Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bread_n	cup_n	eat_v	7,692	5	7.7115	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76812	The covenant sealed. Or, A treatise of the sacraments of both covenants, polemicall and practicall. Especially of the sacraments of the covenant of grace. In which, the nature of them is laid open, the adæquate subject is largely inquired into, respective to right and proper interest. to fitnesse for admission to actual participation. Their necessity is made known. Their whole use and efficacy is set forth. Their number in Old and New Testament-times is determined. With several necessary and useful corollaries. Together with a brief answer to Reverend Mr. Baxter's apology, in defence of the treatise of the covenant. / By Thomas Blake, M.A. pastor of Tamworth, in the counties of Stafford and Warwick.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.; Cartwright, Christopher, 1602-1658.	1655 (1655)	Wing B3144; Thomason E846_1; ESTC R4425	638,828	706

sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum sufficere non potest Neque enim latro ille pro nomine Christi crucifixus est sed pro meritis facinorum suorum nec quia credidit passus est sed dum patitur credit quantum it aque valeat etiam sine visibili Sacramento baptismi quod ait Apostolus Rom. 10.10 Corde creditur ad justitiam ore autem fit confessio ad salutem in illo latrone declaratum est sed tunc impletur invisibiliter cum mysterium baptismi non contemptus Religionis sed articulus necessitatis excludit Again and again considering I find that not onely suffering for the Name of Christ may supply what is wanting in Baptisme but also faith and conversion of the heart if peradventure streights of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptisme But to hold the Reader no longer in this controversy in avoiding the Popish necessity of Sacraments for a more distinct understanding of this necessity of Sacraments I shall lay down some rules SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments 1. Sacraments are standing Ordinances FIrst that Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are standing Ordinances to be observed of the people of God not barely in the generation in which they were set up but in all successive generations so that there is an abiding and lasting necessity in them This is in that punctuall way set down in Scriptures respective to each Sacrament as though the Spirit of God would let us know that he did foresee a generation ready to arise to throw them off and live above them or else to vilifie them as unnecessary indifferent and arbitrary For circumcision see Gen. 17.12 13. He that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generations he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed he that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant God layes there a necessity upon it a lasting necessity in all succeeding generations of that people to be observed and when Moses several generations afterwards did as we have heard omit it upon what reason we have nothing but conjecture We see Exod. 4.24 how much God was displeased at it And for the Passeover Exod. 12.13 we find a like lasting injunction This day shall be unto you for a memoriall and you shall keep it a feast unto the Lord thorowout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an Ordinance for ever repeated again ver 17. It was an Ordinance that no Jew in any generation might antiquate or put a period unto It must last as long as they remained a distinct generation unto God even till Christ in whose hands are times and seasons in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek should be the end of it As to New Testament-Sacraments the Scripture is as clear when Christ gave commission for discipling Nations and baptizing them for their encouragement in the work he promises his presence unto the end of the world The work is to continue as long as Christs presence in the work continues But Christs presence according to promise is to continue with them in discipling of Nations and baptizing them being discipled unto the end of the world I am not ignorant of the Critical observation that is made of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saeculi by reason of the various acceptation of it in Scriptures endeavouring to have it to be understood of the end of that age in which those lived to whom Christ spake But neither the parallel use of the word by Matthew nor the context will bear that evasion For the parallel use of the phrase by Matthew four places may be instanced in three in one Chapter Matth. 13.39 The harvest is the end of the world vers 40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire so shall it be in the end of this world vers 49. So shall it be at the end of the world the Angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just Matth. 24.3 Tell us when shall these things be and what shall be the sign of the coming and of the end of the world In all places the phrase is the same and the words can be understood in none of them with that limitation And that the context will not bear it enough may be gathered from that which I have said Treatise of the Covenant pag. 117. For a more clear discovery of the words we know that there is a double period of ages or generations in Scripture One at Christs first coming when an end was put to Circumcision and the Passeover of this the Apostle speaks Heb. 9.26 But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself at the end of that world Christ dyed The other is at his second coming and this is the end of the world here mentioned and upon this account Dr. Reynolds in this Sermons upon Hos 14. interprets that of Christ concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it shall never be forgiven in this life nor in the life to come Matth. 