is not to be forgotten but indeed to be kept upon record for a perpepetual remembrance of him and his brethren for he frankly answers after this manner We have not freely received and therefore are not bound to give it freely The answer I confess is ingenious and good For if those that receive freely are to give freely it would seem to follow by the rule of contraries that those who receive not freely ought not to give freely and I shall grant it Only they must grant me that they preach not by and according to the Gift and Grace of God received nor can they be good Stewards of the manifest Grace of God as every true Minister ought to be or then they have gotten this Gift or Grace by money as Simon Magus would have been compassing it since they think themselves not bound to give it without money again But to be plain I believe he intended not that it was from the Gift or Grace of God they were to preach but from their acquired arts and studies which hath cost them much labour and also some money at the University and therefore as he that puts his stock in the publick bank expects interest again so these Scholars having spent some money learning the art of preaching think they may boldly say they have it not freely for it hath cost them both money and pains and therefore they expect both money and ease again And therefore as Arnoldus gets money for teaching his young Students the art of preaching so he intends they should be repayed before they give it again to others It was of old said Omnia venalia Romae i. e. All things are set to sale at Rome but now the same proverb may be applied to Franequer And therefore Arnoldus's Students when they go about to preach may safely seek and require hereby telling their hearers their masters maxim Nos gratis non accepimus ergo neque gratis dare tenemur But then they answer again that they find them and their Master to be none of his Ministers who when he sent forth his Disciples gave them this command Freely ye have received freely give and therefore we will have none of your teaching because we perceive you to be of the number of those that look for their gain from their quarter § XXIX Secondly the Scripture testimonies that urge this are in the same nature of these that press charity and liberality towards the poor and command hospitality c. But these are not nor can be stinted to a certain quantity because they are deeds meerly voluntary where the obedience to the command lieth in the good will of the giver and not in the matter of the thing given as Christ shew in the Example of the widows mite So that though there be an obligation upon Christians to minister of outward things to their ministers yet there can be no definition of the quantity but by the givers own consents and a little from one may more truly fulfil the obligation than a great deal from another And therefore as acts of charity and hospitality can neither be limited nor forced so neither can this If it be objected that Ministers may and ought to exhort perswade yea and earnestly press Christians if they find them defective therein to acts of charity and hospitality and so may they do also to the giving of maintainance I answer All this saith nothing for a stinted and forced maintainance for which there cannot so much as the shew of one solid argument be brought from Scripture I confess Ministers may use exhortations in this as much as in any other case even as the Apostle did to the Corinthians shewing them their duty but it were fit for Ministers that do so that their testimony might have the more weight and be the freer of all suspition of covetousness and self-interest that they might be able to say truly in the sight of God that which the same Apostle subjoyns upon the same occasion 1 Cor. 9.15 16 17 18. But I have used none of these things Neither have I written these things that it should be so done unto me For it were better for me to die than that any man should make my Glory void For though I preach the Gospel I have nothing to glory of for necessity is laid upon me yea woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel For if I do this thing willingly I have a reward but if against my will a dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me What is my reward then Verily that when I preach the Gospel I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge that I abuse not my power in the Gospel Thirdly As there is neither precept nor example for this forced and stinted maintainance in the Scripture so the Apostle in his solemn farwel to the Pastors and Elders of the Church of Ephesus guards them against it Acts 20.33 34 35. But if the thing had been either lawful or practised he would rather have exhorted them to be content with their stinted hire and not to covet more whereas he sheweth them first by his own Example that they were not to covet or expect any mans Silver or Gold Secondly that they ought to work with their hands for an honest lively-hood as he had done And lastly he exhorts them so to do from the words of Christ because it is a more blessed thing to give than to receive shewing that it is so far from a thing that a true minister ought to aim at or expect that it is rather a burthen to a true Minister and cross to him to be brought upon necessity so to lack § XXX Fourthly If a forced and stinted maintainance were to be supposed it would make the Ministers of Christ just one with these hirelings whom the Prophet cryed out against For certainly if a man make a bargain to preach to People for so much a year so as to refuse to preach unless he have and seek to force the People to give it by violence it cannot be denyed that such a one preacheth for hire and so looks for his gain from his quarter yea and prepares War against such as put not into his mouth but this is the particular special mark of a false Prophet and a hireling and therefore can no ways compet to a true Minister of Christ. Next that a superfluous maintainace that is more than in reason is needful ought not to be received by Christian Ministers will not need much proof seeing the more moderate and sober both among Papists and Protestants readily confess it who with one voice exclaim against the excessive revenues of the Clergy and that it may not want a proof from Scripture what can be more plain than that of the Apostle to Timothy 1 Tim. 6.7 8 9 10. where he both shews wherewith we ought to be content and also the hazard of such as look after more and indeed since that very obligation of giving
