OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL, In Pursuance of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England. By GABRIEL TOWERSON, D. D. and Rector of Welwynne in Hartfordshire. Imprimatur. Ex Aedib. Lamb. Julii 24. 1685. Jo. Battely RRmo P. D. Guil. Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domesticis. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVI. TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Bishop of ELY, AND LORD ALMONER TO His Majesty. My Lord, THough I am almost ashamed to make my Address to your Lordship with so small a Treatise as this, yet having no more of it finished, and this little being the Foundation of the rest, I hope your Lordship will accept of it as some acknowledgement of those great Condescensions with which your Lordship hath been pleased to honour so mean a Person as myself. I might indeed, if I had conceived it better so to do, have kept it by me, till it had grown more complete, and so have made it a more suitable Present to a Person of your Lordship's Character in the Church and in the Court: But I considered that what I now humbly offer to your Lordship and the Public, must be my Measure in the following Tracts, and so may need the advice of others as well as my own thoughts to perfect it, and I may gain this advantage by the separate Edition of it, to know from some of my Friends, what in it is weak or imperfect: In which if your Lordship will further vouchsafe your admonition, it will make what remains the more fit to be presented to your Lordship, by Your Most Obliged, Most Obedient, and Most humble Servant, Gabriel Towerson. Welwynne, Nou. 2●. 1685. THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. Of the Signification of the Word SACRAMENT. THE Word Sacrament, in the primitive notion of it, the name of the Military Oath; as well that, which came to be afterwards imposed, as that which was at first voluntarily taken by the Soldiers. Which denomination it had both from the sacredness of an Oath in its own Nature, and from those Sacred Ceremonies, wherewith that, and other Oaths were attended. The Word Sacrament, in the Christian sense of it, translated from thence into the Church, and applied to those Institutions of it, which now go under that name. As is made appear from the footing the former signification had gotten in the World; From the Scriptures, and the Ancient Christians representing the Life and Institution of a Christian under the notion of a Military one; And, in fine; s●om the same Ancients making use of that Word in the Military sense. Evidence of this last from general applications of it, and an account given thereupon of the particular instances; which they gave of the likeness of the Christian Sacrament to the parely Military one. pag. 1. The CONTENTS of the SECOND PART. Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT. A Sacrament shown to be a Relative thing, more particularly such a Relative thing, as hath the relation of an outward, and visible sign of that, of which it is a Sacrament. That therefore assigned as the Genus of a Sacrament; and enquiry thereupon made after those essential attributes, which difference it from other outward and visible signs. Which is endeavoured to be evinced from the several things to which a Sacrament relates, the manner of its relation to each of them, and the foundation of that relation. The things, to which a Sacrament relates, shown in the general to be Sacred, or Divine, more particularly, divine Graces, and humane Duties, that New Covenant, which connects them together, and that body of men, which is confederated by it. To the first of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a sign, a means of conveyance, and a pledge; To the second in the nature of a simple sign, or declaration, and (by means of that Covenant, which it conciliates) as an Obligation to them; To the third in the nature of such a sign, as serves also to give being to, or renew it; And to the fourth, and last in the nature of a Discriminative sign, or badge, and as a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in it. The foundation of all these relations shown to be the Institution of Christ, as that again, not so much as delivered by him, as applied to those elements, in which they are subjected, by a declaration of the purport of the Institution, and by doing such other things to them, as either the general precepts of Christianity, or the more particular precepts of the institution oblige to the performance of. A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars, and the essential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence, and exemplified in several definitions of it. pag. 9 The CONTENTS of the THIRD PART. A farther Explication of the Nature of a SACRAMENT, with a resolution of several Questions belonging thereunto, or depending more immediately upon it. THE Nature of a Sacrament brought again under consideration, and enquiry accordingly made concerning that inward and Spiritual Grace, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation. This last more particularly insisted upon, and as it was before resolved to be the Institution of Christ, so a more ample account given thereupon of that Institution of his, and of those Commands, and Promises, whereof it doth consist. Those Commands again considered with reference to the sacramental Elements, before they put on that relation, or after they are invested with it. The former whereof are shown in the general to enjoin the setting them apart for that purpose, or Consecrating them, and enquiry thereupon made by whom they ought to be set apart, and whether their intention, or good disposition be requisite to give force unto it: The latter the Consecrators dispensing them as the Institutor thereof hath prescribed, and the people's receiving them from them, with the Manner of it. Upon occasion whereof Enquiry is made, concerning the necessity of Sacraments, and in what sort, or degree they ought to be accounted such. A like particular account given of the Promises of the Institution, which are shown in the general to assure Christ's making what is done both by the Consecrators, and Receivers to be available for those ends, for which they were enjoined; More particularly his converting that into a Sacrament, which is by the former set apart to be so (and which how it is done is, upon that account, enquired into) and, where the Receivers are rightly disposed, accompanying the dispensation of the Sacramental Elements with the Dispensation of the Divine Graces. An application of the whole to the business in hand, and Enquiry accordingly made, how the former Commands, and Promises contribute toward the Founding a Sacramental Relation, and how also to the efficacy of the elements, after that Relation is produced in them. pag. 31. The CONTENTS of the FOURTH PART. Of the Jewish SACRAMENTS, and the Number of the Christian. THE Doctrine of the Sacraments drawn down to particulars, and enquiry first made concerning the Jewish Sacraments, and then concerning the Christian one's. As to the former whereof is shown first, that there were indeed such Sacraments among them, and evidence made thereof, from their enjoying the same Saving Graces, which our Sacraments pretend to convey, from their being furnished alike with External Symbols to convey them, and those Symbols of God, and Christ's institution: Secondly, that those Sacraments of theirs were either the extraordinary ones they had in their passage from Egypt to Canaan, as their Baptism in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and the Eucharist of Manna, and the Water of the Rock, or the ordinary ones of Circumcision, and the Passover; Thirdly, That, though they were of the same general nature with the Christian, yet they differed from them, both as to the manner of their representing the Divine Graces, which was not so clear, and as to the measure of conveyance of them, which was not so full, as in the Christian Sacraments. Those Christian Sacraments, in the next place, brought under consideration, and evidence made of Baptism, and the Lords Supper being the only true, and proper ones, or of general necessity to Salvation. p. 43. ERRATA. In the Text PAge 35. l. 24. for under read on. p. 51. l. 11. r. As appears. p. 55. l. 7. for wherewith r. wherein. In the Margin. Pag. 2. l. 33. r. dimisit. p. 3. l. 7. precedes. p. 16. l. 7. li. 5. p. 50. l. 3. cap. 3. p. 54. l. 3. 2 Tim. 1.1.6. OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. PART I. Of the Signification of the Word SACRAMENT. The Contents. The Word Sacrament, in the primitive notion of it, the name of the Military Oath, as well that, which came to be afterwards imposed, as that which was at first voluntarily taken by the Soldiers. Which denomination it had both from the sacredness of an Oath in its own Nature, and from those Sacred Ceremonies, wherewith that, and other Oaths were attended. The Word Sacrament, in the Christian sense of it, translated from thence into the Church, and applied to those Institutions of it, which now go under that name. As is made appear from the footing the former signification had gotten in the World; From the Scriptures, and the Ancient Christians representing the Life and Institution of a Christian under the notion of a Military one; And, in fine, from the same Ancients making use of that Word in the Military sense. Evidence of this last from general applications of it, and an account given thereupon of the particular instances, which they gave of the likeness of the Christian Sacrament to the purely Military one. IF it shall please that God, Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to Salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. by whom I have been carried on thus far, to continue to me the same Health, and Leisure, and Assistances, which I have met with in composing the three foregoing parts of this Explication, I will endeavour to inform myself, and then others concerning the Sacraments of our Religion, more particularly concerning those two, which (in the opinion of our Church) are the only either proper (a) Art. of Rel. 25. , or generally necessary (b) Catech. ubi supra. ones. Those, as they are the Argument of the fourth and last Part of our Church's Carechism; so being accordingly to be the matter of this fourth and last Part of my Explication of it, I will begin, for that purpose, with the signification of the word Sacrament, and which, though it will not clear up to us the full Nature of the things intended by it, yet will serve to discover to us a considerable part thereof, and help toward the finding out of the other. Now the word Sacrament, in the Ancient intendment of it, signified an Oath, and particularly that Oath, which Soldiers took to be faithful to their Generals, and to do all those other things which the duty of their place, or the Discipline of War required of them: With this only difference in point of time (which is wont either to contract, or enlarge the signification of words) that as that Oath was at first voluntarily taken by the Soldiers, so the word Sacrament was some time set to denote such voluntary ones in contradistinction to those, which were afterwards imposed. We have an illustrious proof of all this in a passage of Livy * Hist. lib. 22. Milites tunc, quod nunquam antea factum erat, jurejurando à Tribunis militum adacti, jussu Consulum conventuros, neque injussu abituros. Nam ad eam diem nil praeter Sacramentum fuerat, & ubi ad decuriatum, aut centuriatum convenissent, suâ voluntate ipsi inter se equites decuriati, centuriati pedites conjurabant, sese fugae, atque formidinis ergô, non abituros, neque ex ordine recessuros, nisi teli sumendi, aut petendi, an't bostis feriendi, aut civis servandi caus●. Id ex voluntario inter ipsos foedere ad legitimam jurisjurandi adactionem translatum. , which therefore I shall here subjoin. Then first (even in the Consulship of L. Aemilius Paulus, and Terentius Varro) were the Soldiers obliged by their Tribunes under an Oath to meet together at the command of their Confuls, and not to departed without their leave. For till that time there had been nothing but a Sacrament, and when they were met together by Ten, or by Hundreds, the Horsemen, who met by Ten, and the Footmen, who met by Hundreds, did, of their own proper motion, take an Oath among themselves, that they would not departed out of fear, or cowardice, nor quit their ranks at any time, unless it were to take up their Weapon, to dart at, or strike the Enemy, or to save a Citizen. But that which proceeded at first from a voluntary Covenant among themselves, was by the Tribunes altered into a prescribed, and imposed Oath, and the Soldiers forced to take it from them. Where we have not only the word Sacrament set to denote a Soldiers Oath, but such an Oath, as was voluntarily taken by them, and had rather their own free consent, than the Command of their General to give being to it. But as we find by the same passage, that what was at first but voluntary, came afterwards to be imposed upon the Soldiers; so we find also that the word Sacrament came afterwards to signify those imposed Oaths, as well as the former voluntary ones. For thus it is plain, Cicero † De Officiis li. 1. M. popilius Imperator tenebat provinciam, in cujus exercitu Catonis filius tiro militabat. Quum autem Popillio videretur unam dimittere Legionem, Catonis quoque filium, qui in eadem legione militabat, demisit. Sed quum amore pugnandi in exercitu remansisset, Cato ad Popillium scripsit, ut si eum pateretur in exercitu remanere secundo eum obligaret Militiae Sacramento, quia, priore amisso, jure pugnart cum hostibus non poterat. used it in the account he gives of Cato's writing to popilius a General of the Romans, to list his Son anew, if he thought good to continue him in his Army; His words, as Tully recites them, being, that if popilius, who had before dismissed the Legion, wherein he served, thought good to suffer young Cato to abide in his Army, he should oblige, or bind him by a second military Sacrament, because the former being made void, he could not lawfully fight with the Enemy. Which passage plainly imports the military Sacrament to be of the Generals Imposing, yea so necessarily, that had not the General, in whom the right of making War was, given it to young Cato, he could not, in the opinion of his Father have struck a stroke against the Enemy. Thus the use of the word Sacrament stood in the days immediately preceding our Saviour; And as the thing intended by it, even the Military Oath, was continued in the succeeding Ages, as is manifest from the frequent mention there is in Suetonius (a) Suet. in Claud. c. 9 in Othone c. 8. & alibi passim. , and others of the Soldiers swearing to their Generals, so it continued to be represented under the title of a Sacrament, even to late posterity. As appears, among other things, from Horace's telling † — non ego perfidum Dixi Sacramentum, ibimus, ibimus Vtcunque proceeds. Carm. li. 2. Od. 17. his Maecenas, that he had not taken a perfidious Sacrament, because (as it there follows) he was resolved to follow him, where ever he led, which we know * Dionys. Halicarnass. li. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to have been a great part of a Soldier's Oath: From Juvenal's describing Soldiers † Praemia nunc alia, atque alia emolumenta notemus Sacramentorum— Sat. 16. themselves under the title of Sacramenta; As in fine from the Ancients describing Soldiers either departing, or being freed from their former service, by a departure, or freedom from their Sacrament. Of which beside other proofs (d) Ammianus Marcellinus li. 24. Refiduos duos Tribunos Sacramento solvit, ut desides, & ignavoes. Idem li. 26. Et Serenianus, olim Sacramento digressus, recinctus est. , we have a Law of Theodosius, and Honorius, and which as it is under the title de Veteranis, or such as, by reason of their being superannuated, were dismissed from their former service, so expresseth the same Veteranes under the title of those who have ceased * Cod. li. 12. tit. 47. l. 4. Nullus eorum qui Sacramentis inhaerere desierit, etc. to be entangled by their former Sacraments. Other instances I doubt not might be produced, if these were not enough, to show the word Sacrament to have had for its most usual sense that of a military Oath. But I shall only add, that though it were set to denote also a piece of money left by each of the Litigants (e) Varro de lingua Lat. in Court; Yet as that was in a thing less known, than the Oaths of Soldiers were, and so the less likely to have any influence upon the framing of that mode of Speech, which was afterwards so much in use among the Christians; so it had this in common with the Military Sacrament, that it was an Obligation upon the parties, that deposited it, to prosecute that suit which they had commenced. But because whatever the usual sense of the word Sacrament might anciently be, yet it is certain that it did not receive that sense from the literal notation of it, but rather from something of Sacredness, wherewith those Oaths were attended: And because the discovery of that Sacredness may help yet more to discover the true nature of those Sacraments of ours, to which that name is now applied; therefore inquire we in the next place what there was in them of Sacred to occasion that denomination of them. Now as Sacred is nothing else than what tends to the honour of God, whether in its own nature, or by institution; so there were two things of that quality in those Oaths, whereof we speak, and from whence therefore they may be supposed to have received that denomination. First their being in themselves an acknowledgement of God's glorious Attributes, and particularly of his Knowledge, Truth, Justice, and Power; He who appeals to God as a Witness, and a Judge (as every man, that sweareth doth) implying his believing him to be a competent witness, and so both Knowing, and True, and one too, who both can, and will assert the cause of truth in the punishment of the party swearing, if he swear any other, than what he intends, or means. And in this sense as it was that Cicero * De Offic. l. 3. Est. enim jusjurandum Affirmatio religiosa. Quod autem affirmatè, quasi Deo teste, promiseris, id tenendum est. entitled an Oath a Religious Affirmation, because an Affirmation under the testimony of God; so I no way doubt it was in a great measure, that Oaths came to have the name of Sacraments, and particularly all Military ones. But besides that Sacredness which is intrinsecal to all Oaths, and therefore also to those, whereof we are now discoursing; They had a further sacredness from those religious Rites, wherewith they were attended, and which under the veil of sensible things, and such as were sometime contemptible enough, were intended to insinuate more valuable, and spiritual ones. Of this nature among the Romans was their laying their hands † Falfus erit testis, vendet perjuria summâ Exiguâ, Cereris tangens aramque pedemque Juv. Sat. 14. upon the Altars of their Gods, or, which was yet more sacred than that, their taking a Stone * Festus. Lapidem silicem tenebant, juraturi per Jovem, haec verba dicentes; Sisciens fallo, tum me Diespiter, faluâ urbe, arceque, bonis ejiciat, uti ego hunc lapidem. into their hand, and then throwing it from them, withal praying, that if they falsified in the Oath they then took, Jupiter would throw them out of all, as they themselves did that Stone from them: By the former whereof they designed to express the reverence they themselves bore even to things dedicated to them, as well as a belief of their Gods taking care to preserve them from all pollution; By the latter the quick apprehension they had of the power of their Gods over them, and particularly as to the spoiling them of their fortunes. And though I am not able to say, what were the particular rites of the Military Oath, at least among the Ancient Romans; yet as there is reason enough to believe, that so signal an Oath was not without them, and which was upon the matter the foundation of all the Roman greatness, so there is this farther reason to believe it, that the Ancients (f) Vulgat. Lat. in Eph. 5.32. & alibi. Tertull. de Animâ c. 20. ubi recitat d. l. ad Ephesios. made use of the word Sacramentum to express the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which as we know to have had a peculiar reference to those Rites, and Ceremonies, which were in use in the service of the Gods, so must consequently imply the like sense of that word, which was made use of to express it, and the like ceremoniousness of those Military Oaths, upon which it was imposed. I may not forget to add, though applied by some (g) Is. Casaub. Exercit. 16. c. 43. to another sense, that Herodian * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herod. l. 8. brings in the Emperor Maximus representing the Military Oath as the Venerable mystery of the Roman Empire. For as that is a farther evidence, that that Oath was not without its Sacred Rites, because mysteries properly so called were no other, than such; so I know nothing to take off the force of it, but a presumption of the word's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admitting a lower sense, and accordingly denoting no more than an Arcanum, or Secret of the Roman State, and by which the Founders thereof cunningly raised it to that greatness, to which it afterwards arrived. But how ill that notion agrees with the intention of him, who so entitled the Military Oath, will need no other proof than his prompting the Soldiers in the words before to look upon the Gods, by whom they had sworn, as the Authors of their present peace. For what was this but to intimate, that it was the religious observation of their Oaths, which was the cause of their prosperity, and consequently, that if those Oaths were also the foundation, and prop of the Roman greatness, it was not so much by the politic imposition of them, as by the sacredness thereof, and by the religious observation of which the Gods were induced to bless them with that ample dominion, which they had attained? In this sense yet more agreeably to the received opinion † Cicero Orat. de Harusp. Resp.— Etenim quis est tam vecors, qui aut, cum suspexerit in coelum, deos esse non sentiat, etc. Aut, cum deos esse intellexerit, non intelligat eorum numine hoc totum Imperium esse natum, & auctum, & retentum? Quàm volûmus licet P. C. ipsi nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos', nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique boc ipso ejus gentis, ac terrae domestico, nativoque sensu Italos ipsos, ac Latino's, sed pietate, ac religione, etc. omnes gentes, nationesque superavimus. of the Romans, because attributing their success, not so much to their own Wit, and Valour as to their religious veneration of the Gods, and those Gods as having a favourable regard to them because of it. If they looked upon the Military Sacrament, and the Soldiers religious observation of it as contributing more especially to the advancing of their greatness, it is the less to be wondered at, because it was more immediately by the Arms of their Soldiers, that the Romans became masters of the World. The result of the premises is this; The word Sacrament, in its Original intendment, had the signification of a Military Oath, it had the signification of such a Military Oath, as was attended with Sacred Rites, and such as led men by sensible resemblances to things of a higher nature. But whether or no, and how far it is to be looked upon as of the like signification, in the Christian intendment of it, doth not as yet appear, but will be worth our labour to inquire. Now that the word Sacrament, in the Christian intendment of it, is to be looked upon as of like signification to what it had before acquired, will appear if we consider first, what footing the former signification had gotten in the minds of men, before there was any appearance of the latter. For as considering the footing the former signification had gotten, we cannot but think that it would be apt to suggest itself, as oft as the word Sacrament was made use of; so neither therefore but that it would form a like conceit of the Christian Sacraments, and consequently, if that were such, an erroneous one. Which it being not to be thought, that they would give occasion to, who first applied the word to the Christian Sacraments; especially when they might have had other words to express their conception of them: It is but reasonable to think that they made use of it upon occasion of some likeness between the one and the other Sacraments, and consequently that they intended it a like signification with the other. I deny not indeed (which is the answer Mr. Calvin (h) Instit. li. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. makes to this Argument in another instance) I deny not, I say, but that religion may, and doth very often strangely alter words from their pristin signification; I deny not farther (which is the instance he assigns) that the word fides, in the Christian use of it, is both a very apt, and pregnant proof of such a change. But as it doth not appear to me, that Religion did ever (unless in a long tract of time) so alter the known signification of words, as not to make them bear some analogy to the former signification of them; so the Word, in which that Learned man instanceth, is not so transformed by Christianity, but that we may as yet see upon it the impress of its old signification, and be thereby therefore induced to believe, that they, who first used it in a Christian sense, took their measures from the former one. For, as the aforesaid persons namesake (even John Calvin the Lawyer) hath observed (i) Lex. Juridic. in Verbo fides. , the word fides, among the Latins, signified belief * Virgil. Aeneid. li. 4. v. 12. Credo equidem, nec vana fides, genus esse deorum. Liv. Hist. li. 1. Haec ferme, Romulo regnante, domi, militiaeque gesta: quorum nil absonum fidei divinae originis, divinitatisque post mortem creditae fuit, i. e. quâ creditus est natus fuisse ex Marte. Idem Liv. paulo post. Mirum quantum illi viro nuncianti haec fides fuerit. , as well as veracity, or fidelity, and so was not at all removed from one great sense of it in Christianity: And though it was more usually set to denote the other, yet if we may judge aught by the words fido, and confido, which are at least of the same lineage with it, the word fides came to signify veracity, and fidelity, not so much from any other reason, as because those virtues are the just object of men's trust, which is another, and no less usual signification of it in Christianity. Which notion I am the more confirmed in, because though Tully do in one place † De Offic. li. 1. Ex quo (quanquam hoc videbitur fortasse cuipiam durius) tamen audeamus imitari Stoicos, qui studiose inquirunt unde verba sint ducta; credamusque quia fiat quod dictum est, appellatam fidem. represent it as having its name from fit quod dicitur, yet as he doth even there intimate it to be a harsh etymology, and rather a piece of Stoical confidence, than a well grounded conjecture: So he himself elsewhere † Fides autem ut habeatur, duabus rebus effici potest, si existimabimur adepti conjunctam cum justitiâ prudentiam. Name & iis fidem habemus, quos plus intelligere, quam nos arbitramur. Justis autem, & fidis hominibus, id est viris bonis, ita fides habetur, ut nulla sit in his fraudis, injuriaeque suspicio. De Offic. 2. useth the word Fides for that trust we repose in another upon the account of his wisdom, and justice. For aught therefore that doth as yet appear, there is not any reason to believe, but that Christianity had a respect, in its words, to the Ancient signification of them; And consequently but that it had so in the use of the word Sacrament, and intended it a like signification with that, which it before had, and was now very prevalent in the world. But beside the footing that signification of it had gotten, and by which therefore we may reasonably imagine, that the first Christians guided themselves in the use of the same word in Christianity, it is as certain that the same persons, led thereto by the language of the Scripture, did both conceive of, and represent the life, and institution of a Christian under the notion of a Military one. For if so, it is yet more reasonable to think, that they made use of their Sacrament to express some of their own Institutions by. Now that the first Christians, led thereto by the language of the Scripture, did both conceive of, and represent the Christian state as a Military one, will soon appear if we look either into those Scriptures, or the Ancient Writers. Witness for the former, St. Paul's speaking in one (k) 1 Cor. 9.26. place of his fight as one, that did not beat the air, and in another (l) 2 Tim. 4.7. of his having fought a good fight; his calling upon Timothy in a third (m) 1 Tim. 6.12. to fight the good fight of Faith, as, in fine, upon the generality of Christians (n) Eph. 6.11, etc. to prepare themselves for that fight, by putting on the whole Armour of God, which therefore he doth there reckon up, and prompts them to buckle on. For these, and other expressions of the like nature, show plainly enough, that even the Penmen of the New Testament had that opinion of a Christian State, and that accordingly they represented it under the notion of a military one. The like evidence there is of their opinion of it, who took upon them to hand down that doctrine, which they received from the other: Witness Tertullian's representing the Christians in general as the Militia of God (o) De orat. c. 14. , and affirming the Stations, that were in use among them, to have had their original from the Military ones; His representing that Soldier, who refused to put on his Crown, as more the Soldier of God (p) De coronâ c. 1. , than of the Emperor; His afterwards describing the same person (q) Ibid. as one clad all in red with the hope of his own blood, shod with the preparation of the Gospel, girt with the sharper Word of God, armed Cap-a-pe out of the Apostle, and in a short time to be crowned with the Crown of Martyrdom, and to receive the donative of Christ in prison. For what are these but pregnant proofs of the likeness they conceived between a Christian, and a Military state, and consequently that, in agreement thereto, they spoke of their own Sacraments in the same Military strain? Though if neither that will suffice, we have their own express applications of the word to warrant us, and accordingly either making the Sacraments a badge of their military state, or arguing from men's taking upon them the Sacraments of Christ's warfare, the unlawfulness of obliging themselves by a humane one. For, agreeably to the former of these, we find the forequoted Tertullian affirming * Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi, jam tunc cum in Sacramenti verba respondimus. Ad Martyr. c. 3. , that we were called even then to the Militia of God, when we answered to the words of the Sacrament, meaning that of Baptism; As Arnobius yet more plainly † Adu. Gentes li. 2. Quod ab dominis se servi cruciatibus affici, quibus statuerunt, malunt, solvi conjuges Matrimoniis, exhaeredari à parentibus liberos, quam fidem numpere Christianam, & salutaris militiae Sacramenta deponere. , where he represents one, who denies the Faith, as one who deposits the Sacraments of the saving Militia of God. For what was this but to say, that, in respect to that warfare, which Christianity commands us to take up, they called the principal institutions of it by the name of Sacraments, and consequently that they made use of the word in a sense analogous to that, in which it had been formerly taken? On the other side, when the forementioned Tertullian * De Coronâ. c. 11. Etenim, ut ipsam causam coronae militaris aggrediar, puto prius conquirendum, an in totum Christianis militia conveniat. Quale est alioquin de accidentibus retractare, cum à praecedentibus culpa sit? Credimusne humanum Sacramentum divino superinduci licere, & in alium Dominum respondere post Christum? , where he goes about to prove the unlawfulness of a Christians taking upon him a Military life, demands whether any man can think it lawful to superinduce a humane, or Military Sacrament upon a divine one, and to answer to another Master after Christ; What other can he be thought to mean, than that the divine, and humane Sacraments were of one, and the same general nature, that the divine Sacraments had therefore the name of the humane ones imposed upon them, and so the word Sacrament of like signification in them both. The only thing to be farther enquired into is how far this likeness of signification may be supposed to prevail in the divine or Christian intendment of it. And here in the first place it is easy to observe, that the word Sacrament, in the Christian intendment of it, did equally imply the thing, to which it was attributed to lay an Obligation upon him, that took it, to intent those things, to which it related. For besides that otherwise it could have had little affinity with the Military Sacrament, the principal design whereof was to lay an Obligation upon those, that took it; The first time we find any mention made of a Christian Sacrament, we find mention also made † Plin. Epist. li. 10. ep. 97. of the Christians obliging themselves by it, to the doing of those things, that are there remembered. It is no less easy to see, secondly, by the account we before gave of the Symbolising of our Sacraments with the Military one, and particularly by a passage before remembered out of Tertullian, that the same word, in the Christian sense of it, did equally imply the things, to which it was attributed, to lay an Obligation upon those, that took them, to intent that warfare, to which Christianity called them. I add thirdly, as no less evident from the premises, the same words implying the things, to which it was attributed, to oblige the party, that took them, to be faithful to their General Christ, and who was the Captain, as well as the Author of our Spiritual warfare. As is evident, among other things, from Tertullian's making the divine Sacrament to be accompanied with a profession of our obedience unto Christ our Master, and accordingly arguing from thence the unlawfulness of taking upon us the Military one, and so answering to another Master after him. I say Fourthly, that as the Military Sacrament did, among other things, oblige the party, that took it, to the avoiding of several things, which were inconsistent with the orderly management of an Army, and particularly to the avoiding of theft, and other such like injustices, as appears by the form of it in Gellius (r) Noct. Attic. li. 16. c. 4. , so the word Sacrament, in the Christian intendment of it, did equally imply that, to which it was attributed, to oblige the persons, that took it, not to commit Theft, or Robberies * Plin. Ep. li. 10. ep. 97. Adfirmabant antem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, etc. seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati negarent. , or Adulteries, not to falsify their trusts, or, when they were called upon to restore, to deny any thing that was committed to their custody. I observe lastly, that as the Military Sacrament was attended with religious rites, yea received both its denomination, and a great deal of its force from them; so the word Sacrament, in the Christian intendment of it, was meant to denote the like Religious Rites, and the Obligation of those, that took the Sacrament, by them. Which is so true, that in Tertullian first, and afterwards in other Christian Writers, the word Sacrament came especially to be applied to the ritual part thereof, yea to such things, as had little of a Sacrament properly so called, beside the ceremonies thereof. Of what use these Observations may be, will then more clearly appear, when I proceed (as I mean to do in the following Discourse) from the signification of the word Sacrament to the unfolding of the nature of the things intended by it. The only use I shall make of them at present, is, that if we will consider the nature of a Sacrament in its full latitude, we ought to consider it as well with respect to ourselves, and those Obligations it lays upon us, as with relation to God, and Christ, and those Graces, which it was intended, on their part, to signify, or convey to the worthy Receiver of it. PART II. Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT. The Contents. A Sacrament shown to be a Relative thing, more particularly such a Relative thing, as hath the relation of an outward, and visible sign of that, of which it is a Sacrament. That therefore assigned as the Genus of a Sacrament, and enquiry thereupon made after those essential attributes, which difference it from other outward and visible signs. Which is endeavoured to be evinced from the several things to which a Sacrament relates, the manner of its relation to each of them, and the foundation of that relation. The things, to which a Sacrament relates, shown in the general to be Sacred, or Divine, more particularly, divine Graces, and humane Duties, that New Covenant, which connects them together, and that body of men, which is confederated by it. To the first of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a sign, a means of conveyance, and a pledge; To the second in the nature of a simple sign, or declaration, and (by means of that Covenant, which it conciliates) as an Obligation to them; To the third in the nature of such a sign, as serves also to give being to, or renew it; And to the fourth, and last in the nature of a Discriminative sign, or badge, and as a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in it. The foundation of all these relations shown to be the Institution of Christ, as that again, not so much as delivered by him, as applied to those elements, in which they are subjected, by a declaration of the purport of the Institution, and by doing such other things to them, as either the general precepts of Christianity, or the more particular precepts of the institution oblige to the performance of. A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars, and the essential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence, and exemplified in several definitions of it. I Have hitherto entreated of the signification of the word Sacrament, Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? Answer. I mean an outward, and visible sign of an inward, and spiritual Grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself as a means, whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. I have shown what they meant by it, who first made use of it, and what they also intended, who first applied it to those Christian Institutions, which are now commonly known by that name. But because no names are so expressive of the nature of things, as to bring men to a clear, and perfect understanding of them: And because, though some names should be thought to be so expressive, yet we cannot well conceive so of this, by any thing that hath hitherto appeared concerning the signification of it; Therefore to satisfy ourselves yet more fully concerning the nature of the thing intended by it, we must take another course, and particularly by finding out under what head of things it ought to be placed, and what are the essential attributes thereof: Whereof the former among the Learned hath the name of its Genus, the latter of the specifical difference thereof. It is the observation of the Judicious Hooker (a) Eccl. Pol. li. 5. sect. 57 , where he entreats of the nature, and necessity of the Sacraments, that as no one part of religion hath been more diversely interpreted, or disputed of, so that diversity hath especially arisen from the mixedness of their natures, and from that variety of properties, which flow from it. Which therefore whilst they, who handled this Argument, have but imperfectly considered, they have not only taken up different notions of a Sacrament, but thought themselves obliged to combat those, who have assigned it other properties, than what they themselves had taken notice of. I find no reason to question the truth of that Observation of his, either as to the variety of men's conceits concerning a Sacrament, or that mixed nature of a Sacrament, to which he entitles the variety of the other. But neither the one, nor the other will hinder us from discovering, under what head of things to place it, which is that we are first of all to intent. For whether we consider a Sacrament, as to Christ, or to ourselves, as a means in his hands to profit us, or in ours to declare our piety toward him; Whether again we consider it, in the hands of Christ, as a means whereby he signifies, and seals his own graces, or as a means whereby he conveys, as well as either signifies, or seals them; Yet still it will be found to be in the number of relative things, or such, whose very being consists in the respect they bear unto another: Because, whatever it may be in itself, yet it is not considered as such, but with respect to that Grace of Christ, which it so signifies, or seals, or exhibits, or with respect to that piety, which it is intended on our part to declare. But so the Scriptures themselves will oblige us to consider a Sacrament, as is evident from what they teach concerning Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which are, if not the only, yet the most undoubted Sacraments of our Religion. For, agreeably thereto, they prompt us to consider the water of Baptism (b) 1 Pet. 3.21. , not as putting away the filth of the Flesh (which is the proper consideration of water, as such) but as washing us from (c) Act. 22.16. our sins, and purifying those consciences (d) 1 Pet. 3.21. , wherein they are; As, on the other fide, the Bread, and Wine of the Lord's Supper, not as intended to satisfy (e) 1 Cor. 11.34. our hunger, but as (f) Matt. 26.26, etc. the body, and blood of Christ, or rather the communication (g) 1 Cor. 10.16. of it. For well may we look upon those things as relative ones, which we are not only forbidden to consider in their natural properties, but prompted to attribute to them the properties of others, yea to consider in the same notion with them. I say secondly, that as a Sacrament is a relative thing, and that therefore to be reputed as the remote Genus of it, so it is of the number of those relative ones, which are signs, or representations of what they so relate unto. As is evident in part from what we were before taught concerning the water of Baptism, and will be yet more, when I come to show the Analogy there is between the elements of each Sacrament, and that, to which they do relate. For if the water of Baptism, (though not to be considered as to any proper purification, yet) is to be considered under the notion of a Laver (h) Tit. 3 5. , and accordingly as washing (i) Act. 22.16. those who are sprinkled with it, from their sins, than ought it to be looked upon under the notion of a sign of that, to which it doth so relate. Because whatever force the Baptismal water may have toward the doing away our sins, yet it cannot be supposed, because sin is no corporal spot, to wash us from them; And that term of washing therefore attributed to it upon the account of the Analogy there is between the property of water considered in its own nature, and that of the same water as consecrated into a Sacrament. Which will consequently make the water of Baptism, (and, by proportion thereto, the elements of other Sacraments) not only to have a relation to something of another nature, but also to be a sign, or representation of it. I say nothing at present of a Sacrament's being a means of conveying something to us, as well as a sign of it, and a pledge to assure us of it, as well as either; Partly, because that, which hath the nature of a sign, may also be made use of as a means of conveyance, and a pledge; And partly because the first intention of a Sacrament is to signify that, of which it is so, and that therefore by which it comes to do so, more commodiously assigned as the Genus of it. And I shall only add, that forasmuch as a sign is nothing else, than that, which offers itself to the senses, and that, of which it is a sign, to the understanding; Forasmuch therefore as it must be subjected in some sensible being, and (if it be also a formal sign, or that which represents the thing, of which it is so) in such a being, as is apparent to the eyes; Forasmuch lastly as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper (which are, at least, the most considerable Sacraments of our Religion) are subjected in such sensible, yea visible beings; It cannot but be deemed reasonable, for the more clear declaring of the nature of a Sacrament, to represent it (as our Catechism doth) as an outward, and visible one. That therefore being to be looked upon as the Genus of a Sacrament, or that general head of things, under which we are to conceive of it; Inquire we in the next place after the essential attributes thereof, and by which it will not only be more perfectly known what it is, but also be more clearly discriminated from those things, which are of the same general nature. Now as the essence of a relative thing consists in the relation it bears to another, and that relative thing therefore, whereof we speak, in the relation which it bears to that, of which it is a sign; So the essential attributes of a Sacrament cannot therefore be better learned, than by the knowledge of those things, to which it doth relate, the manner of its relation to them, and the foundation of it. I. In the general I observe, that that, to which a Sacrament relates, must be something Sacred, or Divine, as both the term of Sacrament, and the known nature of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper persuade. Which is the rather to be remarked, to distinguish it from such signs, as relate to civil matters, and particularly from the purely military Sacrament. For though even that had a relation to God, as whose name it did invoke, and to whose truth, and justice it did appeal; yet it referred to God rather as a witness of what it affirmed, than as to the object of it. For the object of a Military Sacrament was no other than the being faithful to those Generals, under which the Soldiers, that took that Sacrament, were. I observe more particularly, that as that may be termed Sacred, or Divine, which hath God either for its principle, or object, and accordingly flows from him to us, or passeth from as to him; so a Sacrament relates both to the one, and the other, and aught to be looked upon as such. That a Sacrament relates to that, which flows from God to us, is a thing neither denied, nor forgotten by any, and is evident from what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Witness, for the former, their representing Baptism as the laver (k) Tit. 3.5. of Regeneration, which is a thing we must have from God (l) Joh. 3.5. , and as a thing, by which we must obtain forgiveness of sins (m) Act. 2.38. , which is as undoubtedly (n) Expl. of the Lords Pr. forgive us, etc. another. For the latter, the same Scriptures requiring us to look upon the elements thereof, as that body of Christ, which was (o) Luk. 22.19. given for us, and that blood which was shed for many (p) Matt. 26.28. , for the forgiveness of sins. For as these, and the former benefits are such as manifestly come from God, so they are alike manifestly represented as the consequents of the former Sacraments, and a Sacrament therefore, as such, to be looked upon as having a relation to that, which flows from God to us. The only difficulty, in my opinion, is to show a Sacrament to relate equally to that, which passeth from us to God, and imports our duty, and service. But besides that the Ancients apprehended no such difficulty in it, because giving it the title of a Sacrament, in respect of that Obligation * See the prec. Disc. , which it lays upon the Receivers of it; The Scriptures have said enough concerning Baptism, and the Lords Supper, to confirm us in the belief of this relation of them. Only because I would not too much anticipate my Discourse concerning those Sacraments, and, beside that, may have another occasion to speak more largely to this Argument, I will content myself at present with what St. Peter hath observed of Baptism (q) 1 Pet. 3.21. , and which I have elsewhere (r) Explic. of the Prel. Quest. and Answers, etc. given a more particular account of. For if, as that Apostle insinuates, and hath accordingly been more largely confirmed, the stipulation or answer of a good conscience toward God be a considerable part of Baptism; If it be so considerable a part of it, as to give it much of that savingness which it hath; Then must that Sacrament be thought (because the stipulation of a good Conscience is of that nature) to relate to something, that must come from us, as well as to those things, which flow from God to us. It is true indeed that our Church, where it sets itself to define a Sacrament, takes no notice of this object of it; Whether it were through a simple inadvertency, and from which our Church doth no where pretend itself to be free, or (which I rather think) that it might give so much the more particular an account of that other, and more considerable object of it, even that inward, and Spiritual Grace, which it was intended to signify, and exhibit, and assure. For that our Church did not wholly forget this second object of a Sacrament (even that duty, and service of ours, which it doth equally signify, and prompt us to declare) is evident from its before minding the Catechumen of his Baptismal vow (s) Prelim. Quest. and Answ. of the Cat. , and from the declaration it elsewhere (t) Office of Publ. Bapt. makes, that they who are to be baptised must also for their parts promise the renouncing of the Devil, and his works, and both Faith and Piety toward God: That, as it shows her to have looked upon Baptism as a federals' rite, or ceremony, so that she equally believed it to relate to our duty, and service, as well as to those divine benefits, we receive from the Author of it. Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth, and the acknowledged Doctrine of our Church, that a Sacrament relates as well to what is to pass from us to God, as to what is to come from God to us, and that accordingly it may be so far forth defined, such an outward, and visible sign, whereby we make a declaration of our piety toward God, as Mr. Calvin (u) Instit. li. 4. c. 14. §. 1. hath very well observed. I may not forget to add, for the farther clearing of this head, that as a Sacrament relates first, and chief to that, which passeth from God to us; so we are to conceive of that, to which it so relates, under the notion of a Grace given unto us, yea of an inward, and spiritual one. That we ought to conceive of it under the notion of a grace given unto us, is evident from those Texts, which I but now made use of to show, that a Sacrament relates to that which passeth from God to us. For instancing in such things, as have the nature of benefits, and, so far forth therefore, are to be looked upon as Graces, or Favours, instancing moreover in such benefits, as are manifestly the issues of the Divine Goodness, yea which the Scripture expressly affirms to be given to us by him (for so it doth as to that (w) Luk. 22.19. Body of Christ, which is the foundation of them all) they must consequently oblige us to conceive of that, to which a Sacrament relates, as a Grace given unto us. But neither will there be less evidence from thence, if those Texts be well considered, that that Grace, to which a Sacrament relates, is an inward and Spiritual one. For as our Church means no other by an inward and Spiritual Grace, than that which conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man, or Spirit, (as is evident from its making the Body and Blood of Christ the inward, and Spiritual Grace of the Lords Supper, and which it cannot be in any other sense, than that it hath such an effect upon us) so the Texts before alleged attribute such Graces to the Sacraments, as are, in that sense at least, inward and Spiritual ones: Witness their attributing to them the Graces of regeneration, and forgiveness, which are as it were the formal causes of our welfare, and the grace of Christ's Body, and Blood, which is the meritorious cause thereof, and under God, and by his acceptation, in the place of an Efficient also. I observe farther, that as a Sacrament relates to such things, as have the nature of divine Graces, or humane duties; so those graces, and duties being parts of the New Covenant, and receiving all their force from it, a Sacrament must consequently relate to that New Covenant, to which they do belong, and from which they receive all their force. Of which yet if there remain any doubt, it will not be difficult to clear it from what the Scripture assures us concerning Baptism, and the Lords Supper; St. Peter (x) 1 Pet. 3.21. representing the former under the notion of a Stipulation, or Contract, as our Saviour the Cup of the other (y) Luk. 22.20. Matt. 26.28. as the New Covenant in his Blood for the remission of those sins, for which it was shed. For that that is in truth the meaning of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not (as we usually render it) the New Testament in it, is not only evident from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being always so used by the Greek Translatours of the Old Testament, and whom the Writers of the New Testament generally follow, but from the opposition, which the Scriptures of both Testaments (z) Jer. 3, 31. etc. Heb. 8.8, etc. make between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even where * Heb. 9. 15-18. there is the greatest appearance of its being to be translated a Testament. For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being certainly a Covenant, and accordingly expressed by the Hebrews, by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is never used in any other sense, it is but reasonable to believe, that that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is opposed to it, is of the same nature: Because as it hath the same word to express it, and is therefore in reason to be looked upon as so far the same; so it would otherwise be different from the Old as to its general nature, as well as particular quality, which the sole mention of its newness forbids us to believe; Oppositions (like exceptions from a general rule) supposing an identity there, where no opposition is taken notice of. And indeed, though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may seem in one place to require a different rendering, even there † Heb. 9.17. , where mention is made of its being of no force till he, by whom it was made, was dead; Yet as even that did not hinder our Translatours from rendering it a Covenant both in the foregoing * Heb. 8.9, etc. , and following (a) Heb. 10.29. Chapters, so that place will not only admit of the notion of a Covenant, but be found (all things considered) to require it of us. For with what sense first of all can our Saviour be said to be the Mediator of the New (b) Heb. 9.15. Testament, upon the sense of which expression the following periods do depend. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that, by means of death for the redemption of the Transgressions, that were under the first Testament, they, which are called, might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. For shall we say that Christ may be styled the Mediator of the New Testament, because interposing himself between two persons, that concur to the making of it? But as a Testament is the Act of one, and not of more, and therefore admitteth not of any such mediation; so the New Testament is supposed to be the Act of Christ, and he therefore rather the Maker, than the Mediator of it. Shall we then say, that Christ is the Mediator of the New Testament, because interposing between the maker of that Testament, and those who are the Legatees in it? But by this means God the Father shall become the Testator, which, if death be required to make him such, he can by no means be. Shall we say lastly, that Christ may be looked upon as a Mediator of the New Testament, because by means of that Testament of his taking up the difference between God, and Man? But that is rather to make him a Mediator by a Testament, than of one, which Christ is here affirmed to be. So difficult will it be found to make any tolerable sense of those words, if we understand them (as our Translators prompt us) of the Mediator of a Testament: Whereas, if we understand them of the Mediator of a Covenant, the sense will be clear, and plain; Because as there are two parties required to the making of a Covenant, and such who do, for the most part, need a Mediator to bring them to it; so God, and Man are manifestly the Parties of the New Covenant, and brought to enter into it by the mediation of Christ. If it be also said, as it is, that the Mediator of the New Covenant brings the Parties concerned to it by his death, it is no more than will be found to be agreeable to the Eastern mode of making Covenants, and particularly to the manner of making that Covenant, which was of old between God, and the Israelites. For as that Covenant (and indeed all the kindness that passed between them) was brought about by the mediation of Sacrifices (c) Exo. 24.5. , and the blood of those Sacrifices therefore styled the blood of the Covenant (d) Exo. 24.8. , so Christ; by the blood (e) Col. 1.19. of his Cross brought about this New Covenant between God, and us, and so, as the Author to the Hebrews speaks, became the Mediator of it. If it be said yet farther, that Christ became the Mediator of the New Covenant, that they, who were called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance; That also will be found to be as agreeable to the notion of a Covenant, as it is to that of a Testament: Because, as an inheritance may pass by other means beside that of a Testament, so the Children of Israel came to the inheritance of the Land of Canaan by a Covenant (f) Gen. 15.7, 8, 18. between God, and their Progenitor Abraham, yea by such a Covenant, as was conciliated by the mediation (g) Gen. 15.9. of a Sacrifice. That therefore being the sense of those words of the Apostle, and so, as I think, evinced to be by no contemptible proofs, it will be but reasonable to give a like sense to the following ones (h) Heb. 9, 16, 17, 18. , because but a proof of the former, if it may be made appear, that they are capable of it. Which that they are, will appear from the Translation I shall now subjoin, and which, if it be duly considered, will be found to be no forced one. For * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. where a Covenant is, there must of necessity [even by that necessity which arose from the Ancient mode of making Covenants] be the death of that Mediator, that made it. For a Covenant becomes firm after those Mediators, that made it, are dead, for it is never of force, whilst he, who so makes it, lives. Whereupon neither the first Covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of Calves, and of Goats with water, and scarlet Wool, and Hyssop, and sprinkled both the Book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the Covenant (i) Exo. 24.8. , which God hath enjoined unto you. That I render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the death of the Mediator, that makes the Covenant, is because the Apostle speaks in the verse before of him, who makes the Covenant, not as a Party, but as a Mediator, and what is here said therefore of the Maker of a Covenant to be understood of such a Maker of it. That I render those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a Covenant becomes firm, after those Mediators, who made it, are dead, is be cause those words are intended as a confirmation of the former ones, and so in reason to be understood of the death of the same Mediators. In fine, that I render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it is never of force, whilst he, who so makes it, lives, is because those words, as the former, are a continuation, and confirmation of the foregoing Argument, and so still to be understood with reference to the same Mediator. All which things I have laid together, not so much out of a desire of being thought the Author of a new Interpretation (from which no man is more averse, where there is not some kind of necessity for it) but to clear up an acknowledged, and important truth, and which the Text, I have so long insisted upon, hath helped, more than any thing, to obscure. For as there is nothing more certain from the Scripture, nor more attested to by our own Translators, than that the dispensation of the Gospel ought to be looked upon under the notion of a Covenant; As there is nothing, in like manner, of more importance to us to know, and consider, because it will prompt us to the doing of our part in the Covenant, if we mean that God should do his; so, setting aside this Text of the Hebrews, there is not one, where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned, which will not as commodiously, or more be interpreted of a Covenant, than it can be thought to be of a Testament. Only, if some men swayed by their former prejudices, or by the Latins giving the Codex of the Old, and New Law the title of the Old, and New Testament † Tertull. de jejun. c. 11. Secundum utriusque Testamenti paraturam. (though they also give them the more general title of Instrumenta * Idem Apol. c. 19 Primam Instrumentis istis auctoritatem summa Antiquitas vindicat. Ib. c. 21. Sed quoniam edidimus antiquissimis Judaeorum Instrumentis sectam istam esse suffultam. Adu. Marc. li. 1. c. 13. Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime epistola [ad Romanos nempe] Martion fecerit auferendo quae voluit, de nostri Instrumenti integritate parebit. .) But if some men, I say, swayed by the one, or the other, think fit to continue to the former Text, and some others the notion of a Testament; As I shall not contend with them about it, for the reverence I myself bear to the judgement of the Ancients, so I shall ask, as is but reason, their acknowledging in like manner that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do equally import a new Covenant, and particularly, where mention is made of the Cup of the Lord's Supper being the blood of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it. Partly, because that old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which it was opposed, had the nature of a Covenant, and could not, unless very improperly, be styled a Testament; And partly, because it was not only sealed with blood, but that blood also styled the blood of (k) Exo. 24.8. the Covenant. For that is enough to persuade (especially, when we otherwise know, that the dispensation of the Gospel is undoubtedly a Covenant) that our Saviour, when he represented the Cup of his Last Supper as the blood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meant the blood of the New Covenant, and consequently that that Sacrament, and the other have a relation to it. I will conclude what I have to say concerning those things, to which a Sacrament relates, when I have taken notice of its relating to that body of men, with whom this New Covenant is made, as well as to the Covenant itself. For that it doth so, we have the former instances of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper to assure us, or rather what we learn from the Scriptures concerning them: St. Paul giving us to understand, that it is into that body, that we are baptised (l) 1 Cor. 12.13. , as, in like manner, that though we be many, yet we become one bread, and that one body (m) 1 Cor. 10.17. by partaking of the bread of the other Sacrament. II. It appearing from the premises, what those things are, to which a Sacrament relates, and the way therefore so far plained toward the discovery of the properties thereof, inquire we in the next place into the nature of that relation, which I have affirmed it to bear unto the other. For my more advantageous discovery whereof I will resume each of those things, to which it doth relate, and show what kind of relation it beareth to them. Now as the first of those things is an inward and Spiritual Grace, that is to say, such a one as conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man, or spirit; so we shall find a Sacrament, as to it, to have the nature of a sign, or visible representation of it. A thing so acknowledged by all, by whom the Sacraments are acknowledged in any measure, that it will hardly be worth our while to insist upon it. It may suffice here to say, that as a sign is so much of the Essence of a Sacrament, that it is the very Genus of it, and must therefore be supposed to be such, as to all those things to which it relates; so we shall find the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper to represent even to our eyes those inward and spiritual graces, which are attributed to them. For thus the water of Baptism doth by that cleansing quality, which is natural to it, and which, as such, is a representation of that spiritual Grace, which purgeth (n) Heb. 9.14. the Conscience from dead works, which are, as it were, the filth (o) 2 Cor. 7.1. , and pollution of it. And thus too the Elements of the Lord's Supper do, as by other ways, and means, so by that which is done unto them; The breaking of the one serving to set forth the breaking of Christ's body upon the Cross, as the pouring out of the other doth the shedding of his blood at those passages, which were made for it by the Nails, and Spear, that pierced him. But beside that a Sacrament hath the relation of a sign to that inward, and spiritual Grace, which belongeth to it, it hath also the relation of such a sign, as is moreover an apt instrument to convey that grace, which is signified by it. I instance, for the proof hereof, in the Scriptures attributing such effects to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as are the immediate issues of those graces, which are signified by them. For if it attribute such effects to them, it must consequently intimate them to be the conveyors of those Graces, from whence they result, as which otherwise they could not be in a condition to produce. Now that the Scriptures attribute such effects to the Sacraments before remembered, as are the immediate issues of those graces, which are signified by them, will appear, as to Baptism, by their attributing to it a power of washing away (p) Acts 22.16. the sins of men. For whether we understand thereby the washing away their guilt, or washing away the pollution of them, we shall still find it to be the immediate issue of an inward, and spiritual Grace; It being the blood of Jesus Christ (as the Scriptures (q) Explic. of the Creed in the word Dead. every where declare) that washeth us from sin in the former sense, and the sanctifying Graces of God's spirit (r) Expl. of the Creed, in the words, I believe in the Holy Ghost. , which purify us from it in the other. If therefore the Sacrament of Baptism may be said so to wash, and purify, it must be as it is an Instrument, whereby it conveys to us those graces, to which that purification doth belong. But so the same Scriptures do yet more expressly declare, as to that other Sacrament of our Religion, even the Supper of the Lord; St. Paul telling us (s) 1 Cor. 10.16. of the bread of it, that it is the Communion, or Communication of Christ's body, as of the Cup that goes along with it, that it is the Communion of his blood. For what other can we well understand by that expression of his, than that they are an instrument, whereby God conveys, and we accordingly come to partake of that body, and blood of Christ, which is signified by them? This only would be added, for the clearer Explication of it, that when were present the Sacrament as an instrument, whereby God conveys to us that grace, which is signified by it, we do not mean thereby that it is a natural one, or such as contains that grace in it, as a Vessel doth liquor, or a cause its effect, but rather (as the Judicious Hooks (t) Eccl. Pol. li. 5. sect. 57 speaks) as a moral instrument thereof; That is to say, as such a one, to the use whereof God hath made a promise of his grace, and which accordingly he will accompany with the exhibition of the other. I deny not indeed but there are, who are otherwise persuaded, and who accordingly either attribute a greater efficacy to a Sacrament, or deny even that, which we have attributed to it. Of the former sort are they, who not contented to affirm that a Sacrament is an instrument, whereby God conveys grace to the worthy receiver of it, do moreover represent it under the notion of a Physical one, yea of such a Physical one, as contains grace in it, as a cause doth its effect, and accordingly contributes by its own internal force to the producing of it, as well as to the possessing us thereof. Even as a Chezil (for so they (u) Hist. of Counc. of Trent li. 2. explain themselves) contributes to the formation of a Statue, or as a Hatchet to that Bed, (w) Aquin. sum. Part. 3. Qu. 62. Art. 1. which is shaped by it. But as it appears by Aquinas (x) Ibid. , who was it may be the first framer of it, that that conceit had its original from the fear of making a Sacrament to be nothing but a bare sign of grace, contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers; so nothing more therefore can be necessary toward the overthrowing of it, than to show the groundlesness of that fear, which the doctrine before delivered will sufficiently evince. For if it be but a moral instrument, whereby God conveys his own graces, it is certainly more than a sign, yea it may, in some sense, be said to be a cause, as well as the instrument thereof. For as they, who attribute to a Sacrament the efficacy of a cause, make it to be no farther a cause of grace, than that it produceth in the Soul a disposition (y) Hist. of Counc. of Trent li. 2. to receive it (by which means it is not so much the cause of grace, as of our receiving it) so such a kind of causality will be found to belong to it, though we make a Sacrament to be no other than a means whereby we attain it: Because it is so far forth by the force of a Sacrament, that grace comes to be in us, that without that we cannot ordinarily hope to attain it, nor fear to fail of it, where the other is duly received. The only difference as to this particular between the one, and the other opinion, is, that whereas the former makes a Sacrament to dispose us to the reception of Grace, as well as to convey it; The latter supposeth that disposition already produced, and consequently leaves no place for the former operation. In that respect yet more agreeably to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, because not only prerequiring certain qualifications (z) Act. 8.36, 37. 1 Cor. 11.20. of those, that are to receive it, but assuring them, that if they come so qualified, they shall not fail * Mark. 16.16. Act. 2.38. of that grace, which the Sacrament was intended to convey; These and the like assertions, as they suppose the Soul to be before disposed, so leaving no place for any other causality in a Sacrament, than its serving to us as a means of conveying that grace, which we are so disposed to receive. And indeed as it doth not appear by any thing that Schoolman hath alleged, that the Ancients ever attributed any other causality to a Sacrament (for though St. Augustine, as he is quoted by him, affirms the power of God to work by a Sacrament, yet he doth not affirm it to do so as by a Physical instrument) As it appears farther, even from that Schoolman, that St. Bernard was of opinion, that Grace is no otherwise conveyed by a Sacrament, than a Canonry in his time was by a Book, or a Bishopric by Ring; so there is no defect in the Instances of that Father, supposing a Book or a Ring to have been as much a means of conveying of those preferments, as we affirm a Sacrament to be of the divine Grace. For in that case the delivery of a Ring, or a Book, would not only have been a sign, whereby the delivery of those preferments was declared, as Aquinas argues in the place before, but a ceremony by which they were actually made over, and without which they could not have been Canonically invested in them. I conclude therefore, that if a Sacrament be an instrument of Grace, it is a moral one, and such as contributes no farther toward our partaking of it, than as it is a means to which God hath annexed the promise of it, and which accordingly he will not fail (where the receiver is rightly disposed) to accompany with the exhibition of the other. But because there are some, who are so far from owning a Sacrament to be a physical instrument of grace, that they will not so much as allow it to be a moral one; And because such a conceit may tend as much to the depretiating of a Sacrament, as the other seems to tend to the overvaluing of it; Therefore consider we in the next place the pretensions of those, that entertain it, and the strength, or rather weakness of those pretensions. There are who have thought (and it were to be wished that many more did not, who do not perhaps speak it out) that a Sacrament, as to this particular is a bare sign of the Divine Grace, and accordingly intended by God, only to awaken men's minds to conceive it, and their hearts to the embracing of it. What induced them so to opine, I am not able to say, unless it were, on the one hand an universal acknowledgement of its being a sign; and a fear, on the other, lest if they made it any thing more, they should approach too near to those excesses, into which the former had cast themselves. But as it is a very ill way of choosing opinions in Religion by the distance, which they bear to the excesses of other men; so the fondness of this cannot better be made appear, than by those glorious effects, which are attributed to a Sacrament, and which, in strictness of speech, are the proper, and immediate issues of that which is signified by it. For that which is only a sign being no way capable of producing such effects, nor therefore with any reason of having such effects attributed to it, we are in reason, where the thing will bear it, to conceive it under such a notion, as will make those effects yet more proper to it. Which we shall then, and then only do, when we make it such a sign, whereby (as was before said) God conveys to us that Grace, by which those effects are produced. Only as there are, who think all this may be salved, by making a Sacrament a seal, as well as a sign of Grace, or rather a seal of that New Covenant, by which we are entitled to it; so it may not therefore be amiss to examine that pretention also, and inquire into the validity thereof. What relation a Sacrament bears to the New Covenant, and how far the notion of a seal is compatible to it, shall be examined in another place, and I will not therefore at present engage myself in that dispute. But I shall not stick to affirm, that how legitimate soever that notion of a Sacrament may be, yet it is no adequate one; As will appear in part from the insufficiency of those grounds upon which it is built, and in part also from the nature of that Covenant, whereof they speak, and of which they represent it as a seal. For the evidencing the former whereof we are to know, that as the ground upon which it is built is a passage of St. Paul (a) Rom. 4.11. , where he represents the Circumcision of Abraham as a seal of that righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; so that Text, if it be well examined, will not be found to be a sufficient proof of that, for which it is alleged. For not to require those that urge that Text (which yet they seldom do) to make it appear that the Christian Sacraments are of the same nature with Circumcision, and consequently that what is said concerning Circumcision ought to be alike understood of the other; Neither is what is there affirmed concerning Circumcision affirmed concerning Circumcision in the general, but only of the Circumcision of Abraham, neither is it affirmed concerning his, that it was a seal of that Covenant, to which it did more immediately relate, but of that righteousness, which he had before he entered into it. Things, which if duly considered, will render that testimony perfectly ineffectual, as to what it is designed to establish. For as if Abraham's case were different from that of other Circumcised persons, what may have been to him a seal of the righteousness of Faith, may not yet have been such to them; so that Abraham's case was so far different from that of the generality of Circumcised persons, may appear from his having before had that righteousness of Faith, which the other, because Infants, could not be supposed to have had, or, at least, not till they had it by the sign of Circumcision. And indeed, whosoever shall consider what the Apostles design in that place is, even to show that the righteousness of Faith is not annexed to Circumcision, because Abraham had it before he was Circumcised, must consequently believe that when he afterwards makes that Circumcision of his a seal of that righteousness in him, his meaning was only to say, that it was a testimony from God to him, and others, that he allowed of the former righteousness, as which if he had not done, he would not thus have entered with him into that other Covenant, of which Circumcision was a sign. By which way of arguing, what is here said concerning Circumcisions being a seal, must not be understood of it, as it was in itself, and so in a notion common to all that received it, but with respect to that righteousness of Abraham's, which it followed after in time, and which it could not but be looked upon as some Confirmation from God of, because a sign of that New Covenant which God then entered into with him. As for that New Covenant, or any righteousness of Faith accrueing to Abraham by it; This St. Paul is so far from affirming his Circumcision to have been a seal of, that he may seem rather to intimate, that it had no such relation to it: Because affirming it to have been a seal of that righteousness, which he had before it, and which therefore he derived not from the Covenant of Circumcision, or was under any necessity of having it sealed to him by the sign of it. I conclude therefore, that how true soever it may be, that a Christian Sacrament is a seal of the New Covenant; Yet the Text before mentioned conferrs not at all to the proving of it, and much less toward the showing, that it hath no other relation than that of a seal either to that Covenant, or the graces of it. But beside that the single notion of a seal, how plausible soever it may appear, hath no countenance from that Text, which is usually produced for it; It will be found to have as little from the nature of that Covenant, of which it is represented as a seal. For that Covenant importing as well the conferring of present benefits, as a promise of future ones, it must consequently if it be transacted by any visible ceremony, make use of that ceremony to convey those present benefits, as well as to ascertain the exhibition of future ones; The former whereof a seal being no way proper for, or at least not in the usual notion of it, we are in reason to give the respective Sacraments of that Covenant another, and a more effectual notion, even that of a means, whereby Christ, who is the Author of them, conveys his graces to mankind. One only relation there is besides, which a Sacrament bears to the Divine Grace, even that of a pledge to assure us thereof (as our Catechism expresseth it) or (as the 25th Article of our Church hath it) a certain sure witness of it. A relation, which stands sufficiently confirmed by the imperceptibleness of the Divine Grace in itself, and the aptness of a Sacrament to manifest its approaches to us. For as the imperceptibleness of the Divine Grace in itself makes it but necessary; for the comfort of mankind, to have its approaches manifested to them by some other ways, and means; so a Sacrament as before described, is an apt means to notify it to us, yea assure us of the approaches of it. Partly, because a means to which God hath annexed the exhibition of his grace, and partly because such a means, as is apparent to men's senses, and which therefore whilst they are so assured of, they can as little doubt of that Grace, which by the Decree of God is annexed to it. Of the relation a Sacrament bears to the Divine Grace I have spoken hitherto, and shown what kind, or kinds of relation it beareth to it; I come now, according to the method before laid down, to entreat of its relation to ourselves, and of that piety, and service, which we own to the giver of it. For the understanding whereof we are to know, that as a Sacrament is undoubtedly a sign of that, of which it is such, so if it hath a relation to our piety (as I have before shown it to have, and as the very title of a Sacrament, in the Original notion of it, obligeth us to conceive) it must be looked upon as such a sign, whereby we may make a declaration of that piety of ours, as was before observed out of Mr. Calvin. But so we do in Baptism, as by other ways, and means, so especially by our receipt of it, as a mark of our present acknowledgement of those Divine Persons, into whose names we are baptised, and a resolution for ever after to keep a good Conscience to them: In the Eucharist, by the grateful commemoration we there make of the death of Christ, by a declaration of our intimate union with those, who partake with us thereof, and a resolvedness to maintain it by all the offices of love, and kindness. Which things I do now only mention, because I must insist upon them more largely elsewhere, and whither it will be more proper to defer the particular explication of them. Only as a Sacrament appears to have received its Name from the obligation it lays upon us to the performance of religious duties; so I cannot forbear to add, that as it is a declaration of that piety we own to God, so it is also an obligation to the continuance of it: Because (as I shall afterwards show) it serves to conciliate, or renew that New Covenant, by which we are obliged to them. From that second thing, to which a Sacrament relates, pass we to the third, even that New Covenant, in which both the former are founded, and to which I shall not stick to affirm: First, that a Sacrament hath the relation of a sign, because at once representing the concernments of each party, what God obligeth himself to confer, and what we make profession of performing. But neither shall I stick to affirm, that it hath moreover the relation of such a sign, whereby the parties concerned declare their consent to it, and so make that, which was before but in a disposition, to become a Covenant, or, at most, but in a weak, and tottering condition, to become actually, and firmly such. Which if any man shall give the title of a Seal unto, I for my part shall not be at all displeased, because seals were sometime (b) Neh. 9.38. made use of, for the declaration of such a consent. But I have myself avoided to make use of the expression, because there may be some Ambiguity in it; And because they, who have lately employed it, seem to look upon it as a thing, which rather adds strength to men's faith concerning it, than to the Covenant itself, and much less doth either give being to it, or renew it. Whereas Baptism, in my opinion, is that, which first strikes the Covenant between God, and man, and the Eucharist, that which continues, or renews it after it hath been shattered by our miscarriages; As is evident; as to the former, by its being the means of (c) Matt. 28.19. making Disciples, and the laver of our (d) Tit. 3.5. new birth, and, as to the latter, by our Saviour's entitling it the New Covenant (e) Luk. 22.20. in his blood, and remitting men to it for that remission of (f) Matt. 26.28. sin, which had been made over to them by the other. This I take to be the true relation of a Sacrament to the New Covenant, and so I shall continue to do, till I come to be better enlightened in it. For which cause I shall only add, that as the consent, we now speak of, is in a Sacrament declared by both parties; so he, who administers it, is in that case in the place of God, and declares his consent to the Covenant; Because doing what he doth by virtue of that Commission (g) Matt. 28.19. , which empowered the Apostles, and their Successors to Baptise all, that should offer themselves unto it, and made them the dispensers of that, and the other (h) 1 Cor. 4.1. mysteries of our Religion. The fourth and last thing, to which I affirmed a Sacrament to relate, is the body of Christ, even that mystical one, which is made up by those, that believe in him, and adore him. Now to this Body it relates, in the general, as a discriminative sign of the profession of it, and by which the several members thereof may both know, and be known by one another, and accordingly join in such acts, as God exacts of their body. For because God, who made men sociable Creatures, was willing they should worship him in society also, as for other reasons, so to make him an apt return (i) Expl. of the fourth Com. Part 1. of praise for that blessing, which they received by God's disposing them to a sociable life; And because (as St. Augustine (k) Aug. contr. Faust. Manichae. li. 19 c. 11. speaks) men cannot be associated into any Religious body, nor indeed into any other, but by a community of visible signs, and Sacraments (of which, beside the thus confederating of men of all Religions, we have a proof in men's general inability to judge of the profession of their Associates by any other way, than by such outward notes, or characters) therefore, I say, God, and Christ, when they meant to erect a Christian body, gave it such signs, and notes also; Partly, to give beginning to it, and the several members of it, and partly to continue them in those joint Offices, and services, which they required the performance of. The former whereof is done by the Sacrament of Baptism, the latter by the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And how much these two Sacraments confer toward the keeping up the profession of Christianity, will appear, on the one hand, from those miserable Christians, who live under the Turks, and, on the other, from those much more miserable persons the Quakers, who live among ourselves. For as the poor Greeks, by reason of the ignorance of their Priests, and the unintelligibleness, as well as the huddling up of their Liturgies, have little other means beside those Sacraments, and other such symbolical rites to keep up the profession of Christianity among them (which yet, it may be, they are more tenacious of, than those who are better instructed among us, would be under the like circumstances) so those much more miserable persons the Quakers, having thrown off the visible signs of Christianity, have upon the matter come to throw off Christianity itself, and whatsoever it obligeth us either to believe, or do in order to our obtaining the salvation promised by it. If they have made a shift to rear, or keep up so much as their own Profession, it was owing in the beginning to that Quaking, which gave denomination to them, and, since that, to their affected looks, and habits, and behaviour, which are, if I may so speak, the visible signs, or Sacraments thereof. And, if once they fall off from these, as we see they begin to do, we shall soon find their profession to fail together with it, and to be buried in the same grave. But to return to that more sacred body, of which I but now entreated, and to which as I affirmed a Sacrament to have the relation of a general badge, or discriminative sign of the profession of it, so I must also to be a means of bringing particular men into it, or continuing them in the communion of it: It being into this body (as was before observed out of St. Paul) that all Christians are baptised, and so therefore first entered by that Sacrament; And in that body too that they continue by the receipt of the other Sacrament, because it is, by their partaking of the bread of it, that the same St. Paul affirms, that they become that one Bread, and Body. For being members of that body by the former Sacrament, they cannot otherwise be said to make it up by the partaking of the latter, than as that may serve to keep them within the communion of it. III. An account being thus given of the things, to which a Sacrament relates, together with the nature of that relation it beareth to them; It remains that I inquire what the foundation of that relation is, which is the only thing farther to be known toward the discovery of the properties of a Sacrament. For the understanding whereof we are to know, that as the relation, whereof we speak, is of different sorts, to wit the relation of a sign, of a means of conveyance, and of a pledge (for such I have shown a Sacrament to be, as to that grace of God, to which it principally refers) so it may have different foundations, agreeably to that diversity, which I have said to be in the nature of the relation. For, as a sign, it is founded in part in the resemblance, which it bears to the things signified by it (for so all signs of representation are) and in part also in the Institution of him, whose the Sacrament is: Because as the former resemblance is not so apparent, as by its own force to have suggested to us the things signified by it, so it could not without his institution, whose the Sacrament is, have laid any obligation upon us to consider it in that relation of it. I say not the same concerning that relation of a Sacrament, whereby it becomes a means of conveying to us the Divine grace, or a pledge to assure us thereof: Because each of these relations is founded simply, and only in the Institution of him, whose the Sacrament is. For a Sacrament having no natural aptitude either to convey the Divine Grace to us, or to assure us, that if we receive that Sacrament, we shall receive the other also; It must consequently (if it become such a means, or pledge) become so by the Institution of him, by whom it is suggested to us. But because I have said nothing hitherto, whose that Institution is, by virtue of which a Sacrament puts on the forementioned relations; And because it is alike certain, that whosoever's that Institution is, yet it produceth not those effects by its own immediate force, but by the intervention of some Act, or Acts of those, whom he hath entrusted with the dispensation of them; Therefore, to satisfy ourselves yet farther concerning the foundation of those relations, inquire we in the next place whose that Institution is, upon which they are founded, and how that Institution ought to be applied to enable it to produce them. As concerning the Person, whosethat Institution is, little needs to be said, considering what the Scripture hath said concerning Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which are the only clear Sacraments of our Religion. For Baptism, and the Lord's Supper being apparently Christ's own Institutions, and so declared to be by those Scriptures, which give an account of them; Whatsoever hath the relation of a Sacrament, must have him for its Author, or (as our Church hath expressed it) be ordained by him. Besides, a Sacrament, as such, being both a conveyer, and a pledge of Grace, the dispensation whereof is entrusted unto Christ (l) Eph. 4, 7.— 15, 16. , either that, which pretends to be a Sacrament, must have him for its Author, or it must not be looked upon under that relation. And thus far we find even those of Rome to go, because not only representing all the Sacraments of the New Law as instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, but pronouncing an Anathema also (m) Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. de Sacr. upon those, that shall deny it. It being therefore not at all to be doubted, whose that Institution is, upon which the relations of a Sacrament are founded; inquire we in the next place how that institution ought to be applied, to enable it to produce those relations. Which must be first by a declaration of the purport thereof, and secondly by doing those things to the elements, which either the general tenor of the Christian Religion, or the particular precepts of the Institution prompt us to the performance of. That I represent the first of these as one of those things, which makes the Institution of Christ to become effectual toward the producing of the former relations, or (as it is more commonly expressed) toward the consecration of those elements, which are to put them on, is partly upon the account of the necessity of such a declaration, and partly upon the account of the Commands of him, by whom the Sacraments were instituted. For a Sacrament being not so clear a representation of that, of which it is so, as by its own force to suggest it to the minds of those, for whom it was intended; Being much less so clear a representation of it, as to invite those to reflect upon it, who are either slow of understanding, or otherwise indisposed to contemplate it, such as are the generality of men; It cannot but be thought necessary, even upon that account, to call in the assistance of such words, as may declare to those, that are concerned, for what ends, and purposes it was appointed. Otherwise men may either look upon the whole as a purely civil action, or (if the Person that administers it, and other such like circumstances prompt them to conceive of it, as a religious one) yet fancy to themselves such ends, and purposes, as are either different from, or contrary to the true intendment of it. Agreeable hereto is the command of the Author of our respective Sacraments, as is evident from what he enjoins concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper; His own express injunction concerning the former being, that his Disciples should baptise men in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which could not be done without a rehearsal of those names at least; As concerning the latter, that they should do what they had seen, and heard him do, as oft as that Sacrament was administered, and therefore also make a verbal declaration concerning it. For though that be not so clear from those words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me, I mean as they lie in St. Luke (n) Luk. 22.19. ; yet will it be found to be so, if we take in the Comment of St. Paul (o) 1 Cor. 11, 20. etc. , where he gives a like account of the Institution of it. For representing what was then said, and done as a prescription for future (p) 1 Cor. 23.25, 26. Sacraments, as well as for that of Christ's own immediate consecration; Representing it moreover as such upon the account of what Christ then enjoined concerning their doing the same things in remembrance of him, he must consequently (because he brings in our Saviour making a verbal declaration concerning the purport of that Sacrament, and subjoins the former injunction to it) be thought to represent it as our Saviour's mind, that they, who consecrated that Sacrament, should use the same declarations concerning it. But beside a declaration of the purport of the Institution, and which the Church hath generally kept so close to, as to make that declaration by the very words (q) Constit. Apost. li. 8. c. 12. of the Institution, it is no doubt alike necessary, if not more toward the producing of the former relations, to do those things to the Elements, which either the general tenor of Christianity, or the particular precepts of the Institution prompt us to the performance of. For if Prayer be so generally necessary toward the procuring of any favour, that it becomes such as to the obtaining of common, and ordinary ones; If it be so far necessary toward them, as to become such even to the blessing of our ordinary repast (r) 1. Tim. 4.4.5. , though that be not without a natural aptitude to nourish, and sustain us; How much more may we think it to be necessary, as to the making of those elements, which are in no disposition to it, to become the conveyors of the Divine Grace to those, who are to partake of them. But so the perpetual practice of the Church will oblige us to believe, and act, as to the one, and other Sacrament, of our Religion. For though there be not any particular injunction concerning consecrating the water of Baptism, and I suppose because the necessity thereof was sufficiently known by what the Scripture hath said concerning the general necessity thereof; Yet as we find Ananias admonishing St. Paul (s) Act. 22.16. to wash away his sins by Baptism calling upon the name of the Lord, and which, no doubt, because he Baptised him, the same Ananias went before him in; As we find farther by Justin Martyr (t) Apolog. 