Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	nature_n	soul_n	unite_v	6,882	5	9.6339	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47124	The arguments of the Quakers, more particularly, of George Whitehead, William Penn, Robert Barclay, John Gratton, George Fox, Humphry Norton, and my own arguments against baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted also, some clear proofs from Scripture, shewing that they are institutions of Christ under the Gospel : with an appendix containing some observations upon some passages in a book of W. Penn called A caveat against Popery, and on some passages of a book of John Pennington, caled The fig leaf covering discovered / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1698 (1698)	Wing K142; ESTC R7322	106,695	121

is betwixt the Husband and the Wife who are said to be one Flesh This is a great Mystery said Paul but I speak concerning Christ and the Church who according to Paul's Doctrine as they are one Spirit so they are one Flesh And as elsewhere he said we are of his Flesh and of his Bone and forasmuch as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood he took part of the same wherefore he is not ashamed to call them Brethren Now in this R.B. was in a great Error that by his thus excluding the Flesh of Christ's outward Body from being any means of the Saints Communion with God he excludes the said Body of Christ from being any necessary part of the Mediator and at this rate of his Arguing only the Divine Light or Seed in Men is the Mediator betwixt God and Men but according to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul the Mediator of God and Men who is one is the Man Christ Jesus and by the Man Christ Jesus is understood in Scripture not the Spirit only nor the Soul of his Manhood only but the Body also together with the Soul even Jesus Christ made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh And as really as there is a Relative Union betwixt Brethren and near Kindred with respect to their Flesh and Blood on which account it is said Concerning Joseph Gen. 37.27 He is our Brother and our Flesh and 2 Sam. 5.1 The Tribes of Israel said unto David behold we are thy Bone and thy Flesh So believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews may say concerning the Man Christ who is the Seed of the Woman of whom to wit Eve we are all descended we are his Bone and Flesh and because he hath taken Flesh and Blood like unto us therefore in that very respect he is compleatly qualified and fitted to be our Mediator and High Priest with God by whom because of the true Nature of Man consisting of a true reasonable Soul and true and real Body of Man which the Eternal Word is united unto we have Communion with God His fourth and last Argument hath the like Defect with the former That which Feedeth upon it shall never Dye but the Bodies of all Men once Dye Ans Men are said in Scripture to Dye though the Soul Dyeth not yet Men are said to Dye because the Vital Union of the Soul with the Body is Dissolved which being but for a Time and that a very small Time as a Moment in respect of Eternity and after that their Bodies shall be raised up again and Vitally be United to their Souls therefore by the contrary Argument by the Flesh of Christ that the Saints Feed upon must be meant in part his outward Body of Flesh now Glorified which is a Glorious Spiritual Body because the Resurrection of Christ's Body is the Ground of the Saints Hope wrought in them by the Spirit of Christ that their Bodies shall be raised up and shall together with their Souls inherit Eternal Life And to conclude this whole Matter when Christ said it is the Spirit that Quickneth the Flesh profits nothing His meaning is that according to their Carnal and Fleshly Sense it doth not profit as if he had said it would profit you nothing to Eat my Flesh as ye imagin by the Bodily Mouth but to Eat it Spiritually and by Faith this doth profit but to take the Words the Flesh profits nothing in the Sense that some take them is most Blasphemous as to say Christ's outward Body of Flesh profits nothing to our Salvation for this would make his Coming and Death for us in the Flesh to have been in vain and also would render our Faith Vain that he did so come yea so necessary was Christ's coming in the Flesh for our Salvation that it is by his Flesh and Soul Constituting his Manhood that we have his Spirit the Man Christ is that Olive Tree consisting of Soul and Body United Personally to the Godhead of the Eternal Word which giveth us the Oyl of the Holy Spirit and poureth it into our Hearts and as in the Natural Olive Tree it is by its Body that we have of its Oyl or Spirit and when we Eat of its Oyl we are said to Eat of the Tree because the Tree yields us its Oyl even as when we Eat of an Apple or Drink the Fruit of it or of the Vine we may be said to Eat of the Apple-Tree and Vine-Tree the Fruit being what the Tree naturally yields so the Man Christ consisting of Soul and Body is that Precious Olive Tree and Vine-Tree that yields us the Oyl and Wine of the Holy Spirit and pours it into our Hearts who Believe in him and Love him and as Effectual as his Soul and Flesh of his Manhood is now to Believers for their receiving the Spirit by the same since he came in the Flesh no less Effectual it was to Believers before he came in the Flesh even from the beginning of the World according to B. Jewel's