another argument from these words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. where he so positively excludes the Natural man from an understanding in the things of God but because I have spoken of that Scripture in the beginning of the Second Proposition I will here avoid to repeat what is there mentioned referring thereunto Yet because the Socinians and others who exalt the Light of the Natural man or a natural Light in man do object against this Scripture I shall remove it ere I make an end Obj. They say The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be translated animal and not natural else say they it would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they seek to infer that it is only the animal Man and not the rational that is excluded here from the discerning the things of God Which shift without disputing the word is easily refuted neither is it any wife consistent with the scope of the place for Frist The animal life is no other than that which Man hath common with other living Creatures for as he is a meer Man he differs no otherwise from Beasts than by the rational Property Now the Apostle deduceth his argument in the foregoing Verses from this simile that as the things of a Man cannot be known but by the Spirit of a Man so the things of God no Man knoweth but by the Spirit of God But I hope these Men will confess unto me that the things of a Man are not known by the animal Spirit only i. e. by that which he hath common with the Beasts but by the rational So that it must be the rational that is here understood Again the subsumption shews clearly that the Apostle had no such intent as these Mens gloss would make him to have viz. So the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God according to their Judgment he should have said the things of God knoweth no Man by his animal Spirit but by his rational Spirit for to say the Spirit of God here spoken of is no other than the rational Spirit of Man would border upon Blasphemy since they are so often contra-distinguished Again going on he saith not that they are rationally but spiritually discerned Secondly The Apostle throughout this Chapter shews how the wisdom of Man is unfit to Judg the things of God and ignorant of them Now ask these Men whether a Man be called a wise Man from his animal Property or from his rational If from his rational then it is not only the animal but even the rational as he is yet in the natural State which the Apostle excludes here and whom he contradistinguisheth from the Spiritual v. 15. But the Spiritual man judgeth all things this cannot be said of any Man meerly because rational or as he is a Man seeing the Men of greatest reason if we may so esteem Men whom the Scripture calls wise as were the Greeks of Old not only may be but often are Enemies to the Kingdom of God while both the preaching of Christ is said to be foolishness with the wise Men of this World and the wisdom of this World is said to be foolishness with God Now whether it be any ways propable that either these wise Men that are said to account the Gospel foolishness are only so called with respect to their animal Property and not their rational or that that wisdom that is foolishness with God is not meant of the rational but only the animal property any rational Man laying aside interests may easily Judg. § IV. I come now to the other part to wit that this evil and corrupt seed is not imputed to Infants until they actually joyn with it For this there is a reason given in the end of the Proposition it self drawn from Eph. 2. for these are by nature Children of Wrath who walk according to the prince of the power of the Air the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience Here the Apostle gives their evil walking and not any thing that is not reduced to act as a reason of their being Children of wrath and this is sutable to the whole strain of the Gospel where no man is ever threatned or judged for what iniquity he hath not actually wrought Such indeed as continue in iniquity and so do Homologat the sins of their Fathers God will visit the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children Is it not strange then that men should entertain an opinion so absurd in it self and so cruel and contrary to the nature as well of God's mercy as justice concerning the which the Scripture is altogether silent But it is manifest that Man hath invented this opinion out of self-love and from that bitter Root from which all errors springs for the most of Protestants that hold this having as they fancy the absolute decree of Elections to secure them and their Children so as they cannot miss of Salvation they make no great difficulty to send all others both Old and Young to hell For whereas self-love which always is apt to believe that which it desires possesseth them with a hope that their part is secure they are not solicitous how they leave their Neighbours which are the far greater part of Mankind in these inextricable difficultys The Papists again use this Opinion as an art to augment the esteem of their Church and reverence of its Sacraments seeing they pretend it is washed away by Baptism only in this they appear to be a little more Merciful in that they send not these unbaptized infant to Hell but to a certain Limbus concerning which the Scriptures are as silent as of the other This then is not only not authorised in the Scriptures but contrary to the express tenor of it The Apostle saith plainly Rom. 4.15 Where no Law is there is no transgression And again 5.13 But sin is not imputed where there is no Law Than which Testimonies there is nothing more positive since to infants there is no Law seeing as such they are utterly uncapable of it the Law cannot reach but such as have in some measure less or more the exercise of their understanding which infants have not So that from thence I thus agree Sin is imputed to none where there is no Law But to infants there is no Law Therefore sin is not imputed to them The Proposition is the Apostle's own Words the Assumption is thus proved Those who are under a physical impossibility of either hearing knowing or understanding any Law where the impossibility is not brought upon them by any act of their own but is according to the very order of nature appointed by God to such there is no Law But infants are under this physical impossibility Therefore c. Secondly What can be more positive than that of Ezek. 18.20 The Soul that sinneth it shall die the Son shall not bear the Fathers Iniquity For the Prophet here first sheweth what is the cause of mans Eternal Death which he
