time went back from him and walked no more with him I doubt not but that there are many also at this day professing to be the Disciples of Christ that do as little understand this matter as those did and are as apt to be offended and stumble at it while they are gazing and following after the outward Body and look not to that by which the Saints are daily fed and nourished For as Jesus Christ in obedience to the will of the Father did by the eternal Spirit offer up that body for a propitiation for the remission of sins and finished his testimony upon earth thereby in a most perfect example of patience resignation and holyness that all might be made partakers of the feuit of that Sacaifice So hath he likewise poured forth into the hearts of all men a measure of that Divine Light and Seed wherewith he is cloathed that thereby reaching unto the Consciences of all he may raise them up out of death and darkness by his Life and Light and thereby may be made partakers of his body and therethrough come to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son § III. If it be asked how Quest. and after what manner man comes to partake of it and to be sed by it I answer in the plain and express words of Christ I am the Bread of Life saith he he that cometh to me shall never hunger Answ. he that believeth in me shall never thirst and again for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed So whosoever thou art that askest this question or readest these lines whether thou accountest thy self a Believer or really feelest by a certain and sad experience that thou art yet in the unbelief and findest that the outward body and flesh of Christ is so far from thee that thou canst not reach it nor feed upon it yea though thou hast often swallowed down and taken in that which the Papists have perswaded thee to be the real Flesh and Blood of Christ and hast believed it to be so though all thy senses told thee the contrary or being a Luthenan hast taken that bread in and with and under which the Lutherans have assured thee that the flesh and blood of Christ is or being a Calvinist hast partaken of that which the Calvinists say though a figure only of the Body gives them that take it a real Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ though they neither know how nor what way I say if for all this thou findest thy Soul yet barren yea hungry and ready to starve for want of something thou longest for Know that that Light that discovers thy Iniquity to thee that shews thee thy barrenness thy nakedness thy emptyness is that body that thou must partake of and feed upon but that till by forsaking iniquity thou turnest to it comest unto it receivest it though thou mayst hunger after it thou canst not be satisfied with it for it hath no communion with darkness nor canst thou drink of the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of devils and be partaker of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 But as thou sufferest that small Seed of Righteousness to arise in thee and to be formed into a birth that new substantial birth that 's brought forth in the Soul naturally feeds upon and is nourished by this spiritual body yea at this outward birthlives not but as it sucks in breath by the outward elementary air so this new birth lives not in the Soul but as it draws in and breaths by that spiritual air or vehicle and as the outward birth cannot subsist without some outward body to feed upon some outward flesh and some outward drink so neither can this inward birth without it be fed by this inward flesh and blood of Christ which answers to it after the same manner by way of analogy And this is most agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ concerning this matter for as without outward food the natural body hath not life so also saith Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you And as the outward body eating outward food lives thereby so Christ saith that he that eateth him shall live by him So it is this inward participation of this inward man of this inward and Spiritual body by which man is united to God and has fellowship and communion with him He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood saith Christ dwelleth in me and I in him This cannot be understood of outward eating of outward Bread and as by this the Soul must have fellowship with God so also in so far as all the Saints are partakers of this one body and one blood they come also to have a joynt Communion Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.17 in this respect saith that they being many are one bread and one body and to the wise among the Corinthians he saith the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. This is the True and Spiritual Supper of the Lord which men come to partake of by hearing the voice of Christ and opening the door of their hearts and so letting him in in the manner abovesaid according to the plain words of the Scripture Rev. 3.20 Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come into him and will Sup with him and he with me So that the Supper of the Lord and the Supping with the Lord and partaking of his Flesh and Blood is no ways limited to the Ceremony of breaking Bread and drinking Wine at particular times but is truly and really enjoyed as often as the Soul retires into the Light of the Lord and feels and partakes of that Heavenly Life by which the inward Man is nourished which may be and is often