12.32 of the age in which Christ lived and now near to an end and the age that should follow from his death till his second coming neither under the Old nor New Testament or Covenant can that sin find remission Till Christs second return a Ministery and Baptisme must still remain For the Lords Supper Scripture-testimony is as clear 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew forth the Lords death till he come If we can believe a coming of Christ for a temporal Reign before the time of his coming to the general Judgment I shall believe that may be called the consummation end or finishing of this generation and then a period may be put to these and other Ordinances But howsoever that will answer or fail mens expectations certain it is that it is the mind of Christ that they shall stand till the time that he doth come and then his mind will be further known The practice of the Church hath hitherto answered these testimonies All ages of the Church as we know held up Circumcision till Christs time and in Christs time it was in use as Christ testifies Joh. 7.22 and he submits to it in his own person Luk. 2. and so we may say of the Passeover notwithstanding some disuse the godly ever knew it to be in force or else as piety broke forth they had not still reassumed it And Christ dying as we have heard at the end of that world

Levit. 25.42 they are born unto God Ezek. 16.20 they are the children of God Ezek. 16.21 they are holy Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Either then we must carry it out to all the infants of the visible Church or else we cannot assure it to the infants of invisible members And therefore the Schoolemen afore mentioned justly ascribe as much to a faith informed as to that which is formed respective to the good of the issue of such believers 5. All that is spoken in Scripture of the blessedness of the seed of the righteous may as fairly be extended to them through the whole course of their lives as to the times of their infancy promises being not put with any such restraint as to have an end when their infancy is expired The most ample of promises which we find is in Esay 59.21 There it is promised that the Spirit shall not depart out of the mouth of thy seed or thy seeds seed but this rather belongs to them of years then of an infant-condition If it be said that many infants of the righteous persevere not but cast off the seed of grace received I answer the grace of perseverance is necessarily required to make blessed and blessedness is promised we know temporal blessings are made over by promise to the seed of such His seed shall be mighty upon earth wealth and riches shall be in his house Psal 112.2 3. Psal 37.25 26. I have been young and now am old yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread He is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed The opposition that is found between the letter of promises of this nature and the event which the experience of every age observes hath wrought a great conflict in mens spirits how to reconcile them And this hath been the result of all that they are not to be understood without their due limits and several have been put I shall not stand to enter into the dispute onely I say experience doth as much oppose the literal meaning of true blessedness to all the seed of the righteous as of temporal prosperity one must therefore have its due limits as well as the other To wind up this whole discourse concerning Sacraments in that juncture of time God then had his Church in which there was salvation Henoch walked with God and yet without faith it was impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith Heb. 11.7 a righteousness in which the Apostle desired to be found for salvation Phil. 3.8 yet in all that juncture of time there was no written Word in which the succeeding ages have everlasting life Joh. 5.39 God had other wayes of discovery of himself to his people for life So the Church might answerably be without Sacraments howsoever we judge salvation to be thereby either conveyed or sealed God that tyes us to Ordinances is himself free and in what way he pleases may communicate blisse and give assurance of it The likest conjecture that we can make of Gods ordering by providence that in this juncture of time from the fall to the time of Abrahams call there should be no Sacrament nor any such supposed remedy known to acquit infants from Orinal sin is ●o declare the freedom of God that as he pleases to ordaine Sacramental signes so he is not tyed to them or his hands bound up by them but as he saved without Sacraments before the floud and after to the time of Abraham and infants under the Law dying before the eighth day so he still saves in the want though not in the sinful neglect much lesse in the contempt of these Ordinances CHAP. IV. Of the definition of a Sacrament THe next consideration of Sacraments in mans fallen condition is from Abraham unto Christ in the time of the dispensation of the Old Covenant In which those known Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover were of force and given in charge of God to his people and together with those Sacraments extraordinary or such as come near up to the nature of Sacraments The Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock Sacraments under the old new Covenant of one and the same nature 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. But intending to speak of Sacraments in general and there being no essential difference between the Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant One and the same definition