2. , that they, who were to be baptised, were admonished to fast, and pray, the Brethren praying, and fasting for, and with them (for these are sufficient proofs, that some sort of Prayers did always precede it) so we find by those, who have given a more particular account of the Offices of the Church, that the Priest did pray particularly (u) Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 43. Dionys. Areop. Eccl. Hier. c. 2. , that God would look down from Heaven, and sanctify that water, wherein they were to be Baptised by him. The case is yet more plain as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as shall be made appear, when I come to entreat purposely concerning it. And therefore I shall only add, that as the Institution of our respective Sacraments cannot obtain its effect, without doing those things to the Elements thereof, which the general tenor of Christianity obligeth us to perform, so much less without the doing of those things, which the particular precepts of the Institution oblige to the practice of. For the force of a Sacrament depending more immediately upon the Institution of him, whose the Sacrament is, it must consequently, as to the application of that Institution, depend more upon the doing of those things, which the particular precepts of the Institution oblige to the practice of, than upon those, which the more general, and therefore remoter precepts of Christianity oblige unto. The consequence whereof, as to the Eucharist, will be, among other things, a necessity of giving God thanks for those gracious boons, which that Sacrament was intended both to convey, and assure. The result of the premises is this; A Sacrament, as such, is a relative thing, it is so in an especial manner as to the Divine Grace, as which it signifies, and conveys, and assures. But as those relations thereof are founded, rather in the institution of the Author of it, than in the virtue of those elements, in which they are subjected; so in that again, not so much as delivered by our Saviour, as applied to the elements by a declaration of the purport of it, and by such other Acts as the general tenor of Christianity, or the particular precepts of the Institution oblige those, who are the dispensers of a Sacrament, to do to the elements thereof. I do not at all found the relations of a Sacrament in such Act, or Acts, as are required of those, that partake of it; Yea though without such Act, or Acts, they cannot partake of the Graces of it: Partly, because a Sacrament being an institution of Christ, it must rather depend upon his appointment, and the facts of those, who act in his behalf, than upon the disposition of such as are to partake of it; And partly, because a Sacrament, though not conveying, or assuring the Divine Grace to any, but the worthy Receivers of it, yet is as really and truly a Sacrament to those, who are otherwise disposed, as it is to the most worthy ones. As is evident among other things from St. Paul's affirming the unworthy receiver of the Eucharist to be guilty of the Body (w) 1 Cor. 11.27. , and Blood of Christ, and again to eat, and drink Damnation to himself, for not discerning (x) 1 Cor. 11.29. the Lord's Body. For how come they to be guilty of the Body, and Blood of Christ by the mere reception of the elements, if those elements be not even to them a Sacrament of his Body, and Blood? Or how faulty for not discerning in them the Lord's Body, and Blood, if those elements, which they receive, have not the relation of a Sacrament to them? Neither will it avail to say, that such persons may become guilty of Christ's Body, and Blood, because receiving not as they ought, those elements, which are the signs of them. For as it will follow from thence, that those elements, which they receive, are so far, at least, a Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood, I mean as that is a sign of them; so there is reason enough to believe from the way the Apostle takes to prove the forementioned charge, that those elements were as really a Sacrament to them in all other respects, as they were in the notion of a sign: Because he found'st that charge of his upon Christ's making those elements the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood (y) 1 Cor. 11.27. , and which therefore he must suppose them to be as much to them, as they are to any person whatsoever. That which I conceive hath occasioned men to be otherwise opinionated, was their conceiving of a Sacrament, not as a means fitted by Christ to convey, or assure the Divine Grace, and which accordingly, where it is duly received, actually doth so; but as a thing, which is not only in a disposition to it, but, where it is really a Sacrament, infallibly doth so to all, that partake of it. Which conceit, it may be, they were the more easily betrayed into by the Scriptures representing it rather as a thing, which actually sanctifies, and saves, than as a thing, which is only fitted for it. But as there might be ground enough for such expressions, as those, whether upon the account of the persons, whom it is so said to sanctify, and save, or upon the account of there being enough in a Sacrament to do it, where the parties, that partake of it, are duly qualified for it; so the Scripture hath sometimes so qualified its own assertions by making the due disposition of the party receiving it to be necessary to procure the other, that we cannot but look upon a Sacrament, rather as a thing fitted to produce such effects, than as actually, and infallibly producing them. And indeed, as there is therefore but reason to conceive so of a Sacrament, even as a means fitted by God, and Christ to produce those effects, which are attributed to it; so, by thus stating it, a way is opened to distinguish between the Efficacy of a Sacrament, and of the Receiver's faith, and accordingly to assign each its proper interest in the procuring of those Graces, which are attributed to it. For by this means we shall make a Sacrament, with that blessing of God, which attends it, to be the sole conferrer, and assurer of those Graces, which is but agreeable to it as an instrument in the hand of God; And the faith of the party receiving only the receiver, and applier of the other, which is as agreeable to that hand of man. For as, if a Sacrament be a means fitted by God for the forementioned purposes, the conferring, and assuring of those Graces will belong to it, and that blessing of God, which doth accompany it; so nothing therefore will remain to the faith of the party receiving, but to receive, and apply what the other doth so confer, and assure. I say, secondly, that as by this means a due distinction will be made between the efficacy of a Sacrament, and that of the receiver's faith; so a way will be opened in like manner (without detracting, in the least, from the efficacy of a Sacrament) to return an answer to what is advanced, on the one hand, for the opus operatum of all Sacraments, and, on the other, for making the elements of the Eucharist to be that very Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was intended to convey. For whereas it is pretended (z) Vid. Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. Part. 2. in Can. 7, 8. de Sacram. , in the behalf of the former, and accordingly alleged as a proof of it, that the efficacy of a Sacrament depends upon the institution of God, and not upon the dignity of him, that administers it, or the faith of the receiver; I answer, that that is indeed true, and agreeable enough to our stating the nature of a Sacrament, but of no force at all to show that opus operatum, whereof they speak. For as, if a Sacrament be a means fitted by Christ for the conferring of his Graces, the conferring of those Graces will belong wholly to it, and that blessing of God, which goes along with it; so if it be a means rather fitted for the conferring of them, than that, which actually, and infallibly doth, any otherwise than as it is received, and applied, as Christianity admonisheth, there will be a like necessity of the opus operantis, even of that faith, and repentance, which are required in order to the reception of them. And it may not unfitly be illustrated by the natural quality of those elements, which are by Christ made use of for the Sacrament of his own Body, and Blood. For as of what force soever those elements may be either to sustain, or refresh us, yet they cannot be expected to do either, unless they be received, and well digested; so how well fitted soever by the Institution of God the same elements may be to confer to higher purposes, yet there is as little reason to expect they should, unless they be applied by us, as he, who so instituted them, hath admonished. In like manner, whereas it is pretended * Esth. Com. in locum. from unworthy receivers of the Eucharist being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, that therefore those elements, which they do so receive, are really that Body, and Blood, and accordingly are actually partook of; That also is taken away by what we have before said concerning the Eucharists being a means fitted by Christ for the conveying of them: Because, if it be only such, there will be place for that guilt, yea though that Body, and Blood of Christ be not in it, nor received by those, who are partakers of the other; In as much as he offers a sufficient affront to them, who receives those elements unworthily, which were by God, and Christ intended, and fitted for the conveying of them. I may not omit to add, if it were only for that hint, which the former observation affords us, that we shall, by thus stating the nature of a Sacrament, imprint also in the minds of men a just apprehension of that guilt, which ariseth from an unworthy reception of it For as, if it be fitted by Christ to convey, or assure the Divine Grace, it must make those, that partake unworthily thereof, guilty of an equal affront to that Grace, which it is so fitted to convey, or assure; so if it be not so fitted, the crime will still be the less, by how much the less relation it hath to that Grace, which is pretended to be violated by the unworthy reception of it. In fine, by stating the nature of a Sacrament, as is before described, we shall make our account thereof agree so much the more exactly with that, which our own Catechism presents us withal; That, though it represent a Sacrament as a means of Grace, and a pledge of it, yet representing it not as actually, and infallibly such, but only as ordained by God to be so, and which accordingly, in the event, may prove such, or not, as it shall be found to be received, and applied. For the applying of all which to the business, that is now before us, even the making up of that Definition, which we have been hitherto making way to, I cannot but admonish, that a Sacrament referring to so many several things, and referring to them also with so many different relations, it will be hard, or rather impossible to furnish out any one definition of it, which shall with any exactness answer to its several properties. For considering a Sacrament with respect to the Divine Grace, and to which of all others it seems more especially to relate; so it may, and aught to be defined to be such an outward, and visible sign thereof, as is moreover ordained, and fitted by Christ to be a means of conveying it to us, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Considering it again, with relation to our own piety, and to which no doubt it was also intended to administer; so it will be such an outward and visible sign thereof, as is by Christ ordained, and fitted for us to make a declaration of it by, and an obligation to the continuance of it. Considering it Thirdly, with relation to that New Covenant, by which the Divine Grace, and our piety are tied together; so it will be such an outward, and visible sign as is ordained, and fitted by the same Christ, for God, and Man to declare their consent unto it by, and either first enter into that Covenant by it, or to renew it. Considering it lastly, with respect to those, who are joined together in the same Covenant, and so connected to Christ, and to one another; so it will be such an outward, and visible sign, as is by Christ ordained, and fitted for a general badge of their common profession, and a means of bringing particular men into their Society, or continuing them in the Communion of it. Only if any man desire a more simple definition of it, and which though it will not answer to all the properties thereof, yet will at least answer the more especial ones; so it may not inconveniently be defined to be such an outward, and visible sign, as is ordained and fitted by Christ to signify, and convey, and assure the Divine Grace to us, and, on our part, to declare the duty we own to God, and Christ, and oblige ourselves to the continual practice of it. PART III. A farther Explication of the Nature of a Sacrament, with a resolution of several Questions belonging thereunto, or depending more immediately upon it. The Contents. The Nature of a Saorament brought again under consideration, and enquiry accordingly made concerning that inward and Spiritual Grace, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation. This last more particularly insisted upon; and as it was before resolved to be the Institution of Christ, so a more ample account given thereupon of that Institution of his, and of those Commands, and Promises, whereof it doth consist. Those Commands again considered with reference to the sacramental Elements, before they put on that relation, or after they are invested with it. The former whereof are shown in the general to enjoin the setting them apart for that purpose, or Consecrating them, and enquiry thereupon made by whom they ought to be set apart, and whether their intention, or good disposition be requisite to give force unto it: The latter the Consecrators dispensing them as the Institutor thereof hath prescribed, and the people's receiving them from them, with the Manner of it. Upon occasion whereof Enquiry is made, concerning the necessity of Sacraments, and in what sort, or degree they ought to be accounted such. A like particular account given of the Promises of the Institution, which are shown in the general to assure Christ's making what is done both by the Consecrators, and Receivers to be available for those ends, for which they were enjoined; More particularly his converting that into a Sacrament, which is by the former set apart to be so (and which how it is done is, upon that account, enquired into) and, where the receivers are rightly disposed, acompanying the dispensation of the Sacramental Elements with the Dispensation of the Divine Graces. An application of the whole to the business in hand, and Enquiry accordingly made, how the former Commands, and Promises contribute toward the Founding a Sacramental Relation, and how also to the efficacy of the elements, after that Relation is produced in them. NOW though from what hath been said it be competently evident, Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Answer. Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward Spiritual Grace. what the Nature of a Sacrament is, and we thereby at liberty to go on to other considerations concerning it; Yet because there are some things in it, which may require a farther Explication, and others, which depend more immediately upon the due understanding of it, I purpose to go over the definition of it again, or, at least, over so much of it, as may require a farther Explication, or Help toward the clearing of the other. In the general I observe, that as it appears by our own Catechism, and the definition before given, that a Sacrament consists of an outward, and visible Sign, and an inward Spiritual Grace; so that more general notion of it stands confirmed to us by the suffrage of Irenaeus (a) Adu. haer. l. 4. c. 34. , though by him delivered under another form: He representing the Eucharist, even after the Invocation of God hath passed upon it, as consisting of two things, to wit, an Earthly, and a Heavenly one. And I shall only add, that they seem not to be over mindful of it, who make the Sign, or Earthly part of the Eucharist to vanish, as soon as the thing signified by it, or the Heavenly one approacheth: A Sign in the common understanding of it, together with that relation whereby it becomes so, and those accidents, wherein it is immediately founded, connoting the Subject of them both, and therefore not with reason to be predicated of that Sacrament, which hath no such Subject to uphold them. But because there is otherwise no great Controversy concerning the general notion of a Sacrament, nor yet so far, concerning that particular one I before gave, as to its being an outward, and visible Sign of that, of which it is a Sacrament; Therefore pass we both from the one, and the other, to that Heavenly thing, to which it relates, the manner of its relation to it, and the foundation of that relation. Now as the first of these hath been before defined to be an inward, and Spiritual Grace, as that again declared to be such a Grace, or favour of God, as conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward Man, or Spirit; so I must now add, for the farther Explication of it, that it is moreover such a Grace, as conduceth immediately to the welfare of it: Whether as purifying the soul from the filth of sin, and introducing the contrary affections, or as delivering it from that guilt, which the filth of sin had brought upon it. A notion, which stands confirmed to us, not only by the Doctrine of our own Catechism, but by the account the Scripture gives us both of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the confesons of the Romanists themselves. Witness for the first, its declaring the inward, and Spiritual Grace of Baptism to be a death unto sin, and a new birth unto Righteousness, as the inward grace of the Eucharist to be the Body, and Blood of Christ, and by which (as it afterward follows) our Souls are strengthened, and refreshed, as our bodies are by the outward elements thereof; Witness, for the second, its representing Baptism as a thing, which sanctifies (b) Eph. 5.26. , and saves (c) 1 Pet. 3.21. , and both that (d) Act. 2.38. , and the Eucharist (e) Matt. 26.28. as things, which tend to the remission of Sins; Witness, for the third, their great Schoolman Aquinas (f) Sum. 3. Part. quaest. 60. Art. 2. representing a Sacrament as a sign of such a Sacred thing, as procures the sanctification of us. Which is the rather to be noted, because of the use it will hereafter be of toward the determining the Number of those things, which are to be accounted of as Sacraments of our Religion. Concerning the relation a Sacrament bears to the object of it, and particularly to that Grace, to which it especially refers, I have nothing to add, and shall not therefore bring it again under consideration. I shall only observe, from what hath been before said concerning it, that it is an instrument of Grace, as well as a pledge of it, that it is a moral instrument thereof, and not a physical one, that it is such a moral instrument thereof, as is rather apt to convey, or produce it, than that which actually, and infallibly doth; The actual conveying of that Grace depending upon the due disposition of the party receiving it, and who (as St. Paul speaks) if he be not rightly qualified for it, will rather reap Damnation by it, than either the Divine Graces, or the rewards of them. Which things I have this second time made mention of, not because they were not before sufficiently cleared, but because they lay dispersedly in my former account of this relation, and so would have been less useful toward the forming a distinct conception of it. That, which will especially require our second thoughts, is the foundation of that, and other the relations of a Sacrament; The which as I have affirmed in the general to be the Institution of Christ, so the farther consideration of that Institution will both lead us to a more distinct knowledge of the nature of a Sacrament, and inform us concerning the necessity, and efficacy thereof. Now as there are two things, which that Institution doth manifestly import, that is to say a Command, and a Promise; so that Command again respects the elements of a Sacrament, either as being to put on that relation, or as actually invested with it. In the former of these regards it commands the setting them apart for that purpose, but more especially (because that is the principal design of a Sacrament) for their becoming a means of conveying the Divine Graces to us. Which, as was before observed, it either prescribes particular rules for, or remits men for them to the general precepts of Christianity, so far as they are applicable thereto. And I shall only add (because those rules were before declared) that, to make the elements put on the relation of a Sacrament, there is a necessity of applying that part of the Institution to them by the execution of those Commands, which it enjoins: Because the setting them apart for that purpose is, by the Institution itself, put into the hands of men. But of what men, and how qualified, I have not as yet declared, and shall therefore now set myself to inquire. And here in the first place it is easy to see, by what is delivered in the general concerning the power of remitting sins, or in particular concerning the power of Baptism, that the Separation or Consecration of the elements is the proper work of the Ministers of the Gospel, and ought accordingly to be left to them to perform: Because as both the one, and the other were by Christ committed to his Apostles, so none can therefore pretend to the power of either, but those who derived it from them, which none but the Ministers of the Gospel have. It is no less easy to see secondly, that as the Separation, or Consecration of the elements is the proper work of the Ministers of the Gospel, even by the Institution of Christ; so it cannot therefore, ordinarily at least, be attempted without sin by others, because a deviation from his Institution. And thus far all, who acknowledge a Ministerial Function, are at an accord in this particular, and the farther prosecution thereof no way necessary to be intended. I say therefore thirdly, that as the Separation, or Consecration of the elements cannot, ordinarily at least, be attempted without sin by other than the Ministers of the Gospel; so there is reason enough to believe, even from thence, that those elements cannot ordinarily have the relation of a Sacrament by any others Consecration, than theirs. For beside that the Promise of Christ is not to be supposed to extend any farther, than those Commands, to which it is annexed, are observed; Neither can we think he will vouchsafe his benediction to that Action, which without any necessity at all varies from his own Institution: This being to encourage men to go against his own Institution, which no wise Institutor can be supposed to give way to. All therefore, that can be supposed to admit of a dispute in this affair, is, whether in extraordinary Cases (and where a lawful Minister cannot be had) other Persons may take upon them to Consecrate, and Administer it; And whether, if they do so, what they do is so far valid, as to make that, which they pretend to Consecrate, and Administer, to have the relation of a Sacrament. But as it would be considered whether it were not equally advisable for such Persons to let alone altogether the Consecration, and Administration thereof; Because Christ may as well supply to men the want of the Sacraments themselves, as the defects of those, who pretend to Consecrate, and Administer them: As it would be considered farther, whether it were not much more advisable to do so, because he, who omits the Consecration, or Administration of a Sacrament, that belongs not properly to him, is certainly guilty of a far less error, than he who arrogates to himself that, which doth not appear to appertain unto him; so if a Sacrament so Consecrated, or Administered, be either lawful, or valid (as I will not be very forward to deny it, considering the Authorities (h) Vid. Tert. de Bapt. c. 7. & quae annotavit Hookerus noster Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 62. it hath for it) it must become so by the either express, or tacit allowance of those, to whom the Administration of it is regularly committed. For the Institutor of a Sacrament, and by whom alone it can become such, having put into their hands the preparation of it, I see not how any thing can become such, which is not either mediately, or immediately set apart by their Authority, and Ministry. It appearing from the Premises, to whom the separation, or Consecration of the elements doth belong, and so far therefore also the producing of a sacramental relation in them; Inquire we in the next place how those persons ought to be farther qualified, to enable them to make that Separation, or Consecration; Which I shall not stick to affirm to be simply, and only by keeping, as to the outward work, to the Institution of our Saviour. For though much more may be required of them, yea undoubtedly is, to make that Act of theirs available to their own welfare, and acceptance; Even the intending what they are about, not only with a present mind, but with a sound, and religious one; Yet cannot the like be supposed to be required, to make that Act of theirs available toward the Consecrating of those elements into a Sacrament: Partly because if such an intention were required in those, that Consecrate, no man could have any tolerable assurance of his receiving a valid Sacrament, because having no such assurance of their intention; And partly, because that Act of theirs is a Ministerial Act, and must not therefore depend for its force, upon the personal intentions or qualifications of those, that exercise it, but upon that Authority, from which it proceeds, and upon its serving the ends, and intentions of those principal Agents, to which it is appointed to minister. Which ends, and intentions if it can serve in this affair by an outward conformity to the rules of Christ's Institution, nothing more can be supposed to be required either of it, or those, that exercise it, to give it that force, whereof we speak. That therefore would in the next place be enquired into, which accordingly I will now set myself to do. For the clearing whereof we are first to know, that as of old the Priests under the Law were ordained * Heb. 1.5. & Philo de special. l●g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by God for men in things pertaining to God, partly to offer up to him, in their names, Gifts, and Sacrifices for sin, and partly to convey from God to them graces, and benefits; so we are, in like manner, to conceive of the Priests under the Gospel, as being not only the Ministers of God, and Christ, but appointed too, on the one hand, to dispense their mysteries (k) 1 Cor. 4.1. , and graces to the Church, and, on the other hand, to offer up the Church's Prayers, and Services to them. From whence as it will follow, that those principal Agents, to which they minister, are God, and Christ, on the one hand, and Christ's Church, and People under the other; so that the end of the former is to convey, by their means, their own graces, and blessings, of the latter to offer up those Prayers, and other Services, which are due from the Church to them. Those therefore being the Principal Agents, to which the Evangelical Priesthood ministers, and those their respective ends, and intentions; the next thing to be enquired into is, which of those Principal Agents it is, to which the Evangelical Priesthood ministers in those acts which respect the Consecration of a Sacrament. Which I shall not stick to affirm, from what was before said concerning those Acts, to be the Church, and People of God. For that, which the Minister doth toward the Consecration of a Sacrament, being principally, at least, the offering up of Prayers and Praises, he must consequently (because those are the duties of the Church to God, and Christ) be thought to minister to the Church in them, and so have that for his Principal Agent. From whence as it will follow thirdly, that the end to which he is to serve, is the offering up, in the behalf of the Church, such Prayers, and Praises, as are by the Institution of Christ imposed upon it (because that is the end of the Church in all such Administrations); so he shall sufficiently serve that end, who shall only rehearse such Prayers and Praises, wherever, or whatsoever his intention be: Because the Church may as well offer up its Prayers, and Praises by the voice of him, that intends them not, as by the voice of him, that doth. And I have been the more particular in the Explication of this affair, partly to make it farther evident, that the validity of a Sacrament depends not upon the intention of the Minister, but much more to show from thence, that those acts, which are done by him toward the Consecration of the Sacramental elements, do not, by the either absence, or perverseness of his intention, cease to be religious, and so incapable of inducing God to consider of them, or give force unto them: Because as those Acts are rather the Churches, than his (the Minister being in this affair but the Instrument thereof) so his want of Intention, and Devotion, may be abundantly supplied by the others, and those Acts thereby become both Religious and valid. From that Command, which respects the elements, before they put on the relation of a Sacrament, pass we on to that Command, which considers them as invested with it; Which again we shall find to have a double reference. For it may either concern those, in special, who have so set apart, or Consecrated them, or both them (if they are also to be the receivers of them) and all others, for whose sanctification they are intended. Upon the former of these it enjoins the dispensing, or bestowing of what they have so Consecrated, as that too in such a manner, and with such solemnities, as the Institutor thereof hath prescribed. It enjoins upon them farther, for their own souls health, to dispense them with a suitable intention, and devotion of soul; As without which what they do cannot otherwise be profitable to themselves. But it doth not so enjoin that intention, and devotion, that what they dispense, shall, for the want thereof, be in like manner unprofitable to others: Because, as we already suppose the elements to have put on the relation of a Sacrament, and so far therefore to be in a capacity to profit those, to whom they are dispensed; so it is Christ, and not the Minister, who must dispense the Graces of the Sacrament, and the effect of that Sacrament therefore depend, not upon the Minister's intention, and purpose, but upon the intention, and purpose of Christ, whose Instrument, and Minister he is. As will appear yet more clearly, when I come to consider the Promises of the Institution, the second thing, whereof I affirmed it to consist. Only, as that Command of it, which I am now entreating of, doth as well respect those, for whose sanctification the Sacraments were intended, as those who are the Consecraters, and Dispenser's of them; so I must therefore admonish first of all, that as that part of the Institution of Christ enjoins upon his Ministers the dispensation of the Sacraments, so it must consequently enjoin the receipt, or use of them by all that are capable thereof, as without which the former injunction would be vain. I say, secondly, that as it enjoins upon all, that are capable thereof, the receipt, or use of the Sacraments; so it enjoins their receipt, or use of them under the relation of Sacraments, and particularly (because that is the principal relation of a Sacrament) as a means appointed by Christ for the conveying of the Divine Graces. Which is so true as to those Sacraments, which are the only clear, and undoubted ones, and by which, if there be any such, the other are to be judged, that men are expressly called upon to be Baptised (k) Act. 2.38. for the remission of sins, and as expressly admonished by our Saviour to take the elements of the Eucharist (l) Matt. 26.26, etc. Luk. 22.19. , as that Body which was given for them, and as that Blood, which was shed for them, and others, for the same remission of sins. From whence as it will follow, that those Sacraments are of necessary use, as which both the one, and the other injunction oblige us to believe; so they are also so necessary by virtue of the former, that they cannot be neglected without sin, and by the latter, if not the former, that men cannot hope for the graces of them, where those Sacraments are in like manner neglected. For beside that every neglect of a Command is, as such, a sin against the imposer of it, and must consequently not only despoil us of his favour, but expose us also to his Wrath, and Vengeance; Beside that that neglect must be yet more sinful, and dangerous, which is a neglect of such a Command, as is enjoined for the Subjects profit; He, who commands this, or that particular for such, or such an end, must thereby be presumed to declare, that he will not give it in any other way, than that, which is prescribed by him: Because otherwise a gap would be open to the Violation of his Authority, which every wise Lawgiver must be supposed to provide against. Neither will it avail to say, that there are other means, beside Sacraments, for the attaining of the Divine Graces, and such as God hath promised to reward with the bestowing of them; Of which nature are our attendance to the word, and Prayer. For as it doth not appear, that these are any where represented as sufficient of themselves for that purpose, and therefore the Divine Graces not to be expected by them alone; so they can however be no farther represented as such, than as made use of by men out of a due regard to his Authority, and wisdom, by whom they are imposed on them: Which cannot be supposed to be there, where any one prescribed mean is neglected, because the same Authority, and Wisdom will lead to the observation of it. As little will it avail to say, that the Divine Graces have been sometime bestowed without them, and the Sacraments therefore not to be accounted as necessary to the attaining of them. For as the question is not now, Whether Sacraments are so necessary, that the graces thereof can, in no case, be hoped for without them, but whether they can be hoped for, where the Sacraments are neglected; so that they are so far necessary will need no other proof, than the enjoining of Baptism to those, who may seem, if any, to have attained the graces thereof without it. For so we find St. Peter to have done as to Cornelius (m) Act. 10.48. , and his company; Yea though Cornelius had before his Preaching, received a Divine approbation of his Prayers, and Alms, and, after that, that gift of the Holy Ghost, for the procuring whereof we find Baptism to have been especially (n) Act. 2.38. ordained. For well may we look upon that Sacrament as so far necessary to obtain the Divine Graces, the use whereof was commanded even to those men, who had in a great measure before attained them. The only thing, that seems to me to admit of any doubt, is whether Sacraments be so far necessary, that the Divine Graces cannot be had without them, or at lest cannot with any assurance be expected by us. But as the single example of the Thief upon the Cross (to say nothing now of that of Cornelius) may suffice to persuade, that no Sacrament is so necessary, but that the Graces thereof may be had without it: As the benignity of the Divine nature, and those Grace's God hath sometime given even to unbaptized persons, may serve in like manner to persuade men, that if that, or any other Sacrament be wanting without their fault, it shall be otherwise supplied to them; So I cannot forbear to say, that such persons have not the same Assurance with that, which Baptised persons have. Partly, because they have no promise to bottom their assurance on, and partly, because God, who may annex what conditions he pleaseth to his own favours, hath made those Sacraments, whereof we speak, the standing means of obtaining them. I will conclude what I have to say concerning that part of the Institution, which enjoins the receipt, or use of the Sacraments, when I have admonished in the third place, that it requires our coming to it with certain previous qualifications in order to our receiving the benefit thereof. Which is so notorious as to Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and will hereafter be so largely insisted on, that I shall content myself with the bare mention of it. All that I at present aim at, is to give a general account of what it enjoins, and which having now in some measure done, I shall proceed to consider of what it promiseth, which is the second thing whereof I affirmed the Institution of a Sacrament to consist. For the clearing whereof we are first to know, that though those Promises, whereof we speak, are not always so express, as its Commands must be acknowledged to have been; Yet will it not be difficult for us to evince the being of such Promises, nor, after that, to show what things it makes a promise of. For supposing, as we now may (because I have heretofore evinced it) that the Institution of Christ enjoins the Administration, and use of the Sacraments for the bringing about those gracious purposes, which they have no natural aptness to produce, and we must also suppose it to make a promise of Christ's making them effectual for those purposes, for which they were so enjoined by him. Because otherwise those Commands of his would give hope of such things, as were not likely to accrue by the observation of them, and so (which is not to be supposed of the Commands of Christ) prove delusory ones. Only as he, who instituted those Sacraments for our benefit, cannot well be thought to omit any thing, which may encourage our expectation of it; so we find both him, and his Apostles sometime to make express promises of those things, which the Sacraments were intended to convey. For thus after our Saviour had commanded the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism to all, whom they could dispose to the reception of it, the more to encourage them to intent the doing of it, he makes a promise of being (o) Matt. 28.19, 20. with them in it, and consequently that their ministry, at least, should not fail of its intended effect in the Consecration, and Administration of it. In like manner, after St. Peter had called upon those to be Baptised, whom God had stirred up by his precedent Preaching, to inquire after the means of Salvation; He doth not only insinuate their obtaining remission of sins by it, by calling upon them to be Baptised in order to it, but assure them also in express terms (p) Act. 2.38. , which he could not have done without a promise from Christ, that, if they were so Baptised, they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It appearing from the Premises, that the Institution of Christ is not without its promises, and such too, as are sometime delivered in express terms; Inquire we in the next place what those promises are, or rather what things they make a promise of. Which, in the general, will be found to be, Christ's making what is done both by Minister, and People, in obedience to his Commands, to be a available to those ends, for which they were enjoined. For neither otherwise could he have said, that he would be with the former in those Acts of theirs, and much less could St. Peter have assured to the latter the receiving of those Graces, which Baptism was intended to convey. But from thence it will follow more particularly, that the Institution of Christ makes a promise to the Minister, that he will convert that into a Sacrament, which is by him set apart to be so, and where the party, that is to receive it, is duly qualified for it, accompany his Dispensation of it with the Dispensation of the Divine Graces; To such of the People again, as receive the Sacrament as they ought, that they shall receive together with it, those Graces which it was intended to convey: Those being the ends, for which the former Acts were enjoined, and the Promise of Christ therefore supposed to assure, that, if those Acts be performed, they shall become available for them. It will follow lastly, that, as there is a promise of the things before remembered, answerably to the several Acts, which the Commanding part of the Institution enjoins; so that Promise being the Promise of him, who hath power enough to accomplish it, and is of too much fidelity, and truth not to fulfil, what he may, it is as little to be doubted, but what he hath so promised he will not fail to accomplish, as often as what he enjoins is performed. Which last particular I have the rather remarked, because as the Commands of the Institution cannot make way for the blessings of a Sacrament, till they come to be fulfilled by those, on whom they are imposed; so neither can the promises thereof help us to them, till they come to be executed, and applied by him, whose those Promises are: A Promise, (because importing only a will to confer a favour) requiring the reducing of that will to Act, in order to the availableness thereof. An account being thus given of that Institution of Christ, which I have said to be the foundation of the relation of a Sacrament, it will not be difficult to show first, how that, and each part thereof contribute to the founding of it. For as that Institution of Christ may be considered under a double notion, to wit either as simply such, or as executed, and applied; so the Institution of Christ, in the former notion of it, is the more remote foundation of it; in the latter the more near, and immediate. For it being by virtue of Christ's Command, as such, that the elements come to be set apart by men for the purpose of a Sacrament, and by virtue of his own Promise, that he himself gives them the relation of one; That Institution, which is made up of them, must, as such, be thought a remote foundation of it, because the foundation of those Acts, which are done by men, and Christ toward the producing of it. Again, it being more immediately by what is done by men, that the elements come to be so set apart, and by what is done, on the other side by Christ, that they come to have the relation of a Sacrament, the more near, and immediate foundation of it must be the same Institution not considered as such, but as executed, and applied by those, to whom it appertains. From whence as it will follow, that the Institution of Christ, and the several parts thereof contribute to the founding of this relation by that obedience, which is paid to its commands, and by that completion, which is given to its promises, because it is by those means that they are executed, and applied; so nothing more therefore can be required toward the clearing of it, than to show at once what those Commands and Promises import, because that will let us know what obedience is due to the one, and what completion, or fulfilling to the other. Of the Commands of the Institution I have already sufficiently entreated, and shall therefore need only briefly to recapitulate what I have said concerning them. Which, so far, as concerns our present purpose, may be done by saying, that they enjoin in the general the Ministers setting apart the elements in order to their becoming a Sacrament, more particularly by imploring the blessing of God, and Christ upon them, or (as the Church hath used to express it) the sanctification of them. Which Commands, as they tend rather to prepare the elements to be a Sacrament, than to produce that relation in them (for he, who begs of another the doing of this, or that particular, shows the doing of that thing not to belong unto himself) so will make the Minister's compliance with, and execution of them to contribute no farther to the founding of that relation, than as that is, by the Institution of Christ, to make way for some other Act, or Acts, whereby that relation is to be produced. From the Commands of the Institution therefore, and that obedience which is due to them, pass we to the Promises thereof, and of which also I have before given no contemptible account. For which cause I shall only observe here, that there is, among those Promises, a Promise from Christ to the Minister, that he will be with him in his ministration, and therefore also make what he doth, available for those ends, for which it was enjoined; That he will consequently (because that is the end of his ministration in the Consecration of a Sacrament) make those elements to be a Sacrament, which were by the Minister set apart to be so; But by what way, and means, as I have not as yet taken upon me to show, so I know not whether I ought to be over positive in defining. I shall only represent as a thing, which seems most probable to me, That as God sanctifies our ordinary repast by his own word (q) 1 Tim. 4.5. , even by that word of command, by which he made the creatures to be (r) Gen. 1.3. etc. at first, and by which he doth as yet uphold (s) Heb. 1.3. them, so when the elements of a Sacrament are before prepared by Prayer, and such other means as Christ himself hath prescribed, the same God, or rather Christ, by his appointment, passeth his word of power upon them, and thereby commands them, not to become actually the conveyors of his Grace (for that requires another word of power, or rather his accompanying the Dispensation of them with the Dispensation of his Grace) but to be in a readiness to be so. By which means (as was before said) they are fitted for that gracious purpose, and accordingly, if they prove not effectual for it, it is not, because they were not before ordained and fitted for it, but because the persons, to whom those Sacramental elements are dispensed being not duly prepared for such a favour, He, who commanded the Sacramental elements to be in a readiness for it, doth not make use of them for it, nor accompany the Dispensation of them with the Dispensation of his Grace. This I take to be that Act, whereby the Institutor of the Christian Sacraments produceth in the elements thereof that Sacramental relation, whereof we speak; But as whatever the Act be, by which that relation is produced, most certain it is that it cannot be any Act of man, so it is evident from thence, and from the promises of the Institution, that it must be some Act of Christ in pursuance of them, and which whilst he doth so fulfil, he gives birth to that Sacramental relation, which the Act, or Acts of the Minister did only make way for, as that too by the sole force of Christ's Commands. The elements being thus invested with the relation of a Sacrament, and so fitted, in particular, to convey the Divine Graces; It remains that the Minister dispense them to God's People in that way and manner, which he hath prescribed, and that they accordingly receive them with those qualifications, which are by the same Christ required of them. As without the former whereof there can be no hope of the Ministers approving himself unto Christ, nor can the people, without both, expect to reap that benefit by them, which they were so fitted to convey. For the validity, and efficacy of Sacraments depending upon the good will of him, that instituted them, and not upon any virtue of their own, or the power of him that consecrates them, neither can men expect any benefit thereby, where there is not a due compliance with his Laws, by whom they were so instituted, and ordained. But as if those Laws be complied with, there can be no doubt of a happy issue, considering the Promises of Christ to the due Administration, and Reception of them; so that is enough to show the efficacy thereof, where they are so administered, and received: There being no doubt of the efficacy of those things, which have the Promises of Christ to assure them, because no doubt at all of his fulfilling those Promises, and so giving efficacy to the other. And I shall only add, that as what is done by the Minister toward the producing of a Sacramental relation, doth rather make way for it, than actually produce it; (this being the proper work of the Institutor of a Sacrament in pursuance of his own Promises:) So the like is to be said, as to the efficacy of the elements, after that relation is produced in them. For though those elements become not effectual for the ends, for which they were appointed, unless they be both dispensed, and received as they ought; yet doth that dispensation, and reception rather make way for, than give them their respective efficacy; It being God (t) Tit. 3.5. , or rather Christ, by his appointment (and not either the Minister, or ourselves) which saveth us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and the same Christ (u) Eph. 5.26. , who sanctifieth, and cleanseth his Church, by the washing of water through the word. Which will consequently oblige us to look upon God, and Christ as the Authors of the efficacy of Sacraments, as well as of the Sacraments themselves, and accordingly depend upon them for it, and return them thanks, when we have obtained it. PART iv Of the Jewish SACRAMENTS, and the Number of the Christian. The Contents. The Doctrine of the Sacraments drawn down to particulars, and enquiry first made concerning the Jewish Sacraments, and then concerning the Christian one's. As to the former whereof is shown first, that there were indeed such Sacraments among them, and evidence made thereof, from their enjoying the same Saving Graces, which our Sacraments pretend to convey, from their being furnished alike with External Symbols to convey them, and those Symbols of God, and Christ's institution: Secondly, that those Sacraments of theirs were either the extraordinary ones they had in their passage from Egypt to Canaan, as their Baptism in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and the Eucharist of Manna, and the Water of the Rock, or the ordinary ones of Circumcision, and the Passover; Thirdly, That, though they were of the same general nature with the Christian, yet they differed from them, both as to the manner of their representing the Divine Graces, which was not so clear, and as to the measure of conveyance of them, which was not so full, as in the Christian Sacraments. Those Christian Sacraments, in the next place, brought under consideration, and evidence made of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper being the only true, and proper ones, or of general necessity to Salvation. THE Nature of a Sacrament being thus explained, and a resolution given of such questions, as belong to it, or depend more immediately on it; It will be but time for us to descend to Particular ones, whether they be such, as preceded Christianity, and have the name of Jewish, or such as were enjoined by it, and any therefore more properly be termed Christian. This only would be premised concerning the former Sacraments, that as we make them to have their birth before Christianity, so we must therefore suppose them not to have had the Author of it for their immediate Institutor, or, at least, not as God-Man, which is the notion, wherein Christianity considers him: He, to whom we give the title of Christ, becoming not God-Man, till long after the Institution of those Sacraments, and when indeed they were to be abolished. Which will consequently oblige us to consider those Sacraments (if there were any such) rather as to those purposes, for which we have affirmed all Sacraments to have been ordained, than as to the immediate ordainer of them; Or, if also as to the immediate ordainer of them, yet not in the same capacity, wherein Christianity considers him, but only as appointed by God to be so, when the time of his Manifestation should appear. Now there are three things to be enquired into, as concerning those Sacraments, which are to be the subject of our present consideration; First, Whether there were any such among the Jews, Secondly, What those Sacraments were, Thirdly, Wherein they differed from ours. I. That there were such things, as Sacraments among the Jews, will appear if these three things be considered; First, that the same Graces, which Sacraments profess to convey, prevailed among them, as well as us, Secondly, That they had external signs, or symbols to convey those Graces to them, Thirdly, that those external signs, or symbols were instituted by God, and Christ. Of the first of these I have given an account elsewhere * Expl. of the Creed, in the words, Our Lord. , and shall therefore refer my Reader thither, for his farther satisfaction. All I shall observe from thence is, that they partook of Christ, as well as we, and must therefore be supposed to have partaken of his Graces, which are the Graces all Sacraments were intended to convey. But neither will there be less evidence concerning their being furnished with certain external zions, to convey from God to them the graces. For St. Paul † 1 Cor. 10.1, etc. , where he affirms the Jews to have partaken of Christ, and his Graces, affirming in like manner that they did it, as by a Baptism on the one hand, so by eating, and drinking on the other, must consequently be supposed to affirm, that they did it by the means of such symbols, as our Sacraments are, and therefore also, that they were not unfurnished with them. Other wise there could have been no place for giving the former means the name of Baptism, and much less for expressing the latter by the terms of eating, and drinking, or that drinking again by drinking of that Rock, which followed them. For as the foregoing mention of Baptism, which was one of the Christian Sacraments, could not but incline the Corinthians to interpret what followed concerning the Jews eating, and drinking, of a Sacramental one, especially, when it is also affirmed that they partook of Christ by it; so much more, when they saw the Apostle expressing that drinking by drinking of that Rock, that followed them, or rather of the Water, that flowed from it. For that being manifestly an allusion to the Water, that flowed out of that Rock which was sometime smitten † Numb. 20.11. by Moses, and by the drinking whereof the Jews were a long time sustained; Neither could the Corinthians look upon that Rock, to which he alluded, as other than a figure of Christ; Nor therefore (considering their own Sacraments, as such, which did also convey what they were figures of) as other, than such a figure of Christ, as conveyed to the believing Jews Christ's graces, and benefits, which are the spiritual waters, that flow from him. Two things only there are, that may seem to prejudice this notion, and which therefore it may not be amiss to consider; First, That the former Baptism is affirmed by St. Paul himself (a) 1 Cor. 10.2. to have been a Baptism into Moses, and not into Christ, and his Graces; Secondly, That what is affirmed to have been to the Jews spiritual meat, and drink, was also their constant temporal one, and which therefore if we affirm to have been a Sacrament of Christ's graces, and benefits, must have made that Sacrament to have been as ordinary, as their Meals: Which how the Jews should be always in a disposition for, is not easy to imagine, and therefore as difficult to believe the Institution of. As touching the former of these, even that Baptism's being styled a Baptism into Moses, it would not be easy to give an account, were it not that the Verses, which follow, persuade the design of the Apostle to have been to show the Jews to have enjoyed the same Christian Graces with ourselves: Because the Baptising into Moses seems most naturally to denote the baptising into his Religion, as that may seem to have been distinguished from, and opposed to that of Christ; For so we know the Oeconomy of Moses is generally taken by the Scriptures (b) Joh. 1.17. , and aught therefore, if there were nothing to hinder it, to be alike interpreted here. But as the same is not to be said, where the design of the Apostle is to show, that the Jews partook with us of the same Graces, and Benefits; So nothing there fore can hinder our affixing a like sense to the former Baptism, if we can give a tolerable account of its being said to be a Baptism into Moses. Which may be done by representing it as a Baptism into that Oeconomy of our Redemption, which prevailed under Moses, and of which he was the Minister of God unto the people, as well as of the Law. For thus the Baptism, which John administered, is represented as (c) Matt. 21.25. his Baptism, even when it is intimated by our Saviour to have been a Baptism from Heaven, and so more the Baptism of that, than of the other. If therefore there lie any just exception against the being of these Jewish Sacraments, it must be upon the account of their supposed Eucharist's being also their constant temporal food, and which it is not easy to imagine they should be always in a disposition for, or therefore believe it was ever intended by God as such. But as it appears from the Acts of the Apostles (d) Act. 2.46. , that our Eucharist was almost of the same ordinary usage at the first, which may take off in some measure from the force of that Objection; So nothing hinders us from believing, that that Meat, and Drink of the Jews being designed for a temporal, as well as a Spiritual refreshment, it might be sometime, yea, for the most part, appointed only for the former (to wit, when the satisfying of their bodily necessities called for their regard) but at other times, though less frequently, appointed, and used for the latter, and accordingly accompanied with such Prayers, and Praises, as were proper for that consideration of it, and received with alike religious preparations, and disposition. For even the elements of our Eucharist, though appointed by Christ as the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood, yet are not always used as such; But only, when they are by God's Priests set apart for that purpose, and his spiritual Benediction, and Grace invoked on them. I will conclude what I have to say concerning the Being of the former Sacraments, when I have added thereto their being ordained by God, and Christ, for the gracious purposes before remembered. Of the former whereof as we cannot reasonably doubt, because nothing less than a Divine Institution could make them the conveyors of Christ's Graces; so as little of the latter, if we consider what hath been elsewhere (e) Expl. of the Creed, in the words, Our Lord. said concerning Christ's governing even then, and the Apostles exhorting the Corinthians, immediately after (f) 1 Cor. 10.9. , not to tempt Christ, as the Israelites did, and were destroyed by Serpents for it. For as it is not to be imagined, how the Israelites could tempt Christ, unless they had been even then under his conduct; So if Christ had the conduct of them, there is as little doubt of his being the Institutor of their Sacraments, because that was a considerable part of it. II. There being therefore no doubt of the Being of Sacraments among the Jews, which was the first thing we proposed to consider; Inquire we in the next place, what those their Sacraments were, and which we shall find to be either Extraordinary, or Ordinary. Extraordinary those which were just before recited, even their being baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and their partaking of Manna, and of the Water of the Rock; Manna being no doubt the spiritual meat St. Paul speaks of, both because their then only repast, and the bread (g) Exod. 16.4. , that came down from Heaven; As the water of the Rock their spiritual Drink, and so yet more plainly declared by him. And I have the rather given to them the name of Extraordinary Sacraments, because as they had them only, during their passage through the Wilderness; so they had them too, when their ordinary Sacraments ceased, which is the proper season for extraordinary ones. As will appear if we can show (what I shall by and by endeavour) that Circumcision, and the Passover were their ordinary ones; It being certain from the Book of Joshua (h) Josh. 5.5. , that, from the time of the Israelites going out of Egypt, till their coming to Gilgal, none of the Israelites were circumcised, and as certain too from the same place (i) Josh. 5.10. , that they had not till then any Passover; That, as it is the first time wherein the observation of it is mentioned after their coming out of Egypt, so being the first time also, wherein they were in a capacity to observe it, because not till then furnished, or at least not ordinarily, with that earthly Bread, wherewith their Passover was required to be observed. From those their Extraordinary Sacraments therefore pass we to their Ordinary ones, and which as I have already intimated to be Circumcision, and the Passover, so I must now manifest to be so, but it must be by other Arguments, than are commonly alleged for it. For as for what is alleged from St. Paul's representing the Circumcision of Abraham (k) Tom. 4.11. as a Seal of that righteousness, which he had being yet uncircumcised, it seems to me to make nothing at all for it; Because (as was before (l) Supra Part II. shown) rather intended to denote God's approbation of his particular Righteousness, than any declaration of the nature of the thing itself. But as therefore I cannot see, what can be argued from thence toward proving Circumcision to have been a Sacrament; So I shall choose rather to evince it from the Institution of it, as where, if any where, the design thereof is most clearly set down. Now the first thing observable from thence is, that Circumcision was a Sign, as our Sacraments are, and so far therefore of the nature of them. For this (saith God) shall be a sign, or token (m) Gen. 17.10. of the Covenant between me and you; That is to say, as was before (n) Gen. 17.7. expressed, between God on the one hand, and Abraham, and his Seed on the other. It is alike observable, secondly, that as Circumcision was a sign, yea a sign of that Covenant, which God then proposed between himself, and the forementioned persons; So it was such a sign too, as was also of the Essence of it, and till the passing whereof it was not to be looked upon as struck. Which I gather not only from its being styled a Covenant (o) Gen. 17.10. , as well as a sign of it, yea more often a Covenant, than the other, but from God's affirming it to be that Covenant, which ought to be kept (p) Ibid. between him, and them, and accordingly representing the neglecters of it, as those which had broken * Gen. 17.14. his Covenant. From whence as it will follow, that it had a more intimate relation to the Covenant, than that of a bare sign, or token; So it must be either that, which was to strike the Covenant between them, and so make it actually such as to those persons that received it, or one of those things, which were to be observed after the Covenant was struck between them, and for which it was entered into. But as it appears from those words of God, which usher in the mention of this Covenant, that the thing so agreed upon was a matter of much more weight, even their walking before God, and being perfect; So we are therefore in reason to resolve Circumcision to be that, which was to strike the Covenant between God, and them, and make it actually such, as to those persons that received it. From whence as it will follow farther, because striking the Covenant between God, and them, that it insured to those, that received it, the future Blessings of it, and so might not unreasonably be represented as a Seal or a Pledge of them; So that it put them into actual possession of such Blessings, as were presently to be bestowed, if there were really any such, and accordingly was not less a means of conveying them. Which will consequently leave nothing more to enqui e, than whether that Covenant assured the same Blessings with the Christian, and whether any of those Blessings were to be immediately bestowed by virtue of it. For if that Covenant assured the same Blessings with the Christian, then had the sign thereof relation to the same inward Graces with ours, and so far forth therefore agreed with them; And if any of those Blessings were to be immediately bestowed, it was also a conveyer of them, and so yet more perfectly the same. Now that that Covenant, of which Circumcision was a sign, assured the same Blessings with the Christian seems to me to be sufficiently evident from its being affirmed (q) Gen. 17.7. to import, that God would be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed after him. For that implying at least, that he would be as gracious to him, as he was before, and consequently (because God dealt with him so before) that he would count his Faith to him for Righteousness, it must also be thought to import his assuring the same Blessings with the Christian Covenant, because that is the sum, and substance of them all. All therefore, that we have farther to show, is, That some at least of those Blessings were, by virtue of the Covenant itself, to be immediately bestowed on those, who entered into it, which will be no hard matter to evince. For thus much at least it must be thought to import, that if the party to be Circumcised received his Circumcision with that Faith, which God required of him, that Faith of his should from that very instant be accounted to him for Righteousness: Because, the Covenant being so far performed on his part, there must ensue a like completion on the part of God, as which otherwise he could not have been said to be punctual to, nor approved himself a God to the party in Covenant with him. And tho' we cannot make the like Inference upon the part of Children, because there was nothing of Faith in them to procure them such an Imputation; Yet in as much as they were admitted into the same Covenant with their believing Parents, and, as they could bring nothing more toward the procuring the Blessings of it, than their external Circumcision, so they had nothing more required of them, It is but reasonable to believe, that they received the same Benefits by it, and had their Circumcision imputed to them for it. Such Evidence there is for Circumcision's being a Sacrament, yea of the same general nature with the Christian one's; And I no way doubt we ought to think the same of the Feast of the Passover, if not also of many of their other Sacrifices: Not, it may be, for any particular evidence there is from the Institution of it, or them, but from the relation they bore to Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross, and the care it appears God took to convey the Benefits of Christ's Sacrifice by those extraordinary Sacraments, which he gave them in the Wilderness. For the Sacrifices before mentioned being equally signs of that of Christ, yea intended by God to remit men (†) See Expl. of the Creed, in the word, Dead. to him; It is but reasonable to believe, that God made the same use of them, and conveyed Christ, and his Benefits by them. Otherwise their condition in the Land of Cana an would have been worse, than in the Wilderness, because as soon as they entered that, their extraordinary Sacraments ceased. III. Only as it is not to be thought, that those Sacraments, tho' the same in substance with ours, did yet agree with them in all other particulars, because belonging to a Dispensation, which was manifestly inferior to the Christian; So there are two things, wherein they differed from ours, and by which they will appear to have fallen short of them: First, That they did not so clearly represent the things they were intended to signify, Secondly, That they did not convey, what they so signified, in so ample a manner. For beside that those significations of theirs were rather hinted, than plainly expressed, and much less so plainly expressed, as the designs of the Christian Sacraments; Those significations were not a little obscured by the concomitancy of others, and which they were equally obliged to intent. For thus Circumcision, because a sign of that Covenant, by which God did equally oblige himself to possess Abraham, and his natural Seed of the Land of Canaan, was a sign of God's giving them that promised Land, as well as the righeousness of Faith, and that Heavenly Canaan, which belonged to it. And thus too the Passover was a sign of that People's Egyptian Servitude, and God's delivering them from it, as well as Christ's delivering them from the slavery of Sin, and Satan, by the shedding of his Blood. By which means it is easy to see, that these latter, and more noble significations of them must have been yet more obscured to them, and so administer less Spiritual Consolation to them. This I take to be one signal difference between the Jewish Sacraments, and ours, and wherein therefore they must be thought to fall far short of what we now enjoy. But that it is not the only material difference between them, will appear if we consider the preference the Scripture gives to that Dispensation, under which we are, above that of Moses, or Abraham; And that exuberance of Grace, which was poured out upon the embracers of the Christian Dispensation, and of which we find no footsteps under the other. For that is enough to show, that though the Jewish Sacraments conveyed the same Spiritual Benefits; yet they did not do it in that proportion, wherein the Christian did, and so fell yet shorter of them. Which will not only oblige us to set so much the greater value upon our own Sacraments, but be the more curious in enquiring, what ought to be looked upon as such, which is that I am in the next place to intent. For the resolution whereof we are to know (what we need go no farther than our own Homilies (x) Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. for the understanding) that the word Sacrament may be taken either in a more lax and general, or in a more strict and particular acceptation. If we take it in the former of these, so the number of the Christian Sacraments will be found to be much greater, than even the Romanists themselves have made it: Because (as our Homily observes) in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may, and hath been attributed to any thing, whereby an holy thing is signified. Whence it is (as the same Homily goes on) that Ancient Writers have given that Name, not only to those Five, which have been added by the Papists, but also to divers, and sundry Ceremonies, as to Oil, washing of Feet, and such like. But as the Question between us, and the Papists, even in their own (s) Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. can. 1. way of stating it, is not what may in a more lax, and general sense be looked upon as Sacraments, but what are strictly, and properly such, so that Question cannot better be voided, than by examining those things, which pretend to that dignity by the account we have before given of the Nature of a Sacrament. Of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper I shall say nothing at present, partly because there is no Controversy at all concerning their being truly, and properly Sacraments, and partly because we have no other certain means of judging of the Nature of Sacraments, but by that, which is observable concerning them. Our business must therefore be to examine the other Five by them, and by what we have before observed, concerning the Nature of a Sacrament, from them. To begin with Confirmation, because the first Religious Rite after Baptism, and because of all the Five best deserving the name of a Sacrament. A Rite, which as our Church receives, and enjoins, so the more sober sort of Protestants allow to have been an Institution of the Apostles, and such as is of signal use to those, who were baptised in their Infancy, by that examination, which is to precede it, and those solemn Prayers, that do attend it. But as the thing itself doth not appear to me to have been instituted by Christ, which, even by the Doctrine of the Trent Council (t) Ibid. is made a Character of a Sacrament, so there is yet less appearance of its having any outward sign, to which the blessings thereof may be supposed to have been annexed, which is of the very Essence of a Sacrament: That, which was at first administered by a bare Imposition of hands, and afterwards by the addition of the Chrism, coming at length to be performed by the sole ceremony of Unction, as the practice of the Greek, and Latin Church declares. Of which variation what account can be given, but that the Church itself did at first look upon the Rites of Confirmation as arbitrary, and consequently not of the same nature with the signs of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. For whatever additions, or variations came afterwards to be made in these, the Water of the one, and the Bread, and Wine in the other were ever preserved in them. The next supposed Sacrament is that of Penance, or rather (because the form thereof is by themselves (u) Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 13. made to consist in Ego absolvo te, etc.) the Sacrament of Absolution. An Institution, which we willingly acknowledge to be an Institution of Christ, and which our Church moreover confesseth (w) Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacr. to have the promise of the forgiveness of sins. But differs from a Sacrament in this, that it hath not that promise annexed, and tied to the usual visible sign thereof, even Imposition of hands. For for the use of any such visible sign in it we find no Command, and much less any declaration from Christ, that it should not be available, unless it were conveyed by it, or made to depend upon the usage of it. But it may be much more may be said for that, which they call the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, because affirmed by the Council of Trent (x) Sess. 14. can. 1. to have been instituted by our Lord, and published to the World by St. James. And I no way doubt, that when our Saviour sent forth his Disciples by two, and two (y) Mark 6.7, etc. , he gave them power to anoint sick persons, as well as to cast out unclean Spirits, and, it may be too, commanded them, for that time, to make use of that particular ceremony toward the healing of them. I as little doubt, for the mention that is made of it in St. James (z) James 5.14. , that the same ceremony of Unction was continued in the Church, and perhaps prescribed by other Apostles, as well as by him, to the Governors of the Church. But it doth not appear to me to have been intended by Christ for perpetual use, and much less for those purposes, for which it is alleged. For if it were intended by Christ for perpetual use, how came the same Christ to promise to those that believe, that if they only laid hands * Mark 16.18. on the sick they should recover? How came he to give his Apostles power to cure diseases by the use of that only ceremony, as in the case of Publius † Act. 28.8. , by taking infirm people by the hand * Act. 3.5. , yea by their bare (a) Act. 9.34. word? This being to give encouragement to the neglect of his own Commands, if the ceremony of Unction were to be looked upon as such. Though granting that Ceremony to have been intended for perpetual use, what appearance is there of its having been intended for the purposes of a Sacrament, yea to procure, in an especial manner, the forgiveness of sins? For all that St. Mark says concerning the Apostles anointing with Oil is, that they thereby healed (b) Mark 6.13. those they did so anoint; Yea it is, if not the only, yet the principal thing St. James assures to those, whom he enjoined the use of it. As it appears by his ushering it in as an application to be made to sick persons, his promising that that Prayer, which went along with it, should save the sick, and procure God's raising of them, in fine by his exhorting men to confess their faults one to another, that they might be healed. For these things show plainly, that if the healing of sick persons was not the only thing intended, yet it was at least the principal one. But so the Church itself appears to have understood this ceremony, as is evident, among other things, from that Prayer, which did accompany it: That, as Cassander (c) Consult. de Artic. Rel. etc. ubi de Unctione infirm. agit. informs us, being, I anoint thee with the holy Oil in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, imploring the mercy of that one Lord, and our God, that all the griefs and incommodities of thy body being driven away; there may be recovered in thee virtue [or strength] and health, that so being cured by the operation of this mystery, and this Unction of the Sacred Oil, and our prayer, through the virtue of the Sacred Trinity, thou mayest deserve to receive thy ancient, yea more robust health through our Lord. Which though it do not so directly oppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks, because designed against Corporal (d) See Ricdut Pres. State of the Greek Church c. 12. , as well as Spiritual evils, yet doth perfectly overthrow the Extreme Unction of the Papists, as which is so far from designing the recovery of the sick person, that it is not allowed to be administered to any, who seem not perfectly desperate. One only passage there is in St. James, which may seem to give this Ceremony of anointing a higher, and a far better design; even his affirming, that that prayer, which did accompany it, should procure for the sick person also, that if he had committed sins (e) James 5.15. , they should be forgiven him. But beside that St. James doth not attribute that forgiveness to the ceremony of Unction, but to the prayer that attended, or followed it; The design of the Elders visitation of the Sick being no doubt to procure as well their Spiritual, as Corporal health, it is not unreasonable to think, that that very Prayer, which they made over them, did not only aim at God's accompanying the former ceremony with the blessing, for which it was intended, but extend farther to the imploring for them all those spiritual blessings, which they wanted, and particularly perfect remission, and forgiveness. Which if it did, as is but reasonable to believe, that Oil cannot be thought to have had any interest in it, and much less to have been especially intended as the Sacrament thereof. And indeed, as there are no footsteps in that Antiquity, which is truly primitive, of any such Unction of sick persons in order to their spiritual welfare; As there is mention moreover in it of another kind of treatment, and particularly of the Elders of the Church giving unto those, Dionys. Alex. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. li. 6. c. 44. item Conc. Nic. can. 13. that were under penance the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood, as their last, and necessary Viaticum; So I see not what necessity there is of any such Sacrament as Extreme Unction to confer upon sick persons the remission of sins, or other such like graces, as they may stand in need of; There being place, even in them, for the Absolution of the Church, and the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. In fine, so far is that Unction, of which St. James speaks, from being any standing Sacrament of our Religion, that it may seem to have been only an Appendage of that extraordinary gift of healing. (g) 1 Cor. 12.9. , which was sometime deposited in the Church, and which therefore was to cease, when that, and other such like operations vanished. As appears in part from its being joined in St. Mark (h) Mark 6.13. with the casting out of Devils, but more from our Saviour's ranking the laying on of hands upon the sick (which was but another way of administering it) with (i) Mark 16.17, 18. the same casting out of Devils, speaking new tongues, and the taking up of Serpents. For if these be to be looked upon as extraordinary gifts, there is equal reason to believe, the anointing, or laying on of hands upon the sick to have been of the same order. Sure I am Tertullian (k) Tert. ad Scapnlam cap. 4. doth not only rank the gift of healing, even in his time, with the casting out of Devils, but makes mention of one Proculus a Christian administering this supposed Sacrament to Severus the Emperor, yea curing him by the Oil of it. From Extreme Unction therefore pass we to that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders, and which is not only affirmed by the Trent Council to be a true (l) Sess. 13. Can. 3. , and proper Sacrament, but as certainly to confer (m) Ib. cap. 3. grace, as the most undoubted Sacraments do. It is not my purpose, nor was it ever the purpose of the Church of England to detract in the least from the force of that, which they entitle the Sacrament of Orders. But that it hath not the nature of a true, and proper Sacrament, will appear in the first place from it's not having by the Institution of Christ any external sign, to which the grace thereof may be supposed to be annexed. For if it had, it must have been the external sign, or ceremony of breathing on the persons to be ordained; This being the only one, which our Saviour (n) Joh. 20.22. made use of, when he conferred the power of Order upon his Apostles. But so far were the Apostles, or the succeeding Church from making use of that, that we find them, on the contrary, to have made use of Imposition of Hands, yea to have entitled the grace of Orders (o) 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. in a more especial manner to it. Whether it were, that they took their pattern therein from the known usage of the Jews, and which we find our Saviour himself to have followed in other instances, or (which I rather think) that they were directed to it by that spirit of God, which guided them in all their actions, and to whose guidance, and instruction our Saviour had left them after his being taken from them. Sure I am there are no footsteps of that external sign in the first Institution of it (as there was, in the Institution of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, of their proper ones) nor any appearance from Scripture of any after command of Christ concerning it. But because the external sign of Ordination, though none of our Saviour's Institution, yet is confessed by ourselves to have had a legitimate one; Therefore inquire we in the second place, whether, after the manner of other Sacraments, it be a means of Grace, or (as the Romanists love to speak) have the power of conferring it. A thing, which seems to them sufficiently evident, not only from that form of words (p) Joh. 20.22. , wherewith by the prescript of Christ it hath been always attended, even receive ye the Holy Ghost, but from St. Paul's willing Timothy in one place (q) 1 Tim. 4.14. not to neglect that gift, or grace, which was given with it, and in another (r) 2 Tim. 1.6. to stir up that gift, or Grace of God, which was in him by the laying on of his hands. And thus much I willingly yield to the force of the foremention'd Texts, that the Holy Ghost ever was, and still is conferred upon those men, who are rightly ordained by the Governors of the Church. But in what measure, and to what purposes is the thing in question between us, and particularly whether it is conferred, as to its sanctifying, and saving Graces, which I have shown elsewhere (s) Supra, Part 3. to be the proper graces of a Sacrament. Now what is there in any, or all the Texts, to evince that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders to confer such graces upon the person Ordained? If we inquire, as to the first of them (t) Joh. 20.22. , even that Text which makes Orders to exhibit the Holy Ghost, the utmost that can be inferred from thence is such an exhibition of it, as may be requisite for the party ordained to remit, or retain sins, as for which (u) Joh. 20.23. , and which alone it is professed to be bestowed. But so sure the person ordained may be qualified to do, without the sanctifying graces of God's Spirit, even in the opinion of the Tridentine Fathers themselves: It being their opinion (w) Sess. 7. can. 12. , as well as ours (x) Art. of Rel. 26. , that the personal qualifications of the Minister do neither add to, nor detract from the force of the Sacraments they dispense. But as therefore no such sanctifying graces can be supposed to be designed, though we make the Text to import such an exhibition of the Holy Ghost, as is requisite for the remitting, or retaining of sins; so much less, if nothing more were meant by Receive ye the Holy Ghost, than receive ye Authority from him so to do. Which that there was not is at least probable from his referring them to another time (y) Act. 1.4. etc. for the other powers of the Holy Ghost, yea bidding them not to expect them, till after his ascension (z) Joh. 16.7. into Heaven. For that supposeth them to have been as yet without those powers of the Holy Ghost, and consequently that Christ meant no more by Receive ye the Holy Ghost, than receive ye of his Authority, to whom the power of the Church is committed under me, as ye shall in due time of such abilities, and gifts, as may fit you for the exercise thereof. And if that were the sense, yea only sense of those words of Christ, which contain both the Exemplar, and Institution of Ordination, I know not why we should suppose that, which they call the Sacrament of Orders, to have a farther design in itself, than to communicate a Ghostly Authority to those, on whom it is bestowed. But let us suppose, that something more was meant by these words, than Receive ye a Ghostly Authority, or, at least, that it was the intention of our Saviour (because of what we read * 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.16. concerning Timothy) that something more should be afterwards intended by them, when no Apostolical Pentecost was to ensue, even the communicating of gifts and graces, as well as a Ghostly Authority. Yet even so it will not follow, that an exhibition of Sanctifying, and Saving Graces was intended, or that even Timothy received any such Graces by it. For who knows not that there are Gratiae gratis datae, as well as Gratum facientes, yea that the word † Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 1.7. 1 Cor. 12.4. 1 Cor. 12.9. 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Cor. 12.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as often, if not more often the title of the former? Who knows not, that those Gratiae gratis datae are more proper for the Ministerial Function, than the other can be supposed to be, yea that they may avail for those spiritual purposes, for which that Function was intended? In fine, who knows not, that God hath appointed other Sacraments for the conveying of his sanctifying Graces, and by the participation of which therefore they might be more reasonably expected? For these things being supposed, there will not only be no necessity of understanding St. Paul of the sanctifying Graces of God's Spirit, but not so much as any probable reason for it. Though granting thirdly, that there were also some sanctifying Graces attending it; Yet as we cannot for the reasons before mentioned understand any other sanctifying Graces, than what may serve more immediately for the discharge of the Ministerial Function, such as is a holy Zeal for the welfare of those Souls, which are committed to those that are of it, so we can much less (as our Homily * Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. instructs us) expect remission of sins by it, which is the undoubted fruit of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. From all which put together it is evident, that if judgement be to be made of Sacraments by Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, Orders will hardly pass for one of them; As which varies so much from them both in the External Sign, and in the Graces, which are signified by it. One only Institution remains of those, which have the name of Sacraments, and which if they, who so entitled it, would understand only in a general sense, they would not find our Church dissenting from them, because affirming (a) The form of Solemn. of Matrim. God to have consecrated the State of Matrimony into such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified, and represented the Spiritual Marriage, and Unity, that is betwixt Christ and his Church. But to make it a true, and proper Sacrament of the Evangelical Law, as the Council of Trent (b) Sess. 24. can. 1. doth, is extremely unreasonable, and neither hinted by St. Paul in that place (c) Eph. 5.25. etc. , from whence they pretend to infer it, nor, any farther than a simple representation reacheth, agreeable with those things, whichhave the name of Sacraments either with us, or among themselves. For neither was that, which they call a Sacrament of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ, but by God, nay St. Paul in the place before quoted found'st all the Sacramentality thereof in those passages (d) Eph. 5.30, 31. which are represented by Moses (e) Gen. 2.23, 24. , as declaring the Identity of Man, and Wife, and the necessity that ariseth thereupon of their adhering to one another, even to the abandoning of all other relations for it. It hath no certain external sign, as other Sacraments have, to confer that grace, which is supposed to belong to it; It hath no other promise of Grace belonging to it, than may be supposed to belong to any state of life, which a Man shall set himself to, with a due respect to the Commands of God, and use with that care, and sobriety, that becomes him. It hath much less any promise of the forgiveness of sins, and an Universal Holiness, as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper undoubtedly have. And if it hath not, nothing can oblige us to look upon it as a true, and proper Sacrament, or indeed but in the same degree, wherewith their other Sacraments are. For they, though not perfectly such, have yet some more near resemblance to those, which they pretend to rival. But because it may be demanded, how, if there be but two strict, and proper Sacraments, several other things should come to have the same name, and honour, and particularly how the Church of Rome should at length advance them to the number of Seven (this seeming to be some prejudice against our asserting only two) I answer first by reason of their general cognation with them, and which we know, in other things, to procure the same name to things, that are of a very disserent nature. Whence it is, that (as was before observed out of one of our own (f) Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacram. Homilies) not only those five, which we but now mentioned, have obtained the name of Sacraments, but whatsoever, in a manner, hath been made use of to signine a holy thing. Which is so true, that Tertullian in one place (g) De Animâ cap. 9 gives the name of Sacrament to Dreams, and Visions, and in others (h) De pudic. c. 9 & adv. Martion. li. 5. c. 4. to Parables, and Allegories. For if even Dreams, and Parables come to have the name of Sacraments by reason of their representing things of a higher nature; How much more such Religious Institutions, as were transacted by the same visible solemnities as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, as to be sure the Institutions before remembered were? For though, it may be, they had not the ceremonies now in use, or at least had not that number of them, wherewith they are now encumbered, yet wanted they not some, or other, which was of the same symbolical nature, and particularly Imposition of hands. For that, as we learn from the Scripture, they made use of in Confirmation (i) Act. 8.17. , in the gift of healing (k) Act. 28.8. , Orders (l) 1 Tim. 4.14. , and Absolution (m) 1 Tim. 5.22. ; And that too, as we learn from Grotius (n) Annot in Consult. Cassand. ad Art. 9 , they made use of toward those, who entered into Marriage, and still do in the Eastern parts. But beside that general, and external cognation, which is between Sacraments, and Sacramentals (for so I shall for the future entitle those things, which are not strict, and proper ones) there is also, as to some of the latter, a more particular, and intimate cognation, but especially as to those, which are before remembered, and are by the Papists advanced into true, and proper Sacraments. For setting aside that, which they call the Sacrament of Marriage, and which hath, even among them, rather the name, than nature of one; There is none of the other four, which tend not to the conferring of some Divine Grace, or Benefit, as well as to the signification of it. For thus Confirmation tends to procure a farther addition of God's sanctifying Graces, and so to strengthen, and perfect the person, that ofers himself unto it; And thus the Oil of Unction, as used of Old, toward the procuring of the Grace of health, and the removal of the sick persons guilt so far, as was necessary for the procuring of the other. Thus Absolution tends to the procuring of the forgiveness of the Penitent, and Ordination, for the person ordained, of a spiritual, and ghostly Authority, if not also of such spiritual gifts, as are necessary for the exercise thereof. By which means as they approach yet nearer to the nature of true, and proper Sacraments, so it is the less to be wondered at, that they should obtain the name of Sacraments, yea have the reputation of such in a more eminent manner, than other Sacramentals had: Especially if we consider thirdly, that those five supposed Sacraments are upon the matter the only noted Acts, that are administered by the Church, or, at least, that are attended with such Rites, and Ceremonies. For so it is yet less difficult to believe, that they might not only come by degrees to be ranked with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, but together with them to be accounted, if not the only, yet at least the primary ones. Which Peter Lombard (o) Sentent. li. 4. Distinct. 