witnessed by the Faithful at all times though more particularly when they are Assembled together to wait upon the Lord. § IV. But what confusion the professors of Christianity have run into concerning this matter is more than obvious who as in most other things they have done for want of a true Spiritual understanding have sought to tie this Supper of the Lord to that ceremony used by Christ before his Death of breaking Bread and drinking Wine with his Disciples And though they for most part agree in this general yet how do they contend and debate one against another How strangely are they pinched pained and straitned to make this Spiritual mystery agree to that Ceremony And what monstruous and wild opinions and conceivings have they invented to inclose or affix the Body of Christ to their Bread and Wine From which opinion not only the greatest and fiercest and most hurtful contests both among the Professors of Christianity in general and among Protestants in particular have arisen but also such absurdities irrational and blasphemous
the Jews following him for the Loaves to tell them of this Spiritual bread and flesh of his body which was more necessary for them to feed upon It will not therefore follow that their following him for the Loaves had any necessary relation thereunto So also Christ here being at supper with his Disciples takes occasion from the bread and wine which was before them to signifie unto them that as that bread which he brake unto them and that wine which he blessed and gave unto them did contribute to the preserving and nourishing of their bodies so was he also to give his body and shed his blood for the Salvation of their Souls and therefore the very end proposed in this ceremony to those that observe it is to be a memorial of his Death But if it be said that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 calls the bread which he brake the communion of the body of Christ and the cup the communion of his blood I do most willingly subscribe unto it but do deny that this is understood of the outward bread neither can it be evinced but the contrary is manifest from the context for the Apostle in this chapter speaks not one word of that ceremony for having in the beginning of it shewn them how the Jews of old were made partakers of the Spiritual food and water which was Christ and how several of them thro' disobedience and idolatry fell from that good condition he exhorts them by the example of those Jews whom God destroyed of old to flee those evils shewing them that they to wit the Corinthians are likewise partakers of the body and blood of Christ of which communion they would rob themselves if they did evil because they could not drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils and partake of the Lords table and of the Table of devils ver 21. which shews that he understands not here the using of outward 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 outward wine For there the Apostle calls the bread one ver 17. and he saith we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread Now if the bread be one it cannot be the outward or the inward would be excluded whereas it cannot be denyed but that it 's the partaking of the inward bread and not the outward that makes the Saints truly one body and one bread And whereas they say that the one bread here comprehendeth both the outward and inward by vertue of the Sacramental union that indeed is to affirm but not to prove As for that figment of a Sacramental union I find not such a thing in all the Scripture especially in the New Testament nor is there any thing can give a rise for such a thing in this chapter where the Apostle as is above observed is not at all treating of that ceremony but only from the excellency of that priviledg which the Corinthians had as believing Christians to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ dehorts them from Idolatry and partaking of the Sacrifices offered to Idols so as thereby to offend or hurt their weak brethren But that which they most of all cry out in this matter Obj. and are alwaies noising as from 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle is particularly treating of this matter and therefore from some words here they have the greatest appearance of Truth for their assertion as ver 27. where he calls the Cup the cup of the Lord and saith that they who eat of it and drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and ver 26. eat and drink their own damnation intimating thence that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body flesh and blood of Christ. Though this at first view may catch the unwary Reader Answ. yet being well considered it doth no ways evince the matter in controversie As for the Corinthians being in the use of this ceremony why they were so and how that obliges not Christians now to the same shall be spoken of hereafter it suffices at this time to consider that they were in the use of it Secondly that in the use of it they were guilty of and committed divers abuses Thirdly that the Apostle here is giving them directions how they may do it aright in shewing them the right and proper use and end of it These things being premised 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 He saith not as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye partake of the body and blood of Christ but ye shew forth the Lord's death So I acknowledg that this ceremony by those that