwer'd what was then done, and enjoyn'd by our Saviour; ſo he therefore choſe rather to give that imperfect, as well as inſincere account of it, and endeavour to ſupply what was wanting by an account of thoſe names, which were antiently given to this Sacrament, with the declarations of the Antient Fathers concerning them. God be thanked we of the Church of England are under no ſuch neceſſity of either ſlightly paſſing over, or any way perverting the Story of this Holy Sacrament. And therefore being now by the order of my diſcourſe to entreat of the Inſtitution of it, I will ſet down the Story thereof in the words of thoſe, that firſt deliver'd it, and bound my Obſervations by them.

Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. 26. And as they were eating, Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed it, and brake it, and gave it to the diſciples, and ſaid, Take, Eat, This is my body. 22. And as they did eat, Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed, and brake it, and gave to them, and ſaid, Take, Eat, This is my body. 19. And he took Bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, ſaying, This is my body, which is given for you, This do in remembrance of me. 23. For I have received of the Lord that, which alſo I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jeſus the ſame night, in which he was betrayed, took Bread:       24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and ſaid, Take; Eat, This is my body, which is broken for you; This do in remembrance of me. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, ſaying, Drink ye all of it. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 20. Likewiſe alſo the cup after Supper, ſaying, 25. After the ſame manner alſo he took the cup, when he had ſupped, ſaying, 28. For this is my blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. 24. And he ſaid unto them, This is my blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many. This cup is the New Teſtament in my blood, which is ſhed for you. This cup is the New Teſtament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me 29. But I ſay unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. 25. Verily I ſay unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day I drink it new in the kingdom of God.    

Now the firſt thing I ſhall take notice of in the Hiſtory of this Sacrament is the Time of the Inſtitution of it. Which we learn from St. Paul to have been the ſame night, in which he was betray'd, from the context of the ſeveral Evangeliſts, at the Celebration of the Feaſt of the Paſſover, or rather toward the cloſe of it; It being whilſt they were yet eating, that two of them affirm, that he took the Bread of it, and bleſs'd, and brake, and gave it, but ſo near the concluſion of that Feaſt, that St. Luke, and St. Paul tell us, that it was after Supper before he took the Cup, and gave thanks over it, and gave it to his Diſciples. And though I do not pretend to affirm, neither do I know any ſober Man that doth, that there is any obligation upon us for celebrating it after Supper, or any other Meal: Our Saviour's celebrating it then being in compliance with thoſe Jews, whoſe Inſtitution he now tranſcrib'd, and reform'd, and probably alſo to intimate its ſucceeding to that ſolemnity: Tho I acknowledg it to have been an antient uſageTert. de Cor. cap.3. in the Church to celebrate it at their Meetings before day, and, where it was not ſo ſoon, yet beforeAug. Epiſt. 119. ad Janu. their eating of any thing elſe, as that too out of reſpect to that Sacrament; Yet I ſee as little reaſon to grant, that there is any more of religion in receiving it faſting, than what the cuſtom of the Church, or the Laws of decency give it: It being not otherwiſe to be thought, that our Saviour would have inſtituted it at Supper time, or rather preſently after it; And much leſs, that St. Paul would have given it in command to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11.34., that if any Man hungred, he ſhould eat at home before he came to the participation of it, and of thoſe Agapae, that attended it.

From the Time of the Inſtitution paſs we to the Inſtitution it ſelf, and the ſeveral things done, and ſaid in it.

Where the firſt thing I am to take notice of is Chriſt's taking Bread, to wit into his hands, and probably from off that table, on which it was plac'd; Agreeably to that uſance of the Jews, which he fram'd his own Euchariſt by, and where (as was beforePart 1. obſerv'd) the Father of the Family held it in both his hands, whil'ſt he us'd the words of Conſecration, or Bleſſing over it. However, he ſo took it, to be ſure, as to ſeparate it from what other Bread then was upon the Table, as which the word took, in the moſt ſimple notion of it, will oblige us to believe; This importing the choice of ſome particular Bread from out the reſt, and leaving the other to the ordinary uſes of it. Now the Bread, which our Saviour thus took, was either ſome whole Loaf of Bread, anſwerably to the former uſance, or at leaſt ſome larger, but entire piece of one, as appears by the breaking of it into ſeveral pieces anſwerably to the ſeveral perſons, that were to partake of it. And it was alſo, agreeably to the time when it was made uſe of, unleavened Bread, as the Latines have truly obſerv'd againſt the Greeks; It being upon the firſt day of the feaſt of unleavened Bread, as three of the EvangeliſtsMat. 26.17. Mark 14.12. Luke 22.7. have obſerv'd, that that Paſſover, which immediately preceded this Sacrament, was celebrated, and conſequently that this Sacrament alſo was. But why it ſhould be ſo far urged againſt the Greeks, as to make it the matter of a quarrel, is a very unaccountable thing, unleſs there were ſomewhat either in the words, or in the rites of the Inſtitution, which directed to the uſe of unleavened Bread only. For leavened, or unleavened matters not after the taking away of that Law, which made the difference; And much leſs, where the preſent Law requires only1 Cor. 5.8. the laying aſide of the leaven of malice, and wickedneſs, and keeping our Paſſover feaſt with the unleavened Bread of ſincerity, and truth.

It followeth in the Story, And Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed (as St. Matthew, and St. Mark deliver it) or (as St. Luke, and St. Paul after him) gave thanks. A thing, which will require a more accurate conſideration, becauſe of the momentouſneſs thereof; It being to that Bleſſing, or Thankſgiving probably that we are to aſſign that both change in it, and effects of it, which are afterwards attributed to it. That therefore we may the better underſtand this whether Bleſſing, or Thankſgiving, we will conſider the words apart, and firſt Chriſt's being ſaid to bleſs, or bleſs it, even the Bread.

For the better underſtanding of which word we are to know, that though to bleſs ſimply conſidered may as well refer to God, as to the thing, over which that Bleſſing is made; Yet we are in reaſon to underſtand it here, as relating to the Bread, as our Tranſlators in the ſtory of St. Matthew plainly do, becauſe adding the word it to bleſſed: And Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed it. And my reaſon is firſt, becauſe bleſſed being a tranſitive verb, it is by the common rules of conſtruction to refer to that noun ſubſtantive, that immediately preceded it, even the Bread, and not to any remoter one, or to one that is not expreſs'd. How much more then if thoſe verbs, which follow, even brake, and gave do alſo refer to it, as they, who make Hoc eſt corpus meum the words of Conſecration, muſt neceſſarily allow? For what can be more congruous than to believe, when the verb bleſſed is a tranſitive one, that it referrs to the ſame noun ſubſtantive, even Bread, to which the foregoing verb took, and the following ones brake, and gave do? But that, which is no doubt of much more force in this affair, and will more determine the verb bleſſed to Bread, is the uſe of the ſame word in St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.16., when applied to the Cup of the Sacrament, as it ſeems to be to the Bread here. For by the ſame reaſon that the Cup is there affirmed to be bleſſed by thoſe, that adminiſtred it, and not only ſo, but intimated to be call'd the Cup of Bleſſing for that reaſon; by the ſame reaſon are we to underſtand the word bleſſed here to relate to the Bread of it, and that our Saviour really bleſſed it, as well as bleſſed God, or gave thanks to God over it. And thus far we have the accord of the Council of Trent it ſelfSeſſ. 13. cap. 1. Ita enim Majores noſtri omnes, &c. apertiſſimè profeſſi ſunt hoc tam admirabi'e Sacramentum in ultimâ coenâ Redemptorem noſtrum inſtituiſſe, cum poſt panis, & vini benedictionem ſe ſuumque ipſius corpus illis praebere, ac ſuum ſang uintem diſertis, ac perſpicuis verbis teſtatus eſt., becauſe applying the Bleſſing here ſpoken of to the Bread, yea affirming our Lord Jeſus Chriſt to have bleſſed the Wine as well, as that.

Bread therefore being the thing, which our Saviour is ſaid to have bleſſed, enquire we in the next place what is meant by his bleſſing it. Which muſt be learn'd in part from the nature of that Bleſſing, wherewith it was bleſſed by him, and in part alſo from the intereſt, which our Saviour had in the beſtowing of it. Now what the nature of that Bleſſing was, wherewith the Bread was bleſſed by him, will appear, if we conſider for what end it was appointed by him, who ſo took, and bleſſed it. Which we learn from the Inſtitution it ſelf, and from St. Paul's Comment upon it, to be in an eſpecial manner for the communion of his Body. For the deſign of the divine Bleſſing being to make the thing bleſſed to be uſeful for that end, for which it was appointed; If the Communion of the Body of Chriſt was the end, for which the Bread of the Lord's Supper was appointed, the Bleſſing, wherewith it was bleſſed, muſt conſequently conſiſt in its uſefulneſs for that end, or ends, for which it was ſo appointed by him. Which will leave nothing more to us to account for, than the intereſt, which our Saviour had in beſtowing that Bleſſing on it. Now, what that is may appear from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or giving of Thanks, which St. Luke, and St. Paul make uſe of to expreſs the ſame thing, as St. Mark, and St. Matthew alſo do to expreſs the Bleſſing of the Cup. For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or giving of Thanks importing him, to whom it is attributed, to addreſs himſelf unto another, Our Saviour muſt be ſuppos'd to have acted in the bleſſing of that Bread, not as one, who conferr'd that Bleſſing upon it himſelf, but as one, who addreſs'd himſelf to another for the beſtowing of it, even to him, to whom he gave Thanks. Which Particular may the more eaſily be believ'd, becauſe when he only bleſs'd the five Loaves, and two Fiſhes, to give Nouriſhment to that five thouſand Men, whom he meant to refreſh, he look'd up to Heaven Luke 9.16. at the very inſtant of it, which ſhews from whence he look'd for the beſtowing of it, even from his Father, that was there. The reſult of the Premiſſes is this: Our Saviour being now about to appoint the Bread of the Lord's Supper for a Communion of his Body, and other ſuch ſacramental Purpoſes, addreſs'd himſelf to the Father (from whom every good and perfect Gift cometh) to make the Bread, which he now took, uſeful for thoſe Purpoſes, or (that I may ſpeak in the language of St. Matthew, and St. Mark) to bleſs it for them. With what kind of Addreſs, or Addreſſes, will beſt be learn'd by that word, which St. Luke, and St. Paul made uſe of to expreſs that action of his, even the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or giving of Thanks, and which therefore I am in the next place to explain.

Now as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth undoubtedly ſignifie giving Thanks, and is accordingly ſo us'd both by profane, and ſacred Authors; As it muſt farther ſignifie in this place (becauſe our Saviour in this particular inſtance could have no other to give Thanks to) his giving Thanks to his Father, and ours; So nothing more therefore will be requir'd toward the underſtanding of it, than to ſhew 1. What Benefits he ſo gave Thanks for. 2. What Uſe that Thankſgiving was of toward the procuring of the Bleſſing deſir'd. 3. Whether it did not alſo contain in it ſome expreſs Requeſt to God for the granting of that Bleſſing to it.

1. What Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for is not expreſs'd either by the Evangeliſts, or St. Paul, and muſt therefore be learn'd by what they have expreſs'd, and particularly concerning the great End of the Inſtitution of this, and the other Element of this Sacrament. Which if we guide our ſelves by, we ſhall find this Thankſgiving of our Saviour to have been for the giving of him to die for the Redemption of ſinful Man, and other the like ends of his Death. For requiring his Diſciples afterwards to do what he had done for the remembrance of him, and particularly of the breaking of his Body for them, he muſt conſequently be ſuppoſed to have given Thanks to God for giving him for thoſe gracious Purpoſes, as which was the chief deſign of the whole, and which could not be remembred, as it ought, without ſuch a Thankſgiving for it. I think it as reaſonable to conclude, ſecondly, that our Saviour gave Thanks alſo for directing himſelf (who ſpake, and did what he did by Authority from the Father) to this Element of Bread for the Communion of his Body to his Diſciples, and Followers: This, as it was by the Inſtitution it ſelf to be a means of the Communion of his Body, and ſo much the more comfortable one too, becauſe it was alſo manifeſt to their Senſes; So being a like object of thankfulneſs to him, who had eſpous'd his Diſciples intereſt as his own, and to thoſe Diſciples that were to be profited by it, and conſequently not to be thought to have been forgotten by him. Theſe two great Benefits I think, and I ſuppoſe not without reaſon, to have been the Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for, and poſſibly alſo ſuch Benefits as were preparatory to our Saviour's Death, and particularly his Conception, and Birth. But other Benefits than thoſe I know no ground to believe, and much leſs the creation of this, and other the Fruits of the Earth, and diſpenſing them to us by his Providence. As becauſe there is not the leaſt ground in the Inſtitution for ſuch a Thankſgiving unto God; So becauſe this, and the other Element of the Lord's Supper were appointed not for corporal, but ſpiritual ſuſtenance, and to which therefore our Saviour's Thanksſgiving, and ours may ſeem more properly to referr, and becauſe too there is appearance enough from what was before ſaid from St. Luke Luke 22.17. concerning our Saviour's taking a Cup of Wine, giving Thanks, and diſtributing it among his Diſciples immediately before the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, that he ſatisfied the Jewiſh Euchariſt before, even that, which had for its end the giving Thanks to God for earthly Benefits, and particularly for the means of our Repaſt. If the Antients (as it appears they didPart 1.) repreſented this Sacrament as an Euchariſt for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Bleſſing of our Redemption, and accordingly premis'd ſuch kind of Thankſgivings for it; I am apt to think it proceeded at firſt from its being accompanied, or rather immediately preceded (as that, which our Saviour firſt celebrated, was) by the Euchariſt of the Jews; And, when that Euchariſt was laid aſide, from a Willingneſs in the Chriſtians, that followed them, to conform their own Euchariſt ſo far to that of the Jews, ſo the better to gain them to their Religion, or oblige them to keep cloſely to it. Till at length what was done only out of compliance with the Jews, came to be look'd upon as a neceſſary part of the Chriſtian Euchariſt, and Men thought themſelves obliged to give Thanks to God in it for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Bleſſing of our Redemption. Which Opinion the Antients were the more eaſily perſwaded into, becauſe Chriſtianity1 Tim. 4.4., as well as Judaiſm taught them, before their ſeveral Repaſts, to give God Thanks for the Matter of them, and ſo ſanctifie the Uſe thereof unto themſelves. For that might tempt them farther to believe, that our Saviour premis'd ſuch a Thankſgiving to his Euchariſt, and conſequently thereto that we ought to do the like. If any Man can give a fairer account of the Antients both Opinion and Practice, I, who profeſs my ſelf to have a juſt regard for them, will be glad to receive it, and (which is more) will be as willing to acknowledge my own Errour in the former one. But till I ſee ſuch an account, I ſhall reſt ſatisfied in this, and ſo much the more willingly, becauſe they, who urge ſuch like Teſtimonies of the Antients to eſtabliſh the Sacrifice of the Maſs, inſiſt as little upon this ſort of Thankſgivings, as any of the Reformed do.

2. But to return to that, from which I have diverted, even to that Euchariſt, or Thankſgiving, which our Saviour us'd over the Bread of it. Where the next thing to be enquir'd into is, what Uſe that Thankſgiving may be ſuppoſed to be of to procure the bleſſing of the Bread. For if our Saviour bleſſed the Bread by the Thanksſgiving, which he made over it, or rather addreſs'd himſelf to God by Thankſgiving for the bleſſing of it; That Thankſgiving muſt be ſuppos'd to be of ſome uſe to procure the Divine Bleſſing on it. For the clearing of which Difficulty they, who alledge, as ſome do, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Thankſgiving is ſet to denote Prayer, as well as that, and ſo far forth may be of ſufficient force to procure the Divine Bleſſing (For what is there, that can be ſuppos'd to be deny'd to Prayer, and particularly to the Prayer of him, in whom God was well pleaſed?) ſuch Men, I ſay, alledge that, which may perhaps be true, and which I ſhall by and by endeavour to confirm. But withall they ſay that, which will not reach the Difficulty, nor give any good account of two Evangeliſts, and St. Paul's expreſſing this Addreſs of Chriſt to his Father by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or giving of thanks. For whatever elſe that word may be thought to include in it, manifeſt it is, firſt, that Thankſgiving is the primary notion of it, and that therefore in it ſelf conſider'd of a peculiar uſe toward the procuring of the Divine Bleſſing, as which otherwiſe would not have been employ'd to denote the whole Act. As manifeſt it is, ſecondly, that the Bleſſings Grot. in Mat. 26.26. of the Jews before, and after their Meals were generally Thankſgivings, and particularly that Bleſſing was, wherewith the Jews Euchariſt was begun, and clos'd. It is manifeſt, thirdly, that Thankſgivings have always had a great part in the conſecrating of our Euchariſt, and is deny'd by no Man, that I know of, that will allow Prayer to have any part in it. Which ſuppos'd, the Queſtion will ſtill return, what uſe they may be ſuppoſed to be of toward the procuring of the Divine Bleſſing, and which we muſt find out ſome other way to reſolve. In order whereunto I will conſider theſe Thankſgivings firſt as to what is common to them with all others, and then as to what is peculiar to them, as preparatory to our partaking of what we ſo give Thanks for. That, which the Thankſgivings of the Euchariſt have common to them with all others, is, that they contain that in them, which I have elſewhereExpl. of the Lord's Prayer. Diſcourſe 2. Introd. ſhewn makes Prayer it ſelf to be ſo acceptable, even an acknowledgment of our dependance upon God: He, who thanks God for the Benefits remembred in it, or for this ſenſible conveyance of them, as much acknowledging his dependance upon God, as he, who ſues to him for thoſe Benefits, or any other. And well may that be thought to be of uſe toward the procuring of the Divine Bleſſing, which is as much an acknowledgment of our dependance upon him, as any Prayer whatſoever. Of ſuch uſe are the Thankſgivings of the Euchariſt toward the procuring of the Divine Bleſſing on it, when conſider'd as to that, which is common to them with all others. How much more, when conſider'd as to that, which is peculiar to them as preparatory to our partaking of what we ſo give Thanks for? To give Thanks by way of preparation to the partaking of any Benefit implying an apprehenſion in him, that gives it, of the neceſſity of the Divine Bleſſing to make it uſeful to him, and conſequently thereto a Deſire of, and Prayer to God for the beſtowing of it. By which means the Thankſgivings of the Euchariſt, and particularly thoſe, which our Saviour made over the Bread of it, will be though not expreſs, yet tacit Prayers to God for his Bleſſing on it, and conſequently of yet more force to procure that Bleſſing for it, and for thoſe, that are to partake of it. Only becauſe the Bleſſings mention'd in the Scripture were oftentimesGen. 17.28. Num. 6.23. Prayers to God for his Bleſſing, and it is hard to believe that, when our Saviour deſign'd the Bleſſing of the Euchariſt, he ſhould not ſeek to God for it by an expreſs Prayer, as well as by Thankſgivings, and tacit ones, I think it but juſt to enquire,

3. Whether our Saviour's Thankſgiving did not alſo contain in it ſome expreſs Requeſt to God for the granting of that Bleſſing, which he deſir'd. For the clearing whereof we are to know, that as it is not unuſual for that word, which ſignifies only one noted part of a thing, to be ſet to denote the other alſo (For thus, as was before obſerv'd, the Bread of this Sacrament, and the breaking of the Bread is ſet to denote the Wine, as well as the Bread, and all that is done to both of them, as well as the breaking of one Element thereof) ſo St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.4, 5., where he entreats of a like Argument to that, which we are now upon, becauſe of the means whereby the Creatures of God are ſanctified, or bleſſed to us, makes uſe of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Thankſgiving, to denote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Prayer, as well as Thankſgiving; and again of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Prayer, to ſignifie Thankſgiving, as well as that. Otherwiſe to alledge, as St. Paul doth, that the Creatures are ſanctified by the Word of God, and Prayer, could be no proof of the lawfulneſs of receiving the Creatures with Thankſgiving, which is that he deſign'd to prove by it: Becauſe it is certain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Prayer, in ſtrict ſpeech is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Thankſgiving, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Thankſgiving, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Prayer. But therefore as nothing hinders, but that our Saviour's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Thankſgiving might contain in it as expreſs a Prayer to God to grant the Bleſſing he deſir'd; So there are many reaſons to perſwade us that it did, and that Chriſt ſought this Bleſſing by Prayer, as well as by Thankſgivings. Of which nature in particular was the momentouſneſs of that Bleſſing, which he now ſought, and which may ſeem no way unworthy of an expreſs Prayer to the Father for it; The ſame Chriſt's alſo employing ſuch Prayers on leſs weighty occaſions, as well as upon more momentous ones; But above all, Chriſt's requiring us in the Celebration of this Sacrament to do as he did before us, and St. Paul's preſſing the Corinthians to conform to his Pattern, and content our ſelves with the imitation of it: It being hard to believe that, when Chriſt ſo often call'd upon his Diſciples to ſue to God upon all occaſions, and to ask Mat. 7.7., and ſeek, and knock, whenſoever they ſtood in need of his aſſiſtance, they ſhould be under no obligation to crave his Bleſſing, when the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament were to become the Communion of his Body, and Blood. Under which obligation yet they muſt in no wiſe have been, if Chriſt, whom they are requir'd to imitate, offer'd no Supplications to his Father to procure from him the working of ſo great a change in the outward Elements. I take no notice here, becauſe I may have a more proper place for it, of the Antients ſending up Prayers, as well as Thankſgivings, when they ſet themſelves to the bleſſing of this Sacrament. And ſhall only add, That though Prayers, as well as Thankſgivings had a place in this Affair, yet the latter might be both more particularly inculcated, and more often mentioned, becauſe more apparently agreeable to that thankful Remembrance of Chriſt's death, which this Sacrament was in an eſpecial manner ordained for.

The next thing, that our Saviour did, and we are accordingly to take notice of, was the breaking of the Bread; For ſo it follows in the Story, And Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed, and brake it, even the Bread: Not only our own Tranſlation obliging us ſo to underſtand the ſeveral Evangeliſts, and St. Paul, by its ſupplying the word it, but the coherence of theſe words with the former, and (which is more) the expreſs Authority of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.16. elſewhere; He there deſcribing this part of the Sacrament under the title of the Bread, which we break, and ſo ſhewing Bread to be the ſubject of it. Now this Bread our Saviour brake partly in conformity to what was done to that of the Jewiſh Euchariſt, and partly that he might the better ſerve his own purpoſes in this. For ſo careful were the Jews in the breaking of their Euchariſtical Bread, that whereas thoſe thicker LoavesCaſſand. Liturgic. in initio., which they made uſe of, could not conveniently be broken in pieces, he, who bleſſed the Bread did, before that Benediction of his, cut one part almoſt from the remaining piece, but ſo, that it ſtill ſtuck to it, and after that Benediction of his, brake it off, and when he had again cut leſſer Particles out of that, took one himſelf, and gave the reſt unto his Gueſts. In conformity to which Cuſtom as it is reaſonable to believe, that our Saviour in part proceeded, when he brake that Bread, which he had before bleſſed; So more eſpecially, that he might the better ſerve his own Purpoſes in it, even the diſtribution of it to his Diſciples, and the repreſentation of the breaking of his Body upon the Croſs. The former whereof St. Paul plainly intimates where he asks, The Bread whith we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chriſt? The latter, when in his rehearſal of the words of the Inſtitution he brings in our Saviour ſaying, This is my Body which is broken for you: There being not otherwiſe any reaſon, why he ſhould attribute the term of breaking to Chriſt's Body, but that the breaking of the Bread, which was a Figure of it, was intended to repreſent that violence, which was offer'd to his crucified one. And though it be true that none of the Evangeliſts give any ſuch hint of this Myſtery of the breaking of the Bread, becauſe affirming only This is my Body, as St. Matthew, and St. Mark do, or This is my Body, which is given for you, as St. Luke; Yet as they all ſay enough to ſhew, that this Sacrament of Bread and Wine was intended for a Repreſentation of our Saviour's Paſſion, and the violence that was then offer'd to his crucified Body; ſo they do thereby ſufficiently intimate, that the breaking of the Bread was intended as a Repreſentation of it: There being nothing in the Bread to repreſent this to us, but only the breaking of it. This however is evident, that our Saviour brake that Bread, which he before took, and bleſſed. And that Rite of breaking was afterwards look'd upon as ſo conſiderable, that it gave Name to the Sacrament it ſelf, and the whole of it from that one Rite, entituled, The breaking of Bread.

Our Saviour having thus taken, and bleſſed and broken Bread (for thus far to be ſure we have Bread, whatever we have beſide) he proceeds to give it to his Diſciples; For ſo the three Evangeliſts aſſure us: Not that the Original of thoſe Evangeliſts hath any thing in it to expreſs the thing given, but that it ſpeaks of his giving ſomewhat to them, and which, conſidering the connexion of this Act of Chriſt with the former ones, cannot reaſonably be underſtood of any other than the Bread, which he had before taken, and bleſſed, and broken. And though St. Paul take no notice of this Gift of our Saviour's in the rehearſal he makes of this his Inſtitution; Yet he ſufficiently intimates it, when he brings him in ſaying, Take, Eat, This is my Body, &c. His willing them to take, and eat, implying his parting with it, that they might partake of it. This however is manifeſt from the Evangeliſts, that what our Saviour before took, and bleſſed, and brake, he gave to his Diſciples, and I ſuppoſe to each of the Diſciples in particular, and by reaching it forth unto them; The former being the manner of that Euchariſt, by which he fram'd his own, Both the one, and the other the Ancient Practice of the Church, whether by the Hands of him that bleſſed it, or of thoſe Deacons that miniſtred to him.

I will not ſpend time in animadverting upon the words Take, Eat, which he us'd with the giving of the Bread. It may ſuffice to ſay as to the former of theſe, that as it is, and always was the manner of Gueſts to take or receive into their hands, or in ſome plate, which they held in them, what was given to them by another; ſo the Antients knew no other taking, or receiving of this Bread, than that, which was performed by them. As little need to be ſaid concerning that eating, which our Saviour ſubjoin'd to the Command of taking, or receiving what he gave them; Unleſs there could be any doubt of that's being Bread, which was now to be eaten by them. For as what it is to eat Bread is ſufficiently known, even after we have put it into our mouths to chew it there, and tranſmit it from thence into our Stomachs for the nouriſhment of our Bodies; So that it was Bread, which they were commanded to eat, St. Paul plainly ſhews in the words1 Cor. 11.26, 27., which he ſubjoins to the Inſtitution of this Sacrament: He affirming the worthy Receiver of the Euchariſt to eat Bread, as well as the moſt unworthy one.

To go on therefore to thoſe words, which our Saviour ſubjoyn'd to his Precept of taking, and eating, even thoſe moſt noted ones, This is my Body. Words, which the wanton Wits of Men have transform'd into many ſhapes, and thoſe too no leſs monſtrous, than what they deſign'd to inferr from them. Whereas if they were conſider'd without any ſiniſter Affections, they would (as Aretius long ſince obſerv'd Com. in Mat. 26.26. Quomodo autem verae ſint propoſitiones illae, Panis eſt corpus Chriſti, Vinum eſt ſanguis Chriſti, anxie diſputatum eſt, Res tamen ſint affectibus ſimplicem habet intellectum. Verae ſunt ut aliae ſacramentales loquutiones, Agnus eſt tranſitus, Circumciſio eſt foedus, ſacrificia ſunt remiſſio peccatorum, Baptiſmus eſt ablutio peccatorum. In quibus nemo eſt tam ſtupidus, ut nodos ſibi quaerat. Sed ut ſymbola ſacramentalia hae res nominatae accipiuntur. Ita judicandum de his propoſitionibus etiam puto. have receiv'd a plain and ſimple Ʋnderſtanding, and which Men would otherwiſe no more have bogled at, than at other Speeches of the like nature. For this is my Body, and This is my Blood, are true, as other ſacramental Speeches are. A Lamb is the Paſſover, Circumciſion is a Covenant, Sacrifices are the remiſſion of Sins, and Baptiſm the waſhing away of them. In which no Man is ſo ſtupid, as to ſeek to entangle himſelf, or go about to create Scruples to other Men. For theſe things are taken as ſacramental Symbols, and ſo I ſuppoſe we ought to judge of the former Propoſitions alſo. Only becauſe there is no one particle in the words, This is my Body, which hath not, among prejudiced Men, miniſtred matter for Diſpute, I will be ſo much the more minute in my Explication of them, and firſt of the word, This. This is my Body.

Now that, which unprejudiced Men would undoubtedly think to be intended by the word This, was the Bread before ſpoken of, and which our Saviour is ſaid to have taken, bleſſed, broken, and given to his Diſciples with a deſign they ſhould take, and eat of it: Partly, becauſe that was the thing manifeſtly intended all along, and therefore by the common Rules of Conſtruction to be underſtood alſo here; And partly, becauſe the demonſtrative Particle This, muſt by the natural importance of it, be thought to point out ſomething certain, and apparent to them, which hitherto nothing but the Bread of the Sacrament was. Thus, I ſay, unprejudiced Men would be apt to think of the word This, though they had nothing to direct them, but the words of the Inſtitution. How much more then, if they ſhould reflect upon what St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. ſubjoyneth to, and inferreth from them in the account he gives us of that Affair. For as often (ſaith he) as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do ſhew forth the Lord's Death till he come. And again, Wherefore whoſoever ſhall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the Body, and Blood of the Lord. For it appearing from the words of the Inſtitution, that the word This, referrs to that, which was given them to eat, which St. Paul affirmeth to be Bread, it muſt conſequently be thought to denote not this Being, or Subſtance in common, or individuum vagum, or the like, but this Bread, as St. Paul doth twice expreſs it. Conformable hereto, whether the Romaniſts will, or no, is their own Opinion of the Bread's being tranſubſtantiated by the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, and that Tranſubſtantiation not effected, till the laſt Syllable of meum is pronounc'd. For if that Tranſubſtantiation be not effected till then, it muſt 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 whereGen. 28.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to expreſs it, as again when to render, And this is the Gate of Heaven, they make uſe of the Feminine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to expreſs it, anſwerably to the Gender of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 Gen. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ConceitExod. 16.15. concerning the Manna before ſpoken of, and which they themſelves entreat of under the Neuter Gender; To the Iſraelites asking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or What is this? they bring in Moſes anſwering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 Inſtit. lib. 4. c. 40. , and Cicero 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 it1 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 Gen. 41.26, 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Pharaoh's dream being ſeven Years, and the Bones in the Viſion of Ezekiel Ezek. 37.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 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 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,Gal. 1.4. and at other times by giving him 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 they were firſt to mention, even our Saviour's taking it, and giving it to his Diſciples (becauſe liquid things cannot well be taken by our ſelves, or convey'd to others but by a Cup) or by an uſual Metonymy of the continent for the thing contained in it, ſet to denote the Wine, wherewith it was repleniſhed; This Cup (as we ſhall afterwards underſtand) being given them to drink of, and (as appears from what our Saviour ſubjoins in the cloſe of St. Matthew's, and St. Mark's account of this matter) of the Fruit of the Vine, or Wine. Now this Cup, as he had done before with the Bread, he in like manner 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Luke 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25., after he had ſupp'd, took into his Hand, or Hands, as the faſhion was in the Euchariſtical Cup of the Jews, but however ſo took (as was before obſerved concerning the Bread) as to ſeparate it from what other Wine then was upon the Table, and appropriated it to his own purpoſes.

