consequences have ensued as makes 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 of 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 parties opinion than they are weak in establishing their own for I often bave 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 contray opinions but that they are mightily pained when they come to confirm and plead for their own Hence I necessarily to 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 he 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 ingenuously 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 chap. sect 15. he accuseth the School-men 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 judg 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 Caluinists 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 intrinsick from and unnecessary to the main matter and this hath been often the policy of Satan to busie People ond 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 ruins 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 those uncertain and absurd opinions and the contentions therefrom arising have proceeded from their all agreeing in two general errors concerning this thing Which being denyed and receeded 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 wrest the Scriptures for to tie this Spiritual communion of the flesh and blood of Christ to outward bread and wine and such like
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
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
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
their Feet he wiped them with the Towel He did this to all of them which are circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other The former was a practice common among the Jews used by all Masters of Families upon that occasion but this as to the manner and person acting it to wit for the Master to rise up and wash the Feet of his Servants and Disciples was more singular and observable In the breaking of Bread and giving of Wine it is not pleaded by our adversaries nor yet mentioned in the Text that he particularly put them into the hands of all but breaking it and blessing it gave it the nearest and so they from hand to hand But here it is mentioned that he washed not the feet of one or two but of many He saith not in the former that if they do not eat of that Bread and drink of that Wine they shall be prejudiced by it but here he saith expresly to Peter that if he wash not him he hath not no part with him which being spoken upon Peter 's refusing to let him wash his Feet would seem to import no less than not the continuance only but even the necessity of this ceremony In the former he saith as it were passingly Do this in remembrance of me but here he sitteth down again he desires them to consider what he hath done tells them positively that as he hath done to them so ought they to do to one another and yet again he redoubles that precept by telling them he has given them an Example that they should do so likewise If we respect the nature of the thing it hath as much in it as either Baptism or the breaking of Bread seeing it is an outward Element of a cleansing Nature applied to the outward man by the command and the Example of Christ to signifie an inward purifying I would willingly propose this seriously to men that will be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God hath given them and not be imposed upon nor abused by the custom or tradition of others whether this ceremony if we respect either the time that it was appointed in or the circumstances wherewith it was performed or the command enjoyning the use of it hath not as much to recommend it for a standing Ordinance of the Gospel as either Water-baptism or Bread and Wine or any other of that kind I wonder then what reason the Papists can give why they have not numbred it among their Sacraments except meerly voluntas Ecclesiae traditio Patrum But if they say that is used among them Obj. in that the Pope and some other persons among them use to do it once a year to some poor people I would willingly know what reason they have why this should not be extended to all Answ. as well as that of the Eucharist as they term it or whence it appears from the text that Do this in remembrance of me should be interpreted that the Bread and Wine were every day to be taken by all Priests or the Bread every day or every week by the People and that that other command of Christ ye ought to do as I have done to you c. is only to be understood of the Pope or some other persons to be done only to a few and that once a year Surely there can be no other reason for this difference assigned from the Text. And as to Protestants who use not this Ceremony at all if they will but open their eyes they may see how that by custom and tradition they are abused in this matter as were their Fathers in divers popish Traditions For if we look into the plain Scripture what can be thence inferred to urge the one which may not be likewise pleaded for the other or for laying aside the one which may not be likewise said against the continuance of the other If they say that the former of washing the Feet was only a Ceremony What have they whence they can shew that this breaking of Bread is more If they say that the former was only