2. taking notice of, made the Number of Christian Sacraments to be neither more, nor less than seven, and the Church of Rome, swayed by him, did afterwards Authoritatively confirm. This I take to have been the true Original of that number, to which the Sacraments are now advanced, and not either any cogent arguments for the being of so many, or indeed any firm belief, even in that Church itself, that they ought all to be looked upon as true, and proper ones. And I am yet more confirmed in that belief by the silence there was (p) Consult. Cassandris add Art. 13. before Peter Lombard of any certain, and determinate number, and by the Authority of two of the greatest Fathers of the Latin Church: St. Ambrose in his tract de Sacramentis, and in another de iis qui mysteriis initiantur, mentioning only Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and St. Augustine not only resolving (q) Epist. 118. ad Januar. the Sacraments to be numero paucissima, and mentioning none but those, but affirming elsewhere (r) De Doctr. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9 , that our Lord, and the Apostolical discipline had delivered some few; such as is the Sacrament of Baptism, and the celebration of Christ's Body, and Blood. For that is enough to show, that though the Fathers might sometime mention the other Institutions under the notion of Sacraments, yet they looked upon Baptism, and the Lord's Supper as the only true, and proper ones, or, at least, were not over confident of the being so of the other. If the Church of Rome hath since arrived at a greater confidence, it will concern her, rather than us to give an account of it; But however not so far concern us, as to remove us from an opinion, which seems to us to be built upon solid, and substantial grounds. For either she hath arrived at that confidence by the means before declared, and then her Authority will be very incompetent; Or she hath arrived at it by some other means, which we are not acquainted with, and which therefore we cannot be supposed to be influenced by till she shall be pleased to declare them. I have insisted thus long upon the Number of the Christian Sacraments, not because I was obliged to it by my more immediate task (for our Catechism contents itself to declare, that there are two only as generally necessary to Salvation) but because our Church affirms elsewhere (s) Art. of Rel. 25. and Homily of Com. Pr. and Sacram. , that there are but two strict, and proper ones, and because the joining of others with them in the same rank, and order of Sacraments may help in time to bring them into less repute; It being natural for men, where there are several means tending to the same end, either to adhere to some of them to the utter rejecting of the other, or to use those others with less preparation, and respect. And whether this be not the case of the Eucharist, where that, which they call the Sacrament of Penance is so much in vogue, may be judged of by the little care they take to fit themselves for the one, where they have obtained, as they easily may, the absolution of the other. And I shall only add, that if our Church did not distinguish in the present Catechism between proper, and improper Sacraments, it was not, as I conceive, because she had departed from her own Articles, and Homilies, but because, being to instruct those, who were no proper Auditors of higher matters, she contented herself to let them know, what was sufficient for their purpose, that there were but two, that were generally necessary to Salvation, even Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Now that there are no more than these, that are generally necessary to Salvation, (which is all, that remains for me to demonstrate) will appear if we reflect upon those, which have been added to them by the Papists, and ranked in the same order with them. For who can think Marriage to be such, who believe, as the Papists do, that it is unlawful to the whole Order of Priesthood, yea who know that there are not a few, who live not long enough to desire, or need it, or are otherwise sufficiently fortified by God against any necessity of espousing it? Who can believe Orders to be such, when there ever was, and ever will be a greater number of those, who are to be instructed, than there was, or ever will be of those, who are to instruct them? In fine, who can believe the Unction of the sick to be such, when it appears by the former discourse to have had no other design, than the recovery of them from their infirmities? For well may that be looked upon, as not generally necessary to Salvation, which appears not to have been intended to minister at all unto it. If therefore there be any of the five of that necessity, it must be Confirmation, and Absolution, but which how useful soever they may be, and are so esteemed by ourselves, yet will not be found to be any more than such. I allege as to the former of these the no precept there appears concerning it, which is one of those things, which induce a necessity to Salvation; And I allege too (which is another) the no appearance there is of any tendency in it to procure some blessings, for which no other means are appointed. For the Eucharist having for its end the confirming and strengthening of our Graces, which is all that Confirmation, as now in use, professeth to intent; neither can there be any necessity of the means to oblige us to the use of the latter, or endanger our Salvation by the omission of it. In fine, I allege, what is with me of no small moment, the no mention there is in Justin Martyr * Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of it, even where he takes notice of their bringing the New Baptised person to the Assembly of the Faithful, and to a Communion with them in their Prayers, and Eucharist. For though that Father doth not obscurely intimate, that they had a particular regard in their Prayers to the welfare of the new Baptised person, as well as to the more general welfare of the other; Yet he takes no notice at all of any Imposition of hands upon him, or any other ceremony, that may be supposed to be analogous to it. Which in all probability he would have done, (especially when he mentioned the Kiss of Peace, as well as both the other Sacraments) if either the Church had then used the Sacrament of Confirmation, or he looked upon it as a Sacrament of the same general necessity with the other. Which things I have said, not in the least to detract from the use of Confirmation (for I think this very passage of Justin Martyr doth sufficiently warrant the more material part of it, even prayer over the new Baptised person) but to show that the Church did not then look upon it as a Sacrament, or, at least, not as such a one, as was generally necessary for Salvation, as our Catechism hath taught us to speak. But it may be much more may be said for Absolution, than Confirmation, and so no doubt there may, if we consider Absolution as comprehending within the compass of it the whole power of the Priest in remitting sins. For comprehending within it, in that sense, the Administration of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, because the most effectual means the Church hath for absolving offenders from their guilt, so far as those Sacraments, or the Priest's Administration of them is necessary to Salvation (which no doubt they generally are) so far also his Absolution must be looked upon as such. But so to consider Absolution is to make it the same with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and not (as it is here proposed) a distinct Sacrament from them. If therefore we will speak pertinently either to our own Catechism, or the present Controversy, we must consider Absolution as abstracting from those Sacraments; which if we do, we shall find it to consist either in declaring the word of reconciliation to Offenders, or praying to God for their Pardon, or pronouncing them absolved from their guilt, or losing them from the Censures of the Church. If we consider Absolution in the first of these senses, to wit as importing the declaration of the word of reconciliation to Offenders; so we shall not stick to affirm, that it is generally necessary to Salvation, but then we must say withal, that it is no Sacrament, nor esteemed by the Papists themselves to be so. If we consider it in the second sense, to wit, as denoting the Priest's praying for the Pardon of Offenders (and in which form, as Bishop Usher (t) Answ. to the Jesuits Chall. p. 125. etc. observes, Absolution was anciently wont to be made) so it will be found to have a respect to that Community, over which he presides, or to particular persons in it. In the former of these regards it is no doubt as necessary to Salvation, as it is for the Priest to celebrate, or the people to join with him in the public worship of God, of which such prayers as those are a necessary part. But as there is no presumption of that Offices being a Sacrament, so it is not the Absolution our Adversaries intent; That, which they profess to advance, being the Absolution of particular persons, after a confession made by them of their particular offences. And yet even here too they make a distinction, because professing to restrain that Confession, and Absolution to such sins only, as are mortal. But who taught them to distinguish in this affair between Mortal, and Venial? Or what is there in those words of Christ, which convey the power of remitting sins, which can be thought to restrain it to the former? What have they to ground the general necessity of such a Confession upon, but especially as to that form of Absolution, whereof we speak? For in praying for the pardon of Offenders the Priest is not to be considered as a Judge, but as a person appointed to mediate between God, and his People, and whom that charity, which belongs to him as such, will oblige him to look upon as penitent, if he knows them not to be otherwise, especially if they beg his prayers for their own particular pardon. And indeed neither is this the Absolution the Papists contend for, nay they declare (u) Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 3. those very Prayers, which go along with their own, not to be of the Essence of it. Which will oblige us to pass on to A third sort of Absolution, even pronouncing offending persons to be loosed from their offences. A thing, which though of signal use, and comfort to men of afflicted minds, and which no doubt such persons ought to seek, when they cannot otherwise satisfy themselves, yet cannot be looked upon as generally necessary to Salvation; Partly, because none but desponding persons can be supposed to stand in need of it, and partly because such an Absolution, as that, supposeth men to be already loosed from their offences, and consequently not to want any thing, but the sense thereof. Which though it may be an infelicity, yet is no sin in itself, nor can prove so to him, in whom it is, unless it do otherwise take him off from the due performance of his duty. Though, even in that case, such an Absolution will be necessary, rather to prevent future offences, than to procure the forgiveness of former ones. And I shall only add, that I conceive that form of Absolution to be such, which occurrs in our Visitation of the Sick; Partly, because it is ordered by our Church to be applied to men of troubled minds, and partly because it prompts the Priest to beg of God the forgiveness of the sick persons offences, before it allows him to say I absolve thee from all thy sins; That supposing the forgiveness of God to precede in this affair, and consequently that the Priest rather declares the person already absolved, than absolves him himself from the band of his offences. The fourth sort of Absolution is that, which looseth men from the censures of the Church, and which I shall not stick to affirm to be generally necessary to the losing of those, who have been before bound, even from the band of their offences before God: Partly, because God hath promised to bind that in Heaven, which the Governors of the Church shall rightfully bind on Earth; And partly, because the Censures of the Church consisting especially in restraining men from its saving Offices, and particularly from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, till men are loosed from those Censures, they must be deprived of the ordinary means, whereby God hath appointed to transmit the pardon of offences. But as the question is not, Whether Absolution may be necessary in a particular case, or to particular persons, but whether it be generally so; So we cannot look upon this Absolution as generally necessary to Salvation, unless it were such to fall under those Censures, from which this Absolution frees. The result of the Premises is this; The Church of God is indeed invested with a power of Absolution, and such, as exerts itself in several Acts, answerably to the needs of those, with whom it hath to do: But as it is not invested with any such power of Absolution, as doth actually free the Offender from his guilt, the doing of that pertaining only unto God; As it is not therefore invested with any other power of Absolution, than what may serve to declare the pardon of God, or help toward the procuring of it; So what it doth toward either of these (unless it be in Baptism, or the Lord's Supper) is either no Sacrament at all, and so falls not under this enquiry, or is no generally necessary one. And indeed, however the Church of Rome may seem to advance another Absolution, even that which actually looseth the sinner from his guilt; Though she moreover represent that Absolution of here's, as generally necessary to the Salvation of those who are under any mortal sin; yet is there no appearance of any such Absolution, nor indeed of the necessity of any, but what is before described. As is evident, as to the former of these, from that very Text, on which it is founded, even a promise of losing that in Heaven, which shall be loosed on Earth. For if there must be a losing in Heaven, after that on Earth, that on Earth cannot be looked upon as actually freeing the Sinner from his guilt, but only as preparatory to it; With this only advantage (which might very well occasion the so entitling it) that that losing shall certainly be followed by a more effectual, and heavenly one. So little reason is there to believe, that there is any Absolution among men, but what is purely preparatory to the Absolution of God; And we shall find there is as little reason to seek out any other modes of it, than those, which were before described: As will appear if we consider, who they are, that are to be loosed, and who as they are either such, as are within the Communion of the Church, or such as are excluded from it, so, if they be of the former sort, have either done nothing to deserve an exclusion, or have committed such offences, as are worthy of it. If the persons we speak of be such Members of the Church, as have not done any thing to deserve an exclusion from it; So there cannot lie any engagement upon them to confess their sins to a Priest, or seek any other Absolution, than by the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or other the like ordinary methods of the Church: The Communion, in which they are, and which they have not done any thing to deprive themselves of, giving them a title to that Sacrament, or any other privilege of their Religion. But then if they be such, as do really deserve to be excluded, till they have given sufficient testimonies of their repentance; Either they ought to be excluded, and afterwards loosed as Excommunicate persons, or, if they be thought fit to be continued in the Church, be looked upon as Members of it, and allowed the common Absolutions of it: It being a kind of contradiction in adjecto to continue men in the Communion of the Church, and yet deny them the common privileges thereof. All therefore, that remains to be accounted for, is the Absolution of those, who have been shut out of the Church; But concerning which as there is no great difference between us, and the Church of Rome, so we deny not but that it may require a peculiar form of words, and such as may signify to the persons concerned, and the Members of the Church the act of the Officers thereof in it. But that the Essence of Absolution consisteth in it, doth not appear to us, nor can indeed be reasonably affirmed; Partly, because the very restoring Excommunicated persons to the Communion of the Church will as effectually vacate its former Censures, as any express declaration can do; And partly, because Excommunication consisting in a deprivation from those methods of Salvation, which God hath deposited in the Church, the only effectual release of it must lie in a readmission to them, and particularly to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But so the Ancient Church appears to have understood it, as is evident both from her language, and practice; She not only expressing this Absolution, by (w) See usher's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. pag. 132. bringing men to the Communion, reconciling them to it, or restoring it to them, but taking care above all things, that no Excommunicated person generally should go out of the World (x) Dionys. Alex. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. li. 6. c. 44. item Conc. Nic. can. 13. without partaking of the Eucharist. For what other account can be given of that both language, and practice of hers, than that she conceived the Absolution of Excommunicated persons to lie in a readmission to the common methods of Salvation, and consequently that they were rather loosed by the use of those methods, than by any judicial sentence? This however is certain (which is enough for our present purpose) that Absolution in this sense cannot be looked upon as generally necessary, because the peculiar refuge of such, as have been shut out of the Church. And if that be the case of Absolution, as well as of the other supposed Sacraments; Baptism and the Lord's Supper will continue to be the only ones, that are of that necessity to Salvation. THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England. PART IU. Question. HOW many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to Salvation: that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a pledge to assure us thereof. Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Answer. Two: the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. Question. What is the outward visible sign, or form in Baptism? Answer. Water: wherein the person is baptised, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace? Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for, being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace. Question. What is required of persons to be baptised? Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin, and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament. Question. Why then are Infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties: which promise when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained? Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby. Question. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper? Answer. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received? Question. What is the inward part or thing signified? Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Question. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine. Question. What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper? Answer. To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ; with a thankful remembrance of his death, and be in charity with all men. OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, In Pursuance of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England. BY GABRIEL TOWERSON, D.D. and Rector of Welwynne in Hartfordshire. Imprimatur. Ex Aedib. Lamb. Apr. 10. 1686. Jo. Battely RRmo P. ac D no D no Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domesticis. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVII. TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Bishop of ELY, AND LORD ALMONER TO His Majesty. My Lord, YOUR Lordship's favourable acceptance of my Discourse of the Sacraments in General, with the desire I have, if it may be, to put an end to the whole, hath prompted me to make the more hast to present your Lordship, and the World with this of Baptism in particular. Two things there are in it, which I thought myself most concerned to clear, and which therefore I have employed all requisite diligence on, the Doctrine of Original Sin, and Infant-Baptism: The former being in my opinion the foundation of Christianity, the latter of our interest in it. For if there be no such thing as Original Sin, I do not see but some persons heretofore might, and may here after live with such exactness, as not at all to stand in need of a Saviour. And I see as little, if Infant-Baptism be null, what interest any of us can have in him, according to the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel, who have for the most part been baptised in our Infancy, or at least have been baptised by those that were. Throughout the whole Treatise I have endeavoured to retrieve the ancient notion of Baptism, to show what advantages are annexed to it; and what duties it either involves, or obligeth to. To either of which if I have given any light, or strength, I shall hope I have done some small service to the Church, and which your Lordship in particular will take in good part from Your Lordship's Most Obliged, Most Obedient, and Most humble Servant, GABRIEL TOWERSON. Wellwyne, Aug. 23. 1686. THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. Of the Rite of Baptism among the Heathen and the Jews. THe Heathen themselves not without the knowledge of another World, and of the insufficiency of natural Religion to bring them to the happiness thereof. Occasion taken by them from thence to inquire after other ways of obtaining it, and by the Devil to suggest the mysteries of their respective Deities as the only proper means of compassing it. Those mysteries every where initiated into by the Rite of Baptism; partly through Men's consciousness of their past sins, and which they judged it but meet they should be some way purged from, and partly through the policy of the Devil, who thereby thought to procure the greater veneration to them: That as it was a Rite, which was in use among God's own people, so naturally apt to represent to men's minds their passing from a sinful to a holy Estate. Of what Service the Heathens use of this Rite is toward the commendation of the Christians Baptism, and a transition from thence to the use of it among the Jews. Which is not only proved at large out of the Jewish Writings, and several particulars of that Baptism remarked, but that usage farther confirmed by several concurring proofs; such as is in particular the no appearance there is otherwise of any initiation of the Jewish Women, the Baptising of the whole Nation in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and a remarkable allusion to it in our Saviour's Discourse to Nicodemus. The silence of the Old Testament concerning that Rite shown to be of no force, because though it take notice of the first Jews being under the Cloud, and passing through the Red Sea, yet it takes no notice at all of their being Baptised in them, or of their Eating, and Drinking that spiritual Repast whereof S. Paul speaketh. The Baptism of Christians copied by our Saviour from that of the Jews, and may therefore, (where it appears not, that he hath made an alteration) receive an elucidation from it. pag. 1. The Contents of the Second Part. Of the Baptism of the Christians, and the Institution of it. THe Institution of the Christian Baptism more ancient, than the Command for it in S. Matthew 28.19. though not as to the generality of the World, nor it may be as to the like explicit Profession of the Trinity. As is made appear from Christ, or his Disciples baptising in Judea, not long after his own Baptism by S. John. Enquiry thereupon made, whether it were not yet more ancient, yea as ancient as Christ's execution of his Prophetical Office. Which is rendered probable from our Saviour's making Disciples before, and the equal reason there appears to have been for his making them after the same manner with those of Judea; From Christ's representing to Nicodemus the necessity of being born again of water, and the spirit, which is shown at large to be meant of a true and proper Baptism; As, in fine, from Christ's telling S. Peter, when he asked the washing of his Hands, and Head, as well as Feet, that he, who had been washed, needeth not save to wash his feet. An answer to the supposed silence of the Scripture concerning so early a Baptism, and that shown to be neither a perfect silence, nor an unaccountable one. p. 9 The Contents of the Third Part. Of the outward visible Sign of Baptism. THe outward visible Sign of the Christian Baptism shown to be the Element of Water, and enquiry thereupon made wherein it was intended as a Sign; Which is shown, in the general, to be as to the cleansing quality thereof, more particularly as to the use it was put to toward new born Infants, and that application of it which was first in use, even by an immersion, or plunging the Party baptised in it. Occasion taken from thence to inquire farther, how it ought to be applied, more especially whether by an immersion, or by that, or an aspersion, or effusion. Evidence made of an immersion being the only legitimate Rite of Baptism, save where necessity doth otherwise require; And enquiry thereupon made, whether necessity may justify the Application of it by an Aspersion, or Effusion, and, if it may, whether the case of Infants be to be looked upon as such a necessity. What is to be thought of those additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward solemnities of Baptism. Where the sign of the Cross in Baptism is more particularly considered, and answer made to those Exceptions that are made against it as a Ceremony, as an addition of Men to the Institution of Christ, and as a supposed Relic of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papists abuses of it. p. 17. A Digression concerning Original Sign, by way of Preparation to the following Discourses. The Contents. OF the ground of the present Digression concerning Original Sin, and enquiry thereupon made, what Original Sin is. Which is shown in the General to be such a corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby it becomes averse from every thing, that is good, and inclinable to every thing, that is evil. The nature of that corruption more particularly enquired into, and shown by probable Arguments to be no other, than a Privation of a Supernatural Grace. That there is such a thing, as we have before described, evidenced at large from the Scripture, and that evidence farther strengthened by the experience we have of its effects, and the acknowledgements of the wiser Heathen. Enquiry next made from whence it had its beginning, which is shown to have been not from any evil Spirit, or Daemon, the pravity of matter, or the evil habits the Soul contracted in a preaexistent state, but from the pravity of our first Parents. This last at large confirmed out of the Doctrine of the Scripture, and followed by some light reflections upon the means, by which it is conveyed. A more just account from the Scripture of its being truly, and properly a sin, partly from its having the title of a sin, but more especially from its being represented as such, upon the account of our Obligation to the contrary. A consideration of those Objections, which are commonly made against the Doctrine of Original Sin; Which are shown either not to be of that force, whereof they are esteemed, or however not to be a sufficient bar to what the Scripture hath declared concerning it. p. 33. The Contents of the Fourth Part. Of the things signified by Baptism on the part of God, or its inward and spiritual Grace. THE things signified by Baptism are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which paseth between God, and Man, and that body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the same God doth, by virtue of that Covenant, oblige himself to bestow upon the Baptised, and what those Baptised ones do on their part undertake to perform. These latter ones proposed to be considered, and entrance made with the consideration of what God obligeth himself to bestow upon the Baptised, called by the Church, An inward, and spiritual Grace. Which inward, and spiritual Grace is shown to be of two sorts, to wit, such as tend more immediately to our spiritual, and eternal welfare, or such as only qualify us for those Graces, that do so. To the former sort are reckoned that inward, and spiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of sin, called by the Church forgiveness of sin; That which tends to free us from the pollution of sin, called by our Catechism A death unto it; And that, which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a New birth unto righteousness. To the latter sort is reckoned our union to that Body, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, and by means whereof he dispenseth the former Graces to us. Each of these resumed, and considered in their order, and shown to be, what they are usually styled, the inward, and spiritual Graces of Baptism, or the things signified by the outward visible Sign thereof. p. 65 The Contents of the Fifth Part. Of Forgiveness of sin by Baptism. OF the relation of the sign of Baptism to its inward, and spiritual Grace, and particularly to Forgiveness of sin; Which is either that of a means fitted by God to convey it, or of a pledge to assure the Baptised person of it. The former of these relations more particularly considered, as that too with respect to Forgiveness of Sin in the general, or the Forgiveness of all Sin whatsoever, and Original Sin in particular. As to the former whereof is alleged first the Scriptures calling upon Men to be Baptised for the remission, or forgiveness of sin, Secondly the Church's making that Forgiveness a part of her Belief, and Doctrine, Thirdly the agreeing opinions or practices of those, who were either unsound members of it, or Separatists from it, And Fourthly the Calumnies of its enemies. The like evidence made of the latter from the Scripture's proposing Baptism, and its Forgiveness as a remedy against the greatest guilts, and in special against that wrath, which we are Children of by Nature. From the premises is shown, that the sign of Baptism is a pledge to assure the Baptised of Forgiveness, as well as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it. p. 71 The Contents of the sixth Part. Of Mortification of sin, and Regeneration by Baptism. OF the relation of the sign of Baptism to such inward, and spiritual Graces, as tend to free us from the pollution of sin, or introduce the contrary purity; And that relation shown to be no less than that of a means, whereby they are conveyed. This evidenced as to the former, even our death unto sin (which is also explained) from such Texts of Scripture, as make mention of our being baptised into it, and buried by Baptism in it, or from such as describe us as cleansed by the washing of it. The like evidenced from the same Scripture concerning the latter, even our new birth unto righteousness; As that again farther cleared as to this particular by the consentient Doctrine, and practice of the Church, by the opinion the Jews had of that Baptism, which was a Type, and exemplar of ours, and the expressions of the Heathen concerning it. The Doctrine of the Church more largely insisted upon, and exemplified from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and S. Cyprian. p. 77 The Contents of the Seventh Part. Of our Union to the Church by Baptism. OF the relation of the sign of Baptism to our Union to the Church, and that relation shown to be no less than that of a means, whereby that Union is made. This evidenced in the first place from the declarations of the Scripture, more particularly from its affirming all Christians to be baptised into that Body, as those, who were first baptised after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, to have been thereby added to their company, and made partakers with the rest in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. The like evidence of the same Union to the Church by Baptism from the declarations of the Church itself, and the consequences of that Union shown to be such, as to make that also to be accounted one of the inward, and spiritual Graces of that Baptism, by which it is made. p. 85 The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of the Profession that is made by the Baptised Person. THE things signified by Baptism on the part of the baptised brought under consideration, and shown from several former discourses (which are also pointed to) to be an Abrenunciation of sin, a present belief of the Doctrine of Christianity, and particularly of the Trinity, and a resolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws. Our resolution of acting agreeably to the Laws of Christianity more particularly considered, and the Profession thereof shown by several Arguments to be the intendment of the Christian Baptism. What the measure of that conformity is, which we profess to pay to the Laws of Christianity, and what are the consequences of the Violation of that Profession. p. 89 The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the right Administration of Baptism. AFter a short account of the Foundation of the Baptismal relation, and reference made to those places from which a larger one may be fetched; Enquiry is made touching the right Administration of Baptism, as therein again, First, Whether Baptism ought expressly to be made in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Secondly whether Schismatics, and Heretics are valid Administratours of it, Thirdly, to what, and what kind of persons it ought to be administered, Fourthly, Whether it may be repeated. The two first of these spoken to here, and first, Whether Baptism ought to be expressly administered in the form proposed. Which is not only shown to be under obligation from the express words of the Institution, but answer made to those Texts, which seem to intimate it to be enough to baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus only. The Baptism of Schismatics, and Heretics more largely shown to be valid, unless where they baptise into a counterfeit Faith, and the several objections against it answered. p. 95 The Contents of the Tenth Part. Of the Baptism of those of riper Years. TO what, and what kind of persons Baptism ought to be administered; Which, as to those of riper years, is shown to be unto all, that come duly qualified for it. What those qualifications are, upon that account enquired into, and Repentance, and Faith shown from the Scripture, as well as from our own Catechism to be they. That Repentance, and Faith more particularly considered, the definitions given of them by our Church explained, and established. The former whereof is effected, by showing what Repentance doth presuppose, what it imports, and to what it doth naturally dispose us: The latter by showing what those promises are, which by the Catechism are made the object of our Faith, or Belief, what that Belief of them doth presuppose, what is meant by a steadfast Belief of them, and what evidence there is of that being the Faith, or Belief required to the receiving of Baptism. p. 103 The Contents of the Eleventh Part. Of the Baptism of Infants. WHat ground Infant-Baptism hath in Scripture, and particularly in what it suggests concerning Christ's commanding his Disciples to suffer little Children to come unto him. S. Paul's giving the Children of the faithful the title of Holy, and the Circumcision of Infants. The concurrence of Antiquity therein with the Doctrine of the Scripture, and that concurrence fartherstrengthned by the Pelagians so freely admitting of what was urged against them from thence. A brief account of that remission, and regeneration, which Infants acquire by Baptism, and a more large consideration of the Objections, that are made against it; More particularly of what is urged against the Regeneration of Infants in Baptism, or their ability to answer what is prerequired to it on the part of persons to be baptised, or is to be performed by them in the reception of it. Where the Regeneration of Infants is more largely considered, and what is promised for them by others shown to be both reasonable, and sufficient. p. 111 The Contents of the Twelfth Part. Whether Baptism may be repeated. WHat the true state of the present question is, and that it is not founded in any supposed illegitimateness of the former Baptism, but upon supposition of the baptised persons either not having before had, or forfeited the regeneration of it, or fallen off from that Religion, to which it doth belong. Whereupon enquiry is made, whether if such persons repent and return, they ought to be baptised anew, or received into the Church without. What there is to persuade the repeating of Baptism, and what the Church hath alleged against it. The Church's arguments from Eph. 4.4. and John 13.10. proposed, but waved. The Church's opinion more firmly established in the no direction there is in Scripture for rebaptisation in those cases, but rather the contrary, and in the no necessity there is of it. The Arguments for rebaptisation answered. p. 131 ERRATA In the Text. PAg. 22. l. 1. after do add not. p. 47. l. 46. after of add that. p. 81. l. 3. corruption. p. 109. l. 32. for boil r. boglt. In the Margin. Pag. 3. l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. l. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 23. l. 44. for Sacramentum, r. incrementa. p. 83. l. pmult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. PART I. Of the Rite of Baptism among the HEATHEN, and the JEWS. The Contents. The Heathen themselves not without the knowledge of another World, and of the insufficiency of natural Religion to bring them to the happiness thereof. Occasion taken by them from thence to inquire after other ways of obtaining it, and by the Devil to suggest the mysteries of their respective Deities as the only proper means of compassing it. Those mysteries every where initiated into by the Rite of Baptism; partly through Men's consciousness of their past sins, and which they judged it but meet they should be some way purged from, and partly through the policy of the Devil, who thereby thought to procure the greater veneration to them: That as it was a Rite, which was in use among God's own people, so naturally apt to represent to men's minds their passing from a sinful to a holy Estate. Of what Service the Heathens use of this Rite is toward the commendation of the Christians Baptism, and a transition from thence to the use of it among the Jews. Which is not only proved at large out of the Jewish Writings, and several particulars of that Baptism remarked, but that usage farther confirmed by several concurring proofs; such as is in particular the no appearance there is otherwise of any initiation of the Jewish Women, the Baptising of the whole Nation in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and a remarkable allusion to it in our Saviour's Discourse to Nicodemus. The silence of the Old Testament concerning that Rite shown to be of no force, because though it take notice of the first Jews being under the Cloud, and passing through the Red Sea, yet it takes no notice at all of their being Baptised in them, or of their Eating, and Drinking that spiritual Repast whereof S. Paul speaketh. The Baptism of Christians copied by our Saviour from that of the Jews, and may therefore, (where it appears not, that he hath made an alteration) receive an elucidation from it. THOUGH the Baptism of Christians be my proper business, and ought accordingly to be made the subject matter of my Discourse; yet I think it not amiss to premise something concerning the use of the like Rite among the Heathen, and (which is of much more consideration) among the people of the Jews: Partly because Christianity may seem to have borrowed her Baptism from the Baptism of the latter, and we therefore may borrow some light from it toward the clearing of our own; And partly because it may appear both from the one, and the others Baptism, that Christianity hath laid no other imposition on us, than what the general reason of Mankind, or a more early Tradition prompted others to the embracing of. For the understanding whereof we are to know, that as the Heathen themselves were not without a presension of another World, wherein the Souls of Men should be treated according to their demeanour here; So they alike saw, or at least suspected, that they could not expect a happy futurity by a bare compliance with those rules, which natural Religion suggested to them: Partly, because they saw but too well that they could never arrive at a perfect compliance with them, by which means they should always stand in need of the divine favour, and forgiveness; And partly, because they knew it to be in the power of their offended Deities to prescribe what ways and means they thought good for Men's obtaining a reconciliation with them. This therefore being the general, and indeed natural sense of Mankind, and not a little quickened at the first by what they might learn from God's own people concerning the Sacrifices, and other Rites, whereby he appointed them to atone him; Men began to look out every where for proper means to obtain the favour of their Gods; and the Devil, who was willing by all means to precipitate them into destruction, did either by himself, or his Agents suggest such, as might gratify those their hopes, but withal not only no way profit them, but debauch their minds so much the more. Only lest too gross a deceit should come to be discerned, he took care, among other things, that what he suggested should be concealed from the generality of Men, and indeed even from those, who were desirous to understand them, till they had approved themselves by a long expectation, and the undergoing of all those things, which were preparatory to them. From hence it was, that the mysteries of the several Heathen Deities came to have their beginning, and name; Those of the Mother of the Gods in Samothracia, and of Hecate in many places. Hence those famous ones of Ceres and Proserpina at Eleusis in Attica, of Bacchus in Boeotia, and of Mithras in Asia. In fine, hence those of Orpheus almost all over Greece, and of Isis in Egypt, and many other places: They * Cicero de leg. lib. 2. Mihi autem cum multa eximia, divinaque videntur Athenae tuae peperisse, atque in vitam hominum attulisse, tum nihil melius illis mysteriis, quibus ex agresti immanique vita exculti ad humanitatem, & mitigati sumus, initiaque, ut appellantur, ita revera principia vitae cognovimus, neque solum cum laetitia vivendi rationem accepimus, sed etiam cum spe meliore moriendi. , who were not without a due esteem of piety, and virtue making the end of those mysteries to have been the procuring to those that were initiated into them a possibility of living happily in the other World, whilst nothing but extremest miseries attended the neglecters of them. Sophocles— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But because mysteries of this nature were not to be communicated to all, no nor yet to any before they were purged from their past sins; Therefore care was taken first of all (as we learn from Clemens Alexandrinus † Strom. lib. 5. p. 424. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ) that they should pass through certain purgations, or washings, and which though (as Tertullian * De Baptismo. c. 5. speaks) performed viduis aquis, that is to say, with such, as had not the incubation of God's Spirit, yet were, as he afterwards (a) Ibid. ludis Apollinaribus, & Eleusiniis tinguntur, idque se in regenerationem, & impunitatem perjuriorum suorum agere praesumunt. affirms, both administered, and received as effectual Symbols of a new Birth, and a freedom from the punishment of their ofences. It was thus in particular, that Men were initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis, even the lesser ones, and such as were preparatory to the greater, and he who initiated them into them entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) Hesuch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or the Waterer. It was thus, as we learn from Tertullian (c) De Bapt. c. 5. Name & sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur Isidis alicujus, & Mithrae. , that they initiated Men into the rites of Mithras, and so too into those of Isis: The Chief Priest of that Goddess (as Apuleius (d) Milesi. 11. citat. à Seldene de success. ad leg. Haebr. c. 26. describes his own initiation) leading the party, that was to be initiated, in the Company of that Religious band to the next Bath. Where having first delivered him to the usual washing, and asked pardon of the Goddess, he sprinkled him all about, and bringing him back to the Temple, after two parts of the day were spent, placed him before the feet of the Goddess. How this way of initiation by Baptism came to prevail so generally, is hard to say, and I will not therefore be over positive in defining. That, which seems to me to be the most probable, is, that those mysteries, to which this way of initiation belonged, came all out of the same forge, even the contrivance of the Devil, and his dependants, to whom, though ignorantly, the Heathen offered (f) 1 Cor. 10.20. Sacrifice; That he suggested such an initiation to them, partly in imitation of those Baptisms, or washings, which God had appointed among his own people, and partly as a Symbol, which did most naturally represent to their minds their passing from a sinful to a holy Estate: Sin, by reason of the odiousness thereof, coming to have both the esteem, and name of Pollution, and that therefore, which professed to do it away, best represented by that Element, which was most proper to purge away the natural one; In fine, that they, to whom that form of initiation was proposed, being thereby possessed with a good opinion of the sacredness of those mysteries, to which it led, and a hope of its also purging them from their former guilt, greedily embraced it, and made it as sacred in their own esteem, as it seemed to be in the design of those, that instituted it. Which moreover they were more easily persuaded into, because they found it much more easy thus to wash away their Sins, than to purge their Conscience (g) Heb. 9.14. from dead works by repentance, and amendment. By these degrees, I suppose, it was, that Baptism came, even among the Heathen; to be the general form of initiating them into their respective mysteries; And had those mysteries been as sacred, as their initiation into them was specious, it might have served to them for a perpetual monument of that inward, and far better purity, which it becomes all those to put on, who hope for approbation from the Divine Majesty. But as that initiation of theirs had for its Institutor some false God, or other, or rather some Evil Spirit, who acted the part of one; As it was moreover an Introduction into abominable mysteries, as well as into unprofitable ones; Witness in particular those so much talked of mysteries of Eleusis (h) Arnob. adv. Gent. li. 5. & Clem. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 10. , and which I will favour chaste Ears in concealing: so I have insisted on it for no other reason, than to show, how willing the Devil was to procure credit to his mysteries by it, and how easily Men were prevailed upon by the speciousness thereof to engage themselves in the pursuit of them. Which, though it were no commendation to those mysteries, to which it was applied, yet is a sufficient one of the Rite itself, and will add yet more lustre to that Baptism of ours, which leads to a Religion, that is as spotless as itself. From the Baptism of the Heathen pass we to that of the Jews, and so much the rather, because if such a Baptism can be proved, it will not only be a farther commendation to our own, but it may be also give light to it: He, who came not to destroy the Law, and the Prophets, but to fulfil them (as Christ himself declared (i) Mat. 5.17. in the very entrance upon his Ministry) being likely enough to have had a regard to their Baptism also, and to have copied out his own Baptism by it. And indeed if any credit may be given to the most Authentic writings the Jews now have, and to one (k) Maimonides. of the most sober Rabbins, which that Nation hath ever produced, there will be no reason to doubt of the Jews having, even from Ancient times, the same way of initiating Men into their Religion, which Christianity doth now prescribe. For from their Writings it hath been observed, (and the express words of their respective Authors alleged (l) Seld. de Jure Nat. & Gent. li. 2. c. 2. etc. Ham. in his Quaer. concern. Inf. Baptism. for it) that the Males of the native Jews were of Old initiated into that Religion by Baptism, or washing of the whole body, as well as by Circumcision, and an Oblation, and the Females by Baptism, if not also by an Oblation; That the Males of their Proselytes of Justice (suitably to the Males of those native Jews, into whose Religion they were admitted) were initiated by Baptism, and an Oblation, as well as by Circumcision, and the Females by Baptism, and an Oblation; That the Baptism of Proselytes was to be performed in a natural receptacle of Waters, as in a River, a Pool, or a Fountain, and the whole body washed in it; That there were three Men appointed to preside over their Baptism, and who, as the Baptised persons stood in the water, were to lean over them, and twice explain to them some of the more weighty, and lighter precepts of the Law; That where the Proselyte was a Female, she should be encompassed with other Women to preserve her from being seen by the Triumvirs, and they to departed, when she was to come out of the water; That this Baptism being rightly performed was not to be repeated, and that in what condition Proselytes were baptised, that is to say, whether in a servile or free condition, (for that was then to be professed) in that they were to abide; That, from the time of their being thus proselyted, they were for the main accounted of as Jews, and had the title of such, that they were accounted of as persons new born, yea so far, that after that time they were not to own any of their former Relations; In fine, that that new birth was looked upon as so singular, that it gave occasion to their Cabalistical Doctors to teach, that the old Soul of the Proselyte vanished, and a new one succeeded in its place. For all these particulars have been observed concerning that Baptism whereof we speak, and the Baptism itself not only made as ancient as Moses, but deduced by them from that command of God (m) Exod. 19.10. , whereby Moses was enjoined to sanctify the Israelites, and cause them to wash their , against the time that God declared from Mount Sinai that legal Covenant, which they were then to enter into. Whether the Jewish Writers might not somewhat overlash in making their Baptism so very ancient, or err in assigning the former Command as the Original thereof, is a thing I mean not to dispute, and much less will I concern myself so far in it, as to vindicate them against all opposers. But as it is hard to believe, they would attribute so great an antiquity to that, which was not at least somewhat ancienter than our Saviour's time, which is all we are concerned to assert; So it will be much more hard to detract altogether from their testimony, if it hath any concurring proofs, and be otherwise fairly defensible against the adversaries thereof. Now that the testimony of the Jewish Writers is not without some concurring proofs, and such as will at least add to the probability thereof, will appear if we consider first, that though Circumcision both was, and was intended as a means of initiating the Jews, yet it was such a form of initiation, as was compatible only to the Males. By which means, if there had been no other form of initiation, all of the Female Sex, who were undoubtedly as much in Covenant with God, as those of the other, must have been debarred of any visible Sacrament to assure them of their interest in it. Which though it be not so great an inconvenience, as to enforce altogether the use of somewhat beside Circumcision, because the Females might be initiated in their Fathers, yet will make it reasonable enough to believe, that God, with whom there is no respect of Sexes, appointed some form of initiation, by which they might be alike admitted. I say Secondly, that as Circumcision was not compatible to those of the Female Sex, and not unlikely therefore that there might be some other ceremony for their initiation; So it is apparent from S. Paul (n) 1 Cor. 10.2. , that however God might deal with the Jews before, or after, yet all of them, in their passage from Egypt unto Canaan, were baptised into Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea. For being so, it is not difficult to believe, that the same form of initiation might afterwards have force in those, who were not capable of Circumcision, yea even in them, that were capable of it, after the Rite of Circumcision was over, if it were only to put them in mind, of that deliverance they received by it: Especially, when their Eucharistical Manna, though thence forward not enjoined to be used, because it ceased from among them, was yet laid up in the Ark of God (o) Exod. 16.32, etc. to put them in mind of God's nourishing them by it. I say Thirdly, that though Baptism might not be enjoined at the first, or at least enjoined only for the use of those, who were not capable of Circumcision, yet it might by the advice of their Governors, and the approbation of those Prophets whom God raised up among them, be afterwards added to Circumcision, both upon the account of their Forefathers being commanded to sanctify themselves, and wash their when they appeared before God at Mount Sinai, and as a farther declaration to them of the impurity of their Nature, and of that pure, and holy estate, which they entered into. For if their Forefathers were, even by the command of God, to sanctify themselves with washings toward their entering into Covenant with God at Mount Sinai, what should hinder such of their posterity, as presided over that Nation, to make an addition of the like Baptism? Especially, when all was little enough to admonish them of their own natural impurity, and of the necessity that lay upon them of purging themselves from it. I observe Fourthly, that though there be not any express mention in the Scripture of that Baptism whereof we speak, nor indeed of any like it beside that of John the Baptist, which being immediately from Heaven ought not to be drawn into example; yet is it sufficiently intimated by our Saviour, where, upon Nicodemus' wondering how a Man could be born of Water, and the Spirit, he with equal wonder demanded (p) Joh. 3.10. , Art thou a Master of Israel, and knowest not these things? For as that is a sufficient indication, that the notion our Saviour advanced was no stranger to the Israelites, and therefore neither such a Baptism, as was the subject of it; So it became yet more clear by the Jewish Writers representing the Baptism of a Proselyte as giving a new birth unto him: That as it is the same in effect with the product of Christ's Baptism, so making it yet more reasonable to believe, that our Saviour had an eye to it, when he wondered so much at Nicodemus for stumbling at that property in his. All which put together, because tending toward the same thing, will make it yet more reasonable to believe, that the Jewish Writers spoke not at adventure, when they represented the Rite of Baptism as a Rite of their own Nation, and by which both themselves, and their Proselytes had been of old initiated, no less than by the Rite of Circumcision. If there be any thing to hinder the admission of it, it must be the silence of the Old Testament concerning it, or at least concerning the Institution of it. But as we find no great mention, even of Circumcision itself after the five Books of Moses, and may therefore the less wonder at the no mention of Baptism, especially if, as it might be, instituted, after his time; As we find as little mention, even where it might have been more reasonably expected, of the first Jews being baptised into Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, or of their Eating, and Drinking that spiritual repast, whereof S. Paul speaketh (q) 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. : So there is as little reason therefore to wonder at its silence concerning this Rite, especially considering, what is notorious enough from thence, that God from time to time raised up Prophets among them. For their Authority, and Preaching might suffice to constitute, or confirm a matter of greater moment, than the Rite of Baptism, as added to Circumcision, can be supposed to have been. There being therefore no great doubt to be made of a Baptism among the Jews antecedent to that of John the Baptist, and our Saviour, it will not be difficult to believe first, that our Saviour had an eye to it, when he appointed the same Rite to initiate Men into his Religion: Partly because it was his avowed Profession, that he came rather to reform, than destroy their former Oeconomy; and partly because he might the more reasonably hope to bring them over to that faith, which it was an initiation into. It will be as easy to believe, Secondly, upon the score of the same condescension, and compliance, that Christ departed as little as might be from their manner of Administration of it, or from the ends, which it was appointed for among them; such a compliance being equally necessary to carry on his design of bringing them over to his Religion. The consequence whereof will be thirdly, that where it doth not very plainly appear that Christianity hath made an alteration in it, we interpret the Baptism thereof conformably to that of the Jews, from whence it appears to have been transcribed. How much more then, where there are any fair hints in Christianity of its symbolising with the Doctrine of the other? The result of which will be fourthly, our having recourse upon occasion to the Baptism of the Jews for the better clearing, or establishing the Doctrine of our own. Which as I shall therefore not fail to do as often as their Writings shall furnish matter for it; so having said thus much concerning their Baptism, and that of the Heathen, I will pass on to the Baptism of the Christians, and confine myself yet more strictly to the consideration of it. PART II. Of the Baptism of the Christians, and the Institution of it. The Contents. The Institution of the Christian Baptism more ancient, than the Command for it in S. Matthew * Matt. 28.19. , though not as to the generality of the World, nor it may be as to the like explicit Profession of the Trinity. As is made appear from Christ, or his Disciples baptising in Judea, not long after his own Baptism by S. John. Enquiry thereupon made, whether it were not yet more ancient, yea as ancient as Christ's execution of his Prophetical Office. Which is rendered probable from our Saviour's making Disciples before, and the equal reason there appears to have been for his making them after the same manner with those of Judea; From Christ's representing to Nicodemus the necessity of being born again of water, and the spirit, which is shown at large to be meant of a true, and proper Baptism; As, in fine, from Christ's telling S. Peter, when he asked the washing of his Hands, and Head, as well as Feet, that he, who had been washed, needeth not save to wash his feet. An answer to the supposed silence of the Scripture concerning so early a Baptism, and that shown to be neither a perfect silense, nor an unaccountable one. NOW the first thing to be enquired after is the Institution of it, and so much the rather, because though there is no doubt as to the thing itself, yet there is as to the first beginning of it. For there are, who have thought this Sacrament to have been first instituted by our Saviour immediately before his Ascension, and when he gave command to his Disciples * Matt. 28.19. to go, and teach, or disciple all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And I willingly grant (because our Saviour was sent only † Matt. 15.24. to the lost sheep of the House of Israel) that that was the first institution of it, as to that more general extent it was to have in the World, and it may be too as to that clear, and explicit profession of the Trinity, into the Names of which our Saviour afterwards commanded to baptise: Because such Doctrines as that were to be poured into the Disciples by degrees, and according as they should be able to receive them. But that the Sacrament itself had a more early Institution, will appear from the mention there is of our Saviour's baptising long before, or at least of his Disciples doing it by his Commission, and Appointment. For the clearing whereof we are to know, that whatsoever he may be thought to have done, before he first passed into Judaea after his own Baptism by John the Baptist, yet there he † Joh. 3.22. , or his Disciples (a) Joh. 4.2. baptised; yea to so great a number, that John's Disciples (b) Joh. 3.26. affirmed to their Master, that all men came to him, and it; and news was afterwards brought to the Pharisees (c) Joh. 4.1. , that he made, and baptised more Disciples, than John himself. Into what profession is not difficult to conjecture from our Saviour's being said to make (d) Joh. 4.1. Disciples by it, and from the Baptist's affirmming in allowance of our Saviour's Baptism, that he that believed on the Son (e) Joh. 3.36. , should have everlasting Life, but he, that believed not the Son, should not see life, but, on the contrary, have the wrath of God abiding on him. For what could that assertion have signified toward the legitimating of our Saviour's Baptism, especially when John himself admonished Men by his to believe on him, that should come after him (f) Acts 19.4. , that is, on Christ Jesus? Were it not, that our Saviour, or his Disciples did expressly baptise Men into the belief of him, and of that August Authority, and saving power, which was vested in him as the Messiah. Which makes me wonder so much the more, that Tertullian (g) De Bapt. c. 11. should make that Baptism of the Disciples but of the same nature with that of John, but above all at his ask, how Christ could be supposed to baptise into himself, when he at that time made it his business to conceal who, and what he was. For as John the Baptist was not wanting (h) Joh. 1.29, etc. to discover what he was; so our Saviour was so far from being reserved as to that particular, that the very first of those Disciples, that came to him, did both acknowledge him (i) Joh. 41.45. as the Messiah immediately, and represent him as such to other Men. But let us rise yet higher, than Christ's baptising in Judaea, though that be not far removed from his first setting up for Disciples, because whilst John was yet † Joh. 3.22, 23. baptising, which is the time, from whence the Scripture (k) Act. 1.22.— 10.37. makes our Saviour's preaching to commence. Not that there are any express proofs before that time of his baptising any Disciples, but that it may be some probable proofs may offer themselves for it, and such as we cannot reasonably refuse. Of which nature I reckon first his making Disciples before that time, and particularly those Disciples, whom he made use of to baptise in the Land of Jury. For if our Saviour made Disciples before, why not after the same manner, wherein he made those of Judaea? He had to induce him to it the custom, that then prevailed among the Jews, of making Disciples by that solemnity, as appears both by their so admitting Proselytes, and the Baptism of his Forerunner. He had to induce him to it the greater likelihood there was thereby of inviting others to the same Baptism, than if those, who were the first, and chief, and moreover made use of by himself to baptise, had not first been baptised themselves: Because so there could have been no pretence to refuse the Baptism he proposed, whereas otherwise they might have rejected it as a thing unnecessary to be had, or scrupled it as proceeding from incompetent Administrators of it. In fine, he had to induce him to it that, which prevailed with himself (l) Matt. 3.15. to receive the Baptism of John, even their fulfilling all righteousness, who were not only the first of his Disciples, but ordained by himself to be a pattern unto others. Which inducements as they are of no small force to persuade his baptising from the beginning, because but suitable to his own proceed, or the common reasonings of Mankind; so will no doubt be accounted such, if there be not equal probabilities to the contrary, as which are the only things, that can take off the edge of them. Now what is there of that nature, that can persuade Christ's omission of Baptism, unless it be either the Scripture's silence, which shall be afterwards considered, or his willingness thereby to intimate, that he had not so tied his own Graces to an external Rite, but that he could, and would upon occasion confer them without it? But beside that there was a like fear thereby of Men's neglecting his appointments upon a presumption of their receiving his Graces as the Apostles did; This may seem to have been too early a season for such an intimation, because before Men were well confirmed in his Authority, or ability to confer them, even by the ordinary solemnities. For if they were not as yet well confirmed in that, how should they dream of a greater power, yea not rather be thereby tempted to question altogether his Authority, because departing so far even from the example of John the Baptist, whom all Men (m) Matt. 21.26. accounted as a Prophet? But beside that our Saviour made Disciples before, and may therefore not improbably be thought to have made them after the same manner; We find yet farther, that before he baptised those of Judaea, he represented the solemnity of Baptism as a thing necessary to enter Men into that Kingdom of God, to which he invited them: Our Saviour not only telling Nicodemus, that except a Man were born again (n) Joh. 3.3. , he could not see the Kingdom of God, but yet more plainly, that except he were born again of Water (o) Joh. 3.5. , and of the Spirit, he could not possibly enter into it. For how could Christ represent that as necessary, which he himself had not afforded to his first, and chiefest Disciples, nor, for aught that doth appear, ever after did? For if he did, he would certainly have done it before he made use of them to baptise others; Partly because they were the first Disciples he had, and partly because so they would have been more apparently qualified to have administered the same Baptism unto others. If therefore Christ represented Baptism as necessary, even before his baptising in Judaea, it is not unreasonable to think he had both instituted, and administered it before: Especially, when the Disciples he before had cannot well be thought to have had it afterwards, as in reason they must have had it, if it were so necessary as our Saviour affirmed it. And possibly neither would they, who are otherwise persuaded, have in the least suspected the force of this argument, had it not been for an opinion of theirs, that our Saviour spoke not in this place of Baptism, but of Men's being born again of that spirit of God, which hath the same cleansing quality with water: So making that speech of our Saviour to be that, which the Rhetoricians call an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently resolvable into a watery, or cleansing Spirit, as Virgil 's pateris libamus & auro, is into pateris aureis, or golden Dishes. Even as they suppose the Scripture (p) Matt. 3.11. meant when it affirmed, that Christ should baptise with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, that is to say, with that Holy Ghost, which hath the purifying, and warming qualities of that Element. I will not now say, though I might, that that figure might have been more allowable here, if that speech of Christ could have been so fairly resolved into a watery Spirit, as pateris & auro may be into pateris aureis; Which that it cannot be, is sufficiently evident from Gold's being the proper Material of those Dishes, whereof the Poet speaks, which water to be sure is not of the other. But neither will I any more than say, that Christ's baptising with the Holy Ghost, and with fire doth not make at all for this figure, because it is certain that at the day of Pentecost, which was the most notorious descent of the Holy Ghost, and particularly referred to by that Baptism (q) Act. 1.5. , Christ baptised his Disciples with a material fire, as well as that. But I say, which is more material, that there is great reason to understand our Saviour here of that Baptism by water, which we have affirmed his words to import. For so first (as Mr. Hooker (r) Eccl. Pol. li. 5. §. 59 did long since observe) the Letter of the Text persuades, and which we are not lightly to departed from, unless we will make the Scripture a very uncertain Rule, and indeed to prove any thing, which wanton wits would have it. So secondly (as the same Hooker (s) Ibid. observes) the Ancients * Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 94. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 13. Cyprian Epist. 73. without exception understood it, yea he † Tertul. ubi supra. , who makes the Baptism now under consideration, even the Baptism of Christ before his Ascension, to be but of the same nature with S. John's. So thirdly, we have cause to understand Christ here, because expressing what he here intended by a new birth from water, which is the property (t) Tit. 3.5. of that Baptism, he afterwards commanded the Apostles to administer. In fine, so several circumstances both of the Text, and Context persuade, and some too, that are not so ordinarily taken notice of. Of which nature I reckon as none of the least that, which gave occasion to them, even Nicodemus' coming to Jesus by night (u) Joh. 3.2. , and there, and then acknowledging to him, that he was a teacher come from God, and that he himself was induced to believe it by the miracles our Saviour wrought. For that secret confession of his being not only not agreeable to that more public one (w) Matt. 10.32. , which our Saviour required, but (as appears by the answer he returned to it) intimated by him to be insufficient, because letting him know, that except he was born again of water, and the spirit, he could not enter into the Kingdom of God; Nothing can be more agreeable to our Saviour's mind, than to understand those Words of his of Men's making a more public confession of him in order to their Salvation, if the Words can with any reason be thought to admit of it. Which that they may is evident from hence, that, whatever our Saviour now understood by them, the like expression (x) Tit. 3.5. became afterwards an usual periphrasis of Baptism, which was a public confession of our Saviour. I say secondly, that as the occasion of the words doth naturally lead to such a sense, as will make them import a more public Confession of our Saviour; So it will consequently prompt us to understand them of such a new Birth, as is performed by Water, and the Spirit, rather than of that, which is performed by the Spirit alone: That, as it is a Birth, which manifests itself to the Eyes of others, which this cannot be supposed to do, so being a Birth therefore, which may publicly declare our Confession of him, by whose appointment we are born again. Agreeable hereto thirdly, is the sense of the words themselves, if those Jews, of whom Nicodemus was sometime a Ruler, may be listened to in this affair; They not only affirming their own Proselytes to have been admitted by Baptism, but that Baptism also represented as a thing, which gave them a new birth, yea so far, as to make them put off their old relations by it. For what then can be more reasonable, than to think, that our Saviour, when he spoke to a Jew, spoke the same Language with them, and consequently, that, as he spoke of being born of Water, as well as the Spirit, he meant a like Baptism by it. Especially, when it is observable, fourthly, that our Saviour asked Nicodemus, not without some amazement, (y) Joh. 3.10. , Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things? For what was this, but to intimate yet more, that the new Birth, whereof he spoke, was no stranger to themselves, and consequently, because he spoke of being born of Water, that he meant a Baptism by it? Add hereunto, fifthly; our Saviour's affirming himself in the former Discourse to have spoken of earthly (z) Joh. 3.12. things, and (as one would think) therefore of such a Birth, which though influenced by God's Spirit, yet had something of earthly, as that is opposed to heavenly, adhering to it: As, in fine, the Evangelist's subjoyning to this Discourse of a new Birth by Water the mention of our Saviour's (*) Joh. 3.22. passing into Judaea, and there baptising; There being not a fairer account either of that connexion, or our Saviour's proceed, than that, agreeably to what he had said concerning the necessity of Men's being so born again, he went into Judaea, and baptised, and so made way for their entrance into God's Kingdom. Such evidence there is of our Saviour's meaning a proper Baptism, when he spoke of the necessity of Men's being born again of water, and of the Spirit; And if our Saviour meant such a Baptism, there is as little doubt of his having before both instituted, and administered it, yea even from the time of his setting up for Disciples; There being not the least appearance of Christ's baptising those first Disciples afterwards, which yet he must have done, considering the necessity thereof, if they had not been baptised before. I will conclude what I have to say concerning the earliness of our Saviour's Baptism, when I have added from a passage of Christ to S. Peter the farther probability there is of his, and the other Apostles having received it, and therefore, if they did so, of their having received it from the beginning of their Discipleship: That I mean, whereupon S. Peter's begging of Christ to wash not only his feet, but his hands, and his head, if (as our Saviour had told him) he could have no part in him, unless he washed him, Christ is said to have made answer † Joh. 13.10. , that he, that had been washed, even by a more general washing, needed not save to wash his feet. For as our Saviour intimates by that expression, that he, and the rest had passed under the former washing, and consequently did not need such a general washing a second time; so he may not improbably be thought to have meant the washing of Baptism, and which though in itself an outward purification, yet was attended with an inward, and spiritua loan: Partly, because it is certain that our Saviour had before this time madeuse of the Baptism of Water to purify Men unto himself, and may therefore be well enough supposed to allude unto it; And partly, because that Baptism, or washing will be more directly opposed to that, which our Saviour now intended, and which though designed by him to signify a more spiritual purgation, even that of the affections, or actions, yet was performed by him by an outward washing. For why then should we not think, that the Apostles had that more general washing of Baptism? Especially when we know that about this time Christ administered to them the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and which as it is in order of nature after that of Baptism, and may therefore not unreasonably be thought to have been preceded by theirs, so is an evidence that Christ meant, in some measure at least, to conduct them by the same Rites, and Ceremonies, wherewith he intended to bring other Men unto himself. One only thing there is, which can any way prejudice the former Discourse, even the silence there is in the New Testament of any Baptism by Christ before that in Judaea, yea the silence there is of it in that very Evangelist, who takes such particular notice of the other. And surely such a silence would have been of no small force, if it had been either a perfect silence, or an unaccountable one. But as that story cannot be looked upon as perfectly silent, which affords so many probable proofs of what it is pretended to be silent in; so there may be reason enough given of its ascending no higher in its account of Christ's administration of Baptism, than that, which was performed by him in Judaea: Partly, because the Author of it had before acquainted his Readers with Christ's representing it as generally necessary * Joh. 3.5. to Salvation, and from which, and the following practice of our Saviour in making Disciples, Men might reasonably enough collect his having so made the former ones; And partly, because he knew, that what was defective in his account of our Saviour's Baptism, might be abundantly supplied to posterity (to whom he, and the other Evangelists principally wrote) by what those other Evangelists (a) Matt. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. had said concerning Christ's giving command to his Apostles of baptising all Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For that, together with his own account of our Saviour's Baptism, was enough to let them know (and therefore enough for their own purpose) that as Christ himself initiated Men by Baptism, yea represented it as necessary to Salvation, so it was his absolute will, and pleasure, that those, to whom his Apostles, and their Successors published his Gospel, should be initiated by the same means, if they meant to enter into the Kingdom of God. PART III. Of the outward visible Sign of Baptism. The Contents. The outward visible Sign of the Christian Baptism shown to be the Element of Water, and enquiry thereupon made wherein it was intended as a Sign; Which is shown, in the general, to be as to the cleansing quality thereof, more particularly as to the use it was put to toward newborn Infants, and that application of it which was first in use, even by an immersion, or plunging the Party baptised in it. Occasion taken from thence to inquire farther, how it ought to be applied, more especially whether by an immersion, or by that, or an aspersion, or effusion. Evidence made of an immersion being the only legitimate Rite of Baptism, save where necessity doth otherwise require; And enquiry thereupon made, whether necessity may justify the Application of it by an Aspersion, or Effusion, and, if it may, whether the case of Infants be to be looked upon as such a necessity What is to be thought of those additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward solemnities of Baptism. Where the sign of the Cross in Baptism is more particularly considered, and answer made to those Exceptions that are made against it as a Ceremony, as an addition of Men to the Institution of Christ, and as a supposed Relic of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papists abuses of it. BUT because whatever doubt there may be of the first Institution of the Christian Baptism, Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism? Answer. Water, wherein the person is baptised in the name of the Father, etc. yet there neither is, nor can be any doubt of our Saviour's instituting it then, when he was about to take his leave of his Disciples; Therefore pass we on to the Sacrament itself, which (agreeably to the procedure of our own Catechism, and the method before observed, when I entreated of the nature of a Sacrament in the general) I will consider, I. As to its outward and visible Sign. II. As to its inward and Spiritual Grace, or the thing signified by it. III. As to that relation, which its outward, and visible Sign bears to its inward, and Spiritual Grace. iv As to the Foundation of that Relation. For as the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism will be found to lie within these four, so I no way doubt we shall be able to reduce to one, or other of these generals whatsoever is any way necessary to be known concerning it. Now there are four things to be enquired concerning the first of these, even the outward and visible sign of Baptism. First, what that outward and visible sign is. Secondly, wherein it was intended as a sign. Thirdly, how it ought to be applied. Fourthly, what is to be thought of those additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward solemnities of Baptism. 1. As touching the outward, and visible sign of Baptism, there is no doubt it is the Element of Water, as is evident from the native signification of the word Baptism, which signifies an immersion, or dipping into some liquid thing, from the matter of those Baptisms, which were in use among the Jews, and which our Saviour (because making use of the same word to express his own Baptism by) is in reason to be supposed to have so far conformed it to, but more especially from the account we have of the Administration of it, both whilst our Saviour continued here, and after his Ascension into Heaven. For thus after S. John had said † Joh. 3.22. , that our Saviour, presently after his entering upon his Prophetic Office, came into the Land of Judaea, and there baptised, he immediately subjoined † Joh. 3.23. , that John the Baptist also was then baptising in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there. For as it is evident from thence, as well as from other places * Matt. 3.6.— 13. , that the Baptism of John was a Baptism by Water; so the Evangelist mentioning John the Baptist as practising the same thing with our Saviour, shows the Baptism of our Saviour to have been so far like it, and consequently to have had Water for the Instrument thereof. The same is yet more evident as to the practice of our Saviour's Disciples, after his more general Command (a) Matt. 28.19. of Baptism, and his own Ascension into Heaven. For thus we find Philip and the Eunuch going down into a certain water (b) Act. 8.38. , by which they passed in order to the Baptism of the latter; As that too, after the Eunuch had admonished him (c) Act. 8.36. , See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And thus too we find S. Peter (d) Act. 10.47, 48. , before he gave order for Cornelius, and his companies being baptised in the name of the Lord, demanding of those of the Circumcision, that came with him, whether any Man could forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which had received the Holy Ghost, as well as themselves; Thereby intimating, or rather expressly declaring, that our Saviour's Baptism was, as to the outward, and visible sign, the same with that of John the Baptist, and other the Baptisms of the Jews. 2. Water therefore being no doubt the outward and visible sign of Baptism, and so declared to be by the manner of its Administration; The next thing to be enquired into is, wherein it was intended as a sign, which will appear to have been in these three particulars: First in respect of that cleansing quality, which is natural to it, secondly in respect of that use which it was put to about newborn Infants, thirdly in respect of that manner of Application of it, which was first used, and no doubt generally intended, I mean the dipping of the Party baptised in it. That the Water of Baptism was intended as a sign in respect of the first of these, will need no other proof, than Ananias' admonishing Paul to arise and be baptised, and wash (e) Act. 22.16. away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. For it appearing, on the one hand, that the Baptism, to which Paul was invited, even the Christian one, was a Baptism by Water, and, on the other hand, that it was at least ordained for the remission (f) Act. 2.38. of sins, and so the putting away their guilt; Nothing can be more reasonable, than to think, that when Ananias subjoined to the precept of being baptised that of washing away his sins, he meant his washing them away by Baptism, and consequently that the Water of Baptism was both a sign of something relating to the putting away of his sins, and a sign too in particular in respect of that cleansing quality, which is natural to it, because that Baptism, to which it belongs, is described as washing away the other. But beside that Water was intended as a sign in respect of that cleansing quality, which is natural to it; There is equal reason to believe, that it was also intended as such in respect of the use it was then put to about newborn Infants, even the washing away of those impurities, which they contracted from the Womb. We have (as Mr. Mede did long since observe (g) Disc. on Tit. 3.5. ) an allusion to this custom in the description, which God gives of the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem, when he first took her unto himself, under the parable of an exposed Infant. For as for thy Nativity, saith he, (h) Eze. 16.4. in the day that thou wast born, thy Navel was not cut, neither waist thou washed in water to supple thee, thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all: Thereby intimating what was then done to Infants in their Nativity, and particularly the washing them from their impurities. And how generally received this custom was, even among the Heathen, may appear (as the same Mr. Mede (i) Vbi supra. hath observed) from what was done to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who were persons (k) Hesych. in utramque vocem. , to whom the Rites of Burial had been performed as dead, but did afterwards appear again in the World. For as these were looked upon as born anew (*) Plutarch Quaest. Rom. statim ab initio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—. into the World, so like newborn Infants they were to be washed with Water before they could be admitted to the conversation of Men, or allowed to enter into the Temples of their Gods. But so that the Water of Baptism was intended for a sign, is evident from its being styled the laver (l) Tit. 3.5. of regeneration, or a new Birth, and from the addition, that was made to it in after times of giving milk * Tertul. de Coronâ c. 3. Ind [nempe post immersionem] suscepti, lactis & mellis concordiam praegustamus. and honey to the new-baptized persons, as that too to declare their Infancy † Idem adv. Martion. li. 1. c. 14. Sedille quidem usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit creatoris qua suos abluit, nec oleum quo suos uncuit, nec mellis & lactis societatem, quo suos infantat, etc. . For this evidently shows this second Birth to relate to the first, and consequently, that the Element of Water, and the Regeneration by it, though borrowed more immediately from the Baptism of the Jews, yet was intended by our Saviour (as I no way doubt it was also by the Jews) as of like use with that, which was applied to newborn Infants, and to represent alike washing away of natural pollutions. One other particular there is, wherein I have said the Water of Baptism to have been intended as a sign, and that is in respect of that manner of application, which was sometime used, I mean the dipping, or plunging the party baptised in it. A signification, which S. Paul will not suffer those to forget, who have been acquainted with his Epistles. For with reference to that manner of Baptising we find him affirming (m) Rom. 6.4. , that we are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life; And again (n) Rom. 6.5. , that if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. To the same purpose, or rather yet more clearly, doth that Apostle discourse, where he tells us (o) Col. 2.12. , that as we are buried with Christ in Baptism, so we do therein rise also with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the Dead. For what is this but to say, that as the design of Baptism was to oblige Men to conform so far to Christ's Death, and Resurrection, as to die unto Sin, and live again unto Righteousness, so it was performed by the ceremony of immersion, that the person immersed might by that very ceremony, which was no obscure image of a Sepulture, be minded of the precedent death, as in like manner, by his coming again out of the Water, of his rising from that death to life, after the example of the Instituter thereof? For which cause, as hath been elsewhere (p) Expl. of the Creed, in the words, And Buried. observed, the Ancient Church added to the Rite of immersion the dipping of the party three several times to represent the three days Christ continued in the Grave (for that we find to have been the intention of some) and made the Eve of Easter one of the solemn times of the Administration of it. 3. The third thing to be enquired concerning the outward visible sign of Baptism is, how it ought to be applied, where again these two things would be considered. First, whether it ought to be applied by an immersion, or by that, or an aspersion, or effusion. Secondly, whether it ought to be applied by a threefold immersion, or aspersion, answerably to the names into which we are baptised, or either by that, or a single one. The former of these is, it may be, a more material question, than it is commonly deemed by us, who have been accustomed to baptise by a bare effusion, or sprinkling of water upon the party. For in things, which depend for their force, upon the mere will, and pleasure of him, who instituted them, there aught, no doubt, great regard to be had to the commands of him, who did so; As without which there is no reason to presume, we shall receive the benefit of that ceremony, to which he hath been pleased to annex it. Now, what the command of Christ was in this particular, cannot well be doubted of by those who shall consider first the words of Christ (q) Matt. 28.19. concerning it, and the practice of those times, whether in the Baptism of John, or of our Saviour. For the words of Christ are, that they should Baptise, or Dip those, whom they made Disciples to him (for so, no doubt, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies) and, which is more, and not without its weight, that they should baptise them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Thereby intimating such a washing, as should receive the party baptised within the very body of that Water, which they were to baptise him with. Though, if there could be any doubt concerning the signification of the words in themselves, yet would that doubt be removed by considering the practice of those times, whether in the Baptism of John or of our Saviour. For such as was the practice of those times in Baptising, such in reason are we to think our Saviour's command to have been concerning it, especially, when the words themselves incline that way; There being not otherwise any means either for those, or future times to discover his intention concerning it. Now what the practice of those times was as to this particular, will need no other proof than their resorting to Rivers, and other such like receptacles of waters for the performance of that ceremony, as that too because there was much Water there. For so the Scripture doth not only affirm concerning the Baptism of John (r) Matt. 3.5.6.13. John 3.23. , but both intimate concerning that, which our Saviour administered in Judaea (because making John's Baptism, and his to be so far forth of the same sort (s) Joh. 3.22, 23. ) and expressly affirm concerning the Baptism of the Eunuch, which is the only Christian Baptism the Scripture is any thing particular in the description of: The words of S. Luke (t) Act. 8.38. being, that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into a certain water which they met with in their journey, in order to the baptising of the latter. For what need would there have been either of the Baptist's resorting to great confluxes of Water, or of Philip, and the Eunuches going down into this, were it not that the Baptism both of the one, and the other was to be performed by an immersion? A very little Water, as we know it doth with us, sufficing for an effusion, or sprinkling. But beside the words of our Blessed Saviour, and the concurrent practice of those times, wherein this Sacrament was instituted; It is in my opinion of no less consideration, that the thing signified by the Sacrament of Baptism, cannot otherwise be well represented, than by an immersion, or at least by some more general way of purification, than that of effusion, or sprinkling. For though the pouring, or sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face may suffice to represent an internal washing, which seems to be the general end of Christ's making use of the Sacrament of Baptism; yet can it not be thought to represent such an entire washing, as that of newborn Infants was, and as Baptism may seem to have been intended for, because represented as the laver (u) Tit. 3.5. of our regeneration: That, though it do require an immersion, yet requiring such a general washing at least, as may extend to the whole Body; As other than which cannot answer its type, nor yet that general, though internal purgation, which Baptism was intended to represent. The same is to be said yet more upon the account of our conforming to the Death, and Resurrection of Christ, which we learn from S. Paul to have been the design of Baptism to signify. For, though that might, and was well enough represented by the baptised persons being buried in Baptism, and then rising out of it; yet can it not be said to be so, or at least but very imperfectly by the bare pouring out, or sprinkling the Baptismal Water on him. But therefore as there is so much the more reason to represent the Rite of immersion, as the only legitimate Rite of Baptism, because the only one, that can answer the ends of its Institution, and those things, which were to be signified by it; so especially if (as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force) the general practice of the Primitive Church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek Church to this very day. For who can think either the one, or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a Rite, were it not that they were well assured, as they of the Primitive Church might very well be, of its being the only instituted, and legitimate one. How to take off the force of these Arguments altogether, is a thing I mean not to consider; Partly, because our Church (w) See the Rubric in the Office of Baptism before the words, I baptise thee, etc. seems to persuade such an immersion, and partly, because I cannot but think the forementioned Arguments to be so far of force, as to evince the necessity thereof, where there is not some greater necessity to occasion an alteration of it. For what benefit can Men ordinarily expect from that, which depends for its force upon the will of him, that instituted it, where there is not such a compliance at least with it, and the Commands of the Instituter, as may answer those ends, for which he appointed it? And indeed, whatever may have been done to Infants, which I no way doubt were more or less baptised from the beginning, the first mention we find of Aspersion in the Baptism of the Elder sort, was in the case of the Clinici, or Men who received Baptism upon their sick Beds; and that Baptism represented by S. Cyprian * Epist. ad Magn. 76. In Sacramentis salutari●●s, necessitate cogente, & Deo indulgentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conserunt Divina compendia. as legitimate upon the account of the necessity, that compelled it, and the presumption there was of God's gracious acceptation thereof because of it. By which means the lawfulness of any other Baptism, than by an immersion, will be found to lie in the necessity there may sometime be of another manner of Administration of it; and we therefore only inquire, whether the necessity of the party to be baptised can justify such an alteration, and what is to be looked upon as such a necessity. And indeed though that Magnus, to whom S. Cyprian directed the forementioned Letter, seemed to question the lawfulness of such a Baptism, and that Father, as his manner is, spoke but modestly concerning it; yet there is not otherwise any appearance of the Ancient Churches disapproving the Baptism of the Clinics, because they were not loti, but perfusi, as S. Cyprian expresseth it. For even he himself doth there intimate, that they † Aut si aliquis existimat eos nihil consecutos, eo quod aquâ salutari tantum perfusi sunt, etc. non decipiantur, ut si incommodum languoris evaserint, & convaluerint, baptizentur. Si autem baptizari non possunt, qui jam Baptismo Ecclesiastico sanctificati sunt, cur in fide suâ, & Domini indulgentiâ scandalizentur? Cypr. ubi supra. , who liked not the Baptism of the Clinics, did not yet care to baptise them again. He adds farther, that they who had been so baptised, were known to have been delivered thereby from that unclean spirit, which before possessed them * Denique & rebus ipsis experimur, ut necessitate urgenle, in aegritudine baptizati, & gratiam consecuti, careant immundo spiritu, quo antea movebantur, & laudabiles ac probabiles in Ecclesiâ vivant, plusque per dies singulos in augmentum coelestis gratiae per fidei Sacramentum proficiant. Cypr. ibid. , and after their recovery, gave as good proof, as any, by their holy living, of their being sanctified by that Baptism. In fine, that they, who differed from him, as to the rebaptisation of Heretics, (which was the sounder part of the Church in that particular) did, without any difference, admit those, who had been baptised by Heretics † Et tantus honor habeatur haereticis, ut inde venientes non interrogentur, utrumne loti sint, an perfusi, utrumne Clinici sint, an Peripatetici. Cypr. ibid. , neither were scrupulous in enquiring, whether they were washed or sprinkled, Clinics or Peripatetics. Which passages alone are a sufficient proof, that the generality of the Church looked upon sprinkling as enough, where there was any just necessity to constrain it. But so (to omit other proofs) we may be satisfied even by that Canon (x) Cod. Eccl. Vniv. can. 57 come not. Just. , which was made against some of the foremention'd Clinics; The utmost, that Canon pretended to do against them, being the hindering them from being promoted to the Priesthood, as that too, not because of any unlawfulness in the manner of their Baptism, but because there was sometime a presumption, that that Baptism proceeded rather from necessity, than choice, or that they had (as Tertullian (y) De Poenit. cap. 8. speaks) deferred the receiving of it, that they might in the mean time indulge to their sins, as nothing doubting, but their future Baptism would wipe off all. There being therefore no doubt to be made (so far as the judgement, or practice of the Church can warrant us) that necessity doth justify a bare Aspersion in Baptism; Inquire we, for our farther confirmation in it, what there was in the Scripture to induce them to it, or establish us in the belief of it. Which I conceive to be their understanding from thence (z) 1 Pet. 3.21. , that though Baptism was the thing, that saved, yet it was not so much by its washing away the filth of the flesh, as from that answer of a good Conscience, which it did involve; That, though the external washing was also necessary in its kind, and, where it might be had, in those circumstances also, wherein it was instituted, yet since God had declared * Matt. 12.7. , That he would have mercy, and not sacrifice, there was reason enough to believe, that he required no farther a compliance in this particular, than was consistent with the safety of men's lives to afford; especially, when what was wanting in the application of the outward visible sign might be made up by the form of words, wherewith it was administered, and Men admonished thereby of those significations of Baptism, which the visible solemnities thereof did not suggest. For, the several ends of Baptism being thus secured, there was still the less reason to be scrupulous about the means, or think God would be rigorous in exacting them. But so they might be yet more assured (as it appears St. Cyprian † Ubi supra. was) by what the Prophet Ezekiel * Ezek. 36.25. brings in God as speaking concerning the times of the Messiah; Even that he would sprinkle clean Water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and from their Idols. For as it appears from what follows (a) Ezek. 36.26, 27. , even that God would give the persons there spoken of a new heart, and a new Spirit, take away their stony heart from them, and put his own spirit within them, that this whole passage was spoken more particularly with reference to the times of the Messiah, Maimonides himself (b) Explic. Tract. Sanb. c. 10. a pud Pocock. Port. Mosis, p. 160.1. so applying this, and the like passages; So we cannot therefore better interpret the sprinkling of clean Water upon them in order to it, than of the Water of Baptism, and which the Spirit of God expressing by the term of sprinkling of Water shows it to have foreseen a necessity of its being so administered oftentimes, and his own allowance of it. All which things whosoever shall consider, will, I doubt not, see reason enough to think, that necessity may justify an Aspersion in Baptism, and nothing more therefore left to inquire upon this Head, than what may be looked upon as such a necessity, which will bring the question yet nearer to ourselves. Now as there can be no doubt of sickness being such, and particularly such a sickness, as fastens Men to their Beds; So we shall therefore have nothing more to consider of, than the case of Infants, and to whom as Baptism is generally administered, so it is also performed by an effusion, or sprinkling. With what necessity, is the thing we are to inquire, and so much the rather because the Greek Church useth immersion, or dipping to this very day, and the Muscovitish Church after its example. For if the coldness of any Clime may be thought to make that Rite dangerous to such tender Bodies, one would think they of the latter should find it to be such, and therefore see a necessity of changing it. For the clearing whereof we are to know, that as they, who use the Rite of immersion, even in warmer Countries, are so sensible of the tenderness of Infant Bodies, that they make use of warm Water to baptise them; So the Muscovites making use of it without any danger (if yet they always do so) will not make it cease to be such to Infants of other Countries: There being, as every one knows, no small difference between the Bodies of Infants, as well as those of Men, and to some of whom therefore, and in some Countries that may be exceeding dangerous, which Infants of other Countries find no such inconvenience by. And indeed as such an Immersion of Infants, especially in these Northern parts, cannot generally be thought to be without its hazard, how warily and carefully soever managed; As it may be yet more hazardous to weaker Infants, and whom, as it would not be thought fit to deny Baptism to, so as little, to do any thing to send them out of the World; so I am apt enough to believe upon second thoughts (for I have elsewhere (c) Expl. of the Creed, in the Words, And Buried. spoken more harshly concerning it) that that Rite came to be disused here after a sufficient proof of the inconveniencies thereof; Because (as Erasmus notes (d) Vid. Pamel. in not. ad Cypr. epist. ad Magnum. ) it was in use among us, even in his time, and the Liturgies, that have been in force since, not excepting the present one, seem rather to persuade the use of it. For our Fore father's being so strangely tenacious of that Rite, and both they, and their posterity not without a venerable opinion of it, it cannot well be thought they should come at length so generally to disuse it, but that they found by experience, that it was not without its hazard, and so more prudently omitted. However it be, our Church hath acquitted itself from all blame, because manifestly licensing (e) See the Rubr. of Bapt. before the Words, I baptise thee, etc. the sprinkling of Infants with respect to the weakness of their State; And I have the more carefully noted both that, and the ground of our practice, the better to defend ourselves from a retort of the Romanists, when we charge them with Sacrilege in the matter of the Eucharist for taking away the Cup from the Laity. For why not (as they sometime answer) as well as change the Rite of Immersion in Baptism into that of sprinkling? Especially, when a great part of the Symbolicalness of that Sacrament lies in the manner of the application of its sign. Which Answer of theirs were not in my opinion easy to be repelled, were it not, that we have that necessity to justify our practice, which they cannot pretend for their own. Having thus said enough concerning the applying of the outward sign of Baptism, whether by an Immersion, or Aspersion, which was the first thing I had to consider; Inquire we in the next place how often that application ought to be made, that is to say whether as many times as there are persons in the Godhead, into which we baptise, or once for all into the three. The ground of which question is not only that distinct profession of the Trinity, which Baptism was intended to declare, but the appearance there is of the Churches using a threefold immersion from the beginning. For, not to mention any other proofs, Tertullian, who flourished within an hundred years after the last of the Apostles, doth not only mention the threefold immersion, as a thing in use in his time, but as a thing which was derived to them from * Tert. de Coronâ, c. 3. Ergo quaeramus, an & Traditio nisi scripta non debeat recipi. Plant negabimus recipiendam, si nulla exempla praejudicent aliarum observationum, quas sine ullius scripturae instrumento, solius traditionis titulo, & exinde consuetudinis Patrocinio vindicamus. Denique, ut à Baptismo ingrediar, Aquam adituri ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in Ecclesiâ sub Antistitis manu contestamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, & pompae, & angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quàm Dominus in Evangelio determinavit. Item adv. Praxeam c. 26. Tradition, and which, considering the time wherein he lived, cannot well fall short of an Apostolical one. And thus much certainly aught to be allowed to this, and other testimonies, that in or near the Apostolical Age, the more fully to express that distinction of persons, into the Faith of which Christ commanded to baptise, Men were with the command, or allowance of those who presided in the Church, plunged into the Baptismal Water at the mention of each person's name. But as that threefold immersion cannot be collected from the command of Christ, because simply enjoining to baptise into the Faith of the Trinity, and which one immersion may declare as well as a threefold one; As there is as little appearance of such a threefold immersion from the account we have in the Scripture of the administration of it: So it is but reasonable to think, that as ancient as it was, yet it was postnate to the single one, and had its rise from some Men's beginning to call the Doctrine of the Trinity in question (as we find by Tertullian they did very early) and, the better to colour their own error, as well as to overthrow the other, admonishing Men from S. Paul, that Baptism was peculiarly intended to baptise Men into Christ's death. For beside that they, who consider the primitive face of Christianity, will need no other proof than that to persuade them to believe, that the more simple any Rite is, so much the more ancient it ought to be thought to be; That Apostolic Canon † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 50. , which commands the deposing of him, who should not use a threefold immersion, but a single one, doth not so much as prefer the threefold immersion to the single one simply, and absolutely considered, but as opposed to that single one, which was made use of to baptise Men into the death of our Lord, and not into the Faith of the Trinity. Thereby not only not condemning the single immersion considered in itself, but also intimating the triple one to have been rather instituted at first to obviate that heretical opinion. And if this were the rise of the triple Immersion, as is probable enough from the premises; The single one, abstracting from any command of the Church to the contrary, will at least be as lawful as that, and nothing therefore left to us to inquire, but what is to be thought of those additions, which were anciently made, or continue as yet in being in the outward solemnities of Baptism. 