containing whatsoever is essential to a Sacrament in any of them as many wayes might be made manifest Their names are promiscuously used the cloud that Israel was under and the sea that they passed through is called by the name of Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.2 and so also is Circumcision Collos 2.11 12. The thing signified and benefit received is in every one the same The Apostle comparing those that did eat of Manna and drank of the Rock in the Wilderness with believers in Gospel-times that partake of the Lords Supper saith They all ate the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Corrinthians 10.3 4. And we may say the same of those that did eat of the Passeover As Christ was that bread that Manna did typifie Joh. 6.49.50 so it was he that was held out and his death shewed forth in the Passeover 1 Cor. 5.7 I shall therefore wave this different consideration of them and make it my businesse to enquire what a Sacramen is and to make discovery of the generall nature of it which in case out of Scripture I can reach that will serve for a bottome on which all that I intend to speak may be grounded Bellarmine spends a whole Chap. in enquiry whether a Sacrament can properly be defined quoting severall Schoolmen for the negative That it cannot be defined because a Sacrament is not one of it self but an aggregatum one by accident or at least not ens reale no real being and those things that are but one accidentally or not really are below a definition He quotes others in the affirmative Some that it may be defined imperfectly others that it admits of a perfect definition After a distinction laid down very little to the purpose one member of the distinction being by his own confession not considerable by Divines he concludes that a Sacrament morally considered as it ought to be considered by Divines may be defined having a reall being and according to its own way of being it is one Morall Philosophers define saith he a Kingdome a City a Family though they be not one physically but by aggregation so do Divines define a Church a Councell or Sacrament which are one in being no other way Suarez agrees with him Disput 1a. de Sacramentis Sect. 4 ta which Whitaker praelect de Sacr. pag. 4. acknowledges to be true A Sacrament may be defined So that he observes it is agreed that they may be defined and I

Gods way to infuse grace into the soul unfitted for it no more then it is to infuse life into the body unorganized A new being is put of God into the soul when reason appears to it of closing with it The Word Prayer Sacraments may all have a hand in it And all are in vain to the soul Word Prayer and Sacraments with all other Ordinances and endeavours unlesse they lead the soul to it make it thy businesse to come up to the Covenant or else it is without fruit that thou comest to the Sacrament CHAP. VIII SECT I. Of the necessity of Sacraments THe next Observation that the words offer is Sacraments are not arbitrary but necessary That Sacraments are not arbitrary but necessary the Covenant-people of God not onely may but must partake of them As God appointed so Abraham received this sign of circumcision And as he received it so all in confederation with him received it likewise Gen. 17.23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son and all that were born in his house and all that were bought with his money every male among the men of Abrahams house and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the self-same day as God had said unto him And the stated time for circumcision of those children who were born of parents in Covenant being the eighth day the text tells us That Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight dayes old as God Commanded him Gen. 21.4 And when Moses had a son born in his exile and had neglected this duty The Lord met him in his way from Midian to Egypt and sought to kill him Exrd. 4.24 he appeared in some formidable way of death to him in that way as many do conjecture that he appeared to Balaam on his way Numb 22.23 Not that God really intended his death whom he now employed in that great work to deliver his people out of Egypt but he appeared in this posture to let him know what his sin deserved and by these terrors to bring him and his wife to take the course after mentioned for prevention of it And though there have been some that have gone about to assign other causes of Gods anger against hith and this apparition in such terror yet no other in the text appearing and God departing from him upon the childs circumcision the neglect of that Command was undoubtedly the cause of it Whatsoever reason moved Moses to this neglect whether the fear of displeasing his father in law or his wife which Rivet judges to be most probable certain it is from the Lords displeasure against him that it was his sin This was after given in charge by Moses to the people of God Levit. 12.3 speaking of the birth of a man-child he saith The eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised This the Israelites except the intermission of it in the wildernesse exactly followed when the eighth day happened on the Sabbath that work was yet observed as Christ notes Joh. 7.23 On the Sabbath day they received circumcision that the Law of Moses might not be broken John Baptist therefore on the eighth day was circumcised Luk. 1.59 and Christ himself on that day was circumcised Luk. 2.21 as also Paul Philip. 3.5 That of the Passeover was appointed 400. years at the least after circumcision It had its first institution in Egypt Exod. 12.3 4. c. to be observed as a feast to the Lord throughout their generations to be kept as an Ordinance for ever ver 14. It was again commanded by Moses and inserted into the body of the Law Levit. 