practise it hath an immediate relation to the outward body and death of Christ upon the Cross as being properly a memorial of it but it doth not thence follow that it hath any 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 for though in a general way as every religious action in some respect hath a common relation to the Spiritual Communion of the Saints with God so we shall not deny but this hath a relation as others Now for his calling the cup the cup of the Lord and saying they are guilty of the body and blood of Christ and eat their own damnation in not discerning the Lord's body c. I answer that this infers no more necessary relation than any other religious act and amounts to no more than this that since the Corinthians were in the use of this ceremony and so performed it as a religious act they ought to do it worthily else they should bring condemnation upon themselves Now this will not more infer the thing so practised by them to be a necessary religious act obligatory upon others than when Rom. 14.6 the Apostle saith He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord it can be thence inferred that the days that some esteemed and observed did lay an obligation upon others to do the same but yet as as he that esteemed a day and placed Conscience in keeping it was to regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he dedicated it unto the Lord the Lord's day he was to do it worthily and if he did it unworthily he would be guilty of the Lord's day and so keep it to his own damnation so also such as observe this ceremony of bread and wine it is to them the bread of the Lord and the cup of the Lord because they use it as a religious act and forasmuch as their
have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous And he is the Propitiation for our Sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole World The way which our Adversaries take to evite this Testimony is most foolish and ridiculous The World here say they is the World of Believers For this Commentary we have nothing but their own assertion and so while it manifestly destroys the Text may be justly rejected For first let them shew me if they can in all the Scripture where the whole world is taken for Believers only I shall shew them where it is many times taken for the quite contrary as the world knows me not the world receives me not I am not of this world Besides all these Scriptures Psal. 17.14 Isa. 13.11 Matth. 18.1 John 7.7 8.26.12.19.14.17.15.18 19.17.14.18.20 1 Cor. 1.21.2 12.6.2 Gal. 6.14 Jam. 1.27 2 Pet. 2.20 1 Joh. 2.15.3.1 and 4.4 5. and many more Secondly the Apostle in this very place contradistinguisheth the World from the Saints thus And not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world What means the Apostle by ours here Is not that the sins of Believers Was not he one of those Believers And was not this an universal Epistle written to all the Saints that then were So that according to these mens comment there should be a very unnecessary and foolish redundancy in the Apostles words as if he had said he is a Propitiation not only for the sins of all Believers but for the sins of all Believers Is not this to make the Apostles words void of good sense Let them shew us where ever there is such a manner of speaking in all the Scripture where any of the Pen-men first name the Believers in concreto with themselves and then contradistinguish them from some other whole world of Believers That whole World if it be of Believers must not be the world we live in But we need no better interpreter for the Apostle than himself who uses the very same expression and phrase in the same Epistle c. 5.19 saying We know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness there cannot be found in all the Scripture two places which run more parallel seeing in both the same Apostle in the same Epistle to the same persons contradistinguisheth himself and the Saints to whom he writes from the whole world which according to these mens commentary ought to be understood of Believers as if John had said We know particular Believers are of God but the whole World of Believers lieth in wickedness What absurd wresting of Scripture were this And yet it may be as well pleaded for as the other for they differ not at all seeing then that the Apostle John tells us plainly that Christ not only died for him and for the Saints and Members of the Church of God to whom he wrote but for the whole world Let us then hold it for a certain and undoubted Truth notwithstanding the cavils of such as oppose This might also be proved from many more Scripture testimonies if it were at this season needful All the Fathers so called and Doctors of the Church for the first four centuries preached this Doctrin according to which they boldly held forth the Gospel of Christ and efficacy of Death inviting and intreating the Heathens to come and be partakers of the benefits of it shewing them how there was a door open for them all to be saved through Jesus Christ not telling them that God had predestinated any of them to Damnation or had made Salvation impossible to them by with-holding Power and Grace necessary to believe from them But of many of their sayings which might be alledged I shall only instance a few Austin on the 95 Psalm saith The Blood of Christ is of no less value than the whole World Prosper ad Gall. c. 9. The redeemer of the World gave his blood for the World and the World