a sign of humility and purifying What have they to prove that this was more If they say that one was only for a time and was no Evangelical Ordinance What hath this to make it such that the other wanted Surely there is no way of reason to evite this neither can any thing be alledged that the one should cease and not the other or the one continue and not the other but the meer opinion of the affirmers which by custom education and tradition hath begotten in the hearts of people a greater reverence for and esteem of the one than the other which if it had faln out to be as much recommended to us by tradition would no doubt have been as tenaciously pleaded for as having no less foundation in the Scripture But since the former to wit the washing of one anothers Feet is justly laid aside as not binding upon Christians so ought also the other for the same reason § VII But I strange that those that are so clamorous for ceremony and stick so much to it take liberty to dispence with the manner or method that Christ did it in since none that ever I could hear of who now do it use it in the same way that he did it Christ did it at Supper while they were eating but they do it in the morning only by it self What rule walk they by in this change If it be said these are but circumstances and not the matter and if the matter be kept to the alteration of circumstances is but of small moment Answ. What if it should be said the whole is but a circumstance which fell out at that time when Christ eat the Passover For if we have regard to that which alone can be pleaded for an institution viz. these words Do this in remembrance of me it doth as properly relate to the manner as matter For what may or can they evince in reason that these words Do this only signifie eat Bread and drink Wine but it is no matter when ye eat nor how ye eat it and not as ye have seen me eat it at Supper with you who take Bread and break it and give it you and take the Cup and bless it and give it you so do ye likewise And seeing Christ makes no distinction in those words Do this it cannot be judged in reason but to relate to the whole Which if it do all those that at present use this ceremony among Christians have not yet obeyed this precept nor fulfilled this institution for all their clamours concerning it If it be said Obj. that the time and manner of doing it by Christ was but accidentally as being after the Jewish Passover which was at Supper Besides that it may be answered and easily proved Answ. that the whole was accidental as being the practice of a Jewish ceremony as is above observed May
the morrow and continued his speech until Mid-night Here is no mention made of any Sacramental eating but only that Paul took occasion from their being togetther to preach unto them And it seems it was a Supper they intended not a morning bit of bread and sup of wine else it 's not very probable that Paul would from the morning have preached until Mid-night But the 11 verse puts the matter out of dispute which is thus When he therefore was come up again and had broken bread and eaten and talked along while even till break of day so he departed This shews that the breaking of bread was differed till that time for those words and when he had broken bread and eaten do shew that it had a relation to the breaking of bread afore-mentioned and that that was the time he did it Secondly these words joyned together and when he had broken bread and eaten and talked shew it was no religious act of worship but only an eating for bodily refreshment for which the Christians used to meet together some time and doing it in God's fear and singleness of heart doth notwithstanding difference it from the eating or feasting of profane persons and this by some is called a Love-feast or a being together not meerly to feed their Bellies or for outward ends but to take thence occasion to eat and drink together in the dread ond presence of the Lord as his People which custom we shall not condemn but let it be observed that in all the Acts there is no other nor further mention of this matter But if that Ceremony had been some solemn Sacrifice as some will have it or such a special Sacrament as others plead it to be it is strange that that History that in many lesser things gives a particular account of the Christians behaviour should have been so silent in the matter Only we find that they used sometimes to meet together to break Bread and eat Now as the primitive Christians began by degrees to depart from that primitive purity and simplicity so also to accumulate superstitious traditions and vitiat the innocent practices of their predecessors by the intermixing either of Jewish or Heathenish Rites so also in the use of this very early abuses began to creep in among Christians so that it was needful for the Apostle Paul to reform them and reprove them therefore as he doth at large 1 Cor. 11. from ver 17. to the end which place we shall particularly examine because our adversaries lay the chief stress of their matter upon it and we shall see whether it will infer any more than we have above granted First because they were apt to use that practice in a superstitious mind beyond the true use of it as to make of it some mystical supper of the Lord he tells them ver 20. that their