23.4 Numb 28.16 This was carefully observed by the Israelites in their generations though at some times when Idolatry prevailed sinfully neglected We read of many famous Passeovers observed viz. In Joshua's time in Hezekiah's in Josiah's dayes also by Ezra upon the return of Gods people out of the captivity of Babylon Ezra 6.19 It is observed of the Lord Christ that he kept four Passeovers after the time that he publickly appeared as the Messiah The last was the evening before his death concerning which he said With a desire have I desired to eat this Passeover with you before I dye Luk. 22.15 With extreme earnest affection he was carried towards it and then he put a period to it and did institute his Supper in the place and room of it That heavy menace so frequently threatened in the Law of being cut off from among their people is given out against the neglect of both of these Sacraments Gen 17.14 The uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Num. 9.13 The man that is clean and is not in a journey and forbeareth to keep the Passeover even the same soul shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season that man shall bear his sin which commination however we do interpret it whether of the more immediate hand of God as dying childlesse The case of Jeconiah Jer. 22.30 or being cut off by untimely death The case of Er and Onan Gen. 38.1.9 and of Nadab and Abihu Levit. 10.2 or perishing everlastingly The case of all presumtuous and inpenitent siners 1 Cor. 6.9 or whether the execution be committed to man and that either the temporal Magistrate which was the case of Achan Josh 7. and of Shelomiths son Levit. 24.14 or by Ecclesiastical censure which was the case of the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5.13 As there be that appear for each of these which way soever it is understood it sufficiently proves a necessity of these Ordinances For the Sacraments of the New Testament when John baptised and the Pharisees did refuse to submit to his Baptisme the text saith They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves Luk. 7.30 and the Commission given to the Apostles to disciple all Nations baptizing them Matth. 28.19 implyes a necessity of all discipled ones to submit to Baptisme Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Faith is of absolute necessity in all that hear the tender of the Gospel and therefore it followes He that believeth not shall be damned and Baptisme is the ordinary way set up of God that leads to it Peter counsels his converts when he had them in an hopeful way Repent and be Baptized Act. 2.28 And Ananias counsels Paul Arise why tarriest thou and be baptized Act. 22.16 For the Lord Supper we find it under a precept 1 Cor. 11.24 25. Luk. 22.19 Do this in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup implies as a preparation for it so also a necessity that we eat and drink of it so that every Sacrament hath its injunction upon it First The institution of it is a sufficient proof of the necessity God did never institute it to have it

beares no relation to the cleansing of sin but washing with water and bread and wine no relation to the setting forth of the Lords death remembrance of him or life by him but the breaking eating and drinking Thirdly That which being removed nulls a Sacrament that is necessary to the being of Sacraments This is plain Nothing can destroy being but the want of that which is necessary to being But the removal or taking away of the use nulls and destroyes the bring of Sacraments Let not the foreskin be cut off nor the Lamb rosted and eaten the water not be applyed to the person nor bread and wine eaten and drunken there is no Sacrament therefore the use of Sacraments gives being to them Fourthly All benefit of and in the thing signified consists in the application therefore the Sacraments for their being use and benefit consist in their application likewise The consequence is grounded upon the analogy that is between the sign and the thing signified The antecedent is clear the blood of Christ the sufferings of Christ not brought home to the soul and interest obtained by application doth not benefit or profit Fifthly That which enters the definition of a Sacrament is of the being of it This none can deny But the use or office of a Sacrament enters the definition of it Ergo. The Apostle defines it to be a sign and seal which plainly speaks not the nature but the use of Sacramental elements Here is no Conroversie in this thing among parties save with the Church of Rome neither is there any with them save in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper They confesse that the being of Baptisme doth so consist in the use that without it it is no Sacrament Onely the Lords Supper for Transubstantiations sake though never used is still a Sacrament when they reserve it in a box carry it about for pomp hold it up for worship it is still a Sacrament The body of Christ is still there and if a mouse falls upon it the mouse receives a Sacrament knawes upon Christs flesh But when worms breed in it as they may by their own confession they are hard put to it They cannot breed upon accidents the shape the colour of bread cannot give being to worms And to say that the substance which remains there which is the flesh of Christ breeds them is no low blasphemy The generation of one is the corruption of another and God will not suffer his holy One to see corruption I remember an answer to this great difficulty when I first read Philosophy out of Conimbricenses Physicks That learned Society did determine that God by miracle did create matter and laid it by the consecrate host and that did putrifie and