the natural man from a meer conviction of his understanding doth in the forwardness of his own will and by his own natural strength without the influence and leading of God's Spirit go about either in his understanding to imagine conceive or think of the things of God or actually to perform them by preaching or praying The first is a missing both in matter and form The second is a retaining of the form without the Life and Substance of Christianity because Christian Religion consisteth not in a meer belief of true Doctrins or a meer performance of Acts good in themselves or else the bare letter of the Scripture though spoken by a Drunkard or a Devil might be said to be Spirit and Life which I judg none will be so absurd as to affirm and also it would follow that where the form of godliness is there the power is also which is contrary to the express words of the Apostle For the form of godliness cannot be said to be where either the notions and opinions believed are erroneous and ungodly or the acts performed evil and wicked for then it would be the form of ungodliness and not of godliness But of this further hereafter when we shall speak particularly of preaching and praying Now though this last be not so bad as the former yet it hath made way for it for men having first departed from the Life and Substance of true Religion and Worship to wit from the inward Power and Vertue of the Spirit so as therein to act and thereby to have all their actions enlivened have only retained the form and shew to wit the true words and appearance and so acting in their own natural and unrenewed wills in this form the form could not but quickly decay and be vitiated for the working and active spirit of man could not contain it self within the simplicity and plainness of Truth but giving way to his own numerous inventions and imaginations began to vary in the form and adapt it to his own inventions until by degrees the form of godliness for the most part came to be lost as well as the power For this kind of Idolatry whereby man loveth idolizeth and huggeth his own conceptions inventions and product of his own brain is so incident unto him and seated in his faln nature that so long as his natural Spirit is the first author and actor of him and is that by which he only is guided and moved in his worship towards God so as not first to wait for another Guide to direct him he can never perform the pure Spiritual Worship nor bring forth any thing but the Fruit of the first faln natural and corrupt root Wherefore the time appointed of God being come wherein by Jesus Christ he hath been pleased to restore the true Spiritual Worship and the outward form of Worship which was appointed by God to the Jews and whereof the manner and time of its performance was particularly determined by God himself being come to an end we find that Jesus Christ the Author of the Christian Religion prescribes no set form of Worship to his Children under the more pure administration of the New Covenant save that he only tells them that the Worship now to be performed is Spiritual and in the Spirit and it 's especially to be observed that in the whole New Testament there is no order nor command given in this thing but to follow the Revelation of the Spirit save only that general of meeting together a thing dearly owned and diligently practised by us as shall hereafter more appear True it is mention is made of the duties of Praying Preaching and Singing but what order or method should be kept in so doing or that presently they should be set about so soon as the Saints are gathered there is not one word to be found yea these duties as shall afterwards be made appear are always annexed to the assistance leadings and motions of God's Spirit Since then man in his natural state is thus excluded from acting or moving in things Spiritual how or what way shall he exercise this first and previous duty of waiting upon God but by silence and by bringing that natural part to silence Which is no otherwaies but by abstaining from his own Thoughts and Imaginations and from all the self-workings and motions of his own mind as well in things materially good as evil that he being silent God may speak in him and the Good Seed may arise This though hard to the natural man is so answerable to Reason and even natural experience in other things that it cannot be denyed He that cometh to learn of a master if he expect to hear his master and be instructed by him must not continually be speaking of the matter to be taught and never be quiet otherwise how shall his master have time to instruct him yea though the schollar were never so earnest to learn the science yet would the master have reason to reprove him as untoward and indocile if he would always be meddling of himself and still speaking and not wait in silence patiently to hear his master instructing and teaching him who ought not to open a mouth until by his master he were commanded and allowed so to do So also if one were about to attend a great Prince he would be thought an impertinent and imprudent servant who while he ought patiently and readily to wait that he might answer the King when he speaks and have his Eye upon him to observe the least motions and inclinations of his will and to do accordingly would be still deafening him with discourse though it were in praises of him and running to and fro without any particular and immediate order to do things that perhaps might be good in themselves or might have been commanded at other times to others Would the Kings of the Earth accept of such servants or service Since then we are commanded to wait upon God diligently and in so doing it is promised that our strength shall be renewed this waiting cannot be performed but by silence or cessation of the natural part on our side since God manifests himself not to the outward man or senses so much as to the inward to wit to the Soul and Spirit if the Soul be still thinking and working in her own will and busily exercised in her own imaginations though the matters as in themselves may be good concerning God yet thereby she incapacitates her self from discerning the still and small voyce of the Spirit and so hurts her self greatly in that she neglects her chief business of waiting upon the Lord nothing less than if I should busie my self crying out and speaking of a business while in the mean time I neglect to hear one who is quietly whispering into my ear and informing me in these things which are most needful for me to hear and know concerning that business And since it is the chief work of a Christian to know the