The Cup being thus taken by our Saviour into his Hands, and held by him there till he gave it to his Diſciples, Two of the Evangeliſts tell us he gave thanks over it, and (as appears by what was ſaid before in the matter of the Bread, and by St. Paul's elſewhere1 Cor. 10.16. entitling it the Cup of bleſſing, which we bleſs) by that Thankſgiving and Prayer bleſſed it, or rather recommended it to the Father to be bleſſed by him, and made uſeful for thoſe purpoſes, for which it was deſign'd, and particularly for the Communion of his Blood. Which Bleſſing there is no doubt the Father granted thereupon, and fitted it for that, for which it was ſo ſeparated, and recommended to him: As becauſe he readily promis'd the like, or a greater Bleſſing to the BleſſingNum. 6.23, &c. of the Jewiſh Prieſts, and may therefore be preſum'd as ready to grant this to the Bleſſing of his well beloved Son; So becauſe our Saviour, when he gave this Cup to his Diſciples, told them even then, that it was his Blood of the New Teſtament, and St. Paul, that being bleſſed by ſuch as himſelf, it was the Communion of Chriſt's Blood, which it could not have been in either inſtance without the Bleſſing of the Father.

Our Saviour having thus taken, and given thanks over the Cup, or bleſſed it, gave it to his Diſciples, ſaying, Drink ye all of it. But whether (as was ſaid before in the matter of the Bread) he gave it into each of his Diſciples Hands, or to him only, that ſat next to him, and by him to be handed to the next, is not material, neither will I therefore concern my ſelf about it. Sure it is, that, by the words accompanying that Gift, he ſignified it to be his Mind, that they ſhould all drink of it, and St. Mark in particular tells us, that they all drank of it. Upon the ſtrength of what Motive, is in the next place to be enquir'd, but which we ſhall not need to go farther than St. Matthew for, or at leaſt not for the general notion of it. For this (ſaith he in our Saviour's name) is my Blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. The thing, which I now offer you, is my Blood of the New Teſtament, and it is upon that account I both invite, and oblige you all to drink of it. And if it was, even when he offer'd it to them to drink, his Blood of the New Teſtament, one would think it ſhould need no new Bleſſing, or Conſecration to make it ſuch, and much leſs, that thoſe words, by which he declar'd it to be ſo, ſhould be that bleſſing, or Conſecration it ſelf. But be that as it will at preſent (for the fuller diſcuſſion of theſe things belongs to another place) moſt certain it is from the other Evangeliſts, and from St. Paul, that our Saviour when he gave the Cup to the Diſciples, made uſe of theſe, or the like words, upon what occaſion ſoever they were employed by him. And as certain it is from the Controverſies now on foot, that the words conſider'd in themſelves will require an explication, to which therefore I ſhall now addreſs my ſelf; In order thereunto (as I did before in the matter of the Bread) enquiring what the ſubject of this Propoſition is, what the thing predicated of it, and what the importance of the word [Is], which is made uſe of to joyn them together.

And here in the firſt place it is eaſy to ſee, that whatever difficulties the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This may be encumbred with, when ſet to denote the Bread, becauſe of a different Gender from it both in the Greek and the Latin, yet it is encumbred with no ſuch difficulties here: Becauſe even in St. Matthew, and St. Mark, where it hath no Subſtantive affixed to it, it is of the ſame Gender with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Cup before ſpoken of, and which they were alſo commanded to drink of, as well as with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Blood that follows it. It is alike eaſy to ſee, ſecondly, that whatever pretence may be made for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This in the former Propoſition having reſpect to ſome individuum vagum, yet there is not the like pretence here: Becauſe though St. Matthew, and St. Mark add no Subſtantive to it, yet St. Luke, and St. Paul, in their Hiſtory of the Inſtitution, add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to it, and ſo ſhew This Cup, even the Cup before ſpoken of, to be the thing whereof our Saviour ſpake. And indeed, as the rules of Conſtruction require us ſo to underſtand it, even where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Cup is not expreſs'd, and much more where This is my Blood is aſſign'd as a motive to the Diſciples drinking of the Cup (For how could it otherwiſe be any motive to it, if that Cup were not the Blood here ſpoken of?) So our Saviour's commanding his Diſciples to drink of that Cup in order to their partaking of his Blood, and his afterwards deſcribing it by the title of the Fruit of the Vine, ſhews the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Cup to be ſet to denote the liquor, that was contained in it, and particularly the Blood of the Grape. Which is a proof that figurative expreſſions are no ſuch ſtrangers to the Doctrine of a Sacrament, becauſe one is of neceſſity to be allow'd in the ſubject of this important Propoſition, and is accordingly allow'd by the Romaniſts themſelves.

The ſubject of the preſent Propoſition being thus found out, and ſhewn to be no other than the Cup before ſpoken of, or rather the Wine of it; Let us in the next place take a view of the thing affirmed of it, and wherein indeed there is ſome variety even between thoſe, who give an Hiſtorical account of this affair: St. Matthew, and St. Mark repreſenting the Cup here ſpoken of as Chriſt's Blood of the New Teſtament, or 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 before1 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 Heb. 9.14, &c., and by what I have elſewhereExpl. 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 elſewhereCol. 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 Ʋſage 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 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 Pſal. 75.8. Prov. 23.31. Iſa. 27.2. 63.2. (for which cauſe it is not improbable that they were ſtiled the Bloud 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 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 ſaithQuando 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . indeed, and his Blood drink indeed Joh. 6.55., and that accordingly except his Diſciples ate that Fleſh of his, and drank his Blood,Joh. 6.53. they could have no life in them, but if they didJoh. 6.54. they ſhould have eternal Life; In fine, that the fleſhJoh. 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 Seſſ. 13. cap. 3., but that the faithful are not oblig'd by any command of the Lord to receive both ſpecies 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 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 ought to take both ſpecies by vertue of any command of God, let him be Anathema. For poſſibly (for ought that doth appear from the words of that Council) there may have been a Command from Chriſt for all the faithful's receiving the Cup, but which it is in the power of the Church (as we are not ignorant of the aſſerted plenitude thereof) to caſſate, or diſpenſe with it. And poſſibly too there is no command for any either Lay, or Clergies receiving either the Cup, or the Bread, and ſo, if the Church pleaſeth, we may, and ought to bid Farewel to the Sacrament it ſelf, as well as to the Cup of it. For that I make no unreaſonable ſuppoſition here, is evident from Fiſher the Jeſuite'sSee his Anſwer in White's Reply on Point 7. pag. 473. queſtioning, whether Chriſt gave any precept at all in the matter of the Cup, and his diſtinguiſhing between precept, and inſtitution, which will avail as well againſt the Bread, as againſt the Cup. Which things being not firſt decided, it will indeed be to no great purpoſe to argue with them about the faithful's obligation to receive the Cup, or for them to put us upon the proof of it; Becauſe the true Queſtion may perhaps be, whether there be any Command at all for any ſort of Mens receiving the Cup, or indeed the Sacrament it ſelf in any part of it. Which if it be, both Clergy, and Laity are under the ſame Condition, and the Queſtion ought to be, Whether the whole matter of the Euchariſt were not matter of Advice even to the Apoſtles themſelves, rather than any thing of a Command. But as we cannot but think, that Take, Eat, and Drink ye all of this, are expreſs Commands to ſome Perſons, or other, becauſe they run in the ſame form with Tell it to the Church, and Obey thoſe that have the Rule over you, upon which kind of Texts all Eccleſiaſtical Authority is founded; ſo we ſhall therefore take it for granted, that the matter of the Cup is a Precept, and accordingly go on to enquire, for whom this Precept was intended, and to whom it was directed by our Saviour.

Now as if this Precept was intended for any, to be ſure it was intended for our Saviour's Diſciples, becauſe the Perſons to whom it was immediately given; So it muſt conſequently be intended for them, either in their perſonal capacity, and ſo, that it was to reach no farther than themſelves, or as they were the Repreſentatives of others alſo. If the Romaniſts ſay the former, they do not only alter the ſtate of the Queſtion, and make the future both Laity and Clergy in the ſame Condition as to this particular, but make it as indifferent too, as to any thing of a Command from Chriſt, whether the future Clergy, or Laity partake of the Sacrament at all, even in the Bread of it. Which how unreaſonable it is, may appear from St. Paul's preſſing the Corinthians with the Inſtitution of Chriſt in the matter of the Euchariſt, and particularly with the Precept, Take, Eat, and Do this in remembrance of me. For by that it ſhould ſeem that what was enjoin'd upon the Diſciples, at leaſt as to the Element of Bread, was enjoin'd upon them, as the Repreſentatives of others alſo. And if the Bread was ſo, why not alſo the Cup, that went along with it, and concerning which the words of our Saviour in S. Matthew are as expreſs, Drink ye all of this, and St. Mark tells us, that he alike gave them, and they all drank of it? And I know of nothing, that can look like the ſhadow of an Objection againſt this way of reaſoning, unleſs it be what ſome have vainly objected, that St. Paul doth not deliver it as a Precept from Chriſt, that the Apoſtles, and after them others ſhould drink of it, but that, when they did drink of it, or as often as they did, they ſhould do it in remembrance of him, as if there were nothing abſolute concerning the Cup. But as the contrary is plain enough from St. Matthew, who brings in our Saviour enjoining them to drink all of it, and as it happens too without the addition of doing what they did in remembrance of him, leſt any ſhould ſatisfie themſelves with ſo vain a ſubterfuge; So there was reaſon enough for St. Paul, after his accurate rehearſal of the whole Inſtitution of the Bread, and of our Saviour's Command concerning it, to content himſelf with ſaying, Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: Partly, becauſe this form of Speech, or Command was enough to confute, and diſcountenance that unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper, which was ſo rife among the Corinthians, and for the diſcountenancing whereof this account of Chriſt's Inſtitution was given; But eſpecially, becauſe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or in like manner the Cup, wherewith St. Paul uſhers in that part of the Inſtitution, which reſpected it, did ſufficiently imply Chriſt's doing alike to, and enjoining alike concerning the Cup, as he had before affirm'd him to have done to, or concerning the Bread, ſo far as the different nature of the Elements did permit. Otherwiſe we muſt ſuppoſe St. Paul to have thought the bleſſing of the Cup as indifferent a thing, as the Romaniſts make the uſe of it to be, which yet it is evident from this Epiſtle, that he did not: He repreſenting that Bleſſing as a thing of ſo great concernment, as to give denomination to the Cup 1 Cor. 10.16., and not only ſo, but intimating it to be of like uſe to make it to become the Communion of Chriſt's Blood.

The Cup therefore, or rather the Command concerning the uſe of it being manifeſtly intended for the Diſciples of Chriſt, not in their perſonal capacity only, but as they were alſo Repreſentatives of others; Enquire we in the next place, whether it was intended for them as Repreſentatives of all the faithful whatſoever, or as Repreſentatives of the Clergy only, and particularly of ſuch of them, as were to conſecrate the Bread, and it. A Queſtion, which one would think might eaſily be anſwered by conſidering that, when the Sacrament was firſt inſtituted, the Diſciples had no hand at all in the Conſecration of the one, or the other Element, but he, by whom it was inſtituted. For our Saviour making no uſe of their Aſſiſtance in conſecrating the Cup, or Bread, they are to be look'd upon rather as Lay-men, than Clergy-men as to any thing they were then enjoin'd; Unleſs the thing enjoin'd could be otherwiſe made appear to be proper to Clergy-men as ſuch. Even as it is apparent that the Romaniſts themſelves look upon ſuch of their own Clergy, as do not conſecrate the Euchariſt, and accordingly withhold the Cup from them, as well as from the meaneſt Lay-man. Now what is there in the receit of the Cup, that we ſhould think it to be proper to the Clergy? What in the Command of Chriſt concerning it to intimate any ſuch thing? what in the reaſon of the thing enjoin'd to perſwade it? For as there is no difference, ſo far as we can ſee, between Take, Eat the Bread, and drink ye all of the Cup, that we ſhould think one to reſpect the Clergy, any more than the other; So one would think the reaſon aſſign'd by our Saviour in St. Matthew for their drinking all of it, even becauſe it was his Blood of the New Teſtament, which was ſhed for many for the remiſſion of Sins, ſhould concern the Laity, as well as the Clergy that conſecrate, and conſequently that Precept alſo, which it was intended to enforce. Unleſs we ſhould think, or indeed could, that the Laity, and fuch of the Clergy, as do not conſecrate, have no intereſt in Chriſt's Blood, or the Benefits thereof, or at leaſt that they were no way oblig'd with due thankfulneſs to remember it. But beſide that our Saviour's Diſciples had no intereſt in conſecrating that Euchariſt, which he celebrated with them, and were therefore ſo far forth to be look'd upon rather as Lay-men, than Clergy-men, and conſequently Repreſenters of thoſe, that were ſuch, where there was nothing enjoin'd upon them, that was not manifeſtly peculiar to them as Prieſts; St. Paul, where he repeats the ſame Inſtitution of Chriſt, doth not only make no difference between Prieſt and People as to this particular, but rather ſuppoſe the Cup to be common to all, and accordingly both warns all to beware of ſuch an unworthy receiving of it, as they had been before guilty of, and exhorts them as indifferently, after they had well examin'd themſelves, to drink of the Cup, as to eat of the Bread: Thereby farther intimating, that they were all alike concern'd in the thing it ſelf, I mean as to the receit of it. So that, for ought that hitherto doth appear, we muſt not only look upon the receit of the Cup as a thing under Command, but under ſuch a Command too, as reſpects People, as well as Prieſt, yea as well as that very Prieſt that conſecrates it, and the other Element. Which will conſequently leave nothing more to enquire upon this head, than whether as the receit of the Cup, even by the Faithful, be a thing under Command, ſo thoſe Faithful are under the obligation of it, and bound by it to the receiving of the Cup.

Now though a Command, as ſuch, doth naturally oblige, and conſequently they, that are under it, are obliged by it, and to that, which is the matter of it; Yet becauſe queſtion may ſeem to have been made by the Council of Trent rather concerning Men's being bound by any Precept of Chriſt to receive the Cup, than concerning the Precept it ſelf, therefore I will ſet my ſelf more particularly to the reſolution thereof, and, together with that, of thoſe Objections that are made againſt it. In order thereunto aſſerting, firſt, that if there be ſuch a Command, as we have before evinc'd, they, for whom that Command was intended, are generally obliged by it to that, which is the matter of it: This being no more, than what the very nature of a Command enforceth, and the Credit of the Author of it perſwades. For as it is of the nature of a Command to oblige, and conſequently they, that are under it, generally obliged by it, as without which otherwiſe that Command would not have its end; So it is not for the Credit of him, that gave it, either to preſcribe that, which cannot generally be obſerved, or not to hold thoſe, that can, to the obligation of it: This opening a way to the contempt of his Authority, and not only to reject this, or that particular Command, but all. From whence as it will follow, that it muſt be only as to ſome Perſons, and ſome Caſes, that the Precept of the Cup muſt be thought not to oblige, if indeed it do not; So that alone being granted, the depriving of whole Towns, and Provinces, and Kingdoms of the Cup, will admit of no Excuſe, which will be enough to juſtifie us for ſeparating from the Church of Rome in this Affair, and to condemn the Church of Rome for uſurping ſo much upon the World againſt a Divine Inſtitution, and Command: Only to diſpenſe with a Law, as to the Major part, being rather to deſtroy, than diſpenſe with it; How much more then to hinder the Major part from the obſervance of it by contrary Decrees, and by Anathema's upon thoſe, who ſhall not acquieſce in them? But becauſe all we have hitherto ſaid tends only to ſhew, that the generality of Chriſtians are oblig'd to the receit of the Cup, which is an intimation, unleſs we proceed farther, that ſome Perſons, and in ſome Caſes, may be exempted from the Obligation; And becauſe the Church of Rome pretends that ſhe is not without reaſons to ſhew, that there is no Obligation upon all, and ſingular the Faithful, to receive it; Therefore I will now proceed to conſider the reaſons of that Pretence, and ſhew whether, or no, and how far they ought to be admitted.

And firſt it is pretended that there are ſome Countries in the World, which are not furniſhed with Wine, nor can, it may be, with any Conveniency furniſh themſelves from other places, or at all for publick, and general Communions. And I will not deny but ſuch places there may be, and that they cannot therefore (becauſe no one can be ty'd to that which is impoſſible) be oblig'd either to celebrate, or receive the Euchariſt in it. But as this ſignifies nothing to the defence of thoſe, who forbid it where it may be had, and is therefore very frivolouſly alledged in the preſent Caſe; So I ſhall upon the ſtrength of what I have before ſaid, refer it to Conſideration, whether ſome other generous Liquor, which I ſuppoſe few Nations want, may not be ſubſtituted in the place of Wine, and ſo the Cup be preſerved, though that ſpecifical Liquor cannot.

It is pretended, ſecondly, (which I doubt not might give the firſt occaſion to the taking of it away) that there would be great danger of irreverence otherwiſe by ſhedding the Liquor of it either in the Church by carrying it to the Communicants there, or in carrying of it, eſpecially over the Mountains in Winter, to ſick Perſons; By the hanging of ſome part of it in the Beards of the Laicks, whereſoever it was delivered to them, or by its growing ſowre by being kept. For to theſe, and the like Purpoſes did ſome of the Fathers of the Council of Trent diſcourſeHiſt. of the Council of Trent li. 6. p. 521., and as it ſhould ſeem too out of Gerſon the learned Chancellor of Paris. But a Man would wonder, firſt, that if theſe were juſt Reaſons for abridging the Laity of the Cup, they ſhould not have prevail'd with our Saviour (who certainly knew all, that might hereafter happen) not to admit them to it at the firſt, but however that they ſhould not have taken him off from enjoining them to drink of it. A Man would wonder as much, ſecondly, why there ſhould be thought to be ſo great a danger of ſhedding in carrying about the Cup in the Church, when among us, who practiſe it in great Congregations, no ſuch danger doth appear, and when that danger may in a great meaſure be prevented by bringing thoſe, that are to receive, to the Rails of the Communion Table, to take it from the Prieſt there. And a Man would wonder no leſs, thirdly, why ſo much ado ſhould be made about the carrying of it to ſick Folks, and the danger that attends it, eſpecially when it is over Mountains. Becauſe if Men were prompted, as they ought, to a frequent Communion in the publick Aſſemblies, there would be the leſs need of carrying it to them, when ſick; Or, if it were thought meet however, that they ſhould receive the Communion, when ſick, it might be conſecrated, as well as adminiſtred to them at home, and a reaſonable number of Communicants provided to receive with them, as it is with us. Or, if that were not thought fit neither, but that they muſt by all means be debar'd the Cup, becauſe of the danger of the Liquors growing ſowre by being kept for them, or of its ſhedding in the carriage; yet is there no imaginable reaſon why they, that are whole, and come to it, inſtead of expecting its being brought to them, ſhould be therefore deprived of it even in the Church, becauſe it may not be convenient to be brought to their Houſes, it may be, once. Theſe things, I ſay, a Man might well wonder at, but eſpecially when they are urg'd, as they are, for a total removing of the Cup. But a Man would more than wonder, fourthly, if he did not know the force of Prejudice, and Cuſtom, that the hanging of the Liquor in the Laymen's Beards ſhould be made ſo great a difficulty, and danger, as to debar them of the uſe of it. For not to ſay that it is ſtrange that, if that were ſo conſiderable a thing, neither our Saviour ſhould be aware of it, when he inſtituted the Cup, nor the Church in ſo many Centuries of Years take care to prevent it, eſpecially when Beards were more in Faſhion, than they have been of late; A Man would think, that if the Blood of Chriſt, and the obſervation of a Command of his were a matter of as great moment, as the fear of the loſs of any of that Blood in the Lay-mens Beards; A Man would think, I ſay, that in ſuch a Caſe both the Prieſts ſhould have enjoin'd the Laity, and the Laity for that time have willingly ſubmitted to the ſhaving of their Beards, rather than have ſuffered themſelves, for the ſake of ſuch an excrement, to be robb'd of Chriſt's Blood, or go againſt his Inſtitution, and Command: To take away the Cup of the Sacrament for ſuch like Fears as theſe, being ſomewhat more extravagant than Lycurgus King of Thrace's cutting down all the Vines of his Kingdom for fear of the ill uſe that might be made of the Fruit of them. In fine, a Man might wonder (if ſuch like things, as theſe, were an affront to the Holy Sacrament, and, as ſuch, of ſufficient force to remove the uſe of the Cup) why our Saviour ſhould not have found out ſome more decent place, than the Stomach of the Faithful to beſtow one Element of the Sacrament in, or than the Stomach of the Prieſt to beſtow them both; They, who are acquainted with the inſide of that, knowing it in that reſpect, to be a more unſeemly place for one, or the other Element to be lodged in, than many of thoſe, which they ſeem to be ſo jealous of, and for fear of any pollution by which they deprive the Faithful of the benefit of the Cup, and of that, whether Wine, or Blood, that is contained in it.

The third thing pretended for depriving the Faithful of the Cup is, that whole, and entire Chriſt is contained under one only Species Trid. Conc. Seſſ. 21. cap. 3. . Which the Council of Trent doth ſo peremptorily affirm, that it pronounceth an Anathema upon any one that ſhall denyib. Can. 3., that whole, and entire Chriſt the Fountain, and Author of all Graces is receiv'd under the only Species of Bread. For, if that be true, what need is there of the receit of the Cup by them, or indeed what preſumption of Chriſt's having given any Command concerning it? But are they ſo ſure, as they would be thought to be, that whole, and entire Chriſt is contain'd under the ſole Species of Bread? Or, if it were, that it were therefore indifferent, whether we receiv'd the Cup, or no? Nay, is there not ſufficient reaſon to believe that whole, and entire Chriſt is not contained under it, but under the one, and other Species? For beſide that our Saviour, by making choice of two diſtinct Elements to become them, made as manifeſt a ſeparation between his Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, as he did upon the Croſs, and may therefore be preſum'd to give them (if he gave them at all in their ſenſe) not conjunctly, but apart, and in that ſeparate eſtate, in which he had put them; Beſide that he requir'd not only two diſtinct, and ſeparate Acts (thoſe of eating, and drinking I mean) but two Acts, that were diſtant in time toward the partaking of that Body, and Blood, and may therefore be yet more preſum'd to give them not conjunctly, but apart, and agreeably to thoſe Acts, which he enjoin'd for the partaking of them; If the Body, and Blood of Chriſt are contained under, and received with the ſole Species of Bread (as to be fure they muſt, if whole, and entire Chriſt be) It muſt be either by vertue of thoſe words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, This is my Body; or by vertue of thoſe words, and the words that follow, even This is my Blood of the New Teſtament (As one would think that they, who lay ſo much ſtreſs upon thoſe words, ſhould readily grant either the one, or the other) or by vertue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy (to ſpeak the wordsSeſſ. 13. cap. 3. of the Trent-Council) whereby the parts of the Lord Chriſt, who is now riſen from the dead, no more to die again, are joined together between themſelves. If they, who maintain whole Chriſt (and conſequently his Body; and Blood) to be contained under the Species of Bread, affirm that to be by the ſole vertue of thoſe words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, or, This is my Body; They muſt conſequently make them ſignifie, This is my Blood, as well as my Body, as without which, even in their own opinion, ſo omnipotent an Effect is not to be produc'd. Which ſuppos'd, I would fain know whether they ſignifie ſo much always, or only when the Sacrament is adminiſtred in one kind, and to thoſe alone, to whom it is ſo adminiſtred. If the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, ſignifie ſo always, (and the like will follow, if the Body and Blood of Chriſt be by any means brought together under the Species of Bread) then is there no 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 Ʋnion. 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 them1 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 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 th 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 affirmConc. 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 oneIb. 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 God to atone his Wrath, and to procure the remiſſion of our Sins, and all other Graces, they muſt conſequently be look'd upon not as the immediate producers of thoſe Effects, which are attributed to them, but as meritorious Cauſes thereof, and diſpoſing God, who is the giver of every good and perfect Gift, to produce them; That therefore if the Body, and Blood of Chriſt ſtrengthen, and refreſh the Soul of the Receiver, as the Sacramental Signs thereof do the Body of him, that receives them, they muſt do it in the way of a meritorious Cauſe, and ſuch as diſpoſeth God to grant to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament the pardon of his Sin, which is that, which eſpecially refreſheth the Soul, and Grace, whereby he may be ſtrengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner Man; In fine, that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt cannot otherwiſe be eaten, and drunken, than by the Mind meditating upon the Merits, and Satisfaction of that Offering, which our Saviour made of them, and relying wholly upon them for that Salvation, which it expects.

But leaving theſe things to be diſcuſs'd in a more proper place, where I ſhall alſo have an occaſion to add farther light and ſtrength to them; Let us in the next place reflect upon that, which I have ſaid to be ſignified on our part by the Signs of the Lord's Supper, which are theſe three eſpecially: Firſt, a thankful Remembrance of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt conſider'd as before deſcrib'd; Secondly, our Communion with thoſe, who partake with us thereof; Thirdly, a Reſolution to live, and act, as becomes thoſe that are partakers of them.

Of the firſt of theſe, little need to be ſaid after the account I have given of it in my ExplicationPart 3. of the words of the Inſtitution. It may ſuffice here to obſerve from thence, that as the words of our Saviour are expreſs, that we ſhould do what is enjoin'd as to the outward Elements of this Sacrament, for a thankful Remembrance of the offering up of his Body, and Blood; So what is done by the Prieſt to thoſe Elements, and our receiving them from him in that ſtate, is a lively Repreſentation to our Minds of the offering up of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, and a thankful Remembrance thereof therefore not unreaſonably look'd upon as one of thoſe things, which are ſignifi'd on our part by the Sacrament thereof.

The ſecond thing ſignified on our part by the outward Elements of this Sacrament is our Communion with thoſe, who partake with us of Chriſt's Body, and Blood. A thing which St. Paul doth not only fairly intimate, where he affirms1 Cor. 10.17., that we being many are one Bread, and one Body, becauſe we all partake of that one Bread, which he had before affirm'd to be the Communion of Chriſt's Body; But points us to thoſe things, by which this Communion of ours is ſignified, even the unity of that Bread, which is one of the Elements of this Sacrament, and our partaking together of it. For as there can be no better account given of St. Paul's calling us one Bread, and one Body, than that we our ſelves, though many, are yet one myſtical Body, as that Bread though made up of ſeveral Granes, is one Loaf, and ought accordingly to be thereby admoniſh'd of that intimate Communion, which ought to be between us in all Offices of Chriſtian Love, and Friendſhip; So there is nothing more uſual with the Antients, than to repreſent that Unity of the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament as a Symbol of ours, and of that Communion, and Fellowſhip which ought therefore to be between us. For by this Sacrament, ſaith St. Cyprian Ep. 63. ad Caecil. de Sacr. Dom. Calicis. Quo & ipſo Sacramento populus noſter oſtenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unun collecta & commolita, & commixta, panem unum faciunt; Sic in Chriſlo, qui eſt panis coeleſtis, unum ſciamus eſſe Corpus, cui conjunctus ſit noſter numerus & adunatus., Our People is alſo ſhew'd to be made one, that as many Grains collected into one, and ground, and mixed together, make one Loaf; ſo in Chriſt, who is the heavenly Bread, we may know there is one Body, to which our number is conjoin'd and united. And again, Finally, ſaith the ſame FatherDenique unanimitatem Chriſtianam firmâ ſibi atque inſeparabili charitate connexam etiam ipſa dominica ſacrificia declarant. Nam quando Dominus corpus ſuum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congeſtum, populum noſtrum quem portabat indicat adunatum; Et quando ſanguinem ſunm vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expreſſum, atque in unum coactum, gregem item noſtrum ſignificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Epiſt. 76. ad Magnum de Bapt. Novatianis, &c. , the Sacrifices of our Lord do alſo declare that Chriſtian Ʋnanimity, which is connected to it ſelf by a firm, and inſeparable Charity. For when the Lord gives the title of his Body to that Bread, which is made up of the Ʋnion of many Granes, he ſhews our People, whom he carried, to be united together: and when he gives the title of his Blood to that Wine, which is preſt out of many Bunches and Grapes, and gathered into one, he alſo ſignifies our People coupled together by the commixture of an united multitude. Thus St. Cyprian, and other of the Antients argue from the Unity of the Bread, and Wine, that Union, and Communion, which ought to be between the Faithful, and conſequently ſhew that Communion to be one of thoſe things, which are ſignifi'd, on our part, by the Elements of this Sacrament. And St. Paul, without any Comment upon him, will help us to inferr, that the ſame Communion is ſignified by the Faithful's partaking together of them, where he declares us to be one Bread, and one Body, for that we all partake of one Bread. For if barely to eat, and drink together be a Symbol of Love, and Friendſhip, and accordingly often employ'd both by Jews, and HeathenSee a Diſcourſe concerning the true Notion of the Lord's Supper, by R.C. cap. 6. as a Ceremony, whereby they declar'd their entring into Covenant, or being at Peace with one another; How much more may we affirm the ſame, after ſo clear an Affirmation of St. Paul, of Mens partaking of the ſame myſtical Bread, and Wine? Even of that myſtical Bread, and Wine, which was inſtituted by him, who above all other things enjoin'd upon his Diſciples the Love of one another, and gave that as the great Characteriſtick, whereby they ſhould be known to be ſo. Sure I am, the Antients were ſo perſwaded of this Communion's being a thing ſignified by this Sacrament, that (as I have elſewhereExpl. of the Creed. Art. The holy Catholick Church. ſhewn from Irenaeus) the antient Presbyters of Rome, in Teſtimony of that Communion, ſent the Myſteries of this Sacrament to the Presbyters of thoſe very Churches, that differ'd from them about the obſervation of Eaſter; And the like was done by other Churches, as appears by the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, till it was forbidden by that Council, becauſe of the inconveniences thereof.

The third thing ſignified, on our part, by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a Reſolution to live, and act as becomes thoſe, that are partakers of Chriſt's Body, and Blood. For the evidencing whereof we are to know, that as this Sacrament hath been ſhewn to be a Sign of the New Covenant Expl. of the Sacraments in Gen. Part 2., which, as ſuch, implies a Profeſſion of ſomething to be done on the part of God; So the taking of this Sacrament muſt conſequently imply our Covenanting to perform whatſoever that New Covenant obligeth us unto. Which what it is, will need no other Proof, than what I have ſhewn in another placeExpl. of the Prelimin. Queſt. and Anſw. &c. to be the importance of that Sacrament, whereby we enter into it. For if that Sacrament import the Profeſſion of a good Conſcience toward God; That new Covenant, of which it is a Sacrament, muſt conſequently have the ſame good Conſcience for the Object of it, and therefore alſo make the like Profeſſion of it to be the Duty of that Man, who takes this other Sacrament thereof. And though it be true, that this part of the ſignification of the Lord's Supper is not ſo clearly expreſs'd in the Stories of the Inſtitution of it; Yet as they give us to underſtand, that we ought to take the Elements thereof in remembrance of Chriſts giving his Body, and Blood for us, ſo they do conſequently imply our taking them alſo with a Reſolution to live, and act as becomes thoſe, that are partakers of them: That Remembrance, as it can be no other than a thankful one, becauſe the remembrance of ſuch Benefits, as do above all others require ſuch a Remembrance of us, ſo connoting, as ſuch, a readineſs to walk wellpleaſing unto him, by whom thoſe Benefits are beſtow'd. Agreeable hereto is the both Language, and Practice of the Antient Chriſtians, as appears by that account, which I have before given of them;Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 1. They not only giving this Inſtitution as well as Baptiſm, the Name of a Sacrament, in conſideration of that Obligation they ſuppoſed it to lay upon the Perſons, that took it, but obliging themſelves by this Sacrament, not (as too many have ſince learn'd to do) to the perpetrating of any notorious wickedneſs, but to avoid all Thefts, and Robberies, and Adulteries, the falſifying of their Truſts, or the denying of any thing, that was committed to their Cuſtody, when they were call'd upon by the true Owner to reſtore it. For that thoſe words of Pliny are to be underſtood of this Sacrament, is not only evident from its being repreſented as a conſtant Attendant of the Chriſtians publick Aſſemblies, and particularly of their Aſſemblies before day, which the Euchariſt is known to have beenTert. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. , but from the no mention there is in Eccleſiaſtical Story of any other Sacrament in them.