coming together into one place is not to eat the Lord's Supper he saith not this is not the right manner to eat because the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a mystery Secondly he blames them in that they come together for the worse and not for the better the reason he gives of this is ver 21. For in eating every one hath taken before his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunken Here it is plain that the Apostle condemns them for that because this custom of supping in general was used among Christians for to increase their love and as a memorial of Christ's supping with the Disciples that they should have so vitiated it to eat it a part and to come full who had abundance and hungry who had little at home Whereby the very use and end of this practice is lost and perverted and therefore he blames them that they do not either eat this in common at home or reserve their eating till they come all together to the publick assembly this appears plainly by the following verse 22. have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not Where he blames them for their irregular practice herein in that they despised to eat orderly or reserve their eating to the publick assembly and so shaming such as not having houses nor fulness at home came to partake of the common Table who being hungry thereby were ashamed when they observed others come thitherfull and drunken Those that without prejudice will look to the place will see this must have been the case among the Corinthians for supposing the use of this to have been then as now used either by Papists Lutherans or Calvinists it is hard making sense of the Apostles's words or indeed to conceive what was the abuse the Corinthians committed in this thing Having thus observed what the Apostle said above because this custom of eating and drinking together some time had its rise from Christ's Act with the Apostles the night he was betrayed therefore the Apostle proceeded ver 23. to give them an account of that For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread c. Those that understand the difference betwixt a narration of a thing and a command cannot but see if they will that there is no command in this place but only an account of matter of fact he saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I shall command it to you to do also there is nothing like this in this place yea on the contrary ver 25. where he repeats Christ's imperative words to his Apostles he placeth them so as they import to command this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me And then he adds For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come But these words as often imports no more a command than to say as often as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a command to me to go thither But whereas they urge the last words Obj. ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come insinuating that this imports a necessary continuance of that ceremony until Christ come at the end of the world to judgment I answer they take two of the chief parts of the controversie here for granted without proof First that as often imports a command the contrary whereof is shewn neither will they ever be able to prove it Secondly that this coming is understood of Christ's last outward coming and not of his inward and spiritual that remains to be proved whereas the Apostle might well understand it of his inward coming and appearance which perhaps some of those carnal Corinthians that used to come drunken together had not yet known and others being weak among them and inclinable to dote upon outwards this might have been indulged to them for a season and even used by those who knew Christ's appearance
with the using as much as other things But further if the use of water and bread and wine were that wherein the very seals of the New Covenant stood and did pertain to the chief Sacraments of the Gospel and Evangelical Ordinances so called then would not the Gospel differ from the Law or be preferable to it Whereas the Apostle shews the difference Heb. 9.10 in that such kind of observations of the Jews were as a sign of the Gospel for that this stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings And now if the Gospel worship and service stand in the same where is the difference Obj. If it be said These under the Gospel have a spiritual signification Answ. So had those under the Law God was the Author of those as well as Christ is pretended to be Author of these But doth not this contending for the use of water bread and wine as necessary parts of the Gospel-worship destroy the nature of it as if the Gospel were a dispensation of shadows and not of the Substance whereas the Apostle in that of the Collossians above-mentioned argues against the use of these things as needful to those that are dead and arisen with Christ because they are but shadows and since through the whole Epistle to the Hebrews he argues with the Jews to wean them from their worship for this reason because it was typical and figurative Is it agreeable to right Reason to bring them to another of the same nature What ground from Scripture or Reason can our adversaries bring us to evince that one shadow or figure should point to another shadow or figure and