thou determine not precisely to speak what before thou hast meditated whatsoever it be for though it be lawful to determine the Text which thou art to expound yet not at all the interpretation lest if thou so dost thou take from the Holy Spirit that which is his to wit to direct thy speech that thou mayst Prophecy in the Name of the Lord denuded of all Learning Meditation and Experience and as if thou hadst studied nothing at all committing thy heart thy tongue and thy self wholly unto his Spirit and trusting nothing to thy former studying or meditation but saying with thy self in great confidence of the Divine Promise the Lord will give a word with much power unto those that preach the Gospel But above all things be careful thou follow not the manner of Hypocrites who have written almost word by word what they are to say as if they were to repeat some Verses upon a Theatre having learned all their Preaching as they do that act Tragedies and afterwards when they are in the place of Prophecying pray the Lord to direct their tongue but in the mean time shutting up the way of the Holy Spirit they determine to say nothing but what they have written O unhappy kind of Prophets yea and truly cursed which depend not upon God's Spirit but upon their own Writings or meditation Why pray'st thou to the Lord thou false Prophet to give thee his holy Spirit by which thou mayst speak things profitable and yet thou repellest the Spirit why preferrest thou thy meditation or study to the Spirit of God otherwise why committest thou not thy self to the Spirit § XIX Secondly this manner of preaching as used by them considering that they also affirm that it may be and often is performed by men who are wicked or void of true Grace cannot only not edifie the Church beget or nourish true Faith but is destructive to it being directly contrary to the Nature of the Christian and Apostolick Ministry mentioned in the Scriptures For the Apostle preached the Gospel not in the wisdom of words lest the Cross of Christ should be of none effect 1 Cor. 1.17 But this preaching not being done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit but by man's invention and eloquence in his own will and through his natural and acquired parts and learning is in the wisdom of words and therefore the Cross of Christ is thereby made of none effect The Apostles speech and preaching was not with inticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power That the Faith of their Hearers should not stand in the Wisdom of men but in the Power of God 1 Cor. 2 3 4 5. But this preaching having nothing of the Spirit and Power in it both the Preachers and Hearers confessing they wait for no such thing nor yet are often-times sensible of it must needs stand in the enticing words of man's wisdom since it is by the meer wisdom of man it is sought after and the meer strength of man's eloquence and enticing words it is uttered and therefore no wonder if the Faith of such as hear and depend upon such Preachers and Preachings stand in the wisdom of men and not in the Power of God The Apostles declared that they spake not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth 1 Cor. 2.13 But these Preachers confess that they are strangets to the Holy Ghost his motions and operations neither do they wait to feel them and therefore they speak in the words which their own natural wisdom and learning teacheth them mixing them in and adding them to such words as they steal of the Scripture and other Books and therefore speak not what the Holy Ghost teacheth Thirdly this is contrary to the method and order of the primitive Church mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.30 c. where in Preaching every one is to wait for his Revelation and to give place one unto another according as things are revealed But here there is no waiting for a revelation but the Preacher must speak and not that which is revealed unto him but what he hath prepared and premeditated before hand Lastly by this kind of preaching the Spirit of God which should be the chief instructor and teacher of God's people and whose influence is that only which makes all preaching effectual and beneficial for the edifying of Souls is shut out and man's natural wisdom learning and parts set up and exalted which no doubt is a great and chief reason why the preaching among the generality of Christians is so unfruitful and unsuccessful yea according to this Doctrine the Devil may preach and ought to be heard also seeing he both knoweth the Truth and hath as much eloquence as any But what avails excellency of speech if the demonstration and Power of the Spirit be wanting which toucheth the Conscience We see that when the Devil confessed to the Truth yet Christ would have none of his testimony And as these pregnant testimonies of the Scripture do prove this part of preaching to be contrary to the Doctrin of Christ so do they also prove that of ours before affirmed to be conform thereunto § XX. But if any object after this manner Have not many been benefited yea and both converted and edified by the Ministry of such as have premiditated their preachings yea and hath not the Spirit often concurred by its divine influence with preaching thus premeditated so as they have been powerfully born in upon the Souls of the hearers to their advantage I answer though that be granted which I shall not deny it will not infer that the thing was good in it self more than because Paul was met with by Christ to the converting of his Soul riding to Damascus to persecute the Saints that he did well in so doing neither particular actions nor yet whole congregations as we above observed are to be measured by the acts of God's condescension in times of ignorance But besides it hath often times faln out that God having a regard to the simplicity and integrity either of the preacher or hearers hath faln in upon the heart of a Preacher by his power and holy influence and thereby hath led them to speak things which were not in his premeditated discourse and which perhaps he never thought of before and those passing ejaculations and unpremeditated but living exhortations have proved more beneficial and refreshful both to preacher and hearers than all their premeditated Sermons But all that will not allow them to continue in these things which in themselves are not approved but contrary to the practice of the Apostles when God is raising up a people to serve him according to the primitive purity and spirituality yea such acts of God's condescension in times of darkness and ignorance should ingage all more and more to follow him according as he reveals his most perfect and spiritual way § XXI Having hitherto spoken of Preaching