not the consecrated bread and so Worms were generated They sure believe that it is an easie thing to put God upon miracles Against this permanency of this Sacrament out of the use of it we say First If the use of this be instituted The Sacrament of the Lords Supper equally transient with Baptisme as well as the use of Baptisme and given in command then this Sacrament consists in the use as well as Baptisme This cannot be denyed for the institution and Comman of Christ must equally lead us in both But in the Lords Supper as well as in Baptisme the use is within the institution and given in Command by Christ Therefore this Sacrament of the Lords Supper consists in the use as well as that of Baptisme Whereas Bellarmine replyes to this that Christ commanded the bread to be eaten but not presently after consecration therefore to delay eating is not against the institution To this we answer 1. Neither did he command water as soon as set apart for Baptisme to be applyed to the party to be baptized yet till it be applyed the party is not baptized water is no Sacrament and so the bread and wine in that interim still applyed still wants the nature of a Sacrament 2. He did command it then to be eaten by Bellarmin's confession though not instantly to be eaten and he gave the like command of the cup as of the bread yea with more exactnesse a note of universality added Drink ye all of it yet their Laity have a Sacrament and never drink of it 3. That which the Apostles did that Christ enjoyned as Amesius well replyes they understood Christs intimation as well as the most nimble-headed Jesuites but they did not reserve it but did eat it Secondly If there be no footsteps in all the holy Scriptures of any other way of dealing with the elements of the Lords Supper then the eating and drinking of them then according to the institution they must be eaten and drunken But there is no footstep there of any other dealing with the Sacrament then eating and drinking Therefore according to the institution it is not to be reserved but to be eaten and drunk Indeed Chamier quotes Croquet replying that some of the Ancient have said that Judas took one part of the Sacrament and reserved the other for scorn but this may be well reckoned among others of like nature in their Legends And I would advise all those that believe it if they be ambitious to be disciples of Judas to follow it Thirdly The promise in this Sacrament is not to be divided from the precept by any that will expect a blessing But where the promise is This is my body this is my blood in the New Testament in the institution There is a precept Take eat Drinke ye all of this therefore they must eat and drink that will have benefit in the promise It would little I suppose please the Reader to hear Bellarmine Suarez and other Jesuits to exempt this Sacrament from the common nature of Sacraments and to make it permanent when the other as they speak are transeunt Thomas Aquinas Part 3. Quaest 73. art 1. resp ad 3. makes this difference between the Eucharist and other Sacraments This Sacrament is perfected saith he in the consecration of the matter other Sacraments are perfected in the application of the matter to the person to be sanctified Suarez disp 42. Sect. 4. quotes it with approbation and Scotus in quanto Dist 8. quaest 1. as he is quoted by Amesius All the Sacraments except the Eucharist consist in their use so that in them the Sacrament and the receiving of the Sacrament is the same He that pleases may read Bellar. Arguments lib. 4. de Eucharistia Cap. 2 3 4. Suarez in the place named with Whitakers Amesius Vorstius in 3. Tom. Bellar. Thes 9. pag. 406. Chamier against them both with others of that party de Eucharistia lib. 7. cap. 4 c. I shall desire to take up the Reader with that which I judge more necessary Gerard in his Common places Cap. 4. de Sacramentis makes it his businesse to find out the Genus in the definition of a Sacrament in which the general form of Sacraments he sayes is to be

whatsoever interest they may claim or on their behalf be claimed are justly debarred from it and in present denyed admission to it And on the contrary All that are in a present aptitude and capacity to improve it for spiritual advantages are regularly to be received and by no means to be denyed This is plain it must be administred to the Churches advantage and edification unto every members possible advantage They that are in an utter incapacity to receive benefit are in all reason to be denyed it and those of capacity to be received to it Some would have those debarred or at least to debar themselves that hopefully may profit and we may not plead for their admission that are in the judgment of all reason in an incapacity of profiting Those that stand in this present incapacity are of two sorts 1. Such that through inabilities cannot make any improvement of it 2. Such that resolvedly and obstinately will not Those that through inability cannot are of four sorts First Those that by reason of minority and non-age are not yet ripe for the use of reason as Infants and younglings Secondly Those that by providence are denyed it as natural idiots Thirdly Those that are berest of it as distracted persons aged persons grown children Fourthly Those that by their grosse neglect in spiritual things never made improvement of it First Infants These the Church as well Popish as reformed by an universall received custome denies to admit As the Disciples sometimes rebuked those that brought infants to Christ to receive a blessing so the Church now provides that none shall bring them to partake of this Sacrament And though the Disciples suffered a check from our Saviours mouth in the one Infants having title to and being in