would not be redeemed because the darkness did not receive the Light He that saith the Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole World looks not to the vertue of the Sacrament but to the part of Infidels since the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the price of the whole World from which redemption they are strangers who either delighting in their captivity would not be redeemed or after they were redeemed returned to the same servitude The same Prosper in his answer to Vencentius's first objection Seeing therefore because of one common nature and cause in Truth undertaken by our Lord all are rightly said to be redeemed and nevertheless all are not brought out of Captivity the property of Redemption without doubt belongeth to those from whom the Prince of this World is shut out and now are not vessels of the devil but Members of Christ whose Death was so bestowed upon mankind that it belonged to the Redemption of such who are not to be regenerated But so that which was done by the Example of one for all might by a singular mystery be celebrated in every one For the Cup of Immortality which is made up of our Infirmity and the Divine Power hath indeed that in it which may profit all but if it be not drunk it doth not heal The Author de vocat Gentium lib. 11. cap. 6. There is no cause to doubt but that our Lord Jesus Christ died for Sinners and wicked Men and if there can be any found who may be said not to be of this number Christ hath not died for all he made himself a Redeemer for the whole World Chrysistom on the 1. chap. of John If he inlightens every man coming into the World how comes it that so many men remain without Light For all do not so much as acknowledg Christ how then doth he inlighten every Man he illuminates indeed so far as in him is but if any of their own accord closing the eyes of their mind will not direct their eyes unto the beams of this Light the cause that they remain in darkness is not from the nature of the Light but through their own malignity who willingly have rendred themselves unworthy of so great a gift But why be lieved they not Because they would not Christ did his part The Arelatensian Synod held about the year 490 Pronounced him accursed who should say that Christ hath not dyed for all or that he would not have all men to be saved Ambr. on Psal. 118. Serm. 8. The mystical Sun of Righteousness is arisen to all he came to all he suffered for all and rose again for all And therefore he suffered that he might take away the Sin of the World But if any one believed not in Christ he bros himself of this general Benefit even as if one by closing the Windows should hold out the Sun-beams the Sun is not therefore not arisen to all because such a one hath so robbed himself of its heat But the
Pelagians for saying that Infants dying unbaptized may be saved And the Manichees were condemned for denying that Grace is universally given by Baptism and Julian the Pelagian by Augustin for denying exorcism and insufflation in the use of Baptism all which things Protestants deny also So that Protestants do but foolishly to upbraid us as if we could not shew any among the Antients that denyed Water-baptism seeing they cannot shew any whom they acknowledg not to have been heretical in several things to have used it nor yet who using it did not use also the sign of the Cross and other things with it which they deny There were some nevertheless in the darkest times of Popery who testified against Water-baptism For one Alanus pag. 103 104 107. speaks of some in his time that were burnt for the denying of it for they said that Baptism had no efficacy either in Children or adult Persons and therefore men were not obliged to take Baptism Particularly Ten Canonicks so called were burnt for that crime by the order of King Robert of France And P. Pithaeus tells in his Fragments of the History of Guienne which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis a Monk who was famous at that time in his Epistle to Oliva Abbot of the Ausonian Church I will saith he give you to understand concerning the Heresie that was in the City of Orleans on Childeâ—-mass-day foy it was true if ye have heard any thing that King Robert caused to be burnt alive nigh fourteen of that City of the chief of their Clergy and the more noble of their Laicks who were hateful to God and abominable to Heaven and Earth for they did stiffly deny the Grace of Holy Baptism and also the Consecration of our Lord's Body and Blood The time of this deed is noted in these words by Papir Masson in his Annals of France lib. 3. in Hugh and Robert actum Aureliae publice anno incarnationis Domini 1022 regni Roberti Regis 28. indictione 5. quando Stephanus haeresiarcha complices ejus damnati sunt exusti Aureliae Now for their calling them Hereticks and Maniches we have nothing but the testimony of their accusers which will no more invalidate their testimony for this Truth against the use of Water-baptism or give more ground to charge us as being one with Maniches than because some called by them Maniches do agree with Protestants in some things that therefore Protestants are Maniches or Hereticks which Protestants can no waies shun For the question is whether in what they did they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scripture so that the controversie is brought back again to the Scriptures according to which I suppose I have formerly discussed it As