4. As touching the additions, which were anciently made in this particular, and concerning which they, who desire an account, may meet with an ample one in Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity (f) Part 1. c. 10. ; They were either such, as they thought more peculiarly warranted to them by an Apostolical Tradition, of which nature till better information I must needs think the triple Immersion to have been, or such as were brought into the Church by those, who presided in it, the more effectually to declare the intention of that Sacrament, to which they were added by it. Which they thought they might most assuredly do, if they made use of such farther Rites, as did represent yet more to their senses what that Sacrament was intended to declare. And indeed, as that way of Instruction was in part warranted by the Sacraments themselves, because professing by sensible things to teach Men Spiritual ones; As it became yet more necessary by the grossness of the Vulgar sort, and that infinity of Ceremonies, to which they had been before accustomed: So that, which afterwards made them faulty, was either the exceeding multitude thereof (and which experience assures us doth rather obscure, yea overwhelm the thing signified by them, than help toward the declaration of it) or their advancing by degrees into the same repute, or necessity with the signs of Christ's own Institution. Which is so true, that they came in fine to be represented, as means, and conveyors of Grace, as well as significative thereof; Thereby making them Sacraments, rather than appendages of such; and which whosoever goes about to do, must necessarily usurp the place of God, and Christ, as to whom alone it doth belong (because the only givers of Spiritual Graces) to make any ceremony the conveyer of them. But as that Church, whose Catechism I explain, hath been so far from multiplying Rites in Baptism, that she hath contented herself with one single one, even the Sign of the Cross; So she hath so explained her own meaning in it, both in that form of words (g) In the Office of Bapt. , wherewith she appointeth it to be made, and in a Canon (h) Can. 30. devised expressly for that purpose, that it will not be easy for considerate Men to believe, that she represents it as a Sacrament, or indeed that she may not require the conformity of her Children to it. Only, because they, who separate from the Church, have made the injunction of that Ceremony one of the particular reasons of their separation, and occasion may well be taken from thence to show the ground both of that, and others, which are as yet retained in the Church of England, I will set myself to consider the exceptions, that have been made against it, and return a particular answer to them. Now there are three sorts of charges, which are brought against this Ceremony, and which therefore it will be necessary to consider; It's being a Ceremony, and so jess agreeable to a spiritual, and substantial Religion; It's being an addition to the Institution of Christ, and therefore implying something of imperfection in that; As lastly, its being a relic of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the errors of it. The first of these is certainly one of the most unreasonable charges, that were ever advanced against our Church by the Adversaries thereof. As will appear if we consider the nature of those, for whose edification that, and the like Ceremonies were intended, The use such things are of to procure respect to those Institutions, to which they are annexed, And the nature of that Religion, with whose Offices they are intermixed. That I allege as one ground of this, and the like Ceremonies the very nature of those Men, for whose edification they were intended, is their being composed of Flesh, as well as Spirit, and consequently the need they stand in of such sensible helps to awaken their understandings to consider, and their affections to embrace what they were designed to represent. For being so framed, it is not easy to believe, that, if there were not somewhat in all actions of moment to affect Men's sense, they would intent them as they ought, or be duly affected with them. Of which yet if any doubt be made, we have the constant practice of the World to justify it, because rarely, if ever, suffering that, which was such (though there wanted not words to express their meaning) to pass without some visible solemnities. Thus, as Mr. Hooker (i) Eccl. Pol. li. 4. §. 1. did long since observe, Abraham proceeded with his Servant, because not only obliging him to take a Wife for his Son out of his Kindred, but to accompany that Oath of his, with the putting of his Hand (k) Gen. 24. 2-9. under his Master's Thigh. And thus too Israel made Joseph swear (l) Gen. 47.29. , that he would not bury him in Egypt: Both of them, as is not unlikely, from some received custom of that time, because as they say (m) Vatabl. in Gen. 24.2. , yet observed in some of the Eastern parts, and as a token of the homage the Party swearing owed to those to whom they swore, and of their readiness to execute it in the thing sworn to by them. In like manner, as the same Mr. Hooker (n) Vbi supra. hath also observed, it was an Ancient manner in Israel concerning redeeming, and exchanging, for the Man, who refused to redeem, to pluck off his Shoe, and (o) Ruth 4.7. give it to him, that would; As among the Romans, when they made any Man Free, not only to declare before the Magistrate, that they intended to make him such, but to strike him on the Cheek, to turn him round, and have his Hair shaved off, the Magistrate, after that, touching him with a White Rod, and bestowing a Cap, and a White Garment on him. Of which, and infinite other instances, that might be produced, what account can be given, but that Men have generally thought such solemnities but requisite to imprint the things, to which they were annexed, upon the minds of those, that were concerned, and procure a due estimate thereof? But so it appears, that they themselves were in a great measure persuaded, who showed themselves the greatest Enemies of the Ceremonies of the Church; Because obliging those, that took their solemn League, and Covenant, to swear to the Contents thereof with their hands lift up to the most High God, as is expressed in the very entrance of it. For why that Ceremony of lifting up of the hands, especially in a Covenant, that was intended to beat down the supposed superstition of the Church of England, were it not that they themselves found it in a manner necessary to awaken the minds of Men to intent the Religion of it? But beside that humane nature doth, by the very contexture of it, require such kind of solemnities to awaken their minds, and affections; It is not a little to be considered of what use they are to procure respect to those Institutions, to which they have been at any time annexed. For may not Men observe that usefulness in the solemnities of all civil affairs, and particularly in those solemnities, which are observed in Courts of Judicature? Doth not the very raising high of those Benches, on which the Judges sit, admonish Men of their Superiority over them? Do not those Robes, whereby they are differenced from other Men, draw the Eyes of the Vulgar to them, yea mind them of that greater difference there is between the Judges, and themselves, as to that power, wherewith they are also invested? Have not the same persons therefore (whatever clamour hath been raised against things of that nature) kept up them, and the like solemnities among them? Have they not done it in those very instances, which have been scrupled at in the Church? For how superstitious a thing in a Bishop, or other Clergy Man hath the use of that Cap been, which these earthly Gods the Judges, and when they are about their great Master's work, do not only not scruple at, but diligently retain? As knowing, that such marks of distinction do naturally lead Men to consider those persons, or things, to which they are applied, as of a peculiar nature, and accordingly, if they deserve it, to respect them. And if such be the usefulness of external solemnities in other matters, why should they be excluded from our Religion? Nay, why should they not (considering the momentousness thereof be rather applied to it? Especially if we consider thirdly the nature of that Religion, with whose Offices they are intermixed by us. For though that do more peculiarly call us to the intending of spiritual things; Though it do loudly proclaim the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law of Moses, and not obscurely condemn the substituting of any the like burdensome one: Yet as it no where condemns such a number of Ceremonies, as may serve the better to lead Men to the contemplation, and regard of spiritual things, so it gives a sufficient countenance to them by the Sacraments I am now upon, and by those other usances, which were in vogue with the first Professors of it. For how can that Religion be looked upon as an enemy to Ceremonies, which requires Men to be initiated into it by the water, and immersion of Baptism? Yea to keep up their interest in it by partaking of the Bread, and Wine of the Eucharist, those signs of our Saviour's Crucified Body, and of the spiritual benefits we reap by it? And though we do not find that our Saviour instituted any other Ceremonies, or at least not with a design of giving them the same lasting obligation; Yet as we find our Saviour giving command to his Disciples, when he first sent them out to Preach, to shake off the dust of their Feet (p) Mark 6.11. against those that would not hear them, as a testimony of their contempt of God's word, and of their own resolution not to have to do with them in the like kind, which was a kind of Excommunication of them; So we find that Paul, and Barnabas (though under no obligation from the former command, because but a temporary one) shook off the dust of their feet (q) Acts 13.51. against those Jews of Antioch, that rejected, and expelled them, as the same S. Paul after that, when the Jews of Corinth opposed themselves, and blasphemed, shaking his raiment at them (r) Acts 18.6. , as a testimony of his rejecting them, in like manner, and leaving them to go unto the Gentiles. For what was this but to declare by a significant Ceremony, that as they had rejected the Counsel of God toward themselves, so God had rejected them in like manner, neither would that his Ministers should make the like proposals to them? The same is yet more to be said upon the account of Imposition of hands, and which, though from no Command of Christ, was either used, or approved by the Apostles themselves, both in the Ordination of Ministers (s) 2 Tim. 1.6. , and receiving penitent Sinners to Absolution (t) 1 Tim. 5.22. , and pardon. For these being noted Acts of that Religion, which we profess, and yet by the allowance of the Apostles themselves transacted by the Ceremony of Imposition of Hands, make it evident, that our Religion doth rather commend, than reject such visible solemnities, where they are sparingly, and discreetly applied. That first charge against the sign of the Cross being thus wiped off, even that which pretends to discard it upon the account of its being a Ceremony; Let us see, whether it be likely to suffer any more by the pretence of its being an addition of Men to the Institution of Christ, yea to one, that is not without visible solemnities of his own appointment: Such additions seeming to imply the imperfection of that, to which they are made, and which there is the less reason to believe in the present affair, because care hath been taken by our Saviour as to the outward form of its Administration, as well as to more material things. And surely so such Additions might very well be thought to do, if either they were represented as of the Essence of the Sacrament, or our Saviour had professed to prescribe, or direct the whole form of the Administration of it. But as it is notorious enough, that the Church of England doth not represent the sign of the Cross as pertaining to the Essence of the Sacrament, because administering it after Baptism first given, yea after the mention of the Minister's receiving the baptised person into the Congregation of Christ's flock; So our Saviour is so far from prescribing the whole external form of its Administration, that he hath left us to the general tenor of his Doctrine, and the directions of our own reason, even for those things that are more material, yea for such as are directed (u) See the Directory in the Administration of Baptism. by those very Men, who cry out against us for adding to Christ's Institution. For where, I beseech you, is there any prescription of other words concerning Baptism, than what is employed in that short belief, into which he commands to Baptise? Where to admonish all, that are present, to look back to their own Baptism, and to repent of the violations of the Covenant they made with God in it? Where any directions for requiring the Parent of the Child to bring him up in the nurture of the Lord, yea to require the Parents solemn promise for the performance of it? Nay where, which is of all others the most material, any Prayer to Almighty God for the sanctifying of the Water he is going to make use of, and which I no way doubt is necessary to the Consecration of it? All, that the Institution of Baptism represents to us, being the baptising those, that offer themselves to it, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now if our Saviour hath not professed to prescribe, even as to the things before directed, but left Men to the general conduct of his Doctrine, and the guidance of their own reason; What appearance is there as to his prescribing after what external form, and order, all these things were to be done, and which if he hath not, there is no doubt the Governors of the Church may order, as they shall see fit, yea do so without any fear of being thought to charge his Institutions with imperfection? They being not to be thought to do so, who prescribe rules concerning those things, which the Institutions of Christ profess not to give perfect directions in. The only thing, which hath occasioned Men's misapprehensions first, and then their passing so severe a Censure upon humane prescriptions in this kind, is an hasty opinion they have taken up of Christ's being as particular in directing the external management of sacred Duties, as Moses appears to have been as to the services of the Law. For which yet they have had no other pretence, than a misapplied Text of the Author to the Hebrews (w) Heb. 3.2. , even Christ's being as faithful in that house of God, which was committed to his charge, as Moses was in his. But beside that there appear not any such particular directions from God to our Saviour, as there were sometime given to Moses, and our Saviour therefore not to be looked upon as unfaithful, for not reaching out such particular directions to us; Besides that, if our Saviour did not furnish such particular directions, yet he hath furnished his Church with a far greater portion of his Spirit, and which may serve to it as a guide to fit those Services for its respective members; Beside lastly that the Services he enjoined, because to be exercised among people of several Nations, and humours, were not capable, as to circumstances, of such strict limitations, as that, which was to be exercised in one single Nation only: There is nothing more evident to those, that read the Scriptures, than that Christ hath given no such particular directions, and all Arguments from Christ's fidelity therefore of no more avail in this affair, than those, which the Papists are wont to draw from the wisdom and goodness of God, toward the proving of an Infallible Guide. For as no wise Man will be persuaded by such Arguments against the Testimony of his own senses, which assure him of the errors of those, whom they would have to be Infallible; So no considering Man will be persuaded by the other into a belief of those particular directions, which are not any where to be seen, nor which they themselves, who maintain those directions, have yet been able to show. For when they have said all they can toward the evincing of their Conclusion, the utmost they are able to prove is, that Christ hath given some general directions concerning the Administration of religious Offices, and which as it doth not prejudge the giving of more particular ones, so doth much less make them to reflect any imperfection upon the Institution of Christ, because pretending not to concern itself about them. One other Charge there is, which is more peculiar to the sign of the Cross, and that is its being a relic of Popery, or giving too much countenance to the Papists abuses of it. But as they, who advance the former of these, make Popery much more Ancient, than it is for the advantage of Protestantism to allow; It being certain from Tertullian (x) De Coronâ cap. 3. , that this Ceremony was in use in his time in almost all the actions they set about: So our Church hath taken care to prevent in its own Members all misapplications of it, or the giving the least encouragement to those, that are made of it by others; Partly by confining the use of it to the Administration of Baptism, and partly by representing it as only a token of Men's being not ashamed to own the Faith, and reproaches of him, who suffered upon it. Which is certainly a more proper course to discountenance Popery, than it can be thought to be to remove the use of it altogether: Because at the same time we disavow the errors of that, we show by our Practice our allowance of the Ceremony itself, and, together therewith, our accordance with the Primitive Church, which is the only plausible thing the Papists have to bolster up their own cause, or reproach us with the neglect of. A DIGRESSION CONCERNING Original Sin By way of PREPARATION To the Following DISCOURSES. The Contents. Of the ground of the present Digression concerning Original Sin, and enquiry thereupon made, what Original Sin is. Which is shown in the General to be such a corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby it becomes averse from every thing, that is good, and inclinable to every thing, that is evil. The nature of that corruption more particularly enquired into, and shown by probable Arguments to be no other, than a Privation of a Supernatural Grace. That there is such a thing, as we have before described, evidenced at large from the Scripture, and that evidence farther strengthened by the experience we have of its effects, and the acknowledgements of the wiser Heathen. Enquiry next made from whence it had its beginning, which is shown to have been not from any evil Spirit, or Daemon, the pravity of matter, or the evil habits the Soul contracted in a preaexistent state, but from the pravity of our first Parents. This last at large confirmed out of the Doctrine of the Scripture, and followed by some light reflections upon the means, by which it is conveyed. A more just account from the Scripture of its being truly, and properly a sin, partly from its having the title of a sin, but more especially from its being represented as such, upon the account of our Obligation to the contrary. A consideration of those Objections, which are commonly made against the Doctrine of Original Sin; Which are shown either not to be of that force, whereof they are esteemed, or however not to be a sufficient bar to what the Scripture hath declared concerning it. AN account being thus given of the outward visible Sign of Baptism, Question. What is the inward, and spiritual Grace? Answer. A death unto Sin, and a new birth unto Righteousness. For being by nature born in Sin, and the Children of wrath, we are hereby made the Children of Grace. which is the first of those things I proposed to entreat of; Reason would, (as well as the method before laid down), that I should consider the things signified by it: Which, on the part of God, and Christ, are an inward and Spiritual Grace, as, on the part of the baptised, an Abrenunciation of their former sins, and a resolution to believe, and act, as Christianity obligeth them to do. But because both the one, and the other of these suppose the baptised persons to have been before in a sinful Estate, and our Catechism in particular to have been born in it, and by that, as well as by the sins they afterward contracted, to be made the Children of wrath; Therefore it will be but necessary for us to premise something concerning that sinful Estate, as which Baptism both presupposeth, and professeth to provide a remedy for. Now as that sinful State, whereof we speak, is best known by the name of Original Sin, and will therefore most commodiously be described by it; So I will make it my business to inquire What that is, and what appearance of the being of it, from whence it had its beginning, and by what means it is conveyed, whether, as it hath for the most part the name of a Sin, so it be truly, and properly such, and what is to be said to the Objections, that are made against it. I. To begin with the first of these, even what Original Sin is, and which, in the general, may be defined to be such a Corruption of the nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby it becomes averse from every thing, that is good, and inclined to every thing, that is evil. I call it a Corruption of nature to distinguish it from nature considered in itself, and as it was in the first formation of it: Partly, because Nature being, as such, the work of God, cannot be supposed to be corrupt; And partly because the Scripture assures us, that whatsoever it now is, God made it upright * Eccl. 7.29. , and so free from all corruptions whatsoever. But so also do I entitle it the Corruption of the Nature of every Man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam: Partly, because the Scripture, where it entreats of it, represents all Men as under the Contagion of it, and partly to exempt our Lord, and Saviour from it, who was engendered after another manner, and whom the same Scripture assures to have been free † 2 Cor. 5.21. from all sin, yea to have been so * Luk. 1.35. from his Birth. I call it lastly such a Corruption of humane Nature, whereby it is averse from every thing, that is good, and inclined to every thing, that is evil. Which I do upon the account of the Scripture's representing it as a sinful (a) Psa. 51.5. one, and which, as such, will make those in whom it is, averse from good, as well as inclinable to evil, yea averse from all, that is good, and inclinable to all evil: Because good, yea all good is opposite to such an estate, and evil, yea all evil connatural to it. If they, in whom that corruption of nature doth as yet abide, be not always actually prevailed upon to reject that good, from which we have affirmed them to be so averse, or to pursue that evil, to which we have affirmed them to be inclinable, it is not because they want any averseness for the one, or inclination to the other, but for some other collateral considerations: Such as is, for example, the reputation, or advantage, that may accrue to them from the espousing of any thing, that is good, or the omission of any thing, that is evil. For all good, and all evil being of one uniform nature, because becoming good or evil by the conformity they bear to the divine Laws, or by their deviation from them; where there is an inclination to any thing, that is good, there must be an inclination to all, that is of the same nature; as on the other side where an averseness from any thing, that is evil, an averseness for all that, which is alike a transgression of the Divine Laws. But as therefore nothing can hinder us from representing natural corruption as making Men averse from all that is good, and inclinable to every thing that is evil; So neither can any thing oblige us to extend the force of it so far, as to make it to determine them in all their actions, and accordingly to carry them to an actual rejection of all, that is good, or a pursuance of all, that is evil: Partly because Men may, and often do act contrary to their natural aversions, or inclinations, where there is hope of temporal advantage, or fear of any temporal evil; And partly, because we do not only find few natural Men proceeding to the extremity of Impiety, but find also great variety among them in the omission of good Actions, or the commission of those that are evil. Of which variety what account could be given, when the Corruption of Nature is, and must be equal, because all Men were alike in, and are alike descended from Adam, were it not that even that Corruption leaves place for the performance of many good, and the avoiding of many things, that are evil? For to ascribe that variety either wholly, or principally to the different degrees of God's restraining Grace, is not only to speak without all Authority, that I know of, but to take away all diversity between the evil demerits of natural Men, and, together therewith, all different degrees of punishment; yea to make the Corruption of Nature the only proper ground of punishment. For as, if there be nothing but God's restraining Grace to take off natural Men from falling into the worst of sins, the greatest actual sinner cannot deserve more punishment, than he who offends in a far less degree; Because all demerit ariseth from the pravity of the will, which is not more or less for the mere absence, or presence of God's restraining Grace: So the greatest actual sinner cannot become obnoxious to punishment upon the score of any other Corruption than that of Nature; That as it makes all his actual sins to be necessary, and therefore in reason to bear the whole blame, and punishment, so receiving no new aggravation from the want of that restraining Grace, which might have withheld the party from them, in as much as that want (if it be a fault) is no less the result of his natural corruption, than his actual offences are. But therefore also as we cannot look upon natural corruption as determining Men to all their actual errors, without taking away all diversity between the demerits of natural Men, yea making natural Corruption the only proper ground of their punishment; so they, who do so, will be found to contradict the declarations of the Scripture, as well as the allowed practice of the World. For why, if there be no difference between the demerits of natural Men, should those, that are in Authority, meet out different punishments to them according to the different degrees, or kinds of those offences, which they commit? Nay, why should the Scripture affirm, that it shall be more tolerable for some sinners (b) Matt. 11.22, 24. , than for others at the great day of judgement? That, as it is a judgement of righteousness, so being consequently to meet out equal punishments to all sinners, if there be but an equality in their demerits. Again, if natural Corruption be upon the matter the only proper ground of punishment, as it must of necessity be, if it be the unavoidable cause of actual sins; How comes the Scripture to declare, that God will reward every Man according to his works (c) Rom. 2.6. , yea the wicked (d) Rom. 2.8. according to his works, as well as the righteous according to theirs? For if natural Corruption be the only proper ground of punishment, the works of Men in propriety of Speech can have no concernment in it, and much less (as the Scripture declares) be the principal object of judgement, and therefore of that punishment, which it shall award. The utmost in my opinion, that can be said in this particular, is that as Men by the Corruption of their Nature are averse from every thing, that is good, so that averseness will indispose those, in whom that Corruption abides, to all good actions whatsoever, and infallibly take them off from them, where either some work of God upon their minds doth not thrust them on to them, or the comeliness, or profitableness thereof shall not more strongly impel them to the practice of them. The former whereof will make the consent of such persons even to those good actions, which they perform, incomplete, and imperfect, and indeed a consent to them rather as expedient, than good; whence it is that our Church (e) Art. 13. represents them as having the nature of sins: The latter cause them to neglect all such, as are not in a manner thrust upon them by God, or have not one of the former motives to incite them to the practice of them, yea present to their minds, when they ought to make use of them. Which will occasion such persons for the most part to neglect all good actions, where there is not place for serious thoughts, as in cases of surprise, or where they have not been habituated to the practice of virtue, or to the consideration of the comeliness or profitableness thereof. But as where there is place for serious thoughts, there may be place also for the former motives to impel Men to the practice of that, from which they are otherwise sufficiently averse; So it is not unlikely that the minds of those, who have been before habituated to the practice, or contemplation of Virtue, may be thrust on by the former motives to pursue many things, that are good, yea acquit themselves singularly in them. Of which yet if any doubt be made, we have the laudable example of several Heathens to convince us thereof, and who, because Heathen, cannot be supposed to be free from the power of natural Corruption, or to be thrust on by other motives, than the former, to the doing of such actions, from which they are naturally so averse. In like manner, As Men by the Corruption of their Nature are inclined to every thing that is evil, as well as averse from every thing that is good; So that inclination will dispose those, in whom it is, to an allowance of all evil actions, and infallibly betray them into them, where God's restraining Grace doth not withhold them, or the indecency, or dangerous consequences of the other do not alike keep them back. The former whereof will make their abstaining even from those evil actions, which they avoid, to be but an imperfect abstinence from them, and indeed an abstinence from them rather as inexpedient, than evil; The latter cause them to fall into all such, from which they are not restrained by God, or by a present, and intense consideration of the indecency, or danger of them. Which will occasion such persons for the most part to fall into all evil actions, where there is not room for serious thoughts, as in cases of surprise, or where they have not been habituated to the avoiding of vice, or the consideration of the indecency, or dangerousness thereof. But as, where there is room for serious thoughts, there may also be place for the former reasons to take them off from the practice of that, to which they are otherwise sufficiently inclined; So it is not unlikely, that the minds of those, who have been before habituated to the avoiding of Vice, or the consideration of the indecency, or dangerousness thereof, may be taken off by the former reasons from the pursuit of evil things, yea acquit themselves singularly in it. As is farther evident from the resistance, that hath been made by several Heathens to all the temptations of sin, and who, because Heathen, cannot be supposed either to have been free from natural Corruption, or to have been taken off by other means, than the former, from the doing of those evil actions, to which they were so strongly inclined. But because what we have hitherto said concerning the Corruption of our Nature doth rather tend to show what effects it hath upon us, than what that Corruption is; And because that word, whereby we have chosen to express it, is but a Metaphorical one, and will therefore serve yet less clearly to declare the thing intended by it; Therefore it may seem but reasonable to inquire yet farther, what it is, and wherein it doth consist, as without which we shall discourse but imperfectly concerning it. Now as that question cannot otherwise be solved, than by the knowledge of that Estate, of which it is affirmed to be a Corruption; So I shall therefore inquire again what that Estate was, and then what relation this Corruption beareth to it. As touching that estate, wherein God did at first create our Nature, most certain it is first (for so Solomon (f) Eccl. 7.29. affirms it to be) that it was an estate of uprightness, that is to say such an estate as fitted Man for the obedience of all those Laws, which God had obliged him to perform. That, as it is the most usual signification of the word we render upright, and accordingly rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast right, and innocent before God, so best answering the account before given concerning the depravation of humane Nature, and particularly in those of the Female Sex. For Solomon speaking in the 26th verse of the deceitfulness of that Sex, and of the influence that deceitfulness of theirs would have upon sinful Men; Affirming afterwards because representing the event of his search as contrary to the desires of his Soul, that though he could find one Man among a thousand of a better temper, yet he could not find One such Woman among them all; He must consequently, when he comes to say that he found only that God made Man upright, be thought to mean such an uprightness, as was opposite to that general depravation, whereof he before complained. There being therefore no doubt to be made that God created our Nature in a state of uprightness, even in such a one as fitted Man for the obedience of all those Laws, which he was obliged to comply with; Inquire we in the second place wherein that state of uprightness consisted, but which we shall not find to be of so easy a resolution, as the former: Because there is some presumption of its consisting in a right disposition of our natural faculties; And there is some presumption of its consisting in a supernatural Grace overruling, and directing those natural faculties to those pious purposes, for which they were chief designed. We have to persuade the former of these the natural ability of the understanding to discern the invisible things of God by the things, which he hath made, and the natural propension of the Will to embrace that, which is good, and therefore also the chiefest good, where that is clearly apprehended, and where there is no depravation in the Will (as to be sure there was not at first) to draw it to lesser ones. In fine, we have to persuade it the power the superior faculties of the Soul have even now over the Inferior ones, and which we may well believe in that state of Innocency to have been of sufficient force to keep them within those bounds, which God, and Nature had set them. This, I say, we have to persuade that uprightness, wherein our first Parents were Created, to have consisted in a right disposition of their natural faculties; And we are not without reason on the other hand to persuade the same uprightness of Nature to have consisted in its being overruled, and directed by a supernatural Grace: Because without such a supernatural Grace our first Parents could not have come to the knowledge of God, but by the knowledge of Created Being's, and the excellencies thereof, and (what that knowledge would have produced) a love, and affection for them. Which would not only have made God to be loved after his Creatures, who as being the first, and chiefest good aught to have the precedency thereof, but endangered also the diminution of our affections to him by the prepossession of them by the other. To which of these two reasonings to give the preeminency is hard to say, and I will not therefore be over positive in determining concerning the force of them, nor therefore, whether Original Righteousness were a right disposition of our natural faculties, or a supernatural Grace overruling, and directing them. But as how equal soever those reasonings may be in themselves, yet nothing will hinder our inclining rather to the one, than the other, if the Scripture, which is the best judge of things of that nature, seem to favour such an inclination; So I must needs say that the Scripture (g) Gen. 1.28, etc. Gen. 2.19, etc. seems to favour those reasonings, which makes Original Righteousness to be a Supernatural Grace: Because not only representing Adam as imbued from the very first with the knowledge of God, which yet he could not be without a revelation from him, but as moreover freely conversing with God, and receiving both Laws, and privileges from him. For as it appears from thence, that God did immediately shine upon his mind, and so far forth therefore influenced him by a supernatural Grace, so it is not unlikely that he, who so shone upon his mind, did as immediately influence his will, and affections, and so dispose him to a compliance with those Laws he imposed upon him: That, as it was but agreeable to the immediate illumination of his understanding, so becoming yet more necessary by the different inclinations of his Flesh, and Spirit, and which the presence of a Supernatural Grace may seem but requisite to bring to a due compliance with each other, and with those Laws, which God had imposed upon them both. And I shall only add, that if that uprightness, wherein our Nature was at first Created, were no other than a Supernatural Grace, as is at least highly probable from the former reasonings, and the declarations of the Scripture; We shall need to assign no other relation of that Corruption of Nature, whereof we speak, than that of a simple privation of the other. For if the desires of the Flesh could so far prevail even under a supernatural Grace, as to carry our first Parents to the eating of that fruit, which God had so severely forbidden them; The simple privation of that supernatural Grace may well suffice to give birth to all our evil inclinations, and consequently pass for a sufficient account of that Corruption of our Nature, whereby, as I said before, we become inclinable to Evil, as well as averse from Good, and which what evidence we have of the being of, is in the next place to be enquired. II. Now as we cannot certainly better inform ourselves concerning the present state of our Nature, than from him who, as he was the Author of it, so is intimately present to it; So I will therefore begin with that account, which he hath given us of it, and which we shall find to bear an ample Testimony to that Corruption, whereof we speak. For the evidencing whereof I will show First, that it affirmeth all Men whatsoever to be under sin, yea under a perpetual course of it. Secondly, that it affirmeth them to be so from the time they begin to be in a capacity to offend. Thirdly, that they are so from a principle bred in them, and derived to them from their birth. 1. That all Men are under sin S. Paul doth so fully declare, that we shall need no other Testimony than his to evince it; More particularly, where he affirmeth that both Jews and Gentiles (h) Rom. 3.9. are all under sin; That though the former may seem of all others to have been most free from it, yet the Law (i) Rom. 3.19. had not stuck to affirm, that there was none (k) Rom. 3.10, etc. righteous, even among them, no not one; That there was none that understood, none that sought after God; That they were all gone out of the way, they were altogether become unprofitable, that there was none, that did good, no not one; In fine, that all the World must thereby (l) Rom. 3.19. be looked upon as guilty before God, because, as he afterward (m) Rom. 3.23. speaks, all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. But so the same Scripture did long before declare, with an addition of all Men's being under a perpetual course of sin, as well as in some measure tainted with it; It being not only the voice of God concerning that part of Mankind, that lived before the flood, that every imagination (n) Gen. 6.5. of the thought of their heart was only evil continually, but alike intimated by him concerning that part, which was to follow, even to the end of the World. For affirming, as he doth (o) Gen. 8.21. , that he would not any more drown the World, because the imagination of Man's heart is evil from his youth, he both supposeth that Mankind would again give occasion to it by their evil imaginations (as without which otherwise there could be no occasion for God's suspending it) and that Mankind would do so also in every individual, and Generation of it: The former, because he speaks of the imaginations of Mankind in the general, and which are therefore to be extended to all the individuals of it; The latter, because if any Generation of Men were likely to be free from those imaginations, there would so far forth have been no need of his declaring, that he would not drown the World, because no ground for bringing it on the Inhabitants thereof. But therefore, as we have reason to believe from the places before recited, that the World always was, and will be under sin, yea under a constant course of it; So we shall be yet more confirmed in it, if we compare the latter place with the former, as the likeness, that is between them, will oblige us to do: There being not a more apt sense of that latter Speech of God, than that he would not again drown the Earth, because he knew the imaginations of Men would be as evil as they had before been, and he therefore, if he were disposed to take that vengeance, to bring a flood often upon it, to the no profit of those, that inhabited it, as well as to the defacing of the Earth itself. Which will make the condition of Man to be so sinful, that it cannot be otherwise, unless by some powerful means delivered from it. 2. But so also may we infer from thence, which was the second thing to be proved, that all Men are under sin from the time they begin to be in a capacity to offend: That, as it affirms the imagination of Men's heart to be evil, so to be evil from their Youth, and, as I should therefore think, from the time they begin to be in a capacity to be guilty of it. Not that that Age, to which we are wont to give the denomination of Youth, is the first wherein Mankind gins to be in a capacity to offend (for there is but too much evidence of that in the riper years of Childhood) but that we cannot well understand that Text of any other youthful Period, than that wherein Mankind gins to be in a capacity to reason, and consequently also to offend: Partly, because the word we render Youth is sometime used even for infancy (p) Judges 13.7. Exod. 2.6. , and ought not therefore without manifest reason to be removed too far from it; But more especially because it is the manifest design of God in the place we speak of to aggravate the evil of Men's imaginations from the earliness thereof, and that earliness therefore to be carried as high, as the capacity Men are in to imagine evil will suffer the doing of it. 3. Now as nothing therefore can be wanting toward the proof of Original Corruption, than that they, who are so universally, and so early under sin, are so also from an inward principle, and such an inward principle too, as was derived to them from their birth; so we shall not it may be need any other proof of that, than their being so universally, and early under the other: The former of these persuading Men's being under sin from some inward principle, the latter from such an inward principle, as is derived to them from their Birth. That I make Men's being so universally under sin, an argument of their being so from some inward principle, is because as so general an effect must be supposed to have some general Cause, so no external Cause, how general soever, can be supposed to produce it without the assistance of the other. As will appear if we consider the force of example, and which as it is the most general, and the most effectual external Cause, that can be assigned, so is that, into which they who deny the Corruption of Nature, are wont to resolve the universality of sin. For neither first is even Example of so great force, as infallibly, and universally to draw Men to the imitation of it; For some Men are Virtuous, even when they have an ill example before them, and others as Vicious, where they have a good. Neither secondly hath it any force, but what it receives from Men's aptness to imitate those, with whom they converse. Which as it will make it necessary for us to have recourse to an inward principle, even for those effects, which are produced by the mediation of example, so make our very aptness to imitate the evil examples of others, a branch of that inward principle, which we affirm to be the cause of so universal an impiety. Only because we are yet upon Scripture proofs, and which the more express they are, so much the more convictive; Therefore I shall yet more particularly endeavour to evince from thence, that as all Men are under sin, so they are so by an innate principle. But so S. Paul gives us clearly enough to understand, because both asserting such a principle, and that all actual sins are the issues of it: The former, where he represents even the Man, who was under the conviction of the Law (and who therefore might be supposed to be most free from the contagion of sin) as Carnal, yea sold under it (q) Rom. 7.14. , as one, who had sin dwelling in him (for so he affirms no less than twice (r) Rom. 7.17. Rom. 7.20, ) and as one too, who had a law in his members (s) Rom. 7.23, that warred against the law of his mind, or (as he afterwards entitles it) a law of sin; The latter, where he represents that carnality, and sinful captivity, under which the Jew was, as the cause of his doing what he would not (t) Rom. 7.15. , and omitting what he would, That sin, which dwelled in him, as doing all the evil (u) Rom. 17.20. he committed, And that law, that was in his members, as warring against the law of his mind (w) Rom. 17.23. , and bringing him into Captivity unto the law of sin. For what more could be said on the one hand to show the thing S. Paul there speaks of to be an inward evil principle, and which, because even in those, who were under the Law, is much more to be supposed in the Gentiles? Or what more on the other to show that evil principle to be the parent of our actual sins, yea that which gives being to them all. And I know nothing to take off the force of it, but a supposition of St. Paul's speaking in that place of Evil habits, and which as they must be confessed to be of the same pernicious efficacy with Original Corruption, so to have been for the most part the condition both of Jew, and Gentile, before they came to be overtaken by the Gospel. But how first supposing the Apostle to have spoken only of evil habits (for nothing hinders us from assigning them a part in that Body of sin) How first, I say, doth that agree with the account he before gave concerning sins entering in (x) Rom. 5.12. by Adam, and our being constituted (y) Rom. 5.19. sinners by him. For though Original Corruption may come from him, yet evil habits can be only from ourselves, and consequently those sins, that flow from them? How secondly supposing none but evil habits to be here intended, can we make that Body, or law of sin, whereof S. Paul speaks, to be the portion of all, that are under an obligation to Baptism, as that Apostle plainly supposeth, when he makes the design of Baptism (z) Rom. 6.6. to be the destruction of it? For to say nothing at present concerning the case of Infants, because the best evidence of their Obligation to Baptism is the Corruption of their Nature, and that Obligation therefore rather to be proved from Natural Corruption, than Natural Corruption from it; Neither can it be denied, even from the Commandment * Mat. 28.19. , that our Saviour gave concerning Baptism, that all adult persons are under an Obligation to it, nor therefore but that they carry about them that body of sin, which Baptism was intended for the destruction of. But so all adult persons cannot be supposed to do, if that body of sin be no other, than evil habits; Because it must be sometime after that maturity of theirs before they can come to those evil habits, or therefore to be under an Obligation to that Sacrament which is to destroy it. In fine, how supposing none but evil habits to be intended by that body, or law of sin, whereof the Apostle speaks, can we give an account of so holy, and just a Law, as that of Moses is, stirring † Rom. 7.9. Concupiscence in those, that are under it, and not rather hindering it from coming to effect. For as nothing hinders the proposing of that Law before such persons come to any evil habits, and therefore also before there is any thing in them to stir them up to such a Concupiscence; So nothing can hinder that Law, when duly proposed to them, from preventing all such Concupiscence, as it was the design of the Lawgiver to forbid: Because as the persons we speak of must be supposed to be without any contrariety in their Nature to the matter of that Law, which is proposed; So they must also be supposed to be in that state, wherein God had set them, and (because God cannot be thought to place Men in any other estate, than that of uprightness) in such a state, as will make them willing to listen to the divine Laws, and receive their directions from them. By which means the divine Laws shall rather keep Men's Concupiscence from coming to effect, than give any occasion for the stirring of it. I conclude therefore from that, as well as the former arguments, that the evil principle spoken of by S. Paul cannot be evil habits, and consequently nothing more left to us to demonstrate, than that it is derived to us, from our Birth, or rather from our Conception in the Womb, which is all, that is affirmed concerning Original Corruption. Now that that evil principle, whereof we speak, is derived to us from our Birth, will become at least probable from what was before said concerning the earliness of Men's being under sin, yea their being so, as the Scripture instructs us, even from their Youth. For as it is hard to believe, that all Men should be so early under sin, if it were not from some inward principle, that was antecedent to that Age (For what should otherwise hinder some of them at least from preserving their integrity for some time, especially supposing, (as that tender Age maketh it reasonable to suppose) a more peculiar watchfulness of the Divine Providence over it?) So it will be much more hard to believe, supposing that evil principle to be antecedent to their Youth, that it should not be derived to them from their Conception, and Birth: The Ages preceding that being not in a capacity to produce in themselves such an evil principle, and therefore to be supposed to have had it transmitted to them together with their Nature, and so also by the same means, and from the same time, in which that their Nature was. And indeed, as even the tenderest age falls under death, and not unreasonably therefore concluded to be some way, or other under sin, if (as S. Paul † Rom. 5.12. speaks) death entered by it, and so passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned; So there want not some places of Scripture, which do yet more directly evince, that the first beginnings of our Nature are tainted with that, of which we speak. Of this sort I reckon that of Job (a) Job 14.4. , which is so commonly applied to this affair, even his demanding of God, with reference to himself (b) Job 1, etc. , and all other Men, who could bring a clean thing out of an unclean? and thereby therefore intimating that it was not to be done. For as it is manifest from his alleging that the better to countenance his own expostulation concerning God's bringing him into judgement, than by the unavoidable uncleanness there intimated must be meant a sinful one, as which alone could either dispose him to such actions, as could be a proper matter for judgement, or be alleged in bar to a severe one: So it is alike manifest from Job's ask, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, that Men are not only so unclean in their Nature, but that they become so by those evil principles, out of which they are brought, and so also from the time that they were separated from them. Of the same Nature is that of our Saviour, where he asserts the necessity of Men's being born again of water, and the Spirit, upon the account of their being before but flesh (c) Joh. 3.6. , because born of flesh. For as we cannot well understand our Saviour of any other flesh, than flesh corrupted, or rather of the whole Nature, that is so; Partly because of the opposition, that is there made (d) Ibid. between a fleshly, and spiritual temper, and partly because that is the most usual notion of it in the New (e) Rom. 7.18, 25. Gal. 5.19, 24. Testament: So neither therefore but conclude all Men to become such flesh by those fleshly persons, from whom they are born, and so also from the time that they receive their being from them. But of all the Texts of Scripture, which are commonly alleged in this affair (even the earliness of that evil principle, wherewith we have said all Men to be imbued) there is certainly none of greater force, than the profession, that David makes (f) Psal. 51.5. , that he was shapen, or born in iniquity, and conceived by his Mother in sin; That, if it entreat of the Corruption of humane Nature, making it as early as the first beginnings of it, because speaking as manifestly of its Conception (g) Ham. Annot. in locum. , and Birth. And indeed as we have no reason to believe from any thing the Scripture hath said concerning David, or his Parents, that what he spoke of his own formation was to be understood of that alone; so we have much less reason to believe, that he intended any other thing by the sin, and iniquity thereof, than that Original Corruption, whereof we speak. For beside that the letter of the Text is most agreeable to that notion, and not therefore without manifest reason to be diverted to another; Beside that that sense is put upon it by the most eminent Fathers (h) Voss. Pelag. Hist. l. 2. Part. 1. Thes. 1. of the Church, and the Doctrine contained in it confirmed by the concordant (i) Ibid. Thes. 6. testimonies of them all; Beside that that sense hath the suffrage of one of the most learned (k) Ham. ubi. supra. of the Jewish Writers, as the thing itself the consentient belief of all the rest; Aben Ezra resolving the meaning of the Psalmist to be, that in the hour of his Nativity the evil figment was planted in his heart, even that Concupiscence (as he afterward interprets himself) by which he was drawn into sin: Beside all these, I say, it is no less agreeable to the scope of the whole Psalm, and particularly to the care he takes in the Verse before to condemn himself for his offences, and so justify the severity of God, if he should think good to take vengeance of them. For what could be more suitable to that, than to lay open, together with his actual sins, that polluted Fountain from whence they came, and so show himself to be vile upon more accounts, than one, and God to have as many reasons to chastise him? And I shall only add, that as that sense cannot therefore be fairly refused, because conformable to the design of the Psalmist, as well as to the letter of the Text itself, and to the interpretation of the Ancients, as well as either; So they seem to me to add no small confirmation to it, who can find no other means to elude it, than by making the words of the same sense with that hyperbolical expression of the same Author, where he affirms (l) Psal. 58.3. , that the wicked are estranged from the Womb, and that as soon as they are born, they go astray speaking lies. For as it cannot be denied that there is a very wide difference between Men's being conceived, and born in sin, and their going astray from their Mother's Womb, and their own birth; This latter expression importing that iniquity, which follows after it, whereas the former denotes the condition of the Conception, and Birth itself: So it is evident from what the Psalmist adds in the place alleged concerning the wicked's speaking lies, that he there entreats of actual sins, which as no Man denies to require a more mature Age for the perpetration of, so make it necessary to allow an Hyperbole in it; Whereas the place we insist upon hath not the least umbrage of actual sins, and is therefore under no necessity of being interpreted conformably to it. But because it can hardly be imagined, but if there be such a thing as Original sin, it will produce suitable effects in those, in whom it is; And because it can as little be thought, but that those effects will lie open to the observation of all, that shall take the pains to reflect upon them; Therefore inquire we in the next place, whether that Original Sin, whereof we speak, doth not discover itself by suitable effects, and so add yet farther strength to what the Scripture hath affirmed concerning it. A thing not to be doubted of, if we reflect upon the behaviour of Children, as soon as they come to have any use of reason. For do not some of those, as the Psalmist speaks (m) Ibid. , go astray from their Mother's Womb, speaking lies? Do not others discover in their actions as much of malice, and revenge? Are not a third sort as refractory to the commands of their Superiors? Doth not a fourth equally pride itself in all its supposed excellencies? Now from whence, I beseech you, proceeds all this untowardness of behaviour, but from as untoward a principle, and such a one too, as is interwoven with their very Being, and derived to them with it? For shall we say from the force of Example? But experience assures us of the contrary, because visible in such Children, as have no such examples before them, and who moreover do not want a severe education to prevent, or correct it. Shall we then say from some previous habits? But the same experience assures us of the contrary, because it is antecedent to any evil habits, and therefore not imputable to them. Shall we say lastly (and more than that we cannot say) that it proceeds from their natural temperament? But as I no way doubt, and shall not therefore stick to confess, that the Corruption of our Nature runs out that way, which our natural temperament leads it; So I see no necessity to grant, that that natural temperament hath any other interest in our untowardness, than by inclining our natural Corruption to that particular evil, to which we are carried. For to make it any other way the cause of that untowardness is to charge it upon God, because he must be confessed to be the Author of all that is purely natural in us. Only if it be said, that that natural temperament may incline Children, before they have any free use of reason, to those untowardnesses, whereof we speak, and so at length by the means of those untowardnesses produce such an habitual inclination to them, that their more free reason, when they come to it, shall not be able to surmount it; I answer, that that indeed might well enough be granted, if we had no reason to believe, that God would so watch over them by his providence, as to hinder their natural temperament from having such an influence upon them. But as we have reason enough to believe, from the love God bears to his own Workmanship, as well as to Piety, and Virtue, that he would not be wanting in that particular to the estate of Children, if it were no other than such as he himself had placed them in; So we must therefore believe also, that that temperament of theirs is not the cause of their miscarriages, but somewhat else that is not from God, and which, because not from him, he doth not think himself under any necessity to provide against. And indeed though some, who call themselves Christians, have notwithstanding the former evidences, opposed themselves against that, which we have offered as the Original cause thereof; Yet have the more sober Heathen, though ignorant of the occasion of it, both acknowledged, and lamented it, and so furnished us with a farther argument for the belief of it. For thus (as Dr. Jackson (n) Coll. of his Works Book 10. Ch. 8. did long since observe) we find one of them affirming that the nature of Man is prone to lust, and another, that nature cannot separate just from unjust. Thus a third (as the forementioned Author remarks) that to Man of all the creatures is sorrow given for a portion, to him luxury in innumerable fashions, and in every Limb; To him alone ambition, and avarice, to him alone an unmeasurable desire of living; In fine, that whilst it is given to other creatures, yea the most savage ones, to live peaceably, and orderly together, Man is naturally an enemy to those of his own stock. To the same purpose are those, which are quoted by Grotius (o) De jure Becti ac. Pac. li. 2. c. 20. sect. 19 & in Annot. intocum. , if they are not also yet more worthy of our remark; Such as are, that among the other incommodities of mortal nature there is the darkness of Men's minds, and not only a necessity of erring, but a love of errors; That we have all sinned, some in weightier instances, others in lighter, some of set purpose and design, others it may be carried away by other Men's wickedness; That we do not only offend, but we shall offend to the end of our lives, and although some one may have so purged his mind, that nothing shall any more disturb, or deceive him, yet he comes to innocency by offending; That this evil disposition is so natural to Men, that, if every one be to be punished, that hath it, no Man shall be free from punishment; That there is therefore a necessity upon those, who are entrusted with the power of Chastisement, to wink at some errors; He, who punisheth Men, as if they could be free from all sin, exceeding the measure of that correction, which is according to nature, or (as another hath expressed it) showing himself injurious to the common infirmity of Men, and forgetful of that infirmity, which is humane, and universal. For as it is evident from these, and the like passages, that they, from whom they fell, had the same opinion of the State of Nature, which Christianity obligeth us to take up; So that opinion of theirs cannot but add to the confirmation of our own, and to the belief of that depravation, which it is the design of this Discourse to evince: Because not taken up either in whole, or in part from prejudices imbibed from Books, but from the experience they had of its effects, and which as they themselves could not but feel, and acknowledge, so we have no reason to question, because conscious of the like effects of it in ourselves. III. There being therefore no doubt to be made, but that there is such a thing as Original Sin, because sufficiently attested by the Doctrine of the Scripture, and our own, and other Men's experience; It cannot but be thought reasonable to inquire, from whence it had its beginning, and so much the rather because both Scripture, and reason assure us, that it cannot be thought to have had its Original from God. Now there are but four things, from whence it can be supposed to proceed, and within the consideration whereof therefore this Enquiry of ours will necessarily be bounded; some evil Daemon, or Spirit, which concurs with God to our production, or the natural pravity of that matter, which God makes use of in order to it; Some evil habits, which Souls contracted, before they were sent into their present bodies, or some pravity in those from whom they first descended, and which is transmitted from them to particular souls, and persons. The first of these opinions is attended with this great inconvenience among many others, that it chargeth God either with malignity, or impotency; With malignity, if willingly suffering any evil spirit to mix itself in his productions; With impotency, if not able to hinder it, though he would. The second, as it is alike injurious to the power of God, because subjecting that power of his to the indisposition of the matter, so it makes Original Sin to be natural, and unavoidable, and consequently also those actual sins, that slow from it. By which means it not only renders all our endeavours against them useless, but casts a blemish upon those divine Laws, which pretend to forbid them, and upon those divine judgements, which pretend to punish them. For neither can God without great unreasonableness forbidden what is not to be avoided, nor punish it without the imputation of injustice. But it may be though Original Sin had not its beginning either from some evil spirit, or the pravity of the matter, which are the two first opinions, which pretend to give an account of it; yet it might, as is suggested in the third, arise from such evil habits, as Men's souls contracted before their descent into this World, and into those bodies, wherewith they are invested. That indeed might yet more reasonably be believed, that I say not also (abstracting from the Authority of the Scripture) much more reasonably, than the account, that is given of it from Adam, if there were but equal reason to believe, that Men's Souls had any separate existence antecedently to their conception in the Womb. But as that is a thing for which there is not any solid ground either in reason, or Scripture, and the supposition of it therefore the mere issue of fancy, and conjecture; So it is sufficiently confuted by the ignorance Men's Souls are under of any such previous estate. For why, if Men's Souls had any such previous existence, should they not be conscious of it, and of the things, that were performed by them in it? Nay, why should not God take care to fix such a remembrance in them, that so what was wanting in their former estate might be supplied by them in their following one? For as it is not easy to suppose, that the corruptible body should so far stupefy the Soul, as to hinder it from emerging in time out of sleep, in which it may seem to have been cast, and accordingly from calling to mind what had been before transacted within it; Because though the Body may be some hindrance to the faculties of the Soul, yet it doth not hinder them from coming in time to exert their proper operations: So it is much less easy to suppose, that God should not however bring to its memory its past State, and Actions, by which it offended against him; Partly to make it sensible of its former guilt, and God's choosing to punish it by thrusting it into a Body, and partly to make it so much the more careful to break off from those sins, by which it had before offended him; These, as they are the only imaginable ends, why God should thrust an offending Soul into such a Body, so being perfectly lost to that Soul, in which there is no consciousness of its former state, and of those enormities, which were contracted in it. I conclude therefore, that whatever may be said as to this particular concerning Original Sin, yet it did not take its rise from the evil acts, or habits of the Soul in any praexistent estate, and nothing therefore left to us to resolve it into, but the depravedness of those, from whom we all descended, and from whom it is transmitted to particular Souls, and Persons. I deny not indeed, that even this Account is not without its difficulties, and such as it will be hard, if not impossible perfectly to assoil. I deny not farther, that those difficulties are much enhanced by the ignorance we are under concerning the Original of humane Souls, and which whilst we continue under, it will not be easy for us to show, how that depravedness of Nature should pass from them to us. But as those difficulties are no ways comparable to the difficulties of two of the former, even those, which resolve Original Sin into the malignity of some evil spirit, or the pravity of matter; So they can much less be thought to be of force against the testimony of the Scripture, if that (as I shall afterwards show) favour its arising from the pravity of our first Parents: Partly because the thing in question is a matter of fact, and therefore to be determined rather by testimony, than the force of reason, and partly because the testimony of Scripture is the most Authentic one, as being no other than the testimony of God. Now that there wants not sufficient evidence from thence, that that Original Sin, whereof we speak, ariseth from the pravity of those, from whom we first descended, will appear if these three things can be made out; First, that the sin of all mankind entered in by Adam; Secondly, that it entered in by Adam not merely as the first that committed it, or tempted other Men by his ill example to do the like, but as more, or less the cause of all their sins by his own; Thirdly that he became the cause of all their sins through his, by depraving thereby his own Nature, and then communicating that depravation to those, that descended from him. That the Sin of all Mankind entered in by Adam, will need no other proof, than that known Text of S. Paul (p) Rom. 5.12. , even that by one Man sin entered into the World, and death by sin, and so death passed through unto all Men, for that all have sinned. For as we cannot well interpret the word sin of any other, than the sin of all Men, because there is nothing in the Text to limit it to any particular Man's, so much less, when S. Paul doth afterwards affirm, that that death, which entered in by it, passed through unto all Men, for that, or because all had sinned by the means of him; That as it makes death to pass upon all Men with respect to their several sins, and consequently their several sins to be the immediate door by which it enters, so making those several sins therefore to be included in that sin, which he before affirmed to be the cause of that death, and, together with it, to have entered in by Adam. But because among those at least, by whom the Scripture is acknowledged, the question is not so much, whether all sin entered by Adam, but after what manner it entered by him; And because, till that be known, we cannot speak with any certainty concerning the derivation of the corruptness of our Natures from that of our first Parents or Parent; Therefore pass we on to show, according to the method before laid down, that as the sin of all Mankind entered in by Adam, so it entered in by him, not (as some have vainly deemed) merely as one, who first committed it, or tempted others by his example to do the like, but as one also, yea especially, who by the malignant influence of his sin was more or less the cause of all those sins, that followed it. That the sin of all Mankind entered not in by Adam either merely, or principally as one, who first committed it, will need no other proof than his being not the first committer of sin even in this sublunary World, but that Serpent, who tempted our first Parents to it. For as he, and his fellow Angels sinned before them in those glorious seats, in which they were first bestowed; So he sinned also before them here by that temptation, which he suggested to them, and without which they had not fallen from their integrity. Which as it is an evidence of sin's not entering in by Adam in that sense, and consequently that that was not the sense intended by S. Paul; So is the more to be considered, because S. John attributes this entrance of sin to the Devil (q) 1. Joh. 3.8. , yea makes all the committers of sin to be therefore of him. But besides that Adam was not the first of those that sinned, and we therefore not so to understand S. Paul, when describing sin as entering by him; Neither was he the first of humane kind that sinned, which will be a yet farther prejudice to the former surmise. For (as we learn from the story of the Fall (r) Gen. 3.6. , yea from this very Apostle elsewhere) (s) 1 Tim. 2.14. Adam was not deceived, that is to say, was not the first that was so, but the Woman being deceived was in the transgression. Which what is it but to say, that sin did not enter in by Adam in that sense, and consequently that that was not the sense intended by the Apostle in it? Only if it be said (and more than that cannot be said in it) that we are not so to understand S. Paul, when describing sin as entering by Adam, as not also to suppose him to connote the Partner both of his Bed, and of his transgression; As I will not be forward to deny the suggestion altogether, because believing them both to have contributed to the production of our transgressions, as well as Nature, so I cannot forbear to say upon the account of that which follows, that we ought to consider Adam as the more especial instrument in it. Because S. Paul not only represents him (t) Rom. 5.14. in particular as the Type, or Figure of him, that was to come, but both describes him all along under the notion of one Man (u) Rom. 12.15, 16. etc. , yea makes a great part of the likeness, that was between him and Christ to consist in it. Which could by no means have been proper, if he had meant no other by sin's entering in by Adam, than entering in by him as one of the first committers of it. For in this sense Eve must necessarily have had the preeminence, because not only offending before her Husband, but tempting even him to do the same. From that first sense therefore pass we to the second, and which indeed is both more ancient, and plausible, than the former. For as it is as old as that Pelagius (w) Vid. Voss. Hist. Pelag. li. 2. parte 2. Thes. 1. , who first called Original Sin in question, so it allows the sin of Adam to have had an influence upon other Men's sins, as well as to have given beginning to the being of it. But that it hath as little solidity, or pertinency to the words, whereunto it is applied, will appear if we reflect upon the sequel of S. Paul's Discourse, or the subject matter of that, which is offered as the interpretation of it. For is there any reason to think (without which that interpretation can be of no avail) that Adam by his sin tempted all his posterity to offend? Nay, is there not reason enough to believe, that that example of his contributed little to Men's following sins, yea contributed nothing at all to many of them? For how many Men have there been, to whom the knowledge of his sin never reached? How many are there yet, who are under the same ignorance, or may hereafter be? And must not these therefore be looked upon as exempted from the influence of his ill example, and consequently, if their sins entered in by Adam, be acknowledged to have entered some other way? And though the same be not to be said of those, to whom the Scriptures have come, because those are not without the knowledge of his sin, nor incapable of being influenced by his example; Yet is there as little reason to think, that that example of his contributes much to their sins, or indeed ever did to theirs, who lived nearer to him, and so were more likely to have been inflicted by him. For beside that a sin so chastised, as that was, was not very likely to draw their thoughts towards it, and therefore as little likely to tempt them to the imitation of it; Beside that many of them might have no actual consideration of it, as no doubt many now have not, even when they offend in the like kind; They might have been influenced, and no doubt were by other sins of his, as much, or more than by his first transgression, or by the ill examples of those, that were nearer to them, rather than by any of his. In fine they might have been, and no doubt often were influenced by the baits of pleasure, or profit, and thereby drawn aside from their integrity; These having been as apt to influence them, as the example of that sin, by which their several offences are supposed to have entered into the World. And I shall only add, that as that sense cannot therefore be reasonably imposed, if we regard, as no doubt we ought, the subject matter of it; So we shall find as little encouragement for it from the sequel of his Discourse, whose words are now under consideration. For beside that he himself may seem sufficiently to obviate it by affirming presently after (x) Rom. 5.14. , that there were many of those, that sinned, that did not, nor well could sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression, because knowing nothing at all of any such positive law, as he transgressed; It is the main design of his Discourse to compare the good, that Christ brought by his obedience, with the hurt which that type of his did by his transgression. Which comparison had been but a frigid one, if all the hurt, that Adam did us, was by the force of his ill example: Because it is certain that Christ's obedience was of a much more efficacious influence in the kind of it, as well as in the degree, and would therefore rather have been vilified, than any way illustrated, or commended by the comparison, if the malign influence of Adam's sin had reached no farther, than that of an example. I conclude therefore, that what ever was meant by sin's entering in by Adam, yet something more was meant by it, than its entering by him either as the first committer of it, or as one, who by his ill example tempted others to do the like. And indeed as the instance but now alleged, even the likeness, that is between Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, makes it but reasonable to look upon all sin as entering also by Adam, as more, or less the cause of it, so it stands yet more confirmed by what S. Paul affirms in the ninteenth verse, especially as it lies in the Original: The purport thereof being, that Men are constituted sinners by his disobedience, yea that they are so constituted sinners by it, as Men are constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ. For though the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may in themselves be capable of a softer sense, and accordingly signify no more, than Men's being reputed, and used as sinners upon the account of that transgression, which Adam committed; Yet I see not how that sense can be thought to fit them here, or indeed any other than that of constituting, or making Men sinners: Partly because their being constituted sinners by Adam's disobedience is rendered by S. Paul (y) Rom. 5.18, 19 as the reason of their condemnation by it, and aught therefore to be distinguished from it; And partly because they are said to be constituted sinners by Adam's disobedience, as they, who belong to Christ, are constituted righteous by his obedience. For the obedience of Christ procuring Men's being really righteous, as well as their being reputed such, yea procuring their being really righteous in some measure, that they may be so accounted of, and used; What can be more reasonable than to think, that that disobedience of Adam, which is affirmed to be like it, is of the same causality, and accordingly constitutes, or makes Men sinners, as well as accounted of as such. One only thing remains towards the clearing of the matter in hand, even the derivation of the corruptness of our Nature from that of our first Parent, or Parents; And that is, that as all sin entered in by Adam as more, or less the cause of it by his own, so he became the cause of it by his own by thereby depraving his own Nature first, and then communicating that depravation to those, that descended from him. Of the former whereof as there cannot well be any doubt, considering the heinousness of that sin, which he committed (That as it could not but occasion the withdrawing of the Divine Grace from Adam, so neither but draw after it the depravation of his Nature, as which received all its rectitude from the other) so there will be as little doubt of the latter, if we compare what S. Paul here saith concerning Adam's being the cause of all our sins by his own, with what he afterward saith * Rom. 7. 17-20. concerning Men's falling into actual sin by virtue of an evil principle, that dwelleth in them. For if all actual sin proceed immediately from such an evil principle, that evil principle must be also from Adam, as without which otherwise he could not be the cause of our sins by his own, nor constitute us sinners by it. iv I will not be over positive in defining by what means this evil principle is conveyed, because I am not well assured how our very Nature is. It shall suffice me to represent (what may tend in some measure toward the clearing of it) That Original sin, cleaving to our nature from the first beginnings of it, must consequently be conveyed to us by the same general means, by which our nature is, even by natural generation, yea that the Scripture teacheth us so to reason, where it affirms Men to be conceived in sin (z) Psal. 51.5. , to become flesh by being born † Joh. 3.6. of flesh, and unclean * Job 14.4.1. by being brought out of those Parents, that are so; That, though the more particular means, by which Original Sin is conveyed, cannot with any certainty be assigned, because it is alike uncertain, whether those Souls, in which it is most reasonable to place it, be either traduced, or immediately created, yet there would not be any uncertainty as to this particular, if we believed the Souls of Men to be traduced, as several of the Ancients † Vid. Vossi. Hist. P●lag. Lib. 2. Parte 3. Thes. 1. , and not a few of the Moderns have believed (For so it would not only not be difficult to apprehend the particular means of the others conveyance, but almost impossible to overlook them, because making it to pass together with those Souls, to which it adheres, and diffuse itself from thence to those Bodies, to which they are united) That, though the traduction of Souls be not without its difficulties, and such as I shall not be so vain as to attempt the solution of, yet it is in that particular but of the same condition with the immediate Creation of them, that I say not also less exceptionable, as to the business of Original Sin; In fine, That, as it hath nothing from Scripture to prejudice the belief of it, as appears by the solutions, which have been long since (a) Hotham's Introd. to the Trent. Philosophy. given to the Objections from it; So it seems to me much more agreeable to that account, which it gives of the Creation, and indeed to the Nature of a Parent. For what can be more clear from the Story of the Creation, than that God designed once for all to Create all the Being's, which he intended, leaving them, and particularly Man, to carry on the Succession by those productive principles, which he had planted in them? For if so, what should hinder us from believing, but that Men produce their like after the same manner, that other Creatures do, and by the same Divine Benediction, and concurence. Sure I am, as they will otherwise fall short of the powers of inferior beings, as well as be an anomaly in the Creation, so they will be but very imperfectly in the condition of Parents, because contributing only to that part, which is the least considerable in their Posterity. Only as I list not to contend about any thing, of which I myself am not more strongly persuaded; So I shall leave it to those, whom the immediate creation of Souls better pleaseth, to make their advantage of it, and satisfy themselves from it concerning the means of Original Sin's conveyance. Which if they do, they shall do more, than the great S. Augustin could after all his travails in this Argument; Because professing that he could not find either by reading or praying, or reasoning (b) Ep. 157. ad Optatum. , how Original Sin could be defended with the opinion of the Creation of Souls. V I may not dismiss the Argument that is now before us, or indeed so much as attend to the consideration of those Objections, that are made against it, before I have also enquired, whether that, which hath the name of Original Sin, be truly, and properly such, and not rather so styled in respect of that first sin, from which it proceeded, or in respect of those sins, to which it leads. For beside that that Church, whose Catechism I have chosen to explain, leads us to the consideration of it, because both there, and elsewhere (c) Art. of Relig. 