PART VI. What farther relation the Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the Body, and Blood of Chriſt. The Contents.

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.

III. WHat the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper is, and what the inward Part, or thing ſignified by it, enough hath been ſaid to ſhew, neither ſhall I need to reſume the Conſideration of them. That, which will more concern me to intend, is, What farther relation, beſide that of a Sign, that outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the inward part, or thing ſignified, and particularly to the Body, and Blood of Chriſt. Where firſt, I will declare, and confirm the Doctrine of our own Church concerning it, and then enquire into the truth of thoſe Relations which the Church of Rome hath advanced on the one hand, and the Lutheran Churches on the other.

Now as our Church hath defin'd a Sacrament to be ſuch an outward, and viſible Sign of an inward, and Spiritual Grace, as is alſo ordain'd as a means whereby we receive the ſame, and muſt therefore be ſuppos'd to have the ſame opinion of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; So it hath ſaid enough both in its Catechiſm, and elſewhere concerning that Sacrament, to ſhew this to have been its opinion of it. For it gives us to underſtandCatechiſm., that the Faithful (for whom, to be ſure, this Sacrament was principally ordain'd) do verily, and indeed receive the thing ſignified, even the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as well as the Signs of them, and that they do verily and indeed receive that Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper, which, one would think, were a competent Evidence of that's being a Means, whereby we receive them. It, conſequently thereto, teacheth us to prayPray. of Conſ. in the Commun. Service., which one would think to be of equal force as to this Particular, that we receiving God's Creatures of Bread and Wine according to his Son, and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt's holy Inſtitution, may be partakers of his moſt bleſſed Body and Blood. In fine, it gives us to underſtandArt. of Rel. 28., (which is yet more expreſs) that to ſuch as rightly, worthily, and with a true Faith receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Bread, which we break, is the partaking of the Body of Chriſt, and likewiſe the Cup of Bleſſing, a partaking of the Blood of Chriſt. For what more could have been ſaid (unleſs it had made uſe of that particular Expreſſion, which yet it doth uſe where it declares the general nature of a Sacrament) what more, I ſay, could have been ſaid to ſhew, that this Sacrament is no naked, or ineffectual Sign of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, but ſuch a Sign as is alſo ordained as a Means, whereby we receive the ſame, and ſo ſure, and certain a one, that, if we rightly, and worthily receive that Sign, we do as verily receive the Body and Blood of Chriſt, as we do the Sacrament thereof.

How well the Scripture agrees with the Doctrine of our Church in this Particular, will not be difficult to ſhew, whether we do conſider its making uſe of the moſt emphatical Phraſe which our Church doth concerning this Sacrament, or the Effects, which it attributeth to it. For it is St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.16., as well as our Church, that affirms, that the Bread, which we break, is the Communion of the Body of Chriſt, and that the Cup, which we bleſs, is the Communion of his Blood. Words, which conſidering the place they have in that Chapter from whence they are borrowed, cannot admit of a lower ſenſe, than that the elements of this Sacrament are at leaſt a Means of that Communion, becauſe alledged by him as a proof, or at leaſt as an illuſtration of their really having fellowſhip with Devils, that partook of the Sacrifices, that were offer'd to them. For if the Bread, and Wine of the Sacrament were not a Means, as well as a ſign of the Communion of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt; Neither could the Gentiles Sacrifices be a Means of their, or other Men's Communion with thoſe Devils, to whom they were offer'd, and therefore neither charge them with any real fellowſhip with Devils, but only with a ſign, or ſemblance of it. Which how it agrees with St. Paul's charging the partakers of thoſe Sacrifices with having fellowſhip with Devils, as that too upon the account of the Gentiles Sacrificing to Devils, and not to God, I ſhall leave all ſober Men to judge. Such evidence there is from that one place of St. Paul concerning the Lords Supper being a Means, as well as a Sign, whereby we come to partake of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt. And we ſhall find it no leſs confirm'd by an effect, which the Scripture attributes to one of its Symbols, and which is in that place by an uſual Synecdoche ſet to denote the whole Sacrament; That, I mean, where St. Paul affirms1 Cor. 12.13., that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For as the foregoing mention of Baptiſm makes it reaſonable to believe, that theſe words ought to be underſtood of the Cup, or Wine of the Lord's Supper; So we cannot without great violence to the words, underſtand leſs by being made to drink into one Spirit, than our partaking, by Means of that Cup, of the Blood of Chriſt, and the Benefits thereof, of which the Spirit of God is, no doubt, one of the principal ones: To be made to drink into that Blood, or the Spirit of God importing ſomewhat more, even in common underſtanding, than to receive a naked ſign of them. And though I know that ſome of the Reformed Churches, and particularly thoſe of Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius's inſtitution have been charg'd with meaner thoughts concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; Yet whoſoever ſhall take the pains to peruſe what our Coſins Hiſt. Tranſubſtant. Papal. cap. 2. hath collected upon this Argument, and particularly what he quotes from Bucer ibid., will find that they always thought, or at leaſt now do, that Chriſt's true Body, and Blood are truly exhibited, given, and taken, together with the viſible ſigns of Bread, and Wine, as well as ſignified by them.

But becauſe the queſtion is not ſo much at preſent concerning this Sacrament's being a Means, whereby we receive the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as what kind of Means it is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, and how we receive them by it; Therefore enquire we, ſo far as we may, what our Church delivers in theſe particulars, and what evidence there is from the Scripture of our Churches Orthodoxy therein.

Now though we may not perhaps find in any Monument of our Church a diſtinct, and particular Anſwer to the queſtions before propos'd; Yet we may find that in the eight and twentieth Article of our Church, which may ſerve for a general Anſwer to them all, and for a particular anſwer too to the laſt of them: The Doctrine thereof being, that the Body of Chriſt (and the ſame, mutatis mutandis, muſt be ſaid of his Blood) is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly, and ſpiritual manner only; and again, that the mean whereby the Body of Chriſt is receiv'd, and taken in the Supper, is Faith. For if the Body, and Blood of Chriſt be given, taken, and eaten, or drunken in the Supper after a heavenly, and ſpiritual manner only, that Supper muſt ſo far forth be a means purely heavenly, and Spiritual, the conveyance thereof of the ſame heavenly and ſpiritual nature, and the reception of it alſo. And if, again, the Mean, whereby the Body, and Blood of Chriſt are receiv'd, and taken in the Supper, is Faith, then do we in the opinion of our Church receive them by Faith, which will ſerve for a particular anſwer to the laſt of the queſtions propos'd. To all which if we add our Churches teaching us to pray to God, even in the prayer of Conſecration, that we receiving the Creatures of Bread, and Wine according to our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt's Holy Inſtitution, may be partakers of his moſt bleſſed Body, and Blood, ſo we ſhall be able to make out a more particular anſwer to the queſtions propos'd, and ſuch as we ſhall find reaſon enough to allow.

For it appears from the premiſſes, and particularly from the prayer of Conſecration, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is ſuch a ſpiritual Mean, as depends, for the force of it, not upon any vertue that is infus'd into it, and much leſs upon any natural union there is between that, and the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, but upon our receiving it, on the one hand, according to our Saviours Holy Inſtitution, and God's beſtowing, on the other hand, Chriſt's Body and Blood, upon ſuch a reception of it. It appears therefore that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper cannot any other way convey Chriſt's Body, and Blood to us, than by prompting us, by the repreſentation it makes to us of the offering of that Body, and Blood upon the Croſs for us, to meditate upon it, and rely upon it for our Salvation, and by prompting God, who hath annex'd that Body, and Blood to the due uſe of the Sacrament, to confer that Body, and Blood upon us. In fine, it appears from the premiſſes, and from a paſſage, or twoFor as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart, and lively faith we receive that Holy Sacrament, for then we ſpiritually eat the Fleſh of Chriſt, &c. And above all things ye muſt give moſt humble, and hearty thanks to God the Father, &c. for the Redemption of the World by the death and paſſion of our Saviour, &c. in our Church's exhortation to the Communion, that we receive the Body, and Blood of Chriſt in the Sacrament, when we are thereby prompted to reflect with a penitent, and thankful heart upon the offering Chriſt made of that Body, and Blood of his upon the Croſs for us, and to rely upon it for our Salvation. Which ſeveral aſſertions what foundation they have in the Scripture, is in the next place to be enquir'd, and the Doctrine of our Church therein eſtabliſhed by it.

In order whereunto we are to know, that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt in the Lord's Supper, as well as out of it, are in the opinion of the Scripture not corporal, but ſpiritual food, and as ſuch therefore to be look'd upon, and owned by us. For St. Paul affirming of the Antient Jews, that they receiv'd in their Euchariſt of Manna, and Water of the Rock, the ſame ſpiritual Meat 1 Cor. 10.3, 4., and drink, which we alſo do, and which he afterwards1 Cor. 4. declares to be Chriſt, muſt conſequently ſuppoſe what there is of Chriſt in our Euchariſt to be of the ſame ſpiritual nature, and becauſe the Body and Blood of Chriſt is that, which we receive by it, that that alſo is Spiritual Meat and Drink, and as ſuch to be look'd upon, and owned by us. Now as if the Body, and Blood of Chriſt in the Euchariſt are Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, they muſt conſequently be communicated rather to the Soul, than to the Body, as which alone is qualified to taſte of them, and be nouriſhed by them; So they muſt be communicated to the Soul by ſuch ways, and means, as are proper to poſſeſs the Soul of them, and receiv'd by the ſame Soul by ſuch act, or acts thereof, as are proper to apprehend them. Which things being granted, it will not be difficult to make anſwer, what kind of Mean the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, and how we receive them by it. For if the things, which this Sacrament profeſſeth to convey, be Spiritual Meat and Drink, ſuch as are proper for the nouriſhment of the Soul, and accordingly communicated to it; Then muſt this Sacrament, ſo far forth, be a Spiritual Mean alſo, as which alone can make way for ſuch Spiritual nouriſhment to enter into the Soul. If again the things, which this Sacrament conveys, muſt be conveyed to the Soul by ſuch ways, as are proper to poſſeſs the Soul of them; Then muſt this Sacrament convey them to it, either by prompting the Soul to reflect, as the Inſtitution requires, upon that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which it was intended to repreſent, or by prompting God, who hath annex'd that Body, and Blood to the due uſe of it, to confer that Body, and Blood upon us: Theſe being the only ways by which that Spiritual repaſt can be communicated to that Soul, for which it was intended. In like manner, if the things, which this Sacrament conveys, are to be receiv'd by ſuch Act or Acts of the Soul, as are proper to apprehend them; Then, if the Soul do receive the Body, and Blood of Chriſt by means of the Sacrament, it muſt do it by taking occaſion from that Sacrament to reflect, as the Inſtitution requires, upon that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which it was deſigned to repreſent, and particularly with Faith in that Body, and Blood, as which is of all other things moſt required to apply them to us. And though it be true, that the Church of Rome hath found out another ſort of food, and another ſort of receiving it, as ſhall be more fully declar'd, when I come to the handling of it; Yet as the Tridentine Fathers have been forced to confeſs, that our Saviour requir'd this Sacrament to be takenSeſſ. 13. cap. 2. as the ſpiritual food of Souls, by which they are nouriſhed, and ſtrengthened; So they have in like manner acknowledg'd, that it ought to be ſpiritually takenib. cap. 8., as well as Sacramentally, in order to our profiting by it.

But becauſe our Catechiſm,Queſtion. What are the benefits, whereof we are partakers thereby? Anſwer. The ſtrengthening, and refreſhing of our ſouls by the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as our Bodies are by the Bread, and Wine. where it entreats of the faithful's receiving the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, proceeds to ask, as is but reaſon, what are the benefits we partake of by it, and makes anſwer, that they are the ſtrengthening, and refreſhing of our Souls by the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as our Bodies are by the Bread, and Wine; Therefore it will be but needful, before we paſs any farther, to reflect upon thoſe Benefits, and accordingly enquire, 1. What is meant by the ſtrengthening and refreſhing of the Soul? 2. What Evidence there is of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt being intended for it? 3. How the Body, and Blood of Chriſt effect it?

1. Now as Strength and Refreſhment are things, which relate rather to the Body, than the Soul, and muſt therefore receive their Explication from thence; So the former, when applied to the Body, ſignifies an ability for thoſe operations, for which it is intended, as the latter a freedom from all heavineſs, and lumpiſhneſs. And they are brought about eſpecially by the Food, which we receive, and particularly by that Food, which was made choice of for the preſent Sacrament; Bread, as the Scripture ſpeaksPſal. 104.15., being that, which ſtrengthens the Heart, and Wine that, which chears Judg. 9.13., and refreſheth it. By Analogy to which, as the ſtrength, and refreſhment of the Soul muſt ſignifie in like manner an ability for its proper operations, and particularly for ſuch as Chriſtianity obligeth it to, and a freedom from all trouble, and diſquiet; So that, which is ſaid to ſtrengthen, and refreſh it, muſt conſequently furniſh it with ſuch an ability, and freedom, and both enable it to do thoſe things, which God requireth of it, and deliver it from thoſe troubles, and diſquiets, which its own guilt, or any thing elſe might be apt to fill it with.

2. This therefore being that ſtrengthening, and refreſhing of the Soul, which it is ſaid to receive by the Body, and Blood of Chriſt; Enquire we in the next place what Evidence there is of their being intended for it. Which will ſoon appear from their being intended by Chriſt as the Meat, and Drink of the Soul, and particularly as ſuch Meat, and Drink, as Bread, and Wine are to the Body. For Meat, and Drink being intended for the ſtrengthening, and refreſhing of Men's Bodies, and particularly ſuch Meat, and Drink, as are the outward part of the preſent Sacrament; If the Body, and Blood of Chriſt were intended as ſuch to the Soul, they muſt be conſequently intended for its ſtrengthening, and refreſhing. Now that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt were intended as Meat, and Drink to the Soul, and particularly as ſuch Meat, and Drink, as Bread, and Wine are to the Body, is evident for the former of theſe from ſeveral paſſages of the ſixth of St. John's GoſpelSee Part 3., where it is ſo declar'd in expreſs terms; and for the latter from our Saviour's making uſe of Bread, and Wine to repreſent them, and (which is more) calling upon us to eat, and drink of them in remembrance of Chriſt's giving that Body, and Blood of his for us: This, as it farther ſhews them to have been intended as our Spiritual Meat, and Drink, ſo to have been intended too in a Spiritual manner to be eaten, and drunken by us, and ſo made yet more ſubſervient to our ſtrengthening and refreſhment.

3. Now this the Body, and Blood of Chriſt effect firſt, and chiefly, as the meritorious cauſe of that Grace, by which that ſtrengthening, and refreſhing is immediately produc'd; Or ſecondly, as ſtirring up the Minds of the Faithful to contemplate the meritoriouſneſs thereof, and, in the ſtrength of that, to grapple with all Difficulties, and bear up under all Troubles, and Diſquiets. For beſide that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as was before obſerv'dPart 5., are to be conſider'd in this Sacrament under the Notion of a propitiatory Sacrifice, and which, as ſuch, doth rather diſpoſe God to grant us that ſtrength and refreſhment, which we deſire, than actually collate them on us; There is nothing more evident from the Scriptures, than that it is the Spirit of GodEph. 3.15., and his Graces, by which we muſt be immediately ſtrengthened with might in the inner Man, and that it is by himActs 9.31., that we receive comfort, and conſolation. For which cauſe our Saviour gives him the title of the Comforter, and profeſſeth to ſend him to ſupply his own place in that, as well as in other particulars. From whence as it will follow, that it is to the Spirit of God, and his Graces, that we are immediately to aſcribe that ſtrength, and refreſhment, which we expect; So that we ought therefore to look upon Chriſt's Body, and Blood as conferring to it, not ſo much by any immediate influence thereof upon the Soul, as by their diſpoſing God to grant that Spirit, by which both the one, and the other are produc'd. Upon which account we find St. Paul, where he attributes the ſeveral Graces of a Chriſtian to the immediate Influences of that Spirit, affirming thoſe, that partake of this Cup, to be made to drink into the ſame Spirit, as that which is the immediate Author of them. This I take to be in an eſpecial manner that ſtrengthning, and refreſhing, which our Catechiſm, and the Scripture prompts us to aſcribe to the Body, and Blood of Chriſt; Neither can I think of any other, than what the contemplation of the meritoriouſneſs thereof may infuſe into the Soul of him, who ſeriouſly reflects upon it: That, I mean, whereby the Soul becomes ſo confident of the Divine Aſſiſtance, and Favour, as neither to doubt of his enabling it to do what he requires, nor deſpair of his delivering it from all its fears, and troubles.

I will cloſe this Diſcourſe, when I have added, that as the Sign of this Sacrament hath the relation of a Means, whereby God conveys, and we receive the Body, and Blood of Chriſt; So it hath alſo the Relation of a Pledge to aſſure us thereof, or, as our Church elſewhere expreſſeth itArt. 19., a certain ſure Witneſs of it. A Relation, which is not more generally acknowledg'd, than eaſie to make out from the former one. For what is ordained by Chriſt as a Mean for the conveying of his Body, and Blood, being as ſure to have its effect, if it be received, as it ought to be; He, who ſo receives what Chriſt hath thus ordain'd, will need no other Proof, than that, of his receiving that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which it was ſo ordained to convey.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉
PART VII. Of Tranſubſtantiation. The Contents.

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 alledg'd for the former of theſe from the ſubſtantial changes mention'd in the Scripture of no force in this particular, becauſe there is no appearance of the actual exiſting of thoſe things, into which the change was made at the inſtant the other were chang'd into them. As little force ſhewn to be in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements, whether we conſider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread, and Wine, or The thing I now give you. That ſuppoſed change farther impugned by ſuch Scriptures, as repreſent the Bread of the Euchariſt as remaining after Conſecration, by the concurrent Teſtimony of Senſe, and the Doctrine of the Antient Fathers. Enquiry next made into that Aſſertion, which imports, that the ſubſtances of the Sacramental Elements are ſo chang'd, as to retain nothing of what they were before, ſave only the Species thereof. Where is ſhewn, that if nothing of their reſpective Subſtances remain, there muſt be an annihilation, rather than a change, and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them, either from the nature of thoſe Species, the words of Conſecration, or the Teſtimony of Senſe. That the true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, a third Capital Aſſertion in this Matter, but hath as little ground in the words of Conſecration, as either of the former. Firſt, becauſe thoſe words relate not to Chriſt's glorified Body, and Blood, which are the things affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, but to Chriſt's Body, as broken, and to his Blood as ſhed at his Crucifixion. Secondly, becauſe however they may import the being of that Body, and Blood in the Euchariſt, yet they ſpecifie nothing as to the modus of it, and much leſs intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof. That that Body, and Blood (which is the fourth Capital Aſſertion in this Matter) are truly, really, and ſubſtantially under the Sacramental Species, ſhewn to be as groundleſs; and Evidence made of the contrary by ſuch Arguments from Senſe, and Reaſon, as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation. Some brief Reflections in the cloſe upon the Worſhip of Chriſt in the Sacrament, and more large ones upon what the Romaniſts advance concerning the real eating of him in it. Where is ſhewn that that, which they call a real eating, is a very improper one, that it is however of no neceſſity, or uſe toward our ſpiritual nouriſhment by him, and not only no way confirm'd by the diſcourſe of our Saviour in the ſixth of St. John's Goſpel, but abundantly confuted by it.

BUT becauſe whatever Sacramental Relations our Church may content it ſelf with, yet it is certain, that that, which calls it ſelf Catholick, hath advanc'd one of a far different nature, and thoſe of Luther's Inſtitution another, before I paſs any farther, I will examine both the one, and the other, the grounds upon which they are built, and the ſuppoſed Reaſonableneſs thereof.

That, which I intend to examine here, is the relation which the Church of Rome advanceth, by which (as the Council of Trent. Seſſ. 13. c. 4. inſtructeth us) the whole ſubſtance of the Bread is changed into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, and the whole ſubſtance of the Wine into the ſubſtance of his Blood; There remaining no more, after that,Can. 2. of the Bread, and Wine, ſaving only the Species thereof, and the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, coming in the place of thoſe Elements, and truly, really, and ſubſtantially Can. 1.3. contained under the Species of them. By which means the ſame Chriſt comes to be worſhipped with divine Worſhip in the Sacrament of the EuchariſtCan. 6., and to be really Can. 8. eaten in it, as well as either Spiritually, or Sacramentally.

Now as ſuch Aſſertions as theſe, had need to be well prov'd, becauſe apparently contrary to Senſe, and Reaſon; So eſpecially ſuch of them as are the Foundations of Tranſubſtantiation, which are theſe following ones, 1. That the whole ſubſtance of the Bread is changed into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, and the whole ſubſtance of the Wine into the ſubſtance of his Blood. 2. That thoſe Subſtances of Bread, and Wine are ſo changed into the ſubſtances of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as to retain nothing of what they were before, ſave only the Species thereof. 3. That the true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of thoſe Elements. 4. That they are truly, really, and ſubſtantially contain'd in, or under them. Which four Aſſertions I will conſider in their order, and after I have examin'd the grounds upon which they ſtand, oppoſe proper Arguments to them.

1. That, which is firſt to be conſider'd, 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. An Aſſertion, which though it require as ſubſtantial a Proof, yet hath nothing of moment to ſupport it, whether as to the Poſſibility, or actual Exiſtence of it. For though the Scriptures of the Old, and New Teſtament make mention of ſubſtantial changes, and from which therefore we may infer a Poſſibility of the like (For thus we read of Moſes's Rod being changed by the Divine PowerExod. 4.3. into a Serpent, and from a Serpent againExod. 4.4. into a Rod, of Lot's Wife being turn'dGen. 19.26. into a Pillar of Salt, and of Water Joh. 2.9. into Wine) Yet is there no appearance of their being chang'd into things, that had an actual Exiſtence at the inſtant, when they were chang'd into them, which is the change, that Tranſubſtantiation imports. If there be any change of that Nature to make out the Poſſibility of this, it muſt be that, which is made of the Nouriſhment we receive, into the ſubſtance of our Body, and Blood. But beſide that this is a change by augmentation, and muſt conſequently be either preceded by an impairing of Chriſt's glorious Body, which is not ſo conſiſtent with that eſtate, or make it in time grow into a monſtrous one; It is a change, which will not do the Buſineſs of Tranſubſtantiation, even to bring whole, and entire Chriſt Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 13. cap. 3. under either Species: A change by augmentation being a change of the Object of it, not into the whole ſubſtance of that, into which it is chang'd, but only into a part of it.

But it may be, there is better proof of the actual being of the change we ſpeak of, than there is in any thing elſe of the poſſibility thereof; As indeed ſuch a ſtupendous change, as this, ought to be without Example. Be it ſo; But let us at leaſt ſee ſo clear, and expreſs a Proof, that our Faith may acquieſce in it, if our Reaſon cannot; let us ſee it affirm'd by him, to whom ſo great a change is aſcrib'd. And neither are we without one, if the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, may paſs for ſuch a Proof, as they have been hitherto repreſented to us. I will not now ſay, becauſe I have elſewhere ſhewn itParts 3-8., that there is much more reaſon to believe, that they ought to be figuratively taken, and cannot therefore be any ground for ſuch a change, as is ſought to be eſtabliſhed by them. I ſhall chooſe rather for once to allow, that they may be literally taken, and leave it to thoſe, that can, to inferr ſuch a change from them. For whether by the word This, in This is my Body, be meant the Bread before ſpoken of (As indeed how the change of the ſubſtance of the Bread into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body can be proved from thoſe words, which profeſs not to ſpeak of that Bread, is as hard to conceive as Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf) But whether, I ſay, be thereby meant the Bread before ſpoken of, or The thing, which I now give you, there is no appearance in the propoſition of any ſubſtantial change, and much leſs of ſuch a ſubſtantial change, as is intended to be inferred from them. All that the words profeſs to ſay (ſuppoſing them to mean Bread by the Particle This) is, that one thing is the other, but in what manner, or by what kind of change, they do not in the leaſt pretend to affirm. And if the Text do not determine either, where is that clear, and expreſs proof of ſuch a ſubſtantial change, as they profeſs to ſpeak of? Or where our either ſtupidity, or infidelity for not being convinced by it? But it will be ſaid, it may be, that (literally ſpeaking) one thing cannot be another, unleſs it be ſubſtantially changed into that, which it is ſaid to be, and therefore if the Bread be Chriſt's Body, it muſt be ſubſtantially chang'd into it. To which I anſwer, that they, who ſay that (literally ſpeaking) one thing cannot be another, unleſs it be ſubſtantially chang'd into that, which it is ſaid to be, do either mean, that it cannot be ſo ſtanding the ordinary Laws of Nature, or that it cannot be ſo, even by the extraordinary Power of God. If the former of theſe be their meaning, they ſay nothing, that can be of force to perſwade, that one thing can be another, even by being ſubſtantially chang'd into that, which it is ſaid to be; Becauſe, ſtanding the ordinary Laws of Nature, at the ſame time any thing is ſubſtantially chang'd into another, it is no more that, which it ſometime was, and cannot therefore in propriety of ſpeech, be ſaid to be that, which it is ſubſtantially chang'd into. On the other ſide, if they, who ſay that, literally ſpeaking, one thing cannot be another, unleſs it be ſubſtantially chang'd into that, which it is ſaid to be, mean thereby that it cannot be ſo, even by the extraordinary Power of God; They do not only take away from themſelves the power of preſſing upon our Belief, the contradictions of Chriſt's corporal Preſence in the Sacrament upon the ſcore of God's extraordinary Power (For it ſhould ſeem by that, that there are things, to which even an extraordinary Power cannot reach) but leave us at liberty, where the like impoſſibilities occurr, to order our Interpretations of Scripture accordingly, and conſequently, if the literal ſenſe of a Text lead to them, to abdicate that, and impoſe upon it a figurative one. Which if we do, we ſhall find a neceſſity of putting a figurative ſenſe upon thoſe very words, which are the ſubject of the preſent Conſideration. For how is it more impoſſible for God to make Bread, continuing Bread, to be Chriſt's Body, than it is to make that Body, continuing a Body, to be circumſcrib'd, and not circumſcrib'd, as it muſt be, if it be whole, and entire in this, or that particular Sacrament, and yet at the ſame time be in ten thouſand others, and as many more, as they ſhall be pleas'd to conſecrate. So little reaſon is there to believe, that if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread of the Sacrament, any ſubſtantial change of it can be inferred from them. And there is as little reaſon to believe it, if by the word This, in This is my Body, be meant the Thing which I now give you. For either our Saviour meant the Bread by it, and then the former exceptions will recurr, or there are no footſteps in the words of any change whatſoever, and much leſs of that ſubſtantial change, which is endeavour'd to be inferred from them.

But beſide that the change, we ſpeak of, hath no ground in the former words, though they ſhould be literally underſtood; There is enough to oppoſe againſt it from other places of Scripture, and particularly from thoſe, which repreſent the Bread of the Euchariſt, as remaining after Conſecration: Such as they are, that mention it as eaten by the Communicants1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28., and as the Communion 1 Cor. 10.16. of that Body, which it was intended as a Symbol of. For how is that eaten in the Sacrament, which hath not now any exiſtence? or how the Communion of Chriſt's Body, which hath no being of its own? But it may be, for all St. Paul's naming it Bread, he meant nothing ſuch, but either the Body of Chriſt under the ſpecies of Bread, or only thoſe ſpecies themſelves. I will not now ſay, though I might, that the Scripture will be a very uncertain thing, if ſuch forc'd interpretations as theſe be eaſily admitted. But I ſay, that neither of theſe interpretations alone will fit the texts we ſpeak of, and that there is as little reaſon to admit them both. For thus, for inſtance, though we ſhould allow the word Bread to ſignifie the Body of Chriſt under the ſpecies of Bread, where the Scripture makes mention of its being eaten by the Communicants; Yet can we not allow it the ſame ſignification, where it is affirmed to be the Communion of Chriſt's Body: Becauſe that, which is the Communion of any thing, muſt be a diſtinct thing from that, which it pretends to be the Communion of. On the other ſide, though we ſhould allow the word Bread to ſignifie only the ſpecies thereof, where the Scripture makes mention of its being the Communion of Chriſt's Body; Yet can we not with the like reaſon allow it the ſame ſignification, where it is ſaid to be eaten by the Communicants: Becauſe it is ſuch Bread, as makes the unworthy eaters of it to be guilty of Chriſt's Body 1 Cor. 11.27., which, according to the Doctrine of the Romaniſts, nothing but the eating of that Body it ſelf can do. If any thing be to be ſaid in this particular, it muſt be, that the word Bread is ſometime to be taken for the Body of Chriſt under the ſpecies of Bread, and ſometime alſo for thoſe ſpecies themſelves. But beſide that (as Tully ſometime ſpake concerning thoſe that aſſign'd Atoms a motion of declination) this is, as it were, to allot words their reſpective Provinces, and preſcribe them what they ſhall ſignifie in this, or that particular place; I do not ſee how either of theſe ſenſes can, without great violence to the text, be impos'd upon thoſe words of St. Paul, The Bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chriſt: Becauſe if, as is probable enough, the Bread were then broken, as it was in our Saviour's Euchariſt, before the words, This is my Body, paſs'd upon it, no other Bread can be meant by it, even in the opinions of the Romaniſts themſelves, than true, and proper Bread, and not either the Body of Chriſt under the ſpecies of Bread, or the ſpecies of Bread ſeparate from the ſubſtance of it.

Agreeable hereto is the teſtimony of Senſe, and which is the more conſiderable here, becauſe it hath not only no clear revelation againſt it, but, as appears from the premiſſes, hath plain revelation for it. For whatever pretence may be made againſt the teſtimony of Senſe where there is any juſt ſurmiſe of revelations being againſt it; Yet can there not certainly be any, where there is not only no ſuch ſurmiſe, but as plain, and expreſs revelation, as can be reaſonably deſir'd: To queſtion our Senſes in ſuch a caſe, being to queſtion revelation alſo, becauſe concurring with the Teſtimony thereof. Only, if any think that revelation not to be clear enough, becauſe (as hath been ſometime ſuggeſted) St. Paul may as well give the title of Bread to that Body of Chriſt, which was made of it, as Moſes Exod. 7.12. did that of a Rod to thoſe Serpents, which aroſe from them; It will not be difficult to make anſwer, that that notion can have no place, where St. Paul makes it his buſineſs (as he doth, where he recites the Inſtitution) to awe Men into a reverential receit of this Holy Sacrament: To think that St. Paul would ſo often call that Bread, which was a thing infinitely above it, when his Deſign was to awe Men into a reverential receit of it, being to think, he either knew not how to ſuit his Expreſſions to it, or that he baſely, and invidiouſly betray'd it.

I will conclude what I have to ſay againſt the ſubſtantial change of the Sacramental Elements, when I have ſhewn from the Antients, that ſuch a change was unknown to them. Which I ſhall endeavour to evince firſt from what they ſay concerning their continuing in the ſame nature, in which they were before, and then from what they ſay concerning their being Types, and Symbols and Images of that Body, and Blood, into which the Romaniſts affirm them to be tranſubſtantiated.