for the latter part of the Thesis denying the use of Infant Baptism it necessarily follows from what is above said for if Water-baptism be ceased then surely Baptizing of Infants is not warrantable But those that take upon them to oppose us in this matter will have more to do as to this latter part for after they have done what they can to prove Water-baptism it remains for them to prove that Infants ought to be baptized For he that proves Water-baptism ceased proves that Infant Baptism is vain But he that should prove that Water-baptism continues has not thence proved that Infant Baptism is necessary That needs something further and therefore it was a pitiful subterfuge of Nic. Arnoldus against this to say that the denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the gangrene of the Anabaptists without adding any further probation The Thirteenth Proposition Concerning the Communion or participation of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is inward and Spiritual which is the participation of his Flesh and Blood by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells of which things the breaking of Bread by Christ with his Disciples was a figure which they even used in the Church for a time who had received the Substance for the sake of the weak even as abstaining from things strangled and from Blood the washing of one anothers Feet and the anointing of the Sick with Oyl all which are commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the former yet seeing they are but the shaddows of better things they cease in such as have obtained the Substance § I. THe Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is a mystery hid from all natural men in their first faln and degenerate state which they cannot understand reach to nor comprehend as they there abide neither as they there are can they be partakers of it nor yet are they able to discern the Lord's Body And forasmuch as the Christian World so called for the most part hath been still labouring working conceiving and imagining in their own natural and unrenewed understandings about the things of God and Religion therefore hath this mystery much been hid and sealed up from them while they have been contending quarrelling and fighting one with another about the meer shaddow outside and form but strangers to the Substance Life and Vertue § II. The Body then of Christ which believers partake of is Spiritual and not Carnal and his Blood which they drink of is pure and heavenly and not humane or elementary as Augustin also affirms of the Body of Christ which is eaten in his Tractat. Psal. 98. Except a man eat my Flesh he hath not in him Life Eternal and he saith the words which I spake 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 crucifie me I am the living Bread who have descended from Heaven he calls himself the Bread who descended from Heaven exhorting that we might believe in him c. If it be asked then what that Body what that Flesh and Blood is I answer it is that Heavenly Seed that Divine Spiritual Coelestial Substance Answ. of which we spake before in the fifth and sixth Propositions This is that vehiculum Dei or Spiritual Body of Christ whereby and wherethrough he communicateth Life to men and Salvation to as many as believe in him and receive him and whereby also man comes to have fellowship and communion with God This is proved from the 6 of John from verse 32 to the end where Christ speaks more at large of this matter than in any other place and indeed this Evangelist and beloved Disciple who lay in the bosom of our Lord gives us a more full account of the Spiritual sayings and Doctrine of Christ and it 's observable that though he speaks nothing of the ceremony used by Christ of breaking Bread with his Disciples neither in his Evangelical account of Christ's life and sufferings nor in his Epistles yet he is more large in this account of the
participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ than any of them all For Christ in this Chapter perceiving that the Jews did follow him for Love of the Loaves desires them ver 27. to labour not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth for ever but forasmuch as they being carnal in their apprehensions and not understanding the Spiritual Language and Doctrine of Christ did judg the Manna which Moses gave their Fathers to be the most excellent Bread as coming from Heaven Christ to rectifie that mistake and better inform them affirmeth first that is not Moses but his Father that giveth the true Bread from Heaven ver 32 48. Secondly This Bread he calls himself ver 35. I am the Bread of Life and ver 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven Thirdly he declares that this Bread is his Flesh ver 51. This Bread that I will give is my Flesh And ver 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Fourthly the necessity of partaking thereof ver 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you And lastly ver 33. the blessed fruits and necessary effects of this communion of the Body and Blood of Christ This Bread giveth life to the world ver 50. He that eateth thereof dieth not ver 58. he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever ver 51. who so eateth this Flesh and drinketh this Blood shall live for ever ver 54. and he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him ver 56. and shall live by Christ ver 57. From this large description of the origin nature and