6. affirming it to have the nature of a Sin, to make us the Children of Wrath, and to deserve God's Wrath and Damnation; The resolution of it is of no small moment toward the right stating of our duty, and the valuableness of that remedy, which Christianity hath provided for it. For neither otherwise can we look upon Original Sin as any proper matter for our Repentance, whatsoever it may be for our lamentation, nor upon Baptism as bringing any other pardon to Infants, than that of the Sin of their first Parents, and which they who look upon Original Sin as rather our unhappiness, than fault, are generally as far from charging them with. This only would be premised for the better understanding of it, that by Sin is not meant any actual transgression of a Law (for no Man was ever so absurd, as to affirm that concerning Original Sin) but that which is contrary to a Law in the nature of an evil habit, and both imports an absence of that Righteousness, which ought to be in us, and an inclination to those evils, from which we ought to be averse; This, as it is no less the transgression of a Law, than any actual sin is, so making the person, in whom it is, as obnoxious to punishment, and consequently to be looked upon as yet more properly a sin. Now that that, which we call Original Sin, is really such in this latter notion, will appear if these two things be considered; First, that the Scripture gives it the title of sin, Secondly, that it represents it as such upon the account of our being obliged by the Law of God to have in us a contrary temper. That the Scripture gives that, whereof we speak, the title of sin, is evident from those Texts, which we before made use of to prove the being of it; More particularly from that (d) Psa. 91.5. , which represents David as conceived, and born in sin, and those (e) Rom. 7. 17-20. , which represent us all as having sin dwelling in us. For these having been before shown to speak of Original Sin make it evident that the Scripture gives it the title of Sin, because in the former places representing it under that notion. And though I will not from that only Topick conclude it to be properly such, because the Scripture makes use of figurative expressions, as well as proper, yea doth so in this very particular whereof we speak (for thus it sometimes gives the title of sin to that, which is intended only as the punishment thereof) yet as we may lawfully infer from thence, that there is more cause to believe Original Sin to be properly, than figuratively such, till the contrary thereof be made appear, The proper sense being otherwise to be preferred before the figurative; So that there can be no place for the figurative sense, if that, which is there represented as a sin, be elsewhere represented as such upon the supposition of our being obliged to have in us the contrary temper. Which that it is will appear from such Texts, as do more immediately affirm it, or such as affirm those things, from which it may by good consequence be deduced. Of the former sort I reckon that, which is immediately subjoined by David to the mention of his being conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity (f) Psa. 51 6. . Behold thou requirest truth in the inward parts, and shalt, or rather hast made me to understand wisdom secretly. For as we cannot but look upon what is there said concerning God's requiring truth in the inward parts as spoken with relation to that sin, whereof he before complains, and to the mention whereof he subjoins the mention of the other; So neither (considering it to have been his intent to aggravate his sinfulness before God) but look upon it as also his intent to aggravate the sinfulness of his frame by that piety which God required of him. Which supposed, Original Sin will not only be found to be so entitled by the Scripture, but to have had that name bestowed upon it upon the account of Men's obligation to the contrary, and consequently to be truly and properly such. And though there be not it may be many more Texts of that nature, or which therefore can be thought so directly to affirm, that it becometh the sin of those, in whom it is, upon the account of their obligation to the contrary; Yet will it not be difficult to find others, which do as clearly assert those things, from which it may by good consequence be deduced. Such as are those which make Original Sin to be a proper matter for confession, yea to induce a guilt upon the person, in whom it is. But so the Prophet David doth plainly suppose in that very Psalm, which we but now made use of; Because not only confessing (g) Psa. 51.5. the sinfulness of his Nature together with that of his external actions, but begging of God, immediately after that confession of his, that he would purge him (h) Psa. 51.7. with Hyssop from it. For as we have no reason to exclude that from the matter of the desired purgation, which immediately precedes the Prayer that is put up for it; So much less reason to doubt, after that Prayer for the purgation of it, of its inducing a guilt upon the person, in whom it is: The use of Hyssop in the Old Law (as appears by several places (i) Exo. 12.22. Leu. 14.6. in it, and a consentient Text in the Epistle to the Hebrews (k) Heb. 9.19. etc. ) being to sprinkle the Blood of the Sacrifices upon those, who were any way obnoxious to its censures, and so deliver them from the severity thereof. For what other than could the Psalmist mean by that Prayer of his, than that God would purge him from that, and his other sins by the blood of an expiatory Sacrifice? Or so meaning be thought to intimate more clearly, than that that, from which he desired to be purged, stood in need of such a Sacrifice, and consequently was no more without its guilt, than his actual transgressions were. Only, if that notion may not be thought to be of sufficient clearness to build so important a Conclusion on, it will not be difficult to strengthen it yet more by the word the Hebrew makes us of for purge, and those Prayers, which the Psalmist subjoineth to it; By the former because literally (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a purification from sin, by the latter, because importing it to be his desire (m) Psal. 51.7, 8, 9 , that God would wash him from it, that he would cause those bones, that had been broken by it, to rejoice, and in fine, that he would hid his face from his sins, and blot out all his iniquities: These, as they are known and usual expressions for the remission of sins, and consequently importing the guilt of those, to whom they are applied, and their purification from it, so with this farther reason to be so taken here, because the Psalmist afterwards begs (n) Psal. 51.10. , that God would purify him from the filth of them, and renew a right spirit within him. VI Now though from what hath been said it be competently evident, that the Doctrine of Original Sin is not without good Authority to warrant it, yet because that Doctrine hath been impugned by the Pelagians of Old, and since that by the followers of Socinus, therefore it may not be amiss for the farther clearing of it to consider their Objections against it, and either return a direct, and satisfactory answer to them, or at least show, that they ought not however to be admitted as a bar against what the Scripture hath said concerning it. To begin with those Objections which respect the being of it, or rather tend to show that it hath no being in the World; Which are either such, as consider it as a simple corruption of humane Nature, or such as do also consider it as a sinful one. Of the former sort are those, which represent it as a thing unconceivable, how it should come into humane Nature, which the better to persuade, they allege plausible reasons against all those means, whereby it may be supposed to find admittance. For these being destroyed, they think they may lawfully infer, that there is indeed no such depravation upon humane Nature. Of what force those reasons are will be then more seasonable to inquire, when I consider what is objected against the fountain of Original Corruption, or the means by which it is conveyed. At present it may suffice to say, that of what force soever they may be thought to be, yet they are not of sufficient force to destroy the being of Original Corruption, which is the thing for which they are here alleged; Partly, because many things may be, yea be assured to us, of the original, or conveyance whereof we ourselves are perfectly ignorant (for who doubts of the being of humane Souls, though he neither knows, nor well can, whether they be traduced, or infused) and partly because the testimony of Scripture, with the experience we have of its effects, is a much more forcible argument of the being of it, than all the former reasons are of the other: These being direct, and immediate proofs of its existence, whereas the other are only indirect, and mediate. From such objections therefore as consider Original Sin as a simple Corruption of humane Nature, pass we to those, which consider it also as sinful, and which indeed seem most hardly to press upon it: Such as are, that all sin is the transgression of a Law, which Original Sin seems not to be; That it requires the consent of the will of him, in whom it is, which cannot well be affirmed of that; As in fine, that the Scripture itself may seem to make that, which we call Original Sin, rather the Parent of Sin, than sin itself, because making sin to arise (o) James 1.13, etc. from the conception, and parturition of it. As to what is objected from the forementioned Scripture, it is either nothing at all to the purpose, or very much against the purpose of those, that allege it: Partly because by the sin there spoken of can be meant no other, than actual sin, and nothing therefore to be concluded from thence, but that all actual sin is the product of Men's Lust, and partly because that Text makes even actual sins to be the product of Men's Lust, yea of such a lust as draweth them aside, and enticeth them. For who can well think the Parent of such Children to be of a better Nature, than the Children themselves, especially when she is described as giving birth to them by false, and deceitful Arts? Such Arts as those reflecting no great honour upon the Mother, but on the contrary making her to be altogether as criminal, as the other. If therefore they, who impugn Original Sin as such, would do it with any advantage, it must not be by Arguments drawn from Scripture, which will rather hurt, than profit them, but by Arguments drawn from reason, and particularly by such as represent Original Sin as no transgression of a Law, and therefore no sin properly so called, or as a thing which hath not the consent of the will of him, in whom it is, and therefore yet farther removed from it. As concerning the former of these, even that which represents Original Sin as no transgression of a Law, I answer that they, who so speak, must deny it to be such, either because it is no Act, or because there is no Law, which it can be supposed to be a transgression of. If the former of these be their meaning, I willingly grant what they allege, but I say withal, that it will not from thence follow, that it is no sin at all. For if Men are obliged by the divine Law to a pious, and innocent temper, as well as not to swerve from it in their actions, the want of that happy temper, or the having a contrary one will be as much the transgression of a Law, as the want of the same piety in their actions. Which will consequently devolve the whole force of that Objection upon the supposition of there being no such Law of God, which requires the former temper, or which therefore Original Sin can be thought to be a transgression of. But as I have already made it appear in some measure, that there is in truth such a Law, as requires a pious, and innocent temper, so I shall now endeavour to strengthen it by some more particular proofs, and by answering those exceptions, that are made against it. In order to the former whereof we are to know, that as the Law we speak of must be supposed to have been given to Adam, as that too not only in his private, but public capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the representative of all Mankind (there being no other Law, which can be supposed to concern us, before we come to be in a capacity to apprehend, and obey it) so I shall endeavour to make it appear first, that there was such a Law given to Adam, and then that it was given to him not only in his private, but public capacity, and as he may be thought to have been the representative of all Mankind. Now that there was a Law given to Adam, requiring a pious, and innocent temper, as well as the preserving that piety and innocency in his actions, will need no other proof than God's creating him in it, and the love he may be supposed to bear unto it. For as we cannot think God would have ever entrusted such a Jewel with Adam, if it had not been his intention that he should preserve, and exercise it; so much less, when the holiness of the divine Nature persuades his love to it, as well as the declarations of his word. For what were this, but to make God indifferent, what became of his most excellent gifts, which no wise person, and much less so hearty a lover of them can be supposed to be? If therefore there can be any doubt concerning the Law we speak of, it must be as to its having been given to Adam in his public capacity, and as he may be supposed to have been the representative of all Mankind. Which I shall endeavour to evince first by showing what I mean by his public capacity, secondly by showing that Adam was set in such a capacity, and thirdly that the Law we speak of was given to him as considered in it. By the public capacity of Adam I mean such a one, whereby as he was designed to be the Father of all Mankind, so God made him a kind of Trustee for it; In order thereunto both giving him what he did for their benefit, as well as his own, and obliging him for their sakes, as well as his own, to see to the preservation of it, and act agreeably to it. Which if he did, his Posterity as well as himself should have the benefit thereof, and God's favour together with it, but if not, forfeit together with him what God had so bestowed upon him, and incur the penalty of his displeasure. Now that Adam was set in such a capacity (which is the second thing to be demonstrated) will appear from the Scriptures making him the cause of all Men's death by his offence, and disobedience. For the effects of another disobedience being not otherwise chargeable upon any Man, than as that other may be supposed to be appointed to act for him; If the effects of Adam's disobedience were to fall upon all his Posterity, he also must be supposed to have been appointed to act for them, and consequently to have been set in that public capacity, whereof I speak. Which will leave nothing more for us to show upon this Head, than that that Law, which requires a pious and innocent temper was given to Adam in that capacity. But as we can as little doubt of that, if his contracting a contrary temper was as fatal to his Posterity, as to himself; So that it was, will need no other proof than his producing the like temper in them, and that temper's proving as deadly to them. The former whereof is evident from what I before said to show, that Original Sin had its beginning from Adam, the latter from S. Paul's (p) Rom. 7.24. calling it a Body of Death, or a Body that brings it: The Genitive Case (q) Grot. in loc. among the Hebrews, and Hellenists, being usually set for such Adjectives, as betoken a causality in them; Even as the Savour of Death is used for a deadly one, or that which bringeth death, and the Tree of Life for a life-giving one, or that which was apt to produce, or continue it. I deny not indeed (that I may now pass to those Exceptions that are commonly made against it) that it may seem hard to conceive how Adam should be set in such a capacity, as to involve all mankind in happiness, or misery, according as he either continued in, or fell from that integrity, wherein God created him. I deny not therefore, but that it is equally hard to conceive how God should give him such a Law, the observation, or transgression whereof on his part should redound to the account of his Posterity. But as every thing, that is hard to be conceived, is not therefore to be denied, if it be otherwise strengthened with sufficient proofs; So it would be considered also, whether it be not much more hard to conceive, how God should otherwise involve Infants, and Children in those calamities, into which they often fall, especially in National Judgements: It being certainly more agreeable to the divine Justice, to conceive those to have some way, or other offended, and consequently thereto to have fallen under the displeasure of it, than to conceive them to suffer it without any offence at all. For why then should we not think, especially when the Scripture hath led the way, that God obliged them in Adam to a pious, and innocent temper, and which they losing in him, they became obnoxious with him to the same sad effects of his displeasure? And though it be true, that there is this great imparity between the cases, that the effect of God's displeasure upon occasion of Original Sin is made to reach to eternal misery, as well as to a temporal one, whereas the case we before instanced in concerns only a temporal punishment: Yet as they do thus far agree, that a punishment is inflicted, where there is no actual sin to deserve it, which is sufficiently irreconcilable with the understanding we otherwise have of the divine Justice; So that great imparity may be much abated by considering, that God hath provided a Plaster as large as the Sore, (even by giving his Son to die for all Mankind) and appointed the Sacrament of Baptism to convey the benefit of it. For as the consequents of Original Sin will be thereby taken off from so many Infants at least, as are admitted to that Sacrament, so that mercy of his to those, and the assurance we have from the Scripture of his giving his Son to die for all may persuade us to believe, that though he hath not revealed the particular way to us, yet he hath some other way to convey the benefit of that death to those, who are not admitted to the other. But it will be said it may be (which is a no less prejudice against the being of Original Sin) that all sin, to make it truly such, must have the consent of the will of those, in whom it is, as well as be the transgression of a Law. A thing by no means to be affirmed concerning that, which we call Original Sin, because not only contracted before we had a being, and therefore also before we had so much as the faculty of willing, but moreover conveyed to us, when we had neither reason to apprehend it, nor any power in our wills either to admit, or reject it. And indeed how altogether to take off the force of that Objection is beyond my capacity to apprehend, or satisfy the understandings of other Men: Because as I cannot see how any thing can be a sin, which hath not also the consent of the will of those, in whom it is, so I am as little able to conceive how Original Sin should have the consent of ours, either when it was first contracted, or when it was transmitted to us. But as I am far less able to conceive how Infants, and Children should come to be so severely dealt with without any offence at all, or therefore without having some way, or other consented to one; So I think first, that that difficulty may well be laid in the balance against the other, yea alleged as a bar to the supposed force of it. For why should my inability to apprehend how Infants, and Children could consent to Original Sin, prevail with me to deny the being of it, when a far greater inability to apprehend how the same persons should come to be so severely dealt withal without it, doth not prevail with me to deny that severe usage of them? Neither will it avail to say (which is otherwise considerable enough) that we have for the belief of this last the testimony of our Senses, which is not to be alleged as to the other. For the question is not now whether the severe usage of Infants, and Children may not more reasonably be believed, than their Original Sin, upon the account of the greater evidence there may be of it; But whether we can any more deny the Original Sin of Infants, and Children upon the account of our inability to apprehend, how they should consent unto it, than we can deny the severe usage of the same persons upon the account of our inability to apprehend, how they should come to be so dealt with without the other. Which that we cannot is evident from hence, that we are equally at a loss in our apprehensions about the one, and the other, that I say not also more at a loss about the latter, than about the former. And indeed, as we find it necessary to believe many things notwithstanding our inability to apprehend how they should come to pass, and ought not therefore to deny the being of any one thing upon the sole account of that inability; So our apprehensions are so short as to the modes of those things, of the being whereof we are most assured, that it will hardly be deemed reasonable to insist upon the suggestions of them, against the affirmations of the Scripture: Partly because of the Authority of him, from whom it proceeded, and partly because we cannot so easily fail in our apprehension concerning the due sense of the affirmations of it, as in the deductions of our own reason concerning the things affirmed; Nothing more being required to the understanding of the one, than a due consideration of the signification of the words, wherein they are expressed; whereas to the right ordering of the other, there is required a due understanding of the Nature of those things about which we reason, which is both a matter of far greater difficulty, and in many cases impossible to be attained. Whatever difficulty therefore there may be in apprehending how Original Sin could have the consent of those, in whom it is supposed to be, and consequently how it should be truly and properly a sin; Yet ought not that to be a bar against our belief of it, if the Scripture hath represented it as such, and which whether it hath, or no, I shall leave to be judged by what I have before observed from it. From such Objections, as are levelled more immediately against the being of Original Sin, pass we to those which impugn the derivation of it from Adam, and from whom we have affirmed it to proceed. Which Objections again do either tend to show, that it had its Original from something else, or that it cannot be supposed to have its Original from Adam. An opinion hath prevailed of late years, that that, which we call Original Sin, took its rise from the sins of particular Souls in some praexistent estate, and from those evil habits, which they contracted by them. And certainly the opinion were reasonable enough to be embraced, if the praeexistence of Souls were but as well proved, as it is speciously contrived. For, that supposed, it would be no hard matter to give an account of the rise of that Corruption, which is in us, nor yet of God's afflicting those on whom no other blame appears: That corruption, as it is no other than what particular Souls have themselves contracted, so making them as obnoxious to the vengeance of God, as any after sins can be supposed to do. But do they, who advance this hypothesis, think the plausibleness thereof a sufficient ground to build it on? Or are problems in Divinity no other way to be determined, than those of Astronomy, or other such conjectural Arts are? I had thought that for the resolution of these we ought rather to have had recourse to that word of God, which was designed to give us an understanding of them, to have examined the several assertions of it, and acquiesced in them, how difficult soever to be apprehended. I had thought that we ought to have done so much more, where the Scripture professeth to deliver its opinion, and doth not only not wave the thing in question, but speaks to it. Which that it doth in the present case will need no other proof than the account it gives of the Original of Mankind, and then of the Original of Evil. For as it professeth to speak of Adam not only as created by God, but as appointed by him (r) Gen. 1.28. to give being by the way of natural Generation to all, that after him should replenish the Earth (which how he should be thought to do, if he were only to be a means of furnishing them with a Body, who had the better part of their being before, is past my understanding to imagine) so it professeth to speak of the same Adam as one by whom sin, and death (s) Rom. 5.12. 1 Cor. 15.21, 22. entered into the World, as well as the persons of those, on whom it seizeth. And can there then be any place for a precarious hypothesis about the Original of Mankind, or the evils of it? Can there be place for advancing that hypothesis not only beside, but against the determinations of the Scripture? Do not all such hypotheses proceed upon the uncertainty of the matter, about which they are conversant? Do they not come in as a relief to the understandings of Men, where they cannot be satisfied any other way? But how then can there be place for such a one, where the Scripture hath determined? How can there be any place even for the most specious, and plausible? For as that cannot be supposed to be uncertain, which the Scripture hath determined; So no plausibility whatsoever can come in competition with the determinations of God, such as those of the Scripture are. But such it seems is the restlessness of some Men's minds, that if they cannot satisfy their scruples from what the Scripture hath advanced, they will be setting up other Hypotheses to do it by. Wherein yet they are for the most part so unlucky, as to advance such things themselves, as have nothing at all of probability in them. For who can think it any way probable, that, if men's Souls had an existence antecedent to their conception in the Womb, they should not in the least be conscious of it, nor of any of those things, which were transacted by them in it? Is it (as one hath observed, who seems to have been the first broacher of it in this latter Age) is it, I say, for want of opportunity of being reminded of their former transactions, as it happens to many, who rise confident that they slept without dreaming, and yet before they go to bed again recover a whole series of representations by something that occurred to them in the day? But who can think, when the Souls of Men must be supposed to carry in them the same evil tendencies, and inclinations, that they should never light upon any one thing, which might bring back to their minds what they had formerly transacted, or but so much as that they had a being antecedent to their present one? For whoever was so forgetful of his dreams, as not to remember he was sometime in a dreaming condition, yea that he actually dreamt in it? Is it secondly (as the same Learned Man goes on) by a desuetude of thinking of their former actions, and whereby it sometimes comes to pass, as he there observes, that what we have earnestly meditated, laboured for, and penned down with our own hands, when we were at School, becomes so lost to our memories, that if we did not see our own handwriting to it, we should not acknowledge it to be our own? But doth this come home to the present case? Doth it persuade such a forgetfulness in the Souls of Men, as not only not to remember their particular actions, but not so much as that they were in a condition to act any thing, or acted any thing under it? For though a Man may forget the particular exercise he did at School, yet can any Man (though he slept an Age, and never so much as dreamed in all that time of being at School, or any other thing, be supposed, if he awoke in his right wits, to forget he was sometime in such a place, and performed some exercises in it? Is it lastly by means of some distemper, that happens to the Soul by coming into an earthly Body, and by which the forementioned person conceives the Soul may suffer in its memory, as we see it sometime doth in its present state by casualties, and diseases, yea so far as to make the person forget his own name? But though the Soul should be supposed to fall into such a forgetfulness by entering into a body (as we see it is a long time before it comes to exercise its respective faculties) yet is there any reason to think it should continue in it after it hath gotten above the infirmities of the other, yea so far as to reason with that clearness, wherewith this Author doth in many things, and with great plausibility in all others? For though Men may happen to be so stricken by a disease, as to forget even their own names, yea have undoubtedly suffered in that nature; yet is there no evidence from story that I know of, or indeed presumption for the supposition of it, that though the parties did again recover the free use of their faculties, yet they were unable to look back to their pristine state, or call to mind any of the passages thereof. So much more specious, than strong are the reasons that Author allegeth to show the Soul to be in a natural incapacity to call to mind its pristin state, and actions. And yet if they proved what they intended, they would hardly make it credible, that it should be without all knowledge of them: God, who thrusts it down into its present state by reason of its former errors, being likely enough to bring them to its mind, though it should be otherwise ignorant of them. Otherwise he should neither make it sensible of its own guilt, and his choosing thus to punish it, which is one supposed end of his thrusting it down, nor careful to break off from it, which is another. And I shall only add, that as we cannot therefore be in any great danger from those Objections, which pretend to derive Original sin from another principle; So shall we not now be much incommoded by the force of those Objections, which profess more directly to impugn the derivation of it from Adam. For as those Objections are principally founded upon the incompetency of Adam to involve all mankind in the guilt of his transgression, so I have not only made it appear already, that Adam was no way incompetent for that purpose, because appointed by God as the representative of all mankind, but said enough, though not to answer, yet to silence what is objected against it from the supposed want of our consent to his transgression. Which will leave nothing more for us to do, than to consider what is objected against the means, we have before assigned of the conveying of that Original Sin whereof we speak. But as I have not been positive in assigning the particular means of its conveyance, and must therefore be the less concerned to answer what is objected against them; So I shall oppose to all those Objections the assurance we have from the Scripture of our having it in us from our Conception, and Birth, yea contracting it from those fleshly, and unclean persons, from whom we are descended: That, as it is enough to show that it is conveyed to us by the same general means, by which our very nature is, so making it at least probable that it passeth from them to us together with our Souls, and from thence diffuseth itself unto our Bodies. And how far a probability so founded aught to prevail against all the Arguments, which are opposed to the traduction of Souls, especially when the Scripture seems to favour that traduction also, will be no hard matter for him to judge, who shall consider on the one hand the shortness of our own reasonings, and on the other what difficulties attend the Creation, and Infusion, as well as the traduction of Souls. For as those very difficulties will oblige us to sit down after all with a probable assent in this affair, so the shortness of our own reasonings to guide that assent rather by probable testimonies of Scripture, than by probable arguments from Reason: Because as we are more assured of the truth of those testimonies, than we can be of the truth of any of those arguments, which we ground ourselves upon in this affair; So we cannot so easily fail in our apprehensions concerning the other; Nothing more being required toward the apprehending the force of the former, than the due consideration of the sense of the words, wherein they are expressed, whereas to the apprehending of the force of the latter we must have a clear knowledge of the nature of those things, about which they are conversant, which is certainly a matter of far greater difficulty, and wherein therefore we may more easily mistake. Only if what is said in this particular may not be thought to be satisfactory, because rather a bar to what is objected against the traduction of Souls (and consequently of Original Sin) than any direct answer to it; I shall desire those, who are dissatisfied with it, to give such an answer, as they themselves demand to what is objected by the other party against the immediate Creation, and infusion of them: It seeming not so easy to imagine (that I may not now press them with any other inconveniencies) that God should create a Soul on purpose to infuse it into such incestuous conceptions, as he himself cannot but be thought to abhor. For myself, as I can with equal ease digest the traduction of Souls with all its inconveniencies, or rather acquiesce in that evidence, which the Doctrine of the Scripture, and the simple nature of a generation do seem to suggest; So I shall hardly think it reasonable to quit it, till they, who assert the Creation of Souls, free it from the former inconvenience, and other such difficulties, wherewith it is alike encumbered. For till that be done, the traduction of Souls will not only be of greater probability, but serve more clearly to declare how that corruption, which our first Parents contracted, passed from them unto their Children, and so on to succeeding Generations. PART iv Of the things signified by Baptism on the part of God, or its inward and spiritual Grace. The Contents. The things signified by Baptism are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which passeth between God, and Man, and that body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the same God doth, by virtue of that Covenant, oblige himself to bestow upon the Baptised, and what those Baptised ones do on their part undertake to perform. These latter ones proposed to be considered, and entrance made with the consideration of what God obligeth himself to bestow upon the Baptised, called by the Church, An inward, and spiritual Grace. Which inward, and spiritual Grace is shown to be of two sorts, to wit, such as tend more immediately to our spiritual, and eternal welfare, or such as only qualify us for those Graces, that do so. To the former sort are reckoned that inward, and spiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of sin, called by the Church forgiveness of sin; That which tends to free us from the pollution of sin, called by our Catechism A death unto it; And that, which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a New birth unto righteousness. To the latter sort is reckoned our union to that Body, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, and by means whereof he dispenseth the former Graces to us. Each of these resumed, and considered in their order, and shown to be, what they are usually styled, the inward, and spiritual Graces of Baptism, or the things signified by the outward visible Sign thereof. BUT to return to that, from which I have diverted, even the things signified by the outward visible sign of Baptism, which are either more general, or particular: More general, as that Covenant of Grace, which passeth between God, and Man, and that Body of Men, which enter into Covenant with him; More particular, what the same God doth by virtue of that Covenant oblige himself to bestow upon the Baptised, and what those Baptised ones do on their part make profession of. Of those more general things I have given some account already * Of the Sacraments in general, Part 2. , and shall have occasion, as I go, to add yet farther light to them; I will therefore proceed forthwith to the consideration of the more particular ones, such as are on the part of God an inward and Spiritual Grace, and on the part of the Baptised an abrenuntiation of their former sins, and a resolution to believe, and act, as Christianity obligeth them to do. Now the inward and Spiritual Grace of Baptism is of two sorts, to wit, such as tend more immediately to our spiritual, and eternal welfare, or such as only qualify us for those Graces, that do so. Of the former sort again is that inward and Spiritual Grace, which tends to free us from the guilt of sin, best known by the name of forgiveness, or that which tends to free us from the pollution of sin, called by our Catechism a death unto it, or lastly that which tends to introduce the contrary purity, and hath the name of a new birth unto Righteousness. Of the latter sort is our union to that body, of which Christ Jesus is the head, and by means of which he dispenseth the former Graces to us. For that each of these is signified on the part of God by the outward visible sign of Baptism, and consequently is a part of its inward and Spiritual Grace, will appear if we descend to particulars, which therefore I will now set myself to do. To begin with those inward, and Spiritual Graces, which tend more immediately to our spiritual, and eternal welfare; Among which as I assigned the first place to forgiveness of sin, so I shall make it my business to show first, that that is a Grace which is signified by the outward visible sign of Baptism, and Secondly give a more particular account of the nature of that forgiveness, which I have said to be signified by the other. That forgiveness of sin is a Grace signified by the outward visible sign of Baptism, will appear if these two things can be made out; First, that the outward visible sign of Baptism hath a relation to the forgiveness of sin, and Secondly that it hath the relation of a sign unto it. For if the outward visible sign of Baptism hath the relation of a sign to the forgiveness of sin, Forgiveness of sin, as being its correlatum, must be looked upon as signified by it. That the outward visible sign of Baptism hath a relation to the forgiveness of sin, S. Peter will not suffer us to doubt, because admonishing † Act. 2.38. the Jews to be baptised for the remission of sins; And as little doubt can there well be of its having the relation of a sign unto it, which is the only thing we are at present to consider: Partly, because Baptism hath been before * Of the Sacraments in general, Part 2. shown to have been intended by God as a sign of many things, and why then not as a sign of that forgiveness, to which I have shown it equally to relate, and partly because it is proposed to us as washing away (a) Acts 22.16. the sins of those, that are sprinkled with it. For as if the Water of Baptism be to be considered as washing away Men's sins, it must be upon the account of its being a sign of that inward Grace thereof, that doth so, as which alone can be a just foundation of attributing such a property to it (for neither can the Water of Baptism put away Men's sins, but by means of that Grace, which it conveys, nor with any propriety even so be said to wash them away, but upon the account of the likeness there is between its own natural property, and that of the divine Grace, which will make the Water of Baptism a sign, or representation of it) So if the Water of Baptism be to be considered as washing away Men's sins, it will equally lead us to believe, that it ought to be considered in particular as a sign of that forgiveness, whereof we speak: Partly, because that forgiveness is an undoubted correlatum of Baptism, and partly because the term of washing away Men's sins is most frequently made use of to denote the forgiveness of sins, and that outward sign therefore, to which such a washing is attributed, intended as a sign of the forgiveness of them. I conclude therefore that whatever else may be thought to be excluded from the signification of the Water of Baptism, yet it hath the relation of a sign to the forgiveness of sin, and that forgiveness therefore to be looked upon as one of the Graces signified by it. And I shall only add, that this was always so acknowledged in the Church, that even the Pelagians themselves, though they denied all sin in Infants, and consequently left no place for the forgiveness of sin in them, yet did allow of their being Baptised for the remission of sins according to the rule of the Universal Church, and the tenor of the Gospel, as appears from the words of Pelagius himself (b) Vid. Voss. Hist. Pelag. li. 2. part. 2. Thes. 4. , and those of his Scholar Coelestius. There being therefore no doubt to be made, that forgiveness of sin is one of those inward, and Spiritual Graces, which are signified by Baptism, it may not be amiss for the farther clearing of that Grace, to say somewhat concerning the nature of it, both as to those sins it pretends to assoil, and the measure of its forgiveness. But because I have elsewhere (c) Expl. of the Creed. Art. of The forgiveness of sins. given no contemptible account thereof, and shall have occasion to resume it, when I come to show what farther relation the outward visible sign of Baptism bears to this, and its other inward Graces; I shall content myself to observe at present, that as that forgiveness, which is signified by it, hath a relation to all our past sins, so it relates in particular to Original Sin, and consequently tends alike to the cancelling of its Obligation. Witness not only the Churches applying this sign of it to Infants, as that too, as was before noted for the remission of sins, but S. Paul's making that quickening (d) Ephes. 2.1 , which we have by Baptism, to save us as well from that wrath, which we were the Children of by Nature, as from our own vain conversation, and the punishment thereof. For other sense than that as the generality of the Latins (e) Vid. Voss. Pelag. Hist. li. 2. part. 1. Thes. 2. did not put upon the Apostles words, so neither is there indeed any necessity for, or all things considered any probability of: Partly because the Apostle might intent to aggravate the sinfulness of Men's former estate from their natural, as well as contracted pollutions (even as David aggravated his (f) Psal. 51.5. where he deplores his Adultery, and Murder) and partly because there is sufficient evidence from other Texts of Men's being sinful by their birth, as well as practice, and which as S. Paul's Children of wrath by Nature is more strictly agreeable to, so is therefore more reasonable to be interpreted of. And I have insisted so much the longer both upon this particular, and the Text I have made use of to confirm it, because as Original Sin is one main ground of Baptism, and accordingly in this very Catechism of ours represented by our Church as such, so she may seem to make use of that very Text to evidence the being of Original Sin, and the efficacy of Baptism toward the removing of it: Her words being, that as we are by nature born in sin, and the Children of wrath, so we are by Baptism made the Children of Grace. From the Grace of forgiveness of sin pass we to that, which tends to free us from its pollution, entitled by our Church a death unto it. A grace, which as the corruption of our Nature makes necessary to be had, so cannot in the least be doubted to be signified by the outward sign of Baptism: It being not only the affirmation of S. Paul that all true Christians are dead (g) Rom. 6.2. to sin, but that they are buried by Baptism (h) Rom. 6.4, into it, that they are by that means planted together into the likeness (i) Rom. 6.5, of Christ's death, and that their Old Man, even the Body of sin, is crucified (k) Rom. 6.6. with Christ in it. For as that, and other such like Texts (l) Col. 2.12. of Scripture are a sufficient proof of Baptism's having a relation to our death unto sin, as well as unto the death of Christ; So they prove in like manner, that it had the relation of a sign unto it, and consequently make the former death to be one of the Graces signified by it: Because not only describing the Rite of Baptism under the notion of a death, and Burial, which it cannot be said to be, but as it is an image of one, but representing it as a planting of the Baptised person into the likeness of that death of Christ, which is the exemplar of the other. For what is this but to say, that it was intended as a sign, or representation of them both, and both the one, and the other therefore to be looked upon as signified by it. The same is to be said upon the account of those Texts of Scripture, which represent the Water of Baptism as washing (m) Acts 22.16. away the sins of Men, or (if that expression may not be thought to be full enough, because referring also to the forgiveness of them) as sanctifying, and cleansing (n) Eph. 5.26, 27. the Church, to the end it may be holy, and without blemish. For as that shows the Water of Baptism to have a relation to that grace, which tends to free the Church from sinful blemishes, so it shows in like manner, that it was intended as a sign of it, and of that inward cleansing, which belongs to it: There being not otherwise any reason why the freeing of the Church from sin by means of the Baptismal water should have the name of cleansing, but upon the account of the analogy there is between the natural property thereof, and the property of that Grace, to which it relates. One only Grace remains of those, which tend more immediately to our spiritual welfare, even that which our Catechism entitles a new birth unto righteousness. Concerning which I shall again show (because that will be enough to prove, that it is a Grace signified by it) that the Water of Baptism hath a relation to it, and then that it hath the relation of a sign. I allege for the former of these S. Paul's entitling it the laver of regeneration (o) Tit. 3.5. , as our Saviour's affirming (p) Joh. 3.5. before him, that we are born again of that, as well as of the Spirit; For the latter what hath been before shown in the general concerning its having been intended as a sign of the things, to which it relates. For if the Water of Baptism were intended as a sign of those things, to which it relates, it must consequently have been intended as a sign of our new birth, because by the former Texts as manifestly relating to it. But so we shall be yet more fully persuaded, if it carry in it a representation of that new birth, to which it doth relate. Which that it doth will need no other proof, than its being an apt representation of that spiritual purity, which the Soul puts on at its first conversion, and wherein indeed its new birth (q) Eph. 4.24. consists. For so it is in part by that cleansing quality, which is natural to it, and which induceth a purity in those bodies, to which it is applied; But especially by the use that was formerly made of it toward the washing of newborn Infants from those impurities, which they contracted from the Womb: This last serving to set forth the first beginnings of our spiritual purity, as well as the former doth that purity itself. And I shall only add, that as a resurrection from the Dead is also a kind of new Birth, and accordingly so represented by the Scriptures themselves (witness their entituling our Saviour upon the account of his Resurrection the first-begotten (r) Col. 1.18. from the dead, yea making that Resurrection of his to be a completion (s) Acts 13.33. of that signal prediction of God (t) Psal. 2.7. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee) So the same Scriptures do not only represent our new birth unto Righteousness under the notion of a Resurrection, but sufficiently intimate that whether Birth or Resurrection to be a Grace signified by it: Because not only admonishing us to look upon ourselves as alive unto God by Baptism (u) Rom. 6.11. , as well as dead unto sin in it, but as risen (w) Col. 2 12. with Christ therein through the faith of the operation of him, who raised him from the dead. For how come Men by reason of their being alive unto God through Baptism to be affirmed to have risen with Christ in it, but upon the account of that Baptism of theirs being a representation of that new life, or birth, which we have by the means of it, as well as of the Resurrection of our Saviour? I will conclude what I have to say concerning the inward, and Spiritual Grace of Baptism, when I have taken notice of that, which though it do not immediately tend to our spiritual, and eternal welfare, yet qualifies us for those Graces, that do; Even our union to that Body, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, and by means of which he dispenseth the other graces to us. For that that is also signified by the outward visible sign of Baptism, will appear if we consider that visible sign as having a relation to it, and then as having the relation of a sign. Of the former whereof as S. Paul will not suffer us to doubt, because affirming all (x) 1 Cor. 12.13. whether Jews or Gentiles to be baptised into that body; So there will be as little doubt of the other from the general design of its institution, and from what S. Paul intimates in the former place concerning it: That expression of being baptised into the body of Christ importing our being received by Baptism within it, as the body of the Baptised is within those waters, wherein he is immersed. Which will consequently make that Rite a true, and proper sign of Our Union to Christ's Body, and that union therefore a thing signified by it. Such are the things, which are by Baptism signified on the part of God, and Christ, or (that I may speak in the language of our Church) the inward, and spiritual Graces thereof. It remains that I also show the things signified by it on the part of the Baptised, even an Abrenunciation of their former sins, and a resolution to believe, and act, as Christianity obligeth them to do. But because both the one, and the other of these will be more clearly understood, if they be handled apart, and whatsoever is to be known concerning each of them laid as near together as may be; Therefore having begun to entreat of the inward and spiritual Grace of Baptism, I will continue my Discourse concerning it, and accordingly go on to inquire what farther relation the outward visible sign of Baptism hath to its inward and Spiritual Grace, or Graces, and first of all to Forgiveness of sin. PART V Of Forgiveness of sin by Baptism. The Contents. Of the relation of the sign of Baptism to its inward, and spiritual Grace, and particularly to Forgiveness of sin; Which is either that of a means fitted by God to convey it, or of a pledge to assure the Baptised person of it. The former of these relations more particularly considered, as that too with respect to Forgiveness of Sin in the general, or the Forgiveness of all Sin whatsoever, and Original Sin in particular. As to the former whereof is alleged first the Scriptures calling upon Men to be Baptised for the remission, or forgiveness of sin, Secondly the Church's making that Forgiveness a part of her Belief, and Doctrine, Thirdly the agreeing opinions or practices of those, who were either unsound members of it, or Separatists from it, And Fourthly the Calumnies of its enemies. The like evidence made of the latter from the Scripture's proposing Baptism, and its Forgiveness as a remedy against the greatest guilts, and in special against that wrath, which we are Children of by Nature. From the premises is shown, that the sign of Baptism is a pledge to assure the Baptised of Forgiveness, as well as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it. NOW as the outward visible sign of Baptism hath, beside that of a sign, the relation of a means fitted by God to convey the inward, and spiritual Grace, and of a pledge to assure the Baptised person of it; So being now to entreat of its relation to that of the Forgiveness of sins, we must therefore consider it under each of them, and first as a means fitted by God for the conveying of it. In the handling whereof I will proceed in this method; First, I will show that it hath indeed such a relation to Forgiveness in the general, Secondly, that it hath such a relation to the Forgiveness of all sins whatsoever, and particularly of Original. That the outward visible sign of Baptism hath such a relation to Forgiveness in the general, will appear from the ensuing Topics. I. From the plain, and undoubted Doctrine of the Scripture. II. From the consentient Doctrine, and Belief of the Church. III. From the whether practices, or opinions of the unsound members of it, or Separatists from it. iv From the Calumnies of the open Enemies thereof. I. What the Doctrine of the Scripture is in this affair cannot be unknown to any, who have reflected upon what S. Peter said to those Jews, who demanded of him, and his fellow Apostles what they should do to avert the guilt they had contracted, and what Ananias said to Paul, who was remitted to him upon the same account. For to the former S. Peter made answer among other things that they should be baptised * Acts 2.38. for the remission of sins; Which shows what Baptism was intended for, and what therefore, if they were duly qualified, they might certainly expect from it: To the latter Ananias, that he should arise, and be baptised, † Acts 22, 16. and wash away his sins. Which effect as it cannot be thought-to refer to any thing but the preceding Baptism, and therefore neither but make that Baptism the proper means of accomplishing it; So can much less be thought to exclude, or rather not principally to intent the washing away the guilt of them: Partly because (as was before observed) that is the most usual sense of washing away sins, and partly because most agreeable to the disconsolate condition Paul was then in, as well as to the foregoing declaration of S. Peter. II. To the Doctrine of the Scripture subjoin we the consentient Doctrine, and belief of the Church, as which though it cannot add to the Authority of the other, yet will no doubt confer much to the clearing of its sense, and of that Doctrine, which we have deduced from it. Now what evidence there is of such a consent will need no other proof than the Doctrine of her Creed * Creed in the Communion-serv. , and the use she made of the simple Baptism of Infants to establish against the Pelagians the being of that Original Sin they called in question. For how otherwise could the Church call upon Men to declare, that they believed one Baptism for the remission of sins? Yea, though she thought it otherwise necessary to inculcate Baptism, as well as remission, and the single administration of it, as well as either. For beside that both the one, and the other might have been declared by themselves, as well as in the tenor, wherein they are now exhibited; Had it not been a thing otherwise certain that remission of sins was an effect of Baptism, to have subjoined it to Baptism, as it is now, would have been a means to render it uncertain, and consequently all the hopes of a Christian together with it. Again, if there had been any the least doubt in the Church concerning this relation of Baptism, I mean as a means to convey remission of sins to the Baptised party; How could she have made use of the simple Baptism (a) Voss. Hist. Velag. li. 2. Part. 2. Antithes. 4. of Infants to establish against the Pelagians the being of that Original sin, which they called in question? For that Argument of hers proceeding upon the supposition of remission of sins by Baptism, as that again upon the supposition of something to be remitted in the party baptised, which in Infants could be no other than that Original Sin, which she asserted; If Baptism had not been certainly intended for the remission of sins, that argument of hers had been of no force, yea rather weakened, than any way strengthened that Original Sin, which she maintained: Especially, when it was a like certain, and accordingly replied by the Pelagians, (b) Voss. ibid. Thes. 4. that Baptism had other uses, and for which it might be supposed to have been conferred upon Infants, though they had nothing at all of sinful in them. III. But beside the suffrage of the Church of God, which both published this Doctrine in her Creed, and argued others from it; It is farther to be observed, that those, who were none of the soundest members of it, nor indeed as yet perfect ones, confirmed it by their opinions, and practices, as they also did in some measure, who yet separated from it in this affair. Witness, for the former, their deferring their Baptism to their death beds; Whether (as the Fathers (c) Tertul. de Poenitent. c. 8. sometime charged them) that they might sin so much the more securely in the mean time, or (as I rather think for the most part) because they were not well assured of the like efficacious means for the forgiveness of them. For which soever of these two were the occasion of that delay, manifest it is even from thence, that they had a high opinion of the forgiveness of sin by Baptism, but much more from the hazard they ran of going out of the World without it, and the contrariety of that their delay to the practice of the first Christians (d) Acts 2.41. , as well as to the sentiments (e) Cod. Eccl. Vniv. can. 57 of their own times concerning it. It being not to be thought, that Men of ordinary prudence would run upon so great an irregularity, as well as danger, unless they also believed, that if they happened to obtain Baptism, they should obtain together with it so plentiful a forgiveness, as would make ample amends for the other. And though we cannot so reasonably expect the like evidence from Heretics, and much less from those, whose business was in a great measure to depretiate the value of Baptism, as it is certain the Pelagians was; Yet as even they (as was before (f) Expl. of Bapt. Part 4. observed) allowed the Baptising of Infants into the same rule of Faith with those of riper years, and consequently into remission of sins; So they denied not, as to Men of riper years (g) Voss. Hist. Pelag. li. 2. Part. 2. Thes. 4. , that Baptism was efficacious toward it, and that as they were baptised into the belief of remission of sins, so they received that remission by it. iv In fine, so notorious as well as prevalent was the Doctrine of forgiveness of sin by Baptism, that the adversaries of the Church, and of Christianity took occasion from thence to calumniate them for it, and made that Doctrine of theirs one of their greatest crimes. Of which, to omit others, we have a remarkable proof in Julian (h) Orat. cui tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 53. , who makes Constantius, or rather Christianity in him, thus to bespeak the World. Whosoever is a corrupter of Women, or a Murderer, or impure, or abominable, let him come with confidence. For having washed him with this water, I will make him presently clean; And though he be afterward guilty of the like crimes, yet I will take care to cleanse him from them, if he will but smite his breast, and knock his head. The former part whereof is a manifest allusion to Baptism, and its effects, the latter to the penitential discipline of the Church. And it ought the rather to be taken notice of, because as it bears witness to that forgiveness of sin by Baptism, which hath been hitherto our design to advance, so it will contribute in part toward the proving, what comes next in order, even That the outward visible sign of Baptism hath that relation, whereof we speak, to the forgiveness of all sins whatsoever, and particularly of Original Sin: There being little doubt as to the formerof these, if (as Christianity is there made to speak) adultery, and murder were washed away by the waters of it. But so that Christianity itself taught, as well as was affirmed by this its adversary to do, is not only evident from what hath been elsewhere said (i) Expl. of the Creed. Art. The forgiveness of sins. concerning its tendering forgiveness of sins indefinitely, and particularly in the laver of Baptism, but from the quality of those criminals, whom it invited to forgiveness by it. For thus we find it to have done those Jews (k) Acts 2.38. , whom it before charged (l) Acts 2.23. with the murder of our Lord, and him in particular (m) Acts 22.16. , who elsewhere (n) 1 Tim. 1.13. confesseth himself to have been a blasphemer, a persecuter, and injurious, yea was intent upon that execrable employment at the time he was first invited to forgiveness. But therefore as I cannot either conceive, or allow of any other abatement in this forgiveness, than that which is to be made upon account of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and which what it is, hath been elsewhere (o) Expl. of the Creed. Art. The forgiveness, etc. declared; So I shall need only to take notice of the reference it hath to that Original Sin, which is the unhappy parent of all the rest. Not that there can be any great doubt as to the pardon of that, where it appears that the most heinous actual sins are pardoned, but because Baptism hath been thought by our Church (p) See the Office of Bapt. and the Catechism. to have a more peculiar reference to it, and because if it can be proved to have such a reference to its forgiveness, it will be of signal use to show the necessity of baptising Infants, in whom that sin doth alike predominate. Now though it be hard to find any one Text of Scripture, where that forgiveness, whereof we speak, is expressly attributed to Baptism; Yet will it not be difficult to deduce it from that (q) Eph. 2.1. etc. , which I have before shown to entreat of our becoming the children of wrath by nature, as well as by the wickedness of our conversations. For opposing to the corruption, or rather deadness, which accrues by both, the quickening we have together with Christ, and which quickening he elsewhere (r) Col. 2.12. as expressly affirms to be accomplished in us by Baptism; Affirming moreover that quickening to bring salvation (s) Eph. 2. 5-8. , and peace (t) Eph. 2. 14-17. , and reconciliation (u) Eph. 2.16. (for so he discourseth of it in the following Verses of that Chapter) he must consequently make that quickening, and the means of it to tend to the forgiveness of both, and particularly of natural corruption: Because as that quickening is by him opposed to both, so it must in this particular be looked upon as more peculiarly opposed to the latter, because that is more peculiarly affirmed to make Men the Children of wrath, and vengeance. Such evidence there is of the outward visible sign of Baptism being a means fitted by God to convey that forgiveness, whereof we speak; And we shall need no other proof than that of its being also a pledge to assure the baptised person of it. For since God cannot be supposed to fit any thing for an end, which he doth not on his part intent to accomplish by it; He, who knows himself to partake of that, which is fitted by God to convey forgiveness of sin, may know alike, and be assured as to the part of God of his receiving that forgiveness, as well as the outward means of its conveyance. For which cause in my Discourse of its other inward, and spiritual Graces I shall take notice only of that outward, and visible sign as a means fitted by God to convey them, because its being also a pledge may be easily deduced from it. PART VI Of Mortification of sin, and Regeneration by Baptism. The Contents. Of the relation of the sign of Baptism to such inward, and spiritual Graces, as tend to free us from the pollution of sin, or introduce the contrary purity; And that relation shown to be no less than that of a means, whereby they are conveyed. This evidenced as to the former, even our death unto sin (which is also explained) from such Texts of Scripture, as make mention of our being baptised into it, and buried by Baptism in it, or from such as describe us as cleansed by the washing of it. The like evidenced from the same Scripture concerning the latter, even our new birth unto righteousness; As that again farther cleared as to this particular by the consentient Doctrine, and practice of the Church, by the opinion the Jews had of that Baptism, which was a Type, and exemplar of ours, and the expressions of the Heathen concerning it. The Doctrine of the Church more largely insisted upon, and exemplified from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and S. Cyprian. I Have considered the sign of Baptism hitherto in its relation to Forgiveness, that Grace, which tends to free men from their guilt, and is for that purpose conveyed by Baptism to us; I come now to consider it in its relation to those, which either tend to free them from the pollution of sin, best known by the name of a Death unto it, or to introduce the contrary righteousness, and is called a new birth unto it. Where again I shall show in each of them, that as the outward work of Baptism hath the relation of a sign unto them, so it hath equally the relation of a means fitted by God to convey them, and where it is duly received, doth not fail to introduce them. To begin (as is but meet) with that, which hath the name of a Death unto sin, because sin must be first subdued, before the contrary quality can be introduced; Where first I will inquire what we are to understand by it, and then what evidence there is of the sign of Baptism's being fitted to convey it. For the better understanding the former whereof we are to know, that as Men by the corruption of their nature are inclined unto sin, and yet more by the irregularity of their conversations, so those inclinations are to the persons in whom they are, as a principle of life to a living Creature, and accordingly do both dispose them to act suitably thereto, and make them brisk, and vigorous in it. Now as it cannot well be expected, that where such inclinations prevail, Men should pursue those things, which piety, and virtue prompt them to, so it was the business of Philosophy first, and afterwards of Religion, if not wholly to destroy those inclinations, yet at least to subdue them in such sort, that they should be in a manner dead, and the persons, in whom they were, so far forth dead also; They neither finding in themselves the like inclinations to actual sin, nor hurried on by them, when they did. How little able Philosophy was to contribute to so blessed an effect is not my business to show, nor indeed will there be any need of it, after what I have elsewhere * Expl. of the Crced. Art. I believe in the Holy Ghost. said concerning the necessity of the divine Grace in order to it. But as Christianity doth every where pretend to the doing of it, and (which is more) both represents that effect under the name of a death unto sin, and compares Men's thus dying with that natural death, which our Saviour underwent, so it may the more reasonably pretend to the producing of it, because it also pretends to furnish Men with the power of his Grace, to which such an effect cannot be supposed to be disproportionate. The only thing in question as to our present concernment is, whether as the outward work of Baptism hath undoubtedly the relation of a sign unto it, so it hath also the relation of a means fitted by God for the conveying of it, and what evidence there is of that relation. Now there are two sorts of Texts, which bear witness to this relation, as well as to its having that more confessed relation of a sign. Whereof the former entreat of this Grace under the title of a death unto sin, the latter of a cleansing from it. Of the former sort I reckon that well known place to the Romans, where S. Paul doth not only suppose all true Christians † Rom. 6.2. to be dead to sin, and accordingly argue from it the unfitness of their living any longer therein, but affirm all, that are baptised into Jesus Christ * Rom. 6.3. , to be baptised into that death, yea to be buried by Baptism (a) Rom. 6.4, into it; to be planted together (b) Rom. 6.5, by that means in the likeness of Christ's death, and to have their old Man (c) Rom. 6.6. , or the body of sin crucified with him. For shall we say that S. Paul meant no more by all this, than that the design of Baptism, and the several parts of it was to represent to us the necessity of our dying, and being buried as to sin, and that accordingly all, that are baptised into Christ, make profession of their resolution so to do, but not that they are indeed buried by Baptism as to that particular. But beside that we are not lightly to departed from the propriety of the Scripture phrase which must be acknowledged rather to favour a real death, than the bare signification of it; That Apostle doth moreover affirm those, whom he before described as dead, to be freed (d) Rom. 7.18. from sin, yea so far (e) Rom. 7.18. as to have passed over into another service, even that of righteousness, and to have obeyed from the heart (f) Rom. 7.17. that form of Doctrine, into which they had been delivered. Which supposed (as it may, because the direct affirmation of S. Paul) will make that death, whereof we speak, to be a death in reality, as well as in figure, and accordingly (because Men are affirmed to be baptised into it) show that Baptism to be a means of conveying it, as well as a representation of it. Agreeable hereto, or rather yet more express is that of the same Apostle to the Colossians (g) Col. 2.11. though varying a little from the other, as to the manner of expression. For having affirmed them through Christ to have put off the body of the sins of the flesh by a circumcision not made with hands, and consequently by a spiritual one, he yet adds (lest any should fancy that spiritual Circumcision to accrue to them without some ceremonial one) in the Circumcision of Christ, even that Baptism, which, conformably to the circumcision of the Jews, he had appointed for their entrance into his Religion by, and wherein he accordingly affirms, as he did in the former place, that they were not only buried with him, but had risen together with him by the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. From whence as it is clear, that the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh (which is but another expression for a death unto them) is though accomplished by a spiritual Grace, yet by such a one, as is conveyed to us by Baptism, so it becomes yet more clear by what he adds concerning Men's rising with him in the same Baptism, even to a life contrary to what they had before deposited, through the faith of the operation of God. For as we cannot conceive of that rising with Christ as other than a real one, because there would not otherwise have needed such a faith, as that, to bring it about; So neither therefore but think the like of that death, which it presupposeth, and consequently that that Baptism, to which it is annexed, is a means of conveying it, as well as a representation of it. But so we may be yet more convinced by such Texts of Scripture, as speak of this death unto sin under the notion of a cleansing from it. Of which nature is that so often alleged one (h) Eph. 5.26, 27. concerning Christ's sanctifying, and cleansing his Church with the washing of water by the word. For as it appears from what is afterwards subjoined as the end of that cleansing, even that the Church might not have any spot, or wrinkle, but that it should be holy, and without blemish; As it appears, I say, from thence, that the Apostle speaks in the verse before concerning a cleansing from the filth of sin, which is but another expression for the putting off the body of sin, or a death unto it; So it appears in like manner from S. Paul's attributing that cleansing to the washing of water, that the outward sign of Baptism is by the appointment, and provision of God, a means of conveying that spiritual Grace, by which that cleansing is more immediately effected, and that death unto sin procured. From that death unto sin therefore pass we to our new birth unto righteousness, that other inward, and spiritual Grace of Baptism, and the compliment of the former. A Grace of whose conveyance by Baptism we can much less doubt, if we consider the language of the Scripture concerning it, or the Doctrine, as well as practise of the Church; The opinion the Jews had of that, which seems to have been its type, and exemplar, or the expressions even of the Heathen concerning it. For what less can the Scripture be thought to mean, when it affirms us to be born of the water (i) Joh. 3.5. of it, as well as of the spirit, yea so, as to be as truly spirit (k) Joh. 3.6. , as that, which is born of the flesh, is flesh? What less can it be thought to mean, when it entitles it the laver of (l) Tit. 3.5. Regeneration, and which is more, affirms us to be saved by it, as well as by the renewing of the Holy Ghost? What less, when it requires us to look upon ourselves as alive (m) Rom. 6.11. unto God by it, as well as buried (n) Rom. 6.4. by it into the former death, or (as the same Apostle elsewhere expresseth it) as risen with Christ in it (o) Col. 2.12. through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead? In fine, what less when it affirms us to be sanctified with the washing (p) Eph. 5.26. of it, as well as it elsewhere doth by the influences of God's Spirit. For these expressions show plainly enough, that Baptism hath its share in the producing of this new birth, as well as the efficacy of God's Spirit; And consequently that it is at least the conveyer of that Grace, by which it is more immediately produced. And indeed as, if men would come without prejudice, they would soon see enough in those expressions to convince them of as much as I have deduced from them; So they might see yet more (if they passed so far) in the doctrine, and language of the Church, to confirm them in that Interpretation of them. For who ever even of the first, and purest times spoke in a lower strain concerning Baptism? who ever made less of it, than of a means, by which we are regenerated? I appeal for a proof hereof to their so unanimously (q) See Part 2. understanding of Baptism what our Saviour spoke to Nicodemus concerning the necessity of men's being born again of water, and of the spirit. For as all men whatsoever interpret that of our new birth unto righteousness, and, so far, as the spirit of God is concerned in it, of the means, by which it is produced; So they must therefore believe, that if the Ancients understood it of Baptism, they allotted that its share in it, and consequently made it at least a conveyer of that Grace, by which this new birth is produced. I appeal farther to the particular declarations of some of the most eminent among them, and which whosoever shall seriously consider, will wonder how it should come to fall back to a naked, and ineffectual sign. For Justin Martyr (r) Apolog. 2. p. 93, 94. speaking concerning those, who had prepared themselves for Baptism, affirms them to be brought by the brethren to a place, where water is, and there to be regenerated after that way of regeneration, wherewith they themselves were. Which what it was, and of how great force he afterwards shows, by affirming them thereunto to be washed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as that too conformably to what our Saviour spoke concerning the necessity of men's being born again, To what the Prophet Isaiah meant, when he said, Wash you, make you clean, put away wickednesses from your souls; And in fine, to procure their deliverance from that, whether natural, or habitual corruptions they were under the power of. For these things show plainly enough, that as he spoke of the Baptismal regeneration, so he spoke of it too as a thing, which procured, as well as figured the internal regeneration of them. To the same purpose doth Tertullian discourse, and particularly in his Tract de Baptismo; Witness his calling it, in the very beginning thereof, that happy Sacrament of our water, wherewith being washed from the faults of our present blindness, we are freed into eternal life; His affirming presently after, that we the lesser fishes, according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or greater one Jesus Christ, are born in the water, neither can continue safe, unless we abide in it; That we ought not to wonder, if the waters of Baptism give life, when that Element was the first, that brought forth any living creature; That, as the Spirit of God moved at the beginning upon the face of waters, so the same spirit of God, after the invocation of his name, doth descend from Heaven upon those of Baptism, and having sanctified them from himself gives them a power of sanctifying others. For these and the like passages show as plainly, that that Author looked upon the outward sign of Baptism as contributing in its place to the production of our new birth, or sanctification, as well as to the representation of it. But of all the Ancient Fathers, that have entreated of this affair, or indeed of that Sacrament, which we are now upon the consideration of, there is no one, who hath spoken more, or more to the purpose than S. Cyprian, or whose words therefore will be more fit to consider. Only, that I may not multiply testimonies without necessity, I will content myself with one single one, but which indeed for the fullness thereof will serve instead of many, and be moreover as clear a testimony of our dying unto sin by Baptism, as of our regeneration by it. For when (saith he (s) Epist. ad Donat. ) I lay in darkness, and under the obscurity of the Night; When uncertain and doubtful I floated on the Sea of this tossing World, ignorant of my own life, and as great a stranger to truth, I thought it exceeding difficult, as the manners of Men than were, that any one should be born again, as the divine mercy had promised, and that being animated to a new life by the laver of salutary water, he should put off that which he was before, and whilst the frame of his body continued the same, become a new Man in his heart, and mind. For how (said I) is it possible, that that should be suddenly put off, which either being natural is now grown hard by the natural situation of the matter, or contracted by a long custom hath been improved by old Age, etc. To these, and the like purposes I often discoursed with myself; For as I was at that time entangled with many errors of my former life, which I did not then think it was possible for me to put off; So I willingly gave obedience to those vices, that stuck to me, and through a despair of better things, I favoured my evils, as though they had been my proper, and domestic ones. But after that through the assistance of this generating water the blemishes of my former life were washed off, and my mind thus purged had a light from above poured into it; After that the second birth had changed me into a new Man through the force of that spirit, or breath, which I sucked in from above; Then those things, which were before doubtful, became exceeding certain, and manifest; things; which were before shut, were then laid open, and dark things made light. Then that, which before seemed difficult, appeared to help, rather than hinder, and that, which sometime was thought impossible, as possible to be done. So that it was not difficult to discern, that that was earthly, which being carnally born did before live obnoxious to faults, and that that began to be God's, which the Holy Ghost now animated. You yourself verily know, and will as readily acknowledge with me, what was either taken from, or bestowed upon us by that death of crimes, and life of virtues. Which as it is an illustrious testimony of the force of Baptism in this particular, and with what reason we have affirmed it to be a means of procuring the former death, and birth; So I have the more willingly taken notice of it, because it comes so near even in its expression to what our Catechism hath represented as the inward and spiritual Grace thereof: There being no great difference between a death of crimes, and life of virtues, which is the expression of that Father, and a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, which is the other's. And I shall only add, that as the Doctrine of the Church must therefore be thought to bear sufficient testimony to Baptism's being a means of our regeneration; So its practice is in this particular answerable to its Doctrine, and though in another way proclaims the same thing. Witness what hath been elsewhere observed concerning its giving Milk, and Honey (t) See Part 3. to the new Baptised person, as to an Infant newborn, its requiring him presently after Baptism to say (u) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer in the words Our Fa he●. De vitâ B. Martini c. 1. Necdum tamen regeneratus in Christo agebat quendam bonis operibus Baptismatis candida●um. Our Father, etc. as a testimony of his Sonship by it; And in fine its making use of the word regenerated to signify Baptised: As is evident for the Greek Writers from what was but now quoted out of Justin Martyr, and from Sulpit●us Severus among the Latins. Which things put together make it yet more clear, that whatever it may be now accounted, yet the Church of God ever looked upon the Sacrament of Baptism as a mean of our internal regeneration. And indeed as it is hard to believe, that it ought to be otherwise esteemed, considering what hath been alleged either from Scripture, or the declarations of the Church; So it will appear to be yet harder, if we consider the opinion of the Jews concerning that, which may seem to have been both its Type, and exemplar. For as I have made it appear before (w) Part 1. , that even they were not without their Baptism, and such a one, as was moreover intended for the same general ends, for which both their Circumcision was, and our Baptism is; So I have made it appear also (x) Ibid. , that the persons so baptised among them were accounted as persons newborn, yea so far, that after that time they were not to own any of their former relations; In fine, that that new birth was looked upon as so singular, that it gave occasion to their Cabalistical Doctors to teach, that the old soul of the Baptised Proselyte vanished, and a new one succeeded in its place. For if this was the condition of that Type of Christian Baptism, how much more of the Antitype thereof? Especially when it is farther probable (as hath been also (y) Part 2. noted from the discourse of our Saviour to Nicodemus) that he both alluded in it to that Baptism of theirs, and intimated the conformity of his own Baptism to it in that particular. And though after so full an evidence of this relation of Baptism to regeneration it may seem hardly worth our while to allege the expressions of the Heathen concerning it; Yet I cannot forbear, for the conformity thereof to the present argument, to take notice of one remarkable one of Lucian (z) Lucian. Philopatr. p. 999. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , who brings in one Triepho thus discoursing after his scoffing manner. But when (saith he) that Galilean lighted upon me, who had a bald Pate, a great Nose, who ascended up to the third Heaven, and there learned the most excellent things (meaning, as is supposed S. Paul) he renewed us by water, made us to tread in the footsteps of the blessed, and delivered us from the Regions of the ungodly. In which passage under the title of renewing men by water he personates the Christian Doctrine concerning their being regenerated, or renewed by Baptism, and accordingly makes it the subject of his reproach. PART VII. Of our Union to the Church by Baptism. The Contents. Of the relation of the sign of Baptism to our Union to the Church, and that relation shown to be no less than that of a means, whereby that Union is made. This evidenced in the first place from the declarations of the Scripture, more particularly from its affirming all Christians to be baptised into that Body, as those, who were first baptised after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, to have been thereby added to their company, and made partakers with the rest in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. The like evidence of the same Union to the Church by Baptism from the declarations of the Church itself, and the consequences of that Union shown to be such, as to make that also to be accounted one of the inward, and spiritual Graces of that Baptism, by which it is made. HAving thus given an account of such inward, and spiritual Graces of Baptism, as tend more immediately to our spiritual, and eternal welfare; It remains that I say somewhat of that, which though of no such immediate tendency, yet is not without all, because qualifying us for the reception of the other: That Union I mean, which we thereby obtain to Christ's mystical body the Church, and by which we, who were before Aliens from it, as well as from God, and Christ, become members of the Church, and partakers of the several privileges thereof. Which Union if any Man scruple to reckon among the inward, and spiritual Graces of Baptism properly so called, I will not contend with him about it; Provided he also allow of it as a thing signified by it on the part of God, and Christ, and as moreover a Grace, and favour to the person, on whom it is bestowed. For as that is all I ask at present concerning the Union now in question; So what I farther mean by its being an inward, and spiritual Grace shall be cleared in the process of this Discourse, and receive that establishment, which it requires. In order whereunto I will show the outward and visible sign of Baptism to be a means, whereby that Union is made, and then point out the consequences of that Union. That the outward visible sign of Baptism is in the nature of a means, whereby we are united to the Church, will appear if we reflect upon what the Scripture hath said concerning it; or the agreeing declarations of the Church itself. For what else (to begin with the former) can S. Paul * 1 Cor. 12.13. be thought to mean, where he affirms all whether Jews, or Gentiles, or of what ever other outward differences, to have been baptised by one spirit into one body? For as it is plain from the foregoing † 1 Cor. 12.12. verse, or verses, that S. Paul entreats of Christ's Body the Church, and consequently that the baptising here spoken of must be meant of our Baptising into it; So it is alike plain from what it was designed to prove, as well as from the natural force of the expression, that it was set to denote also our being united to it thereby. For as we cannot impose a more natural sense upon Baptised into that body, than our being received by Baptism into it, as the Baptised person is within the water, and consequently some way united to it; So much less if we consider what it was intended to prove, even * 1 Cor. 12.12. that Christians, how many soever, are but that one body. For how doth their being baptised into it prove them to be that one Body, but that that visible sign, by which they are so, unites them to one another, and to the whole? A mere sign of Union, though it may show what the partakers thereof ought to be, yet being no just proof of what they are, and much less (as S. Paul seems to argue) that they are so by the means of it. And indeed, as it will therefore be hard to make the sign here spoken of to be any thing less than a means of our Union to the Church; So especially, if we consider what is elsewhere said concerning those, who first after the descent of the Holy Ghost, were baptised in the name of Christ: S. Luke not only affirming of those new baptised ones, that they were added to (a) Acts 2.41. the Apostles, and their other company, (which he afterwards expresseth (b) Acts 2.47. by added to the Church) but that they were partakers (c) Acts 2.42. with the rest in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in Prayers. For this shows their having an interest in all the privileges of that Body, and therefore much more their being united to it. But so it appears that the Ancient Church esteemed of it, whose determination is of the more force, because it is only about the supposed means of Union to its own Body; Justin Martyr, after he had spoken of the baptising of such as offered themselves to the Christian Church (which he himself expresseth, when so baptised, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or conjoined with themselves) affirming that they were immediately brought where the brethren were assembled, there to partake with them of the common Prayers, that were then offered up, of the kiss of peace, and of the Lord's Supper. Which last particular I have the more confidently represented the new baptised persons as then admitted to, because the same Father doth not only make no distinction between them, and the other brethren in it, though he subjoins the business of the Eucharist to the former Prayers, and kiss of peace, but affirms the same Eucharist presently after to be lawful to none to partake of, but those that believed their Doctrine, received the laver of regeneration, and lived as Christ delivered. For as he intimates there by the admission of those that believed, and were baptised, if they were also such as lived as Christ delivered, which the new baptised were in reason to be accounted, till they had given proof to the contrary; So there is reason to believe from the use of Excommunication in the Church, that that addition of living as Christ delivered was not made to bar the new baptised from it, till they gave farther proof of such a life, but to intimate the exclusion of those, who, after they had been admitted to it, lived otherwise, than Christianity prescribed: So making the persons excluded the unbaptiz'd, or ill living Christians, and consequently the contrary thereto admitted. I deny not indeed, that the Rite of Confirmation did very anciently come between the receiving of Baptism, and the Eucharist. I deny not farther, because of what was before (d) Expl. of the Sacrament in general. Part 4. quoted from Justin Martyr concerning the particular Prayer that was made for the new baptised person, that the substance thereof was then in use, even prayer for grace for him to live as he had but now professed. But as the design of Confirmation appears to have been to procure for the new baptised a more plentiful effusion of God's Graces, which is no intimation at all of his having been before no perfect Christian, or not perfectly united to the Church, so Baptism may for all that be looked upon as the means of our Union to the Church, which is all, that I have taken upon me to assert. For the farther evidencing whereof I will in the next place allege a passage of Tertullian (e) De Bapt: c. 6. , which will, though not so directly, prove the same thing; That I mean where he saith, that when the profession of our faith, and sponsion of our salvation are pledged under the three witnesses before spoken of, there is necessarily added thereto the mention of the Church, because where those three are, even the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there is also the Church, which is the body of the Three. For as it is evident from thence, that Men were even from his time baptised expressly into the belief of the Church, as well as into the belief of the Trinity; So it will not be difficult to infer, that they were also baptised into the unity thereof, and made members of the Church by it: Because as he affirms the Trinity to become Sponsors of our Salvation in Baptism, as well as either Witnesses, or objects of our Profession; So he affirms those Sponsors to be as it were embodied in the Church, and consequently to exert their saving influences within it, which supposeth Men's being united to it by Baptism in order to their partaking of the salutariness of the other. And indeed, though in that form, which our Saviour prescribed (f) Matt. 28.19. for Baptism, there is mention only of baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet inasmuch as he prescribed that very form for the making of Disciples (g) Ibid. by, he must consequently be supposed to propose it for the aggregating them to that body, which he had already begun to frame, and making them alike members of it. There being therefore no doubt to be made of the outward visible sign of Baptism being a means of our Union to Christ's mystical body the Church, it may not be amiss (if it were only to manifest the great advantages thereof, as to that particular) to show the consequences of that Union. Which we shall find in the general to be a right to all those privileges, which Christ hath purchased for it; More particularly to the partaking of its Sacred Offices, and in, and through the means of them of those inward, and spiritual Graces, which those Sacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. For every member of a Society being by that membership of his entitled to all the privileges, that belong to it as such; He, who becomes a member of Christ's Body, the Church (as every Man, who is united to it by Baptism, doth) must in his proportion be entitled to all those privileges, which Christ hath purchased for it, and particularly to the privilege of partaking of its sacred Offices, and in, and by the means of them, of those inward and spiritual Graces, which those sacred Offices were intended to procure, or convey. Which how great a commendation it is of our Union to that Body, and consequently of that Baptism, by which it was made, will need no other proof than the Scripture's assuring us that Christ is the Saviour (h) Eph. 5.23. of that Body, and the promises it makes to those Prayers (i) Matt. 18.19, 20. , that are made by it, and to that Eucharist (k) Matt. 26.26, etc. , which is administered in it; The purport of those promises being no other, than the granting what is asked by it, and particularly all those benefits, which Christ's Body and Blood were intended for the procuring of. And if these be, as no doubt they are, the consequences of our union to the Church by Baptism, yea so far (as I have elsewhere (l) Expl. the Creed, Art. of The forgiveness sins. shown) that they are not ordinarily to be attained out of it; That very Union may not improperly be styled one of its inward and spiritual Graces, because leading to those, that are most strictly such, and indeed the only ordinary means of obtaining them. PART VIII. Of the Profession that is made by the Baptised person. The Contents. The things signified by Baptism on the part of the baptised brought under consideration, and shown from several former discourses (which are also pointed to) to be an Abrenunciation of sin, a present belief of the Doctrine of Christianity, and particularly of the Trinity, and a resolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws. Our resolution of acting agreeably to the Laws of Christianity more particularly considered, and the Profession thereof shown by several Arguments to be the intendment of the Christian Baptism. What the measure of that conformity is, which we profess to pay to the Laws of Christianity, and what are the consequences of the Violation of that Profession. HAving thus considered the things signified by Baptism on the part of God, and Christ, best known by the name of its inward, and spiritual Graces; It remains that I give the like account of the things signified by it on the part of the baptised, or the things the baptised person maketh Profession of by it. Which, as was before observed, are an Abrenunciation of sin, a present belief of the Doctrine of Christianity, and a resolution for the time to come to continue in that belief, and act agreeably to its Laws. That something is signified by Baptism on the part of the baptised, as well as on the part of God, and Christ, is evident from what was before said * Of the Sacrament in general, Part 2. concerning the nature of a Sacrament in the general, and Baptism's † Ibid. relating as well to something to be performed by the baptised, as to those divine Graces, or privileges which we expect from the other. That the things before mentioned are the things thus signified by it, hath also been elsewhere * Expl. of the Apostles Creed. declared, and so, that it would not be difficult for a diligent Reader to satisfy himself from thence. But because what I have said concerning them lies dispersedly in my former Discourses, and would therefore require more pains, than I ought to impose upon my Reader, to find it out, and apply it to the present Argument; I will here, though very briefly, consider them anew, and if not (which would be too tedious) repeat all that I have said concerning them, yet point him as I go, to the particular places, from whence they may be fetched. That Abrenunciation of sin is one of the things signified by Baptism is not only evident from the manner of administering it in the Primitive times, and which together with the form of their Abrenunciation, and our own are set down in my account of the Preliminary questions, and answers of the Catechism, but also from the general tenor of that Religion, which Baptism is an initiation into; That requiring the renouncing of all sin, and wickedness, and therefore supposing the baptised person to do so, when he takes that Religion upon him. For which cause as an express Abrenunciation was heretofore required, and continues so to be to this very day; So it was signified, as by other Rites, and particularly by the baptised persons putting off his in order to his Baptism, as putting off together with them the Old Man, and his deeds, so by the Rite of Baptism itself: He, who submits to that, implying thereby his looking upon sin as a Moral impurity, and which therefore for the future he would not have any thing to do with. The second thing signified by Baptism on the part of the baptised is his present belief of the Doctrine of Christianity, more especially of the Doctrine of the Trinity. As is evident from that Baptisms' being commanded by our Saviour to be made in, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For to be baptised into the name of those persons importing the owning of those persons as our Masters (a) Expl. of the Creed. Art. I believe in the Holy Ghost. , and ourselves as the Disciples of them; To be so baptised moreover importing the owning of those persons as alike (b) Ibid. Masters of us, and consequently, because the Father cannot be owned in any lower relation, as partakers of the same divine Nature, and Authority; Lastly, to be so baptised importing the owning of them in particular by a belief of the Christian Doctrine, that being the most signal instance of that Discipleship, we receive by it; The belief of the Doctrine of Christianity, and of the Trinity in particular must be looked upon as signified by Baptism on the part of the baptised, and those baptised one's consequently as making profession of that belief by it. For which cause as the rule of Faith, or the Creed (c) Introd. concerning Catechising, etc. was given to those to learn, who were willing to be initiated into Christianity, so they were particularly interrogated (d) Expl. of the Prel. Quest. and Answers. as to their belief of the Articles thereof, and then, and not till then baptised into it, and the privileges thereof. The third and last thing signified on the part of the baptised is a resolution for the time to come to continue in the belief of Christianity, and act agreeably to its Laws. Both which will receive a sufficient confirmation from S. Peter's affirming Baptism to be the Answer, or stipulation of a good conscience toward God, and from what I have elsewhere (e) Ibid. said concerning it. For as it is evident from thence, that Baptism signifies on the part of the baptised a stipulation, or promise of somewhat to be done by him; So it will not be difficult to infer from thence, that it signifies also a stipulation, or promise to continue in that belief of Christianity, into which he is baptised, and act agreeably to its laws. As will appear, whether we consider that stipulation as having a good conscience toward God for the object of it (in which sense I should think S. Peter ought to be understood) or, as I find many others to do, as proceeding from such a conscience. For a good conscience having a due regard to the several parts of that Religion, which it makes profession to espouse; He, who with relation to Christianity stipulates from a good conscience, or makes that good conscience the object of his stipulation, must consequently be thought to stipulate, or make a promise of answering the several parts of it, and therefore also (because they are parts of Christianity) of continuing in its Faith, and acting agreeably to its Laws. And hence, (as was before (f) Expl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 1. observed) this, and the other Institution of our Religion had of old the name of Sacraments, as importing a Vow, or promise to Christ of believing in him, or obeying him. And hence also, that the Ancients argued (g) Ibid. the unlawfulness of superinducing an humane, or military Sacrament upon a divine one, and answering to another Master after Christ. Which we shall the less need to wonder at, if we remember that that Baptism, whereof we speak, was copied from the Baptism of the Jews (h) Expl. of Baptism, Part 1. , and particularly from that of John the Baptist. For concerning the former of these it hath been observed (i) Ibid. , that those three men, that presided over it, leaned over the baptised persons as they stood in the water, and twice explained to them some of the more weighty, and lighter precepts of their Law. For what reason think we, but to let them know, that they were baptised into the obedience of the one, and the other, and that they accounted that Baptism of theirs as a Profession of it? And though we do not find the like affirmed concerning the Baptism of John the Baptist, which because an extraordinary one, and immediately from Heaven, I have distinguished from the other; Yet, which will come all to one, we find it entitled the Baptism of Repentance (k) Mark 1.4. Acts 13.14. , and (which is more) that Baptist enjoining upon those Publicans (l) Luk. 3.12, etc. , who came to be baptised by him, to exact no more than was appointed them, as upon those Soldiers, that came upon the like errand, to do violence to no man, to accuse no man falsely, and to be content with their wages: Such affirmations as these being pregnant proofs, that a resolution of living piously, and virtuously was a thing signified on the part of the baptised, and that their taking upon them the former Baptisms was a profession of it. Now if that Profession were the intendment of the former Baptisms, and particularly of that of John the Baptist, why not also of the Baptism of Christ? Especially, when John's Baptism of Repentance was to prepare men for the Kingdom of Christ, and to which therefore we may suppose a stricter piety to belong, and they, who were baptised into that Kingdom, plunged more deeply into the Profession of the other. I will conclude this affair, when I have added, that it appears from the Institution of Baptism, that the design, and end of it was to make Disciples (m) Matt. 28.19. unto Christ. For it appearing from other words of his, that they, and they alone can be his Disciples, who take up their Cross (n) Luk. 14.27. , and follow him, forsake all (o) Luk. 14.33. for him, and in fine abide (p) Joh. 8.31. in his words; If the design, and end of Baptism were to make men Disciples unto Christ, it must consequently oblige those, who take it upon them, to take upon them also the performance of the other, as to which that Discipleship obligeth them. Now though therefore there can be no great doubt concerning the baptised person's making profession of acting agreeably to the Laws of Christ, yet there may be as to the measure of that conformity to them, to which his Baptismal Profession obligeth him; That imperfect state, wherein we are, and the baptised person's being from the beginning (q) Expl. of the Lords Prayer in the words, Our Father, etc. taught to pray for the forgiveness of his Trespasses seeming to require an abatement of it; And because too I have more than once obliged myself to inquire, what keeping of God's holy Will, and Commandments, is incumbent upon us from our Baptismal Profession, and that Christianity, which it enters us into; Therefore for the farther clearing this part of our Baptismal Profession, as well as for the answering my own obligations, I will now set myself to inquire, what the measure of that conformity is, which we profess to pay to the Laws of Christ, and what are the consequence of the violation of that Profession. As concerning the former of these I shall not doubt to affirm it to be adequate for the matter of it to the several species of those Laws, which Christianity obligeth us to; S. Paul having expressly told us (r) Tit. 2.11, 12. , that that Grace, which bringeth salvation, teacheth men to deny all ungodly, and worldly lusts, and to live righteously, godlily and soberly in the present World. I shall not stick to affirm, Secondly, that that Conformity, which we make profession of, aught to answer so far as we can carry it, the several particularities of the Christian Laws, as well as the several species thereof: Less than that being not to be supposed to be the Profession of those, who make profession of a good Conscience toward God; A good Conscience, as such, prompting him in whom it is to conform so far as he can to every particular of his Law, to whom he professeth an obedience. But neither Thirdly shall I stick to affirm, that that conformity, which we make profession of, aught to be so entire, and full, as not to be interrupted at any time by a wilful violation of any Law, or a violation of them in scandalous instances; Such as those are, concerning which S. Paul hath affirmed (s) Gal. 5.21. , that they, which do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God: He answering not the divine law, so far as he can, who proceeds to either of those, because the Grace of Baptism, with a moderate care, must be supposed to be of sufficient force to preserve men both from the one, and the other. Such I take to be the Conformity, which Christianity obligeth us to, and which consequently the baptised person must be supposed to make profession of. And I would to God, that as all Christians make profession of such a one, so their lives, and conversations were more answerable to it, than the experience both of ourselves and others assures us it is. But as the contrary thereof is too apparent to need any farther proof, so I think it therefore but reasonable, for the better awaking of those baptised one's, to set before them in the next place the consequences of the violation of their profession. Whereof the first, that I shall assign, is, that so far as they depart from that Profession of theirs, so far forth they sin against that very Baptism of theirs, which was intended for their recovery from sin, and against that saving Religion, into which it admits them: That Baptism, which enjoins upon them the making profession of a good Conscience, enjoining consequently the answering that profession by a suitable piety, as without which that Profession would be but an hypocritical one. From whence as it will follow, that there will be little reason to believe, that they shall enjoy the benefits of Baptism, who answer not the Profeson of it; So much less if we consider what that was, that made their Profession to be of any avail at the first, even the presumption it gave, that the person, that made it, would (as occasion offered itself) give suitable demonstrations of it. For if that presumption were the thing, which made the Profession of a good Conscience to be of any avail at the first; Those demonstrations failing, those benefits must be supposed to fail, which were collated upon the presumption of them. But from thence it will follow Thirdly, that they, who answer not their former profession, can much less promise to themselves farther spiritual blessings here, or an interest in the other World; They, who could not be admitted to the first privileges of Baptism but upon a presumption of their future piety, being much less likely to be admitted to the participation of others, after that presumption appeareth to be null. It will follow Lastly, that they who answer not the Profession of Baptism by a piety suitable to it, must consequently fail altogether of the benefits thereof, if that Christianity, into which it entered them, had not provided them of a remedy against the violations of their Profession. Which, though it will not make the case of those violators desperate, yet will show it to be so dangerous, as to oblige all, who have a care of their Salvation, to prevent what they may such violations of it, or endeavour to repair them afterwards by a speedy, and severe repentance, and a more fixed, and settled piety: Lest, as it may some time happen, they be cut off before they can make use of the remedy proposed, or by reason of their former violations have not the grace given them to do it. PART IX. Of the right Administration of Baptism. The Contents. After a short account of the Foundation of the Baptismal relation, and reference made to those places from which a larger one may be fetched; Enquiry is made touching the right Administration of Baptism, as therein again First, Whether Baptism ought expressly to be made in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Secondly whether Schismatics, and Heretics are valid Administratours of it, Thirdly, to what, and what kind of persons it ought to be administered, Fourthly, Whether it may be repeated. The two first of these spoken to here, and first, Whether Baptism ought to be expressly administered in the form proposed. Which is not only shown to be under obligation from the express words of the Institution, but answer made to those Texts, which seem to intimate it to be enough to baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus only. The Baptism of Schismatics, and Heretics more largely shown to be valid, unless where they baptise into a counterfeit Faith, and the several objections against it answered. I Have hitherto entreated of the outward visible sign of Baptism, of its inward and spiritual Grace, or the things signified by it, and the farther relation that outward sign beareth to them. It folllows that I entreat of the foundation of that relation, the Fourth thing proposed to be considered. Now as the Foundation of that relation hath been shown * Expl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 2. to be no other, than the Institution of Christ, as that again not so much as delivered by him, as applied to that water in which it is subjected; So I have in the same discourse said † Ibid. Part 2, 3. so much concerning the Institution of this, and the application of that Institution to the outward visible sign thereof, that I shall need to say the less here. It may suffice briefly to observe from thence, that what the Minister hath prepared the water of Baptism by a declaration of the end of its Institution, and by imploring the Holy Spirit on it, Christ, who hath promised to be with him in that ministration of his, gives it the relation of the Sacrament of Baptism, and consequently makes it apt to convey the several graces thereof to those, who are to partake of it. Which will leave little more for us to consider, as to the Sacrament of Baptism, than the right Administration of it, or what may without any violence be reduced to it. Now there are Four things, which are especially to be enquired in order to the clearing of that, which is now before us. I. Whether Baptism ought expressly to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. II. Whether Schismatics, and Heretics are valid Administratours of it. III. To what, and what kind of persons it ought to be administered. iv Whether it may be repeated. I. The ground of the first of these, even whether Baptism ought expressly to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is not any the least doubt of those being the express words of the Institution, or of their not admitting, considered in themselves, of any variation from it, but the accounts we have from the Scripture of the administration of that Sacrament either by the hands, or at the command of the Apostles, and other such inspired men: Those seeming to intimate it to be enough to baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus, as comprehending within it an acknowledgement of the other two persons, and indeed of all other the substantial Articles of his Faith, in whose name we are so baptised. For thus when those Jews, to whom S. Peter Preached on the day of Pentecost, were wrought upon so far, as to ask what they ought to do in order to their Salvation; S. Peter's answer was † Acts 2.38. that they should be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus: Which accordingly we may believe to have been done by those, that gladly received the word, because it is afterwards (a) Acts 2.41. said of them, that they were baptised, that is, as one would think, in that, and that only name, which had been prescribed. Thus again it is said (b) Acts 8.16. of those, who had been baptised by Philip at Samaria, that they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, without any the least hint of their being baptised in any other name: As in like manner (c) Acts 10.47. , that S. Peter gave order for the baptising of Cornelius, and his company, after that the Holy Ghost had by his preaching descended upon them. In fine thus we find, that the Disciples of Ephesus (d) Acts 19.5. were, who it seems till that time had not only no gifts of the Holy Ghost upon them, but not so much as any knowledge, whether there were any Holy Ghost, or no. Which place is the more to be stood upon, because those Disciples having before so little knowledge of a Holy Ghost, one would think he that told the story of their taking upon them the Christian Baptism at the hearing of what was said to them by S. Paul, should have expressed that Baptism of theirs by their being baptised into the belief of the Trinity, and particularly of that Holy Ghost, which they seem before to have been ignorant of. But as we are not lightly to think, nor indeed without an irrefragable reason, that those first Disciples of Christ made use of, or countenanced any other form of Baptism, than what their Master had so clearly, and expressly prescribed; So there is nothing of any such moment in the places before alleged to persuade their making use of, or giving countenance to any other. On the contrary the Text last mentioned, if taken in all its parts, seems rather to persuade those Disciples having been baptised in the very words of the Institution, than only in the name of the Lord Jesus. For S. Paul ask, as by way of wonderment, unto what they had been before baptised, if they had not (as they said) so much as heard of any Holy Ghost, seems to intimate that all, that then received the Christian Baptism, could not but know from the very form of it, that there was such a thing as a Holy Ghost. Neither will it avail to say, as was before objected, that if that had been S. Paul's intention, or the certain form of Baptism, S. Luke, who tells the story, should in reason have expressed it by their being baptised into the Trinity, and particularly into the name of him, whom they were before so ignorant of. Because S. Luke's business was not so much to give an account of the form of their Baptism, as to acquaint us, that whereas before they had been only baptised into John's Baptism, upon their understanding from S. Paul, that John himself directed those, that came to it, to believe on him that should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus, they were then expressly baptised into the Baptism of Christ, or (as S. Luke there expresseth it) into the name of Jesus Christ: So opposing the baptising into the name of Jesus Christ not to the baptising in any other form, and particularly into the name of all the three persons, but to the Baptism of John only, and as the name of Jesus Christ might discriminate their present Baptism from it. And though it be true, that the like is not to be said as to the foregoing Texts, because there is no opposition in them between the Baptism of John, and that of Christ. Yet may a fair account be given, without supposing that to have been the form of Baptism, of the Scriptures expressing those primitive Baptisms by baptising into the name of Jesus only; Because our Saviour was the immediate Author of that Religion, into which those Baptisms were made, and the baptising into his name therefore no improper expression of a baptising into the whole of it, and into every part, and particle thereof. I will conclude this affair, when I have added that as it appears from Justin Martyr * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apolog. 2. p. 94. one of the Ancientest Writers the Church hath, that Baptism was in his time administered in the name of the three persons; So all, that have mentioned the Creed, have represented it as a thing given to those, who were to be baptised, and into which therefore we are to think, that if men were not minutely, and particularly baptised, yet they were at least into the capital Articles thereof. II. It appearing from the premises, that Baptism ought expressly to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is the first of those things we proposed to consider; Pass we on to inquire, who are valid Administrators of it, or rather whether Schismatics, and Heretics are. A question which will best be voided by considering the force of those Arguments, which the condemners of their Baptism have produced, and particularly which S. Cyprian their chiefest Champion hath. Now those are, that Schismatics and Heretics, are by that their Schism, and Heresy deprived of the Spirit of God themselves, and cannot therefore be supposed † Quis autem potest dare quod ipse non habeat? aut quomodo potest spiritalia. agere, qui ipse amiserit spiritum Sanctum? Ad Januarium. Ep. 70. to confer it upon others. That Schismatics, and Heretics, as such, are out of the Church, and consequently can neither themselves enjoy any privileges that belong * Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam aeternam, & remissionem peccatorum per Sanctam Ecclesiam, intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in Ecclesiâ dari, apud Haereticos autem ubi Ecclesia non sit, non posse peccata dimitti. Cypr. ubi supra, & alibi passim. to it, nor be instrumental toward the procuring of them for others; That by their Schism and Heresy they are sinners † Sed & Baptizato quam precem potest facere sacerdos sacrilegus, & peccator? Cum scriptum sit, Deus peccatorem non audit, sed qui eum coluerit, & voluntatem ejus fecerit, illum audit. Cypr. Ib. before God, and whom therefore we cannot suppose that God will hear for other persons; In fine, that Heretics in particular deprave that Faith * Vid. Cypr. add Jubaian. Ep. 73. , into which Baptism is required to be made, and consequently must be supposed to baptise into a false, and counterfeit one. But how little force there is in these Arguments, as to the invalidating the Baptism of Schismatics, or Heretics, will appear upon a more narrow inspection into them. For be it first that Schismatics and Heretics are by that Schism, or Heresy of theirs deprived of the Spirit of God themselves; Be it that they cannot therefore be supposed to confer it upon others: Yet will it not from thence follow, but they may be valid Administratours of Baptism, and they, who receive it from them, receive the Spirit of God with it. Because that Spirit of God, which goes along with Baptism, is not conferred by them, but by him, whose Institution Baptism is, and consequently no way depending upon their having the Spirit of God themselves. All, that the Minister confers on his part toward the procuring of that Spirit, is to prepare that Baptismal Water, which it is by the Institution of Christ to accompany, and to administer it, when so prepared, to those who are to be baptised with it. Which if the Minister doth according to the Institution of Christ, there is no doubt the Spirit of God will follow of course, whether he, who administers Baptism, partake of that Spirit, or no. Otherwise a sinful Minister would be as invalid an Administrator of Baptism, as the most Schismatical, or Heretical one. But it may be there is more of weight in Schismatics, and Heretics being out of the Church, and as such in no condition either of enjoying in themselves those privileges, that belong to it, or being instrumental toward the procuring of them for others. And so no doubt there would, if they were fully, and perfectly out of the Church, nor retained in any measure to it. But how first, if Schismatics, and Heretics were fully, and perfectly out of the Church, could S. Cyprian (e) Ad Quintum, Ep. 70. himself allow the receiving of such without a new Baptism, who had after their Baptism in the Church fallen into Schism, or Heresy? These, as they were no less Schismatics, and Heretics than those, that were baptised by Heretics, and consequently alike out of the Church; So being, if to be received again, to be received after the same manner, that is to say by a new Baptism. Neither will it avail to say (as that Father (f) Ibid. pleads for himself) that those, who have been baptised in the Church, are to be looked upon as wand'ring sheep, and as such, when they return, to be received into the Fold, whereas the other are wholly aliens, and profane. For if Schismatics, and Heretics be fully, and perfectly out of the Church, those also, what ever they before were, must cease to be looked upon as Sheep, and consequently, if admitted, be admitted as aliens, and profane, as well as those, who were baptised out of the Church. And indeed as it appears by the same Father (g) Ad Quintum, Ep. 71. , that those who opposed him, and the Bishops that took part with him, argued the validity of the Baptism of Heretics from the Churches receiving those without a new one, who had fallen after her Baptism into Schism or Heresy; So if we will allow the Baptism of the latter, we must allow the Baptism of the former, or find out some other reason to overthrow it. For if the rightly baptised Schismatic, or Heretic were a Sheep, though a wand'ring one, notwithstanding his Schism, or Heresy; The Schismatic, or Heretic, whom that wand'ring Sheep ran after, might as well be a Pastor, though a wand'ring one too, and consequently be in a condition, following the order of the Institution, to bring new Sheep to the great Shepherd, and Bishop of our Souls. That, which I suppose occasioned that Father's mistake (for so I hope I may now have leave to call it, because the Church of God hath generally done so since) but that I say, which occasioned S. Cyprian's mistake, was his not distinguishing between being fully, and perfectly out of the Church (which I should think none but Apostates can be, if they also are) and being only partly, and imperfectly so, as Schismatics, and Heretics are. For as Schismatics, and Heretics must be supposed to retain so far to the Church, as they do not separate from it in Communion, or belief; So it is but a just piece of charity to think that Christ who knows men's infirmities, and prejudices, will not invalidate such acts of theirs, as are purely charitable ones, and wherein moreover they consent with the Church of God (whatever they may do as to other things) and with his his own blessed Institution. I deny not indeed, but that to be even so out of the Church, as Schismatics, and Heretics are, is a very dangerous thing, and doth without a special mercy of God make them liable to Damnation. But as I do not therefore think, that we ought to look upon it as a desperate one; So there may be so much of honest simplicity of mind even in them, and a readiness to embrace the truth, whensoever they are convinced of it, that Christ, who laid down his life for the worst of men, may so far at least consider them, as to give his blessing to those acts of theirs, which are both charitable in themselves, and managed with a just consent to his own institution, and the practice too of that Church, from which in other things they have departed. And this answer, with a little variation, will furnish one to that objection, which represents Schismatics and Heretics as sinners before God, and whom therefore we cannot suppose God will hear for the person to be baptised. For though I grant that such persons are sinners before God, yea that whatever they do by way of separation from the Church, is to be looked upon as of the same nature, and consequently that their very baptising also may be; Yet as I do not think that every thing, that is sinfully done, is therefore invalid (for so for aught I know many true Church-mens good actions also might be) So Christ may hear even such persons, when they act agreeably to his own Institution, both for the regard he bears to that, and for that honest simplicity, and good meaning, which is, if not in them that administer Baptism, yet in those that join with them, and whose Minister I have before said (h) Expl. of the Sacram. in gen. Part 3 the Consecratour to be in that affair. One only Objection remains on the part of Heretics, and that is their depraving that Faith, into which Baptism is required to be made, and consequently thereto, as is supposed, baptising into a false, and counterfeit one. And I no way doubt that, if Heretics baptise into a false, and counterfeit Faith, their Baptism is null, because contrary to that Institution, which gives validity to all. Upon which account we must look upon the Baptism of those persons as null, who have baptised in any other form, than in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Of which sort was that of the Heretics spoken of by Irenaeus (i) Adu. Haeres. li. 1. c. 18. , who instead of baptising according to the form of the institution, did baptise their Disciples into the name of the unknown Father of all things, into truth the Mother of all things, into him that descended into Jesus for the union, and redemption, and communion of powers. To which others it seems added certain Hebrew names, the better to amuse those, that were initiated by them. The like may reasonably enough be thought of the Baptism of many other of the Ancient Heretics, although we have not it may be so certain grounds from Antiquity for their depraving the very form of Baptism. For being, as appears from their tenants, Christians in name, rather than in reality, and beside that advancing such uncouth, and monstrous ones, it is not easy to think they should have such a regard to Christ, or his Institution, as to keep to that form, which he prescribed. Which supposed, there is not the least difficulty in giving an account of those 46 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 47 † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . Canons of the Apostles, which do so far reprobate the Baptism of Heretics, as to require a reiteration of it. For if the Heretics there intended were such as are before described (as is not unreasonable to believe even from the words of the Canons themselves) there is no doubt their Baptism was, and aught to be looked upon as null, because deviating from that Institution, which gives validity to all. But because it appears from a passage of S. Augustine (k) Caeterum quis nescit non esse Baptismum Christi, si verba Evangelica, quibus symbolum constut, illic defuerint? Sed facilius inveniuntur haeretici, qui omnino non baptizant, quam qui illis verbis non baptizant. De Bapt. contra Donat. li. 6. c. 25. , that whatever the ancienter Heretics did, yet later ones, or at least for the most part, kept to the words of the Institution; Therefore we must go on to inquire, whether Heretics may not however, be presumed to baptise into a false, and counterfeit Faith, even that which they themselves advance, and consequently give such a Baptism as is null, and void. And to speak my mind freely, though with submission to better judgements, I conceive such Heretics may be presumed to do it, who advance a Heresy, that directly, and manifestly contradicts the Faith of Baptism, and particularly the Faith of the Holy Trinity. Which I do in part upon the Authority of the Nicene Council (l) Can. 19 , and in part also upon the Authority of Reason. For though there be not the least presumption, that the followers of Paulus Samosatenus made use of any other form of Baptism, than the Catholics did; Though there be some presumption on the contrary, that they made use of the very same form, because though they denied a Trinity of Persons, yet they asserted one, and the same God to be rightly entitled by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Yet did the Nicene Council notwithstanding, (because of their direct, and manifest denial of the Trinity, and their affirming Christ to be a mere Man) so far disallow their Baptism, as to require the reiteration of it. As indeed why should it not, when those Paulianists did so directly and manifestly contradict the sense of that form, whereby they pretended to proceed? That direct, and manifest contradiction of theirs proclaiming to the World, that though they baptised in the same form of words with the Orthodox, yet in a perfectly different sense, and consequently departed alike from that Institution, which was to give force to it. I say not the same of the Baptism of the Arians, where they made use of the same form of words, which the Institution prescribed, as it is certain that many * De Arianis, qui propriâ sua lege utuntur, ut baptizentur placuit. Si ad Ecclesiam aliqui de hac haeresi venerint, interrogent eos sidei nostrae sacerdotes symbolum. Et si perviderint in Patre, Filio, & Spiritu sancto eos baptizatos, manus eis tantum imponatur, ut accipiant spiritum sanctum, etc. Concil. Arel. c. 8. of them did; Partly because the Church received those, that had been so baptised by them without any new Baptism; And partly because neither so directly, and manifestly contradicting the Doctrine of the Trinity by their own, nor varying from the prescribed form, as some other of them did, they may be reasonably presumed to have left the form by them used to its proper sense, whatever that was, and to what he, who prescribed it, did intent it. Which supposed, what should hinder Christ from giving force to that Baptism which is so administered by them? These, as they do not at all vary from the Institution of Christ, so in this particular, even in the application of the Baptismal water to the Baptised parties, acting not in their own, or in their people's names, but in the name of Christ, and who therefore may the rather be supposed to give force and virtue to it. The result of the premises is this. A Heretic is indeed obliged to baptise into the truly Christian Faith, neither can any man otherwise promise force from that act of his. But if he baptise into that faith (as he may even whilst he continues such) his Baptism is valid, neither can any man doubt of a blessing from it, who comes prepared for it, and, when he comes to know in what company he hath been engaged, renounceth that, and their Heresy, and both submits himself to the discipline of the Church, and keeps to the communion of it. PART X. Of the Baptism of those of riper Years. The Contents. To what, and what kind of persons Baptism ought to be administered; Which, as to those of riper years, is shown to be unto all, that come duly qualified for it. What those qualifications are, upon that account enquired into, and Repentance, and Faith shown from the Sripture, as well as from our own Catechism to be they. That Repentance, and Faith more particularly considered, the definitions given of them by our Church explained, and established. The former whereof is effected, by showing what Repentance doth presuppose, what it imports, and to what it doth naturally dispose us: The latter by showing what those promises are, which by the Catechism are made the object of our Faith, or Belief, what that Belief of them doth presuppose, what is meant by a steadfast Belief of them, and what evidence there is of that being the Faith, or Belief required to the receiving of Baptism. III. BEing now to inquire, Question. What is required of persons to be haptized? Answer. Repentance whereby they forsake Sin, and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises made to them in that Sacrament. according to the method before laid down, to what, and what kind of persons the Sacrament of Baptism ought to be administered, for my more advantageous resolution thereof I will consider it first as to those of riper years, and then as to Infants, and Children. That I give the precedency to those of riper years, though such Baptisms as those are little known among us, is because there is no doubt Baptism began with them, and could not indeed have found any other entrance into the World; The Baptism of Infants, in the opinion of those, who do most strongly assert it, depending upon the Baptism of their Parents, or of those, who are in the place of them. Of whom, if some had not been baptised in their riper years, those Infants, that claimed by them, could not with reason have pretended to it. Of those of riper years therefore I mean first to entreat, and show to what, and what kind of persons among them the Sacrament of Baptism ought to be administered. Now as it is clear from our Saviour's injunction * Matt. 28.19. of discipling, and baptising all Nations, that none of what condition soever are to be excluded from it, who are qualified, as Christianity requires, for the receiving of it; So the only thing therefore farther necessary to be enquired into on this Head, is how men ought to be qualified for it, or (as our Catechism expresseth it) what is required of them. For supposing those praerequisites of Baptism, he who enjoins the discipling, and baptising all Nations, must consequently be supposed to enjoin the administering of it to all such, in whom those praerequisites are. Now there are two things again, as our Catechism instructs us, which are required of all those, that are to be baptised; Repentance, whereby they forsake sin, and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises made to them in that Sacrament. And for these two things at least it hath the astipulation of the Scripture, and I may add also of that Profession, which is made by the baptised person in Baptism, and which having before established, I may now the more securely argue from. Witness, for the Scripture, S. Peter's † Acts 2.38. enjoining those Jews, (who demanded of him, and the rest, what they ought to do in order to their salvation) to repent, and so be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus; And Philip's replying upon the Eunuch, who asked what did hinder him to be baptised, that if he believed * Acts 8.37. with all his heart, he might: Thereby more than intimating that, if he did not, he could not be baptised at all, though all other things concurred to the receiving of it. And indeed, what less can be supposed to be required of such persons, when (as was before † Expl. of Bapt. Part 8. observed) the baptised person makes Profession in his Baptism of renouncing all sin, and wickedness, and of a belief in that Jesus, into whose Religion he is admitted? That Profession of his supposing Repentance, and Faith to have been before in him, as without which otherwise he could not there make a sincere Profession of renouncing sin, or of believing in the name of the Lord Jesus. But so (that I may add that by the way) the Ancient Church appears to have required, before she admitted, men to the participation of Baptism; Justin Martyr, where he professeth to give a sincere account of her do in this affair, telling those he wrote his Apology to, that such as were persuaded, and believed that the things taught and said by the Christians were true (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apol. 2. p. 93. and moreover took upon them so to live, were taught to pray, and ask of God with fasting the forgiveness of their former sins, and then, and not till then brought by them to the place of Baptism, and there regenerated after the same manner with themselves. Which is so clear a proof of the Ancients believing Repentance, and Faith to be prerequisites of Baptism, that nothing need to be added to it. For the clearing of the first of which we are to know, that though Repentance, in strict speech, be nothing else than a sorrow of mind for those sins we stand guilty of before God; Yet as even so it presupposeth a right apprehension of those sins, as without which we could never be brought to a due sorrow for them, so taking Repentance (as our Catechism, and the Scripture also sometime doth) as one of the two prerequisites of Baptism (For S. Paul in one place (b) Acts 20.21. makes that Repentance, and Faith the sum of his Preaching to the Jews, and Greeks, and in another (c) Heb. 6.1. the foundation of our Christianity) it will be found to imply in it whatsoever that sorrow for sin doth naturally dispose men to, as well as that sorrow itself: The same S. Paul elsewhere professing that he shown both to the Jews, and Gentiles, that they should turn unto God, as well as Repent; and do works meet for Repentance, as well as either. To attain therefore a due understanding of this Repentance, as well as to clear that definition of it, which our Catechism hath given us, it will be necessary for us to inquire what this Repentance doth presuppose, what it imports, and to what it doth dispose us. That, which Repentance doth most manifestly presuppose, is a right apprehension of that sin, about which it is to be conversant; And may be fetched in part from the dictates of our own reason, but more especially from the declarations of Christianity concerning it. Such as are, that sin is the transgression of a Law, and particularly of that of God, and that, as such, it justly exposeth us to his wrath, and indignation: Partly, as it is a violation of his Authority, to whom we are naturally subject, and partly as an equal affront to his goodness, who gives us our being, and all things else, and who therefore ought more diligently to have been attended to. In fine, that it hath for its wages Death both temporal, and eternal, and under each of which, without the mercy of God in Christ, the sinner must necessarily fall. For as these are known in part, from the dictates of our own reason to be the properties of that sin, whereof we speak; So they are much more known to be so from the Doctrine of Christianity, and consequently to be known by us toward a right apprehension of that, which ought to be the matter of our sorrow. But from hence it will be easy to collect, what that sorrow for sin doth import, which is required of all those, that take upon them the Profession of Christianity. Even that it importeth such a sorrow of mind, as hath a regard to the violation of God's Authority and Goodness by it, as well as to the evils which are like to arise to it from ourselves; Our sorrow being in reason to be suited to that, which is most considerable in the object of it. And indeed, as otherwise it will be rather a sorrow for punishment, than sin, because sin, as such, is a transgression of God's Law, and consequently our sorrow for it to have a more especial regard to the affront, that is offered him thereby; So it will much less deserve those titles, which are given it by the Scripture of being a sorrow, or repentance toward (d) Acts 20.21. God (for so it is sometime styled) and a sorrow (e) 2 Cor. 7.9. according to God, or a Godly one, as it also is: That being neither toward God, nor according to God, which hath not a regard to that affront, which is offered to him by sin, as well as to the evils, which are like to accrue unto ourselves. But because even such a sorrow will not qualify us for Baptism, unless we add thereto what the same sorrow doth naturally dispose us to; Therefore to make out more fully the true nature of Repentance, as well as to clear our Church's definition of it, I will proceed to that, and show what those things are. Of which nature I reckon first an ingenuous confession of sin, and earnest prayer to God for the pardon of it; Sorrow for sin, when considered only with reference to its appendent punishment, being likely enough to dispose us so to confess, and ask pardon of it, if it were only to unburthen ourselves, and free ourselves by that, and prayer from the punishment we have deserved. How much more then, when considered as a sorrow for that affront, which we have by means of our sin offered to God's both Authority, and Goodness? He, to whom such an affront is matter of sorrow, being likely enough to be thereby disposed so far to acknowledge that Authority, and goodness, as to own them upon the postfact by confession, and prayer for pardon: He who confesseth, and asketh pardon of God, acknowledging that God had, and hath an Authority to command, and punish him, as he, who doth the latter, that God is of equal goodness, as of whom otherwise it would be in vain for him to ask pardon for his offences. Whence it was, that when the Church proceeded by strict, and safe measures, she not only taught those, that offered themselves to Baptism, to ask of God with fasting the forgiveness of their forepast offences, but (as we learn from Justin Martyr (f) Vbi supra. added her own prayers, and fasts to theirs, so the better to encourage, and give force unto the others. I reckon of the same nature secondly, a resolution to forsake sin, and pursue the contrary virtues. Which I do not only upon the Authority of the forementioned Father, who reckons that (g) Loco prius citato. also as a prerequisite to Baptism, but as it is a thing, to which sorrow for sin, doth alike naturally dispose us; He, to whom sin is so irksome, needing no other motive, than that irksomeness, to oblige him to forsake it, and pay a more perfect submission to that Authority, and goodness of God, which he hath before so shamefully violated. I reckon thirdly, as a thing, to which sorrow for sin doth equally dispose us, a present forsaking of those sins, which we are under a temptation to commit, as well as a resolution to do so for the time to come; There being the same force in a due sorrow for sin to dispose men to that, as there is to a resolution of afterward forsaking it. For which cause the Ancient Church did not only refuse such person's Baptism, as were of any unlawful Profession (h) Introd. concern. Catech. etc. , till they actually abandoned it, but made proof (i) Ibid. also for a considerable time of the resolutions of others, and, till they had given her such proofs, did not admit them to it. They finding no doubt by manifold experience, that many that offered themselves to Baptism, made little Conscience afterward of avoiding those sins, which they had before so solemnly resolved against, and made public profession of abandoning. And though it do not appear, that the Apostles themselves took this course, they baptising men immediately upon the bare profession of their Repentance, and a resolution afterward to bring forth fruits meet for it: Yet as the reason of that possibly might be, either because of that exuberance of Grace, which was then bestowed upon their new Converts, or because, by means of their Ambulatory life, they could not well defer the Baptism of those, that offered themselves, till they had made some considerable trial of them (which will exempt such Churches from their example, where there is no such exuberance of Grace, and where moreover they have settled Pastors to intent the affairs of them) So we cannot think the Apostles would have ever given Baptism to such persons, as should before that Baptism of theirs have fallen into those sins, which they erewhile made profession of abandoning: Sorrow for sin, where it is hearty, and real, no doubt disposing men as well to a present forsaking of it, as it doth to a resolution concerning it. Which will make the Repentance pre-required to Baptism to be (as our Catechism expresseth it) a Repentance, whereby as occasion offers, we actually forsake sin, as well as resolve for the future to abandon it. An account being thus given of the first thing pre-required to Baptism; and our Church's definition of it both explained, and established; Pass we on to that, which is alike pre-required to it, even that Faith, whereby we steadfastly believe the promises made to us in that Sacrament. Where again I will inquire, I. What those promises are, which we are so to believe. II. What that belief of them doth pre-suppose. III. What is meant by a steadfast belief of those promises. IU. What evidence there is of that being the Faith, or belief, which is pre-required by Christianity to the receiving of that Sacrament. I. Now though that Catechism, which I have chosen to explain, give no other account of those Promises, than that they are such as are made to us in that Sacrament; Yet is it not difficult to collect from thence, and from what is before said concerning the Parts of a Sacrament, that the Catechism means no other promises, than those which make a tender of its inward, and spiritual Graces. For a Sacrament being before divided into an outward, and visible sign, and an inward, and spiritual Grace as the only proper parts of it; And the outward, and visible sign being in like manner represented in it as no farther of value, than as conducing to possess us of the other: No other promises can be supposed to be intended here, than such as make a tender of those inward, and spiritual Graces, as which indeed are the only things considerable in it. Which will consequently make the promises here intended to be those, which make a tender for the present of remission of sins, and sanctification, and in the end, of everlasting life. II. Those therefore being the promises, which are to be the object of the Catechumen Faith, and which accordingly he is steadfastly to believe; It will not be difficult to show, what that belief of them presupposeth, which is the second thing to be enquired into. For that belief of them must at least pre-suppose a belief of all that, which is necessary to bring us to the belief of the other. More particularly it presupposeth, as to ourselves, that we believe ourselves to be naturally under a state of sin, and death, as without which there could be no place for that sanctification, and remission, which is promised in Baptism; And that we are yet farther off from any title to Everlasting life, as which if we had, there would have been no need of a Promise in Baptism of it. It presupposeth again as to Christ, in whom all the promises of God are Yea, and Amen, a like steadfast belief that there was such a person as Jesus Christ, and that he was appointed by God to convey such graces to us; That, agreeably to the predictions of the Scripture, and the will of God concerning him, he took upon him our nature, and suffered in it to purchase those Graces, and that he ever since intends the exhibiting of what he hath so purchased; The belief of these, and the like Articles of our Faith being as manifestly presupposed to the belief of those Promises, which in this place we are required to intent. III. That which will it may be more concern us to inquire, is what our Catechism means by a steadfast belief of them. For my more orderly resolution whereof I will inquire first what it means by belief, and then by a steadfast one. Now by belief may be meant either a simple assent of the mind, and in which fence there is no doubt it is oftentimes taken in Christian Writers; Or there may be meant also a belief with affiance, and such as beside the assent of the mind, or understanding to them, doth also connote a trust in them, or in God because of them. By virtue of which (as I have elsewhere discoursed (k) Expl. of the Decal. Com. 1. Part 3. concerning the grace of trust) the heart, or will is prompted to desire, as well as assent to the matter of the divine promises, and acquiesce in those for the obtaining of it. And indeed if we may judge any thing by our Homilies, (to which the Articles (l) Art. 11. of our Church do also particularly refer us in the point of justifying Faith) this latter belief must be here intended; Because a belief, which hath for its end the remission of sins in Baptism, and consequently a justifying one. For the right, and true Christian Faith (saith one of our (m) Homily of Salvation. Part 3. Homilies) is not only to believe that the Holy Scripture, and all the forecited Articles of our Faith, are true, but also to have a sure trust, and confidence in God's merciful promises to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. And it is not only, saith another (n) Hom. of Faith. , the common belief of the Articles of our Faith, but it is also a sure trust, and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and a steadfast hope of all good things to be received at God's hands. In fine, saith the same (o) Ibid. Homily, the very sure, lively Christian faith is not only to believe all things of God, which are contained in holy Scripture, but also to have an earnest trust, and confidence in God, etc. Which supposed (as we may, because we can have no more Authentic interpretation of it) to be the sense of the belief here intended, it will not be difficult to show, what our Catechism means by a steadfast one. For considering the belief of these Promises as an Assent of the mind to them, so a steadfast belief will imply that, which is free from all doubts, and which the mind of man gives to those Promises without any the least fear of there being any Collusion in them; Which the mind of man may well give, considering whose those Promises are, and that they have both God, and Christ for the Authors of them. On the other side, if we consider the belief intended as including in it also an affiance, or trust, and by virtue of which the heart, or will is prompted to desire, as well as believe the matter of those Promises, and acquiesce in those Promises for the attaining of it; So this steadfast belief will also imply such a one, as is firmly rooted in the heart, or will, and can no more be rooted out of it by the force of temptations, than the other by doubts, or scruples. And indeed, as I do not see how any other belief, than that, can answer such glorious promises as are made to us in the Sacrament of Baptism; so I see as little reason to doubt, IU. What evidence there is of that being the Faith, or belief, which is pre-required by Christianity to the receiving of it. For though S. Luke may seem to intimate by the account he gives of the Baptism of the Samaritans (p) Acts 8.12. , that they were baptised upon a simple belief of what Philip preached concerning the things of the Kingdom of God; Yet he doth much more clearly intimate afterward, that Christianity required another sort of belief, and such as was accompanied with an adherence of the will unto them: He making it the condition of the Eunuches Baptism afterward, that he should believe with all his heart (q) Acts 8.37. ; Which is an expression, that in the language of the Scripture refers rather to the will, and affections, than to the understanding, but however cannot well be thought not to include them there, where the believing with all the heart is required. And indeed, as I do not see, considering the Doctrine of our First Reformers, why this notion of Faith should be so exploded, as it seems to me lately to have been; As I do much less see why men should so boil at that Justification, which was wont to be attributed in an especial manner to it: So, if I live to finish the work I am now upon, I will in a Comment upon the Epistle to the Philippians (which I have almost gathered sufficient materials for) endeavour to clear both the one, and the other, that men may neither take occasion from thence to discard good works as unnecessary, nor yet stay themselves upon any other, than the promises of Christ, and on which the holiest men upon earth, when they have been approaching near God's tribunal, have found themselves obliged to cast themselves. In the mean time a little to repress the youthful heats of those, who can hardly forbear smiling at such antiquated notions, I will set before them the advice, which was ordered to be given to sick persons, when good works to be sure were not without their just repute. It is among the Interrogatories, which are said (r) Field of the Church, Append. to the 3d. Book p. 303. to have been prescribed by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury, and particularly after that, which prompts the Priest to ask, Dost thou believe, that thou canst not be saved, but by the death of Christ, and the sick persons Answer, that he did so. Go too therefore (as the Priest was taught to proceed) and whilst thy soul remaineth in thee, place thy confidence in this death alone, and in no other thing, commit thyself wholly to it, cover thyself wholly with it, immerse, fix, and wrap thyself wholly in it. And if the Lord God will judge thee, say, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me, and thy judgement, otherwise I contend not with thee. And if he say that thou art a sinner, say, Lord I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me, and my sins. If he say to thee thou hast deserved damnation, say, Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me, and my evil deserts, and I offer the same death for that merit, which I ought to have had, and have not. If he continue as yet to say, that he is angry with thee, say, Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me, and thy displeasure. Words, which show what kind of Faith was sometime thought to be a justifying one, and what stress was laid upon it, before ever Fanaticism, or any thing of that nature was heard of in the World. PART XI. Of the Baptism of Infants. The Contents. What ground Infant-Baptism hath in Scripture, and particularly in what it suggests concerning Christ's commanding his Disciples to suffer little Children to come unto him. S. Paul's giving the Children of the faithful the title of Holy, and the Circumcision of Infants. The concurrence of Antiquity therein with the Doctrine of the Scripture, and that concurrence farther strengthened by the Pelagians so freely admitting of what was urged against them from thence. A brief account of that remission, and regeneration, which Infants acquire by Baptism, and a more large consideration of the Objections, that are made against it; More particularly of what is urged against the Regeneration of Infants in Baptism, or their ability to answer what is prerequired to it on the part of persons to be baptised, or is to be performed by them in the reception of it. Where the Regeneration of Infants is more largely considered, and what is promised for them by others shown to be both reasonable, and sufficient. FRom the Baptism of those of riper years, Question. Why then are Infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? Answer. Because they prentice them both by their sureties, which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. pass we to that of Infants, or Children, the only Baptism upon the matter now celebrated, and therefore so much the more carefully to be cleared and established. In order whereunto I will inquire, I. What ground it hath in Scripture. II. What countenance from Antiquity. III. What Infants acquire by it. IU. What the principal objections against it are, and how they are to be solved. I. Now as it is plain to me both from Tertullian's * De Baptismo c. 18. 〈…〉 Dominus, Nolite illos prohibere 〈…〉 Veniant ergo, dum adolescunt, 〈…〉 quo veniant docentur. 〈…〉 Christum nosse potueri●●. arguing against that Text, and the Apostolical † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. li. 6. c. 15. Constitutions alleging it, that the Ancient Church grounded the Baptism of Infants upon Christ's * Mark 10.13. etc. commanding his Disciples to suffer little Children to come unto him, and blessing those, that came; So I am yet more confirmed in it by the unprofitable pains Tertullian took to take off the force of that Text, or rather the pitiful evasion he made use of in order to it. For had not the Church laid great stress upon that passage of the Scripture, why did not he, as the World hath since learned to do, wholly omit the mention of it, as a Text no way pertinent to the business of Infant-Baptism? Or, if he thought good to take notice of it, why did he not turn the force of it another way, and say, as others have, that nothing more was intended by it, than to let men know they must put on the property of little Children, if they meant to enter into Christ's Kingdom? For either of these certainly had been more proper, than what we find him to allege in these words, as to the delaying of the Baptism of Infants. The Lord indeed saith, Forbidden not Children to come unto me. Let them come therefore, when they are grown, let them come when they may learn, and when they may be taught whither they are to come. Let them be made Christians, when they may be able to know Christ. For what is this to the purpose of our Saviour, who checked his Disciples for hindering those from coming to him, who were brought to him before they were in a condition to learn, who in all probability were brought to him in their Parents arms, and were both taken by him into his own, and blessed by him even then? For if the Disciples were checked for going about to hinder such Children, his meaning was that they should suffer such to come unto him, and not keep them back from coming, till they ceased to be such. But of such force it seems was that Text then thought, that some reply however must be made to it; Or the deference men had for the Church, that urged it, would have spoiled his device of delaying the Baptism of them, till they came of years. Which will make it so much the more reasonable to inquire, what there is in the Text itself, which might justify the confidence of the one, or give occasion to the impertinent answer of the other. For the better discovery whereof we are to know, that when certain persons not named, but it seems who looked upon our Saviour as a man of God, brought their Children to Christ, that he might touch them, that is to say, as our Saviour expounded their meaning, that he might lay his hands upon them, and bless them; His Disciples, whether as looking upon it as no way beseeming their Master to concern himself about Children, * Aret. in locum. Primum rem Christo indignam judicare videntar; nam judicio, & ratione carent, Christum non intelligunt. Deinde majorasunt, quae agate; adsunt enim turbae, quas docere debet. Major hic fructue, major etiam & dignitas, & labour. or that he had greater business then in hand, even the instructing of the Elder sort, rebuked those that brought them for that their supposed unseasonable desire, and offer. But as our Saviour who better understood † Aret. ubi supra. Sed expendi debet Christi officium, qui pro omnium salute natus est in hunc mundum. Deinde infantes etiam ad foedus dei pertinent; Nam Abraamo dixit, Ero & tui, & seminis tui post te, Deus. Et quia una est ratio salutis, unum ostium, una janua, debuit etiam infantum haberi ratio. his own salutary office, and children's pertaining to the Covenant, did with as much, or more displeasure rebuke them for that their rebuke, and signified it both by his countenance, and voice; So he charged them, that they should by no means hinder Children from coming unto him * Aretius' iterum. Est enim ratio cur arcendi a Christo non sint: Quia talium est regnum coelorum, hoc est, sunt haeredes vitae aeternae; ergo à Christo, qui janua est ad vitam, non debent arceris Deinde cum talium sit regnum dei, ergo horum magis est, ad quorum similitudinem alii, ut accipiant, iidem redire debent. , because the Kingdom of God belonged to such as they: Thereby intimating, that even those Children had a right unto it, and were not therefore to be hindered from coming to him, who was the way, or rather the gate into it. For if the Kingdom of God belonged to such as they, much more to those Children, to whom elder persons ought to become like, that they might be in a capacity of obtaining it. As indeed otherwise, what force is there in the reason alleged for the suffering, and no way forbidding young Children to come unto him? For they, who have in purpose of heart what the other have only naturally, may both be invited to tend toward, and be possessed of the Kingdom of Heaven, though the other be no way brought to Christ, nor receive any blessing from him. In as much as their humility, and innocency is the result of God's spirit, and of their own will, and consequently more likely to be acceptable, whereas the other's is only the result of their constitution, and age. And I cannot therefore but think, that the true reason of our Saviour's making use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or such, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or these (for of such, saith our Saviour, is the Kingdom of heaven) was not in the least to exclude Children from having a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, as who alone were directly, and immediately concerned in the present Argument; But to let the World know at the same time * Aret. in Matt. 19.13, etc. Nec juvat quod aliqui hic urgent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, talium, & non horum. Nam communem ostendit modum justificationis, etc. Amplius igitur aliquid dicere voluit, & bos pueros vitae haeredes esse, & ad illorum similitudinem nobis etiam redeundum esse. , that elder men ought to put on the properties of Children to make them partakers of it. As he afterward (a) Mark 10.15. more expressly signifies, when he tells them, that whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child, he shall not enter therein. Which supposed a way is opened for the inferring of that Baptism of Infants, which, this passage both now, and of old was made use of to evince. For it appearing from the premises, that Infants have a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, and upon, and by virtue of that right to be brought to Christ also; They must consequently have a right also to those means, which are by the same Christ appointed to put them into the possession of his Kingdom. Which Baptism certainly being, and so, that, ordinarily at least, none can enter into that Kingdom without (b) Joh. 3.5. being born again by it, it cannot without injustice be withheld from those Children, to whom the other doth appertain. Neither will it avail to say, though the Objection be not to be despised, that by this rule our Saviour should either himself have baptised, or ordered his Disciples to baptise those Children, that were now brought unto him for his blessing. For beside that one Argument will not solve another, and much less hinder the matter thereof from being true, or conclusive; There might be reason enough, though the premises be allowed, for our Saviour's not baptising, or requiring his Disciples to baptise those Children, who were now brought unto him for his blessing: Partly, upon the account of the incompetency of those, that brought them, and who being not Disciples themselves, but as is probable, of the multitude (c) Mark 10.1. Matt. 19.2. that followed him, could not claim from our Saviour, nor he so regularly bestow Baptism upon their Children; And partly to let the World see, that he was not tied to any methods himself in the dispensing of the graces of that Kingdom. For that our Saviour, by that blessing which he gave them, gave those Children rem Sacramenti, or the Graces of Baptism, and so showed yet more the title Children have to it, cannot well be doubted of by any, who shall consider how zealous he was for their being brought to him, as that too upon the account of the title they had to the Kingdom of Heaven. For considering that zeal of his, and the ground of it, what can be more reasonable than to think, that our Saviour agreeably thereto did by his blessing confer upon them that Evangelical regeneration, which was to fit them for the Kingdom of Heaven, and without which considering the impurity of their nature, and the necessity of being thus born anew, they could not regularly obtain it. And I have been the more particular in deducing, and pressing the present argument; Partly because led thereto by the mere force of the Text itself, and the Authority of the Church that employed it, till by accident I fell upon those things I have before quoted out of Aretius; And partly because I think it a better service to the Church of God to strengthen one old Argument, than devise many new ones: Such a course procuring the more respect to the Church's both opinion, and practice, as showing it to proceed upon substantial Arguments, and such as in themselves are not lightly to be refused. My second Argument for the Baptism of Infants shall be taken from that holiness, which S. Paul (d) 1 Cor. 7.14. attributes to the Children of Christian Parents (yea where only one of them is such) upon the account of their descent from them. For S. Paul having before persuaded the believing party to continue with the unbelieving one, supposing that unbelieving one to be as willing to continue with the believer, as a motive to the doing of it allegeth, that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing, and proves that sanctification again by the holiness of the Children, that come from them, as which otherwise those Children could not have in them, but the contrary. Now I demand what that holiness is, which S. Paul supposeth to be the property of those, who come from such a sanctified couple, that is to say, whether an inward holiness, or an outward one? If they, who would avoid the force of this Text as to the Baptism of Infants, say an inward holiness, they say more than we desire, or can with truth be affirmed, because though Original Sin be traduced from the Parents, yet inward holiness is not, as being the product of the Spirit of God, and his instrument Baptism. But if they do however attribute such a holiness to those Children, they say enough to evince, that Baptism ought not to be denied to them. For who (as S. Peter spoke (e) Acts 10.47. upon another occasion) can forbid the water of Baptism to those, who have received the Holy Ghost, as to be sure all, that are internally holy, have? It remains therefore, that if the Children of such matches be not internally holy, they are externally so, and that external holiness therefore, if it may be, to be investigated by us. Now I demand First, what external holiness can be imagined in those Children, but such by which they come to belong to God in a more peculiar manner, than the Children of other matches do? This being the nature of all things, that are externally holy, whether by the voluntary consecration of men, or the Institution, or choice of God. I demand secondly, supposing those Children to belong more to God, than the Children of other matches, whether by their thus becoming the peculiar property of God, they may not be supposed to be more dear to him, than the Children of other matches are? Every one naturally having an affection to such, as belong to him, suitably to that nearness, wherein they belong to him. I demand Thirdly, supposing the Children of such matches to be more dear to God than the Children of others, whether we are not to think he will take a more particular care of them, than of others? The care of any person being always suitable to the affection he bears to those, who are the object of his care. I demand Fourthly, whether, supposing such a particular care of the Children of such matches, he will not take a more particular care of them as to their eternal welfare, than he doth of the Children of other men; All other care, without this, being of little value to the party cared for, and, beside that (as experience shows) equally extended by God to the Children of other matches, as well as to the descendants of Christians. I demand Fifthly, supposing such a particular care as to their eternal welfare, whether he will not also allow them more means toward the compass of it, than he can be supposed to allow to the Children of other Parents? All care, where it is reasonable, and just, employing suitable means to bring that care of its unto effect. Now what peculiar means doth, or can God allow to the Children of Christian Parents, as to the procuring of their eternal welfare, supposing them to die before they come of years, as the generality of them do, unless it be the Sacrament of Baptism? For as these, no more than other Children, are capable of the benefits of the Gospel by the graces of Faith, and Repentance; So they have no other way therefore, save the Sacrament of Baptism, either to be delivered from the guilt of Original Sin, or enstated in Christ's heavenly Kingdom. I conclude therefore, that the Children of Christian Parents, or of either of them being holy, they do by that holiness of theirs acquire a right to a greater holiness, I mean the holiness of Baptism. And indeed however Tertullian could in his book (f) Cap. 18. De Baptismo argue the delay of Infant's Baptism, as that too upon their no need of it, or not being qualified for it; Yet as he could see enough elsewhere to make him believe, that every soul is reckoned in Adam, till he be anew enroled in Christ by the receipt of the Sacrament of Baptism (g) De animâ c. 39 Hinc enim & Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogatiuâ, quam ex institutionis disciplinâ. Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitati, ac per hoc etiam saluti intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignore matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioquin meminerat Dominicae de finitionis, Nisi quis nascetur ex aquâ, & spiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit sanctus. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, etc. , so he could see enough too in the Text I am now upon, to make him acknowledge, that the Children of the (h) De animâ c. 39 Hinc enim & Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogatiuâ, quam ex institutionis disciplinâ. Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitati, ac per hoc etiam saluti intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignore matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur. Alioquin meminerat Dominicae de finitionis, Nisi quis nascetur ex aquâ, & spiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit sanctus. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, etc. faithful are holy by the prerogative of their seed, as well as by the discipline of their Institution, and by that holiness of theirs designed, or marked out for a better holiness, and so for salvation. Which as it is the holiness, that I have been all along enforcing, and endeavouring to evince from thence Child's right unto another; So of what force it is toward the inferring of it, will need no other light, than that, which we have from Tertullian. For with what face can any man deny them the holiness of Baptism, who are designed, or marked out for it by the prerogative of their birth, and (as it may happen, and often doth) can not other way attain that holiness, or that salvation, which is consequent upon it? But because some men have advanced another, and a more improper holiness, even that by which Children become the issue of a lawful marriage, and not of an unlawful mixture; And because too they have in part advanced that holiness upon the difficulty of comprehending, how the unbeliever can otherwise be sanctified by the believer, than by making the match between them two to be lawful; Therefore I will both set myself to show, that the unbeliever may be otherwise sanctified by the believer, than by making him, or her to be a lawful match to the believer, and that the holiness, which S. Paul attributes to the Children of such a match, cannot be understood of such a holiness, whereby they become a lawful, or legitimate Issue. And I allege for the former of these the unbelieving Husband's, for instance, being so sanctified by the believing Wife, as not only to become a lawful Husband to her, but a Christian one, and so, as to entitle the Issue of them both to the common privileges of Christianity. Which is brought about by the unbelieving Husband's becoming one flesh, not any longer with an unbelieving Wife, but with a believing, and Christian one, and from whom that sanctification is derived to him. Even as the same S. Paul affirms (i) 1 Cor. 6.16. him, that converseth with an Harlot, to become one flesh with that Harlot, with whom he doth so converse, and so receive pollution from her. Neither will it avail to say (as possibly it may be) that the believing Wife is as much one flesh with the unbelieving Husband, as the unbelieving Husband is with her, and may therefore be as unclean by him, as he can be supposed to be sanctified by her. For neither first is the believing Wife as much one flesh with the unbelieving Husband, as the unbelieving Husband is with her, unless it be as to the use of, or power over one another's Bodies: Partly, because, where there is so great an inequality in the match, the denomination is in reason to be taken from the better party, which to be sure the believer is; And partly, because that consent of mind from which this union proceeds, and by which it is to be upheld, is more entire, and full upon the part of the unbelieving Husband, than it is upon the part of the believing Wife. For whilst she consents to dwell with him merely as the Partner of her Bed, and conformably to the offices of such a one, of which she gave a sufficient proof by abandoning him as to his Religion, and continues to do the like by the continuance of that abandoning; The unbelieving Husband, on the other side, by being (as S. Paul expresseth it) (k) 1 Cor. 7.12, 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. well pleased to live with her notwithstanding, consents in some measure to dwell with her as a Christian, and gives no contemptible indication of a farther consent with her in that Religion: There being otherwise no great likelihood of his continuing his Complacency, as well as cohabitation to her, who had abandoned him as to his. But therefore as the believing Wife is not so much one with the unbelieving Husband, as he is with her, and cannot therefore be so likely to be polluted by him, as he is to be sanctified by her; So she becomes yet less likely to be polluted by him, because communicating with him in such Act, or Acts, as are not only lawful in themselves, but moreover the indispensible duties of that marriage, which she had contracted, and which, whilst he is thus pleased to dwell with her, she is by our Apostle himself obliged to maintain. And indeed as from such a match there is more reason to expect sanctification to the unbeliever, than there is of any fear of pollution to the other; So there will be yet less doubt of it, if we consider the sanctification here spoken of, not as an inward, but an outward one, and such an outward one too, by which the party sanctified attains only the privilege of being accounted of as a Christian Husband, and accordingly of conveying to those Children, that descend from them both a right to the Sacrament of Baptism. For what less can be expected from a merciful God, where the unbeliever, though continuing such, yet takes pleasure notwithstanding that in his Christian Consort? And she, on the other side, though abominating his Infidelity, yet in compliance with that marriage, wherein Christianity found her, cohabits with him notwithstanding, and no doubt both doth, and will employ all her kindness, and endeavours to gain him to a farther approbation both of her, and of the Religion she hath espoused? Which supposed, a way will be open to give a clearer account of the thing intended, and withal of the force it is of to persuade the believing Wives continuing with the unbelieving Husband, if he (as is supposed in the present case) is as willing to dwell with her: The force thereof lying in this, that the believing Wife should in that case be so far from being polluted by the converse of the unbelieving Husband (which was no doubt these Corinthians fear, when they put this case to S. Paul) that on the contrary the unbelieving Husband should be so far sanctified by her, as to be to her in the place of a Christian one, and enjoy all the privileges of such; The unbelieving Husband by becoming one flesh with the believing Wife becoming so far Christian also, and so accounted of both by God, and the Church. Of which they had this undeniable proof, that the Children of those matches were not looked upon as unclean, or heathen (which they must have been in part, if the unbeliever had not been some way sanctified, as well as the believer) but accounted of as so far holy, or Christian, as to be admitted to those privileges, to which the Children of Christian Parents were, and particularly to that Baptism, by which a better holiness is conveyed. This I take to be a fair, and clear account of the Apostle's words, and particularly of that holiness, which he attributes to those Children, that descend from the forementioned Parents. And I am yet more confirmed in it by the fondness of that notion, which hath been set up to supplant it, and by which the Children of such matches become the issue of a lawful marriage, and not of an unlawful mixture. For beside that they, who advance this notion, make the words Else were your Children unclean, etc. to refer rather to the precept of the believer's cohabiting with the unbeliever, than to the unbeliever's being sanctified by the believer, to which last yet it apparently refers, and is assigned by S. Paul as a proof of; They suppose that in this notion of theirs, which there is not the least ground for, and which indeed this very place doth sufficiently confute. For who ever said, or could say that the marriages of the Heathen were unlawful, which yet they must have been, if there needed the cohabitation of the faithful to make them lawful, and the Children that were born of them to be legitimate? Nay who seethe not that S. Paul supposeth those marriages to be lawful, when he requires the believing party to cohabit with the unbeliever? For otherwise no doubt he would rather have advised to break off all commerce with the Infidel, or proceed to a new contract. Both which yet he is so far from, that he seems to me not very willing to allow of a perfect breach, even when the unbeliever doth departed from the believer. For though he saith (l) 1 Cor. 7.15. that a brother, or sister is not in bondage in such a case, and may therefore, if they please, look upon themselves as loosed from the unbeliever; Yet he tells them (m) Ibid. withal that God hath called us to peace, and therefore, (as I understand him) that breaches of that nature would be avoided as much as might be; And he tells them too (n) 1 Cor. 7.16. , that if they would not be over forward to make use of that liberty, which the unbeliever gave them by deserting them, there might be hopes of the unbelieving Wife, or Husband being wrought upon by the believer's patience, and forbearance, and reconciled both to them, and their Religion. However as there is no pretence from this place of the believer's making the marriage between the unbeliever and themselves to be a lawful one, as which was so before; Nor therefore for making the holiness of their Children to be no other than a civil one, and by which they only became a legitimate issue; So there is the more reason still to understand the holiness of that match, and the issues of it, as one that entitles them to the outward privileges of Christianity, and by which the unbelieving whether Husband, or Wife, comes to be accounted of as a Christian one, and the Children of both parties as having a right to that Sacrament, by which all are to be initiated into Christianity, and partake of its Regeneration and Remission. My third and last argument for the baptising of the Infants, or Children of Christian Parents shall be taken from the Circumcision of those Infants, or Children, which descended from the posterity of Abraham, and after which I do not see what doubt can be well made of the other: Partly, upon the account of the Analogy there is between Circumcision, and Baptism, and partly upon account of the Children of Christian Parents having as good a right to the blessings exhibited in them, as the Children of those, who were of the posterity of Abraham. For supposing (as was before (o) Expl. of the Sacram. in general. Part 4. shown, and may hereafter (p) Answ. to the object. against Infant-Baptism. be farther cleared) that Circumcision relates to the same spiritual blessings with Baptism, and particularly to the righteousness of Faith; And supposing farther that the Children of Christian Parents have as good a right to those blessings, and that righteousness, as the Children of those, that were of the posterity of Abraham; By the same reason that the Children of these were entitled to that Circumcision, which was intended to exhibit those blessings, and that righteousness among them, the Children of the other shall be admitted to that Baptism, which was intended to exhibit them among us: Those Children, which have an equal right to the blessings exhibited, having an equal right to those means, which were intended for the exhibition of them. Now that the Children of Christian Parents have as good a right to the former blessings, and righteousness, as the Children of the Posterity of Abraham, will appear from those Parents of theirs being equally the Children (q) Rom. 4.11. of Abraham with those, that were of his posterity. For being equally his Children, they must consequently be supposed to give their Children as good a right to the former blessings, and the means that was intended to exhibit them among us, as the posterity of Abraham did their Children to the like blessings, and that means which among them was intended for the exhibition of them. II. The Baptism of Infants being thus made out from the Scripture, and by such passages thereof also, as cannot be easily avoided; Pass we on to inquire, what countenance it hath from Antiquity, as which if it be any thing considerable, will the more firmly establish it. Where the first, that I shall take notice of, is a passage of Justin Martyr, I do not mean what is commonly quoted out of his Questions, and Answers, ad Orthodoxos (r) Quaest. 56. , it being questionable enough (s) Vid. Coci Censur. quorund. Script. in Script. Just. Martyr. whether that Book were his, or at least as we now have it, but what may be found in his second Apology (t) Pag. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and concerning which there is not any the least controversy in the Church. In which Apology speaking of the excellency of the Christian Law above that of any humane ones, in setting bounds to the carnal desires of men he hath these words. And there are many men, and women of sixty, and seventy years of Age, who having from their Childhood been discipled unto Christ, have all their time continued uncorrupt, or Virgins; And I boast that I can show such among all sorts of men. For why should we also speak of that innumerable multitude of men, who have changed from intemperance, and so have learned these things? For Christ called not the just, or temperate to repentance, but the ungodly, and intemperate, and unjust. Which words to an unbiast Reader cannot well signify less, than children's being then baptised into Christianity; That Father not only making mention of certain persons, who had from their childhood been discipled unto Christ, which we know from our Saviour (u) Matt. 28.19. to have been effected by Baptism, and continued too all their time uncorrupt, or Virgins (which yet is a competent proof of their being baptised, when Children) but opposing them to such persons as had changed from intemperance, and rather learned that purity afterward, than been discipled into it at the very first: That opposition of his making it yet more evident, that he meant such persons as were discipled to Christ from their very childhood, and before they were in a capacity of learning him, and his doctrine by instruction. To this of Justin Martyr subjoin we another of Irenaeus, which is yet more clear for the Baptism of Infants. For Christ (saith that Father (w) Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: Omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infants, & parvulos, & pueros, & juvenes, & seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infants, & in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem. Adu. haeres. li. 2. c. 39 ) came to save all persons by himself; All I say, who by him are born again to God, Infants, and little ones, and Children, and Young Men, and Old. Therefore he came in every Age, and was made an Infant to Infants, sanctifying Infants, and a little one among little ones, sanctifying those of that age, etc. Where we have him not only affirming Christ to have come to save Infants, as well as others, yea to have been made an Infant himself to sanctify them, which shows them in his opinion to have had a general right to the blessings of Christianity, but speaking of several of them as born again unto God by Christ, which is as much as to say baptised: That as it is the way, by which all are to be so born, even by the Doctrine of (x) Joh. 3.5. our Saviour, so the way too, by which the Ancients apprehended it to be effected. For thus where Justin Martyr entreats of the Baptism of those of his time, he tells us (y) Apolog. 2. p. 93.4. that they, who were to partake of it, were brought by the Christians to a place where water was, and there regenerated after that manner of regeneration, wherewith they themselves had been. And to the same purpose also this very Irenaeus (z) Adu. haeres li. 1. c. 18. , because not only attributing the same regeneration to it, but representing it as the Doctrine of the Gnostics, as to that Baptism which they set up against our Saviour's, that it was necessary for those, who had received perfect knowledge, to be so regenerated into that virtue, or power, which is above all things. Which passage, with the former one, makes it yet more manifest that Irenaeus meant by such Infants, as were born again by Christ unto God, such as had been regenerated by Baptism, and consequently that the Baptism of such was no stranger in his days. I think I shall not need to insist upon the days of Tertullian, because what the practice of that time was is evident from his disputing against Infant Baptism, or at least advising to delay it: There being no place for such a dispute, or advice, if the thing itself had not been then in use, and in use too (as he himself intimates) in obedience to that precept of our Saviour, which enjoined the suffering little Children to come unto him in order to their partaking of his blessing, and Kingdom. And indeed as Origen, who lived not long after him, doth not only assert the same practice of Infant Baptism, but affirm * In Rom. 16. the Church to have received it as a Tradition from the Apostles; So Tertullian's Scholar, and great admirer S. Cyprian † Epist. 