Words he was not come in the Flesh yet they Eat his Flesh to wit by Faith he had not Shed his Blood yet they Drank his Blood viz. by Faith and both his Flesh and his Blood before it had any visible Being or Existence together with his Soul was Effectual to Believers in all Ages for their Reception of the Spirit and all Spiritual Blessings of Justification and Sanctification c. as well before he came in the Flesh as since And thus he was the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World whose Death was of the same Efficacy from the beginning and will be to the end of the World to all that believe in him And as God is the giver of the Spirit and of all the Graces of the Spirit so he giveth it to Believers by and through Christ even the Man Christ who is both the Procurer and Dispenser of all that Grace that God giveth unto them and though Men most properly Eat the Meat and Drink the Drink that is bought with Money yet in ordinary Speech by a common Metonymy they are said to Eat and Drink the Money that buyeth it as the Poor Widows two Mites were called her Living so after some sort though the inward Life and Spirit of Christ be the most immediate Food of the Souls of Believers Yet because the Flesh of Christ as it was broken for us and his Blood as it was Shed for us is the Price and Purchase Money which hath procured to us the inward Life and Spirit of Christ with the various Graces and Gifts thereof therefore we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood by the Like Metonymy But there is much more in this Great Mystery than can be demonstrated by these Similitudes and Examples or any others of the like Nature SECT IV. P. 77. R.B. chargeth it as another Error which he calleth a General Error wherein he saith they all agree viz. both Papists and

Grain being produced out of the Soil of American Earth Secondly saith he p. 63. and to put the Matter out of doubt when the Carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing Ans Nor doth this prove his Assertion the Error of the Carnal Jews was that they supposed Christ meant they were to eat his Body Corporally with their Bodily Mouth but if they had understood that he meant not a Corporal Eating but a Spiritual and Metaphorical they had not erred in so thinking his Quotation approved by him out of Augustine proves that by eating here Christ meant believing in him as he was to Dye for the Sins of the World and as he was to give his Body to be broken for them and his Blood to be shed for the Remission of the Sins of all that should believe in him and for the giving Eternal Life to them both in Soul and Body Thirdly Saith he p. 63.64 This is also founded upon most sound and solid Reason because that it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood now outward Flesh cannot Nourish nor Feed the Soul there is no Proportion nor Analogy betwixt them neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh for the Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transposed by a Metaphor to be understood Spiritually can only partake of Flesh as Spirit of Spirit as the Body cannot Feed upon Spirit neither can the Spirit Feed upon Flesh Ans Here also he Argueth very Weakly and Fallaciously that which deceived him and occasioned his great Mistake which he embraced as a solid Reason was by Arguing from the strict literal Sense of Nourishing and Feeding to the Metaphorical and Figurative which all true Logicians and Masters of solid Reason will say is unlawful as also to Argue from the natural Feeding or Nourishing to the Spiritual To his Argument then I answer outward Flesh cannot Feed the Soul Naturally I grant Spiritually and Metaphorically I deny now the Eating Feeding and Nourishing meant John 6.53 is not Natural but Spiritual and Metaphorical the Word Eating signifieth Believing And whereas he speaketh of the Feeding of the Spirit or Soul of Man that it cannot be the Flesh of Christ that can Feed it but the Spirit so as to be its Food by Food here we must understand it Metaphorically even as R.B. hath confessed that the Spirit of Christ is not properly but Metaphorically called Flesh So the Souls of Believers Feeding upon the Spirit of Christ is also Metaphorical for if by the Spirit of Christ he meant the Godhead how can the Godhead which is an Infinite Being in all respects be the Food f the Soul or Spirit of Man that is Finite strictly or literally understood without a Metaphor much more may I use his Argument against his own Assertion there is less Proportion or Analogie betwixt the Infinite Creator and the Soul that is a Finite Creature than is betwixt the Flesh of Christ and the Soul Besides if we argue from the strict and literal Nicety of the Words Food Feed and Nourishment that which is the Food and Nourishment of a Body becomes a part of its very Substance and Being shall any therefore conclude that because God is the Food and Nourishment of the Souls of the Saints that therefore he becomes a part of their Souls We know George Fox was blamed for saying the Soul was a part of God or of the Divine Essence surely it is as justly blame-worthy for any to say that God is a part of the Soul therefore when God or his Spirit is said to be the Souls Food it is not to be understood Strictly and Literally but Metaphorically and Figuratively as when David saith my Soul thirsteth after God But if it be said that not the Godhead but that which R.B. calleth