effects of this Body Flesh and Blood of Christ it is apparent that it is Spiritual and to be understood of a Spiritual Body and not of that Body or Temple of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which he walked lived and suffered in the land of Judea because that it is saâ—d both that it came down from Heaven yea that it is he that came down from Heaven Now all Christians at present generally acknowledg that the outward Body of Christ came not down from Heaven neither was it that part of Christ which came down from Heaven And to put the matter out of doubt when the carnal Jews would have been so understanding it he tells them plainly ver 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth but the Flesh profiteth nothing 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 by Flesh I mean outward Flesh even such as was that wherein Christ lived and walked when upon Earth and not Flesh when transported 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 and that the Flesh here spoken of is spiritually understood appears further in that that which feedeth upon it shall never die but the Bodies of all men once die yea it behoved the Body of Christ himself to die that this Body and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ is to be understood of that Divine and Heavenly Seed before spoken of by us appears both by the nature and fruits of it First it 's said it is that which cometh down from Heaven and giveth life unto the world now this answers to that Light and Seed which is testified of Joh. 1. to be the Light of the World and the Life of Men. For that Spiritual Light and Seed as it receives place in mens hearts and room to spring up there is as Bread to the hungry and fainting Soul that is as it were buried and dead in the lusts of the World which receives life again and revives as it tasteth and partaketh of this heavenly bread and they that partake of it are said to come to Christ neither can any have it but by coming to him and believing in the appearance of his Light in their hearts by receiving which and believing in it the participation of this body and bread is known And that Christ understands the same thing here by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. by the Light inlightening every man and the Life c. appears for the Light and Life spoken of John 1. is said to be Christ he is the true Light and the Bread and Flesh c. spoken of in this 6 of John is called Christ I am the Bread of Life saith he Again they that received that Light and Life John 1.12 obtained power to become the Sons of God by believing in his Name so also here John 6.35 He that cometh unto this bread of Life shall not hunger and he that believes in him who is this bread shall never thirst So then as there was the outward visible Body and Temple of Jesus Christ which took its origen from the Virgin Mary so there is also the Spiritual Body of Christ by and through which he that was the Word in the beginning with God and was and is GOD did reveal himself to the Sons of Men in all ages and whereby men in all ages come to be made partakers of Eternal Life and to have communion and fellowship with God and Christ. Of which body of Christ and flesh and blood if both Adam and Seth and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and Moses and David and all the Prophets and Holy men of God had not eaten they had not had life in them nor could their inward man have nourished Now as the outward Body and Temple was called Christ so was also his Spiritual Body no less properly and that long before that outward Body was in being Hence the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.3 4. that the Fathers did all eat 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. This cannot be understood otherwise than of this Spiritual body of Christ which Spiritual body of Christ though it was the saving food of the Righteous both before the Law and under the Law yet under the Law it was vailed and shaddowed and covered under divers types ceremonies and observations yea and not so but it was vailed and hid in some respect under the outward Temple and Body of Christ or during the continuance of it so that the Jews could not understand Christ's Preaching about it while on Earth And not the Jews only but many of his Disciples judged it an hard saying murmured at it and many from that
carnal ordinances no wonder if by their carnal apprehensions they run into heaps and confusion But because it hath been generally supposed that the communion of the body and blood of Christ had some special relation to the ceremony of breaking bread I first refute that opinion and then proceed to consider the nature and use of that ceremony and whether it be now necessary to continue answering the reasons and objections of such as plead its continuance as a necessary and standing ordinance of Jesus Christ. § V. First it must be understood that I speak of a necessary and peculiar relation otherwise than in a general respect for forasmuch as our communion with Christ is and ought to be our greatest and chiefest work we ought to do all other things with a respect to God and our fellowship with him but a special and necessary respect or relation is such as where the two things are so tied and united together either of their own nature or by the command of God that the one cannot be enjoyed or at lest is not except very extraordinarily without the other Thus Salvation hath a