not to the Substance And yet they make the figure of Circumcision to point to Water-baptism and the Paschal Lamb so bread and wine But was it ever known that one figure was the antitypes of the other especially seeing Protestants make not these their antitypes to have any more vertue or efficacy than the type had For since as they say and that truly that their Sacraments confer not Grace but that is conferred according to the Faith of the receiver it will not be denied but the faithful among the Jews received also Grace in the use of their figurative Worship And though Papists boast that their Sacraments confer Grace ex opere operato yet experience abundantly proveth the contrary § X. But supposing the use of Water baptism and Bread and Wine to have been in the primitive Church as was also that of abstaining from things strangled and from Blood the use of legal Purification Acts 21.23 24 25. and anointing of the Sick with Oyl for the reasons and grounds beforementioned Yet it remains for our adversaries to shew us how they come by power or authority to administer them It cannot be from the letter of the Scripture else they behoved also to do those other things which the letter declares also they did and which in the letter have as much foundation Then their Power must be derived from the Apostles either mediately or immediately but we have shewn before in the tenth Proposition that they have no mediate Power because of the interruption made by the Apostasie And for an immediate power or command by the Spirit of God to administer these things none of our adversaries pretend to it We know that in this as in other things they make a noise of the constant consent of the Church and of Christians in all ages but as tradition is not a sufficient ground for Faith so in this matter especially it ought to have but small weight for that in this point of Ceremonies and superstitious Observations the Apostasie began very early as may appear in the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Colossians and we have no ground to imitate them in those things whose entrance the Apostle so much withstood so heavily regreted and so sharply reproved But if we look to Antiquity we find that in such kind of observances and traditions they were very uncertain and changeable so that neither Protestants nor Papists do observe this Ceremony as they did both in that they gave it to young Boyes and to little Children and for ought can be learned the use of this and Infant-baptism are of alike age though the one be laid aside both by Papists and Protestants and the other to wit Baptism of Infants be stuck to and we have so much the less reason to lay weight upon Antiquity for that if we consider their profession of Religion especially as to worship and the ceremonial part of it we shall not find any Church now whether Popish or Protestant who differ not widely from them in many things as Dalleus in his Treatise concerning the use of the Fathers well observeth and demonstrateth And why they should obtrude this upon us because of the Ancients practice which they themselves follow not or why we may not reject this as well as they do other things no less zealously practised by the Ancients no sufficient reason can be assigned I shall not nevertheless doubt but many whose understandings have been clouded with these Ceremonies have notwithstanding by the Mercy of God had some secret sense of the mystery which they could not clearly understand because it was sealed from them by their sticking to such outward things and that through that secret sence diving in their comprehensions they ran themselves into these carnal apprehensions as imagining the substance of the bread was changed or that if the substance was not changed yet the body was there c. And indeed I am inclinable very favourably to judg of Calvin in this particular in that he deals so ingenuously to confess he neither comprehends it nor can express it in words but yet by a feeling experience can say the Lord is Spiritually present Now as I doubt not but Calvin sometimes had a sense of his presence without the use of this ceremony so as the understanding given him of God made him justly reject the false notions of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation tho he knew not what to establish instead of them if he had fully waited in that Light that makes all things manifest and had not laboured in his own comprehension to settle upon that external ceremony by affixing the Spiritual presence as chiefly or principally though not only as he well knew by experience there or especially to relate to it he might have further reached unto the knowledg of this mystery than many that went before him § XI Lastly if any now at this day from a true tenderness of Spirit and with real Conscience towards God did practise this ceremony in the same way method and manner as did the primitive Christians recorded in Scripture which yet none that I know now do I should not doubt to affirm but they might be indulged in it and the Lord might regard them and for a season appear to them in the use of these things as many of us have known him to do to