Water-baptism Thirdly that Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was such that as many as were therewith Baptized Arg. did put on Christ. But this is not true of Water-baptism Therefore c. Fourthly the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not John's Baptism But Baptism with Water was John's Baptism Therefore c. But first they alledg that Christ's Baptism though a Baptism with Water did differ from John 's because John only Baptized with Water unto Repentance but Christ commands his Disciples to Baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost reckoning that in this form there lieth a great difference betwixt the Baptism of John and that of Christ. I answer as to that John's Baptism was unto Repentance Answ. the difference lieth not there because so is Christ's also for our adversaries will not deny but that adult persons that are baptized ought ere they be admitted to it to repent and confess their sins yea and that Infants with a respect to and consideration of their Baptism ought to repent and confess So that the difference lieth not here since this of repentance and confession agrees as well to Christ's as to John's Baptism But in this our Adversaries are divided for Calvin will have Christ's and John's to be all one Inst. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 7 8. Yet they do differ and the difference is in that the one is by water the other not c. Secondly as to what Christ saith in commanding them to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit I confess that states the difference and it is great but that lies not only in admitting water-baptism in this different form by a bare expressing of these words for as the Text saith no such thing neither do I see how it can be inferred from it For the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is into the Name now the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare sound of words or literal expression even forhis Vertue and Power as may appear from Psal. 54.3 Cant. 1.3 Prov. 18.10 and in many more Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations into this Name Vertue and Power and that they did so is evident by these Testimonies of Paul above-mentioned where he saith that as many of them as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ this must have been a baptizing into the Name i. e. Power and Vertue and not a meer formal expression of words adjoyned with Water-baptism because as hath been above observed it doth not follow as a natural or necessary consequence of it I would have those who desire to have their Faith built upon no other foundation than the Testimony of God's Spirit and Scriptures of Truth throughly to consider whether there can be any thing further alledged for this interpretation than what the prejudice of Education and Influence of Tradition hath imposed perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate Reader as if the very Character of Christianity were abolished to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood of Baptizing with Water and that this form of Baptizing in the Name of Father Son and Spirit hath no warrant from Matth. 28. c. For which besides the reason taken from the signification of the Name as being the Vertue and Power above expressed let it be considered that if it had been a form prescribed by Christ to his Apostles then surely they would have made use of that form in the administring of Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water but though particular mention be made in divers places of the Acts who were baptized and how and though it be particularly expressed that they baptized such and such as Acts 2.41.8.12 13 38.9.18.10.48.16.15.18.8 yet there is not a word of this form and in two places Acts 8.16.19.5 it is said of some that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus by which it yet more appears that either the author of this History hath been very defective who having so often occasion to mention this yet omiteth so substantial a part of Baptism which were to accuse the Holy Ghost by whose guidance Luke wrote it or else that the Apostle did no waies understand that Christ by his Commission Matth. 28. did injoyn them such a form of Water-baptism seeing they did not use it and therefore it is safer to conclude that what they did in administring Water-baptism they did not by vertue of that commission else they would have so used it for our adversaries I suppose would judge it a great Heresie to administer Water-baptism without that or only in the Name of Jesus without mention of Father or Spirit as it is expresly said they did in the two places above cited Secondly they say if this were not understood of Water-baptism it would be a tautology and all one with teaching I say nay baptizing with the Spirit is somewhat further then teaching or informing the understanding for it imports a reaching to and melting the heart whereby it is turned as well as the understanding informed besides we find often in the Scripture that teaching and instructing are put together without any absurdity or needless tautology and yet these two have a greater affinity than teaching and baptizing with the Spirit Thirdly they say Baptism in this place must be understood with Water because it is the action of the Apostles Obj. and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit which is the work of Christ and his Grace not of man c. I answer Baptism with the Spirit though not wrought without Christ and his Grace is instrumentally done by men fitted of God Answ. for that purpose and therefore no absurdity follows that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed as the action of the Apostles for though it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1.11 speaks of his imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them through the Gospel 1 Cor. 4.15 and yet to beget people to the Faith is the work of Christ and his Grace not of men to convert the heart is properly the work of Christ and yet the Scripture often times ascribes it to men as being the instruments And since Paul's commission was to turn People from Darkness to Light though that be not done without Christ co-operating by his Grace so may also baptizing with the Spirit be expressed as performable by man as the instrument though the work of Christ's Grace be needful to concur thereunto so that it is no absurdity to say that the Apostles did administer the Baptism of the Spirit Lastly they say that since Christ saith here that he will be with his Disciples to the end of the world therefore Water-baptism must continue so long Answ. If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism then that might have been urged