That the Antients repreſented the Sacramental Elements as continuing in the ſame nature, in which they were before, will appear, firſt from what I have elſewhere ſaidPart 1. concerning their repreſenting our Euchariſt as an Euchariſt for the things of this World, and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, and profeſſing to eat of the Bread of it, even when become the Body of Chriſt by Prayer, as a Teſtimony of their Thankfulneſs for the other. For how is that an Euchariſt for the things of this World, and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth, which is now all Heavenly, neither hath any thing of an earthly ſuſtenance remaining? Or how we ſaid to eat of the Bread of it in token of ſuch a Thankfulneſs, if there be nothing at all in it of what we profeſs to give thanks for? All other Offerings, beſide this, having ſome affinity with that, which they pretend to be Offerings of Thanks for. Neither will it avail to ſay, which is all that can be ſaid, that our Euchariſt may become ſuch, even for earthly Boons, by the remaining ſpecies thereof. For beſide that the Antients make no mention of any ſuch ſeparate ſpecies, and we therefore not to interpret what they ſay of Bread, and other ſuch ſubſtantial things, concerning the bare ſpecies thereof; It is plain from what was before quoted out of Irenaeus, that that, which was tender'd unto God in this Euchariſtical offering, was the creatures of Bread, and Wine, and from Origen, that the Euchariſtical Offering conſiſted in eating of what was tendered to him, as well as in the tendry it ſelf. So that if they were the Creatures of God, that were tender'd to him, and not only the ſpecies thereof, they were the ſame Creatures, and not only the ſpecies thereof, that were in their opinion eaten, and drunken by them, and conſequently by which they gave thanks to God for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the great Bleſſing of our Redemption.

But of all the things, that are ſaid by the Antients to ſhew their belief of the Sacramental Elements continuing in the ſame nature in which they were before, nothing certainly is of more force than the uſe they make of that relation, which is between them, and Chriſt's Body, and Blood, to ſhew againſt the Apollinarians, and Eutychians, that the divine, and humane nature, however united in the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, yet are not ſo made one, as to be confounded, and mixed together, as the Apollinarians taught his divine nature, and fleſh to be; or the humane nature to be ſwallowed up into the divine, as the Eutychians did. For to confute each of theſe, and to ſhew the diſtinction there is between the two natures of Chriſt, the Antients alledged the near relation there is between the Sacramental Elements, and Chriſt's Body, and Blood, but which, how near ſoever, doth not confound, or deſtroy the truth of their reſpective natures, but preſerves both the one, and the other of them entire. For thus St. Chryſoſtome, in his Epiſtle to Caeſarius lately publiſhedAppendix to the Def. of an Expoſit. of the Doctrine of the Church of England againſt de Meaux. , againſt the Doctrine of the Apollinarians. As before the Bread is ſanctified, we name it Bread, but, the divine Grace ſanctifying it through the mediation of the Prieſt, it is freed from the title of Bread, and thought worthy of the title of the Body of the Lord, although the nature of Bread remaineth in it, and it is not ſaid to be two Bodies, but one Body of the Lord; So alſo here the divine nature being placed in the Body, they both together make up one Son, and one perſon, but without confuſion, as well as diviſion, not in one nature, but in two perfect ones. So that as ſurely as the two natures of Chriſt continue diſtinct, and unconfounded, ſo the Sacramental Elements, and the thing ſignified by them do, becauſe made uſe of to illuſtrate the diſtinction of the other. To the ſame purpoſe, though more clearly, and fully, doth Theodoret diſcourſe in his Dialogues againſt the Eutychians. For taking notice in one placeDial. 1. c. 8. of our Saviour's calling Bread by the name of his Body, and in like manner his Fleſh by the name of Meat, he proceeds to give this reaſon of that change of names; To wit, That he intended thereby to prompt thoſe, that partake of the divine Myſteries, not to attend to the nature of the things, that are ſeen, but by that change of names to give belief to that change, which is made by grace. For he that called his natural Body Meat, and Bread, and again nam'd himſelf a Vine, the very ſame perſon honour'd the Symbols, that are ſeen, with the title of his Body, and Blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature. And again Dial. 2. c. 24., after he had acknowledg'd to the Eutychian, that the gift, that was offer'd, was call'd by its proper name before the invocation of the Prieſt, but the Body, and Blood of Chriſt after the ſanctification of it; and the Eutychians replying thereupon, that as the Symbols of the Lord's Body, and Blood, are one thing before the invocation of the Prieſt, but after that invocation they are chang'd, and become other things; ſo the Lord's Body, after its aſſumption, is chang'd into the divine eſſence, He hath theſe very emphatical words, You are caught, ſaith he, in thoſe nets which you your ſelf have weav'd. For neither do the myſtical Symbols, after their ſanctification, go out of their own nature. For they abide in their former eſſence, and figure, and faſhion, and are viſible, and palpable as they were before. But they are underſtood to be Blood, they have been made, to wit, Symbols of Chriſt's Body, and what and believ'd, and reverenc'd as being what they are believ'd. In like manner the natural Body of Chriſt, which is the Archetype thereof, hath its former form, and figure, and circumſcription, and in a word the eſſence of a Body. But after the reſurrection it became immortal, and above corruption, and was thought worthy to ſit at the right hand of God, and is worſhipped by every creature, as being called the Body of the Lord of nature. So that if the two natures of Chriſt ought to be look'd upon even now as two diſtinct, and different ones, and not one nature ſwallowed up into the other; We alſo, in the opinion of this Holy Man, ought to look upon this Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, as two diſtinct things, and upon the Sacrament in particular, however dignified with a noble relation, yet as of the ſame nature, and figure, and form, as it was before it was advanced to it. For Theodoret arguing the diſtinction of Chriſt's two natures from the diſtinction there is between the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, and particularly from that Sacrament's continuing in its former nature, and eſſence, muſt conſequently ſuppoſe that to have been a thing then known, and confeſs'd, as from which otherwiſe he could not reaſonably have argued the other. I am not ignorant indeed, that even theſe paſſages have met with ſubtle evaſions, and ſuch as ſhew in ſome meaſure the art of thoſe, that fram'd them. But as whoſoever ſhall compare them with thoſe words, to which they are apply'd, will find them to be rather ſubtle, than ſolid; So they put ſuch a ſenſe upon the words of their reſpective Authors, as if they ſhould be admitted, would make them look rather like Sophiſters, than Fathers of the Church, like Men, who intended to impoſe upon their Diſciples, rather than to enlighten them in the Truth. For what other would it have been in Theodoret to have argued againſt the change of Chriſt's Body into the divine eſſence, from the continuing of the Symbols of it in their eſſence, and figure, and form, if he had meant no more thereby, than that they remained what they were in their outward appearances, as the Romaniſts are willing to underſtand him, or (as they are ſometime pleas'd to phraſe it) in their outward ſubſtance? For ſo the Body of Chriſt alſo might have remain'd as to the outward appearances thereof, and yet have been as ſubſtantially chang'd into the divine eſſence, or nature, as the Bread of the Sacrament is ſaid to be into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body.

But beſide that the Antients repreſent the Sacramental Elements as continuing what they were, and thereby ſufficiently impugne that ſubſtantial change of them into Chriſt's Body, and Blood, which this firſt Aſſertion imports; They repreſent them alſo as Types, and Symbols, and Images thereof, and (as we ſhould therefore think) as diſtinct things from them: No like being the ſame with that, to which it is ſaid to be like, nor indeed any more capable of being ſo, than that, which is the moſt different from it. Now how, ſtanding the ſubſtantial change of the Sacramental Elements, can theſe titles be admitted? Or what is there to build that Typicalneſs or Symbolicalneſs, or reſemblance on; Certainly no other than thoſe aiery ſpecies thereof which in the opinion of thoſe, that maintain them, have themſelves no ſubject to uphold them. But as it doth not appear that the Antients believ'd any ſuch ſpecies, and oneAuguſt. ep. ad Dardan. 57. Tolle ipſa corporae qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi ſint; Et ideo neceſſe eſt ut non ſint — Veruntamen ſi moles ipſa corporis, quantacunque vel quantulacunque ſit, penitus auſeratur, qualitates ejus non erit ubi ſint, quamvis non mole metiendae ſint. of the Learnedeſt of them deni'd the poſſibility thereof; So they ſometime place the Symbolicalneſs of the Sacramental Elements in ſuch properties thereof, as can belong to no other, than their reſpective ſubſtances. For thus they apparently do, when they repreſent them as Symbols of Chriſt's myſtical Body upon the account of their being made up of the ſubſtance of ſevelal granes, and ſeveral Grapes, as that Body of Chriſt is of the reſpective members of it; This importing the union of ſeveral ſubſtances into a Maſs, or Body, and conſequently that that is much more a ſubſtance, which is made up of an aggregation of them.

2. It appearing from the premiſſes, how little ground there is to believe, 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 Chriſt's Blood; We ſhall the leſs need to concern our ſelves in the examination of that, which follows, even that thoſe ſubſtances of Bread, and Wine are ſo chang'd into the ſubſtances of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as to retain nothing of what they were before, ſave only the ſpecies thereof. For if they can in no ſenſe be ſaid to be ſubſtantially chang'd, how much leſs to ſuch a degree as to retain nothing of what they were, ſave only the ſpecies thereof? But as this Aſſertion, whatever it is, hath ſomething peculiar in it in the common underſtanding of the World; So it may not therefore be amiſs, eſpecially when the Council of Trent ſeems to have made a peculiar Article of it, to conſider it apart, and both enquire what grounds it hath to ſupport it ſelf, and oppoſe proper reaſons to it. In order whereunto I will conſider it as importing firſt, that nothing of the ſubſtance of Bread, and Wine remains, and ſecondly as importing that the ſpecies, or accidents thereof do.

If they, who affirm that nothing of the ſubſtance of the Bread, and Wine remains, mean no more thereby, than that nothing thereof remains in the form, or eſſence of Bread, and Wine, as one would think they ſhould not, by their affirming them to be chang'd into the ſubſtance of Chriſts Body, and Blood; They may then be thought to ſay ſomewhat, which may ſeem to have ſome foundation in thoſe words, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, becauſe thoſe words make no mention of any thing elſe, but them. But then as they muſt alſo ſuppoſe, that the matter thereof remains, though in another form, or eſſence, becauſe otherwiſe the ſubſtance thereof will not be chang'd, but annihilated; So they muſt ſuppoſe too an addition made thereby to the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, becauſe a new acceſſion of matter to it. Which being granted, the change will be made, not into the whole ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as Tranſubſtantiation was before ſaid to import, but only into that part thereof, into which they are affirmed to be chang'd. On the other ſide, if they, who affirm that nothing of the ſubſtance of Bread, and Wine remains, mean thereby, that nothing remains in the form of Bread, and Wine, or any other ſubſtance; They then do not only deſtroy the change of them into the ſubſtance of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, becauſe that change ſuppoſeth the former matter of them to abide, though in another form, or eſſence, but take away all pretence of founding that Aſſertion of theirs in This is my Body, and This is my Blood. For though thoſe words may aſſure me, that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt are there, where I diſcern the ſpecies of the Sacramental Elements to be, and conſequently that, naturally ſpeaking, the ſubſtances of thoſe Elements cannot; Yet as they do not ſo much as hint, that the ſubſtances of thoſe Elements neither are, nor can be there by the extraordinary power of God, ſo they ſay nothing to let us underſtand by what means they are convey'd away, if they do not remain there.

But becauſe this Aſſertion imports as well the remaining of the ſpecies, or accidents of the Sacramental Elements, as the not remaining of the ſubſtances thereof; Therefore enquire we, ſo far as we may, what the grounds of that part of the Aſſertion are, and, if there be any need of it after ſuch an enquiry, oppoſe proper Arguments to it. For the truth is, that as thoſe accidents are forc'd to ſubſiſt without a ſubject, ſo they ſeem to have no other ſupport, ſave what the neceſſity of a bad cauſe, and a confident aſſeveration can give them. For is there any thing in the nature of an accident to perſuade us, that the thing is ſo much as poſſible, and that though the ſubſtance of the Sacramental Elements remains not, yet the ſpecies, or accidents thereof may? On the contrary they, who believe any ſuch thing as an accident, make the inhering thereof in a ſubject to be of the very eſſence of it, and that at the ſame time it ceaſeth to inhere (as it muſt do, when the ſubject thereof is remov'd) it alſo ceaſeth to be. Is it then, that thoſe ſeparate ſpecies, or accidents have any thing in the words, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, to afford them any ſupport? But alas, as the words my Body, and my Blood are ſo far from giving any countenance to them, that they rather bid defiance to them, becauſe profeſſing to contain nothing leſs in them than the Auguſt Body, and Blood of Chriſt; So the word This is as much afraid of owning them, for fear it ſhould injure the ſubſtances thereof, and inſtead of betokening the converſion of thoſe into the ſubſtances of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, proclaim the converſion of the ſpecies, or accidents thereof into them, and ſo bid a far greater defiance to our already too much offended Senſes. Shall we then (which is all we have to truſt to at the laſt) appeal to the teſtimony of our Senſes for them? But beſide that no wiſe Tranſubſtantiator ought to give any belief to his Senſes, as which will tell him farther, if he liſten to them, that there is the ſubſtance of Bread, and Wine under them; Thoſe Senſes of ours do never repreſent thoſe ſpecies as things diſtinct from their proper ſubſtances, and much leſs as ſeparate from them, but as inherent in them, and proper characters of them, and ſo leading us more to the contemplation of their reſpective ſubſtances, than to that of their own particular natures. So little reaſon is there to believe the being of ſuch Species, or Accidents, after their proper Subſtances are remov'd. And there is this ſubſtantial Reaſon againſt it, that the admiſſion of ſuch Species, or Accidents in the Sacrament would render the Teſtimony of our Senſes uncertain in other things: Becauſe whatever Pretence there may be from Revelation for the being of Chriſt's Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, yet there is no Pretence at all from that for the being of any ſuch ſeparate Species, or Accidents, and we therefore as much at liberty to believe them elſewhere, as there, and ſo boggle at any farther notice, that may be ſuppos'd to come to us by the Species of any thing whatſoever.

3. The third Aſſertion, on which the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is founded, is that the true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements. An Aſſertion, which the Romaniſts ſeem to be ſo confident of, from the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that they make no end of inculcating it, and think all Men either blind, or obſtinate, who will not as readily aſſent to it. But with how little reaſon, and how much againſt it alſo, will ſoon appear, if we compare them together, whether as to that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which they both profeſs to intreat of, or as to the being of them in the Sacrament; There being a manifeſt difference in each of theſe between the Aſſertion I am now upon, and thoſe words from which they profeſs to deduce it. For firſt, whereas the Body, and Blood of Chriſt in the words of our Saviour are his Body, and Blood, as broken, and ſhed at his Crucifixion, and not as they were at the time of our Saviour's uttering thoſe words, or ſince his reſurrection from the Dead; The Body, and Blood of Chriſt affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of Bread, and Wine, are the Body, and Blood of Chriſt in that glorious eſtate, wherein they now are, now no more to fall under thoſe Accidents, which they ſometime underwent. For it is no way repugnant (ſaith the Council of Trent Seſſ. 13. cap. 1.) that our Saviour himſelf ſhould alway ſit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven according to a natural manner of exiſting, and yet nevertheleſs be Sacramentally preſent to us by his ſubſtance in other places after that way of exiſting, which though we can ſcarce expreſs in words, yet we believe to be poſſible to God. And again Ib. cap. 3., which ſhews it yet more to ſpeak of Chriſt's glorified Body, the Faith of the Church hath always been, that preſently after the Conſecration, the true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of Bread, and Wine; But the Body indeed under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of Wine by vertue of the words; but the Body it ſelf under the Species of Wine, and the Blood under the Species of Bread, and the Soul under both by vertue of that natural Connexion, and Concomitancy, by which the parts of Chriſt our Lord, who is now riſen from the Dead, now no more to die, are coupled among themſelves. Than which what can be more plain, that it is the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, as they now are, which they affirm to be contained under the Species of thoſe Elements, and not as broken, and ſhed for us? It is true indeed, that when the ſame Tridentine Fathers come to entreat of the Sacrifice of the Maſs, and the Propriety of that Sacrifice, they may ſeem to ſing another Song, becauſe (as was beforePart 5. obſerved) repreſenting it as the very ſame Sacrifice with that, which he offer'd up upon the Croſs. But as they ſufficiently unſay it again, when they repreſent it as an unbloody Sacrifice, and as an Oblation that is made of Chriſt's Body, and Blood under the Species of Bread, and Wine; So they thereby aſcribe the breaking, or ſhedding of this Sacrifice, rather to the Species, under which they are offer'd, than to the Body, and Blood of Chriſt under them. But beſide that there is a manifeſt difference between the Aſſertion I am now upon, and our Saviour's words, as to that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which they both profeſs to intreat of; There is no leſs ſignal a difference between them, as to the exiſtence of that Body, and Blood of Chriſt in the Sacrament, which will be a yet farther prejudice againſt the inferring of this Aſſertion from them. For whereas the utmoſt, that our Saviour's words can be thought to import, is the ſimple exiſtence of his Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, the Aſſertion we are now upon proceeds to affirm, that they exiſt under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, as that too not only under the Species of their proper Element, but under the one, and the other of them. Which how different it is from the importance of our Saviour's words will not be difficult for thoſe to ſee, who can diſcern any difference between a ſimple affirmation of any thing, and that, which proceeds alſo to determine the modus of it. But it will be ſaid, it may be, that though our Saviour's words do not expreſly affirm the exiſting of his Body, and Blood under the Sacramental Species, yet they ſay that, from which it may by juſt conſequence be deduc'd. If they do, I willingly yield they ſay enough to juſtifie the preſent Aſſertion; But I ſay withall, that there is nothing in them, which can give countenanee to ſuch a Surmiſe. For beſide that they make no expreſs mention of thoſe Sacramental Species, under which this Body, and Blood are ſuppoſed to exiſt; If they ſay any thing, which may be thought to concern thoſe Species, it muſt be the converſion of them alſo into that Body, and Blood, into which their reſpective ſubſtances are chang'd: That, which our Saviour pronounc'd the words over, being, no doubt, Species, as well as Subſtances, and thoſe Species therefore, as well as their Subſtances, to fall under the ſame change, if thoſe words were intended to effect one.

4. Now though theſe are Difficulties enough to choak any indifferent Man's Belief, if they do not alſo trouble the Belief of thoſe, who pretend to be the moſt zealous Aſſerters of Tranſubſtantiation; Yet, leſt either they, or we ſhould want any thing to exerciſe it, or improve the meritoriouſneſs thereof, they proceed to aſſert in expreſs terms, that this true Body, and true Blood of Chriſt are as truly, really and ſubſtantially contained in, or under thoſe Species, under which they are affirmed to exiſt. I will not as yet alledge any of thoſe Difficulties, wherewith this Aſſertion is encumbred, becauſe it may be time enough to do that, when we have enquir'd into the grounds of it. But as thoſe Difficulties are apparent enough to make any Man ſtand upon his guard, when ſuch Aſſertions as theſe are endeavour'd to be impoſ'd upon him; So one would think they ſhould prevail ſo far with thoſe, who pretend to advance them, as to ſee that they have ſufficient ground for their Confidence in it. Which whether they have, or no, let thoſe Perſons judge, who conſider firſt (what can never be too often inculcated) that whatever ground there is for a ſubſtantial Preſence in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, it is for the ſubſtantial Preſence of a Body broken, and Blood ſhed (for ſo the very Letter of the Text informs us) and not for the ſubſtantial Preſence of glorified ones. Neither will it avail to ſay, that they alſo affirm them to be broken, and ſhed in their reſpective Species, and ought not therefore to be debarr'd the uſe of thoſe words for the proof of that ſubſtantial Preſence, which they advance. For as it is evident that they mean no more thereby, than that thoſe Species are broken, and ſhed, as appears from their repreſenting the immolation of Chriſt himſelf as a bloodleſs one; So it is alike evident therefore that they mean not ſuch a Body, and Blood as the Text advanceth, and ought not therefore to argue the ſubſtantial Preſence thereof from it. But let us ſuppoſe that our Saviour, and the Tridentine Fathers meant one and the ſame Body, and Blood, I mean Chriſt's glorified ones, and conſequently that ſo far forth they have a right to make uſe of the preſent words; yet how doth it appear that any ſubſtantial Preſence of that Body, and Blood can be inferred from them? What is there in the Words themſelves, that can give any countenance to it? If there be any thing in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that may be thought to look that way, it is manifeſtly that [Is], which connects the Subject, and Predicate together, becauſe the word, which the Romaniſts themſelves make uſe of to preſs us with the Belief of that ſubſtantial Preſence, which they inculcate. But what reaſon have they to take that for a proof of a ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's glorified Body, and Blood, which in their own opinion doth not reach it, becauſe having a reſpect only to that whether Body, or Blood, to which it is prefix'd, and not (as it muſt, and ought to be, to betoken a ſubſtantial Preſence of a glorified Chriſt) to both of them together. For though the Tridentine Fathers aſſert, that the glorified Body, and Blood of Chriſt are contain'd indifferently under the Species of either Element, yet only the Body under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of the Wine by vertue of the words; And the word [Is] therefore not of ſufficient force to prove any ſubſtantial Preſence of them. Becauſe Chriſt's glorified Body, and Blood, though they may be vertually, and objectively preſent to us, when conſider'd apart, yet cannot be ſubſtantially preſent, but by a real Union, and Connexion, as they themſelves have taught us to believe.

Now as, where there is ſo little ground for the belief of a ſubſtantial Preſence, there may be place for alledging Arguments againſt it both from Senſe and Reaſon (For though Senſe, and Reaſon ſhould be of no force againſt the certain Revelations of God, yet nothing hinders but they may be, where no ſuch Revelation doth appear) ſo eſpecially, if we find that the Arguments, which they offer, are ſuch as are confirm'd to us by Revelation, and in a manner put into our mouths by it. For ſuch I account that, which Senſe offers us for that's being Bread, and not a humane Body, which is put into our Hands, or Mouths, and from thence tranſmitted to our Stomachs; Our Eye, and Touch, and Taſte aſſuring us that it is Bread, and not the Body of a Man under the Species of Bread, and much leſs that glorified Body, which the Romaniſts would perſwade us into. For what other is that Argument, for the ſubſtance thereof I mean, which our Saviour ſometime offer'd to his Diſciples to prove the Body, in which he appeared to them, to be a real Body, and not a Spirit under the appearances of one? For, handle me (ſaith heLuk. 24.39.) and ſee; For a Spirit hath not Fleſh, and Bones, as ye ſee me have. For there, as well as we here, our Saviour appeal'd to the Senſes of his Diſciples for the reality, and ſubſtantialneſs of that Body of his, which then preſented it ſelf to their Eyes; And there too, as well as we do here, he appeal'd to the Teſtimony of the ſame Senſes, that it was not a thing different from a body, even a Spirit. Which laſt particular is the more to be taken notice of, as becauſe, according to that, the Teſtimony of Senſe may be a ſufficient Evidence of the not being of a thing, that appears not, as well as of the being of a thing, that doth; So becauſe (as the Romaniſts order the matter concerning the glorified Body of Chriſt in the Sacrament) there is no material difference, if any at all, between that glorified Body of his, and what our Saviour in the place before quoted calls a Spirit: They repreſenting that Body as preſent in an inviſible, and impalpable manner, which is the very preſence of a Spirit. By the ſame reaſon therefore that our Saviour might argue from his own falling under their Eye, and Touch, that that ſubſtance, wherein he preſented himſelf to them, was a Body, and not a Spirit; By the ſame reaſon may we argue that that, which our Senſes aſſure us to be Bread, is really ſuch, and not ſuch a Body as, according to the Romaniſts, is an inviſible, and impalpable one, and ſo far forth of the nature of a Spirit. Of the ſame force, as well as nature, I judge the Arguments, which Reaſon offers againſt the ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Body in the Sacrament, and particularly that, which it offers to us from the impoſſibility of a Body's being in ſo many places at once, as the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation obligeth us to believe concerning the Body of Chriſt. For what other is that Argument, which the Angels offer'd to the WomenMat. 28.6., that ſought Chriſt in the Grave after he was riſen from it? He is not here, for he is riſen, as he ſaid; Come, ſee the place, where the Lord lay. For by the ſame reaſon, that Chriſt's Body could not be in the Grave, becauſe he was riſen, and departed from it; By the ſame reaſon it cannot be in this, or that particular place on Earth, now it is departed from the whole of it to Heaven, and ſitteth at the right hand of God there. And I muſt needs ſay, I could not therefore but wonder, when I read in the Council of Trent Seſſ. 13. cap. 1. that they were things no way repugnant to each other for our Saviour to ſit always at the right hand of the Father in Heaven after a natural manner of exiſting, and yet in many other places be ſacramentally preſent to us by his ſubſtance. For as they thereby ſufficiently intimate, that even the glorified Body of our Saviour cannot be in Heaven, and here after its natural manner of exiſting; So ſetting aſide the diſguiſe of the word Sacramentally, that Council ſays nothing at all to hinder our belief of its falling into that very abſurdity it ſelf. For underſtanding by Sacramentally no other than ſubſtantially, and which accordingly they juſt before expreſs by the ſame term, as well as in other placesIb. Can. 1. of that Seſſion, they muſt conſequently (becauſe it is a corporeal ſubſtance, whereof they ſpeak) be thought to mean corporally alſo, which is certainly its natural manner of exiſting. For if to be ſubſtantially preſent be no other, than to be preſent after the manner of a ſubſtance; to be ſubſtantially preſent, when applied to ſuch, or ſuch a ſort of ſubſtance, muſt be to be preſent after the manner of ſuch, or ſuch a ſubſtance; and conſequently, if we ſpeak of a corporeal ſubſtance, to be coporally preſent, or after the manner of a Body, and not after the manner of a Spirit.

Theſe four Capital Aſſertions being thus deſtroy'd, and ſhewn to be both without Reaſon, and againſt it, we ſhall not need to concern our ſelves much about the other two, as being only the Conſectaries thereof, and therefore falling together with them. For if the Body, and Blood of Chriſt be not ſubſtantially in the Euchariſt, there can be no ground, even in the opinion of the Romaniſts, for worſhipping Chriſt with Divine Worſhip in it; And there can be as little Pretence for his being really eaten in it, as well as ſpiritually, and ſacramentally. Only becauſe theſe two Aſſertions are as much ſtood upon as any of the other, and the former is alſo of pernicious conſequence, I think it not amiſs to ſay ſomewhat to each of them, and firſt to the worſhipping Chriſt with Divine Worſhip in it.

And here in the firſt place, I cannot but obſerve, that however the Tridentine Fathers may in ſome places ſeem to confine this Divine Worſhip to Chriſt as preſent in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt (For ſo they do both in the Reaſon they Seſſ. 13. cap. 5. Nam illum eundem deum praeſentem in eo adeſſe credimus, quem pater aeternus in orbem introducens, &c. give of the Divine Worſhip of the Hoſt, and in the Canon Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in ſancto Euchariſtiae Sacramento Chriſtum, &c. non eſſe cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum, &c. they make againſt thoſe, that ſhall deny it) yet do they alſo extend it to that Sacrament, in which they ſuppoſe him to be preſent, and, as we ſhould therefore think, are guilty of groſs Idolatry in it, though Chriſt ſhould be allow'd to be worſhipp'd with Divine Worſhip in it. For as the title of that Chapter Cap. 5. De cultu, & veneratione huic ſanctiſſimo Sacramento exhibenda., which profeſſeth to intreat of this Matter, is concerning the Worſhip, and Veneration, which is to be exhibited to this moſt holy Sacrament; So the Chapter it ſelf begins with theſe expreſs wordsNullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Chriſti fideles pro more in Catholicâ Eccleſiâ ſemper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic ſanctiſſimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. Neque enim ideo minus eſt adorandum, quòd fuerit à Chriſto domino, ut ſumatur, inſtitutum., There is therefore no place for doubt, but that all Chriſt's faithful ones, after the manner always receiv'd in the Catholick Church, ought with Veneration to exhibit to this moſt holy Sacrament that Worſhip of Latria, which is owing to the true God. For neither is it therefore the leſs to be worſhipped, becauſe it was inſtituted by Chriſt our Lord to be receiv'd. For can there be any thing more plain (eſpecially when the very next wordsNam illum eundem Deum praeſentem in eo adeſſe credimus, quem pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum omnes Augeli Dei, &c. ſpeak of the very ſame God being preſent in it) than that the Tridentine Fathers meant by the former words the Sacrament properly ſo ſtil'd, even thoſe ſpecies, under which they elſewhere affirm Chriſt to be, and that accordingly they requir'd divine worſhip to be given to them? And, if that was their meaning, that they thereby requir'd divine worſhip to be given to Creatures, yea the moſt imperfect ones, and ſuch too, as becauſe not inhering in that Body of Chriſt, which is ſaid to be under them, cannot be ſuppos'd to be perſonally united to him? Than which what can be ſaid, that doth more entrench upon the divine honour, yea upon the honour of that Chriſt, whom they pretend to worſhip in this Sacrament? Thoſe ſpecies, though no part at all of him, being yet joyn'd in equal honour with him; that, which is in effect but the ſhadow of a meer Creature, with the great Creatour, and Redeemer of the World.

But let us ſuppoſe that thoſe Fathers meant no more by the word Sacrament, than Jeſus Chriſt in it, and conſequently that ſo far forth there is no pretence for the charge of Idolatry in this affair; Yet how will the Romaniſts acquit themſelves from it, ſuppoſing (as we often may) that the Elements are not rightly conſecrated, and no real preſence therefore of Chriſt's Body, and Blood under the ſpecies of them? For in that caſe their worſhip muſt be terminated on the Bread, becauſe there is nothing elſe to receive it. Now that the ſuppoſition I before made is no way unreaſonable, will appear from their affirming that the intention of the Miniſter to do at leaſt, what the Church enjoyns,Seſſ. 17. can. 11. is requir'd to the making of a Sacrament. For what if the intention of the Miniſter, when he comes to the words of Conſecration, wander from the matter in hand? Or, if not ſo, yet doth not aim to do what the Church doth, as they, that believe not Tranſubſtantiation, certainly cannot, of which numberSee Pref. to the Diſcourſe of the Holy Euch. &c. there are not a few? Or (which is worſt of all) as a Prieſt is ſometime ſaid to have directed hisMeric Caſaub. Neceſſ. of Reſ. p. 75. for ſeven, or eight years together, be ſet upon doing honour to the Devil, rather than to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt? In each of theſe caſes certainly there can be no real converſion of the Elements into the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, and therefore they, that pay adoration to them, rather worſhippers of the Creature, than of him, who was the Inſtitutor of this Sacrament. And I know not of any tolerable evaſion in this affair, ſave what is ſaid to have been ſuggeſted by Gerſon, even by worſhipping the hoſt conditionally, and upon ſuppoſition of its being the Body of Chriſt. But as that is a ſort of worſhipping, which few of the unlearned are acquainted with, and which can do no great good to thoſe, that are; Such an uncertainty, as that, being as likely to take off the edge of their devotions, as to help them in the directing of their intentions; So that cannot however hinder the external act from being fixed upon the Creature, and conſequently cannot but make the door of that external act guilty of material Idolatry, though not of any formal one. Which material Idolatry, though it may not perhaps reflect upon the worſhipper, becauſe of his invincible ignorance in this affair; Yet, which is worſe, will, if ſuppos'd, reflect upon God for not providing againſt it in ſo many caſes as may happen: Eſpecially, if the like intention be either wanting, or perverted in the perſon, that baptiz'd, or ordained the Conſecrater, becauſe then all he doth at any time will be null. For how is it conſiſtent with the honour, or goodneſs of that God, who was in their opinion ſo gracious to his Church as to furniſh it with an infallible guide, not to provide againſt ſo many members of it paying their external adoration to a piece of Bread, at the ſame time they deſir'd, and intended to addreſs it to his Son?