iii 27 277 iv  156  19 148 v 12 20 339  24 383 vi 6 220  14 78 Ephesians i 13 179  14 279 ii  63  4 5 6 169  5 148  8 200  15 134 iii 9 10 iv  214  5 18 277  7 11 16 201  11 165 294  23 239  23 24 149  24 169 iv 30 279 v 8 104  11 350  13 83 93   116  25 26 27 165 vi 12 383  18 268 Philippians i 6 177  8 376  21 66 ii 13 155 iii 10 134  14 178  15 346 Colossians i 13 104  23 83 108  24 135  27 28 148  28 74 ii 6 16 20 327  8 350  12 277  15 253  19 194 iii 1 325  2 370  16 276 iv 2 243  12 166 I Thessalonians i 5 215 ii 12 158 iii 13 166 v 5 104  6 243  12 13 217  17 265  19 20 219  21 346  23 166  27 376 II Thessalonians i 5 8 158 ii 11 12 175 I Timothy i 19 177 ii 1 3 4 6 75  3 71  8 9 10 366  11 220 iii 2 203  2 3 4 5 6 229  15 193 v 16 220  17 217 vi 5 6 c. 229  7 8 9 10 224  8 230  20 209 II Timothy iii 2 229  15 16 17 49  17 166 iv 5 243  7 180 Titus i c  203  7 8 9 229  10 11 230  15 93 ii 11 118 200  14 134 164 iii 5 154  7 144  10 331 Hebrews i 3 356 ii 9 76 iii 14 177 iv 12 13 110 v 4 204 229 vi 16 377 vii 26 140 viii 10 26 ix 9 168  10 328 x 24 259 xi  17  6 138  7 14 15 xii 14 151  16 17 87  22 23 169 xiii 7 8 18  17 217 James i 21 107  25 249  27 78 ii 24 151 iii 9 10 170 iv 1 383 v 6 128  12 371  14 303 326 I Peter i 5 177  14 350  17 367  23 114 ii 5 205  21 90  22 140  22 24 134 iii 3 4 366  18 134  20 99  21 277 iv 7 243 249  10 11 202 229 v 5 217 II Peter i 4 135 162  10 45 179  12 13 49  16 356 ii 1 2 3 230  3 211  1 3 14 15 229  20 78 iii 9 71 77  15 99 I John i 1 206  7 133  8 170 ii 1 2 77  2 to 6 167  15 78  27 27 iii 1 13 78  2 to 10 167  4 172  5 8 164  7 20 149  9 163 iv 4 5 78  9 75  10 134  13 35 46 v 3 169  6 35 46  14 269  19 78 Jude i 16 229  20 268 Revelation ii 9 194  20 338 iii 12 174 179  16 292  20 11 315 xiv 1 to 5 169 xix 10 363 xxii 9 363  14 151  18 56 A TABLE Of the Chief Things A ABraham's Faith 15. Adam See man sin redemption what happiness he lost by the Fall 63. what death he died 59 66. He retained in his nature no will or light capable of it self to manifest Spiritual things 59. whether there be any reliques of the heavenly image left in them 62 91. Alexander Skein's Queries proposed to the Preachers 271 272. Anabaptists of Great Britain 31 251. Anabaptists of Munster how their mischievous actings nothing touch the Quakers 28 29 30 31 32. Anicetus 30. Anointing the Anointing teacheth all things it is and abideth for ever a common priviledge and sure Rule to all Saints 27 28. Antichrist is exalted when the seed of God is expressed 20 92. his work 213 214 228. Antinomians their Opinion concerning Justification 137. Apostasie 174 211. Apostle who he is their number was not limitted and whether any may be now adaies so called 216 217. Appearances See Faith Arians they first brought in the Doctrin of Persecution upon the account of Religion 342. Arius by what he fell into error 210.211 Arminians See Remonstrants Assemblings are needful and what sort 33 237 c. See Worship they are not to be forsaken 245. Astrologer 35. Aurelia there ten Canonicks were burnt and why 301. B Baptism is one its definition 277 279 280 281 283 284. It is the Baptism of Christ and of the Spirit not of Water 277 279 to 287. the Baptism of Water which was John's Baptism was a figure of this Baptism and is not to be continued 277 280 285 286 to 302. Baptism with Water doth not cleanse the heart 280 288. nor is it a badge of Christianity as was Circumcision to the Jews 202 291 301. that Paul was not sent to Baptize is explain'd 290 291 292. concerning what Baptism Christ speaks Mat. 28.20 it is explained 293 204. how the Apostles Baptized with Water is explained 296 297 298 299. to Baptize signifies to Plunge and how Sprinkling was brought in 299 300. those of old that used Water-baptism were plunged and they that were only sprinkled were not admitted to an Ecclesiastick Function and why 399. against the use of Water-baptism many heretofore have testified 301. Infant-baptism is a meer humane tradition 277 302 Bible the last Translations alwaies find fault with the first 47. Birth the Spiritual birth 37. holy birth 248 see Justification Bishop of Rome concerning his primacy 30. how he abuseth his authority and by what he deposeth Princes and absolveth the people from the Oath of Fidelity 341 344. Blood to abstain from blood and things strangled 303 326 329. it hath been shed 310. Blood of Christ see Communion Body to bow the body see Head Books Canonical and Apocryphal see Canon Scripture Bonaventure 236. Bow to bow the knee see uncover the Head Bread the breaking of bread among the Jews was no singular thing 317 321. it is now other waies performed than it was by Christ 322. whether unleavened or leavened bread is to be used also it is hotly disputed about the manner of taking it and to whom it is to be given 321 322. see Communion C Calvinists see Protestants they deny consubstantiation 30. they maintain absolute reprobation 26. they think Grace is a certain irresistible power and what sort of a Saviour they would have 115 116. of the flesh and blood of Christ 307 309.310 they use leavened bread in the Supper 321. Canon whether the Scripture be a filled up Canon 55. whether it can be proved by Scripture that any Book is Canonical 55 56. Castellio banished 345. Ceremonies see Superstition Christ see Communion Justification Redemption Word He sheweth himself daily revealing the knowledge of the Father 6. without his