end therein is to shew forth the Lord's death and remember his body that was crucified for them and his blood that was shed for them If notwithstanding they believe it is their duty to do it and make it a matter of Conscience to forbear if they do it without that due preparation and examination which every religious act ought to be performed in then instead of truly remembring the Lord's death and his body and his blood they render themselves guilty of it as being in one Spirit with those that crucified him and shed his blood though pretending with thanksgiving and joy to remember it Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of old though in memory of the Prophets they garnished their Sepulchres yet are said by Christ to be guilty of their blood And that no more can be hence inferred appears from another saying of the same Apostle Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat c. where he speaking of those that judged it unlawful to eat flesh c. saith if they eat doubting they eat their own damnation Now it is manifest for all this that either the doing or forbearing of this was to another that placed no Conscience in it of no moment So I say he that eateth that which in his Conscience he is perswaded is not lawful for him to eat doth eat his own damnation so he also that placeth Conscience in eating bread and wine as a religious act if he do it unprepared and without that due respect wherein such acts should be gone about he eateth and drinketh his own damnation not discerning the Lord's body i. e. not minding what he doth to wit with a special respect to the Lord and by way of special commemoration of the death of Christ. § VI. I having now sufficiently shewn what the true communion of the body and blood of Christ is how it is partaken of and how it has no necessary relation to that ceremony of bread and wine used by Christ with his Disciples it is fit now to consider the nature and constitution of that ceremony for as to the proper use of it we have had occasion to speak of before whether it be a standing ordinance in the Church of Christ obligatory upon all or indeed whether it be any necessary part of the Worship of the New Covenant-dispensation or hath any better or more binding foundation than several other ceremonies appointed and practised about the same time which the most of our opposers acknowledg to be ceased and now no ways binding upon Christians We find this ceremony only mentioned in Scripture in four places to wit Matthew Mark and Luke and by Paul to the Corinthians If any would infer any thing from the frequency of the mentioning of it that will add nothing for it being a matter of fact is therefore mentioned by the Evangelists and there are other things less memorable as often yea oftner mentioned Matthew and Mark give only an account of the matter of fact without any precept to do so afterwards simply declaring that Jesus at that time did desire them to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. To which Luke adds these words This do in remembrance of me If we consider this action of Christ with his Apostles there will appear nothing singular in it for a foundation to such a strange Superstructure as many in their airy imaginations have sought to build upon it for both Matthew and Mark press it as an act done by him as he was eating Matthew saith and as they were eating and Mark and as they did eat Jesus took bread c. Now this act was no singular thing neither any solemn institution of a Gospel ordinance because it was a constant custom among the Jews as Paulus Riccius observes at length in his Coelestial Agricultur that when they did eat the Passover the master of the family did take bread and bless it and breaking it gave of it to the rest and likewise taking wine did the same so that there can nothing further appear in this than that Jesus Christ who fulfilled all Righteousness and also observed the Jewish Feasts and Customs used this also among his Disciples only that as in most other things he laboured to draw their minds to a further thing so in the use of this he takes occasion to put them in mind of his death and sufferings which were shortly to be which he did the oftner inculcate unto them for that they were averse from believing it And as for that expression of Luke Do this in remembrance of me it will amount to no more than being the last time that Christ did eat with his Disciples he desired them that in their eating and drinking they might have regard to him and by the remembring of that opportunity be the more stirred up to follow him diligently through sufferings and death c. But what man of reason laying aside the prejudice of Education and the influence of Tradition will say that this account of the matter of fact given by Matthew and Mark or this expression of Luke to do that in remembrance of him will amount to these consequences which the generality of Christians have sought to draw from it as calling it Augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum venerabile altaris Sacramentum The principal Seal of the Covenant of Grace by which all the benefits of Christ's death are sealed to Believers and such like things But to give a further evidence how these consequences have not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony nor from the words following Do this c. Let us consider another of the like nature as it is at length expressed by John c. 13. ver 3 4.8.13 14 15. Jesus riseth up from Supper and laid aside his Garment and took a Towel and girded himself After that he poureth Water into a Bason and began to wash the Disciples Feet and to wipe them with the Towel wherewith he was girded Peter saith unto him Thou shalt never wash my Feet Jesus answered him If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me So after he had washed their Feet He said Know ye what I have done to you If I then your Lord and Master have washed your Feet ye also ought to wash one anothers Feet For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done to you As to which let it be observed that John relates this passage to have been done at the same time with the other of breaking Bread Both being done the night of the passover after Supper If we regard the Narration of this and the circumstances attending it it was done with far more solemnity and prescribed far more punctually and particularly than the former It is said only as he was eating he took bread so that this would seem to be but an occasional business But here he rose up he laid by his Garments he girded himself he poured out the Water he washed