a capacity to receive benefit by that Church-priviledg as being Church-member yet we believe the Church is free from reproof in the other upon the ground laid down before viz. their incapacity to improve it to their spiritual benefit It is true that the practice in the Church for at least some Churches anciently was otherwise as those know that are verst in antiquity several quotations out of Dionysius Areo pagita Cyprian Austin the Councell of Tolet may be seen in Suarez disput 62. quaest 79. Art 8. sect 4. Though according to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius his words make not for it as may be seen part 3. quaest 80. Art 9. This custome Maldonate in Joh. 6.53 saith continued in the Church 600. years but he onely saith it and Suarez in the place before quoted saies it was never received of the whole Church and perhaps saith he the practice was not Common seeing there is no more mention of it among the Ancient and quotes the opinion of some that day The Fathers never observed this custome but onely tolerated it because they could not resist the multitude And one that speaks enough in favour of it findes the practice of it in Africk and Europe but can bring no testimony out of Asia for it onely he saies that he does not read that the custome was contrary in any part of Asia The Schooles have disputed infants capacity of it Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted is against it together with many others whose names Suarez mentions Suarez himself is for the affirmative that infants are in capacity of it as that which he saith is farre the more probable and hath most reason and authority for it And in the conclusion hath much ado to excuse the Church of Rome for the neglect of it as Jansenius hath for their Communion onely in one kind Harmon Evang. cap. 131. when the practice of all antiquity he confesses was otherwise and Bellarmine for their eating on fast daies before the evenning against all Scripture precedent Bellar de bon oper lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Church of Rome her self hath reformed this and hath not put our Reformers to the trouble of it though a man might wonder what moved them to it giving so much to this Sacrament as they do to conferre grace by the work done and to fortifie the foul against Satan But it is plain that the high reverence they gave to their transubstantiated elements moved them to it lest any thing unworthy of them should befal them upon the same account that they deny their cup to their laity they deny the bread to those that are in minority see Jansenius ut supra an eminent Writer of the Protestants appears much in favour of this practice not upon the reasons that moved those Fathers which was a supposed necessity of it grounded on those words of Christ Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you understanding it of Sacramentall eating at the Lords Table but on other grounds 1. Those that are partakers of the thing signified are not to be denied the sign 2. Infants are of the Church they serve to make up that body and Christ the Saviour of the body 3. Christ himself saith Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of heaven And from each of these he drawes up formal Arguments for infants admittance And he supposeth that that text which is brought as a barre to hold them back 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup may be easily answered that it is to be understood of those onely that are in danger to eat and drink unworthily and so to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ of which saith he there is no fear of infants These Arguments undoubtedly are of strength to conclude their fundamental right and title as to baptisme so to the Lords Supper but they are two weak to give them actual admission They conclude their jus ad rem but not their jus in re They have upon these grounds a first right but they must wait a further growth till they have a second Baptisme gives right in the face of the Church to all Christian priviledges and this is a Christian priviledg so also the hearing of the Mysteries of Faith the highest of Mysteries to be taken into debate of doubts of the highest nature are Christian-priviledges yet as every baptized person hath not forthwith these high Mysteries communicated to him nor yet is admitted to such high debates as Christ was at the age of 12. years which is recorded as a miracle so neither are they therefore to be actually admitted to the Lords Table And if that text of preexamination may be avoided yet sufficient may be said for a barre to their admission They cannot do that which is outwardly to be done at this Table they cannot take and eat see Whitaker pag. 373. And in case the bread be put into their mouthes it is more like to be cast out then eaten They cannot answer the end of the Sacrament to do it in remembrance of