I will conclude my diſcourſe of this aſſertion when I have taken notice of one piece of Sophiſtry, which is employ'd by the Romaniſts to ſave themſelves from the imputation of Idolatry, though there ſhould be no ſuch thing as Tranſubſtantiation in the World; That I mean, which they alledge, and our Taylour Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. num. 16. in their behalf, concerning their directing their worſhip, not to Bread, which they believe not to be preſent, but to the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, or rather to Chriſt in perſon, whom they conceive to be corporally preſent in it. But as they do not, I confeſs, intentionally direct their worſhip to Bread, or at leaſt not to Bread, as ſuch, becauſe they believe it not to continue, where they direct their worſhip; So I do not ſee how that hinders their directing it indeed, and in truth to Bread, ſuppoſing that not to be tranſubſtantiated into Chriſt's Body: Becauſe as their outward worſhip is manifeſtly directed to that ſubſtance, which is under the ſpecies of Bread; So believing, as they do, that that Subſtance is Chriſt's Body, they muſt conſequently be thought to direct their inward worſhip alſo to it, and, if therefore there be nothing elſe there, to ſimple Bread. And I know of nothing, that can excuſe them in this point, unleſs it be their own miſtake, which how far it will avail them in this particular, I, for my part, ſhall not take upon me to determine. But as that miſtake of theirs will not however change the nature of the action, or make it ceaſe to be the adoration of a Creature; So it will not change it in the ſight of God, if the miſtake be groſs, and affected, which they have juſt cauſe to look after, who have ſo little ground from Scripture for the belief of that Tranſubſtantiation, which is the foundation of it, and ſo much againſt it from the ſame Scripture, and Antiquity, and Senſe, and Reaſon, which are all the Topicks we can argue from.

Next to the worſhipping of Chriſt as preſent in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, conſider we our really eating him in it, as well as either ſpiritually, or ſacramentally. A thing, as the Romaniſts themſelves confeſs, which depends upon his being ſubſtantially there, and muſt therefore fall of courſe with that ſubſtantial preſence, which I have before deſtroy'd. But as this Aſſertion is not without weakneſs of its own, and would therefore be conſidered apart; So I think it therefore but reaſonable to be more particular in the handling of it, than would otherwiſe be neceſſary for me to be.

And here in the firſt place I cannot but obſerve, that where the Council of Trent intreats of this affair, it oppoſeth real, as well as ſacramental manducation to that, which is ſpiritual, as if the latter, though undoubtedly the principal, were an imaginary one. But as we gain thus much by it, that that Council by real muſt conſequently mean a corporal one, ſo I ſhall therefore make no farther uſe of that oppoſition at preſent, than to enquire into the truth of that real manducation underſtood as is before deſcrib'd.

In order whereunto that, which I ſhall in the next place take notice of, is, that the word manducare, which the Council makes uſe of, ſignifies primarily, and properly chewing, and conſequently, where intended to denote a corporal manducation, ought to be underſtood of ſuch a one, as is made by the breaking of the thing eaten by the Teeth. And indeed, as this is the true corporal manducation, and which alone therefore deſerves the name of a real one; So the Church of Rome appears to have been heretofore of the ſame mind by the recantation it put into the Mouth of Berengarius: The words thereof, ſo far, beingBaron. Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 1059. , that he believ'd the true Body of Chriſt to be ſenſually, not only in Sacrament, but in truth handled, and broken by the hands of the Prieſt, and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the faithful. And thus if the Romaniſts were ſtill perſuaded, they might pretend to a real manducation indeed, and ſuch as had ſome title to that name, which they beſtow upon it. But as they ſaw ſuch a manducation to agree but ill with that glorious Body, to which they aſcrib'd it, and have not therefore fail'd to ſet a brand upon thoſe words, which were made uſe of to expreſs the Churches mind; So they now put off that manducation to thoſe Capernaites, to whom our Saviour diſcours'd in St. John concerning eating his Fleſh, and drinking his Blood, and make that to be the very eating, which our Saviour faulted them for the imagination of, and not that more refined one, which they themſelves advance.

But what then is that real manducation, or eating of Chriſt, which the Romaniſts advance? What is that, which they think fit to give that name unto? Nothing, for ought that I can diſcern, ſave the receiving of him with their mouth, and tranſmitting him from thence into their ſtomachs. If there be any thing elſe, that looks like manducation, the poor ſpecies are fain to bear it; For that is the Sum, and ſubſtance of their eating Chriſt in them. But in conſcience can this manducation of Chriſt look like a real one? Is this anſwerable to that literal ſenſe, which they ſeem to be ſo fond of in other things? For why, if the letter of the text perſuades that the very Body of Chriſt is in the Sacrament, as that too not figuratively, or ſpiritually, but properly, and ſubſtantially, ſhould not the ſame letter perſuade, that it is eaten as literally, and properly, and not only ſpiritually, and ſacramentally? Eſpecially, when they themſelves advance a real manducation, as well as a ſacramental, and ſpiritual one. But as they, who contend ſo eagerly for the very Body of Chriſt being in the Sacrament, and (which is more) will have it to be ſubſtantially there, do yet arbitrarily enough aſſert its being only ſpiritually there, or after the manner of a Spirit; So out of the ſame meer will, and pleaſure they aſſert alſo a real manducation, and yet at the ſame time make that real manducation to be no other than Mens receiving Chriſt's Body into their Mouths, and tranſmitting it from thence into their Stomachs. As if our Saviour had given them an abſolute Empire over his words, and empower'd them to give thoſe words a proper, and improper Senſe, as beſt ſuited with their own Hypotheſes, and intereſts. For if the letter of the words will prevail ſo far as to make us underſtand the eating enjoyn'd of ſuch an eating as is performed by the Mouth, I do not ſee, without the Empire before ſpoken of, why they ſhould not underſtand it of ſuch an eating, as is alſo performed by the Teeth, and profeſs (as Berengarius was taught to do) that the Body of Chriſt is ſenſually, not in Sacrament, but in truth handled, and broken by the hands of the Prieſt, and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the Faithful.

Beſide, to what purpoſe any corporal eating at all? To what purpoſe our ſo much as receiving Chriſt with our Mouths, and tranſmitting him from thence into our Stomachs? when, for ought appears by the Council of Trent it ſelf, this Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and Blood was intended not for the corporal nouriſhment of our Bodies, but for the ſpiritual nouriſhment of our Souls: That Council where it profeſſeth to intreat of the Reaſon of the Inſtitution of this moſt holy Sacrament Seſſ. 13. cap. 2., affirming only, that our Saviour would have this Sacrament to be taken as the Spiritual Food of Souls, whereby they are nouriſhed, and ſtrengthened, living by the Life of him, that ſaid, He, that eateth me, even he ſhall live by me. For ſuch as the Food is, ſuch in reaſon ought to be that eating, by which it is to be receiv'd; And therefore, if the Body of Chriſt in the Sacrament were intended for the Spiritual Food of our Souls, to be ſpiritually eaten alſo, and not after a corporal manner. But that, which will ſhew yet more the no neceſſity there is of this corporal eating of Chriſt's Body, any more than of that Body's being really, and locally preſent in the Sacrament, is what is aſſign'd by Monſ. Claud Reſp. au . Traite de la Perpet. c. 4. , where he intreats of the no neceſſity of the latter, and which becauſe I know not how to do better, I will expreſs in that Author's words; To wit, that the Fleſh, and Blood of Chriſt are indeed a Principle of Peace, and Life, and ſalvation to our Bodies, and Souls, not in the quality of Phyſical Cauſes, which act by contact, and by the poſition of their ſubſtances, but in the quality of meritorious Cauſes, which act morally, or of Cauſes Motives, which do not only operate, and produce their Effects being abſent, but when they themſelves are not as yet in being, as appears by the Examples of the Antient Patriarchs, who were ſav'd by the vertue of Jeſus Chriſt, even as we. For what neceſſity can there be of any corporal eating of Chriſt's Body, when that Body is not a Principle of Life to us in the quality of a Phyſical Cauſe, but of a meritorious, and moral one? And when moreover they, who were antienly ſaved by it, as well as we now are, were not in a capacity ſo to eat of it, becauſe that, which was to be the matter of it, had not at that time a being in the World?

Agreeable hereto is the diſcourſe of our Saviour in the ſixth of St. John's Goſpel, and after which it is a wonder that any Man ſhould think of eating Chriſt's Fleſh after a corporal manner. For when they, who were preſent at it, deſir'd him evermore to give them of that Bread Joh. 6.34., which he had but juſt before affirm'd to give Life unto the World, he not only declar'd to them in expreſs words, that he Joh. 6.35. was that Bread of Life, but ſufficiently intimated that the way for them to attain it, and that Life together with it, was by coming to him, and believing on him. For he that cometh to me (ſaith our SaviourIbid.) ſhall never hunger, and he 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 that believeth on me, ſhall never thirſt. And he farther confirms that ſort of eating, by ſuggeſting, as he goes, that it was the Will of his Father, that every one, which ſeeth the Son Joh. 6.40., and believeth on him, ſhould have everlaſting Life, and that he, that believeth on him Joh. 6.47., hath everlaſting Life. For how was that either pertinent to the account he gave of his being the Bread of Life, or but conſiſtent with what he afterward ſaith, that except Joh. 6.53. they ate his Fleſh, and drank his Blood, they had no Life in them, if that belief in him were not the thing intended by the eating of him, and that eating therefore a ſpiritual, rather than a corporal one? In like manner, when ſome of his Diſciples conceiving he intended another ſort of eating, were offended with that Diſcourſe of his, and repreſented it as an hard Joh. 6.60., and unnatural one; After he had ask'd them, What if they ſhould ſee the Son of Man aſcend up Joh. 6.62., where he was before, whether the more to enhance the Difficulty before he reſolv'd it, or, by the mention of his aſcending into Heaven, to take them off from underſtanding him in a carnal ſenſe, he hath theſe following wordsJoh. 6.63., It is the Spirit, that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing; The words, that I ſpeak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life. The moſt plain, and obvious meaning of which words is, that it was the ſpiritual eating, and not the carnal one, that availed unto Life, and that it was of ſuch an eating, that he had ſpoken all along, as the only one from which eternal Life could be expected. And indeed, as the latter part of the words cannot well bear any other ſenſe, becauſe words cannot be Spirit, and Life, unleſs it be as to the ſenſe, and meaning of them; So I do not ſee how any other ſenſe can anſwer that Deſign, for which theſe, and the former words were produc'd, even the ſoftning of that hard ſaying, which the Diſciples were ſo offended at: To ſay, as the Romaniſts Annot. in loc. in Verſ. de Monſ. do, that our Saviour intended thereby, that it was his Spirit, or Divinity, which made that Fleſh of his to be ſuch living Food, and not any Property of the Fleſh conſider'd, as ſeparated from it, anſwering in ſome meaſure what ſcruple they might have concerning its giving eternal Life to thoſe, that eat of it, but anſwering not at all the ſcruple they had concerning the poſſibility of that Fleſh of his being divided among ſo many, or the lawfulneſs of their eating of it, though it could be ſo divided. For ſo far is the ſenſe of the Romaniſts from anſwering the latter of theſe Scruples, that it makes it yet more painful, by how much more unnatural it is to eat the Fleſh of him, that was God-man, as well as a living one, than that of a meer Man, and one that is alſo dead. Sure I am, St. Auguſtine was ſo choak'd with the literal ſenſe of that, which Chriſt's Diſciples, and the Jews are ſaid to have been offended at, that he took occaſion from thence to aſſertDe Doct. Chriſt. li. 3. cap. 15. Si autem [praeceptiva locutio] flagitium, aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem, ant beneficentiam vetare, figurata eſt. Niſi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, & ſanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: fa inus, vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura eſt ergo praecipiens paſſioni Domini eſſe Communicandum, & ſuaviter, atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ, quòd pro nobis caro ejus Crucifixa, & vulnerata ſit., not only that that, and other ſuch like Precepts, as ſeem to command any great wickedneſs, ought to be look'd upon rather as figurative, than proper, but reſolv'd the meaning of what is ſaid concerning the eating of Chriſt's Fleſh, and drinking his Blood to be, that we ought to communicate with his Paſſion, and ſweetly, and profitably to lay up in our Memory, that his Fleſh was crucified, and wounded for us. Conformably to which he elſewhereIn Joh. Tract. 26. & En. in Pſal. 98. underſtands by thoſe words, They are Spirit, and they are Life, They ought to be ſpiritually underſtood, and will be Spirit and Life to thoſe, which have that underſtanding of them. And therefore, as I cannot but wonder that the Romaniſts ſhould think to free themſelves from the Carnality of Chriſt's Diſciples, and the Jews, becauſe they do not underſtand our Saviour here of tearing his Fleſh with their Teeth, as the other are thought to have done (For to take that Fleſh into their Mouths, which is their avow'd opinion, and tranſmit it from thence into their Stomachs, though it look like an improper eating, yet will hardly paſs for a figurative, or ſpiritual one, as the Scripture, and St. Auguſtine, repreſent the eating here enjoin'd) ſo I cannot forbear with the ſame St. Auguſtine to admoniſh, even with reſpect to the Body and Blood of Chriſt in the SacramentNolite parare fauces, ſed cor. Inde commendata eſt iſta coena. Ecce credimus in Chriſtum, cum fide accipimus. In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus. Modicum accipimus, & in corde ſaginamur. Non ergo quod videtur, ſed quod creditur, paſcit. De verbis Dom. Serm. 33. , that we prepare not our Jaws, but our Heart, becauſe the commendation of that Supper is, that it was prepar'd for the latter. Behold we then believe in Chriſt, we receive him with Faith. In receiving we know, what we ought to think upon. We receive a little, and are fatned in the Heart. It is not therefore that, which is ſeen, that feeds, but that, which is believ'd.

PART VIII. Of Conſubſtantiation. The Contents.

An account of that Doctrine, which is by us called Conſubſtantiation, out of the Auguſtan Confeſſion, and Gerhard; And as it is founded by him, and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, ſo Enquiry thereupon made firſt, whether thoſe words ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe; Secondly, whether, if ſo taken, Conſubſtantiation can be inferred from them. That the former words ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general, and ſpecial Arguments, and thoſe Arguments therefore propos'd, and anſwer'd. What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal ſenſe of Scripture being for the moſt part to be preferr'd before the figurative, willingly allowd; But that no exception ought to be made, unleſs where the Scripture it ſelf obligeth us to depart from the literal ſenſe, ſhewn to be neither true in it ſelf, nor pertinent to the preſent Texts, becauſe there is enough in the words, that follow them, to oblige us to preferr the figurative ſenſe before it. The Lutherans ſpecial Arguments next brought under Conſideration, and Firſt that, which is drawn from the ſuppoſed newneſs, and ſtrangeneſs of the Chriſtian Sacraments at the firſt, and which conſequently requir'd, that they ſhould be deliver'd in proper, and literal Expreſſions, as without which otherwiſe there could have been no certain knowledge of them. Where is ſhewn, that the Chriſtian Sacraments were neither ſuch new, and ſtrange things at the firſt Inſtitution of them, as is pretended (There having been the like under the Old Teſtament) nor under any neceſſity, if they had been ſuch, of being delivered in literal, and proper Expreſſions, becauſe figurative Expreſſions, with a Key to open them, might have ſufficiently declar'd the nature of them. What is urg'd in the ſecond place from the nature of a Teſtament, under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20. to have been inſtituted, ſhewn to be of as little force; Partly, becauſe it is juſtly queſtionable, whether what we there render Teſtament, ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant; and partly becauſe even Civil Teſtaments are ſhewn to admit of figurative Expreſſions. A ſhort Anſwer made to what is alledg'd in the third, and fourth place from the Majeſty of him, that inſtituted this Sacrament, and from the ſuppoſed Conformity there is between the ſeveral Evangeliſts, and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in queſtion; And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to ſhew the abſurdity of a figurative Senſe from the no place there is for it either in the Subject, Predicate, or Copula. The Copula, or the word [Is] thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in, and anſwer made to what is objected againſt it from the Rules of Logick, and from the Scripture. That the literal Senſe is not, as is pretended in the ſixth Argument, the only one that can quiet the Mind, or ſecure the Conſcience, briefly ſhewn; And Enquiry next made, whether though the literal Senſe of the words ſhould be allow'd, Conſubſtantiation could be inferred from them. Which that it cannot, is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This, to denote that complexum quid, which Conſubſtantiation advanceth.

IF Tranſubſtantiation be a hard word, and ſuch as will not eaſily down with the Romaniſts themſelves; That, which the generality of Men call Conſubſtantiation, but the Lutherans themſelvesConfeſſ. Auguſt. Art. 10. & Conſ. Caſſand. ad dict. Art. a true, real, and ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, will be found to be of no very eaſie digeſtion by thoſe, that ſhall take the pains to conſider it. For though it doth not pretend to annihilate, or transform the Sacramental Elements, and therefore neither offer that violence to our Senſes, and the Scripture, which Tranſubſtantiation doth; Yet, which is hard enough to believe, it profeſſeth to teachGerhard. Loc. Commun. Tract. de Sacr. Caenâ cap. 10. , that the Body of Chriſt is ſo united to the bleſſed Bread, and the Blood of Chriſt to the bleſſed Wine, that together with that Bread we receive, and eat the Body of Chriſt by one Sacramental Manducation, and together with that Wine receive, and drink the Blood of Chriſt by one Sacramental Draught. By which means Chriſt's glorious Body is not only contrary to the nature of a Body, made to be preſent to many places at once, even to Heaven, and as many other, as this holy Sacrament is celebrated in; but (for ought that I can diſcern) jumbled together into one Phyſical Maſs with thoſe Sacramental Elements, to which it is affirmed to be united, which is that Conſubſtantiation, which they ſeem ſo deſirous to avoid: This Union, as it is in their own opinion an union of Subſtances, and of corporeal Subſtances alſo, So, ſo ſtrait a one, as to occaſion their own affirming, that the Body, and Blood of Chriſt are given in, with, and under their reſpective Elements, which how they ſhould be without the former Conſubſtantiation, is not eaſie to imagine.

Now as this opinion of the Lutherans is founded by themſelves upon the literal ſenſe of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, and muſt therefore ſtand, or fall with it; So I ſhall therefore think it enough to enquire 1. Whether thoſe words ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe. 2. Whether ſuppoſing that they ſhould be ſo underſtood, that, which we call Conſubſtantiation, can be inferred from them.

1. That the words This is my Body, and This is my Blood, Vid. Gerhard. ubi ſupra. ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe, is affirmed by the Lutherans, as well as by the Romaniſts, and both general, and ſpecial Arguments alledged for it. Whereof the former are, that the literal ſenſe, becauſe the firſt, and moſt natural, is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative one; That this ought eſpecially to be obſerv'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture, unleſs the Scripture it ſelf oblige us to depart from it, but moſt of all in divine Precepts, Promiſes, and Articles of Faith: Partly, becauſe of the danger there may be of running into great errours, if the literal ſenſe ſhould not generally be adhered to, and partly becauſe it is pretended that there is nothing of the former nature, which in ſome place of Scripture, or other is not delivered in plain, and literal expreſſions, and by which judgment may be made of what is elſewhere deliver'd in figurative ones. And I willingly grant that the literal ſenſe, becauſe the firſt, and moſt natural, is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative; And I grant too, that this ought eſpecially to be obſerv'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture. But that no exception ought to be made from this general rule, unleſs the Scripture it ſelf oblige us to depart from the literal ſenſe, is a thing I ſee no reaſon for, where the matter intreated of is a proper matter of Reaſon, or of that law of Nature, which is conducted by it: Partly, becauſe in ſuch a caſe Reaſon, and Nature may be preſum'd to be competent judges of the thing intreated of, and conſequently may preſcribe againſt the literal ſenſe of ſuch expreſſions, as ſhall be found to be manifeſtly contrary to the dictates of it; And partly, becauſe the great deſign of Scripture being to direct us in ſupernatural things, it may well enough be preſum'd to leave things of the former nature to be judg'd of, for the main, by that Reaſon, to whoſe cogniſance they do belong. Thus, for inſtance, becauſe the preſervation of thoſe natures, which God hath given us, is a thing proper enough for the cogniſance of 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 nowPart 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 elſewhereExpl. 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 occaſion of thoſe words of our Saviour, This is my Blood of the New Teſtament, or The New Teſtament in it, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of Sins. For ſince it ſhould ſeem by thoſe expreſſions, that that Sacrament was inſtituted under the form of a Teſtament, the words whereof ought in reaſon to be taken in the literal ſenſe, as without which all Teſtaments would be very uncertain, and litigious; Therefore the words of this Sacrament, and particularly ſuch of them as reſpect the principal Legacies in it, ought to be taken in the literal ſenſe, and not in a figurative one. If a Man ſhould make anſwer, as I have elſewhereExpl. of the ••• r in Gen. Part . done, and I think too not without great reaſon, that what we render Teſtament ought to be rendred a Covenant, all that argument would be ſpon'd, and whatever the promoters of it have brought concerning Teſtaments, out of the Body of the Civil Law, or the Interpreters thereof. But I will however allow for once the uſual rendring of the Word, and anſwer directly to that Argument, which is formed from it. As indeed what ſhould hinder me, when thoſe very Laws, which they pretend to, do not prove what they are deſigned for? For ſuch I look upon thatIlle, aut ille D. de legat. & fidei commiſſ., which ſaith, that, when there is no ambiguity in the words, there ought to be no queſtion made concerning the Will of the Teſtatour. For who will allow theſe Men to ſuppoſe, that there is no ambiguity in the words of the preſent Teſtament ſtrictly, and literally underſtood, and particularly in thoſe words, that are the ſubject of the preſent controverſie? As little force is there in that LawL. Non aliter D. de legatis, &c. , which ſaith, that we ought not otherwiſe to depart from the natural ſignification of words, than when it is manifeſt that the Teſtatour meant ſomewhat elſe, than what ſeems to have been expreſſed in them. For one would think, that ſhould conſider what impoſſibilities, and contradictions the literal ſenſe of, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, involves, one would think, I ſay, that thoſe alone ſhould make it manifeſt enough, that the Teſtatour meant ſomewhat elſe, than what the literal ſenſe of the words will neceſſarily lead Men to. So little reaſon is there to believe, that there is any thing even in the Civil Law to perſuade a ſtrict, and literal interpretation of all, that a Teſtament contains. And they, who produce the two former Laws to perſuade ſuch an Interpretation, are the more inexcuſable in it, becauſe if they had pleas'd to read on to the paragraph Titius in the latter of them, they would have ſeen enough to make them aſham'd of their pretenſions; Becauſe it is there affirm'd in expreſs terms, that we are not in a cauſe of Teſtaments to deſcend to a ſtrict definition of words, ſince for the moſt part Teſtatours ſpeak abuſively, neither do they always uſe proper Names, and Titles. All which things I have ſaid, not as conſtrain'd thereto by the force of the preſent Argument (For I know no reaſon why the ſenſe of the New Teſtament ſhould be judg'd of by the niceties of the Law) but to let the World ſee, how partial Men are in the allegations of ſuch proofs as they think to be of uſe to them. For beſide what was before quoted from the Law concerning Teſtatours ſpeaking abuſively, and improperly, the ſame Law gives us to underſtandL. ex facto D. de haered. inſtitu. Paragr. Rerum aubem Italicarum., that the will of the deceaſed doth all, and thatL. Siquis ta. D. de adimendis, vel t ansferendis, &c. Par. Condit. Legati. his ſenſe is more to be regarded, than the words. Which could have no ſenſe in it, if Legitimate Teſtaments were alway to be taken in the ſtrictneſs of the letter; For then the will, or ſenſe of the Teſtatour, and the words of his Teſtament would be perfectly the ſame.

The next argument for the literal ſenſe of the words in queſtion is taken from the Majeſty of him, that inſtituted this Sacrament, and from all thoſe glorious Attributes, that make it up. Such as are his Truth, and the place he holds under God of our Inſtructer, his being the very wiſdom of the Father, and omniſcient, his being nigh unto death, when he inſtituted this Sacrament, and ſo much the more likely ſtill to weigh all the words he utter'd in this important affair; as, in fine, his being ſo far from giving any indication of other than a literal Interpretation of the preſent words, that, when he was advanced to Heaven, he reveal'd the Doctrine of the Euchariſt in the very ſame words, wherein he had before exhibited it. Things, which for the moſt part, muſt be acknowledg'd to be duly attributed to Chriſt; but which have no force at all to conclude the thing in queſtion. For what if Chriſt be true, and appointed by God to be our Inſtructer? Will it therefore follow, that we muſt underſtand all he ſaith in the Letter, though we want not ſufficient Indications, even from ſome of his own words, that we ought to underſtand him in a figurative ſenſe. All that they, who preſs us with Chriſt's Truth, and the Place he holds under God, ſeem to pretend to, is, that we ought to hear him, and be guided by him in our Belief. Which I ſuppoſe they do to very good purpoſe, who ſubmit their Belief to that, which, all things conſider'd, they are firmly perſwaded to be his Mind, and Will. But it is farther alledg'd, that Chriſt is the very Wiſdom of the Father, and one who could therefore expreſs his Mind clearly, and plainly, and in proper and literal Expreſſions, as well as in figurative ones. And whoever doubted of it, or could doubt of it, who look'd upon him but as an ordinary Prophet, and not as one, who was alſo of the ſame Eſſence with the Father? But as the Queſtion is not, What Chriſt could do, but, What he hath done? So we find no reaſon to grant, but that our Saviour hath ſpoken plainly enough to thoſe, that are willing to underſtand him. The Argument goes on to alledge, that our Saviour was omniſcient, and as he could not therefore but know what Contentions would ariſe about this part of heavenly Doctrine to the certain deſtruction of Souls; So it is not at all likely that he would ſo far contribute to it, as of ſet purpoſe to wrap the true, and certain meaning of this holy Myſtery in the dark coverings of figurative words. But as I do not find any neceſſity to grant, that Chriſt was bound to do all he could, to prevent the Contentions that might afterwards happen, becauſe (as St. Paul ſpake1 Cor. 11.19. concerning Hereſies) this Good might accrue by them, that they that were approved, might thereby be made manifeſt; So I ſee as little reaſon to grant, that Chriſt did 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 ſaidPart 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 elſewherePart 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 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 moreoverInſtit. 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 he is a reaſonable Creature, which points out the very Eſſence of him. But as the word [Is] hath this certain ſignification in the general, as to point to ſomewhat that naturally belongs to the Subject, to which it relates, whether it be of the Eſſence, or only an Accident thereof; So it may ſo far forth be capable of being alter'd from its native ſignification to a foreign one, which is the thing this Argument was intended to impugne.

But leaving ſuch Niceties, as theſe, to ſuch as take more pleaſure in them, that ſo we may with more freedom apply our ſelves to the Conſideration of the Scriptures; Let us, as is no doubt more for our Profit, conſider what they alledge from thence to impugn the figurativeneſs of this ſo much controverted word [Is]. Where the firſt thing, that occurrs, is, that in thoſe words, which reſpect the Cup, the word [Is] in the original Greek is wanting in St. Luke; For, whatever is pretended, it is not wanting in S. Paul, though it be out of its uſual order. And this, for ought I can ſee, is made one of thoſe potent Arguments, which confounded Piſcator, and cauſed him; after he had many years ſtoutly defended the Figurativeneſs thereof; to retract his Opinion in that Particular. But as I ſee no ſuch force in this, or the other Arguments to occaſion any change of Opinion; So the word [Is] is ſo often underſtood, that St. Luke might, upon that account, take the leſs care to expreſs it, eſpecially having before made uſe of it in the matter of the other Element. And I ſhall only add, that if there be any thing, which ſeems to preſs hard upon the ſuppoſed figurativeneſs of the word [Is], it muſt be that the Hebrew, for ought appears, hath no word to expreſs [Is] or Are, and our Saviour therefore, when he pronounc'd the preſent Propoſitions, to have uttered them without any word to anſwer to it, only mentioning, This my Body, and, This my Blood, as the Scripture ſpeaks in the like Caſes. Which ſuppos'd, one would think, the figurativeneſs of thoſe Propoſitions ſhould not be plac'd, where we have done it, and (becauſe there ſeems nothing elſe to place it in) to be utterly baniſh'd from them. But as it is plain from the Evangeliſts tranſlating thoſe words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that the word [Is], though not expreſs'd, yet was always underſtood by the Hebrews; So to ſuppoſe the contrary, is to deſtroy the literal Senſe, as well as the figurative, becauſe there can be no Senſe at all, unleſs it be either expreſſed, or underſtood. By the ſame Reaſon therefore that they, who advance the literal Senſe of thoſe Propoſitions, place that literal Senſe in the word [Is], though it be rather ſuppos'd, than expreſs'd; By the very ſame Reaſon may we place the figurativeneſs thereof in it, and interpret thoſe Propoſitions by it.

One only Argument remains, if yet it deſerve that Name, that the literal ſenſe is the only one, that can bring Men to a ſetledneſs in the Doctrine of the Euchariſt, or give us any good Aſſurance, when we come to appear before Chriſt's Judgment-Seat; They, who run after Tropes, and Figures, knowing not where to fix, as appears by the differences, that are between them, and much leſs likely to ſtand in the day of Temptation, or in that more terrible day of the Lord Jeſus. But as it is now pretty evident, that they, who follow a figurative Senſe, are neither ſo uncertain in themſelves, nor ſo different from one anotherVid. Coſins. Hiſt. Tranſ. Papal. cap. 2. , that any Man can with Reaſon reproach them upon that account; So they, who pretend to follow the literal Senſe, are ſo far from coming to any ſettledneſs in this Affair, that they cannot agree what that literal Senſe is, and ought not therefore to be more confident of their own future ſtanding at the day of Trial, than a ſincere purſuit of the Truth, and a belief they have it will be able to give them. Which, as it is not deni'd to them by us, ſo will, it is hoped, be as eaſily granted to us by them, when they conſider more calmly of our Opinions, and the grounds of them.

2. But let us ſuppoſe that the words in controverſie were to be taken in the literal ſenſe, and whatever can be fairly deduc'd from thence to be the genuine iſſue of Chriſtianity; Yet how doth it appear that that, which we call Conſubſtantiation, and they, though improperly enough, a true, real, and ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, can receive any countenance from it? For not only do the Lutherans maintain a ſimple Preſence of them in the Euchariſt, but ſo intimate a Preſence alſo, that they, and the Sacramental Elements make up one compound; By means whereof, as the Perſon of Chriſt by the union of his Divine and Humane Nature may be ſaid to be either God, or Man, ſo that, which is made up of the Sacramental Element, and the thing of the Sacrament may by that union of theirs be in like manner affirm'd to be either the one, or the other, without any kind of impropriety, or figure. Conſequently whereto, as our Saviour call'd this Compound thing by the Name of his Body, and Blood, ſo St. Paul might as well give it the Title of Bread, or Wine, where he ſpeaks ſo often of its being eaten, or drunken by both the worthy, and unworthy partakers of it. Now what is there in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to found ſuch a Doctrine on? What is there in them, that they themſelves can think of any moment to inferr it? Nothing, for ought that I can diſcern, but the Neuter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Hoc, and which becauſe it agrees not in Gender with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Bread, muſt be taken not adjectively, but ſubſtantively, and conſequently for that complexum quid, or compound thing, which they advance. But if the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Hoc being of the Neuter Gender, do not hinder its referring to the Bread; If it be ſo far from being any impropriety in conſtruction, when ſo referr'd, that it is agreeable to the uſe of the beſt Authors both in Greek, and Latin; Laſtly, if the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Hoc may as well be rendred This thing, meaning the Bread before ſpoken of, as this Compound of the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, as hath been heretoforePart 3. declar'd at large; Then is all this Preſence, and Union without any kind of foundation in the Text, and they muſt either believe, as we do, that Chriſt meant no more by This is my Body, and Blood, than, This is the Sacrament thereof, Or, that that Bread, and Wine, which he gave to his Diſciples, is by his Almighty Power tranſubſtantiated into his very Body and Blood, Or that his Body, and Blood are in the Sacrament, but after what manner they are utterly ignorant, and are not curious to enquire, and much leſs of Courage enough to determine. For as for whatever elſe they advance upon this Head, it is either founded upon this ſuppoſed Union, or tends only to ſhew that there is a real, and ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, and which, becauſe I have already ſufficiently conſider'd, I think it not worth the while to ſpeak again unto. And I ſhall only add, that as it doth not appear that our Saviour meant any compound thing by that, which he affirm'd to be his Body, and much leſs ſuch a compound thing, as anſwers to that, which ariſeth from the Union of the two Natures in Chriſt, without which they themſelves confeſs, that it could not be affirmed to be Chriſt's Body; So St. Luke, and St. Paul give this great preſumption againſt it, that when they come to ſpeak of the Cup, they do not ſet the ſimple word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This to expreſs the Subject of this great Predication, but add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Cup to it. For beſide that that makes it yet more probable, that they meant no other by it, than that Cup, which they before affirm our Saviour to have taken, and which to be ſure did not then contain that compound thing, which the Lutherans advance; St. Paul, where he intreats of the end of Mens drinking of it, oppoſeth this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or This Bread, and ſo offers a yet greater preſumption againſt our underſtanding it of any other.