the Vehicle of the Godhead is the most proper and immediate Food of the Souls of Believers as a certain Divine Emanation or Efflux nor can that Strictly and Literally without a Metaphor be called the Souls Food for that Divine Emanation or Efflux doth not become any part of the Souls Substance but is more Noble than the Soul of any Saint upon the Hypothesis that there is such a thing which to dispute is forrain to the present Question for the Soul of Man in its own Nature is capable of Sin and sinful Defilements which this Divine Seed or Principle in the Soul is not therefore it can never be Convertible into the Souls Substance The Feeding of the Soul therefore in whatever Sense we take it is Metaphorical and not to be measured or determined by the Feeding of the Body yet beareth some Analogy or Similitude thereunto as all Metaphors do to the things from which they are transferred for as what Feeds the Body doth Refresh and Comfort it maketh it Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and doth strengthen it and is united with it So the Spirit of Christ and his Divine Influences in the Souls of Believers have the like Effects in them they do wonderfully Refresh and Comfort them and that most sensibly make them Lively and Vigorous Fat and Beautiful and do mightily strengthen them and make them Fruitful in Divine Virtues and Fruits and are United with the Soul SECT III. BUT there are two other things that need Correction in these foregoing Words of R.B. the first is that he saith it is the Soul not the Body that is to be Nourished by this Flesh and Blood this is a great Mistake though the Bodies of the Saints are not to be Nourished by Christ as with natural Food that is Corruptible yet seeing it is by him that the Bodies of the Saints shall be raised up at the Resurrection of the Dead to partake of Life Everlasting therefore he is truly said to be that Food that Perisheth not that Feedeth both the Souls and Bodies of the Saints to Life Everlasting and though their Bodies Dye yet because by the Power of Christ's Resurrection as his Body was Raised from the Dead so on the account of his Resurrection their Bodies shall be Raised to Eternal Life Therefore their Bodies as well as their Souls are truly said to be Nourished by him The second is that he saith neither is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Participation of Flesh but of the Spirit he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit not one Flesh Ans The Communion indeed of the Saints with God is not by any natural Conjunction or Union of Christ's Body that was outwardly Slain with the Saints yet a Mystical and Relative Union there is as really or rather more really as

Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed no less to the Principles of the Christian Doctrin of Christ and Oracles of God which therefore by his Argument being Elements are to be thrown aside As for his other Arguments in those two Treatises against the outward Baptism and the Supper they are no other that I can find but such as are above mentioned in my Reply to those of William Penn and Robert Barclay and therefore one Answer will serve both to them and him PART II. SECT I. The Arguments against the outward Supper examined and Refuted THus having finished my Examination and Refutation of the Arguments of the above mentioned Persons against Water-Baptism and the outward Supper in general I think fit to bring to the like Examination what R.B. hath more particularly Argued against the outward Supper as being not any longer to continue but until Christ's inward coming to arise in their Hearts and give a plain Refutation of the same In the beginning of the Chapter or Head wherein he discourseth concerning the Body and Blood of Christ although he saith truly that the Communion i.e. the Participation thereof is inward and Spiritual yet he was under a great mistake to affirm that the said Body and Blood of Christ whereof true Believers do participate is only inward which he afterwards explains to be that Light and Seed in every Man as he expresseth plainly in several places as p. 61 of the above said Treatise and p. 65 where he saith and that Christ understands the same things here viz. John 6. by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the light hath enlighteneth every man and the life c. And p. 77. he chargeth it to be an Error to make the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was Born of the Virgin Mary and walked and Suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have said he already proved Ans In this he was in a great Error to make the Eating or Participation of Christs Flesh and Blood to have no relation to Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood that was Born of the Virgin and Suffered Death for our Sins on the Tree of the Cross For the Regeneration of Believers and Justification with all the Spiritual Blessings of Life and Light and inward Divine Virtue and Might wherewith they are inwardly Refreshed and Nourished by Christ hath a most near and immediate Relation to Christ's outward Body and Blood and to his coming in that outward Body because that most Holy and Perfect Obedience of Christ which he performed in that Body and became Obedient to the Death of the Cross was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of all that inward Grace Virtue Light and Life whereby Regeneration was wrought in any in any