Christ or to shew forth the Lords death in that ordinance And so no possible benefit can be conceived in reason to come to them by it In baptisme it is otherwise there is nothing required to be done by him that is baptized It is sufficient to be passive there is advantage by it the person whether infant or of age is enrolled into the society of the people of God is a member of the body of Christ visible mystical and upon that account interessed in the prayers and blessings of the Church is enrighted and upon that account as growth makes fit to be admitted to other priviledges and assoon as of any discretion to discern they know to what societie they do belong and accordingly to applie themselves And therefore infants have a bare fundamental right to the Lords Table but actual admission to Baptisme And where as it is objected that infants had not onely right to the Passeover but were also actually admitted to it they had not onely their jus ad rem but their jus in re and consequently infants have like right to the Lords Supper To this I answer 1. That infants properly so called did not eat of the Passeover being by reason of infancie in an incapacitie for such solid meats as Rivet observes 2. It no where appears that infants did partake otherwise then as they were involved in the houshould There is no Ordinance requiring infants to repair to the place that God chose for it It is for those males saith Ainsworth which were free-men perfect males in health able to go up to the place of publick worship quoting withal the Rabbies Authority That all men are bound except the deaf and the dumbe and the fool and the little child and the blind and the lame and the uncircumcised and the old men and the sick and the tender and the weak that were not able to go on their feet When we read of the pains that they took to go up to Jerusalem on these occasions through the valley of Baca Psal 84.6 we hear nothing of their pains to carry along their infants which must have been their care if by Divine appointment the Paschal Lamb as a Sacrament had been ordained for infants 3. The Passeover as Manna and the Rock is considered two waies 1. As common food and means of present livelihood and subsistance 2. As visible pledges of Gods abode among them and protect●on of them As common food and means of present livelihood infants did eate of the Manna and drink of the water of the Rock and so also did their cattel Num. 20.8 and young ones as soon as able to digest it of the Passeover when they were present with the rest of the houshold But as visible pledges of Gods abode among them and protection of them or remembrance of their present deliverances onely professed believers and neither infants nor bruit creatures could make use of it and in this sense onely it was a Sacarment so that we see infants title and also their bar to this Ordinance For those that by Providence are denyed the use of reason Natural Idiots Distracted persons are uncapable as natural Idiots their case is the same with infants as also those that are best of it as distracted persons and those that by age or disease are grown as Children Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted distinguishes of distracted persons some wholly want the use of reason and some have onely a weak use of it as some see not at all and some have a weak sight The latter in some case being restored in part to the use of reason he would not have to be denyed In this case prudence must judge in case before this stroke by the hand of God upon them they were judged meet for this Ordinance as they were for other civil employments and now upon recovery or upon their intervals as many times it happens are able in some good measure to manage their businesse as way is given to them in one so it is not to be denyed them in the other For those that never made improvement of their reason in spirituals but being men of years are still children in knowledge they have their title or fundamental right Grosly ignorant ones a rein an incapacity as I said before of infants but they are no more meet for this Ordinance then infants such I mean that for the time might be teachers and yet have need to be taught which be the first principles of the Oracles of God If I should demand why boyes and girles as soon as they can eat of the Bread and drink of the Cup be not received to this Supper but all in non-age by general consent exempted and therefore none offer themselves No reason to me imaginable can be given but their inability of improvement of it to their Spiritual advantage years of discretion are expected and then they are to be admitted and this is generally acknowledged to stand with reason And what reason is there that without any discretion they should be admitted at the usual year of discretion At one and twenty years men arrive at the age to enter upon their possessions yet when it may appear that at these years they have not abilities to manage it for their benefit the Law hath provided that they shall not be intrusted with it The ignorance before mentioned in the several kinds was ignorantia purae negationis They understand not because God hath denyed them understanding It is their defect or affliction but it is not their sin this that we now mention is ignorantia pravae dispositionis a withstanding of the light that is tendered and offered All of these are in an equal incapacitie of benefit by the Sacrament but these last in a sinful incapacitie And when the former whose ignorance is not their sin are confest to be uncapable I do not see how sin can put the latter into a better capacitie of it When a Covenant was entered in Israel Nehem. 9.10 all sorts and sexes having knowledge and understanding entered Nehem. 10.28 If any had sworn to the articles and had not at all understood them such an oath would have done no service therefore it was provided that onely they that understood subscribed and sealed They that receive this seal and consequently put to their seal when they know not the articles of it or any use of these Sacramental signes they see not themselves at all obliged when the Covenant of Israel was to be sealed understandingly the Covenant of the Gospel is not to be sealed ignorantly A book in the hand of the unlearned that cannot read is of as much use as this Sacrament to him that doth not understand It is to these as the painted frontispices that we see in many books without any key to open them they be full of mysteries but the ignorant beholder sees nothing but an outside He may gaze an hour together and be as wise as before Such