59 gives such an ample testimony to it, that I know not what need to be added to it. For one Fidus having questioned him concerning the cause of Infants, who he thought ought not to be baptised till the eighth day according to the law of Circumcision, S. Cyprian in a Council of sixty six Bishops made this following Answer to his demand; That he, and the whole Council that was with him, had quite other thoughts of that affair, they universally judging that the mercy, and grace of God was to be denied to none, that was born of men. And again, that if remission of sins were upon the faith of the parties given to the greatest Offenders, neither was any of them debarred from Baptism, and grace, how much less ought a newborn Infant to be debarred of it, who had no other sin to answer for, but what he drew from Adam, and who came so much the more easily to receive pardon of sin, because it was not his own proper sins, but those of others, that were to be forgiven him? For which cause the opinion of the Council was, that no one ought to be debarred by them from Baptism, and the Grace of God, and that, if that were to be observed, and retained as to all persons whatsoever, it was much more to be observed, and retained as to Infants, and newborn persons, whose very tears wherewith they entered the World, seemed more to deserve it both from them, and the divine mercy. I omit for brevity sake the many testimonies of S. Augustine to the same purpose, and his affirming † Aug. Serm. 10. de verbis Apost. in particular, that the Church always had it, always retained it, and received it from the faith of its predecessors; And shall content myself, as to this particular, with his, and the Church's pressing the Pelagians * Vossi. Histor. Pelag. li. 2. part. 1 Thes. 5. with the practice of Infant Baptism, and those Pelagians, how much soever straitened by it, yet choosing rather to evade the force of it, than to deny in any measure the truth of the thing alleged: It being not to be thought, that, if there had been any the least suspicion of the Antiquity of Infant Baptism, or indeed of its being derived to the Church from the Apostles, either the Catholics would have so confidently alleged it against the Pelagians, or the Pelagians so easily, and without any the least opposition have admitted it. III. Now as if we allow Infants to be capable of Baptism, we must consequently allow them the graces of that Sacrament, because Baptism was intended to convey them; So I must needs say, I do not see why (supposing Original sin, which hath been before sufficiently established) we should scruple to attribute to them the graces of that Sacrament, and particularly remission, and regeneration. For if Infants are naturally under the guilt of Original sin, there is so far forth place for, and a necessity of remission; And if the same Infants are naturally under the pollution of it, or (as our Catechism expresseth it) are by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, they are alike capable by Baptism of being regenerated, or made the children of grace. Not that there is, or can be even in baptised Infants any actual perception of, or adhesion to that, which is spiritually good, but a disposition to both, and by virtue whereof the soul is fitted, and inclined to each, when years, and opportunity invite: As the same soul is to reason, and will, when it arrives at years of maturity, by virtue of those natural faculties, that are from the beginning in it. Which is a sort of regeneration, that is most suitable to the state of Infancy, and beyond which therefore, whilst they continue in that state, we are not reasonably to expect; But is withal as true a regeneration as that, which is wrought in those of riper years, and by which the souls of the parties regenerated actually perceive, and cleave to that good, which the other is only disposed to: That actual perception, and adhesion being not so much any part of their regeneration, or new birth, as the effects, or issues of it. IU. But because how clear soever Infant Baptism may thus far seem, yet it cannot be denied to be encumbered with many, and great difficulties, or at least such as appear so to men of prejudiced minds; Therefore it will be but necessary, before I leave this head, to select such of them as seem to be most pressing, and return a satisfactory Answer to them: Whether they be such as relate to the grounds, on which I have endeavoured to establish it, or such as strike more directly at the thing itself. That, which is most to be considered of the former sort, is that (a) See Jer. Tayl. Liberty of Proph. Sect. 18. num. 13. which pretends to evacuate the Argument from the Circumcising of the Infants of Abraham's posterity to the Baptising of the Children of Christians. Which it endeavours in part from Circumcisions being but a Type, or figure of Baptism, and so either proving nothing at all without some express to signify such a thing to be its purpose, or after the nature of such things, directing us rather to a spiritual childhood in order to Baptism, than showing a natural childhood to be a due subject of it; And in part also from Circumcisions being not in all things a rule to the Christians Baptism, and particularly not in the persons, that are to be baptised (Women as well as Men being confessedly the subject of the latter) nor in the time of their receiving of it. For if Circumcision be a sufficient direction for the baptising of Infants, why not also a like direction for the confining of it to the Males? And if it were to be a direction as to the baptising of Infants, why not also as to the baptising of them upon the eighth day (which was the day of administering Circumcision) as that Fidus, whom S. Cyprian answered, seemed to be persuaded, and accordingly argued it from the like administration of Circumcision. As to what is objected concerning Circumcision's being but a type of Baptism, and so either proving nothing at all without some express to signify such to be its purpose, which is not pretended in the present case, or if proving any thing as to the matter of childhood, yet directing rather to a spiritual, than a natural one; I answer that as I see not why Circumcision should be looked upon as only a type of Baptism, nor indeed as any type at all, unless it be in a general sense, and as a thing that is like unto another may be looked upon as a type of that, to which it is so, in which sense I myself have also used the word, and allow it so to be, so we do not at all argue from Circumcision, as it may be supposed to be a type of Baptism, but as a sign of the same righteousness of Faith, of which Baptism is, and of the same gracious Covenant, that assures it. And in this sense as nothing hinders us to argue from Circumcision's being bestowed upon Infants then, that that which is a sign of the same righteousness of faith under the Gospel is in reason to be extended to the same persons; So there is this in particular to enforce it, that Christian Parents would otherwise fall short, in the account of God, of the privileges of the natural descendants of Abraham. Of which what account can be given, when Abraham, from whom they both claim, is declared to be the Father of them both, yea is said by S. Paul to have received the sign of Circumcision, not only as a seal, or assurance to himself of that righteousness of faith, which he before had, but a seal, or an assurance also of his being to the same purposes a Father (b) Rom. 4.11. of those that believe, though they be not circumcised, as well as a Father of those that were. There is as little reason to be staggered by what is alleged in the second instance, that if Circumcision be a sufficient direction for the baptising of Infants, it may as well be a direction for the confining of it to the Males, and for the confining of it too to the eighth day after the Infant's birth. Because first the Sacrament of Baptism hath nothing in it to confine it to the Males, as Circumcision had, but on the contrary is equally fitted to be administered to both Sexes. And secondly because it appears from what was before said (c) Part 1. concerning the Rite of Baptism among the Jews, that the want of Circumcision was afterwards supplied to the Females by Baptism, and they thereby even in their Infancy initiated into the same Covenant with the other. For this shows yet more, how little reason there is to argue from Circumcisions being confined to the Males, that therefore Baptism ought to be so; Or rather how much more reason there is to extend it both to Male, and Female, and so to all of the same Infant estate. If therefore there be any thing to hinder our arguing from Circumcision in this particular, it must be it's not being pretended by ourselves to be a direction as to the day of its administration, as well as to the persons, to whom it ought to be administered. But beside that there is a vast difference between the persons, to whom any Sacrament is to be given, and the precise day, on which it is to be so, and therefore not the like reason for Circumcision's directing as to this, as there is for its directing as to the other; What Circumcision directs as to the case of Infants is more a favour, than a command, whereas what is directed as to the precise day is rather a command, than a favour. Now it being a ruled case, That Favours are rather to be enlarged, than restrained, especially under a Dispensation, which is so manifestly gracious, as that of the Gospel is, there may be reason enough for our interpreting what is said concerning the Circumcision of Infants to the equal, or rather greater benefit of Infants now, and consequently that Sacrament, which came in place of it, to be rather hastened, than deferred to a day, to which possibly they may not arrive, but however to be given them as soon, as a convenient opportunity presents itself. Add hereunto the difference there is between Circumcision, and Baptism as to the trouble, or danger, which may attend the administration of them to such tender bodies, as those of Infants are. For there being a greater trouble, and danger to Infants from the Rite of Circumcision, than there is from the Rite of Baptism; There might be greater reason for the deferring of that to the eighth day, than there is for the deferring of this. And what is therefore, as to that particular, directed concerning Circumcision, not to be drawn into example in the matter of Baptism, though other more material, and more advantageous circumstances are. But leaving what is commonly urged against the Argument from the Circumcising of Infants, because, as I suppose, sufficiently assoiled by the foregoing discourse. Let us take a view of such Objections as strike more directly at Infant Baptism, or at least of the more material ones. Such as I take to be first the want of an express command, or direction for the administering of Baptism to Infants; Secondly, their being incapable of that regeneration, which is the great intent and end of Baptism, or giving no suitable indications of it afterwards; Thirdly, their being as incapable of answering what is prerequired to it on the part of the persons to be baptised, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it. That which seems to stick much with the Adversaries of Infant Baptism, and is accordingly urged at all turns against the Friends, or Asserters of it, is the want of an express command, or direction for the administering of Baptism to them. Which objection seems to be the more reasonable, because Baptism, as well as other Sacraments, receiving all its force from Institution, they may seem to have no right to, or benefit by it, who appear not by the institution of that Sacrament to be entitled to it, but rather, by the qualifications which it requires, to be excluded from it. And posbly more might be of the opinion of the Objecters, if there had not been before an express Law for admitting Infants to that righteousness of Faith, of which Baptism is a sign, and a means of conveyance, and for admitting them too by such an outward sign, as that of Baptism is. But such an express law having been before given by God, and that law as notorious as any law in either Testament, there was no reason (d) See Stillingfleet's Irenicum. Part 1. cap. 1. §. 3. for God to give any such express law for the so administering of Baptism, or for us to expect it from him: It being easy to collect from the Analogy there is between the two Sacraments, and the great graciousness of the present dispensation, that what was communicated to the Children of Abraham's posterity by the sign of Circumcision, which was then the standing way of administering it, was alike intended for the Children of those, who were to as good, or better purpose the Children of the same Abraham, and intended too to be transmitted to them by their particular Sacrament, and to which (as was before observed) the great graces of the Gospel were annexed by our Saviour (e) Joh. 3.5. himself. Which Argumentation is so much the more reasonable, because it appears by what was but now suggested, that our Saviour, whose Institution Baptism was, gave a sufficient indication of his own kindness to that tender estate, yea of his owning those, that were of it, to have a right to that Kingdom of Heaven, to which Baptism by his own appointment was intended to admit men. The next great Objection against the Baptism of Infants is their supposed incapacity of that regeneration, which is the great end, and intent of Baptism, or giving no suitable indications of it, when they begin to be in a natural capacity to exert it. The former whereof the Anabaptists argue from the Scripture's speaking of it (f) 1 Pet. 1.23. as produced by the word of truth, and other such rational means; As the latter by the little appearance there is of it in many of those, that are baptised, after they arrive at the years of discretion: Especially where, as it often happens in the Dominion of the Turks, they are taken away from their Parents, before they come to be of any years, and bred up in the Mahometan Religion. For under this they are so far from giving any indications of a Christian regeneration, that our Religion hath no greater, or more implacable enemies, than they. As to what is argued toward the proof of Infant's incapacity of regeneration from the Scriptures speaking of it as produced by the word of truth, and other such rational ways of procedure, I must needs say I do not see why it should be alleged in this particular, unless it any where intimated, that there was no other way of producing it, no not in the Souls of Infants. For the Scripture speaking to, and of men converted from Judaisme, or Heathenism to Christianity, and consequently brought to it in a rational way; What is spoken of their regeneration, is not to be drawn into example here, unless the same Scripture did any where intimate that there was no other way of regeneration than that, or it could not be otherwise produced. Which beside the affront it offers to the omnipotency of God's spirit, and which even in men must be supposed to have the chiefest stroke, will need no other confutation, than Gods creating man at first after his own image without any concurrence of his, and producing in our Saviour, even in his conception, that perfect holiness, which was in him. For why may not God produce in an Infant that imperfect regeneration, whereof we speak, as well as he did that more perfect Righteousness, and true Holiness, wherewith our first Parents were created, or that more excellent, as well as more durable one, which he did in our Saviour from the very beginning, and which the Scripture itself attributes to the Holy Ghost's overshadowing his Mother's Womb? But it may be, though Infants are not incapable of regeneration, and so far forth cannot with reason be debarred the Sacrament of it; Yet there is evidence enough upon the postfact, that no such thing is collated in their Baptism, and that Baptism of theirs therefore not to be looked upon as a legitimate one. For if the regeneration we speak of were collated in the Baptism of Infants, it would, (because all Infants are alike qualified for that Sacrament) be collated in some measure upon all of them, which yet the future behaviour of many of them doth render justly questionable: Many of them being untoward enough, when they first come of years, though advantaged by a suitable education, and others (as was before said) taken away early from their Christian Parents, and both educated in a contrary Religion, and made zealous Proselytes of it. Which things how they should be consistent with that regeneration, whereof we speak, is at least very difficult to apprehend. And possibly these two things have stuck more with considering men than most of the other Arguments that have been brought against Infant Baptism, and have perhaps given as much trouble to all those, who have duly considered them. But whether they are in truth of that force, which they seem to be of, may well be doubted by those, who shall consider this regeneration as the state of Infants requires, or at least makes it reasonable enough to do; I mean as a weak, and imperfect thing, and rather as the seed of a more strong, and perfect regeneration, than a thoroughly formed, and well settled one. For so if we conceive of it, we shall find no great difficulty to apprehend first, that where there is not only nothing of a Christian education to excite, and improve it, but a contrary one from the very beginning, and such a one in particular as Christian Children have from the Turks; So, I say, it will not be difficult to apprehend, but it may be perfectly overwhelmed, and choked by it: As that seed in the Parable was, that was sown among Thorns, or as that may be supposed to be, that is covered over with rubbish, and hindered by it from sprouting forth. And though I cannot say the same of the regeneration of such persons, as have afterwards had a Christian, and it may be a careful education to excite it (for here one would think it should every where more forcibly exert itself) yet this I may, which will be of equal force, that in that case it may equally fail for want of those persons exciting it, in whom that seed is sown, or of their answering by their care, and endeavour that education, which is made use of in order to it. For Baptism (as hath been often said) being in the nature of a stipulation, or Contract, where somewhat is to be performed by the party Baptised, as soon as he is in a capacity to do it, as well as by him, with whom the contract is made; No wonder if, when the baptised person comes to be in a capacity to perform his part, and doth not, he with whom the Contract is made, do first withdraw his blessing from that, which he hath before sown in him, and afterward the seed itself. For in either of these cases we cannot expect such indications, or effects of the Baptismal regeneration, as otherwise we might, and as do actually show themselves in many of those, who have been made partakers of it. It may be enough that God hath furnished such persons with a regeneration, which during their minority will qualify them for, and secure them to his Kingdom, and a regeneration too which, if well improved, will grow into a more complete, and effectual one, and in fine bring them to a due holiness, and unto God. If the baptised persons will, when they are in a capacity to do better, neglect to excite it, or will oppose it, they must thank themselves, if they miscarry, and not lay the blame upon any failure on Christ's part, and much less deny his having conferred it on them. The third, and last great Objection against the Baptism of Infants is their being incapable of answering what is prerequired to it on the part of the persons that are to be baptised, or is to be performed by them in the receiving of it. Which incapacity they argue, as to the former of these, from the Scripture's prerequiring Faith, and Repentance to it, as the latter from that stipulation, which Baptism involves, and which Infants are equally incapacitated to make. The Answer, which our Catechism makes to these difficulties, or at least to the former, is, that they promise them both by their sureties, which promise, when they come to Age, themselves are bound to perform. And possibly this Answer might be better digested than it is, if the minds of those, who argue against Infant-Baptism, were more free, and unprejudiced, than they commonly appear to be. Because first what is urged against Infant-Baptism upon the account of its being a stipulation, or Contract is equally of force against the Circumcision of Infants, because that was equally a Covenant, or rather a sign of it, and a means of entering into it. Which notwithstanding, the Infants of Abraham's posterity were by the Command of God himself admitted to it, and thereupon reckoned as in Covenant with him. Now if the Infants of Abraham's posterity were by the Command of God admitted into Covenant with him; What should hinder the Infants of Christians from Covenanting in like manner with him, and so far forth from being admitted to the participation of that Sacrament, which is a sign of the same gracious Covenant, and a means of entering into it? Again Secondly, though Infants cannot in strictness Covenant with God, because neither having reason enough to apprehend the terms of it, nor will to determine themselves to the performance of them; Yet as they may by favour be admitted to a partnership in a Covenant, and where God, or Christ is the person, with whom they contract, obliged when they come of years to answer their part in it, so by the same favour of him, with whom they contract, what is done to them, or for them, may be interpreted as a promise on their part for the performance of it. By which means though they should not be capable of a strict, and proper stipulation, yet they may of that, which is interpretatively such. The only farther doubt in this affair is, whether God accepts of such a stipulation, which his accepting of it under the Covenant of Circumcision, and from the Children of Abraham's natural posterity will easily remove. For the Covenant of Baptism being no way inferior in itself too (or rather but the same Covenant in a different dress with) the Covenant of Circumcision, nor the Children of Abraham's spiritual seed inferior to those of the natural one; What was accepted of under the Covenant of Circumcision, and from the Children of Abraham's natural seed may as reasonably be presumed to be accepted of under Baptism, and from the Children of his spiritual. How much more, when (as was before shown) his Son, and our Saviour Christ (g) Mark 10.14. hath commanded Children to be brought to him for his benediction, and grace, and his Apostle and our great Instructor S. Paul declared the Children of Christians to be holy, yea where but one of the Parents is so? Thus we may rationally answer what is objected against the stipulation of Infants, and consequently against their taking upon them what is required of them in the receiving of Baptism; Which will leave nothing to us to make answer to, but their supposed incapacity for that faith, and repentance, which seem to be pre-required to it, and which one would think they, that are to be baptised, should bring with them in some measure, as well as make a promise of. But beside that those Texts (h) Mark 16.15, 16. Acts 2.38. Acts 8.37. , which speak of these prerequisites, do all manifestly relate to adult persons, and such as are brought to Baptism by the preaching of the Gospel, and therefore not lightly to be urged in the case of Infants; There are these three substantial reasons to make a difference between Infants, and Men as to this particular. First, that Infants are not admitted to Baptism, and the graces of it upon the account of any right in themselves, but of the right of their Parents. Secondly, that they are admitted for the present to a lesser portion of the Divine graces, than adult persons are, and such as are rather the seeds of them, than any throughly formed, or well settled ones. Thirdly, that what right they receive by their Baptism to future, and more perfect privileges, depends for their actually attaining them upon their exhibiting that faith, and repentance, which at the time of their Baptism they only made a promise of. For if (as is alleged in the first reason) Infants are not admitted to Baptism and the Graces of it, upon the account of any right in themselves, but of the right of their Parents; What should hinder the Church from lending * Accommodatillis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut faceantur, ut quoniam quod aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum hi sani sunt alio pro eis confitente salventur. Aug. de Verb Apost. Serm. 10. , or Infants from borrowing from it the feet of other men, that they may come, the heart of others that they 〈◊〉 believe, the tongue of others that they may confess, that because, in that they were sick, they were pressed down by another's sin, they may, when they are made whole, be saved by the confession of another? If again (as is alleged in the second reason, and proved before in the matter of regeneration) Infants are admitted for the present to a lesser portion of the divine Graces, than adult persons are, and such as are rather the seeds of them, than any throughly formed, or well settled one; Who can think but that a like difference ought to be between them as to the prerequisites of their Baptism, and that therefore not to be urged as to the case of Infants, which was prerequired of the other? In fine, if (as is alleged in the third reason) what right Infants receive by their Baptism to future, and more perfect privileges, depends for their attaining of them, upon their exhibiting that Faith, and Repentance, which at the time of their Baptism they only made a promise of; It may be time enough, when that right is to be actuated, to exhibit that Faith, and Repentance, and so make way for it, as they, who are of years, do. Otherwise more shall be supposed to be required of Infants, than is of adult persons themselves; Because that Faith and Repentance is not required of the latter, till the full privileges of Baptism are to be bestowed upon them. And I shall only add, that if care were taken that the Faith, and Repentance of those, who were baptised in their Infancy, were as well enquired into, and proved as their knowledge in the Catechism is, before they were allowed to be confirmed; The Church would not only better discharge the trust, that is reposed in her as concerning those persons, whose Faith and Repentance were not before proved, nor could be, but more effectually stop the mouths of the Anabaptists, than all the Arguments she, or her Sons offer for Infant Baptism, will ever be able to do. For so she would make it appear, that though she contented herself in their Baptism with the promise that was made for them, or rather with that tacit stipulation, which their very Baptism involves; Yet she was as mindful, when they came of years, to oblige them to the performance of it, and to give due proofs in their own persons of all those things, which Baptism in adult persons doth either pre-suppose, or oblige to the performance of. PART XII. Whether Baptism may be repeated. The Contents. What the true state of the present question is, and that it is not founded in any supposed illegitimateness of the former Baptism, but upon supposition of the baptised persons either not having before had, or forfeited the regeneration of it, or fallen off from that Religion, to which it doth belong. Whereupon enquiry is made, whether if such persons repent and return, they ought to be baptised anew, or received into the Church without. What there is to persuade the repeating of Baptism, and what the Church hath alleged against it. The Church's arguments from Eph. 4.4. and Joh. 13.10. proposed, but waved. The Church's opinion more firmly established in the no direction there is in Scripture for rebaptisation in those cases, but rather the contrary, and in the no necessity there is of it. The Arguments for rebaptisation answered. iv THE fourth, and last question relating to the right Administration of Baptism is whether it may be repeated. Which question is not founded in any supposed illegitimacy of the former Baptism (for that is here taken for granted to have been good, and valid) but upon supposition of the baptised persons either having not before received, or forfeited the regeneration he acquired by it, or fallen off altogether from that Religion, into which he was baptised. In which cases, supposing the person to repent of his former either impiety, or Apostasy, it is enquired whether he may be baptised anew, or received into the Communion of the faithful without it. Now though, if Men would abide by the Doctrine of the Church, this question would be of easy resolution; S. Cyprian * Epist. 71. Ad Quintum. Nos autem dicimus eos, qui inde veniunt, non rebaptizari apud nos, sed baptizari. Neque enim accipiunt illic aliquid, ubi nihil est, sed veniunt ad nos, ut hîc accipiant, ubi gratia, & veritas omnis est, quia & gratia & veritas una est. himself, who was so fierce for the rebaptising of those, who had been baptised by Heretics, yet advancing not that Assertion of his upon a belief of Baptism's being to be repeated, provided it were a legitimate one, but on supposition of the former Baptisms being no true, and genuine one; Yet will it not be of so easy a resolution, if that Authority be laid aside, and the thing in question weighed rather by Arguments, than suffrages. For what do they differ in effect from Heathen, or Insidels, who either never before had, or have fallen quite off from the regeneration, or faith of Baptism? And if they differ not at all from them, why should they not, if they repent, and return, be received as Heathen, or Infidels, I mean by the Sacrament of Baptism? Especially, when in the ordinary dispensation of God the graces of the Sacrament are annexed to the Sacrament, nor can be expected without it. For, that supposed, why should not these men, being to begin their Christianity anew, come a second time under that Sacrament, which is to enter beginners into it, and give them the regeneration, and remission of it? Of what force these Objections are, shall be afterward considered; The only reason of my present mention of them is to show, that the question is not without its difficulty, and that if we will satisfy our understandings so, as to be able to satisfy others, we must inquire into the grounds of the Church's opinion, as well as be satisfied, that the Church hath been so persuaded. Which we shall find the more reason for, because one principal Text, which hath been alleged, seems not to come up to it, nor indeed to have any relation to that affair; That I mean, which suggests one Baptism † Eph. 4.5. as well as one Lord, and one Faith in him. For the design of the Apostle in that place being to persuade the Ephesians to unity, and peace among themselves, as that too, among other things by there being one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, cannot so reasonably be thought to mean any other, than that they all had one common Lord, to whom they related, one common Faith in that Lord, and one common Baptism, or mode of initiating into it: That unity, as it best agrees with that one hope of their calling, by which they are also pressed, because declared to be one † Eph 4.4. , in which they were all called; So most naturally, and most immediately enforcing that agreement with one another, for the inculcating whereof they are all suggested. I say not the same, nor can of that unity of Baptism, which imports only a single administration of it to one, and the same person; That unity, though it may oblige the person to stick close to his Religion, and to the profession he hath made of it in that one Baptism of his, yet persuading not any adhesion to, or unity with other Baptised persons, than as they may be supposed to partake in common with him in it. But it may be there is more force in what is alleged from our Saviour, where he saith (a) Joh. 13.10. , that he, that is washed, even by a more general washing, needeth not save to wash his feet. And so no doubt there is, if by the former washing be meant the washing of Baptism, as some of the Ancients conceived, and as I have elsewhere (b) Part 2. made it probable. But there is this exception against it, as to the thing we are now about, that it seems to suppose the more general purity procured by it to abide, and men's affections, or actions only to have some pollution in them. Whereas those, concerning whose rebaptisation we entreat, either never had, or have forfeited their baptismal regeneration, or fallen off altogether from that Religion to which it belongs. Now that, which in my opinion ought to have the first place in our thoughts is the no direction there is in Scripture for the repetition of Baptism, where the like Apostasy, or impiety hath happened, but rather a direction to a contrary course. And I instance for the proof thereof in Simon Peter, after he had denied, and forsworn his Master; And in Simon Magus, after he had proceeded to so great a degree of impiety, as to offer the Apostles money for the gift of the Holy Ghost. For to the former of these, even S. Peter, we find no other washing directed, save that (c) Luk. 22.61. of penitential tears; Nay we find him admonished (d) Luk. 22.22. , as well as licenced after that conversion of his to set himself to the strengthening of his brethren. Which in all probability he would not have been without a foregoing Baptism, if our Saviour had meant for the future, that nothing but a new Baptism should be able to convert such Apostates to himself: His passing over so great an Apostasy in a prime disciple of his upon his bare repentance being apt to encourage other men to presume of the same unto themselves. Neither will it avail to say, that this instance will not reach the case, because it doth not appear, that S. Peter was baptised before. For supposing that he were not, which yet (as was heretofore (e) Part 2. observed) in all probability he was, the case of the Rebaptizers will not be rendered better, but rather so much the worse for it. For if he was not baptised before, there was the more reason he should be baptised now, if nothing but a new Baptism generally can wash away Apostasy. The instance of Simon Magus is yet more clear, and unexceptionable, where the regeneration of Baptism hath not been before received, or forfeited after the receiving of it. For that Simon Magus either never received, or had now lost the Baptismal regeneration, is evident from the words of S. Peter to him; That holy man not only cursing him (f) Acts 8.20. for his offer of money, but telling him in express terms, that he had neither lot, nor part in the matter (g) Acts 8.21. of Christianity, and that his heart was not right in the sight of God, in fine that he perceived, that he was in the gall of bitterness (h) Acts 8.23. , and in the bond of iniquity. Which notwithstanding, the same S. Peter directed him only (i) Acts 8.22. to repent of that his wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him. Which how could S. Peter have done, especially in so notorious a case, if a second Baptism had been necessary to wash away that sinful estate, which the former Baptism had not purged, or at lest which had returned after it. My second Argument against the repetition of Baptism is the no necessity of it in either of the foremention'd instances. As will appear whether we consider it as a means of obliging us to that piety, which our Religion requires, or as a means of conveying the graces of it. For in the former notion it is as really, and effectually an obligation to a Christian life in an unsincere person, or one who afterwards apostatizeth, as if it had been never so hearty intended; The obligation thereof arising not from the secret sentiments of the person, that is baptised, or his constancy to his profession, but from the nature of the thing itself, and the Institution of God, that prescribed it. Provided therefore we take upon us the Sacrament itself, we tie ourselves by it without remedy, neither can there therefore be any need of our obliging ourselves by it a second time, unless he, who instituted it, should require it of us. It is true indeed so far as we have departed from it whether by Apostasy, or impiety, so far it will concern us to own it again to our Lord, and Master, by our repentance of the breaches of it, and a repetition of the same vows unto him; And it will concern us too, if the Church requires it, to satisfy that also, that we do so repent, and will amend. But as both the one, and the other may be done without the repetition of our Baptism, so a frank acknowledgement with our mouths, together with the receipt of the Lord's Supper, may very well serve for those purposes, because serving a like to declare them. But it may be, the principal difficulty in this affair lies in what concerns Baptism as a means of conveying the graces of it, and particularly our regeneration, and new birth. And I must confess I was for some time at a loss what to think in it, till I considered that the Sacrament of Baptism was not either a physical cause, or conveyer of Grace, that we should think the grace of it could not be in the receiver of Baptism, unless it were either presently produced in him, or conveyed to him, but a moral instrument thereof, or a means to which God hath annexed the promise of it. For such a one by the favour of that God, who hath annexed the promise of his Grace unto it, may operate at a distance, as well as in presence, and accordingly may convey it to the receiver of Baptism, as well after his Baptism, as together with it, yea convey it after the baptised person hath lost it, as well as it did at first. Which supposed, the only remaining difficulty will be, whether we may reasonably expect it from God, supposing the baptised person to return, and repent. A thing, which they have little reason to question, who believe God to allow a second Baptism upon it, and we shall have far less, if we reflect upon the former instances of Peter, and Simon Magus. For if God will allow of the remedy of a second Baptism upon repentance, why not also allow the first Baptism to be the means of conveying his graces, and our health, and soundness? Especially, when the breaches of it come to be acknowledged, and the vow thereof renewed. And if God accepted of S. Peter upon his bare repentance, and directed Simon Magus to no other remedy, than that, and prayer; We may as well suppose, that if he accept us at all, he will accept us upon that, and our old Baptism, and so make that cooperate to the respective graces of it. These I take to be sufficient Arguments against the repetition of Baptism, and the more, because they also suggest as satisfactory answers to what hath been before alleged for it. For neither can they be looked upon as Heathen, and consequently as standing in need of a new Baptism, who however they may have renounced the old, whether by their Impiety, or Apostasy, yet ever were, and ever will be under the obligation of it. And much less after their repentance, and return can they be thought to want it toward the producing of that regeneration, which they are without: Their former Baptism, through the favour of him who annexed the promise of regeneration to that Sacrament, being as effectual for that purpose, as any new Baptism whatsoever. Baptism is indeed generally necessary to regeneration, it is so necessary that no man living can promise it to himself without it; But if it be of as much value, as necessity, it may, and no doubt will induce him, who is the dispenser of his own graces, to confer it upon a former, as well as upon any new administration of it. FINIS. OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. For a Conclusion of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England. By GABRIEL TOWERSON, D. D. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus, [Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, etc. By Dr. Gabriel Towerson.] H. Maurice RRmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris. Octob. 24. 1687. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVIII. TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Bishop of ELY. My Lord, I Am now at an end of a long, and laborious Work, begun and carried on in the more prosperous times of our Church, but finished with no less Zeal for that Religion, which she professeth, and with an equal, if not greater regard to Your Lordship, who to your own immortal Honour, and the satisfaction of all good Men, have so firmly adhered to it. The Argument, that is now before me, hath (I doubt not) been handled by much better Pens, and, if I may judge by those few Treatises which I have seen, in a way worthy of the Age we live in, and of that Religion, which we have the honour to profess. But whether any one Man hath spoken to the several parts thereof, which is my proper Business, is more than I myself have observed, or received any intimation of from other Men. However, I have been so fearful of transcribing the Conceptions of others, that I have avoided to look into many things, which I myself might have profited by; As conceiving that a Man's own natural thoughts, how slight soever, may be more useful, and acceptable, than a repetition of far better ones of other Men. If, whilst I too eagerly pursue my own thoughts, I sometime happen to stumble, they, who consider the honesty of my Design, will, I hope, be more ready to pity, and pardon, than any way insult over my Infirmities. Which hopes I am the more confirmed in, because I have all along had the Scripture in my Eye, and particularly those parts thereof, which give an account of the Institution of this Sacrament, and by which, if by any thing, we must attain a due understanding of it. If what I have offered upon this, and the other parts of our Church's Catechism, may be so useful to its Members, as to furnish them with a General Idea of the Doctrines it contains, and sufficient Arguments to confirm them, I shall think my Pains to have been as profitably bestowed, as a Man of my Circumstances was capable of employing them: That, which in my poor Opinion hath been the great Bane of the Church of England, being the necessity the Members thereof have been under of laying the foundation of their Knowledge in foreign Systemes, which have not only much alienated their Affections from the Religion professed among us, but so prejudiced their Minds against it, as to make them proof against the greatest Convictions, which the best of our Writers have been able to offer to them. Which therefore if these my Labours may serve in any measure to prevent, I have as much as I desire; But however, shall rest satisfied in this, that I have done the best service I could to the Church of England, and have therefore little left me to do, save to pray for the Prosperity thereof, which is, and shall be the daily employment of Your Lordship's Most Obliged, Most Obedient, and Most Humble Servant, GABRIEL TOWERSON. Wellwyn, March 6. 1687. THE CONTENTS OF THE EXPLICATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. The Contents of the First Part. Of the general Grounds of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism, and of his choice of that of the Lord's Supper in particular. ENquiry first made into the ground of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism; And that shown to be, the Sacrament of Baptism's leaving place for the entering in of new, and gross Errors, and which being not so consistent with the Vow thereof, made it so much the more difficult to believe, that there was any remedy to be had from the Graces of that Sacrament, because forfeited by the violation of its Vow. The want of an undoubted remedy from thence the occasion of providing a new, and, because the former was apparent to our Senses, of a like outward, and visible one. The ground of our Saviour's choice of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in particular shown at large to have been a like usance among the Jews in their more solemn Festivals. Pag. 157. The Contents of the Second Part. Of the Names anciently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reasons of the Imposition of them. THE Lord's Supper anciently one of the Names of this Sacrament, and Evidence made from 1 Cor. 11.20. that S. Paul gave that Name to it, and not to those Agapae, or Love-feasts, that accompanied it. The reason of that Name its being a Feast, though a spiritual one, instituted at Suppertime, and instituted by our Lord. The Eucharist another Name of it, and of like Antiquity with the former, which it received from those Thanksgivings, which were anciently made over it, whether for the Fruits of the Earth, or the Blessing of our Redemption. Breaking of Bread a third Name of the same Sacrament; One Species thereof, and one noted Circumstance about it being by an usual Hebraism set to denote the whole. Enquiry next made into such Names, or Titles of it, as are most insisted on by the Romanists; such as that of The Body of Christ, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Mass. The first whereof this Sacrament is shown to have had from the intimate relation there is between it and the Body of Christ, which it conveys; The second from its containing in it a Thanksgiving for, or Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross; The third from that solemn dismission, which was given to those that attended at it, after that Service was finished. pag. 163. The Contents of the Third Part. Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. THE Story of the Institution first set down out of the Evangelists, and St. Paul, and animadverted upon in the several parts of it. Where, after an account of the time of it, the consequents whereof are also declared, entrance is made with the consideration of the Bread, and both the quality of that Bread, and Christ's taking it, explained. This followed by a more ample declaration of Christ's blessing it, and that Blessing both shown to have the Bread for its object, and to consist in making it useful for the purposes of a Sacrament, or rather in Christ's addressing himself to his Father to make it such. That address of his thereupon carefully enquired into, and (because it appears from St. Luke, and St. Paul to have been by Thanksgiving) enquiry also made what benefits he so gave thanks for, what use that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the blessing desired, and whether it did not also contain some express request to God for the granting of it. Of Christ's breaking the Bread, its signification, and momentousness, as also of his giving it to his Disciples, and requiring them to take, and eat of it. The words, This is my body, next taken into consideration, and more particularly, and minutely explained. Where is shown at large that by the word This must be meant This Bread, and that there is nothing in the gender of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder it; That by body must be meant that body, which Christ now carried about him, and was shortly after to suffer in, and that the sigurativeness of the proposition lies in the word is. Upon occasion whereof is also shown; that that word is oftentime figuratively taken; that it ought to be so taken here, and that accordingly it imports the Bread to be a sign, and a memorial, and a means of partaking of Christ's body. This part of the Institution concluded with an explication of the words, which is given, or broken for you, and a more ample one of Christ's commanding his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him. Where the precept, Do this, is shown to refer to what Christ had before done, or enjoined them to do; And they enjoined so to do, to renew in themselves a grateful remembrance of Christ's death, or prompt other Men to the like remembrance of it. That part of the Institution, which respects the Cup, more succinctly handled, and enquiry made, among other things, into the declaration, which our Saviour makes concerning its being his Blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in it. Where is shown, What that is, which our Saviour affirms to be so, what is meant by his Blood of the New Testament, or The New Testament in it, and how the Cup, or rather the Wine of it was that Blood of his, or the New Testament in it. pag. 173. The Contents of the Fourth Part. Of the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper. BRead and Wine ordinarily the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper, and the Heresy of the Aquarii upon that account enquired into, and censured. The kind of Bread and Wine enjoined, in the next place examined, and a more particular Enquiry thereupon, Whether the Wine ought to be mixed with Water, and what was the Ground of the Ancients Practise in this Affair. The same Elements considered again with respect to Christ's Body and Blood, whether as to the Usage that Body, and Blood of his received, when he was subjected unto Death; or as to the Benefit, that was intended, and accrued to us by them. In the former of which Notions they become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood, by what is done to them before they come to be administered, and by the separate administration of them. In the latter, by the use they are of to nourish, and refresh us. Of the Obligation the Faithful are under to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, and a resolution of those Arguments, that are commonly alleged to justify the Romish Churches depriving them of the Cup. pag. 197. The Contents of the Fifth Part. Of the inward Part of the Lord's Supper, or the thing signified by it. THE inward Part of the Lord's Supper, or the thing signified by it, is either what is signified on the part of God, and Christ, or on the part of the Receiver of it. The former of these brought under Consideration, and shown to be the Body and Blood of Christ, not as they were at, or before the Institution of this Sacrament, or as they now are, but as they were at the time of his Crucifixion, as moreover then offered up unto God, and offered up to him also as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. The Consequences of that Assertion briefly noted, both as to the presence of that Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, and our perception of them. The things signified on the part of the Receiver in the next place considered, and these shown to be, First, a thankful Remembrance of the Body, and Blood of Christ considered as before described. Secondly, our Communion with those, who partake with us of that Body, and Blood. Thirdly, a Resolution to live, and act as becomes those, that are partakers of them. The two latter of these more particularly insisted on, and that Communion, and Resolution not only shown from the Scripture to be signified on the part of the Receiver, but confirmed by the Doctrine, and Practice of the Ancient Church. pag. 213. The Contents of the sixth Part. What farther relation the Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the Body, and Blood of Christ. THE outward Part, or Sign of this Sacrament considered with a more particular regard to the Body, and Blood of Christ, and Enquiry accordingly made, what farther relation it beareth to it. That it is a Means, whereby we receive the same, as well as a Sign thereof, shown from the Doctrine of our Church, and that Doctrine confirmed by Saint Paul's entitling it the Communion of Christ's Body, and Blood, and by his affirming Men to be made to drink into one Spirit by partaking of the Cup of it. Enquiry next made, what kind of Means this Sign of the Lord's Supper is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Christ, and how we receive them by it. To each of which Answer is made from the Doctrine of our Church, and that Answer farther confirmed by the Doctrine of the Scripture. The sum of which is, that this Sign of the Lord's Supper is, so far forth, a Mean spiritual, and heavenly; That it conveys the Body, and Blood of Christ to us, by prompting us to reflect, as the Institution requires, upon that Body, and Blood of his, and by prompting God, who hath annexed them to the due use of the Sign, to bestow that Body, and Blood upon us; In fine, that we receive them by the Sign thereof, when we take occasion from thence to reflect upon that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was intended to represent, and particularly with Faith in them. What Benefits we receive by Christ's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquired, and as they are resolved by our Catechism to be the strengthening, and refreshing of the Soul, so Enquiry thereupon made what is meant by the strengthening, and refreshing of the Soul, what Evidence there is of Christ's Body and Blood being intended for it, and how they effect it. The Sign of the Lord's Supper a Pledge to assure us of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as a Means, whereby we receive them. pag. 219. The Contents of the Seventh Part. Of Transubstantiation. THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation briefly deduced from the Council of Trent, and digested into four capital Assertions. Whereof the first is, that the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood. The grounds of this Assertion examined both as to the possibility, and actual being of such a change. What is alledg●d for the former of these from the substantial changes mentioned in the Scripture of no force in this particular, because there is no appearance of the actual existing of those things, into which the change was made at the instant the other were changed into them. As little force shown to be in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements, whether we consider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread, and Wine, or The thing I now give you. That supposed change farther impugned by such Scriptures, as represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration, by the concurrent Testimony of Sense, and the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers. Enquiry next made into that Assertion, which imports, that the substances of the Sacramental Elements are so changed, as to retain nothing of what they were before, save only the Species thereof. Where is shown, that if nothing of their respective Substances remain, there must be an annihilation, rather than a change, and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them, either from the nature of those Species, the words of Consecration, or the Testimony of Sense. That the true Body, and true Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, a third Capital Assertion in this Matter, but hath as little ground in the words of Consecration, as either of the former. First, because those words relate not to Christ's glorified Body, and Blood, which are the things affirmed to be contained under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, but to Christ's Body, as broken, and to his Blood as shed at his Crucifixion. Secondly, because however they may import the being of that Body, and Blood in the Eucharist, yet they specify nothing as to the modus of it, and much less intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof. That that Body, and Blood (which is the fourth Capital Assertion in this Matter) are truly, really, and substantially under the Sacramental Species, shown to be as groundless; and Evidence made of the contrary by such Arguments from Sense, and Reason, as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation. Some brief Reflections in the close upon the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament, and more large ones upon what the Romanists advance concerning the real eating of him in it. Where is shown that that, which they call a real eating, is a very improper one, that it is however of no necessity, or use toward our spiritual nourishment by him, and not only no way confirmed by the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel, but abundantly confuted by it. pag. 227. The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of Consubstantiation. AN account of that Doctrine, which is by us called Consubstantiation, out of the Augustan Confession, and Gerhard; And as it is founded by him, and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, so Enquiry thereupon made first, whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense; Secondly, whether, if so taken, Consubstantiation can be inferred from them. That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavoured by the Lutherans to be proved by general, and special Arguments, and those Arguments therefore proposed, and answered. What is alleged in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to be preferred before the figurative, willingly allowed; But that no exception ought to be made, unless where the Scripture itself obligeth us to departed from the literal sense, shown to be neither true in itself, nor pertinent to the present Texts, because there is enough in the words, that follow them, to oblige us to prefer the figurative sense before it. The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration, and First that, which is drawn from the supposed newness, and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first, and which consequently required, that they should be delivered in proper, and literal Expressions, as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them. Where is shown, that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new, and strange things at the first Institution of them, as is pretended (There having been the like under the Old Testament) nor under any necessity, if they had been such, of being delivered in literal, and proper Expressions, because figurative Expressions, with a Key to open them, might have sufficiently declared the nature of them. What is urged in the second place from the nature of a Testament, under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20. to have been instituted, shown to be of as little force; Partly, because it is justly questionable, whether what we there render Testament, ought not rather to be rendered a Covenant; and partly because even Civil Testaments are shown to admit of figurative Expressions. A short Answer made to what is alleged in the third, and fourth place from the Majesty of him, that instituted this Sacrament, and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists, and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question; And a more full one to what is offered in the fifth place to show the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject, Predicate, or Copula. The Copula, or the word [Is] thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in, and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logic, and from the Scripture. That the literal Sense is not, as is pretended in the sixth Argument, the only one that can quiet the Mind, or secure the Conscience, briefly shown; And Enquiry next made, whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allowed, consubstantiation could be inferred from them. Which that it cannot, is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This, to denote that complexum quid, which Consubstantiation advanceth. p. 249. The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the foundation of that relation, which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper. THE foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of this Sacrament, shown from some former Discourses, to be the Institution of Christ, not so much as delivered by him, as applied to those Elements, that are to put it on, by the Minister's executing the Commands of it, and Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof. What is the foundation of this relation, on the part of the former, the subject of the present Enquiry, and his pronouncing the words, Hoc est corpus meum, and, Hic est calix, etc. shown not to be it, from the insufficiency of those grounds, on which it is built. What is urged in the behalf of those words more particularly considered, and evidence made, that as there wants not in the Prayers, and Praises of the Communion-Office, that which may tend to the founding of this Relation, so that the words, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. neither now have, nor, when Christ himself used them, had in them the power of producing it. What the true foundation of this relation is, or what that is, which consecrates those Elements, which are to put it on, endeavoured to be made out from some former Discourses; And those Elements accordingly considered, either as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body, and Blood, or as being to become also a Means of Communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. The former of these relations brought about by a declaration of those Purposes, for which the Elements are intended, whether in the words of the Institution, or any other; The latter by Thanksgiving, and Prayer. The usefulness of this Resolution to compromise the Quarrels, that have arisen in this Argument upon occasion of what the Ancients have said on the one hand for attributing the Power of Consecration to the Prayers, and Thanksgivings of the Priest, and, on the other hand, to the words of the Institution; Those Quarrels being easily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Institution rather as applied, than as delivered, and as applied also by Prayer, and Thanksgiving, more than by the rehearsal of it. pag. 261. The Contents of the Tenth Part. Of the right Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. ENtrance made with enquiring, How this Sacrament ought to be administered, and therein again whether that Bread, wherewith it is celebrated, aught to be broken, and whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution, or otherwise to make an offering unto God of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken, as that too for the better representation of the breaking of Christ's Body, asserted against the Lutherans, and their Arguments against it produced, and answered. Whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise, to make an offering to God of Christ's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquired into, and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair, consideration had of those grounds, upon which the Fathers of that Council establish it. The words, Do this in remembrance of me, more particularly animadverted upon, and shown not to denote such an Offering, whether they be considered, as referring to the several things before spoken of, and particularly to what Christ himself had done or enjoined the Apostles to do, or as referring only to that Body, and Blood, which immediately precede them. In which last Consideration of them is made appear, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may as well, and more naturally signify make; That there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing, or, if there were, that it must import rather a Commemorative, than Expiatory one. What is alleged by the same Council from Christ's Melchizedekian Priesthood, etc. more briefly considered, and answered; And that Sacrifice, which the Council advanceth, shown in the close, to be inconsistent with itself, contrary to the present state of our Lord, and Saviour, and more derogatory to that Sacrifice, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross. The whole concluded with enquiring, To whom this Sacrament ought to be administered, and particularly, whether it either aught, or may lawfully be administered to Infants. Where the Arguments of Bishop Taylor, for the lawfulness of Communicating Infants are produced, and answered, and particularly what he allegeth from Infants being admitted to Baptism, though they are no more qualified for it, than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. pag. 267 The Contents of the Eleventh Part. How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be received. THE receipt of this Sacrament supposed by the present Question, and that therefore first established against the Doctrine of those, who make the supposed Sacrifice thereof to be of use to them, who partake not Sacramentally of it. Enquiry next made, How we ought to prepare ourselves for it, how to demean ourselves at the celebration of it, and in what Posture to receive it. The preparation taken notice of by our Catechism the Examination of ourselves, whether we truly repent us of our sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new Life, etc. and the both necessity, and means of that Examination accordingly declared. The examination of our Repentance more particularly insisted upon, and that shown to be most advantageously made by enquiring how we have gained upon those sins, which we profess to repent of, and particularly upon our most prevailing ones, which how they are to be discovered, is therefore enquired into, and the marks, whereby they are to be known, assigned, and explained. A transition from thence to the examination of the steadfastness of our Purposes to lead a new Life, of our Faith in God through Christ, our remembrance of his Death, and Charity; Where the necessity of that Examination is evinced, and the Means whereby we may come to know whether we have those Qualifications in us, discovered, and declared. How we ought to demean ourselves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquired into, and that shown to be by intending that Service, wherewith it is celebrated, and suiting our Affections to the several parts of it. The whole concluded with enquiring, in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be received; Where is shown, first, that the Ancients, so far as we can judge by their Writings, received in a posture of Adoration, and particularly, in the posture of standing; Secondly, that several of the Reformed Churches receive in that, or the like posture, and that those, that do not, do not condemn those that do; Thirdly, that there is nothing in the Example of Christ, and his Disciples at the first Celebration of this Supper, to oblige us to receive it sitting, nor yet in what is alleged from the suitableness of that Posture to a Feast, and consequently to the present one: This, as it is a Feast of a different nature from common ones, and therefore not to receive Laws from them, so the receipt thereof intended to express the grateful resentment we have of the great Blessing of our Redemption, and stir up other Men to the like resentment of it; Neither of which can so advantageously be done, as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in such a posture of Body, as shows the regard we have for him, who is the Author of it. pag. 289. ERRATA In the Text. PAge 158. line 36. r. they had. p. 160. l. antep. from of old. p. 174. l. 26. a Transubstantiation. ib. l. 34. too. p. 190. l. 1. for hardly r. barely. p. 202. l. 38. after Saviour add in S Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Paul. p. 231. l. 45. r. opinion. p. 234. l. 4. for Blood r. what. ib. l. 5. for what r. Blood. p. 241. l. 12. r. corporally. p. 242. l. 46. for door r. doer. p. 247. l. 21, 22. for ●e receive him with Faith r. when we receive it by Faith. p. 265. l. 29. r. interlaced. p. 272. l. 19 after manner add with Christ. ib. l. 22. r. which follows. p. 287. l. 25. for their r. the. p. 296. l. 2. after he add thereby. p. 301. l. 37. r. had had. In the Margin. Page 195. lin. 4. Sacraments. p. 242. l. 1. for 17. r. 7. OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. PART I. Of the general Grounds of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism, and of his choice of that of the Lord's Supper in particular. The Contents. Enquiry first made into the ground of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism; And that shown to be, the Sacrament of Baptism's leaving place for the entering in of new, and gross Errors, and which being not so consistent with the Vow thereof, made it so much the more difficult to believe, that there was any remedy to be had from the Graces of that Sacrament, because forfeited by the violation of its Vow. The want of an undoubted remedy from thence the occasion of providing a new, and, because the former was apparent to our Senses, of a like outward, and visible one. The ground of our Saviour's choice of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in particular shown at large to have been a like usance among the Jews in their more solemn Festivals. BEING now to enter upon the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the only Sacrament beside Baptism, that our Church allows, or indeed that Christianity knows, I think it but necessary to premise something concerning the general grounds of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism, and of his choice of the Lord's Supper in particular; Concerning the names, that were anciently given to that Sacrament; And concerning the Institution of it: Each of these being of use toward the discovery of the nature of that, which I am now upon the investigation of. That which seems to me to have been the general ground of our Saviour's instituting another Sacrament after Baptism, is that first Sacrament's leaving place for the entering in of new, and gross Errors, and consequently a kind of necessity, on the part of Christ, of new sensible means, and assurances of that Grace, which is to remove them, and a like necessity, on our part, of such new declarations of our renouncing our former Errors, and giving up ourselves to his Service. For though Baptism (as was before * Expl. of Bapt. Part 6. observed) profess to mortify our Corruptions, and regenerate our Natures; Though it do it in such a measure as to make us Conquerors over the former, and change the latter for the main into pious, and holy: Yet as it leaves place † Expl. of the Lord's Prayer, in the words, Forgive us, etc. in the best of Men for new Errors to enter in, and which accordingly they are enjoined to ask daily the forgiveness of; so it is equally apparent from the experience of the World, and from the care the Scripture * 2 Cor. 2.6. Gal. 6.2. takes for the restoring of lapsed men, that Baptism doth not so reform men's Natures, but that through the prevalency of temptations, or their own carelessness they may fall into great and scandalous Errors, and such as cannot therefore be supposed to be consistent with that Holiness, which in Baptism they made profession of. Now as in such a case it is easy to see, that men would have been apt to despond, if they had had nothing but their Baptism to trust to, because having by the breach of their Baptismal Vow forfeited their title to the Graces of it: So it seemed therefore little less than necessary to have some new Remedy assigned them, and such as should be as apparent to their sense, as their former was, as which otherwise could not have been so satisfactory to them. For by the same reason that it came to be thought needful to make use of sensible means to convey, or assure to mankind God's Pardon, and Grace upon their first conversion to Christianity; By the same, or a greater Reason it must be judged to be so to make use of the like sensible means to convey, or assure the same Grace, and Pardon, after men have in any measure forfeited the interest they have in the other. By the same reason again that it came to be thought needful to exact of us sensible declarations of our renouncing the Errors of our unconverted estate, and giving up ourselves to Christ's service; By the same, or a greater Reason must it be judged to be so to exact of us the like sensible declarations, after we have by our disobedience departed from, and prevaricated the former ones. It is true indeed Christ might, if he had so pleased (For no man dreams of any absolute necessity of either) have conveyed, and assured to us the divine Pardon, and Grace by the sole Ministry of his Word; And he might too have received us to both upon the like verbal declarations from ourselves: But as he might as well have done both upon our first conversion to Christianity, and yet chose rather to do it by the mediation of Baptism; So if there were any reason for the former (as to be sure Christ doth not act without one) there is equal reason for the latter, and an equal necessity consequently of his instituting another Sacrament after Baptism to supply those defects, which Baptism could not so well provide for. Sure I am, whilst the Precepts of Christianity were yet fresh in the minds of men, and they therefore as sensible of the least violations of them; such was their opinion of the necessity of another Sacrament after Baptism, that they passed immediately from that (a) Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and (which is more) were so intent upon it, that no day passed them without the receipt of it, but however no day, wherein there was an opportunity of assembling themselves for the public Worship of God, and celebrating the other parts of it. But because the former defects might have been provided for by other Sacraments, and those defects therefore no proper ground of Christ's choice of this particular one; Therefore it will be requisite for us to find out some other ground of it, and which, all things considered, cannot better be fixed, than in an usage of the Jews, and which being so, might with their better liking be converted by him into a Sacrament, and more readily received and embraced. From Paulus Fagius we have it, as I find it both in himself (b) Annot. in Deut. 8.10. , and in Cassander (c) Liturgic. in initio. , that in the more solemn Feasts of the Jews the Father of the Family presently after his sitting down with his Guests took a Cup full of Wine in his right hand, praying over it in these words, Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, who createst the Fruit of the Vine. Which said, he first of all tasted of it himself, and then reached it out to all, that sat with him. Presently after he took a Loaf of Bread, and holding it with both his hands consecrated it in these words, Blessed be thou O Lord our God, who bringest Food out of the Earth. Which said, he broke it, and after he had eaten a piece of it himself, gave the like to each that sat with him. Thus that Learned Man informs us, that the Father of the Family did at their sitting down at their more solemn Feasts; As after the Feast was over, that he, or some other person, to whom he committed it, taking a second time a Cup full of Wine into both his hands, prayed, Let us bless him, who hath fed us of his own, and by whose goodness we live: Passing on from thence to other Blessings, and Prayers, and particularly to bless God for the Food, which he had afforded to them all, and for all the Benefits bestowed either on their Fathers, or themselves, and to pray unto him in like manner for the state of their Nation, for the restoring of Jerusalem, for the coming of Elias, and the Messiah, and particularly for their Domestics, and Kindred. After which the same person began as before, Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, who createst the Fruit of the Vine, and thereupon again drank a little of the Wine himself, and then gave it in order to his Guests. Now as it is easy to guests by the likeness there is between our Sacrament, and this Usance, that our Sacrament, or rather the Author thereof took his Pattern from thence, if that Usance be ancienter than the Sacrament itself; So there is just ground to believe it was, both from what we find in St. Luke's account of Christ's celebration of the Passover, and this Sacrament, and from the manner wherewith this Sacrament was celebrated in the first Ages of Christianity. For St. Luke in his account of the former Solemnities takes notice of our Saviour's taking a Cup, giving thanks over it, and distributing it among his Disciples (d) Luke 22.17, 18. with this farther Remark, that he said he would not drink any more of the fruit of the vine (the particular title here used) until the kingdom of God should come. And the Ancients in their mention of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, speak of the Symbols thereof as alike intended for memorial of their thankfulness to God for the Blessings of this World, as well as for the Blessing of their Redemption. For thus Justin Martyr first affirms the Bread of the Eucharist to have been given by our Saviour to us (e) Dial. cum. Tryph. pag. 260.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that we might at the same time give thanks to God for having made the World with all things in it, for the sake of Man, and for delivering us from the evil, in which we sometime were, by him, whom he made passable for us. As Irenaeus (f) Adu. haeres. lib. 4. c. 32. Sed & suis discipulis dans consilium primitias deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum, qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in novo Testamento. in like manner, that Christ giving his Disciples counsel to offer to God the First-fruits of his Creatures, not as to one, that wanted them, but that they themselves might not be ungrateful, or unfruitful, he took Bread, and gave thanks, saying, This is my Body. And the Cup in like manner, which is of that Creature, which is according to us, he confessed to be his Blood, and taught a new oblation of the New Testament. Which Oblation the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers in all the World to God, even to him who gives us Food, the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament. Agreeable hereto is that of Origen, though not so clearly expressed as the former passages were. For these Reasons, saith he (g) Contr. Cells. lib. 8. p. 399. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , Let Celsus, who knows not God, pay the testimonies of his thanks to Devils, even for the Benefits of this World. But we being desirous to please the maker of the Universe, eat even those Loaves, which are offered with Thanksgiving, and Prayer over the things bestowed upon us, being now made by Prayer a certain Holy Body, and one which sanctifies those, who use it with a good intention: Plainly intimating by the opposition he there makes between Celsus' paying the testimonies of his thanks to Devils for the Benefits of this World, and our eating of the Eucharistical Bread with respect to the maker of the Universe, that the Christians of old eaten of it with regard to the Creation of the World, and the Benefits thereof, as well as with respect to the redemption of it by the Body of his Son. Now from whence, I pray, considering the no intimation there is of any such thing in the Institution of Christ, or Saint Paul's rehearsal of it; from whence, I say, that regard to the Creation of the World, and the Benefits thereof, but from those Thanksgivings, which from old descended to them from the Jews, together with the Institution of Christ? And which being so will prove the Usance before remembered not to have been the Usance of the latter Jews only, but of those, who were as old as our Saviour's time, and that Passover, which he celebrated among them. Add hereunto, what is apparent from the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, the Prayers of the Eucharist descending to such Intercessions for all sorts of men, as the Prayers of the Jews over their Eucharist appear to have done. For these are a yet farther proof of the Antiquity of that Jewish Service, and that our Saviour copied his own Institution by it. What use these Observations may be of, will be more fit to declare elsewhere, neither shall I therefore at this time set myself to the investigation of it. At present I desire only it may be remembered, that in this Exemplar of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper both the one, and the other Element thereof were consecrated with Thanksgivings, and the Bread of it, though consecrated in the mass or lump, was yet carefully broken off from it in order to a distribution of it; That as the Cup, as well as the Bread had a place in that Eucharist, so it was alike distributed among the Communicants, yea distributed at the end, as well as at the beginning of that Solemnity; In fine, that the Ancient Fathers looked upon our Eucharist as in part of the same nature with it, and accordingly both represented it as an Eucharist for the Fruits of the Earth, and professed to eat of the Bread of it, after it was become the Body of Christ, as a testimony of their thankfulness to God for the other. PART II. Of the Names anciently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reasons of the Imposition of them. The Contents. The Lord's Supper anciently one of the Names of this Sacrament, and Evidence made from 1 Cor. 11.20. that S. Paul gave that Name to it, and not to those Agapae, or Love-feasts, that accompanied it. The reason of that Name its being a Feast, though a spiritual one, instituted at Suppertime, and instituted by our Lord. The Eucharist another Name of it, and of like Antiquity with the former, which it received from those Thanksgivings, which were anciently made over it, whether for the Fruits of the Earth, or the Blessing of our Redemption. Breaking of Bread a third Name of the same Sacrament; One Species thereof, and one noted Circumstance about it being by an usual Hebraism set to denote the whole. Enquiry next made into such Names, or Titles of it, as are most insisted on by the Romanists; such as that of The Body of Christ, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Mass. The first whereof this Sacrament is shown to have had from the intimate relation there is between it and the Body of Christ, which it conveys; The second from its containing in it a Thanksgiving for, or Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross; The third from that solemn dismission, which was given to those that attended at it, after that Service was finished. THAT, which comes next in order to be considered, is the Names anciently given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with the Reasons of the Imposition of them. Both which I will the more accurately consider, because Names being intended for the declaration of those things, which they are set to denote, some light may accrue from thence toward the discovery of the nature of that, which we are upon the investigation of. Now the first Name I shall take notice of is that of the Lord's Supper, because a name given to it by ourselves, and by the rest of the Reformed also. But with what regret of the Romanists, Baronius' * Annal. Eccl. Ad. Ann. Christ. 34. Num. 45. charging the Reformed with the abuse of it, and Maldonate's † Not. in Mat. 26.26. affirming it to be done without any Authority from Scripture, or Ancient Authors, doth sufficiently declare. How much Maldonate was out in what he said as to Ancient Authors, I refer myself to Isaac Casaubon ‖ Exercit. 16. s. 32. , who hath said enough to wipe off that calumny. It shall suffice me to establish that title of the Lord's Supper from the Authority of St. Paul, where he tells his Corinthians (a) 1 Cor. 11.20. that what they did, when they came together, was not to eat the Lord's Supper. For though that, which he reproves in them, even (b) 1 Cor. 11.21. every one's taking before other his own Supper, pertained not to the nature, or substance of the Sacrament, and so may seem to refer the title of the Lord's Supper, rather to those Agapae, or Love-feasts, that then accompanied it, than to the Sacrament itself; Yet will it not from thence follow, but that we may, and aught to understand St. Paul there of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the Corinthians violating it by that means. That we may understand St. Paul there of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the Corinthians violating it by taking before other their own Supper, is probable first from what St. Paul affirms, both here (c) 1 Cor. 11.10. and elsewhere (d) 1 Cor. 3.4. concerning their divisions, and from the proof they gave of it in their taking before other their own Supper. For being divided into several factions, and such as were each of them under their peculiar head, it is not unlikely but they, who took before other their own Supper, took before other in their respective parties the sacred Mysteries also, and so did yet more nearly offend against the sanctity of that Sacrament, and gave occasion to St. Paul to tell them, that that was not to eat of it. But let us suppose that that was not the fault of the Corinthians, but only their taking before other their own supper only; Yet will not that hinder but St. Paul might tell them, that that was not to eat the Lord's Supper, yea though he understood only the Sacrament thereof. Because, secondly, those Agapae, or Love-feasts (if it be lawful so to call the Feasts of these Corinthians) being joined with the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, did by that very conjunction of theirs cast a blemish upon that Sacrament, wherewith they were so conjoined. And what then should hinder St. Paul from telling them, that that was not to eat the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but rather contrary to it, because by that near conjunction of theirs offering a particular affront to it? Which reason will be yet more valuable, if we consider, Thirdly, That the principal end of these Men's coming together in the Church, yea to those very Agapae in it, was to celebrate the Sacrament, and other such exercises of piety, and devotion. For being so, what was found to be contrary to that end was so much the more necessary to be taken notice of, and they, who were guilty of it (as they ought to be) reproached with it. But why stand I so long to prove that we may understand St. Paul in that place of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, yea though what is said concerning it relate more immediately to the abuse of their Agapae? For there wants not reason enough to believe, that we ought to understand St. Paul of it, as well as have liberty to do so. Partly, because that title belongs not at all to those Love-feasts, as being not instituted by Christ, but taken up, as is probable, in imitation of the Jews, who celebrated their Eucharist at Feasts, or in imitation of our Saviour's celebrating his at the Feast of the Passover; But more especially because St. Paul presseth the Corinthians there with the first institution of the Eucharist (e) 1 Cor. 11.23. , and calls upon them to reflect upon, and consider it. For to what purpose all that, unless that were the Lord's Supper he spoke of before, and which he affirmed their practice to be contrary to the due eating of? And I shall only add, that as that notion of the Lord's Supper is the more reasonable to be embraced here, because St. Paul but just before (f) 1 Cor. 10.21. represented this Sacrament as the Table of the Lord; So there was reason enough for the imposition of that name upon it, whether we do consider it as a Feast, a Supper-feast, or a Supper-feast of the Lord: Because intended as a Communion of that Body, and Blood, by which we are to be nourished to eternal life, instituted at first at Supper time, and both instituted by, and intended for a Commemoration of our Lord. Next to the name of the Lord's Supper, reckon we that of the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, for so the word Eucharist imports. A name thought to have been given to it in the time of the Writel of the New Testament, but however following close after it. For thus they are wont to interpret what we find in St. Paul (g) 1 Cor. 14.16, 17. , where he disputes against praying in an unknown tongue. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy Eucharist, or giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks, or celebratest the Eucharist well, but the other is not edified. Where we have not only the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are made use of to denote what our Saviour did to the Elements of this Sacrament, but an intimation of that Amen, which we shall understand afterwards from Justin Martyr to be returned to the office of it. However that be, most certain it is that this name of Eucharist followed presently upon those times, as appears by the familiar use of it in Ignatius' Epistles. For thus he tells us in one place (h) Ep. ad Smyrn. pag. 5. ed Voss. , That certain heretics abstained from the Eucharist, and prayer, because they confessed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. And presently after (i) ib. pag. 6. , Let that Eucharist be accounted firm, which is under the Bishop, or to whom he shall commit it. As without whom (as it follows) it is not lawful to Baptise, or celebrate a Love-feast, but only what he shall approve. In fine (saith the same Ignatius elsewhere (k) Ep. ad Phil. pag. 40. ) endeavour therefore to use one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup for the union of his Blood. Agreeable hereto, that I may not now descend any lower, was the language of Justin Martyr's time, as may appear from these following testimonies; Where he doth not only show this to have been the name of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but acquaints us with the reasons of their so denominating it. After prayers (saith he) (l) Apol. 2. pag. 97. are done, we salute one another. Then is offered to him, who presides over the Brethren, Bread, and a cup of Water and Wine. Which he taking, sendeth forth praise, and glory to the Father of the Universe, through the name of the Son, and Holy Ghost, and maketh a large Thanksgiving unto God, for that we have been made worthy of these things by him. Having thus completed the prayers, and Thanksgiving, all the people present signify their Assent to it by an Amen, which in the Hebrew Tongue is as much as, So be it. After that the Precedent hath thus given thanks, and the people answered Amen, they, who among us are called Deacons, give to every one, that is present, of that Bread, and Wine, and Water, over which thanks hath been given, and carry it to those that are absent. And this Food (saith he) is among us called the Eucharist, to wit because of the Thanksgivings before remembered. To the like purpose doth the same Father discourse elsewhere (m) Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. pag. 259, etc. , speaking still of the same Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And that offering of fine flower, which was delivered to be offered for those, that were cleansed from the Leprosy, was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ our Lord commanded us to celebrate in remembrance of that passion, which he suffered for those, that are cleansed in their Souls from all the wickedness of Men; That we might at the same time give thanks, or keep an Eucharist to God both for his having made the World, and all things in it for the sake of man, and for his having delivered us from that wickedness, in which we sometime were, and having perfectly dissolved Principalities and Powers, by him, who was made passable according to his will. From which places it is evident, that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had at that time the title of the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, so it received its name from those Thanksgivings, which were used over the Elements thereof, and which what they were I shall in another place have a more fit occasion to inquire. All I desire to observe at present is, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper receiving one of its most noted names from those Thanksgivings, that were used over the Elements thereof, we are in reason to think that those Thanksgivings contribute in a great measure to that saving nature, and efficacy they put on. I may not forget to add, because that seems as ancient as any, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was also known by the name of breaking of Bread; Not only the Syriack version, but reason also obliging us so to understand St. Luke, where he tells us that the first Converts of the Apostles (n) Acts 2.42. continued steadfast in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in prayer; As again of the Disciples of Ephesus (o) Acts 20.7. , that they came together on the first day of the week to break Bread. For what other breaking of Bread can we understand there, where it is joined with the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and prayers, and moreover made the special business of the Assemblies of that day, which was from the beginning set apart for the honour, and service of Almighty God? Agreeable hereto was the language of Ignatius' time, as appears by this following testimony: He describing those (p) ep. ad Ephes. pag. 29. , who communicate with the Bishop, and his Presbytery in the exercises of Religion, as breaking that one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, an antidote against death, and a means of living in Jesus Christ for ever. And it had no doubt its original from the Hebrews manner of speaking, who (as I have elsewhere (q) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer, in the words, Give us this day out daily Bread. shown) under the title of Bread comprehended the whole of their entertainments, and from the breaking of the Bread of the Eucharist's being one special ceremony about it, and intended (as St. Paul remarks) (r) 1 Cor. 11.24. to signify the Breaking of Christ's body. After which, if any Man can think fit to make use of such like passages to justify a Communion in one kind, he may as well hope to show, that even the Feasts of the Hebrews (for of such I have shown (s) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer ubi supra. the word Bread to be used) were dry entertainments, or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks were only drinking one's. But because it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had other kind of names of old, and such as may seem to be of a higher strain, than any I have as yet assigned; And because Cardinal Baronius (t) Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 34. n. 48. etc. hath insisted much on them to justify from thence the Doctrine of his Church concerning it; Therefore I will instance in three, on which he seems to lay the greatest stress, I mean those of the Body of Christ, an Oblation, or Sacrifice, and the Mass. That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had anciently the name of the Body of Christ, several places are alleged out of Tertullian, and two in particular out of his book the Oratione, * cap. ult. Similiter & stationum di●bus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum deo, obsequium Eucharistia resolvit, an magis deo obligat? Nun solennior erit statio tua, si ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini, & reservato, utrumque salunm est, & participatio sacrificii & executio officii. which cannot be otherwise understood. And God forbidden, that any should deny that name to the element, which Christ himself hath declared to be his Body. But as the question is not, Whether the outward element either is, or hath been called by the name of Christ's Body, but in what sense we are to understand it either to be, or to be so called: so what Tertullian meant, is evident from what he saith upon that argument against Martion, who made our Saviour's natural body to have been a fantastical one Therefore (saith he † Adu. Marc. lib. 4. c. 40. Professus itaque se concupiscentiû concupisse edere Pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus illum suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non suisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. ) professing himself with desire to have desired to eat that Passover as his own (for it were unworthy that God should desire that, which is another's) he made that Bread, which he took, and distributed to his disciples, to be his own Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. Now it could not have been a figure, unless the body were of truth. But an empty thing, such as a phantasm is, could not be capable of any figure. Now can any Man think after this, that Tertullian, when he called the Eucharist the Body of Christ, understood it to be such in propriety of speech? Or that they do other than transubstantiate his, and the Church's meaning, who make such an inference from his words? His, I say, who made the words, This is my Body, to signify, This is the figure of my Body, and argued against Martion from that very figure, the reality of that Body, of which it was one. How much more proper had it been for Tertullian, if he had so understood this title of the Eucharist, or our Saviour's words, to have pressed him with the Eucharist's being in truth, and in the sense of the Church his true and substantial body, and therefore also, because the same with that, which was given for us, that that was a true, and substantial one? or rather, how much more proper had it been for that Father not at all to have argued from Christ's body there? Lest Martion seeing no true, and substantial body of a Man in it, he should have been more confirmed in his opinion of Christ's having had only an imaginary one? But as it appears from hence, that Tertullian had not so gross a conceit of that August Title, which was given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; So that Title had, no doubt, its original from the intimate relation there is between the sign, and the thing signified by it: It being not unusual, or improper to give unto the sign the name of the thing signified, but especially to such a sign as is also a conveyer of those Blessings it declares. For thus Baronius himself observes out of St. Augustine * De peccat. merit. lib. 1. c. 24. Optimè Punici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quàm salutem, & Sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quàm vitam vocant. , That the Carthaginian Christians called Baptism itself health, or salvation, and the Sacrament of the body of Christ, life. Which they could not be in any other sense, than as the means of the conveyance of them, or (as St. Paul expresseth it concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) the Communion, or Communication of them. For from whence (as the same St. Augustine † Vnde nisi ex antiquâ, ut existimo, & Apostolicâ traditione, quâ Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum, & participationem dominicae mensae non solum non ad regnum Dei, sed nee ad salutem, & vitam aeternam posse quenquaem hominum pervenire. goes on) those titles of Salvation, and Life, but from an ancient and Apostolical Tradition in the Church, That no Man can come to salvation, and eternal life without the participation of those Sacraments; any more than he can do to the kingdom of God? But because the forementioned Baronius tells us that the Sacrament, whereof we speak, had also the name of an Oblation, or Sacrifice, as that too because of the offering there made for sin, or an expiatory one; Therefore it will be necessary for us to go on to inquire into that name, and so much the rather, because the same Author is so copious in his Quotations concerning it. And I readily grant that this Sacrament is frequently so called by the Ancients, but that it was called so for the reason alleged, is utterly denied, neither can there be produced any convincing proof of it. The utmost, that is said by those, who are the most ancient, is, that it is an Eucharistical oblation, as that too for the blessings of this World, and particularly for the fruits of the earth, as well as for the blessing of our Redemption. And to that purpose, and no other are the say before quoted out of Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and Origen. Which how they agree with their designs, who represent this Sacrament as an expiatory Oblation, or Sacrifice, I shall leave to all indifferent Men to judge. And though it be true, that some of those, who followed, spoke in another strain, and represented it also as an oblation for the benefit of the Offerers, and others, as well as an Eucharistical oblation for benefits received; yet it is evident from Mr. Mede, (u) Disc. on Mal. 1.11. cap. 9 that the Ancients meant no more by that Oblation, or Sacrifice, than a Commemorative one, by that sacred rite of Bread and Wine representing to God, and the Father, the expiatory Sacrifice of his Son upon the Cross, and as it were putting him in mind of it, that so he would for the sake of that Son, and the valuableness of his sacrifice be propitious to them, and to all those, whom they recommended to his grace, and favour. And indeed as it is not difficult to conceive, that they, who meant no more, when they called the Eucharist the body of Christ, than its being a figure, and a memorial, and a means of its conveyance, meant no more, when they entitled it a sacrifice, than a Commemoration of that great one, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross; So it is evident that St. Cyprian, (with whose authority Baronius gins his proofs) meant no more, than such a Commemorative Sacrifice. For in that very Epistle † Ad Caecil. de sacr. Dom. Cal. calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.