PART IX. Of the foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of the Lord's Supper. The Contents.

The foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of this Sacrament, ſhewn from ſome former Diſcourſes, to be the Inſtitution of Chriſt, not ſo much as delivered by him, as applied to thoſe Elements, that are to put it on, by the Miniſter's executing the Commands of it, and by Chriſt's fulfilling the Promiſes thereof. What is the foundation of this relation, on the part of the former, the ſubject of the preſent Enquiry, and his pronouncing the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, and, Hic eſt calix, &c. ſhewn not to be it, from the inſufficiency of thoſe grounds, on which it is built. What is urg'd in the behalf of thoſe words more particularly conſidered, and evidence made, that as there wants not in the Prayers, and Praiſes of the Communion-Office, that which may tend to the founding of this Relation, ſo that the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. neither now have, nor, when Chriſt himſelf uſed them, had in them the power of producing it. What the true foundation of this relation is, or what that is, which conſecrates thoſe Elements, which are to put it on, endeavour'd to be made out from ſome former Diſcourſes; And thoſe Elements accordingly conſidered, either as being to become a Sign of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, or as being to become alſo a Means of Communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to aſſure us thereof. The former of theſe relations brought about by a declaration of thoſe Purpoſes; for which the Elements are intended, whether in the words of the Inſtitution, or any other; The latter by Thankſgiving, and Prayer. The uſefulneſs of this Reſolution to compromiſe the Quarrels, that have ariſen in this Argument upon occaſion of what the Antients have ſaid on the one hand for attributing the Power of Conſecration to the Prayers, and Thankſgivings of the Prieſt, and, on the other hand, to the words of the Inſtitution; Thoſe Quarrels being eaſily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Inſtitution rather as applied, than as delivered, and as applied alſo by Prayer, and Thankſgiving, more than by the rehearſal of it.

IV. HAving thus given an account of the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper, of the inward Part, or thing ſignified by it, and of the Relation, that is between them; My propoſed Method obligeth me to enquire, What is the Foundation of that Relation, or (that I may ſpeak more agreeably to the Language of the Church) What that is, which conſecrates the Bread, and Wine of it, and makes them become the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and Blood.

Now though that hath in a great meaſure been ſatisfied already, and ſo may ſeem leſs neceſſary to be conſider'd a ſecond time; Yet becauſe what I have ſaid upon it lies diſperſedly in ſeveral Diſcourſes, and will therefore require more pains to put it together than will be fit for me to impoſe upon my Reader; And becauſe too many things may, and muſt be added to it, to give the World a more diſtinct knowledge of this Affair; I ſhall (though ſo much the more briefly) repeat what hath been elſewhere ſaid, and add farther light, and ſtrength to it.

In the general I obſerve from what I have elſewhereExpl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2, 3. diſcours'd, that the Foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward part of the preſent Sacrament, is the Inſtitution of Chriſt, not as delivered by him (For ſo it hath no more influence upon the Bread, and Wine of the Lord's Supper, than upon thoſe of our ordinary Repaſts) but as applied to thoſe particular Elements, that are to put on the relation of a Sacrament. I obſerve farther, that the Inſtitution of Chriſt conſiſting of Commands, and Promiſes, to make it effectual to the producing of this Sacramental relation in the Elements, it muſt be applied to them by a due obſervation of thoſe Commands, and by a like Completion of its Promiſes. The Conſequent whereof will be, thirdly, that it muſt be applied to them on the one hand by the Stewards of this Myſtery, as to whom belongs the execution of its Commands, and, on the other, by Chriſt himſelf, as to whom alone belongs the Completion of the other. That though that application, which is to be made by Chriſt, is no doubt of the moſt Efficacy toward the producing of this Sacramental Relation, and, in ſtrictneſs of ſpeech, the only one, which can make thoſe Elements the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and Blood; Yet that that application, which is to be made by the Stewards of this Myſtery, is in order of Nature before it, neither can Men expect that Chriſt ſhould convert thoſe Elements into a Sacrament, unleſs what he enjoins concerning them be firſt obſerved by the other. I obſerve laſtly, that when queſtion is made in this particular, what is the Foundation of this Sacramental Relation, or (that I may ſpeak more agreeably to the Language of the Church) what that is, which conſecrates the Sacramental Elements; The meaning thereof is, what is the Foundation of that relation, on the part of the Stewards of this Myſtery, and what is requir'd of them to diſpoſe Chriſt to perform his part in this Affair, and cauſe thoſe Elements, which in themſelves are no way fitted for it, to become to all intents and purpoſes, the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body and Blood.

The Romaniſts, as is very well known, make the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. to be the words of Conſecration, and that it is to them, and them only, that this great relation is owing, and (which is more) a ſubſtantial change of the Elements into the very Body, and Blood of Chriſt. For though the Council of Trent is no way clear in this particular, as may appear to any, that ſhall take the pains to conſult itSeſſ. 13. cap. 1. ; Yet as it is the general opinion of their Writers, and the only one, that can ſafely be maintain'd among them, ſo it is that, which the Roman Miſſal doth ſufficiently confirm: Becauſe entitling thoſe words, and thoſe alone, the words of Conſecration. A man would willingly ſee ſomething like a Reaſon for this Aſſertion, that ſo he might return ſomething like an Anſwer to it. But if you look into the Maſter of the Sentences Lib. 4. Diſt. 8. , or his great Commentator Aquinas Summ. tert. parte, qu. 78. Art. 1. , you ſhall find no other than this, that in the other parts of this Service there is only Praiſe given to God, or Prayer made unto him; But when this Sacrament comes to be made, the Prieſt doth not then uſe his own words, but the words of Chriſt himſelf, therefore the word of Chriſt [even Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c.] makes this Sacrament. I ſay nothing at this time that this Argument, ſuch as it is, is drawn from the Service of the Church, and not (as one would have thought, and had been but reaſonable) from the words of the Inſtitution, or from ſome other words of our bleſſed Saviour, and his Apoſtles. But I ſay, which will be enough, that let the Service of the Church be as legitimate as may be, yet there is nothing in it to perſwade what is endeavour'd to be inferred from it. For what, though in the other parts of the Service, there is nothing but Praiſe given to God (including therein, as I ſuppoſe, the giving of Thanks) and Prayer to God? Yet how will it thence follow, that there is nothing in it tending to the Conſecration of the Elements? For it appears by St. Luke, and St. Paul's making uſe of the word gave Thanks, for what the other Evangeliſts expreſs by bleſſed, that our Saviour bleſſed by giving Thanks. And why might not he then, or we now bleſs the Sacramental Elements in like manner, and by that bleſſing change them into a Sacrament, which is as much as to ſay, Conſecrate? And it appears alſo, that as little as the Romaniſts ſeem to eſteem of Prayer in this particular; Yet as there is even in their own Miſſal a Prayer to God, that he would vouchſafe to make their Oblation a bleſſed One, &c. that it might become to them the Body, and Blood of his Son, So Prayer it ſelf, ſo far as Man is capable of bleſſing, is no contemptible one, yea ſuch a Bleſſing, as God himſelf thought no improper one for a Prieſt, or ratherNum. 6.23. &c. for the High Prieſt himſelf. But it may be, there is more in what they alledge, that when this Sacrament comes to be made (For ſtill they will take that for granted) the Prieſt doth not then uſe his own words, but the words of Chriſt himſelf; The Prieſt (as Aquinas afterwards Ʋbi ſupra. tells us) ſpeaking as it were in the Perſon of Chriſt, to let us underſtand, that in the perfection of this Sacrament he doth nothing but pronounce the words of Chriſt. But firſt, if the Prieſt's uſing not his own words, but the words of Chriſt, be that, which makes what he ſaith, to have the force of Conſecration; How comes it to paſs, that his uſing the words, Accipite, & manducate, which are as certainly the words of our Saviour, comes to have no part in it? Eſpecially, when Hoc eſt enim corpus meum (for ſo they expreſs it in their Miſſal) do ſo manifeſtly referr to the former, and are as manifeſtly a Reaſon of what is exhorted to in them. I ſay ſecondly, that though it be true, that the Prieſt doth not then uſe his own words, but thoſe of Chriſt himſelf; Yet he doth not uſe them as one ſpeaking in the Perſon of Chriſt, as Aquinas would inſinuate, but as a bare reciter of them, and a reciter of them too as ſpoken the Night before he ſuffer'd, and with reſpect to that particular Euchariſt, which he gave to his Diſciples. Which how it ſhould convert the Elements then before him into the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, is a thing as hard to be underſtood, as that converſion it ſelf; Words being in reaſon to be conſtrued with relation to that, and that alone, to which they are applied by the Author of them. Neither will it avail to ſay, that though the words conſidered in themſelves reſpect only that particular Euchariſt, which our Saviour gave to his Diſciples, yet as applied by the Prieſt to the Elements, that are before him, they may affect them alſo. For if they are any otherwiſe applied to them, than to ſhew what our Saviour intended this Sacrament for, and conſequently what we may expect in thoſe Elements, which we ſet apart for it, if we follow his directions in the Conſecration of them; They are no more the words of our Saviour Chriſt, but of the Prieſt, who ſo applies them, and from which therefore no ſuch effect can be expected.

This I take to be a ſufficient Bar againſt placing the Power of Conſecration in thoſe words, yea though, when uttered by our Saviour, they ſhould be thought to have had that force in them. How much more, if even ſo they were rather declarations from Chriſt of what the Elements were already become, than any way productive of a Sacramental relation in them? For neither could our Saviour have truly ſaid, This is my Body, unleſs at that inſtant, when he ſpake thoſe words, it were really ſuch; And much leſs could that have been any reaſon, why he ſhould exhort them to take, and eat what he then offer'd them, as both the tenour of the words, and the Hoc eſt enim corpus meum in the Roman Miſſal doth yet more plainly declare: Becauſe if the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, make the change, it muſt have been Bread, and not his Body, which our Saviour offer'd his Diſciples before he uttered them, and willed them to take, and eat of.

But not any longer to inſiſt upon the deſtruction of that ſort of Conſecration, Let us enquire, if it may be, after a more legitimate one, and ſuch as ſhall not only be free from the like Exceptions, but better anſwer thoſe Sacramental relations, which it is to give birth unto. In order whereunto, I will conſider the Sacramental Elements firſt, as being to become a Sign of Chriſt's Body and Blood, and then as alſo a Means to communicate that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to aſſure us thereof.

If we conſider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Sign of Chriſt's crucified Body, and Blood, and accordingly to repreſent them both to our own Minds, and thoſe of others; So it cannot but be thought neceſſary to declare, whether by the words of the Inſtitution, or others, for what purpoſes they are deſign'd, and what they were intended to repreſent. For thoſe ElementsExpl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2. being not ſo clear a repreſentation of the things intended by them, as by their own force to ſuggeſt them to the Minds of thoſe, for whom they were intended; Being much leſs ſo clear a repreſentation of them, as to invite thoſe to reflect upon them, who are either ſlow of underſtanding, or otherwiſe indiſpoſed to contemplate them, ſuch as are the generality of Men; It cannot but be thought neceſſary, even upon that account, to call in the aſſiſtance of ſuch words, as may declare to thoſe, that are concern'd, for what ends, and purpoſes they were appointed. Otherwiſe Men may either look upon the whole of that Sacrament as a purely civil Action, or (if the Perſon, that adminiſtreth it, and other ſuch like Circumſtances prompt them to conceive of it as a religious one) yet fancy to themſelves ſuch ends, and purpoſes, as are either different from, or contrary to the due intendment of it. And though it be true, that in that Euchariſt, which our Saviour celebrated with his Diſciples, there appears no ſuch declaration of the ends of Chriſt in it, till he comes to admoniſh them to take what he gave as his Body, and Blood, which ſuppoſeth them to have been made ſo before; Yet as it is clear from thence, that he thought ſuch a declaration to be neceſſary to manifeſt his ends in it, ſo it is no way unlikely, but rather highly probable, that he interlaid that Thankſgiving, and Prayer, wherewith he is ſaid to have bleſs'd the Elements of this Sacrament, with a declaration of thoſe ends, for which they were deſigned by him: It appearing not otherwiſe how that Thankſgiving, and Prayer, could have fitted the matter in hand, or ſtirred up the Minds of his Diſciples to intend it with that devotion, which the importance thereof requir'd.

On the other ſide, if we conſider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Means of communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and, which is but conſequent thereto, a Pledge to aſſure us thereof; So it is as little to be doubted, but that it muſt be brought about by Thankſgiving to God, on the one hand, for giving him to die, whoſe crucified Body, and Blood this Sacrament was intended to convey; and by Prayer to him, on the other, to make thoſe Elements become the Communion of them: The former, becauſe Thankſgiving appears to have been the Means by which our Saviour bleſſed them, and moreover, the principal deſign of this Sacrament toward God, and which therefore unleſs we comply with, we cannot reaſonably hope for the Benefits of; The latter, becauſe (as hath been elſewhere ſhewn) Prayer was a part of that Thankſgiving, and becauſe it is undoubtedly the general Means appointed by Chriſt for the obtaining of all Benefits whatſoever. Which things, how momentous ſoever, I have thus lightly paſſed over, becauſe I have ſpoken to them ſufficiently elſewhere, and particularly, where I intreated of the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, and of that Thankſgiving, by which our Saviour is affirmed to have bleſs'd it.

That, which in my opinion ought more eſpecially to be conſidered, is the uſefulneſs of the former Reſolution to compromiſe thoſe Quarrels, which have for ſome time been raiſed in this Argument. For whilſt ſome contend earneſtly for Conſecration by Thankſgiving, and Prayer, as they have reaſon enough to do upon the account of our Saviour's being affirmed to conſecrate by it, and of Juſtin Martyr, Origen, and ſeveral others repreſenting the Elements of this Sacrament, as becoming what they were intended by the force of thoſe Thankſgivings, and Prayers, which were made over them; And whilſt others again contend as earneſtly, that they are made ſuch by the words of the Inſtitution, and alledge with the ſame heat Irenaeus his affirmingAdv. haereſ. li. 5. cap. 2. the mixt Cup, and broken Bread to become the Euchariſt of Chriſt's Body, and Blood by receiving the Word of God, and St. Auguſtine's more celebrated ſaying, that let the Word come to the Element, and it becomes a Sacrament: They ſay things, which will be eaſily made to agree with each other, if they, who alledge them, will but hear one another ſpeak. For it is the word of the Inſtitution applied, as that Inſtitution directs, which conſecrates the Elements into thoſe ſeveral relations, which they aſſume. And it is the ſame word of Inſtitution declar'd, which contributes more particularly to the making of thoſe Elements become a Sign of Chriſt's Body, and Blood. But then as it is appli'd by Thankſgiving, and Prayer (becauſe they are a part of its Commands) as well as by a declaration of the whole; So that Thankſgiving, and Prayer contribute to thoſe relations, which do moſt ennoble them, even thoſe, by which the Elements become the Communion of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, and a Pledge to aſſure us thereof: Not by any force, which is in the Letters, and Syllables thereof, as Aquinas makes Hoc eſt corpus meum, and Hic eſt Calix ſanguinis mei to do, but by the force of that Inſtitution, which preſcribes them, and by their natural aptitude to diſpoſe God, to whom alone ſuch great Effects are to be aſcrib'd, to give the Elements of this Sacrament thoſe moſt excellent relations, and efficacy.

PART X. Of the right Adminiſtration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Contents.

Entrance made with enquiring, How this Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred, and therein again whether that Bread, wherewith it is celebrated, ought to be broken, and whether he, who adminiſters this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Inſtitution, or otherwiſe to make an offering unto God of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken, as that too for the better repreſentation of the breaking of Chriſt's Body, aſſerted againſt the Lutherans, and their Arguments againſt it produc'd, and anſwered. Whether he, who adminiſters this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Inſtitution or otherwiſe, to make an offering to God of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquir'd into, and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair, conſideration had of thoſe grounds, upon which the Fathers of that Council eſtabliſh it. The words, Do this in remembrance of me, more particularly animadverted upon, and ſhewn not to denote ſuch an Offering, whether they be conſider'd, as referring to the ſeveral things before ſpoken of, and particularly to what Chriſt himſelf had done or enjoyn'd the Apoſtles to do, or as referring only to that Body, and Blood, which immediately precede them. In which laſt Conſideration of them is made appear, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may as well, and more naturally ſignifie make; That there is nothing in the preſent Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing, or, if there were, that it muſt import rather a Commemorative, than Expiatory one. What is alledg'd by the ſame Council from Chriſt's Melchizedekian Prieſthood, &c. more briefly conſider'd, and anſwer'd; And that Sacrifice, which the Council advanceth, ſhewn in the cloſe, to be inconſiſtent with it ſelf, contrary to the preſent ſtate of our Lord, and Saviour, and more derogatory to that Sacrifice, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Croſs. The whole concluded with enquiring, To whom this Sacrament ought to be adminiſtred, and particularly, whether it either ought, or may lawfully be adminiſtred to Infants. Where the Arguments of Biſhop Taylor, for the lawfulneſs of Communicating Infants, are produc'd, and anſwer'd, and particularly, what he alledgeth from Infants being admitted to Baptiſm, though they are no more qualified for it, than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

V. THE nature of this Sacrament being thus unfolded, and the Minds of Men ſo far forth imbued with a due apprehenſion of it, I might with the leave of that Catechiſm, which I have taken upon me to explain, proceed to that, which is the laſt in order, even to ſhew, What is requir'd of them who come to the Lord's Supper. But becauſe, unleſs it be rightly adminiſtred, it cannot be rightly receiv'd, or at leaſt not with that advantage, which men might otherwiſe promiſe to themſelves from it: And becauſe thoſe with whom we have to do in this Affair, differ as much from us about the Adminiſtration of this Sacrament, as they do about the Nature of it; I think it but reaſonable, ſo far forth as thoſe differences, or the nature of the thing ſhall lead me to it, to make that alſo the ſubject of my Diſcourſe, and accordingly enquire firſt, how it ought to be adminiſtred, and then to whom it ought to be ſo.

I. Now there are two things again, which will be neceſſary to be enquir'd into, as concerning the manner of its Adminiſtration, 1. Whether that Bread, wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated, ought to be broken. 2. Whether he, who adminiſters this Sacrament, is oblig'd by the words of the Inſtitution, or otherwiſe, to make an Offering unto God of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men.

1. Whether that Bread, wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated, ought to be broken, is a Queſtion between us, and the Lutherans, who look upon the breaking of it as no otherwiſe neceſſary, than as the Bread, which we employ, may make it to be ſo for the diſtribution of it. Agreeably to which Opinion of theirs, they furniſh themſelves with ſuch ſmall round Wafers, as require no breaking at all, and communicate both themſelves, and their People with them. We, on the other ſide, led thereto, as we ſuppoſe, by the Inſtitution of Chriſt, have a quite different opinion of it, and do not only think it neceſſary for the diſtribution of larger Loaves, but, ſo far forth at leaſt as a divine Precept can make it ſuch, neceſſary alſo as a Sacramental Act, and for the better repreſentation of the uſage of that Body of Chriſt, which it was intended to denote: Which Opinion of ours we are farther confirmed in by what we learn from the care, that was uſed by the Jews in the breaking of that Euchariſtical Bread of theirs, which ſeems to have been the Exemplar of ours; By the Scriptures, and the Antients repreſenting the whole of this Sacrament under the title of breaking of Bread, and by S. Paul's intimating the Bread, which they brake, to be as much the Communion of Chriſt's Body, as the Cup of Bleſſing, which they then bleſs'd, was the Communion of his Blood.

A Man would think that they, who ſtand out againſt the force of theſe Arguments, ſhould be provided of ſufficient Anſwers to them, and not only ſo, but of ſufficient Arguments too, to ſtrengthen their own Opinion. But whether either the one, or the other are of that force, which they are ſuppoſed to be of, ſhall be permitted to judgment, after I have taken a view of them.

To begin with the Anſwers Vid. Ge •• . hard. Loc. Theolog. Tract. de Sacr. Coen. cap. 14. , which they return to the former Arguments, and particularly with what they anſwer to what is urg'd from the Inſtitution of Chriſt. Where they tell us in the firſt place, that though Chriſt brake the Bread, and may ſo far forth perhaps be thought to preſcribe the like to thoſe, that were to adminiſter the Sacrament after him; Yet it was rather in order to the diſtribution of it (the Bread then us'd requiring him ſo to do) than to repreſent the breaking of his own Body. But beſide that what they affirm in the former part of it is ſaid without any other proof, than that the Bread then us'd requir'd breaking, in order to the diſtribution of it (For, as to any thing they advance to the contrary, Chriſt might break the Bread for repreſentation, as well as for diſtribution) St. Paul hath ſaid enough to ſhew, that Chriſt brake the Bread of this Sacrament to repreſent the ill uſage of his Body; There being not any tolerable reaſon, why St. Paul ſhould, in the very Hiſtory of the Inſtitution, attribute ſo improper a term as that of breaking to Chriſt's Body, but that the breaking of the Bread, which was a Figure of it, was intended to denote that violence, which was offer'd to his crucified one. That Anſwer not ſucceeding, they flie unto another, and tell us that the words, Do this, referr principally to what the Apoſtles were to do in the preſent Action, amongſt which the breaking of Bread being not then to be, becauſe the Bread was before broken to their hands, the Command of, Do this, is not to be thought to extend properly, and principally to the breaking of the Bread, but to the taking, and eating of it. It is a ſtrange thing to ſee how Prejudice will caſt a miſt before wiſe Mens Eyes, and prompt them to ſay that for the defence of their Opinions in one thing, which will do them as much miſchief in another. For the very ſame Argument, mutatis mutandis, will ſerve alike to overthrow that bleſſing of the Bread, which they, as well as we, think themſelves obliged to maintain, as without which indeed it can be no part of the preſent Sacrament. For if the words, Do this, are to be thought to extend no farther, than to what the Apoſtles were to do in that Sacrament, which they celebrated with our Saviour, then are they of as little force to conclude the bleſſing of the Bread before we eat it, becauſe the Bread was at that time, as much bleſſed to their hands, as it is affirmed to have been broken to them. But beſide that that Anſwer is as much of force againſt themſelves in the bleſſing of the Bread, as it can be ſuppos'd to be againſt us in the breaking of it; It hath nothing in it, which can conclude againſt the force of thoſe words, from which the breaking of the Bread is inferred. For whether principally, or leſs principally, if the words, Do this, referr'd to ſomewhat elſe, than what the Apoſtles were then to do, then might they referr alſo to the breaking of the Bread, and conſequently the breaking of the Bread be inferred from them, as well as the eating of it. And indeed as he, who ſuggeſts this Anſwer, lays the neceſſity of bleſſing the BreadGerhard ubi ſupra. cap. 13. Sect. 149. in Chriſt's commanding us to do the ſame thing, which he did, which if he did in any words of the Inſtitution, it was in the preſent ones, and thereby ſhews them to extend to ſomewhat elſe beſide eating; So if they relate to ſucceeding Sacraments, as well as to what our Saviour celebrated with his Diſciples, as is evident from his adding in remembrance of me, they muſt conſequently relate to all that, which was neceſſary to make the Bread, which he enjoyned us to eat, to become the Sacrament of his Body, becauſe the Bread, which he commanded his Diſciples to eat, was repreſented by him as ſuch. From whence as it will follow, that ſomewhat elſe was referr'd to by the words, Do this, than that eating, which was juſt before enjoin'd upon the Diſciples, even that Bleſſing, or Thankſgiving, which Chriſt is ſaid to have premis'd to this whole Action; So it is but juſt to believe, that that breaking alſo was, which followed immediately upon it, and which appears from what hath been ſaid to repreſent the breaking of that Body, which the Bread they were commanded to eat, was intended as a Repreſentation of. I ſay thirdly, and laſtly, that how confidently ſoever it is affirm'd, that the words, Do this, relate principally to the eating next before enjoin'd, yet is there no reaſon to believe, that it related more to eating, than to any of the foregoing Actions, otherwiſe than as that eating was the Complement of the whole, and conſequently preſuppos'd all the former Actions to have been perform'd. Partly, becauſe if eating in it ſelf conſider'd, had been the principal thing deſign'd, the repetition of the ſame word eat would have better fitted the end of the Speaker; And partly, becauſe, ſetting aſide thoſe general words, Do this, there would have been nothing in the Inſtitution to expreſs with any clearneſs that Bleſſing, and diſtribution of the Bread, which they, as well as we, think to be enjoin'd upon us in the adminiſtration of this Sacrament. One other Anſwer they have, if it be lawful ſo to call it, that if we will argue from what Chriſt did in this particular, to what we our ſelves are to do, we muſt either ſhew that action to be otherwiſe neceſſary, or find our ſelves oblig'd to celebrate this Holy Sacrament in the like poſture, and time, and place, wherein we read our Saviour to have done it. But beſide that we do not argue ſimply from what our Saviour did in this particular, but from that Action of his being plac'd between two, that are confeſſed to be intended by the words, Do this, and ſo in all reaſon to be look'd upon as alike enjoined by them; We cannot but think that it hath farther evidence for the neceſſity of it from its ſo well repreſenting that ill uſage, which our Saviour's Body receiv'd, that St. Paul, when he came to ſpeak of that uſage of it as a thing commemorated in this Sacrament, expreſſed it by the breaking of it.

The Argument from the Inſtitution being thus ſecur'd, and vindicated from the Exceptions of its Adverſaries, we ſhall the leſs need to concern our ſelves about what the Lutherans anſwer to thoſe, that follow, as which we our ſelves make uſe of rather to ſtrengthen our Aſſertion, than that we think them of themſelves to be a juſt foundation of it. Only that it may appear, that even they are not without their weight, I ſhall, though very briefly, reply to what is anſwer'd to them.

Now as that, which the Lutherans anſwer upon all occaſions; is, that that breaking, which was made uſe of by our Saviour, and his Apoſtles, was rather for the better diſtribution of the Bread they us'd, than for any ſignificancy in it; So when we preſs them with the Jews breaking their Euchariſtical Bread, which in all probability gave occaſion to the Inſtitution of ours, they tell us, that as the Bread, which the Jews made uſe of, was more eaſie to be broken than ours, as being made not ſo thick as ours now is, but broader, and thinner, and indeed rather like Cakes, than Loaves; ſo the only end of that breaking was to diſtribute the Bread they us'd among thoſe, that were to partake of it. But as whatever is to be ſaid concerning the uſual Bread of the Jews, yet if I can underſtand the account, that is given by Caſſander out of Paulus Fagius (For I have not Fagius his diſcourſe upon this Argument to conſult) the Bread the Jews both heretofore, and now make uſe of in their Euchariſt, was caſt into ſo thick a maſs, that it could not well be broken in pieces; ſo this Ceremony of breaking was, and is ſo religiouſly obſerv'd in the preſent inſtance, that though they almoſt cut off from the whole that part, which they are to make uſe of, yet they leave ſo much of it uncut, as may ſerve ſtill for the breaking of it, which ſhews that there was ſomewhat elſe in it.

The next thing alledg'd by us to ſtrengthen the preſent Aſſertion, is this Sacrament's being deſcrib'd both in the Scripture, and the Antients by the Name of breaking of Bread, which we ſuppoſe it would hardly have been, if that had not been accounted a conſiderable Action in it, and much leſs, if it had been accounted ſo indifferent a one, as the Lutherans are willing to have it thought. But as, where they can, they endeavour to turn thoſe Expreſſions to another ſenſe, but with how little reaſon the places before quotedPart 2. will ſhew; So the burthen of their Song always is, that the breaking there mention'd, had no other deſign, than the diſtribution of the Bread among thoſe, that were to receive it, which few impartial Men will believe, who find St. Paul repreſenting the Bread which our Saviour brake, as that Body, which was broken for his Diſciples.

I find nothing of moment return'd to what is before alledged by us concerning St. Paul's intimating the Bread, which we break, to be as much the Communion of Chriſt's Body, as the Cup of Bleſſing, which we bleſs, is the Communion of his Blood. And therefore I ſhall only add, that though I do not pretend to inferr from thence, that the breaking of the Bread ought to be rank'd in the ſame order with the bleſſing of the Cup; Yet I can hardly think, that if St. Paul had thought it ſo inconſiderable a thing as the Lutherans ſeem to do, he would have made uſe of no other Epithet, than that of broken to denote that Bread, which he intimated to be as much the Communion of Chriſt's Body, as the Cup that is bleſs'd, is the Commnnion of the other. For to make the words which we break to ſignifie no other, than what we give, or diſtribute (which is the common Anſwer to all Difficulties) is without any foundation in the preſent place; Becauſe what St. Paul affirms of the Cup relates to that, which makes it to be a Sacramental one, and not to the delivery of it to thoſe, that are to partake of it.