the morrow and continued his speech until Mid-night Here is no mention made of any Sacramental eating but only that Paul took occasion from their being togetther to preach unto them And it seems it was a Supper they intended not a morning bit of bread and sup of wine else it 's not very probable that Paul would from the morning have preached until Mid-night But the 11 verse puts the matter out of dispute which is thus When he therefore was come up again and had broken bread and eaten and talked along while even till break of day so he departed This shews that the breaking of bread was differed till that time for those words and when he had broken bread and eaten do shew that it had a relation to the breaking of bread afore-mentioned and that that was the time he did it Secondly these words joyned together and when he had broken bread and eaten and talked shew it was no religious act of worship but only an eating for bodily refreshment for which the Christians used to meet together some time and doing it in God's fear and singleness of heart doth notwithstanding difference it from the eating or feasting of profane persons and this by some is called a Love-feast or a being together not meerly to feed their Bellies or for outward ends but to take thence occasion to eat and drink together in the dread ond presence of the Lord as his People which custom we shall not condemn but let it be observed that in all the Acts there is no other nor further mention of this matter But if that Ceremony had been some solemn Sacrifice as some will have it or such a special Sacrament as others plead it to be it is strange that that History that in many lesser things gives a particular account of the Christians behaviour should have been so silent in the matter Only we find that they used sometimes to meet together to break Bread and eat Now as the primitive Christians began by degrees to depart from that primitive purity and simplicity so also to accumulate superstitious traditions and vitiat the innocent practices of their predecessors by the intermixing either of Jewish or Heathenish Rites so also in the use of this very early abuses began to creep in among Christians so that it was needful for the Apostle Paul to reform them and reprove them therefore as he doth at large 1 Cor. 11. from ver 17. to the end which place we shall particularly examine because our adversaries lay the chief stress of their matter upon it and we shall see whether it will infer any more than we have above granted First because they were apt to use that practice in a superstitious mind beyond the true use of it as to make of it some mystical supper of the Lord he tells them ver 20. that their coming together into one place is not to eat the Lord's Supper he saith not this is not the right manner to eat because the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a mystery Secondly he blames them in that they come together for the worse and not for the better the reason he gives of this is ver 21. For in eating every one hath taken before his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunken Here it is plain that the Apostle condemns them for that because this custom of supping in general was used among Christians for to increase their love and as a memorial of Christ's supping with the Disciples that they should have so vitiated it to eat it a part and to come full who had abundance and hungry who had little at home Whereby the very use and end of this practice is lost and perverted and therefore he blames them that they do not either eat this in common at home or reserve their eating till they come all together to the publick assembly this appears plainly by the following verse 22. have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not Where he blames them for their irregular practice herein in that they despised to eat orderly or reserve their eating to the publick assembly and so shaming such as not having houses nor fulness at home came to partake of the common Table who being hungry thereby were ashamed when they observed others come thitherfull and drunken Those that without prejudice will look to the place will see this must have been the case among the Corinthians for supposing the use of this to have been then as now used either by Papists Lutherans or Calvinists it is hard making sense of the Apostles's words or indeed to conceive what was the abuse the Corinthians committed in this thing Having thus observed what the Apostle said above because this custom of eating and drinking together some time had its rise from Christ's Act with the Apostles the night he was betrayed therefore the Apostle proceeded ver 23. to give them an account of that 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 c. Those that understand the difference betwixt a narration of a thing and a command cannot but see if they will that there is no command in this place but only an account of matter of fact he saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I shall command it to you to do also there is nothing like this in this place yea on the contrary ver 25. where he repeats Christ's imperative words to his Apostles he placeth them so as they import to command this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me And then he adds For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come But these words as often imports no more a command than to say as often as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a command to me to go thither But whereas they urge the last words Obj. ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come insinuating that this imports a necessary continuance of that ceremony until Christ come at the end of the world to judgment I answer they take two of the chief parts of the controversie here for granted without proof First that as often imports a command the contrary whereof is shewn neither will they ever be able to prove it Secondly that this coming is understood of Christ's last outward coming and not of his inward and spiritual that remains to be proved whereas the Apostle might well understand it of his inward coming and appearance which perhaps some of those carnal Corinthians that used to come drunken together had not yet known and others being weak among them and inclinable to dote upon outwards this might have been indulged to them for a season and even used by those who knew Christ's appearance