Age of the World either before or since Christ came in the Flesh as well as it was and is the procuring and meritorious Cause of their Justification and the Remission of their Sins For Christ Died as well for the Sins of those who lived in the Ages before he came in the Flesh as since and they had the same Benefits by his Death and by his Body and Blood that we have the same inward Grace and Light to Regenerate them as the same Mercy and Favour to Justifie them and give them the Remission of their Sins which they received through Faith in Christ as he was to come in the Flesh without them and whole Christ is the Food of true Believers I mean Christ not only considered as the Word simply but as the Word made Flesh And having taken or assumed the Seed of Abraham and the true Nature of Man into such a high Union as that the Godhead of the Word and the Manhood assumed thereby is but one Christ and as such is the Food of all true Believers both as he outwardly came in the Flesh and as he is inwardly come the Light and the Life in them and Believers Eating of Christ is their Believing in him and by their Faith being United to him and he to them so that he dwells in them and they in him And though it may be owned that Believers Feeding upon Christ's Light and Life Metaphorically and Allegorically speaking that Light and Life may be called according to Scripture Meat and Drink and Flesh and Blood of Christ as it hath many other such Metaphorical Names such as Milk Honey Wine Marrow and Fatness Oyl c. All which Names are given because of Men's Weakness and that they have not proper Words to express Divine Things by yet that ought not to make us reject and lay aside Christ's outward Body of Flesh and Blood from having any Relation to the Saints feeding upon him Nor do the Arguments brought by R.B. here prove in the least what he intends as the following Examination of them will sufficiently I hope manifest He begins with a Quotation out of Augustine in his Tractat Psalm 98. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life understand spiritually what I have spoken ye shall not eat of this body which ye see and drink this blood which they shall spill that shall crucifie me I am the living bread which have descended from heaven he called himself the bread which descended from heaven exhorting that they might believe in him c. Ans It is evident from these last Words that by Eating Augustine meant in one Sense Corporal Eating and in another Sense Believing as elsewhere Tract 25. ad cap. 6. Johan Hoc est opus Dei ut quid paras dentem ventrem crede manducasti Credere enim in eum hocest comedere panem vinum qui credit in eum manducat eum in English thus why preparest thou thy Teeth and Belly believe and thou hast eat for to believe in him is to eat the Bread and Wine who believeth in him eateth him Both these Quotations are good against the Papists who hold that Believers eat the Body of Christ Corporally with their Mouths but say nothing against this Spiritual Way of Eating Christs Body but plainly confirm it The plain Sense therefore of Augustin's Words Quoted by R.B. is this Ye shall not eat Corporally with the outward Mouth the Body of Christ which ye see but ye shall eat it Spiritually that is believe with a sincere Faith which the Spirit of God worketh in you that Christ shall give his Body that ye see speaking then to the Jews to be broken for you and his Blood even the Blood of that Body to be shed for you And in so Believing ye shall eat my Body and drink my Blood that is ye shall be united to me and I to you that I shall abide in you and

among the Quakers who have totally Abolished the Bread as well as the Cup His fourth Argument is the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered But how is the end of that Sacrament or Sign any wise Answered among the Quakers who have Abolished both Signs His fifth Argument is what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falsness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men is very manifest Now to Prosecute and Retort his Argument upon himself If it be a hainous Sin to put a sunder what God hath put together is it not as hainous or rather more to put away or Abolish both things which God hath put together If they do Evil that separate Man and Wife whom God hath joyned or put together do not they worse who kill them both If it be said W. Penn's Arguments are only on Supposition and used against the Papists ad hominem I Answer first This doth not appear by his Words which are Positive Secondly If here he only Argues on Supposition and ad hominem how shall we know when he Argueth Positively and is in good earnest Thirdly His Arguments seem to me and I think they will seem to many others not only Positive but more valid and strong than any Arguments he hath brought against them Again In the same Book p. 20. concerning the Sacrifice of the Altar he saith notwithstanding the Scripture expresly tells us that we have our High Priest that needs not Sacrifice once a year but who hath offered one Sacrifice and that by the will of God we are Sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all and that by one Offering he perfected them that are Sanctified Heb. 10.10 11 14. Yet do they daily Sacrifice him a fresh As if his first were insufficient or their daily Sins required a new one Obs Do not these Arguments of W. Penn against Christ his being daily Offered up a Sacrifice in the Mass prove as effectually W. Penn and G. Whitehead's Doctrin to be false in their Defence of W. Smith who said in p. 64. of his Primmer second Part we believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This W. Penn Confirms in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 285. saying that Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a Mediating Sacrifice and that Christ is a Mediator and an Attoner in the Consciences of his People at what time they shall fall under any Miscarriage if they unfeignedly Repent according to 1 John 2. 