But it may be their Arguments are better than their Anſwers, and ſo they had need to be to give any ſtrength to their Opinions. But whoſoever ſhall take the pains to conſider them, or indeed, but to look over them, will ſoon be convinced of the contrary. For to ſay nothing at all to what they alledge concerning this Ceremony of breaking being without any divine Command, becauſe the contrary thereof hath been ſhewn already; How abſurd is it to ſay, that it is repugnant to the nature of the New Teſtament to have any thing in it to repreſent another, when not only the Waters of Baptiſm, and their cleanſing quality are a manifeſt Image of a better Purification, but the plunging the baptized Party in them, and his riſing from thence was thought to be ſo clear a one of our being buried, and riſing after a ſpiritual manner, that St. Paul deſcribes the former by being buried with him by Baptiſm into death Rom. 6.4., and by being planted together in the likeneſs Rom. 6.5. of it? But it may be there is more reaſon in that which it follows, even that the breaking of the Bread cannot be thought to be a repreſentation of that in the Body of Chriſt, which is expreſly denied of it; For ſo they think that breaking to be, where it is ſaidJoh. 19.26. that they brake not his Legs, according to a Prophecy Pſal. 34.10., that went of old concerning him. But as they ought to have remembred that St. Paul, notwithſtanding that, affirms Chriſt's Body to have been broken, and in that very place alſo where he ſpeaks of the breaking of the Sign of it, which ſhews that he thought all breaking of Chriſt's Body not to be deni'd; There is no neceſſity that that, which is intended to be repreſented, ſhould ſtrictly, and literally anſwer what was deſign'd as a repreſentation of it. Otherwiſe the ſpiritual things of the New Teſtament will hardly paſs as things repreſented by the ſenſible ones of the Old Teſtament, which yet theſe latter being affirm'd to be Figures Heb. 9.24. of the former will oblige us to believe. It is enough in things, that are of a very different nature, that there is ſome general reſemblance between them, and ſuch as that difference, which is between them, will allow. Which ſuppos'd, there may be enough in our Saviour's Body, though not capable of a ſtrict, and proper breaking, to anſwer that breaking, which St. Paul attributes to it, and the breaking of that Bread, which was deſigned to repreſent it; Our Saviour's Body having had thus much of a breaking in it, that an equal violence was offer'd to it, and the continuity thereof diſſolv'd in ſeveral parts of it by thoſe Nails, and Spear, that pierced it. The ſame perſons go on to object, that if the breaking of the Bread be neceſſary to deſign the breaking of Chriſt's Body, the pouring out of the Wine will be as neceſſary to mark out the ſhedding of his Blood. Which latter being not to be pretended, becauſe of the ſilence there is of it in the Inſtitution, the former hath as little reaſon to be believ'd, or aſſerted. But as it appears from what hath been elſewhere ſaidPart 4., that there are very fair intimations of that pouring out of the Wine, which is here ſo expreſly deni'd, and the ſignificancy of the breaking of the Bread not to be deni'd upon that account; So the Argument alledg'd againſt the neceſſity thereof proceeds upon the ſuppoſition of our thinking it to be neceſſary in it ſelf, and ſo, that the Sacrament cannot be ſalv'd without it. Whereas all, that we pretend to affirm, is its being neceſſary by a Divine Precept, and otherwiſe convenient enough to mark out that violent uſage of him upon the Croſs, which the whole Sacrament was confeſſedly intended for a Memorial of. Both which things may be affirm'd without inferring any neceſſity of the pouring out of the Wine, or of our Saviour's giving Command concerning it. For if even the breaking of the Bread, abſtracting from the Command of Chriſt, be rather convenient, than neceſſary, the pouring out of the Wine can be no more than ſuch; And if neither of them be neceſſary, Chriſt may, no doubt, command one, and not the other, and what he hath therefore ſaid concerning the breaking of the Bread of no force to conclude, that there ought to be the like Command for the pouring out of the other Element. It is objected yet again (For what is wanting in ſtrength, men commonly endeavour to make up by the number of their forces) it is objected, I ſay, that if Chriſt ſhould have inſtituted this Sacrament to repreſent the breaking of his Body, and the ſhedding of his Blood, by the breaking, or pouring out of thoſe Elements, that were intended to repreſent them, he ſhould have made choice of a more obſcure Figure to come in the place of a clearer one, which is not to be ſuppoſed of him: There being no doubt, but the killing of the Paſchal Lamb, was a more lively Image of what was done unto our Saviour, than what is done to the Elements of this Sacrament. But as it becomes not us to diſpute what was moſt proper for God, or Chriſt to do, where they have at any time declar'd their own will and pleaſure; So Chriſt might have reaſon enough to preferr the Repreſentation he here made uſe of, though perhaps not ſo clear, before that which he made choice of among the Jews: As becauſe that People, by reaſon of the groſsneſs of their Underſtandings, ſtood in need of clearer Figures, than we our ſelves do, to inſinuate into their Minds the things intended by them; So becauſe whilſt he taught them upon the matter only by Types, and Figures, he teacheth us for the moſt part by plain Declarations, and from which therefore, if there be any need of it, we may eaſily collect what is the intention of the other. It is objected laſtly (For ſo low at length do their Arguments run) that our Doctrine concerning the myſtical ſignification of the breaking of the Bread ſavours of Popery, and miniſters to Socinianiſm, though how it ſhould do both, conſidering the contrariety of thoſe two Hypotheſes, is not ſo eaſie to apprehend. But as I ſee not how 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 ChriſtSeſſ. 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 alreadyPart 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , agreeably to the notion of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth ſometime ſignifie to ſacrifice, or offer, (for ſo it doth Lev. 15.15-30. and in other places according to the Septuagint Verſion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 elſewherePart 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, thatHeb. 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, or furniſh them with any Sacrifice to employ them?

There is as little force, if it be duly conſidered, in what the ſame Fathers alledge from the Prophet Malachi Mal. 1.11., where it is ſaid, that from the riſing up of the Sun, unto the going down of the ſame, God's Name ſhould be great among the Gentiles, and that in every place Incenſe ſhould be offered unto his Name, and a pure Offering. For though it be true, that the Antients appli'd this Text to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and thought that to be the pure Offering, which was to be offer'd up unto God; Yet as they, who did ſo, appli'd it rather to the Sign, than to the thing ſignifi'd (for ſo Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen apparently do) but however repreſented it as an Euchariſtical, or Commemorative Oblation, and not as an Expiatory one; So they, who follow the Antients too nearly, will find themſelves oblig'd by the preſent words to offer up Incenſe unto God, as well as that Oblation, whereof they ſpeak. For by the ſame reaſon that a ſtrict, and proper, and material Oblation is to be underſtood, by the ſame reaſon a true, and proper Incenſe is to be underſtood alſo, becauſe equally foretold by the Prophet, and coupled with the other. It is enough to ſalve the Prophecy, that God ſhould have his publick Worſhip among the Gentiles, and a Service as notorious, and more acceptable than the Jews Incenſe, and Oblations were. And he, that makes the Prophecy to import any thing more, may as well argue from it the continuance of the Jewiſh Service among the Gentiles, becauſe, if we take the Prophecy in the Letter, it cannot be thought to denote any thing elſe, than the offering of the ſame Incenſe, and Oblations, that the then Jews did, though more free from impurity than theirs. If the Prophecy had a more particular relation to the Euchariſt, as it ſhould ſeem by the Comments of the Antients that it had, I ſhould think it was rather becauſe it was an eminent part of the Chriſtian Service, and becauſe of thoſe Prayers, and Thankſgivings, which attended it, than for any formal Oblation of the Signs of it, or of that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which it was ſignified by them. Which Juſtin Martyr (though elſewhereDial. cum Tryph. p. 260. ſeeming to referr it to the very Oblation of the Bread, and the Cup of the Euchariſt) gives no ſmall countenance to, when in anſwer to Trypho the Jew Ib. p. 345., who, it ſeems, interpreted this Prophecy of the Prayers of the Jews in their diſperſion among the Gentiles, he ſaith, that ſuch Prayers, and Thanksgivings, as were made by worthy Men, were acknowledg'd by him alſo to be the only perfect Sacrifices, and ſuch as were well-pleaſing unto God; And that theſe were the only things, which the Chriſtians had received to do, even in the remembrance of their both dry, and liquid Food, wherein alſo is commemorated that Paſſion, which the Son of God ſuffered by himſelf, as our Mede hath well mended that latter Clauſe of the words. For if Juſtin Martyr thought, as he profeſſeth to do, that Prayers, and Thankſgivings were the only perfect, and acceptable Sacrifices, and that they too were the only things, which the Chriſtians had received to do, or offer in the Euchariſt it ſelf; Then did not the preſent Prophecy, either in his, or other Chriſtians opinion, referr more particularly to the Euchariſt upon the account of any proper Oblation of the Sign of it, and much leſs upon the account of any propitiatory Sacrifice, that was there made of the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, but upon the account of thoſe Sacrifices of Praiſe, and Thankſgiving which attended it, and were indeed the principal part of that Service.

The Council of Trent therefore, not daring to truſt too much to this Prophecy of Malachi, goes on to ſuggeſt, that the Sacrifice, which it advanceth, is not obſcurely intimated by St. Paul, where he tells his Corinthians 1 Cor. 10.21., that they, who are polluted by partaking of the table of Devils, cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, underſtanding in both places by the word Table, an Altar; And conſequently (becauſe every Altar muſt have its Victime) that the Table, of which the Chriſtians partook, had its Victime alſo, even that Body, and Blood of Chriſt, which they profeſſed to partake of, and which he himſelf had before affirm'd the Bread, and Cup of the Euchariſt to be the Communion of. It is very well ſaid by the Council, that the Sacrifice, whereof it intreats, is intimated by thoſe words of St. Paul; For, to be ſure, they are no plain, and expreſs declarations of it. But that it is not obſcurely intimated by thoſe words of his, is a thing which we can by no means grant, becauſe we cannot grant that, which is the foundation of their Argument, even that St. Paul by Table, underſtood an Altar. For beſide that it is not eaſie to be thought, that even the Heathen Deities did ſo far forget the place they had uſurp'd, as to admit their Worſhippers to their own proper Tables (for ſo I take the Altars of thoſe Deities to have been) but only to have allow'd of their receiving by the hands of their Prieſts ſome Portions from their Altars, and eating of them at Tables purpoſely prepared for them; It is manifeſt by the deſcription, which Virgil Aeneid. li. 8. v. 103, &c. & v. 172 gives us of this Affair, where he intreats of the Sacrifice of Hercules, that though the Gentiles partook of thoſe Meats, which were offer'd to their Idols, and might ſo far forth alſo be ſaid to partake with their Altars, and them, yet they did not eat of them at the Altars of their Idols, but on Tables prepared for them, for that purpoſe. Which ſuppos'd, neither St. Paul's Table of Devils, nor his Table of the Lord, will be found to be Altars, and no Argument therefore to be made from thence, that that Table of the Lord, imports the offering up of that Lord upon it, or that we are under any Obligation to make ſuch an Offering of him. The utmoſt, that can with reaſon be inferr'd from St. Paul's arguing from the one to the other Table, is, that as both of them preſuppoſe a Victime, or Sacrifice, ſo they in like manner ſuppoſe our Victime, or Sacrifice to be exhibited on that Table, which we Chriſtians are to partake of. Which though it may be no proof of the offering up of Chriſt's Body, and Blood upon it, yet may ſeem to be ſome proof of the Preſence of that very Body, and Blood upon it, which Chriſt ſometime offer'd upon the Altar of the Croſs. But as whoſoever ſhall conſider, that it was only a part of the Victime, that was brought from the Idols Altar to the Table of his Worſhippers, will find himſelf obliged to confeſs, either that there is no exact ſimilitude between the Devils Tables, and ours, or that we, no more than the Heathen, can expect the whole of our Victime upon them, which is expreſly contrary to the Doctrine of the Romaniſts; So ſuppoſing the ſimilitude between them not to be exact (as no ſimilitude, they ſay, runs upon all four) there may be place for partaking of our Victime by means of that Bread, and Wine, which is prepared for us, as well as for the Heathens partaking of their Victimes by means of thoſe parts thereof, that were ſet before them: Becauſe how far ſoever that Bread, and Wine may be in themſelves from being parts of our Victime, or Sacrifice, or poſſeſſing us of the Benefits thereof; Yet they may, by the appointment of God, become a means of exhibiting that Victime, or Sacrifice to our Souls, and poſſeſſing us of the happy Fruits of it.

I know not whether I ought to take notice of what is added in the cloſe, That this is that Oblation, which is figur'd by the ſeveral Oblations of former days, as well thoſe which prevail'd in the time of Nature's Law, as thoſe which were in uſe under that of Moſes. Becauſe it doth not appear to me (which is the proof the Council of Trent gives of it) that it contains in it all thoſe good things, that are ſignified by the other, as the conſummation, and perfection of them. For neither (for ought that doth appear from the Roman Miſſal) doth it any way contain in it an Atonement for the unconverted World; Neither doth it contain in it what it doth, as the conſummation, and perfection of thoſe Sacrifices, or Oblations, which were made in antient times: This (as I ſhall by and by ſhew) being the Priviledge of that Sacrifice, which our Saviour made of himſelf upon the Altar of the Croſs, and no other way belonging to the Euchariſt, than as a means appointed by God to convey to us the Benefits of the other.

3. Now to make it appear to the World, that we are no more without Arguments againſt this pretended Sacrifice, than we are unprovided of Anſwers to what the Romaniſts alledge in its behalf, I will make it my Buſineſs to ſhew, 1. That this Sacrifice, as explain'd by them, is inconſiſtent with it ſelf. 2. That it is contrary to the preſent ſtate of our Lord, and Saviour. 3. That it is extreamly derogatory to the dignity of that Sacrifice, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Altar of the Croſs.

That this Sacrifice, as explain'd by thoſe that advance it, is inconſiſtent with it ſelf, will need no other proof, than that unbloody Immolation, or Offering, which is attributed to it. For how is that an Immolation, or Offering (underſtanding it as they do of a propitiatory Sacrifice) which is without any ſhedding of Blood, when both the Old, and the New Teſtament aſſure us, that it was the Blood, which was to make the Atomement, and that without ſhedding of Blood there is no Remiſſion? For what is this, but to ſay that it is a Sacrifice, and no Sacrifice, that it is a truly propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick, and dead, and yet hath nothing of that, which is to make a Propitiation for them? It is true indeed that an unbloody Immolation, or Offering, is an Expreſſion that may paſs well enough, where it is attributed to that, which is rather the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, than any true, and proper one. But to attribute ſuch an Immolation, or Offering to a Sacrifice properly ſo call'd, is to deny it to be what we affirm it, and indeed rather a piece of nonſenſe, than any legitimate Predication, or ſo much as a witty one.

But beſide that this Sacrifice, as explain'd by the Romaniſts themſelves, is inconſiſtent with it ſelf, and as ſuch therefore might be reaſonably rejected; We ſhall find it to be as inconſiſtent with the preſent ſtate of our Lord, and Saviour, and indeed directly contrary to it. For if there be any kind of Propriety in the Immolation, that is offer'd to it, it muſt betoken ſome kind of violence to be offer'd to that Body, which is the ſubject of it, and conſequently of a glorious Body, make it an inglorious one. Which they of all Men ought not to refuſe, who do ſometime tell us of the bleeding of the Hoſt, and ſo turn this unbloody Immolation into a bloody one. Neither will it avail to ſay, as the Council of Trent doth, and their Authors commonly gloſs this Immolation, That this Body of Chriſt is offer'd under the Species of Bread, and Wine, and again under the viſible Signs. For whether under the Species, or no, yet ſtill according to them Chriſt is truly immolated; Neither is there any more difference between the Immolations, than there would have been between the murdering of an Infant covered over with Meal, as the Heathen in Minutius Felix chargeth the Primitive Chriſtians to have done, and the murdering of one under no ſuch diſguiſe. For as the Murder is the ſame in both, ſo the Immolation muſt be ſo too, and thoſe Species can no more priviledge our Saviour's Body from violence, than the Meal, wherewith an Infant is covered, can hinder the violence that is offer'd to it, to be really a Murder, or thoſe, that offer it, from being really guilty of one.

But that, which is moſt to be conſider'd in this Affair, and is in truth the greateſt prejudice againſt this pretended Sacrifice, is, that it is extreamly derogatory to the dignity of that Sacrifice, which Chriſt made of himſelf upon the Altar of the Croſs. For whereas it is the peculiar Priviledge of this Sacrifice to be ſo perfect, as not to need to be repeated, whilſt thoſe of the Levitical Law daily were (For every Prieſt, ſaith the Author to the Hebrews Heb. 10.11, &c. ſtandeth daily miniſtring, and offering oftentimes the ſame Sacrifices, which can never take away Sins. But this Man, after he had offer'd one Sacrifice for Sin, for ever ſat down on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footſtool) The Sacrifice of the Maſs doth at the beſt pretend to repeat that Sacrifice, and, though in another way, to offer it up again, yea, makes our Saviour himſelf to do it by the Miniſtry of his Prieſts. Whereas, again, it is the Priviledge of that Sacrifice, which our Saviour made of himſelf upon the Croſs, to procure eternal Redemption for usHeb. 9.12., and ſuch a Redemption tooHeb. 9.15., as ſhould draw after it the receit of an eternal Inheritance, in the mean time ſo perfecting for ever them, that are ſanctified Heb. 10.14., that they ſhould not only not need any more offering for Sin, but have boldneſs by the Blood of it to enter into the Holieſt; The ſacrifice of the Maſs, by pretending to be a truly propitiatory one, makes the redemption of that former Sacrifice to be imperfect, as without which there could have been no need of a farther propitiatory one, and much leſs of the frequent offering of it. Neither will it ſuffice to argue, as the Council of Trent 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 inſinuateApol. 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 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 elſewherePart 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 prerequir'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 SaviourJoh. 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 ſuppoſitionSee 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 to be eaten by the HouſholdExo. 12. ., of which the younger Infants, to be ſure, were no way capable; And it appears from a Paſſage in Joſephus Jud. Antiqu. li. 12. cap. 4.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c., that no one, that was born, was to taſte of any Sacrifice, till he came to the Temple, which we learn from the inſtance of our SaviourLuke 2.42. & Grot. in loc. , not to have been till they were twelve Years of Age. At, or after which time they might be in a capacity to enquire into the meaning of their Paſchal Service, and receive a due information concerning it. Which, inſtead of juſtifying the communicating of Infants, will rather overthrow it, and perſwade the deferring of it, till they be of underſtanding to conſider the nature of the Sacrament, and prepare themſelves in ſome meaſure for the receiving of it. One only Argument remains for the adminiſtring of this Sacrament to Infants, even the long, and general practice of the Antient Church in this particular, and the like general practice at this day of the Greeks, Aethiopians, Bohemians, and Moravians. All which to condemn of Errour may ſeem a little hard, as we muſt do, unleſs we will at leaſt allow of the lawfulneſs of the Practice, whatſoever we do of the neceſſity thereof. But as I muſt needs ſay, that I do not ſee, how we can acquit them for Errour, conſidering what hath been before ſaid againſt the Communion of Infants; So I a little wonder how he ſhould ſtick at the condemnation of the thing it ſelf, who ſo freely acknowledg'd the Practice to be built upon a Text, which he himſelf confeſſeth to have been miſtaken by them. The utmoſt, in my opinion, that is to be ſaid in behalf of the Antients, and accordingly of thoſe Churches, which derive their Practice from them, is, that the Communicating of Infants was an Errour of their charity toward them, and whom whilſt they were willing to deliver from that Original Corruption, wherein they were born, and bring them to Chriſt's Kingdom, and Happineſs, they did not only conferr upon them the Sacrament of Baptiſm, which they had learn'd from the words of our SaviourMark 10.13., the Doctrine of St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14., and the Circumciſion of the Jewiſh Infants to be but proper for them, but miſtaking what our Saviour ſpake in St. John concerning the neceſſity of eating his Fleſh, and drinking his Blood, for the neceſſity of a Sacramental Manducation, gave them this Sacrament alſo, ſo the better to ſecure them of eternal Life, and Heaven. For as for that Salvo of the Council of Trent Seſſ. 21. cap. 4. , that the Antients gave them the Sacrament of the Euchariſt out of ſome probable, and temporary Reaſons, and not out of a Belief of the neceſſity thereof unto Salvation; or the like Salvo of Mr. Thorndike Epil. to the Trag. of the Ch. of Engl. li. 1. cap. 23., who, agreeably to the ſame Opinion, makes them look upon that Text in St. John as ſufficiently anſwer'd by the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and their partaking of Chriſt's Body, and Blood in it; It is ſo contrary to the Doctrine of the Antients, and particularly to that of St. Cyprian Cypr. Teſt. ad Quirin. li. 3. cap. 27. , Pope Innocent Epiſt. 93. apud Auguſt., and St. Auguſtine in many places of his Works, that it is not a little to be wondred at, that ſo learned a Man as Mr. Thorndike could advance ſo groundleſs an Aſſertion. For though it be true that St. Cyprian, where he makes it his Buſineſs to ſhew that none can enter into the Kingdom of God, unleſs he be baptiz'd, and born again, doth not only alledge that Text for itJoh. 3.5., which doth more immediately concern it, but that unleſs Men eat Chriſt's Fleſh, and drink Chriſt's Blood, they ſhall have no Life in them; Yet that he did not intend thereby their receiving that Body, and Blood in Baptiſm, but in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and only made uſe of that Text as proving Baptiſm â fortiori, becauſe enforcing the neceſſity of a Sacrament, which was to be adminiſtred after it, is evident from his beginning his next Teſtimony, or Chriſtian Doctrine with theſe very words, That it was a ſmall matter to be baptiz'd, and receive the Euchariſt, unleſs a Man profit in good Works. For how comes the Euchariſt to be join'd with Baptiſm in Teſtimonies, that depend ſo upon one another, but that he had ſpoken of it juſt before, and conſequently meant no other than that Euchariſt by eating Chriſt's Fleſh, and drinking his Blood, according as is but juſt before alledg'd? In like manner, though Pope Innocent, to ſhew the fooliſhneſs of the Pelagians, in affirming that little Children could have eternal Life without Baptiſm, make uſe of theſe very words to prove it, For unleſs they ſhall eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they ſhall have no Life in them; Yet whoſoever ſhall conſider what he ſaith, as it is worded by himſelf, will find that he did not at all intend their receiving the Fleſh, and Blood of Chriſt in the Sacrament of Baptiſm, but in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and that he eſteem'd that Sacrament to be as neceſſary as the former, and intended to prove the neceſſity of Baptiſm by the neceſſity of that Sacrament, which was to follow it. For thus he in his Epiſtle to the Fathers of the Milevitan Council. Now that, which your Brotherhood affirms them to preach, that little Children may have their rewards of eternal Life even without the Grace of Baptiſm, is extreamly fooliſh. For unleſs they ſhall eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they ſhall not have Life in them. For what was this but to ſay, that they ſhould be ſo far from having eternal Life without the Grace of Baptiſm, that they could not, by the Diſpenſation of the Goſpel, attain that Life without the Grace of the Euchariſt alſo? Agreeable hereto is the Doctrine of St. Auguſtine, as appears from this following TeſtimonyDe peccat. merit. & Rem. li. 4. cap. 24. ; Where having ſaid, that by an Antient, and Apoſtolical Tradition, as he thought, the Churches of Chriſt were intimately perſwaded, that without Baptiſm, and the participation of the Lord's Table, none could come to the Kingdom of God, and eternal Life, and confirm'd that Opinion of theirs, and his own by Scriptures peculiar to each Sacrament, and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by that ſo much celebrated ſaying of our Saviour, Ʋnleſs ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, &c. he hath theſe following words: If therefore (as ſo many, and ſo great Divine Teſtimonies do agree) neither Salvation, nor Life can be hoped for by any one without Baptiſm, and the Body, and Blood of Chriſt, in vain is it promiſed to little Children without them, even without thoſe two Sacraments, which he had before intreated of, and which he affirms in the next words, the guilt of that ſin in Children to be looſed by, concerning which the Scripture affirms, that no one is free from it, though his Life be but of a days continuance.

PART XI. How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be receiv'd. The Contents.

The receit of this Sacrament ſuppos'd by the preſent Queſtion, and that therefore firſt eſtabliſhed againſt the Doctrine of thoſe, who make the ſuppoſed Sacrifice thereof to be of uſe to them, who partake not Sacramentally of it. Enquiry next made, How we ought to prepare our ſelves for it, how to demean our ſelves at the celebration of it, and in what Poſture to receive it. The preparation taken notice of by our Catechiſm the Examination of our ſelves, whether we truly repent us of our ſins, ſtedfaſtly purpoſing to lead a new Life, &c. and the both neceſſity, and means of that Examination accordingly declar'd. The examination of our Repentance more particularly inſiſted upon, and that ſhewn to be moſt advantageouſly made by enquiring how we have gain'd upon thoſe ſins, which we profeſs to repent of, and particularly upon our moſt prevailing ones, which how they are to be diſcover'd, is therefore enquir'd into, and the marks, whereby they are to be known, aſſigned, and explain'd. A tranſition from thence to the examination of the ſtedfaſtneſs of our Purpoſes to lead a new Life, of our Faith in God through Chriſt, our remembrance of his Death, and Charity; Where the neceſſity of that Examination is evinced, and the means whereby we may come to know whether we have thoſe Qualifications in us, diſcover'd, and declar'd. How we ought to demean our ſelves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquir'd into, and that ſhewn to be by intending that Service, wherewith it is celebrated, and ſuiting our Affections to the ſeveral parts of it. The whole concluded with enquiring, in what poſture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd; Where is ſhewn, firſt, that the Antients, ſo far as we can judge by their Writings, receiv'd in a poſture of Adoration, and particularly, in the poſture of ſtanding; Secondly, that ſeveral of the Reformed Churches receive in that, or the like poſture, and that thoſe, that do not, do not condemn thoſe that do; Thirdly, that there is nothing in the Example of Chriſt, and his Diſciples at the firſt Celebration of this Supper, to oblige us to receive it ſitting, nor yet in what is alledg'd from the ſuitableneſs of that Poſture to a Feaſt, and conſequently to the preſent one: This, as it is a Feaſt of a different nature from common ones, and therefore not to receive Laws from them, ſo the receit thereof intended to expreſs the grateful reſentment we have of the great Bleſſing of our Redemption, and ſtir up other Men to the like reſentment of it; Neither of which can ſo advantageouſly be done, as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in ſuch a poſture of Body, as ſhews the regard we have for him, who is the Author of it.

VI. THE ſixth, and laſt Queſtion propoſed to be diſcourſed of,

Queſtion. What is requir'd of them, who come to the Lord's Supper?

Anſwer. To examin themſelves, whether they repent them truly of their former ſins, ſtedfaſtly purpoſing to lead a new Life, have a lively Faith in God's mercy through Chriſt, with a thankful remembrance of his Death, and be in charity with all men.

is, How this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd? Which Queſtion I have propoſed in thoſe terms, partly that it may come ſo much the nearer to the laſt Queſtion of our own Catechiſm, and partly becauſe there is no one ſort of Men, that doth expreſly deny that it ought to be receiv'd by all, that are qualified for it, as well as adminiſtred by thoſe, who are the proper Stewards of it. For though the Socinians, out of a belief of Baptiſm's being proper only to Jewiſh, or Gentile Converts, have thrown off that Sacrament altogether, and (which is more) have repreſented the ſhewing forth of Chriſt's Death as the only deſign of this; yet they have thought fit to retain the uſe of it, as a thing enjoin'd by our Lord himſelf. Though the Tridentine Fathers have alſo in a great meaſure transform'd this Sacrament into a thing of another nature, and accordingly pointed out other ways for Men to receive benefit by it, beſide their communicating at it; Yet they have declar'd an Anathema Seſſ. 13. Can. 9. againſt any one, that ſhall deny all, and ſingular the faithful People of Chriſt to be oblig'd, when they come to years of diſcretion, to communicate every year, at leaſt at Eaſter, according to the Precept of holy Mother the Church. Only becauſe thoſe Fathers ſeem to found even that ſingle Communion upon the Precept of the Church, or at leaſt, do not repreſent it, as enjoin'd by any Divine Law; And becauſe though they elſewhere profeſs to wiſh that they, who aſſiſt at their ſeveral Maſſes, did alſo Sacramentally communicate at them for their receiving greater benefit by them Seſſ. 22. cap. 6. , yet they repreſent even thoſe, where the Prieſt alone Communicates, as common to them that do not; I think it not amiſs to premiſe ſomething concerning the obligation of the Faithful to receive this Sacrament, as well as to aſſiſt at the celebration of it, and examine what thoſe Fathers alledge for their looſing the Faithful from it.

That the Faithful are under an obligation of receiving this Sacrament, as well as of aſſiſting at the celebration of it, is ſo evident from the words of the Inſtitution, that I know not how our Saviour could have more expreſly enjoin'd it. For, Take, Eat, ſaith he, concerning the Bread of it; And, Drink ye all of it, ſaith the ſame Jeſus concerning the Cup: With this farther Reaſon, as we learn from the Hoc eſt enim corpus meum, and, Hic eſt enim calix ſanguinis mei in the Roman Miſſal, becauſe the one is his Body, and the other as certainly the Cup of his Blood, as that Miſſal expreſſeth it. So that if a Command, with ſo ſubſtantial a Reaſon annex'd, may be concluded to be obligatory, the receit of this Sacrament is; And we can no more be freed from doing it, than we can be freed from believing that it is Chriſt's Body, and Blood, that is tender'd to us, or, believing it, than we may reject ſo ſignal a Bleſſing as that is, which was either broken, or ſhed for our Redemption. For what is this, but (as the Author to the Hebrews ſpeaksHeb. 10.28, 29.) to deſpiſe not Moſes's Law, but one, the tranſgreſſion whereof is worthy of a ſorer puniſhment, yea, to tread under foot the Son of God, and count the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith we are ſanctified, an unholy thing, and as ſuch contemptuouſly to reject it? Neither will it avail to ſay, as poſſibly it may be, that they cannot be look'd upon as deſpiſers of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, who do, even when they avoid the partaking thereof, humbly, and devoutly adore them. For whatever may be ſaid of that adoration of Chriſt's Body, and Blood; To adore them, is not to eat, or drink of the Symbols of them, and that Law therefore, that enjoins both the one, and the other, as much deſpis'd, as if they ador'd them a thouſand times, and, together therewith, that Body, and Blood, which it ſo graciouſly enjoins us to partake of. Agreeable to this Command of our Saviour concerning eating, and drinking the Sacramental Elements, is his own ſubjoyning to the mention of each of thoſe Acts 1 Cor. 11.24, 25., that they ſhould do them in remembrance of him, and of his death, which is a farther inculcating of the former Command of Chriſt, and of the Faithful's doing honour to him by the obſervation of it. And to the ſame purpoſe is St. Paul's reckoning that eating, and drinking in the number of thoſe things, whereby we are to ſhew 1 Cor. 11.26 forth Chriſt's death (For ſo the connexion of thoſe words with Do this in remembrance of me, perſwades); His cautioning the Corinthians thereupon againſt an unworthy 1 Cor. 11.27.29 eating, and drinking, and willing them, after they had examin'd themſelves, ſo to partake 1 Cor. 11.28. of the Sacramental Elements; In fine, his ſuppoſing the Chriſtians, when they came together to the places of their Aſſemblies, to come together to eat 1 Cor. 11.20.33. the Lord's Supper. For what are theſe but ſo many ſeveral Proofs, that he look'd upon that eating, and drinking, not only as things enjoin'd by Chriſt in this Solemnity, but the principal end of their meeting at it, and the very top, and perfection of it?

A Man would think that theſe Arguments were of ſufficient force to ſhew our receit of the Sacramental Elements to be a thing ordinarily enjoin'd upon us, and without the doing whereof therefore we cannot expect to reap the benefit of them. But the Tridentine Fathers tell us another ſtory, and as they have transform'd a Sacrament of Chriſt, into a Sacrifice of their own making, ſo they tell us that that Sacrifice, though the Prieſt alone partake Sacramentally of it, is common to thoſe that do not, Partly, becauſe the people communicate ſpiritually in it Seſſ. 22. cap. 6. , and partly becauſe it is celebrated by the publick Miniſter of the Church, not only for himſelf, but for all the Faithful, that pertain to Chriſt's Body. It is very well, though I think not very agreeably to their own Principles, that they make the commonneſs of ſuch Maſſes, or Sacrifices, to conſiſt partly in the Peoples communicating ſpiritually in them; For ſo ſome kind of communicating will appear to be neceſſary, whatever the Sacramental one is, which I do not ſee how the Dead are capable of. But certainly, Take, Eat, or (as the Roman Miſſal reads it) Take, and eat ye all of this, and, drink ye all of this, betoken a Sacramental eating, and drinking, as well as a Spiritual one. Otherwiſe thoſe words will be ill employ'd to prove that corporal manducation and drinking of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, which the Romaniſts ſo ſtudiouſly advance. Now if Chriſt himſelf require a Sacramental communicating at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or (as the Romaniſts are pleas'd to phraſe it) at the celebration of the Maſs, I doubt a bare Spiritual communicating at it will hardly obtain the benefit thereof for thoſe, who do ſo communicate, when they may paſs to a Sacramental one. This I take to be a ſufficient Anſwer to what is alledged in the firſt place for thoſe Maſſes, at which the Prieſt only communicates, being common to the People with him. And I think it will be as eaſie to anſwer to what is alledged for it in the ſecond place, from thoſe Maſſes being offer'd up by the publick Miniſter of the Church, not only for himſelf, but for all the Faithful, that pertain to the Body of Chriſt. For granting ſuch an Offering, as is pretended, yet can they not expect the benefit of it, who partake not of it as he enjoin'd, who was both the Inſtituter, and Exemplar of it; The Sacrifice of the Croſs of Chriſt being no farther available to any, than it is apprehended, and applied, as he, who offer'd it up, appointed.

But to return to that, which is the proper ſubject of this Enquiry, even to ſhew how this Sacrament ought to be received by us; Where again I will enquire, 1. How we ought to prepare our ſelves for it. 2. How we ought to demean our ſelves at the celebration of it. 3. In what poſture to receive it.

