and among Protestants in particular have arisen but also such Absurdities irrational and blasphemous Consequences have ensued as make the Christian Religion odious and hateful to Jews Turks and Heathens The Professors of Christianity do chiefly divide in this matter into three Opinions The first is of those that say The Substance of the Bread is Transubstantiated into the very Substance of that same Body Flesh and Blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified by the Jews So that after the Words of Consecration as they call them it is no more Bread but the Body of Christ. The second is of such as say The Substance of the Bread remains but that also that Body is in and with and under the Bread So that both the Substance of the Bread and the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ is there also The third is of those that denying both these do affirm That the Body of Christ is not there Corporally or Substantially but yet that it is Really and Sacramentally received by the Faithful in the use of Bread and Wine But how or what way it 's there they know not nor can they tell only we must believe it is there yet so that it is only properly in Heaven It is not my Design to enter into a Refutation of these several Opinions for each of their Authors and Assertors have sufficiently Refuted one another and are all of them no less strong both from Scripture and Reason in Refuting each their contrary Party's Opinion than they are Weak in Establishing their own For I often have seriously observed in reading their respective Writings and so it may be have others that all of them do notably in so far as they Refute the contrary Opinions but that they are mightily pained when they come to Confirm and Plead for their own Hence I necessarily must conclude That none of them had attained to the Truth and Substance of this Mystery Let us see if Calvin after he hath Refuted the two former Opinions be more successful in what he affirms and asserts for the Truth of his Opinion who after he hath much laboured in overturning and Refuting the two former Opinions plainly confesseth that he knows not what to affirm instead of them For after he has spoken much and at last Concluded That the Body of Christ is there and that the Saints must needs partake thereof at last he lands in these Words Sect. 32. But if it be asked me how it is I shall not be ashamed to confess That it is a Secret too high for me to comprehend in my Spirit or explain in Words Here he deals very ingeniously and yet who would have thought that such a Man would have been brought to this Strait in the Confirming of his Opinion Considering but a little before in the same Chapter Sect. 15. he accuseth the Schoolmen among the Papists and I Confess truly In that they neither Understand nor Explain to others how Christ is in the Eucharist which shortly after he Confesseth himself he cannot do If then the School-men among the Papists do neither Understand nor yet can Explain to others their Doctrine in this matter nor Calvin can comprehend it in his Spirit which I judge is as much as not to understand it nor Express it in Words and then surely he cannot Explain it to others then no certainty is to be had from either of them There have been great Endeavours used for Reconcilement in this matter both betwixt Papists and Lutherans Lutherans and Calvinists yea and Calvinists and Papists but all to no purpose and many Forms and Manners of Expressions drawn up to which all might yield which in the end proved in vain seeing every one understood them and interpreted them their own way and so they did thereby but Equivocate and Deceive one another The Reason of all this Contention is because they all wanted a clear Understanding of the Mystery and were doting about the Shadow and the Externals For both the Ground and Matter of their Contest lies in things extrinsick from and unnecessary to the main Matter and this hath been often the Policy of Satan to busie People and amuse them with outward Signs Shadows and Forms making them Contend about that while in the mean time the Substance is neglected Yea and in Contending for these Shadows he stirs them up to the practice of Malice Heat Revenge and other Vices by which he establisheth his Kingdom of Darkness among them and ruines the Life of Christianity For there has been more Animosity and Heat about this one Particular and more Blood-shed and Contention than about any other And surely they are little acquainted with the State of Protestants Affairs who know not that their Contentions about this have been more hurtful to the Reformation than all the Opposition they met with from their common Adversaries Now all these uncertain and absurd Opinions and the Contentions therefrom arising have proceeded from their all agreeing in Two General Errors concerning this thing Which being denied and receded from as they are by us there would be an Easie Way made for Reconciliation and we should all meet in the one Spiritual and true Understanding of this Mystery and as the Contentions so would also the Absurdities which follow from all the Three forementioned Opinions Cease and fall to the ground The First of these Errors is in making the Communion or Participation of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body Vessel or Temple that was born of the Virgin Mary and walked and suffered in Judea whereas it should relate to the Spiritual Body Flesh and Blood of Christ even that Heavenly and Celestial Light and Life which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages as we have already proved The Second Error is In tying this Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of bread c. as if it had only a Relation thereto or were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony which it neither hath nor is For this is that Bread which Christ in his Prayer teaches to call for terming it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the supersubstantial Bread as the Greek hath it and which the Soul partakes of without any relation or necessary respect to this Ceremony as shall be hereafter proved more at length These Two Errors being thus laid aside and the Contentions arising therefrom buried all are agreed in the main Positions viz. First That the body flesh and blood of Christ is necessary for the nourishing of the Soul Secondly That the Souls of Believers do really and truly partake and feed upon the body flesh and blood of Christ. But while Men are not content with the Spirituality of this Mystery going in their own Wills and according to their own Inventions to strain and
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 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 Disoiples 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 through 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 Lord's 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 denied 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 Priviledge 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 Object But that which they most of all Cry out for in this matter and are always Noising is 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 it unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and ver 26. Eat and drink their own Damnation intimating hence that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body flesh and blood of Christ. Answ. Though this at first View may catch the Unwary Reader 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 acknowledge 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 to 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 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
Manichees were Condemned for denying that Grace is universally given by Baptism and Julian the Pelagian by Augustine 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 Ancients that denied Water-baptism seeing they cannot shew any whom they acknowledge 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 page 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 as 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 Childer-mass-day For 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 Manichees 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 Manichees than because some called by them Manichees do agree with Protestants in some things that therefore Protestants are Manichees or Hereticks which Protestants can no ways shun For the Question is Whether in what they did they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures 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 Anabaptists without adding any further Probation 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 one anothers Feet and the Anointing of the Sick with Oil All which are commanded with no less Authority and Solemnity than the former yet seeing they are but the Shadows 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 fall'n 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 Shadow 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 speak unto you are Spirit and Life understand spiritually what I have spoken Ye shall not eat of this Body which ye see and drink this Blood which they shall spill that Crucifie me I am the Living Bread which have descended from Heaven he called himself the Bread who descended from Heaven exhorting that we might believe in him c. Quest. If it be asked then What that Body What that Flesh and Blood is Answ. I Answer It is that Heavenly Seed that Divine Spiritual Coelestial Substance of which we spake before in the 5th and 6th Propositions This is that Vehiculum Dei or Spiritual Body of Christ whereby and where-through 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 6th 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