in Spirit as other things were of which we shall speak hereafter especially by the Apostle who became weak to the weak and all to all that he might save some Now those weak and carnal Corinthians might be permitted the use of this to shew forth or remember Christ's death till he come to arise in them for though such need those outward things to put them in mind of Christ's Death yet such as are dead with Christ and not only dead with Christ but buried and also arisen with him need not such signs to remember him and to such therefore the Apostle saith Col. 3.1 If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God but Bread and Wine are not these things that are above but are things of the Earth But that this whole matter was a meer act of indulgence and condescension of the Apostle Paul to the weak and carnal Corinthians appears yet more by the Syriak Copy which ver 17. in his entring upon this matter hath it thus In that concerning which I am about to command you or instruct you I commend you not because ye have not gone forward but are descended unto that which is less or of less consequence Clearly importing that the Apostle was grieved that such was their condition that he was forced to give them instructions concerning those outward things and doting upon which they shew they were not gone forward in the life of Christianity but rather sticking in beggerly Elements And therefore ver 20. the same version hath it thus when then ye meet together ye do not do it as it is just ye should do in the day of the Lord ye eat and drink Thereby shewing to them that to meet together to eat and drink outward bread and wine was not the labour and work of that day of the Lord but since our adversaries are so zealous for this ceremony because used by the Church of Corinth tho with how little ground is already shewn how come they to pass over far more positive commands of the Apostles as matters of moment As first Acts 15.26 where the Apostles peremptorily commands even the Gentiles as that which was the mind of the Holy Ghost to abstain from things strangled and from blood And Ja. 5.14 where it is expresly commanded that the sick be anointed with Oyl in the Name of the Lord. Obj. If they say these were only temporary things but not to continue Answ. What have they more to shew for this there being no express repeal of them If they say the repeal is implyed because the Apostle saith Obj. We ought not to be judged in meats and drinks I admit the answer Answ. but how can it be evited to militate the same way against the other practice Surely not at all nor can there be any thing urged for the one more than for the other but custom and tradition As for that of James they say there followed a Miracle upon it to wit the recovery of the Sick But this being ceased so should the ceremony Though this might many waies be answered to wit Answ. that Prayer then might as well be forborn to which also the saving of the Sick is there ascribed yet I shall accept of it because I judge indeed that Ceremony is ceased only methinks since our adversaries and that rightly think a ceremony ought to cease where the vertue fails they ought by the same rule to forbear the laying on of hands in imitation of the Apostles since the gift of the Holy Ghost doth not follow upon it § IX But since we find that several testimonies of Scripture do sufficiently shew that such external rites are no necessary part of the New Covenant dispensation therefore not needful now to continue however they were for a season practised of old I shall instance some few of them whereby from the nature of the thing as well as those testimonies it may appear that the ceremony of bread and wine is ceased as well as those other things confessed by our adversaries to be so The first is Rom. 14.17 For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but Righteousness and Peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Here the Apostle evidently shews that the Kingdom of God or Gospel of Christ stands not in meats and drinks and such like things but in righteousness as by the context doth appear where he is speaking of the guilt and hazard of judging one another about meats and drinks So then if the Kingdom of God stand not in them nor the Gospel nor work of Christ then the eating of outward bread and wine can be no necessary part of the Gospel worship nor any perpetual ordinance of it Another is yet more plain of the same Apostle Col. 2.16 the Apostle throughout this whole second chapter doth clearly plead for us and against the formality and superstition of our opposers for in the beginning he holds forth the great priviledges Christians have by Christ who are come indeed to the life of Christianity and therefore he desires them ver 6. as they have received Christ so to walk in him and to beware lest they be spoiled through Philosophy and vain deceit after the rudiments or elements of the world because that in Christ whom they have received is all fulness And that they are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which he calls the circumcision of Christ and being buried with him by baptism are also arisen with him through the Faith of the operation of God Here also they did partake of the true baptism of Christ and being such as are arisen with him let us see whether he thinks it needful they should make use of such meat and drink as bread and wine to put them in remembrance of Christ's death or whether they ought to be judged that they did it not ver 16. Let no man therefore judg you in meat or drink Is not bread and wine meat and drink But why Which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. Then since our adversaries confess that their bread and wine is a sign or shadow therefore according to the Apostles Doctrine we ought not to be judged in the observation of it But is it not fit for those that are dead with Christ to be subject to such ordinances See what he saith ver 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances Touch not taste not handle not Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men What can be more plain if this serve not to take away the absolute necessity of the use of bread and wine what can it serve to take away Sure I am the reason here given is applicable to them which all do perish with the using since bread and wine perisheth