1 2. and G. Whitehead is very large in the Defence and Confirmation of it in his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 44. And Quotes at least seven several places of Scripture to prove it viz. That Christ in them doth offer up himself a Sacrifice unto God for them by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards them All which Scriptures and many more respecting the Sacrifice of Christ without us and his Blood outwardly Shed they have most grosly Perverted and Misapplyed to a supposed Daily Offering of Christ by way of Sacrifice in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God Now let W. Penn Answer to his own Arguments which he had used against the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass for any that are not wilfully blind may see they are of equal force against his supposed and invented Sacrifice of Christ daily offered in every Quaker when they Sin to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God And here I think fit to repeat some Questions I Proposed to W. Penn by way of Argument against this false Notion of his and of G. Whitehead which they Originally received from G. Fox and he it is very probable from Familists and Ranters who had the same Notion as I can easily prove that Christ offers up himself in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice Note Reader these Words bespeak their Sense to be a Sacrifice really and strictly so taken yea the Sacrifice within to be the only real and strict Sacrifice for the other without of Christ's Body and Blood without the Gates of Jerusalem was the Type the History The Lamb without shews forth the Lamb within said W. Penn one outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another outward thing These Questions are in my Book called Gross Error and Hypocrisie Detected in G. Whitehead and some of his Brethren p. 20. And I have just cause to propose them again to his and his Brethrens Consideration because I have not to this Day received any Answer to them either from W. Penn or George Whitehead nor from Tho. Elwood who hath Writ a pretended Answer to this very Book called Gross Error c. who hath passed by not only these Queries containing so many Arguments as there are Queries but the other chief things in that Book and yet he and his Brethren Glory how they have Answered all my Books when in effect they have Answered none of them to purpose and some of them not at all as my second Narrative of the Proceedings of the Meeting at Turner's Hall that has been above a Year in Print as no more have they Answered to Satan Disrob'd done by the Author of the Snake in the Grass being a Reply to Tho. Elwood's pretended Answer to my first Narrative which saved me the Labour of Replying to it And indeed the Book called Gross Error c. has been in Print near three Years and yet no Answer has been given to these Queries which are as follow 1. If Satisfaction be totally Excluded as W. Penn hath Argued against the Satisfaction of the Man Christ Jesus without us and by his Death and Sufferings on the Cross Reason against Railing p. 91. because a Sin or Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven what need is there of a Mediating Sacrifice of Christ within Men more than without them 2. Seeing it is the Nature of all Sacrifices for Sin that they be Slain and their Blood Shed how is Christ Slain in his Children and when For we Read in Scripture that Christ lived in the Faithful as he did in Paul but not that he is Slain in them 3. If any Slay the Life of Christ in them by their Sins doth not that hinder the Life to be a Sacrifice by G. Whitehead's Argument that the Killing of Christ outwardly being the Act of Wicked Men could be no Meritorious Act 4. Where doth the Scripture say Christ offers himself up in his Children a Sacrifice for Sin 5. Is not this to make many Sacrifices or at least to say that Christ offers himself often yea Millions of times contrary to Scripture that saith Christ offered up himself once 6. Why could no Beast under the Law that had a Blemish be offered but to signifie