1. It is the firſt of theſe, which our Catechiſm ſpeaks to, even how we ought to prepare our ſelves for it. Which it affirms to be by examining our ſelves, whether we repent us truly of our ſins, ſtedfaſtly purpoſing to lead a new Life, have a lively Faith in God's Mercy through Chriſt, with a thankful remembrance of his Death, and be in Charity with all Men.

That we ought to examine our ſelves about the truth of our Repentance is manifeſt, on the one hand, from the neceſſity thereof toward the procuring of that Pardon, which this Sacrament is intended to convey, and on the other from our aptneſs to be deceived in it. For, generally ſpeaking, every little ſorrow for ſin, though it be occaſion'd only by what we are likely to ſuffer by it, paſſeth with us for true Repentance; And provided we lament our ſins, upon what account ſoever it be, we think our ſelves truly penitent, and as ſuch therefore duly qualified for that, or any other religious performance. But as it appears from what I have elſewhere ſaidExpl. of Bapt. Part 10., that the Repentance, which the Goſpel requires, is a repentance toward God, and a ſorrow according to God, and muſt therefore proceed from a due ſenſe of the affront we have offer'd, whether to his Authority, or Kindneſs; So the beſt, and moſt certain way to know whether our Repentance be ſuch, is by the amendment it produceth in us, and particularly as to thoſe Errors, that prevail moſt in us, and which the Scripture entitles1 Kings 8.38. the plague of a man's own heart. For he, that finds himſelf to gain upon theſe, needs not ſuſpect the truth of his Repentance, becauſe nothing elſe, but a due ſorrow for Sin, can carry a Man to abandon that, to which the bent of his own nature doth forcibly encline him. Upon which account I ſhould adviſe that, inſtead of running over a long catalogue of ſins, which few Men have leiſure for, and doth however but divert them from the main, they would endeavour to find out their moſt prevailing ſins, and examine the truth of their Repentance by their conqueſt over them. In order whereunto, I ſhall lay down three 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or marks, whereby thoſe prevailing ſins may be known.

Now the firſt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mark, whereby we may come to know them, is to conſider with our ſelves, what that particular ſin is, into which we moſt frequently fall. For as he is in reaſon to be look'd upon as our Lord, and Maſter, to whom we yield our ſelves Servants to obey, and we therefore may conclude that God is our Maſter, if we conform to his Precepts, but Sin, if we perform the Luſts thereof; So if we have different ſins, that that is our Chief, to whom we do moſt often pay obedience. And this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mark I do the rather alledge, becauſe it is one of the moſt infallible, and one too of the moſt plain, and obvious. It is one of the moſt infallible, becauſe it hath expreſs Scripture to warrant it; Becauſe not only teaching us, that out of the abundance of the Heart Luk. 6.45. Men do both ſpeak, and act, and that out of it Pro. 4.23. are the iſſues of life, and death, but alſo commanding us to judge of this Root by the Fruit it bearsMat. 7.20., of the Heart of Man by the actions it produceth. For it being evident from thence, that our outward actions are the proper, and genuine iſſues of our Hearts, as our Hearts muſt be concluded to be corrupt, or evil, if the Fruits, that proceed from them, are ſuch; So to be moſt infected with that particular corruption, which moſt ſhews it ſelf in our Life, and Converſation. Even as when any Water carries in it the taſte of Sulphur, or any ſuch mineral ſubſtance, we do not only conclude it to have paſs'd through a tainted Earth, but through ſuch particular Veins, where thoſe mineral ſubſtances abound, the ſcent, or taſte of which thoſe Waters do moſt partake of. Again, as the foremention'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mark, is one of the moſt infallible ones, I mean that whereby we judge of our prevailing ſin by giving moſt obedience to it, ſo it is alſo one of the moſt plain, and obvious, and which indeed lies open to the view of all Men whatſoever. For though, as the Scripture ſpeaksProv. 20.5., the Heart of Man be a great depth; Though, as the ſame Scripture expreſſeth itJer. 17.9., it be deceitful above all things, as well as deſperately wicked, and conſequently the windings thereof not eaſie to be trac'd, even by the thoughts of that Heart it ſelf; Yet the actions of Men, by which we are before taught to judge, are apparent, and obvious, they are evident to our Senſe, as well as to our Underſtanding: And though we cannot otherwiſe ſo well tell what kind of Plague is within, yet ſurely we may tell in what kind of Spots, or Blotches it moſt breaks out, and what Parts, or Members it moſt ſeizeth on.

But as we may know our prevailing Sin, by our often commiſſion of it, more than of any other, ſo alſo by our great unwillingneſs to hear of it, and our equal diſguſt of thoſe Diſcourſes that are made againſt it. For it is with every particular Soul, that is not devoid of all goodneſs, as the Scripture tells us, it was with Herod Mark 6, 16, &c.. We can hear John Baptiſt, or any other ſuch ſowre Preacher of Repentance, with a great deal of Complacency, when he toucheth upon ſome ſins, and thoſe too, which perhaps we our ſelves are not altogether guiltleſs of. But when the ſame perſon comes to touch upon others, when he comes to tell us of marrying our Brother Philip's Wife, then our Hearts riſe both againſt the Preacher, and his Doctrine, and that Voice, which (as the Prophet Ezekiel ſpeaksEzek. 33.32.) was before as a lovely Song of one, that hath a pleaſant Voice, and can play well upon an Inſtrument, doth now ſound as harſh as the croaking of a Raven, or the groans of one departing out of the World. Of which difference, as was before intimated, what reaſon can be given, but that it is our beloved ſin, the dear Plague of our own Heart: And indeed, ſo far are we from brooking a Reproof from another, of the ſin we do moſt indulge, That we cannot ſo much as endure to hear of it from our ſelves, or commune with our own Hearts about it. A Character, which I chooſe rather to inſiſt upon, as becauſe it is ſomewhat of kin to the former, ſo becauſe even they, who avoid communing with their own Hearts, cannot but obſerve, and take notice of it. For though a Man may avoid the conſidering what the plague of his own Heart is, yet he cannot but ſee what that ſin is, which he moſt flies the thought of, which is enough to ſhew him what the plague of his own Heart is. And it brings to my Mind the obſervation of Tacitus, touching the Effigies of Brutus and Caſſius, not appearing in the Funeral of Junia. For as it is affirmed by him, that Brutus and Caſſius ſhone ſo much the more, becauſe their Images were not ſeen at it; So our prevailing ſins cannot be made more conſpicuous, than they are by our ſtudious ſuppreſſing the thought of them: Inaſmuch as we would not do ſo, but that we ſhould thereby be conſtrain'd to give them a Bill of Divorce, which ſhews how nearly link'd we are to them in our Affections.

The third, and laſt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mark, whereby to judge of our prevailing ſin, is our Conſtitution, Age, or courſe of Life; Thoſe ſins, which do moſt ſymbolize with theſe, being moſt commonly our prevailing ones. For as it is eaſie to ſuppoſe, that the Devil will moſt aſſault us there, where he finds us moſt eaſie to be overcome; So alſo becauſe the buſineſs of Sin is to gratifie our Paſſions, and Inclinations, that the evil of our Hearts will moſtly run out that way, whereto thoſe unruly Guides lead us. Thus if Choler, and an angry Temper predominate in us, our reigning ſin is Malice, and Revenge; If a ſoft and effeminate one, Laſciviouſneſs, and Uncleanneſs, with all other the works of darkneſs. If we are of a meek, and humble temper, our prevailing ſin is want of courage in executing the Commands of our Creator. If of a bold and confident one, Pride, and Haughtineſs, and the deſpiſing of all thoſe, that are below us. The ſame is to be ſaid concerning the different Ages of Men, and particularly of Youth, and old Age. For, according to theſe, Mens prevailing ſins are many times diverſe, not only from other Mens, but from their own. For thus Youth is generally tainted with the ſins of Pleaſure and Vanity, and ſuch other ſins, as beſt ſuit with their green, and giddy thoughts; Whilſt the prevailing ſin of old Age, is an exceſs of love to the World, and taking more care for the ſhort remainder of their Life, than they did before for a much longer one. Laſtly (that I may ſpeak ſomewhat of that alſo, as being an excellent means to come to the knowledge of our prevailing ſin) if our courſe of Life lead us to converſe in Courts, our prevailing 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 elſewherePart 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 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, which this Sacrament was intended to commemorate. For he, who carefully reflects upon that Death, will find enough in it to incite him to a thankful remembrance of it, yea, to intend it with all his might, when he receives the Sacrament thereof.

But of all the things, which we ought to examine our ſelves about, when we think of approaching this moſt holy Sacrament, nothing certainly more imports us to enquire, than whether we are in Charity with all Men, as our Catechiſm expreſſeth it, and particularly with thoſe, that are of the ſame Houſhold of Faith. For one great deſign of this Holy SacramentPart 5. being to teſtifie our Communion with one another, and with all, that are of the ſame holy Family, it can be no other than a flat contradiction to it, to come to this Holy Sacrament without ſo neceſſary a Grace. But becauſe what the peculiar properties of this Grace are, and what particular actions it obligeth to, is more proper for the diſcuſſion of thoſe, who intreat de induſtriâ of this, and other preparatories to this Sacrament, than for a general diſcourſe concerning them; It ſhall ſuffice me to admoniſh, that to be in charity with all Men, and particularly with all Chriſtians, is to have a Mind ready to oblige all Men, that ſhall ſtand in need of our aſſiſtance, with ſuch ſupplies as we are able to afford them, whether of our Prayers, or Purſes, or Endeavours; That we ought much more, if we pretend to any thing of that Grace, to be free from giving them any juſt offence, and as willing, and ready to make amends for it, if we are conſcious to our ſelves of it; That if others break this moſt excellent band of Charity with us, yet we do not imitate them therein, nor return railing for railing, but contrariwiſe, bleſſing; That we be as ready to forgive injuries, as to paſs by affronts, and actually do ſo, where the injury may be born, but however where the offending Perſon returns, and repents; That, when neceſſity obligeth us to ſeek a ſatisfaction, we rather ſeek a ſatisfaction for the damage we ſuſtain, than of our own vindictive humour, and purſue our ſatisfaction by ſuch ways, and means, as are rather neceſſary for us, than vexatious to them; In fine (which is the ſum of all, and is perhaps the moſt uſeful, as well as the moſt general advice, that can be given in this Affair) that we ſhew forth ſuch charity to others, as we our ſelves would expect in the like Circumſtances, or ſhall look for from God, and Chriſt at the great day of retribution. Which it will not be difficult to bring our ſelves to, if we reflect as we ought upon the inſtances God gives us even now of his immenſe love toward us, or the need we ſhall ſtand in at the laſt day of a far greater Charity, how careful ſoever we are to approve our ſelves unto him. And I ſhall only add for the ſake of thoſe, who may perhaps be dazled with ſo glorious a Light, the reſolution of two Caſes, which I have met with in the courſe of my Miniſtry, and which others, it may be, may be as much ſtagger'd by. Whereof the former reſpects the Love of Enemies, the other that perfect Charity, which our Liturgy Exhort. to the Commun. ſeems to require of all that approach this Sacrament.

It is ſometime thought by well-meaning Perſons, for want of underſtanding the true nature of the Love of Enemies, that the Love, which we ought to have for them, ought not only to be ſuch, as will diſpoſe us to pray for them, and do good to them, but ſuch as will alike diſpoſe us to take them into our boſom, or at leaſt to converſe with them with that freedom, and chearfulneſs, as we do with other Men, with whom we have had no ſuch difference. Which Love therefore, whilſt the foremention'd perſons find not in themſelves, they begin to think they are ſo far forth without that Charity, which is requiſite for the Communion, and upon that account exclude themſelves from it. And I willingly grant that their ſcruple were reaſonable enough, if they had to do with ſuch Enemies, as had return'd, and repented, and given them due proofs of it. For not to admit ſuch perſons into their former ſtate at leaſt, is in truth to retain ſome part of our diſpleaſure againſt them, and conſequently, not ſo much as to forgive them perfectly, but however not to forgive them, as we deſire, and expect to be forgiven by God. But that we ſhould have ſuch a Love as this for Enemies, continuing ſuch, is a very great miſtake, and ſuch as not only, no Law of Chriſt requires, but no example of God, or Chriſt doth. For the clearing whereof we are to diſtinguiſh of a twofold Love, whereof the former for diſtinction ſake, may be call'd a Love of Complacency, and Delight, the other a Love of good Will, and Compaſſion. I call that a Love of Complacency, and Delight, which is between Friends, and ſuch as diſpoſeth them to deſire, and delight in each others converſation, or to be troubled at the want of it; Whilſt that of good will, and compaſſion prompts us only to deſire, and endeavour the good of thoſe we have to do with. Now as the former of theſe is the Love, that is now in queſtion, becauſe deſcrib'd as ſuch as diſpoſeth us to take Men into our boſom, or at leaſt to converſe with them, with the ſame freedom, and chearfulneſs, as we would do with thoſe, with whom we have no ſuch difference; So we are not in the leaſt to think that any ſuch Love is due to Enemies, becauſe having nothing in them to engage it, but rather to ſtir up an averſation for them. And we may know it more perfectly from hence, that God, by whoſe example we are taught to love our Enemies, doth not ſo love his, even the evil, and unjuſt. His delight is in his Saints, and ſuch as are after his own Heart, both in the Piety of their Minds, and the Holineſs of their Lives. But for the evil, and the unjuſt, whilſt they continue ſuch, he rather hates, and abhorrs them, and indeed, conſidering the Purity of his Nature, cannot be ſuppoſed to do otherwiſe. Only as the hatred he bears to ſuch perſons, hinders him not however from deſiring their welfare, and purſuing it, that ſo he may make them his Friends, and love them as ſuch; So that that is all the Love, which either he himſelf ſhews to his Enemies, or requires of us, is evident from thoſe very Scriptures, which profeſs to give an account of that Love of his, and of our imitation of it: They repreſenting it as ſuch a Love, as diſpoſeth him to cauſe his Sun to ariſe on the evil, and the good,Mat. 5.45. and to ſend Rain on the juſt, and unjuſt. Which Love of Enemies therefore, if we comply with, we have all that God can be thought to require of us, I do not ſay by his Precepts, but even by his own bleſſed Example.

But becauſe ſome perſons, as they conceive, find in themſelves ſome indiſpoſition, even to this latter ſort of Love, becauſe not exerting the acts of it with that pleaſure wherewith they ſhould, though at the ſame time, as they themſelves confeſs, they are infinitely troubled at it, and both pray, and ſtrive againſt that their indiſpoſition; And becauſe they look upon that their indiſpoſition, as irreconcileable with that perfect Charity, which our Liturgy mentions, and which, as they think, the Scripture requiresMat. 5.48., when it commands us to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect; Therefore I think it not amiſs to add, That Charity may be ſaid to be perfect two manner of ways, To wit, either as excluding all wilful uncharitableneſs, or as excluding alſo involuntary averſations, or diſguſts. In the former ſenſe there is no doubt, every Man ought to be in perfect Charity, neither is there any thing in the former Caſe to perſwade, that the perſons before deſcribed are not. For they certainly, who do not only exert the proper acts of Love, but are troubled that they cannot do it more readily, and chearfully, have nothing of wilful, or affected uncharitableneſs in them. All that is to be ſaid of ſuch perſons, is, that their Charity is not ſo perfect as to exclude all involuntary averſations, or diſguſts. Which, who hath, or can have, where there is ſuch a thing as Fleſh, and Spirit, and between which, the Scripture tells us, there will be a perpetual Combat? It is enough, and, perhaps, as much as can be expected from us, to ſtrive againſt thoſe natural riſings of our own Hearts, and ſo, as to do thoſe things, which Charity requires of us, notwithſtanding them; Being moreover troubled that we cannot do what we do more chearfully, and readily, and both asking God pardon for it, and deſiring a farther aſſiſtance of his Grace in order to it. Which, as they are the qualifications of the perſons before deſcrib'd, ſo ſeem to me, to be a better proof of the truly charitable temper of the Parties, than they dare challenge to themſelves. Becauſe I do not ſee how any one can both do the things, which Charity requires of him, and lament his not more chearfully performing them, if he had not in him a ſincere, though imperfect Charity toward thoſe, that are the Objects of it.

2. I have little to return by way of Anſwer, to what is enquir'd in the ſecond place, concerning our Demeanour at the Celebration of this Sacrament; Unleſs it be that Hoc age, which the old Romans premis'd to the offering of their reſpective Sacrifices. For then ſhall we demean our ſelves, as we ought, at the Celebration of this Sacrament, when we make our thoughts, and affections go along with the Prieſt's words, and actions, neither ſuffer any thing, how uſeful ſoever, to poſſeſs our Minds, which they do not ſuggeſt to us.: Becauſe as the whole of that Service was intended for our Inſtruction, and Edification, ſo the main of it conſiſts of ſuch Prayers, and Praiſes, as are offer'd up in our name, and which therefore we cannot expect the benefit of, unleſs our Thoughts, and Affections ſay an Amen to them all the way, as well as our Voice doth at the concluſion of them. If the diſtribution of the Sacramental Elements leaves any void places for our private Devotions (as it cannot well do otherwiſe, where there is any number to partake of them) they are, and may be ſo fill'd up with thoſe Meditations, and Ejaculations, which our printed Manuals of Devotions furniſh, that it will be in vain for me to offer any thing toward the ſupplying of them. Only amidſt thoſe tranſports of joy, and thankfulneſs, which the remembrance of Chriſt's Death, or our own Meditations upon it, may ſuggeſt unto us, let us not forget, that we meet together to oblige our ſelves by the preſent Sacrament, as well as to receive benefit from it, and accordingly, to vow to God, the abandoning of thoſe ſins, by which we have been heretofore enſnar'd, and particularly our moſt beloved ones.

3. The third, and laſt Queſtion remains to be diſcuſs'd, even in what poſture of Body, we ought to receive this holy Sacrament. A Queſtion, which I ſhould hardly have thought fit to propoſe, had not the ſingularity of ſome among our ſelves, repreſented the Poſture of ſitting, as the only allowable one. I call it a Singularity, firſt, becauſe, ſo far as we can judge by their Writings, the Antients always receiv'd it in a poſture of Adoration. And I appeal for the proof hereof to Juſtin Martyr in the firſt place, as being not only one of the moſt Antient, but one too, who gives the moſt accurate account of this Solemnity. For though it be true, that that Father makes no expreſs mention of the poſture, wherein this Sacrament was receiv'd; Yet as he takes particular notice of the whole Aſſemblies riſing up to Prayers after the reading of the Scriptures, and the Biſhop's Exhortation out of them, ſo he takes no notice at all of their changing their poſture afterwards, either in the Service of the Euchariſt, or the diſtribution, or reception of it. Which is to me a probable Argument, that they continued in the ſame poſture, and conſequently receiv'd the Sacrament in it. And indeed, as it is not to be thought, that they ſhould uſe any leſs reverent poſture in the Prayers, and Thankſgivings of this Sacrament, than they did in the Prayers, that preceded it, which ſhews that ſo far, to be ſure, they continued ſtill in the poſture of ſtanding; So that Father's ſubjoining immediately to that Service, that the Deacons thereupon gave, or diſtributed the Elements ſo bleſs'd, to each of thoſe, that were preſent, and carried them away to thoſe, that were abſent, makes it farther probable, that they, who were to communicate, did not come up to the Table, and there ſit, and receive with the Preſident, or Biſhop, which they muſt have done, if they had kept to the poſture now contended for, but continu'd where they were before, and in the ſame reverential Poſture, wherein they but now were at Prayers. For to imagine them ſitting in their proper places, and ſo receiving, is not only without any the leaſt ground in that Father, but without any ground alſo from the reaſon of that poſture in the Sacrament, even its being, as they tell us, the poſture of a Feaſt. For how doth it agree to a Feaſt, for thoſe, that are invited to it, not to approach that Table, upon which the Feaſt is ſet, or at leaſt ſome other, that is placed near to it. But beſide the Probabilities we have from Juſtin Martyr, of the Churches anciently receiving in a poſture of Adoration, and particularly, in the poſture of ſtanding; It is not to be deſpis'd, that the ſame Antients had a very venerable eſteem for the Sacramental Elements, which makes it yet more probable, that they receiv'd them in ſuch a poſture, as was agreeable to ſo venerable an eſteem. For we do not, ſaith the ſame Juſtin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. , receive theſe things as common Bread, and common Drink. But as Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour, being incarnate by the Word of God, took both Fleſh and Blood, for our Salvation, ſo alſo we have been taught that that Meat, which is made Euchariſtical by the Prayers of that Word, which came from him, and by which our Fleſh, and Blood are nouriſhed through the converſion thereof into them, is the Fleſh, and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt incarnate. And that they had not a leſs venerable eſteem for the ſame Sacramental Elements in the ſucceeding times, may appear from Tertullian'sDeſpectac. cap. 25. giving them the title of Sanctum, or the Holy thing, and from the Biſhop, or Prieſt's delivering them with theſe wordsTert. ib. cum notis Rigalt., The Body of Chriſt, or The Blood of Chriſt, and the Peoples receiving them with an Amen, or So be it Iterum. & Euſeb. Eccleſ. Hiſt. li. 6. cap. 43. cum notis Valeſii.; So praying, that what was intended by Chriſt, and accordingly delivered by his Miniſter, as the Communion of Chriſt's Body, and Blood, might prove ſuch effectually to them. For who can think after all this, unleſs there were ſome preſumption of their receiving the Elements in any other poſture, but that they receiv'd them in ſuch a one as was ſuitable to ſuch thoughts, and ſuch practices, and not in one, which hath no affinity at all with them? Eſpecially, if there appear any expreſs proof near thoſe times of their receiving them in a poſture of Adoration, and particularly in the poſture of ſtanding. Which that there is, is evident from an Epiſtle of Dionyſius, Biſhop of Alexandria, to Xyſtus, Biſhop of Rome. Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. l. 7. cap. 9. For ſpeaking therein of one, who had been long admitted among the Faithful, but beginning to doubt of the truth of his Baptiſm among Hereticks, was importunate with him, to Baptize him anew, he tells Xyſtus, that he, for his part, did not dare to do it, and therefore anſwer'd the Perſon, That that long Communion, which he had in the Church, ſuffic'd him for that Purpoſe. For how could he have the confidence to renew him again, who had oftentimes heard the Service of the Euchariſt, and with the reſt of the Congregation, anſwer'd Amen to it, who had ſtood by the Table, and ſtretched out his hands to receive the holy Food, in fine, who had receiv'd that holy Food, and for a long time been partaker of the Body, and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt?

But beſide that the Antients receiv'd in a poſture of Adoration, and they therefore, who repreſent ſitting, as the only allowable one, ſo far forth guilty of ſingularity; It will be hard to find any among the Moderns, who do not receive in a poſture of Adoration, or at leaſt, do not believe it to be lawful, which is a farther proof of the others ſingularity. For the Bohemian Churches, who were the firſt that reform'd from Popery, in thoſe poor remains of them, that yet continue, receive kneeling Durel. View of the Gov. and publ. Worſh. &c. Sect. 1. Par. 57. to this day, and (which is more) when they join'd with thoſe of Polonia Major, and Lithuania, agreed unanimouſly, to forbid the receiving of the Sacrament ſitting, as a Cuſtom, which was brought in by the Arrians. The Reformed Churches Durel. Serm. of the Liturg. of France, ſo long as they continu'd, received ſtanding, and the great Men thereof (as a reverend Perſon of our Nation Hammond. View of the New Direct. &c. informs us) made a low Cringe, before they took it into their hands. Both French, and Dutch, in fine, when they gave their Opinion concerning the Geſture us'd by the Bohemians, did alſo deliver it as ſuch, That every Church ought to be left to its own liberty Ham. L'Eſtrange Alli. of Div. Offic. Cap. 7. in Annot. in this particular. All which things conſider'd, it will appear, that, if they among us, who advance ſitting at the Sacrament, be not therefore guilty of ſingularity, yet they muſt be for advancing it as the only allowable one, as if their Reaſons were good, they muſt be thought to do.

But becauſe how ſingular ſoever this Opinion of theirs may be, yet it is pretended, that it hath Chriſt, and his Diſciples example on its ſide, together with the ſuffrage of Reaſon; Therefore it will be but juſt to examine thoſe Pretences, and ſee what there is of ſtrength in them.

And firſt it is pretended, that our Saviour Chriſt, and his Diſciples ſat at the receiving of this Sacrament, or at leaſt, us'd ſuch a poſture, as was anſwerable to ſitting among us, even lying along upon Beds, as the faſhion of thoſe Countries was. And it is not to be denied, that there is ſufficient ground from the Scripture, for their uſing that Poſture at the Paſſover, and not unlikely neither, that they held it on at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper. But will it therefore follow, that we ought to look upon no other Poſture than that, or one of the ſame nature, as allowable? For beſide that things, which are but probable, may be falſe, and things, improbable, true; Beſide that things probable, for that very reaſon, cannot conclude the Conſcience of any Man, and ought much leſs to be made uſe of to conclude the Conſciences of others; If Chriſt, and his Diſciples practice in this particular, were as certain, as it is ſuppoſed to be probable, yet could it not be of force to conclude ours, unleſs there were ſome Command to oblige us to follow it, or ſome cogent Reaſon in the Practice it ſelf, to ſhew the neceſſity thereof: Becauſe Example, conſider'd in it ſelf, is no Rule of humane Actions, in as much as it rather ſhews what others have done before us, than what we our ſelves are to do in any Affair. Which is ſo true, as to that very Example, which we have now before us, that they, who inſiſt upon it in the poſture of receiving, do yet without any heſitancy depart from it in other Circumſtances, and ſuch too, as are more certain than the poſture of receiving is. For they, no more than we, think themſelves oblig'd to receive either in the Evening, or in an upper Room, or in unleavened Bread, all which Chriſt, and his Diſciples muſt be acknowledg'd to have done in that Supper, which he celebrated with them. But therefore, as if they will have this Example of Chriſt and his Diſciples, to be obligatory, they muſt find out ſome Command obliging us to follow it, or ſome cogent Reaſon in the practice of it ſelf to ſhew the neceſſity thereof; So, if we ſtay till that be done, we may ſtay long enough, becauſe there is no juſt Pretence for the one, or the other of them. For what ſhadow is there, for inſtance, of any Command to follow Chriſt, or his Diſciples Example in this, as there is for the taking of the Sacramental Elements, and eating, or drinking of them? Unleſs they ſhould perhaps urge the Command of, Do this, as a Command that extends to the Circumſtances of the things then done, or enjoin'd, as well as to the Actions themſelves. But beſide, that the words, Do this, do in their own nature referr rather to the things then done, or enjoin'd, than to the Circumſtances thereof; If the words, Do this, extend to the Circumſtances of the things then done or enjoin'd, as well as to the things themſelves, they muſt alike extend to the time, and place, wherein this Sacrament was celebrated, and to the quality of that Bread, wherewith it was. Which when we ſhall ſee them alike inſiſt upon, we ſhall think of another Anſwer, but till then acquieſce in this. If there be any thing to make the poſture of our Saviour, and his Diſciples to be obligatory, it muſt be ſome cogent Reaſon in the practice it ſelf, to ſhew the neceſſity thereof.

And indeed, as the advancers of this Poſture, are forc'd to come to this at length, which ſhews how weakly our Saviour, and his Diſciples meer Example is urg'd in this Affair; So they think they have reaſon enough on their ſide, becauſe the poſture of ſitting, is more proper for the Lord's Supper, than any other poſture is. I will not now ſay, though I might, that if that poſture be only more proper, than any other, there may be place upon occaſion for other poſtures beſide that, which ſhews it, even in their own Opinion, not to be the only proper, or neceſſary one; But I ſay, that it cannot be concluded to be the more proper one in the preſent inſtance, unleſs the Supper of the Lord were of the ſame nature with common ones, or at leaſt, with that of the Paſchal Lamb, the Deſign whereof was to feed the Bellies of its Gueſts, as well as the deſires of their Souls. Now is there any thing in the Lord's Supper, that looks that way? Nay, doth not the inſtituting of it, after that of the Paſchal Lamb, proclaim the contrary, and direct Men to look after a ſpiritual Satisfaction, rather than a natural one? And may Men then preſcribe Rules to ſuch a Feaſt, from the modes of thoſe of another nature? Or, becauſe ſitting is moſt ſuitable to thoſe, conclude it is alſo ſuch to this? Would not one rather think (if we ſpeak only of more, or leſs proper) that ſome other poſture would be more proper for this Feaſt, even ſuch a one, as doth more beſpeak the reverence of thoſe, that are invited to feaſt with, and upon ſo great a Perſon as Chriſt? Eſpecially, when one great Reaſon of its Inſtitution was to expreſs by the receit of it the grateful Remembrance we have of the ineſtimable Benefits of his Death? And I know of nothing, that can be replied againſt this way of Reaſoning, unleſs it be the preſumption there is, that Chriſt, who certainly knew what was moſt proper in this Affair, gave it to his Diſciples ſitting, or lying along. For if he thought the ordinary poſture of a Feaſt to be the moſt proper, why ſhould we repreſent another as ſuch, unleſs we would be wiſer than he that inſtituted it? And I no way doubt, ſuppoſing our Saviour to have given it to his Diſciples in the ordinary poſture of a Feaſt, that he thought it the moſt proper at that time, and that we muſt have always look'd upon it as ſuch, if he had enjoin'd the uſe of it for the time to come. But doth it therefore follow, though there be no ſuch Precept for it, that we ought always to look upon it as ſuch? Or think, becauſe it was then the moſt proper one, that it muſt ever be ſo? For poſſibly the making uſe of that poſture then, was not ſo much out of a Belief of its being in it ſelf the moſt proper one, but more proper for that time, and place, becauſe more agreeable to the Ceremonies of that Solemnity, from which this Sacrament was borrowed, and where it appears from Paulus Fagius Liturgic. Caſſand. in initio., That the Father of the Family, and his Gueſts ſat, or lay down to Meat, before he either bleſs'd, or they receiv'd that Euchariſt from him. Poſſibly alſo, though Chriſt, and his Diſciples lay along during that whole Action, yet they did otherwiſe expreſs, whether by the bowing the Head, or lifting up their Eyes, the regard they had to that God, by Thankſgiving to whom that Solemnity was begun: I do not ſay only, becauſe it was intended as a Sacrifice of Praiſe to God, for the bleſſing of our Redemption, but becauſe it was intended alſo to ſhew it forth to others, and excite them to the ſame grateful, and honourable Remembrance of it, and of his Death, by whom it was to be accompliſhed; That being not very advantageouſly to be done, where the poſture of receiving the Symbols of it is not at leaſt intermix'd with ſomething, that hath in it a different Air from that of an ordinary Feaſt. Which ſuppos'd, it will not be difficult to ſhew in what poſture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd. For, for ought that I can ſee by the very nature of the Sacrament it ſelf, and the practice of the Antients, a poſture of Adoration is the moſt proper for the receit of it, and, as ſuch, to be preferr'd before any other whatſoever. That provided the poſture made uſe of, be a poſture of Adoration, it matters not in it ſelf, what kind of one is made choice of, becauſe there is no Command for any particular one. That both ſtanding, and kneeling, therefore muſt be look'd upon as proper ones, becauſe both of them poſtures of Adoration, and as ſuch, accordingly made uſe of in ſeveral Ages of the Church, and by ſeveral Churches of the ſame. That by how much the more any poſture is remov'd from a poſture of Adoration, ſo much the more improper is it for the receit of this Sacrament, and that ſitting at it therefore, is of all others, the moſt unſuitable one. In fine, that if ſitting were more proper, than indeed it is, yet being not under any Divine Command, it ought in reaſon to give place to that poſture, which hath the general practice of the Church to warrant it, and the particular Commands of thoſe, whom God himſelf hath obliged us to obey.

FINIS.