necessary respect to Holyness because without Holyness no man shall see God And the eating of the flesh and blood of Christ hath a necessary respect to our having life because if we eat not his flesh and drink not his blood we cannot have life our feeling of God's presence hath a necessary respect to our being found meeting in his name by Divine Precept because he has promised where two or three are met together in his Name he will be in the midst of them in like manner our receiving benefits and blessings from God has a necessary respect to our Praying because if we ask he hath promised we shall receive Now the communion or participation of the flesh and blood of Christ hath no such necessary relation to the breaking of bread and drinking of Wine For if it had any such necessary relation it would either be from the Nature of the thing or from some Divine Precept But we shall shew it is from neither Therefore c. First it is not from the nature of it because to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ is a Spiritual exercise and all confess that it is by the Soul and Spirit that we become real partakers of it as it is the Soul and not the Body that is nourished by it but to eat Bread and drink Wine is a natural act which in it self adds nothing to the Soul neither has any thing that is Spiritual in it because the most carnal man that is can as fully as perfectly and as wholly eat Bread and drink Wine as the most Spiritual Secondly their relation is not by nature else they would infer one another but all acknowledg that many eat of the bread and drink of the wine even that which they say is consecrate and transubstantiate into the very body of Christ who notwithstanding have not life eternal have not Christ dwelling them nor do live by him as all do who truly partake of the flesh and blood of Christ without the use of this ceremony as all the Patriarchs and Prophets did before this ordinance as they account it was instituted neither was there any thing under the Law that had any direct or necessary relation hereunto though to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ in all ages was indispensibly necessary to Salvation For 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 Secondly it has no relation by Divine Precept for if it had it would be mentioned in that which our Adversaries account the institution of it or else in the practise of it by the Saints recorded in Scripture but so it is not For as to the institution or rather narration of Christ's practice in this matter we have it recorded by the Evangelist Matthew Mark and Luke In the first two there is only an account of the matter of fact to wit that Christ brake bread and gave it his Disciples to eat saying this is my Body and blessing the cup he gave it them to drink saying this is my blood but nothing of any desire to them to do it In the last after the bread but before the blessing or giving them the wine he bids them do it in remembrance of him what we are to think of this practice of Christ shall be spoken ofhereafter But what necessary relation hath all this to the believers partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ The end of this for which they were to do it if at all is to remember Christ which the Apostle yet more particularly expresses 1 Cor. 11.26 to shew forth the Lord's death But to remember the Lord or declare his death which are the special and particular ends annexed to the use of this ceremony is not at all to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ neither have they any more necessary relation to it than any other two different Spiritual duties For though they that partake of the flesh and blood of Christ cannot but remember him yet the Lord and his death may be remembred as none can deny where his flesh and blood is not truly partaken of So that since the very particular and express end of this ceremony may be witnessed to wit the remembrance of the Lord's Death and yet the flesh and blood of Christ not partaken of it cannot have had any necessary relation to it else the partaking thereof would have been the end of it and could not have been attained without this participation But on the contrary we may well infer hence that since the positive end of this ceremony is not the partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ and that whoever partakes of the flesh and blood of Christ cannot but remember him that therefore such need not this ceremony to put them in remembrance of him But if it be said that Jesus Christ calls the bread here his body and the wine his blood Obj. therefore he seems to have had a special relation to his Disciples partaking of his flesh and blood in the use of this thing I answer his calling the bread his body and the wine his blood Answ. would yet infer no such thing though it is not denyed but that Jesus Christ in all things he did yea and from the use of all natural things took occasion to raise the minds of his Disciples and hearers to Spirituals Hence from the Woman of Samaria her drawing water he took occasion to tell her of that living Water which whoso drinketh of shall never thirst which indeed is all one with his blood here spoken of Yet it will not follow that that Well or Water had any necessary relation to the Living Water or the Living Water to it c. So Christ takes occasion from
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
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