Protestants in tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of Bread c. As if it had only a Relation thereto or were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony which it neither hath nor is Ans For any to tye the Participation of Christs Body and Blood to the outward Eating in the Supper as above mentioned is indeed a great Error But it was a great Mistake in him and too rashly charged in general by him upon both Papists and Protestants their being guilty of that Error For it can be shewn that some of the Popish Writers have affirmed the contrary and delivered it as the common Faith of their Church that true Believers partake of Christ's Flesh and Blood although they Dye before they receive the outward Supper for which Lombard Lib. 4. Dist 9. citeth Augustine saying Lib. de med paen Nulli ambigendum est c. No man ought to doubt that any Man is then a partaker of the Body and Blood of the Lord when he is made a Member of Christ nor is he Alienated from the Communion of that Bread and Cup although before he Eat that Bread and Drink the Cup being Constituted in the Unity of the Body of Christ he depart out of this World for he is not deprived of the benefit of that Sacrament when he is found to have that which that Sacrament signifieth And as for the generality of Protestants I know not nor ever knew any that so tyed the Participation of Christs Body to the outward Supper as he mentioneth They say indeed it is a Means of Grace and of our Communion of the Lord's Body but not the only means or so absolutely necessary as without it none have that Communion Another great Mistake I find in R.B. p. 81. of that Treatise where he saith as for the Paschal Lamb the whole end of it is signified particularly Exod. 13.8.9 to wit that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt Ans That is indeed mentioned as an end of it but not the whole end of it for the end of the whole Law was Christ whereof that Command of the Passover was a part but that the Passover was a Type of Christ particularly as he was to be Slain for their Sins is plain out of Paul's Words 1. Cor. 5.7 Let us keep the feast c. for our passover is slain for us Now as the Jews were to Eat the Flesh of the Passover so the Believers in Christ are to Eat his Flesh even that Flesh that was Slain to wit by Faith as is above declared but not by any Corporal Eating and why did John the Evangelist apply these Words of the Passover to Christ's Body a bone of him shall not be broken This plainly proveth that the Passover was a Type of Christ and therefore one great end of it was to hold him forth to their Faith In p. 87. R.B. saith let it be observed that the very express and particular use of it according to the Apostle is to shew forth the Lord's Death c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death and partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ are different things from whence he infers as his following Words shew that this Practice of the outward Supper hath no inward or immediate Relation to Believers Communicating or Partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3.20 Ans This Consequence doth not follow that Practice of the outward Supper had not only that end to Commemorate and shew forth the Lord's Death but had other great ends also as another was to signifie their Communion of Christ's Body as not a bare Sign but as a means of that Communion though not the only means or such a means as if the said Communion were tyed thereto another end was to signifie their Union and Communion one with another both which ends are plainly held forth in these Words The bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Lord's Body c. and we being many are one bread and all are made partakers of that one bread And though R.B. denyeth that by Bread in those Words the bread which we break is it not the communion of the Lord's body is to be understood the outward Bread yet I have above proved it to be the outward Bread that was used in the Supper for to understand it of the Lord's Body were to make it Non-sense as to say the Body of Christ is it not the Communion of his Body Whereas the true Sense is Obvious taking it for the outward Bread The Bread which we break is it not a Sign of the Communion of the Lord's Body c. And such a Sign that is a means whereby our Communion of the Lord's Body and of the Spiritual Blessings we have thereby is confirmed to us and an increase of Grace is Exhibited unto us as it is duly Administred and Received SECT V. PAge 83. He puts a very false and strained Sense upon these Words ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 which shews saith he that he understands not here the using of Bread and Wine because those that do Drink the Cup of Devils and Eat of the Table of Devils yea the Wickedest of Men may partake of the outward Bread and the outward Wine Ans By the Lord's Table is not meant barely and simply the Signs of Bread and Wine but as they do signifie and are Means Exhibitive of the Spiritual Blessings understood thereby The Wickedest of Men may indeed receive the Bread and Wine but they are not to them any Significative or Exhibitive Signs and Means of these Spiritual Blessings which are the things signified and intended and are the Kirnel without which the bare outward Signs are mere Shells and broken Cisterns Again Let us distinguish betwixt what is de jure i.e. of Right and what is de facto i.e. in Fact Wicked Persons though in Fact they may receive the outward Part yet they have no Right to it The manner of Speech used here by Paul is like that of James doth the same fountain send forth sweet water and bitter How then can the same tongue bless God and curse men My brethren these things ought not to be And when as Paul said elsewhere no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost he may outwardly say the Words but he hath no Right to say them nor can his saying them profit him without the Holy Spirit But that by the Table of the Lord and the Cup of the Lord here are to be meant the outward things of Bread and Wine as above described is evident from the Antithesis or Opposition he makes betwixt the Table of Devils and the Table of the Lord and