— Et quia passionis ejus mentionem facimus in sacrificiis omnibus (passio est enim Domini sacrificium, quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quam quod ille fecit, facere debemus:— Quotlescunque ergo calicem in commemorationem Domini, & passionis ejus offerimus, id quod constat Dominum fecisse, saciamus. Epist. 63. which he seems so much to stand upon, St. Cyprian affirms, That the cup of that Sacrament is offered in commemoration of our Lord, and that, because we make mention of his passion in all sacrifices (For the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice, that we offer) we ought to do no other thing, than what he himself did; And again, Therefore as often as we offer the cup for a commemoration of the Lord, and his passion, let us do that, which it is manifest that the Lord did. I will conclude this affair with the words of Peter Lombard * Lib. 4. Dist. 12. G. , because they not only show the former notion to have been the sense of the Ancients in this particular, but make it evident also that that of an expiatory Sacrifice is but a novelty in the Church of Rome itself. After these things, saith he, it is enquired, whether what the Priest doth be properly called a Sacrifice, or Offering, and whether Christ be every day offered, or only once. To this it may be said in short, that that, which is offered, and consecrated by the Priest, is called a Sacrifice, and Oblation; Because it is the Memorial, and Representation of the true Sacrifice, and the Holy Offering that was made upon the Cross. And Christ died once upon the Cross, and was there offered in himself. But he is every day offered in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament a remembrance is made of that, which was once done. Whereupon St. Augustine: We are assured that Christ rising from the dead doth not now die any more, etc. Yet lest we should forget what was once done, it is every year done in our memory, to wit, as often as the Paschal Feast is celebrated. Is Christ then so often killed? But only an anniversary Remembrance represents what was heretofore done, and so causeth us to be moved, as if we saw the Lord upon the Cross. This, and more doth that Author allege out of St. Augustine and Ambrose, which shows what notion they, as well as he, had of this Sacrament's being also a Sacrifice. And if they, who insist so much upon its having been entitled a Sacrifice, will content themselves with this, and the former sense, we will allow that they have the Fathers on their side, but otherwise to have no title to them in this affair. I shall not need to say much concerning the name Missa, or Mass, though that hath for a long time been appropriated to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: Partly, because anciently it was common to other services with it, and nothing therefore, that is singular, to be inferred therefrom toward the clearing of the nature of this; And partly, because it had its Original, not (as Baronius would have it) from the Hebrew, or Chaldee word Missah, which he saith is used (w) Deut. 16.10. for that Offering, which the Israelites offered to God in gratitude for the Fruits of the earth, but from the dismission of those, who pertained to the same service, after that service was finished. For thus we read in Ancient Authors (x) Vid. Justel. in notis ad Cod. Eccl. univ. can. 123. of the Missa Catechumenorum, as well as of the Missa Fidelium, of the Mass of those, who were not suffered to be present at the Lord's Supper, as well as of those, who were invited, and admitted to it. If in tract of time the word Missa, or Mass came to be restrained to the service of the Lord's Supper, it was in all probability because as the discipline of the Catechumen wore out (y) Cave's Primit. Christ. Part 1. cap. 9 , so their Mass, or Service wore out also, and thereby nothing left to give that title to, but that, which was of old entitled the Mass of the Faithful; Or because the Mass of the faithful was the more eminent part of the Christian service, and so in time came to appropriate to itself that name. And though Baronius out of Reuchlin (for I find by Polydore Virgil (z) De invent. rerum lib. 3. c. 11. , that he was the first Author of that fancy) derive the word Missa, or Mass from the Hebrew, or Chaldee word Missah, which, as they say, signifies a freewill Offering in the place but now quoted; yet is there in truth no ground for such a conceit, if either the due signification of that word, or the text itself be more nearly considered. Because the word Missah neither in that place, nor in any other signifies a freewill Offering, but only sufficientia * vid. Grot. in Deut. 16.10. & Lexicogr. or quantum sufficit, and is in that particular place set only to denote that, which might suffice, according to their respective abilities, for such a Nibdath Jadeka, or freewill Offering of their hand, as the Israelites were then obliged to celebrate the Feast of weeks with. Whence it is, that the same word is in the Chaldee Paraphrase frequently made use of to render the Hebrew Dai, or sufficient, and the Septuagint express it here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according as thy hand shall be able. But therefore as that account of the word Missa, or Mass must be looked upon as a very idle one, and only agreeable to those dawning times, wherein it first appeared; So there is still the more reason to believe what Polydore Virgil † ubi supra. , and after him many others have suggested, that it had its original from the dismission, that was given to those, who pertained to any service, after that service was finished. Which may the more reasonably be believed, because Ite, Missa est, is the conclusion of the Mass even now, and which, considering the place it hath in this service, as well as the word Ite, to which it is joined, cannot be thought to denote any other thing, than that the Deacon doth by those words of his, Missam, or Missionem facere, give leave to the people to departed, and so justify yet more the account we have before given of the title of that service. For when it is evident from the story of the Church, and particularly from Dionysius the Areopagite * Eccl. Hierarch. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that the Catechumen, and others were formally dismissed the congregation upon the finishing their respective service; When it is farther evident from the present Canon of the Mass, that the faithful were alike dismissed after that their service was over, and not only so, but by these very words, Ite, Missa est, Depart you, for you have now a dismission, or free leave to do so: What can be more clear, than that the word Missa, or Mass, had its original from that dismission, and that the several services of the Church, and this of the faithful in particular had that name, because they, who pertained to it, and attended on it, were at the end thereof solemnly dismissed, and sent away to their own home? Only if any be fond of that Rabbinical notion, which makes it to import a voluntary oblation, because of the near cognation it may seem to have to that sacrifice, which they are willing to advance; Let them in God's name enjoy it, provided they look upon it as only an Eucharistical one (of which nature the Missah in Deuteronomy was) or a commemoration of that voluntary oblation, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross. For whatever may be said against that Etymology of the word, nothing can be said from Antiquity against the supposed sense of it; Because all Antiquity acknowledged that, which hath the title of the Mass, to be either an Eucharistical, or commemorative Oblation. PART III. Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Contents. The Story of the Institution first set down out of the Evangelists, and St. Paul, and animadverted upon in the several parts of it. Where, after an account of the time of it, the consequents whereof are also declared, entrance is made with the consideration of the Bread, and both the quality of that Bread, and Christ's taking it, explained. This followed by a more ample declaration of Christ's blessing it, and that Blessing both shown to have the Bread for its object, and to consist in making it useful for the purposes of a Sacrament, or rather in Christ's addressing himself to his Father to make it such. That address of his thereupon carefully enquired into, and (because it appears from St. Luke, and St. Paul to have been by Thanksgiving) enquiry also made what benefits he so gave thanks for, what use that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the blessing desired, and whether it did not also contain some express request to God for the granting of it. Of Christ's breaking the Bread, its signification, and momentousness, as also of his giving it to his Disciples, and requiring them to take, and eat of it. The words, This is my body, next taken into consideration, and more particularly, and minutely explained. Where is shown at large that by the word This must be meant This Bread, and that there is nothing in the gender of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder it; That by body must be meant that body, which Christ now carried about him, and was shortly after to suffer in, and that the figurativeness of the proposition lies in the word is. Upon occasion whereof is also shown, that that word is oftentime figuratively taken; that it ought to be so taken here, and that accordingly it imports the Bread to be a sign, and a memorial, and a means of partaking of Christ's body. This part of the Institution concluded with an explication of the words, which is given, or broken for you, and a more ample one of Christ's commanding his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him. Where the precept, Do this, is shown to refer to what Christ had before done, or enjoined them to do; And they enjoined so to do, to renew in themselves a grateful remembrance of Christ's death, or prompt other Men to the like remembrance of it. That part of the Institution, which respects the Cup, more succinctly handled, and enquiry made, among other things, into the declaration, which our Saviour makes concerning its being his Blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in it. Where is shown, What that is, which our Saviour affirms to be so, what is meant by his Blood of the New Testament, or The New Testament in it, and how the Cup, or rather the Wine of it was that Blood of his, or the New Testament in it. IT is very observable, Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained? Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits we receive thereby. and was accordingly long since taken notice of by Isaac Casaubon * Exercit. 16. s. 28. , That when Baronius was to give an account of the Institution of this Sacrament, which three Evangelists, and St. Paul had carefully described, instead of producing the words of those Scriptures, as he often doth upon less occasions, and bestowing (as was but reasonable) a just Commentary upon them, he slubbers it over with this imperfect story † Baron. Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. Christi 34. num. 45. shall I say, or rather with this perverse interpretation of it. In which Supper (speaking of that of the Paschal Lamb) that ineffable Sacrament was instituted, whereby Transubstantiation was made of Bread, and Wine into the Flesh, and Blood of Christ, into the very body of Christ entire under both species. Then also the Apostles, when the Lord commanded them to do the very same thing in remembrance of him, were made Priests, and that very sacrifice, which they should offer, was ordained. A Man would have thought that, whatever interpretation he had afterwards made of it, one, who pretended to be an Historian, should at least have given a more particular, and perfect account of that whole action, and, as near to as might be in the words of some of those Holy Men, that had transmitted it to posterity. And so no doubt this Historian would have done, if there had not been somewhat in the words of the Institution, to which the practice of his Church had made a non obstante to be necessary. But as he saw but too well how ill the practice of his Church answered what was then done, and enjoined by our Saviour; so he therefore chose rather to give that imperfect, as well as insincere account of it, and endeavour to supply what was wanting by an account of those names, which were anciently given to this Sacrament, with the declarations of the Ancient Fathers concerning them. God be thanked we of the Church of England are under no such necessity of either slightly passing over, or any way perverting the Story of this Holy Sacrament. And therefore being now by the order of my discourse to entreat of the Institution of it, I will set down the Story thereof in the words of those, that first delivered it, and bound my Observations by them. Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is my body. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took Bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, Take, Eat, This is my body. 19 And he took Bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you, This do in remembrance of me. 23. 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: 24. And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take; Eat, This is my body, which is broken for you; This do in remembrance of me. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 20. Likewise also the cup after Supper, saying, 25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me 29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Now the first thing I shall take notice of in the History of this Sacrament is the Time of the Institution of it. Which we learn from St. Paul to have been the same night, in which he was betrayed, from the context of the several Evangelists, at the Celebration of the Feast of the Passover, or rather toward the close of it; It being whilst they were yet eating, that two of them affirm, that he took the Bread of it, and blessed, and broke, and gave it, but so near the conclusion of that Feast, that St. Luke, and St. Paul tell us, that it was after Supper before he took the Cup, and gave thanks over it, and gave it to his Disciples. And though I do not pretend to affirm, neither do I know any sober Man that doth, that there is any obligation upon us for celebrating it after Supper, or any other Meal: Our Saviour's celebrating it then being in compliance with those Jews, whose Institution he now transcribed, and reformed, and probably also to intimate its succeeding to that solemnity: Tho I acknowledge it to have been an ancient usage * Tert. de Cor. cap. 3. in the Church to celebrate it at their Meetings before day, and, where it was not so soon, yet before † Aug. Epist. 119. ad Janu. their eating of any thing else, as that too out of respect to that Sacrament; Yet I see as little reason to grant, that there is any more of religion in receiving it fasting, than what the custom of the Church, or the Laws of decency give it: It being not otherwise to be thought, that our Saviour would have instituted it at Supper time, or rather presently after it; And much less, that St. Paul would have given it in command to the Corinthians (a) 1 Cor. 11.34. , that if any Man hungered, he should eat at home before he came to the participation of it, and of those Agapae, that attended it. From the Time of the Institution pass we to the Institution itself, and the several things done, and said in it. Where the first thing I am to take notice of is Christ's taking Bread, to wit into his hands, and probably from off that table, on which it was placed; Agreeably to that usance of the Jews, which he framed his own Eucharist by, and where (as was before * Part 1. observed) the Father of the Family held it in both his hands, whilst he used the words of Consecration, or Blessing over it. However, he so took it, to be sure, as to separate it from what other Bread than was upon the Table, as which the word took, in the most simple notion of it, will oblige us to believe; This importing the choice of some particular Bread from out the rest, and leaving the other to the ordinary uses of it. Now the Bread, which our Saviour thus took, was either some whole Loaf of Bread, answerably to the former usance, or at least some larger, but entire piece of one, as appears by the breaking of it into several pieces answerably to the several persons, that were to partake of it. And it was also, agreeably to the time when it was made use of, unleavened Bread, as the Latins have truly observed against the Greeks; It being upon the first day of the feast of unleavened Bread, as three of the Evangelists † Mat. 26.17. Mark 14.12. Luke 22.7. have observed, that that Passover, which immediately preceded this Sacrament, was celebrated, and consequently that this Sacrament also was. But why it should be so far urged against the Greeks, as to make it the matter of a quarrel, is a very unaccountable thing, unless there were somewhat either in the words, or in the rites of the Institution, which directed to the use of unleavened Bread only. For leavened, or unleavened matters not after the taking away of that Law, which made the difference; And much less, where the present Law requires only (a) 1 Cor. 5.8. the laying aside of the leaven of malice, and wickedness, and keeping our Passover feast with the unleavened Bread of sincerity, and truth. It followeth in the Story, And Jesus took Bread, and blessed (as St. Matthew, and St. Mark deliver it) or (as St. Luke, and St. Paul after him) gave thanks. A thing, which will require a more accurate consideration, because of the momentousness thereof; It being to that Blessing, or Thanksgiving probably that we are to assign that both change in it, and effects of it, which are afterwards attributed to it. That therefore we may the better understand this whether Blessing, or Thanksgiving, we will consider the words apart, and first Christ's being said to bless, or bless it, even the Bread. For the better understanding of which word we are to know, that though to bless simply considered may as well refer to God, as to the thing, over which that Blessing is made; Yet we are in reason to understand it here, as relating to the Bread, as our Translators in the story of St. Matthew plainly do, because adding the word it to blessed: And Jesus took Bread, and blessed it. And my reason is first, because blessed being a transitive verb, it is by the common rules of construction to refer to that noun substantive, that immediately preceded it, even the Bread, and not to any remoter one, or to one that is not expressed. How much more than if those verbs, which follow, even broke, and gave do also refer to it, as they, who make Hoc est corpus meum the words of Consecration, must necessarily allow? For what can be more congruous than to believe, when the verb blessed is a transitive one, that it refers to the same noun substantive, even Bread, to which the foregoing verb took, and the following one's brake, and gave do? But that, which is no doubt of much more force in this affair, and will more determine the verb blessed to Bread, is the use of the same word in St. Paul (b) 1 Cor. 10.16. , when applied to the Cup of the Sacrament, as it seems to be to the Bread here. For by the same reason that the Cup is there affirmed to be blessed by those, that administered it, and not only so, but intimated to be called the Cup of Blessing for that reason; by the same reason are we to understand the word blessed here to relate to the Bread of it, and that our Saviour really blessed it, as well as blessed God, or gave thanks to God over it. And thus far we have the accord of the Council of Trent itself * Sess. 13. cap. 1. Ita enim Majores nostri omnes, etc. apertissimè professi sunt hoc tam admirabi'e Sacramentum in ultimâ coenâ Redemptorem nostrum instituisse, cum post panis, & vini benedictionem se suumque ipsius corpus illis praebere, ac suum sang vintem disertis, ac perspicuis verbis testatus est. , because applying the Blessing here spoken of to the Bread, yea affirming our Lord Jesus Christ to have blessed the Wine as well, as that. Bread therefore being the thing, which our Saviour is said to have blessed, inquire we in the next place what is meant by his blessing it. Which must be learned in part from the nature of that Blessing, wherewith it was blessed by him, and in part also from the interest, which our Saviour had in the bestowing of it. Now what the nature of that Blessing was, wherewith the Bread was blessed by him, will appear, if we consider for what end it was appointed by him, who so took, and blessed it. Which we learn from the Institution itself, and from St. Paul's Comment upon it, to be in an especial manner for the communion of his Body. For the design of the divine Blessing being to make the thing blessed to be useful for that end, for which it was appointed; If the Communion of the Body of Christ was the end, for which the Bread of the Lord's Supper was appointed, the Blessing, wherewith it was blessed, must consequently consist in its usefulness for that end, or ends, for which it was so appointed by him. Which will leave nothing more to us to account for, than the interest, which our Saviour had in bestowing that Blessing on it. Now, what that is may appear from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or giving of Thanks, which St. Luke, and St. Paul make use of to express the same thing, as St. Mark, and St. Matthew also do to express the Blessing of the Cup. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or giving of Thanks importing him, to whom it is attributed, to address himself unto another, Our Saviour must be supposed to have acted in the blessing of that Bread, not as one, who conferred that Blessing upon it himself, but as one, who addressed himself to another for the bestowing of it, even to him, to whom he gave Thanks. Which Particular may the more easily be believed, because when he only blessed the five Loaves, and two Fishes, to give Nourishment to that five thousand Men, whom he meant to refresh, he looked up to Heaven (c) Luke 9.16. at the very instant of it, which shows from whence he looked for the bestowing of it, even from his Father, that was there. The result of the Premises is this: Our Saviour being now about to appoint the Bread of the Lord's Supper for a Communion of his Body, and other such sacramental Purposes, addressed himself to the Father (from whom every good and perfect Gift cometh) to make the Bread, which he now took, useful for those Purposes, or (that I may speak in the language of St. Matthew, and St. Mark) to bless it for them. With what kind of Address, or Addresses, will best be learned by that word, which St. Luke, and St. Paul made use of to express that action of his, even the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or giving of Thanks, and which therefore I am in the next place to explain. Now as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth undoubtedly signify giving Thanks, and is accordingly so used both by profane, and sacred Authors; As it must farther signify in this place (because our Saviour in this particular instance could have no other to give Thanks to) his giving Thanks to his Father, and ours; So nothing more therefore will be required toward the understanding of it, than to show 1. What Benefits he so gave Thanks for. 2. What Use that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the Blessing desired. 3. Whether it did not also contain in it some express Request to God for the granting of that Blessing to it. 1. What Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for is not expressed either by the Evangelists, or St. Paul, and must therefore be learned by what they have expressed, and particularly concerning the great End of the Institution of this, and the other Element of this Sacrament. Which if we guide ourselves by, we shall find this Thanksgiving of our Saviour to have been for the giving of him to die for the Redemption of sinful Man, and other the like ends of his Death. For requiring his Disciples afterwards to do what he had done for the remembrance of him, and particularly of the breaking of his Body for them, he must consequently be supposed to have given Thanks to God for giving him for those gracious Purposes, as which was the chief design of the whole, and which could not be remembered, as it ought, without such a Thanksgiving for it. I think it as reasonable to conclude, secondly, that our Saviour gave Thanks also for directing himself (who spoke, and did what he did by Authority from the Father) to this Element of Bread for the Communion of his Body to his Disciples, and Followers: This, as it was by the Institution itself to be a means of the Communion of his Body, and so much the more comfortable one too, because it was also manifest to their Senses; So being a like object of thankfulness to him, who had espoused his Disciples interest as his own, and to those Disciples that were to be profited by it, and consequently not to be thought to have been forgotten by him. These two great Benefits I think, and I suppose not without reason, to have been the Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for, and possibly also such Benefits as were preparatory to our Saviour's Death, and particularly his Conception, and Birth. But other Benefits than those I know no ground to believe, and much less the creation of this, and other the Fruits of the Earth, and dispensing them to us by his Providence. As because there is not the least ground in the Institution for such a Thanksgiving unto God; So because this, and the other Element of the Lord's Supper were appointed not for corporal, but spiritual sustenance, and to which therefore our Saviour's Thankssgiving, and ours may seem more properly to refer, and because too there is appearance enough from what was before said from St. Luke (d) Luke 22.17. concerning our Saviour's taking a Cup of Wine, giving Thanks, and distributing it among his Disciples immediately before the Institution of this Sacrament, that he satisfied the Jewish Eucharist before, even that, which had for its end the giving Thanks to God for earthly Benefits, and particularly for the means of our Repast. If the Ancients (as it appears they did (e) Part 1. ) represented this Sacrament as an Eucharist for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Blessing of our Redemption, and accordingly premised such kind of Thanksgivings for it; I am apt to think it proceeded at first from its being accompanied, or rather immediately preceded (as that, which our Saviour first celebrated, was) by the Eucharist of the Jews; And, when that Eucharist was laid aside, from a Willingness in the Christians, that followed them, to conform their own Eucharist so far to that of the Jews, so the better to gain them to their Religion, or oblige them to keep closely to it. Till at length what was done only out of compliance with the Jews, came to be looked upon as a necessary part of the Christian Eucharist, and Men thought themselves obliged to give Thanks to God in it for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Blessing of our Redemption. Which Opinion the Ancients were the more easily persuaded into, because Christianity † 1 Tim. 4.4. , as well as Judaisme taught them, before their several Repasts, to give God Thanks for the Matter of them, and so sanctify the Use thereof unto themselves. For that might tempt them farther to believe, that our Saviour premised such a Thanksgiving to his Eucharist, and consequently thereto that we ought to do the like. If any Man can give a fairer account of the Ancients both Opinion and Practice, I, who profess myself to have a just regard for them, will be glad to receive it, and (which is more) will be as willing to acknowledge my own Error in the former one. But till I see such an account, I shall rest satisfied in this, and so much the more willingly, because they, who urge such like Testimonies of the Ancients to establish the Sacrifice of the Mass, insist as little upon this sort of Thanksgivings, as any of the Reformed do. 2. But to return to that, from which I have diverted, even to that Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, which our Saviour used over the Bread of it. Where the next thing to be enquired into is, what Use that Thanksgiving may be supposed to be of to procure the blessing of the Bread. For if our Saviour blessed the Bread by the Thankssgiving, which he made over it, or rather addressed himself to God by Thanksgiving for the blessing of it; That Thanksgiving must be supposed to be of some use to procure the Divine Blessing on it. For the clearing of which Difficulty they, who allege, as some do, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Thanksgiving is set to denote Prayer, as well as that, and so far forth may be of sufficient force to procure the Divine Blessing (For what is there, that can be supposed to be denied to Prayer, and particularly to the Prayer of him, in whom God was well pleased?) such Men, I say, allege that, which may perhaps be true, and which I shall by and by endeavour to confirm. But withal they say that, which will not reach the Difficulty, nor give any good account of two Evangelists, and St. Paul's expressing this Address of Christ to his Father by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or giving of thanks. For whatever else that word may be thought to include in it, manifest it is, first, that Thanksgiving is the primary notion of it, and that therefore in itself considered of a peculiar use toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing, as which otherwise would not have been employed to denote the whole Act. As manifest it is, secondly, that the Blessings * Grot. in Mat. 26.26. of the Jews before, and after their Meals were generally Thanksgivings, and particularly that Blessing was, wherewith the Jews Eucharist was begun, and closed. It is manifest, thirdly, that Thanksgivings have always had a great part in the consecrating of our Eucharist, and is denied by no Man, that I know of, that will allow Prayer to have any part in it. Which supposed, the Question will still return, what use they may be supposed to be of toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing, and which we must find out some other way to resolve. In order whereunto I will consider these Thanksgivings first as to what is common to them with all others, and then as to what is peculiar to them, as preparatory to our partaking of what we so give Thanks for. That, which the Thanksgivings of the Eucharist have common to them with all others, is, that they contain that in them, which I have elsewhere (f) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer. Discourse 2. Introd. shown makes Prayer itself to be so acceptable, even an acknowledgement of our dependence upon God: He, who thanks God for the Benefits remembered in it, or for this sensible conveyance of them, as much acknowledging his dependence upon God, as he, who sues to him for those Benefits, or any other. And well may that be thought to be of use toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing, which is as much an acknowledgement of our dependence upon him, as any Prayer whatsoever. Of such use are the Thanksgivings of the Eucharist toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing on it, when considered as to that, which is common to them with all others. How much more, when considered as to that, which is peculiar to them as preparatory to our partaking of what we so give Thanks for? To give Thanks by way of preparation to the partaking of any Benefit implying an apprehension in him, that gives it, of the necessity of the Divine Blessing to make it useful to him, and consequently thereto a Desire of, and Prayer to God for the bestowing of it. By which means the Thanksgivings of the Eucharist, and particularly those, which our Saviour made over the Bread of it, will be though not express, yet tacit Prayers to God for his Blessing on it, and consequently of yet more force to procure that Blessing for it, and for those, that are to partake of it. Only because the Blessings mentioned in the Scripture were oftentimes (g) Gen. 17.28. Num. 6.23. Prayers to God for his Blessing, and it is hard to believe that, when our Saviour designed the Blessing of the Eucharist, he should not seek to God for it by an express Prayer, as well as by Thanksgivings, and tacit ones, I think it but just to inquire, 3. Whether our Saviour's Thanksgiving did not also contain in it some express Request to God for the granting of that Blessing, which he desired. For the clearing whereof we are to know, that as it is not unusual for that word, which signifies only one noted part of a thing, to be set to denote the other also (For thus, as was before observed, the Bread of this Sacrament, and the breaking of the Bread is set to denote the Wine, as well as the Bread, and all that is done to both of them, as well as the breaking of one Element thereof) so St. Paul (h) 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. , where he entreats of a like Argument to that, which we are now upon, because of the means whereby the Creatures of God are sanctified, or blessed to us, makes use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Thanksgiving, to denote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Prayer, as well as Thanksgiving; and again of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Prayer, to signify Thanksgiving, as well as that. Otherwise to allege, as St. Paul doth, that the Creatures are sanctified by the Word of God, and Prayer, could be no proof of the lawfulness of receiving the Creatures with Thanksgiving, which is that he designed to prove by it: Because it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Prayer, in strict speech is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Thanksgiving, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Thanksgiving, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Prayer. But therefore as nothing hinders, but that our Saviour's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Thanksgiving might contain in it as express a Prayer to God to grant the Blessing he desired; So there are many reasons to persuade us that it did, and that Christ sought this Blessing by Prayer, as well as by Thanksgivings. Of which nature in particular was the momentousness of that Blessing, which he now sought, and which may seem no way unworthy of an express Prayer to the Father for it; The same Christ's also employing such Prayers on less weighty occasions, as well as upon more momentous ones; But above all, Christ's requiring us in the Celebration of this Sacrament to do as he did before us, and St. Paul's pressing the Corinthians to conform to his Pattern, and content ourselves with the imitation of it: It being hard to believe that, when Christ so often called upon his Disciples to sue to God upon all occasions, and to ask (i) Mat. 7.7. , and seek, and knock, whensoever they stood in need of his assistance, they should be under no obligation to crave his Blessing, when the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament were to become the Communion of his Body, and Blood. Under which obligation yet they must in no wise have been, if Christ, whom they are required to imitate, offered no Supplications to his Father to procure from him the working of so great a change in the outward Elements. I take no notice here, because I may have a more proper place for it, of the Ancients sending up Prayers, as well as Thanksgivings, when they set themselves to the blessing of this Sacrament. And shall only add, That though Prayers, as well as Thanksgivings had a place in this Affair, yet the latter might be both more particularly inculcated, and more often mentioned, because more apparently agreeable to that thankful Remembrance of Christ's death, which this Sacrament was in an especial manner ordained for. The next thing, that our Saviour did, and we are accordingly to take notice of, was the breaking of the Bread; For so it follows in the Story, And Jesus took Bread, and blessed, and broke it, even the Bread: Not only our own Translation obliging us so to understand the several Evangelists, and St. Paul, by its supplying the word it, but the coherence of these words with the former, and (which is more) the express Authority of Saint Paul (k) 1 Cor. 10.16. elsewhere; He there describing this part of the Sacrament under the title of the Bread, which we break, and so showing Bread to be the subject of it. Now this Bread our Saviour broke partly in conformity to what was done to that of the Jewish Eucharist, and partly that he might the better serve his own purposes in this. For so careful were the Jews in the breaking of their Eucharistical Bread, that whereas those thicker Loaves (l) Cassand. Liturgic. in initio. , which they made use of, could not conveniently be broken in pieces, he, who blessed the Bread did, before that Benediction of his, cut one part almost from the remaining piece, but so, that it still stuck to it, and after that Benediction of his, broke it off, and when he had again cut lesser Particles out of that, took one himself, and gave the rest unto his Guests. In conformity to which Custom as it is reasonable to believe, that our Saviour in part proceeded, when he broke that Bread, which he had before blessed; So more especially, that he might the better serve his own Purposes in it, even the distribution of it to his Disciples, and the representation of the breaking of his Body upon the Cross. The former whereof St. Paul plainly intimates where he asks, The Bread we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? The latter, when in his rehearsal of the words of the Institution he brings in our Saviour saying, This is my Body which is broken for you: There being not otherwise any reason, why he should attribute the term of breaking to Christ's Body, but that the breaking of the Bread, which was a Figure of it, was intended to represent that violence, which was offered to his crucified one. And though it be true that none of the Evangelists give any such hint of this Mystery of the breaking of the Bread, because affirming only This is my Body, as St. Matthew, and St. Mark do, or This is my Body, which is given for you, as St. Luke; Yet as they all say enough to show, that this Sacrament of Bread and Wine was intended for a Representation of our Saviour's Passion, and the violence that was then offered to his crucified Body; so they do thereby sufficiently intimate, that the breaking of the Bread was intended as a Representation of it: There being nothing in the Bread to represent this to us, but only the breaking of it. This however is evident, that our Saviour broke that Bread, which he before took, and blessed. And that Rite of breaking was afterwards looked upon as so considerable, that it gave Name to the Sacrament itself, and the whole of it from that one Rite, entitled, The breaking of Bread. Our Saviour having thus taken, and blessed and broken Bread (for thus far to be sure we have Bread, whatever we have beside) he proceeds to give it to his Disciples; For so the three Evangelists assure us: Not that the Original of those Evangelists hath any thing in it to express the thing given, but that it speaks of his giving somewhat to them, and which, considering the connexion of this Act of Christ with the former ones, cannot reasonably be understood of any other than the Bread, which he had before taken, and blessed, and broken. And though St. Paul take no notice of this Gift of our Saviour's in the rehearsal he makes of this his Institution; Yet he sufficiently intimates it, when he brings him in saying, Take, Eat, This is my Body, etc. His willing them to take, and eat, implying his parting with it, that they might partake of it. This however is manifest from the Evangelists, that what our Saviour before took, and blessed, and broke, he gave to his Disciples, and I suppose to each of the Disciples in particular, and by reaching it forth unto them; The former being the manner of that Eucharist, by which he framed his own, Both the one, and the other the Ancient Practice of the Church, whether by the Hands of him that blessed it, or of those Deacons that ministered to him. I will not spend time in animadverting upon the words Take, Eat, which he used with the giving of the Bread. It may suffice to say as to the former of these, that as it is, and always was the manner of Guests to take or receive into their hands, or in some plate, which they held in them, what was given to them by another; so the Ancients knew no other taking, or receiving of this Bread, than that, which was performed by them. As little need to be said concerning that eating, which our Saviour subjoined to the Command of taking, or receiving what he gave them; Unless there could be any doubt of that's being Bread, which was now to be eaten by them. For as what it is to eat Bread is sufficiently known, even after we have put it into our mouths to chew it there, and transmit it from thence into our Stomaches for the nourishment of our Bodies; So that it was Bread, which they were commanded to eat, St. Paul plainly shows in the words (m) 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. , which he subjoins to the Institution of this Sacrament: He affirming the worthy Receiver of the Eucharist to eat Bread, as well as the most unworthy one. To go on therefore to those words, which our Saviour subjoined to his Precept of taking, and eating, even those most noted ones, This is my Body. Words, which the wanton Wits of Men have transformed into many shapes, and those too no less monstrous, than what they designed to infer from them. Whereas if they were considered without any sinister Affections, they would (as Aretius long since observed (n) Com. in Mat. 26.26. Quomodo autem verae sint propositiones illae, Panis est corpus Christi, Vinum est sanguis Christi, anxie disputatum est, Res tamen sint affectibus simplicem habet intellectum. Verae sunt ut aliae sacramentales locutiones, Agnus est transitus, Circumcisio est foedus, sacrificia sunt remissio peccatorum, Baptismus est ablutio peccatorum. In quibus nemo est tam stupidus, ut nodos sibi quaerat. Sed ut symbola sacramentalia hae res nominatae accipiuntur. Ita judicandum de his propositionibus etiam puto. have received a plain and simple Understanding, and which Men would otherwise no more have bogled at, than at other Speeches of the like nature. For this is my Body, and This is my Blood, are true, as other sacramental Speeches are. A Lamb is the Passover, Circumcision is a Covenant, Sacrifices are the remission of Sins, and Baptism the washing away of them. In which no Man is so stupid, as to seek to entangle himself, or go about to create Scruples to other Men. For these things are taken as sacramental Symbols, and so I suppose we ought to judge of the former Propositions also. Only because there is no one particle in the words, This is my Body, which hath not, among prejudiced Men, ministered matter for Dispute, I will be so much the more minute in my Explication of them, and first of the word, This. This is my Body. Now that, which unprejudiced Men would undoubtedly think to be intended by the word This, was the Bread before spoken of, and which our Saviour is said to have taken, blessed, broken, and given to his Disciples with a design they should take, and eat of it: Partly, because that was the thing manifestly intended all along, and therefore by the common Rules of Construction to be understood also here; And partly, because the demonstrative Particle This, must by the natural importance of it, be thought to point out something certain, and apparent to them, which hitherto nothing but the Bread of the Sacrament was. Thus, I say, unprejudiced Men would be apt to think of the word This, though they had nothing to direct them, but the words of the Institution. How much more then, if they should reflect upon what St. Paul (o) 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. subjoineth to, and inferreth from them in the account he gives us of that Affair. For as often (saith he) as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show forth the Lord's Death till he come. And again, Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body, and Blood of the Lord. For it appearing from the words of the Institution, that the word This, refers to that, which was given them to eat, which St. Paul affirmeth to be Bread, it must consequently be thought to denote not this Being, or Substance in common, or individuum vagum, or the like, but this Bread, as St. Paul doth twice express it. Conformable hereto, whether the Romanists will, or no, is their own Opinion of the Bread's being transubstantiated by the words, Hoc est corpus meum, and that Transubstantiation not effected, till the last Syllable of meum is pronounced. For if that Transubstantiation be not effected till then, it must be Bread before the pronunciation of it, and the word This therefore denote no other than that Bread, which our Saviour before took, and blessed and broke, and gave unto them. But is it then possible that so many wise Men should be otherwise persuaded without very great reason to the contrary? And neither are they, as they surmise, because the word, which we render This, is both in the Greek, and the Latin of a different Gender from the word, which signifies Bread, and is indeed of the same Gender with that Body, which it is afterwards affirmed to be, even the Neuter one. As if on purpose to let us know, that the word This was intended to signify no other, than This is my Body even now, or was in an Instant to be transubstantiated into it. But is there then no other account to be given of the word This being in the Neuter Gender, when the Bread, which we suppose it to refer to, is of the Masculine? Nay, is there not an easy, and obvious one, if Men will take the pains to find it out? For is it so strange, that the word, which we render This, should be of the Neuter Gender, even when it is intended to represent a thing of another, especially in inanimate Being's? Nay, is it at all strange to have the word This to conform rather to the Gender of that, which is predicated of it, than of that thing, which it is set to denote? There is in one single Text of Genesis an instance of each of these, and many instances elsewhere of the latter of them. For where (p) Gen. 28.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jacob is brought in saying, How wonderful is this place? This is no other than the House of God, and this is the Gate of Heaven; Though the word, which we render Place, be of the Masculine Gender, and the This, that is joined with it, consequently of the same, yet when the Seventy come to translate This is no other, than the House of God, they make use of the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express it, as again when to render, And this is the Gate of Heaven, they make use of the Feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express it, answerably to the Gender of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gate, which is predicated of it. In like manner the same Septuagint, where they give an account of what Adam said concerning the Woman, when she was first brought to him, even This is (q) Gen. 2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Bone of my Bone, and Flesh of my Flesh, she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man; Though they speak of her before, and after in the Feminine Gender, they make use of the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express her, though one would think that should be less answerable to the subject matter of what he spoke. In fine, when the same Septuagint would describe to us Moses his Conceit (r) Exod. 16.15. concerning the Manna before spoken of, and which they themselves entreat of under the Neuter Gender; To the Israelites ask 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or What is this? they bring in Moses answering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is the Bread, which the Lord hath given you: Making the Particle This to answer rather to that Bread, which was predicated of it, than either to the Israelites Question concerning it, or the thing it was intended to denote. After this manner did the Greeks express themselves, when they never dreamed of any such Mystery; And our Crackanthorp (s) Defence. Eccles. Angl. contra Spalat. c. 72. , though aliud agens, hath produced two like instances for the Latins, out of those two great Masters of Language, Lactantius (t) Instit. lib. 4. c. 40. , and Cicero (u) Orat. pro Cluent. : The former whereof, after those words, Sola igitur Catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum cultum retinet, which show what it is, whereof he entreats, hath these no less remarkable words, Hic est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei, etc. The latter, where he entreats of the Law, or Laws, Hoc enim vinculum est hujus dignitatis, quâ fruimur in republicâ, hoc fundamentum libertatis, hic fons aequitatis. So that for aught that doth appear, it is both usual, and elegant to conform the Pronoun This rather to the Gender of that thing, which is predicated of it, than to the Gender of that, which it is intended to denote. And if so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Hoc est corpus meum, may without any violence to the known Rules of Speech, yea with propriety enough, import This Bread is my Body, which was the thing to be demonstrated by us. The subject of the Proposition being thus found out, and shown to be no other than the Bread which our Saviour gave; The next thing to be explained is the predicate thereof, or that which is affirmed of it, This is my Body. For the better understanding whereof, I will inquire what our Saviour meant by his Body, and then what he meant by is, or how the Bread before spoken of was, and is the Body of Christ. In the accounts which I have seen in some of our own Church concerning these words is my Body, I do not only find the words is and my Body commonly joined together in their explanation of them, but I find it affirmed also (where they inquire whether the predication be proper, or figurative) that it is indifferent whether we place the Figure in the word is, or in the words my Body. I must needs say, I do not think it so indifferent a thing, as they seem willing to believe, whether we have a regard to the words my Body, as they lie in the Text, or whether we have a regard to the consequents of a figurative interpretation of them. For (that I may speak my mind freely, and clearly, as every honest Man ought to do in a matter of so great importance) I do not see how those words, my Body, can be otherwise than literally understood, even for that Body, which he was now about to offer upon the Cross, and presently after did offer up upon it for the Salvation of Mankind. For how could our Saviour, though he were never so disposed to describe that Body, how, I say, could he more clearly, and plainly describe it, than by that Body, which was, or was shortly to be given, or broken for them? Especially, when he immediately calls upon them to do, what he had now taught them, in remembrance of himself? For do this, saith he, in remembrance of me. For was the Bread, which he affirms to be his Body, however blessed or broken, the thing that was given for them, or their salvation, and not rather that Body, which he now carried about him, and was shortly after to suffer in? Nay, doth not our Saviour's subjoyning to This is my Body, which is given, or broken for you, This do in remembrance of me, farther show, that he meant that Body which was shortly to be given, or crucified for them? It being the Lord's Death, as St. Paul himself interprets it (w) 1 Cor. 11.26. that they were to show forth thereby, and consequently that they were to do what they were now taught in remembrance of him, and that. And indeed, as I do not therefore see, how we can honestly understand those words my Body of any other, than that Body, which he now carried about him, and was shortly after to offer; So I am farther confirmed in it by the evil consequences of a figurative interpretation of them, which are these two especially. First, that we shall thereby leave no clear account in them, nor indeed in any of the words of the Institution, of the thing signified by the Sacrament, and which all Men acknowledge to be the Crucified Body of Christ; And secondly, that we shall give more countenance, than we are willing to do, to that propitiatory Sacrifice, which the Romanists advance in this affair. For if by the words my Body be meant the memorial of Christ's Body, I do not see why we should not in like manner attribute to that memorial (as the Romanists do,) its being given, or broken for us, and for our Salvation, and consequently make it a propitiatory Sacrifice for us. Let it therefore be allowed, or at least till we see better reason to the contrary, that as by the word This we ought to understand This Bread, even the Bread, which our Saviour gave to his Disciples, so we ought in like manner to understand by the words my Body my Crucified one, that which I now carry about me, and am shortly after to offer up. Which will consequently leave nothing more to inquire, than what our Saviour meant by the word [Is], and how the Bread before spoken was, and is that Body of Christ. And here I look for no other, than that those, with whom we have to do, should triumph wonderfully, as supposing they have in part at least gained their purpose; The Romanists by allowing in this Sacrament the crucified Body of Christ, the Lutherans by our allowing of that, and of the Bread. But with how little reason will appear, if, together with us, they will inquire into the word [Is], and how that, whereof our Saviour spoke, was, and is that Body of Christ. For the better understanding whereof I will show 1. That the word [Is] is oftentimes taken figuratively. 2. That it ought to be so taken here. 3. What it imports in that figurative interpretation of it. 1. That the word [Is] is many times figuratively taken, is evident from what is said concerning the seven Kine, and seven Ears (x) Gen. 41.26, 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— in Pharaoh's dream being seven Years, and the Bones in the Vision of Ezekiel (y) Ezek. 37.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the whole House of Israel; And (that I may not now name any more) concerning the Sour, that sowed the good seed in a Parable of our Saviour, being * Mat. 13.37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the Son of Man, the Field the World, the good Seed the Children of the Kingdom, and the like: These things, as they are linked together by the words [Is] and [Are] according to their respective number, as This, and my Body are; So by all Men understood not literally, but figuratively, and such as rather signified, and represented the things they are said to be, than were in propriety of nature such. Which supposed, the same word here may be taken in the like sense, and we therefore under no necessity of allowing the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ, or the Consubstantiation of the Body of Christ with it. 2. But it may be though the word [Is] may sometime be taken figuratively, yet there is no reason for taking it so here, or at lest no necessity for it; Therefore inquire we in the next place, whether it ought to be so taken here, or rather (because I have already undertaken to demonstrate it) endeavour to show that it ought. Which I shall make it my business to evince First, from the impossibility of the Propositions being true, if it be taken in the literal sense; Secondly, from the sutableness of the figurative sense to the nature of that, which is the subject matter of it; Thirdly, from the fitness of the word [Is] to express it. That the Proposition cannot be true, if the word [Is] be taken in the literal sense, is evident from a known rule of Logic, and Reason, even that two disparates, such as Bread, and a humane Body are, cannot properly be predicated of one another. For neither can Bread, continuing such, be a humane Body, any more than it can be a Stone, or a Serpent, or any thing else; Or than a Mouse can be a Lion, or Elephant, or the like. Which is so true, and confessed, that they, who stand for the proper, and literal signification of the words, do not only some of them acknowledge it in express terms, but indeed also both Romanists, and Lutherans offer a greater violence to them, for the avoiding of such an absurdity: The one by denying the word This to signify This Bread, though that (as was before said) were the only thing before spoken of, and the thing too, that was given to the Disciples to eat, upon the pronouncing of it; The other, by representing the sense of it as being rather in this, or under this Bread is my Body, than This is my body, as the words import. But beside that the Proposition cannot be true, if the word [Is] be taken in the literal sense, and therefore of necessity to have a figurative one assigned to it; The figurative sense is extremely suitable to the nature of that, which is the subject matter of it. For what is it (as was before observed) that our Saviour affirmed to be his Body, but that Bread, which he had before taken, and blessed, and broken? As that too not considered in its own natural being, or use, but as a Sacrament, or sacred sign of something else, and particularly of the Body of Christ? Now what sense, where there is any doubt of the meaning of a Proposition concerning that, can be more suitable to it, than a figurative one? What more easy, or more adapted to the nature of it? And if there be none, what more reasonable to be pitched upon, or indeed more necessary to be affixed to it? The sense of words being no doubt to be fitted to the nature of those things, which they are employed by the speaker thereof to denote. But that, which will put the thing in controversy yet more out of doubt, at least among unprejudiced Men, is the fitness of the word [Is] to express that figurative sense, which we have affixed to it. For be it that the word [Is] denotes essence, or being, which is the utmost that can be made of it, by those, who are for the proper signification of it, and the other words; Yet is not that essence, or being to be adapted to the nature of that, to which it is affixed? Now wherein consists the essence, or being of such a relative thing, as a sacred sign, but in the relation which it bears to the thing signified, and consequently in its signifying that, which it is appointed to mark out? And if the essence, or being of a sign consists in the relation, which it bears to the thing signified, may it not, as such, be said to be that thing, which it is intended to signify? For who, if asked concerning this, or that Picture (as, for instance, the Picture of Alexander, or Julius Caesar) would describe it by a piece of Paper, or Cloth, or Wood, so, and so Painted, but as such, or such a person, who did such admirable things in the World? Nay who is there that, when he sees this, or that Picture, though he knows them to be but inanimate things, doth so much as ask, What it is, but Who? So naturally, and almost necessarily do Men take the very being of such a thing to consist in its relation to the person it represents, and accordingly do as naturally express themselves in that manner concerning it. And if that be the case as to other signs, why not in like manner as to this Sacred sign of Christ's Body, the Bread? Especially if (as I shall by and by show) it hath a yet nearer relation to it. In order whereunto I will now proceed to show, 3. What the word [Is] imports in that figurative sense, whereof we speak. And here in the first place it is easy to observe, that the word [Is] imports that, to which it is attributed; even the Bread of the Sacrament, to be a sign of that Body of Christ, which it is affirmed to be. Which I do not only affirm upon account of the notion that all Men have of it, but upon account of the likeness there is between the Bread broken, and the Mortifying of our Saviour's Body, and upon account also of the same Body's being affirmed by St. Paul in his History of the Institution to be broken for us: There being otherwise no ground for that expression as to the Body of Christ, but that the breaking of the Bread was intended to signify, or represent the injury, that was offered to Christ's Body, and consequently that that Bread was so far forth intended as a sign of it. Which is no more, than the Romanists themselves, and particularly Estius, have said in this affair, and therefore I shall not need to insist upon it. I say, secondly, that as the word [Is] imports that, to which it is attributed, to be a sign of Christ's Body, so also to be such a sign in particular, as was intended to bring Christ's Body, and the Crucifixion of it to our own Minds, or the Minds of others, or, in a word, to be a memorial of it: The former being evident from our Saviour's enjoining his Disciples, presently upon these words, to do what he had now taught them in remembrance of himself; The latter from St. Paul's telling his Corinthians, that as often as they eaten that bread, and drank that cup, they did show the Lord's death till he came. I say, thirdly, and lastly, that the word [Is] doth likewise import that, to which it is attributed, to be a means of our partaking of the Body of Christ, as well as a sign, or a memorial of it. Which we shall the less need to doubt, when St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16. doth in express terms represent the Bread, which is broken in the Sacrament, as the Communion, or Communication of the Body of Christ, and the Cup of Blessing, which is blessed in it, as the Communion of his Blood. Now if a sign, even where it is hardly such, may be said to be that, which it signifies; How much more such a sign, as is also by the Institution of Christ a means of its conveyance, and of which whosoever doth worthily partake, shall as verily partake together with it of the Body of Christ, and of the Benefits that accrue to us thereby? I may not forget to add what St. Luke, and St. Paul have added to the words This is my Body, even This is my Body, which is given for you, as the former; which is broken for you, as the latter: Both to the same purpose, though in different expressions, even to mark out to us more clearly how we are to consider that Body, that is to say, as a crucified one; The giving of Christ, or his Body being sometime expressed by giving him for our sins, (b) Gal. 1.4. and at other times by giving him (c) Tit. 2.10. to redeem us from them, which we know by the same Scripture to have been compassed by his death. As indeed under what other notion can we conceive the giving of his Body, when it is not only considered apart from his Blood, but that Blood afterward affirmed to be shed for the remission of sins, and accordingly so required to be considered here. The expression of St. Paul, which is broken for you, is yet more clear, because more manifestly pointing out the violence, that was offered to Christ's Body; With this farther advantage, as was before said, that it doth not obscurely intimate the breaking of the Bread to have been intended to represent what was done unto his Body, and under what notion we are to consider it. Though, to put it farther out of doubt, St. Paul, after his account of the History of the Institution, affirms both the one, and the other Element of this Sacrament to relate to our Saviour's Death, and consequently to respect his Body as mortisted, as well as his Blood as shed: He reling his Corinthians, that he that did eat that Bread, as well as he, that drank that Cup, did thereby show forth the Lord's Death till he came. Only if it be enquired why our Saviour should even then represent his Body as broken, or given, when it was not to be so till the day after the Institution of this Sacrament; I answer partly, because it was very shortly to be so, but more especially because he intended what he now enjoined as a prescription for the time after his Death, as his willing his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him doth manifestly imply: That importing the thing to be remembered to be passed, and gone, as which otherwise could not be capable of being remembered. It follows both in St. Luke, and St. Paul, Do this, and Do this in remembrance of me. Words, which the Romish Church hath picked strange matters out of, even no less (as was before observed out of Baronius) than the Priesthood of the Apostles, as which was collated upon them by these words, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. For then also (saith that Author) the Apostles, when the Lord commanded them to do the very same thing in remembrance of him, were made Priests, and that very Sacrifice, which they should offer, was ordained. By what Alchemy the Apostles Priesthood, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are endeavoured to be extracted out of these words, must be considered in another place, where such kind of questions will be more fit to be debated. At present it may suffice to say, that as it doth not appear from the Institution, that our Saviour made any other Offering of his Body in the Symbol of Bread, than what he did to his Disciples, nor indeed how he could, unless he meant both to prevent, and vacate the future Offering of himself upon the Cross, by which yet (as the Author to the Hebrews (d) Heb. 10.14. instructs us) he perfected for ever them, that are sanctified; So it can much less therefore appear, how the doing what Christ had before done, or taught them to do, could make the Apostles Priests, or the Celebration of this Sacrament to be a Sacrifice. All, that can be fairly deduced from the words Do this, and Do this in remembrance of me, is, that they should for the future take Bread, bless it, and break it, and, when they had done so, both eat of it themselves, and give it to others to eat of in remembrance of him, and of his Death. Or, if we should think that the words Do this aught to have a nearer Antecedent, that they should take, and eat what had been before taken, and blessed, and broken, and given to them by the Consecrator of it in remembrance of him: That, as it is the thing, and the only thing just before enjoined upon the Disciples (For what he saith concerning the thing given them being his Body doth rather point out what regard they ought to have in the eating of it, to that Body, of which it was a Symbol, than any new injunction, or precept concerning it) so it is the thing, and the only thing therefore, which he immediately referred to, when he said, This do in remembrance of me. Which St. Paul doth yet more clearly insinuate, when immediately after the History of the Institution, and which he closeth in each Element with This Do in remembrance of me, he adds, as by way of explication of that passage, For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. This I take to be a clear, and natural account of what Christ enjoined the Disciples to do, and not any intimation at all either of the Apostles Priesthood, or of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And what he adds concerning their doing what he now enjoined them in remembrance of him, agrees as well to it, because (as appears from the words but now quoted) they were to eat of that Bread, as well as drink of that Cup with reference to him, and to his Death, or (as St. Paul expresseth it) to show it forth. Which will consequently leave nothing more to be considered upon this Head, than what our Saviour means by in remembrance of him. Do this in remembrance of me. Now as there cannot well be any doubt concerning the Object of this Remembrance, partly because Christ doth here represent himself as the Object of it, and partly because he represents himself throughout this whole Sacrament as giving himself to Death for us, and consequently he to be considered as such in our remembrance of him: So I shall therefore need only to inquire what that remembrance of him doth import, and how the thing enjoined to be done serves to the exciting of it. Now there are two things again, which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or remembrance signifies, and which we shall find upon enquiry that it signifies also here; The recalling that to our own mind, which is the Object of it, or recalling it to the mind of others: The former of these, as it is the most simple, and obvious notion of the word, so no doubt principally intended here, if Christ's giving his Body to death for us be the thing, wherein we are to remember him, because we are required to take, and eat the Bread exhibited to us as a Symbol thereof. But therefore as we are to understand by doing what we do in remembrance of him, and of his Death, or (as the Greek (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. would perhaps be more commodiously rendered) for the remembrance of him, of our celebrating this Holy Sacrament, so the better to recall him, and his Death to our own Minds; So it is alike evident from what St. Paul subjoins as a kind of Comment upon these words, that we ought to do the same thing to recall it to the Minds of others, and prompt them to reflect upon it: St. Paul declaring thereupon, that as often as we eat that Bread, and drink that Cup, we do show forth, or declare, or preach his Death till he come. Only, as it is not to be thought, that our Saviour would have instituted this Sacrament simply to bring the thing signified by it to our own, or others Minds, but to stir up in them, and us affections suitable to the thing remembered; So we are consequently to think (because the thing signified by it was Christ's giving his Body to Death for us, and for our Salvation) that it was designed to stir up us, and other Men to remember his Death, and the benefits thereof with a thankful Mind, with a Mind sensible of so great a favour, and ready to express that sense of its by all the ways it can possibly devise. This I take to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or remembrance, for which our Saviour required his Disciples to do, as he himself had before directed, and enjoined them. And how well fitted that whole Ceremony is to excite such a remembrance in us, and others, will appear if we consider that remembrance either as a simple remembrance of Christ's Death, and the Benefits thereof, or as also a grateful one. For it serves to the former of these by the representation it makes to our Eyes of the violence, that was offered to his Crucified Body, and by the known Laws, and ends of the Institution of it. And it serves in like manner to the latter of them by representing that Death of his to our Eyes, not in bloody, and cruel Rites (as the ill usage of some of the Heathen Deities were sometime represented) but in the innocent, and useful, and comfortable Elements of Bread, and Wine, and which whilst the Partakers thereof reflect upon, they cannot but at the same time read in them the both usefulness, and comfortableness, as to themselves, of that Body, and Blood, which they were intended to represent, and be thereby excited to a joyful, and thankful remembrance of them both, and of the benefits, that accrue to them thereby. An account being thus given of the Bread of this Sacrament, and of all that was said, or done about it; It remains that I entreat of the other Element thereof represented to us by the three Evangelists, and St. Paul, under the name of the Cup. Whether it were that they could not otherwise well express what they were first to mention, even our Saviour's taking it, and giving it to his Disciples (because liquid things cannot well be taken by ourselves, or conveyed to others but by a Cup) or by an usual Metonymy of the continent for the thing contained in it, set to denote the Wine, wherewith it was replenished; This Cup (as we shall afterwards understand) being given them to drink of, and (as appears from what our Saviour subjoins in the close of St. Matthew's, and St. Mark's accounted of this matter) of the Fruit of the Vine, or Wine. Now this Cup, as he had done before with the Bread, he in like manner (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luke 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25. , after he had supped, took into his Hand, or Hands, as the fashion was in the Eucharistical Cup of the Jews, but however so took (as was before observed concerning the Bread) as to separate it from what other Wine than was upon the Table, and appropriated it to his own purposes. The Cup being thus taken by our Saviour into his Hands, and held by him there till he gave it to his Disciples, Two of the Evangelists tell us he gave thanks over it, and (as appears by what was said before in the matter of the Bread, and by St. Paul's elsewhere (g) 1 Cor. 10.16. entitling it the Cup of blessing, which we bless) by that Thanksgiving and Prayer blessed it, or rather recommended it to the Father to be blessed by him, and made useful for those purposes, for which it was designed, and particularly for the Communion of his Blood. Which Blessing there is no doubt the Father granted thereupon, and fitted it for that, for which it was so separated, and recommended to him: As because he readily promised the like, or a greater Blessing to the Blessing (h) Num. 6.23, etc. of the Jewish Priests, and may therefore be presumed as ready to grant this to the Blessing of his well beloved Son; So because our Saviour, when he gave this Cup to his Disciples, told them even then, that it was his Blood of the New Testament, and St. Paul, that being blessed by such as himself, it was the Communion of Christ's Blood, which it could not have been in either instance without the Blessing of the Father. Our Saviour having thus taken, and given thanks over the Cup, or blessed it, gave it to his Disciples, saying, Drink ye all of it. But whether (as was said before in the matter of the Bread) he gave it into each of his Disciples Hands, or to him only, that sat next to him, and by him to be handed to the next, is not material, neither will I therefore concern myself about it. Sure it is, that, by the words accompanying that Gift, he signified it to be his Mind, that they should all drink of it, and St. Mark in particular tells us, that they all drank of it. Upon the strength of what Motive, is in the next place to be enquired, but which we shall not need to go farther than St. Matthew for, or at least not for the general notion of it. For this (saith he in our Saviour's name) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. The thing, which I now offer you, is my Blood of the New Testament, and it is upon that account I both invite, and oblige you all to drink of it. And if it was, even when he offered it to them to drink, his Blood of the New Testament, one would think it should need no new Blessing, or Consecration to make it such, and much less, that those words, by which he declared it to be so, should be that blessing, or Consecration itself. But be that as it will at present (for the fuller discussion of these things belongs to another place) most certain it is from the other Evangelists, and from St. Paul, that our Saviour when he gave the Cup to the Disciples, made use of these, or the like words, upon what occasion soever they were employed by him. And as certain it is from the Controversies now on foot, that the words considered in themselves will require an explication, to which therefore I shall now address myself; In order thereunto (as I did before in the matter of the Bread) enquiring what the subject of this Proposition is, what the thing predicated of it, and what the importance of the word [Is], which is made use of to join them together. And here in the first place it is easy to see, that whatever difficulties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This may be encumbered with, when set to denote the Bread, because of a different Gender from it both in the Greek and the Latin, yet it is encumbered with no such difficulties here: Because even in St. Matthew, and St. Mark, where it hath no Substantive affixed to it, it is of the same Gender with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cup before spoken of, and which they were also commanded to drink of, as well as with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Blood that follows it. It is alike easy to see, secondly, that whatever pretence may be made for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This in the former Proposition having respect to some individuum vagum, yet there is not the like pretence here: Because though St. Matthew, and St. Mark add no Substantive to it, yet St. Luke, and St. Paul, in their History of the Institution, add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it, and so show This Cup, even the Cup before spoken of, to be the thing whereof our Saviour spoke. And indeed, as the rules of Construction require us so to understand it, even where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cup is not expressed, and much more where This is my Blood is assigned as a motive to the Disciples drinking of the Cup (For how could it otherwise be any motive to it, if that Cup were not the Blood here spoken of?) So our Saviour's commanding his Disciples to drink of that Cup in order to their partaking of his Blood, and his afterwards describing it by the title of the Fruit of the Vine, shows the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cup to be set to denote the liquor, that was contained in it, and particularly the Blood of the Grape. Which is a proof that figurative expressions are no such strangers to the Doctrine of a Sacrament, because one is of necessity to be allowed in the subject of this important Proposition, and is accordingly allowed by the Romanists themselves. The subject of the present Proposition being thus found out, and shown to be no other than the Cup before spoken of, or rather the Wine of it; Let us in the next place take a view of the thing affirmed of it, and wherein indeed there is some variety even between those, who give an Historical account of this affair: St. Matthew, and St. Mark representing the Cup here spoken of as Christ's Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, which was shed for many for the remission of fins; but St. Luke, and St. Paul as the New Testament, or Covenant, in his Blood, which was shed for them. For which cause I will consider the thing here affirmed under each of these notions, and first as Christ's Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, which I conceive to be the clearest, and most proper declaration of it. Because it appears even by that St. Paul, who makes use of the other expression, that the Blood of Christ is the principal thing signified by it, even in that very Chapter, where he entitles it the New Testament in his Blood. For not only doth he before (i) 1 Cor. 10.16. entitle the Cup the Communion of his Blood, as he doth the Bread in the same verse the Communion of his Body, but, immediately after the words of the Institution, declare him, who eateth that Bread, and drinketh that Cup with due preparation, to show forth the Lord's Death till he come, as him, who eateth, and drinketh unworthily, to be guilty of his Body, and Bloody. The Blood of Christ therefore being the thing principally signified, and consequently the principal thing predicated of the Cup, by the one, and the other, reason would that we should inquire what our Saviour meant by it, that is to say, whether that Blood, which now ran in his Veins, and was shortly after to be shed, or only a memorial of it. A Question, which will soon be voided not only by what I have before said concerning the Notion of Christ's Body, but by the Adjuncts of that very Blood, whereof we speak: The Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant (as appears by a Text of the Author to the Hebrews (k) Heb. 9.14, etc. , and by what I have elsewhere (l) Expl. of the Sacrament in general, Part 2. discoursed upon it) being no other than that Blood, which the Mediator of it shed at his Death, (For that Author tells us, that neither that, nor any other Testament, or Covenant can be firm without it) And the Blood, that was shed for remission of Sins, the very same: It being by means of the same Death, that the Redemption of Sins against the First Testament, or Covenant is procured, which is but another Name for the Remission of them. And I shall only add, for the better explanation of those words, even the Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, that as of old God would not enter, nor did enter into the First Covenant with the Israelites, till he was atoned, and they sprinkled by the Blood of their Sacrifices; So neither would he enter into the New, till he was first atoned, and we sprinkled by the Blood of the Sacrifice of his Son, and that Blood therefore, conformably to what was said of the Blood of the First Covenant, styled the Blood of the New. There will be no great difficulty, after what I have said of the Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, as to the meaning of that New Testament, or Covenant in Christ's Blood, which St. Luke and St. Paul bring in our Saviour as affirming the Cup to be: Because thereby must consequently be meant that New Covenant, which was brought about by the Blood of his Cross, even that, by which the same Saint Paul elsewhere (m) Col. 1.20. tells us, that Christ made Peace between us, and God. Which will consequently leave nothing more to us to inquire into upon this Head, than the importance of that [is], which joins the subject, and the foregoing predicates together, and how the Cup of this Sacrament was, and is his Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, and how the New Testament, or Covenant in his Blood. For the understanding whereof though it may suffice to remit my Reader to what I before said upon the account of the Bread's being Christ's Body; because that mutatis mutandis may be applied to the Particle [Is] here; Yet I shall add ex abundanti, that there cannot well be any doubt of its being taken figuratively here, either in the one, or the other predication concerning it: Because the Cup of this Sacrament cannot literally, and properly be both his Blood of the New Testament, or Covenant, and the New Testament, or Covenant in it, which yet in some, or other of the Sacred Writers it is affirmed to be. Which, as it will make it so much the more reasonable to allow of that figurative Sense here, which we have attributed to the same Particle Is in This is my Body; So consequently make it reasonable to understand by This is my Blood of the New Testament, which answers directly to the other, This is a Sign, and a Memorial, and a Means of its conveyance, as well as the Bread is of my Body. And indeed, as the Cup, or rather the Wine of it may well pass for a Sign of that Blood, as for other Reasons, so for that effusion, which is attributed to it; So that it is both a Memorial, and a Means of its conveyance, is evident from St. Paul's bringing in our Saviour subjoining the words, Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, to the Story of the Cup, and elsewhere representing the same Cup as the Communion of his Blood. This I take to be a fair account of the Particle [Is], as it is made use of to connect the Cup, and Christ's Blood of the New Tescament, or Covenant. And it will be no less easy to give as clear an account of it, as it is made use of to connect the same Cup, and the New Testament, or Covenant in his Blood: That Cup representing to us God's exhibiting together with it Christ's Blood, and the Merits of it, and our receiving that Blood, and the Merits of it with that thankfulness, which doth become us, and a Mind resolved to walk worthy of those Benefits we receive by it. I will conclude this long Discourse concerning the Institution of this Sacrament, when I have lightly animadverted upon that, which St. Matthew, and St. Mark bring in our Saviour subjoining to all he had said concerning the Elements thereof; To wit, that he would not any more drink of this Fruit of the Vine (for so St. Matthew expresseth it) until he should drink it new with them in his Father's Kingdom. For though it should be granted, what Grotius contends for out of St. Luke, that these words were spoken just before the Institution of this Sacrament, and only placed here upon the account of Christ's being again to speak of the Cup; Yet thus much must be granted to St. Matthew, and St. Mark's placing it here, that it was the Fruit of the Vine, that our Saviour gave them, and they accordingly drank of, even in this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: There being no more reason (nor so much neither, considering that that is the immediate Antecedent) to deny this Fruit of the Vine's referring to what our Saviour gave his Disciples, and they all drank of, than there would be to deny its relating to that Cup, which he took into his hands, and blessed. Which if we should, there would be no proof either here, or elsewhere of the Fruit of the Vine's being one of the Symbols of this Sacrament. PART iv Of the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper. The Contents. Bread and Wine ordinarily the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper, and the Heresy of the Aquarii upon that account enquired into, and censured. The kind of Bread and Wine enjoined, in the next place examined, and a more particular Enquiry thereupon, Whether the Wine ought to be mixed with Water, and what was the Ground of the Ancients Practise in this Affair. The same Elements considered again with respect to Christ's Body and Blood, whether as to the Usage that Body, and Blood of his received, when he was subjected unto Death; or as to the Benefit, that was intended, and accrued to us by them. In the former of which Notions they become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood, by what is done to them before they come to be administered, and by the separate administration of them. In the latter, by the use they are of to nourish, and refresh us. Of the Obligation the Faithful are under to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, and a resolution of those Arguments, that are commonly alleged to justify the Romish Churches depriving them of the Cup. THE way being thus plained to the Consideration of the present Sacrament, and, if I mistake not, such a Foundation also laid, as may support a better Fabric, than I am likely to superstruct upon it, I will now pass on to a more particular handling of it in the method before observed in the Sacrament of Baptism, as well as in the Sacraments in general. In order whereunto I will inquire, I. What is the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper? II. What is the inward Part, or thing signified by it? III. What farther relation, beside that of a Sign, the outward part, or Sign hath to the inward part, or thing signified? IU. What is the Foundation of those Relations? V How, and to whom this Sacrament ought to be administered? VI How it ought to be received? I. That, which comes first to be enquired, is, what is the outward part, Question. What is the outward part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper? Answer. Bread, and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received. or Sign of the Lord's Supper, which our Catechism declares to be Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received. For my more advantageous handling of which Answer, I will again inquire, 1. What Evidence there is of Bread and Wine being the outward part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper? 2. What kind of Bread and Wine we ought to make use of in it? 3. Wherein the Bread and Wine were intended as a Sign? 4. What Evidence there is of Christ's commanding us to receive them? 1. That Bread, and Wine are the outward part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper is so evident from the Story of the Institution, and the account I have already given of it, that it would be but lost labour to go about to prove it. It may suffice here to add, that as Bread, and Wine, were the Matter of that Jewish Eucharist, which in all probability was the Pattern of the Christian one; So the Practice of the Church of God hath been always conformable to it, neither have any Persons willingly varied from it, I will not say that have not been branded for Heretics, but that have not also been looked upon as either stupidly ignorant, or blotches of the Church, rather than any part of it. Of which nature were those Aquarii mentioned by St. Augustin * De haeres. c. 6. Ed. Dan. , and before him written against by St. Cyprian † Ad Caecil. Ep. 63. , that offered Water in the Cup of the Sacrament instead of that, which all the Church doth. Whether that they condemned the Creation of God, as several of the ancient Heretics did, and accordingly abstained wholly from Wine, as well as from some other things; Or (as I rather think for the most part) by way of exercise upon, and mortification of themselves, of which sort of Abstinences out of the Sacrament there are frequent Instances in the Ancient Christians: Little considering that Obedience is much better than such Sacrifices, though they were otherwise of far greater worth, than they will be found upon examination to be. For if St. Paul * 1 Tim. 5.23. could admonish Timothy, even for his Stomach's sake, and his often Infirmities, not to drink any longer Water, but to use a little Wine; I doubt he would not have heard with any patience of his, or other Men's abstaining wholly from the Cup of the Sacrament, or using Water instead of it out of a Principle of mortification and self-denial. I do not say the same as to the outward part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper, where one of those Elements is not to be had, or at least not without much difficulty, as to be sure in many places the Wine of the Sacrament is not. For as I find by Cassander (a) Liturg. c. 14. , that the Armenians in India, where Wine is not to be had, do beforehand steep dried Grapes in Water, and the next day press out the Juice of them for the use of the Sacrament; So I do not see, but where neither the one, nor the other is to be had, Men may lawfully make use of other generous Liquors for the same purpose: I do not say only upon the account of Necessity, to which all positive Laws must yield, but because (as I shall afterwards show) they are equally fitted to represent to us those things, for which the Fruit of the Vine was here ordained. Only let not Men make a Necessity where there is none, nor think themselves excused in the use of other Liquors, where the Fruit of the Vine, though not the Product of their own Country, yet may well enough be had from abroad. For where our Saviour hath annexed a Blessing to the use of such, and such Creatures, I do not see how we can expect it without, where we have not a just Necessity to excuse it, how convenient soever those other Creatures are, which we substitute in the room of them. 2. But because question may be made, what kind of Bread, and Wine we ought to make use of in this Sacrament, as well as whether Bread, and Wine be the ordinary Matter, or Sign of it; Therefore I shall admonish, as to the former of these, that I see little reason to doubt, but that the Bread of the place we live in may suffice, provided it be of the better, and more nutritive sort, or at least as good as we are in a capacity to provide. For our Saviour having not prescribed any thing as to the Grain, whereof it is to be made, and all sorts of Bread being in their Nature sufficiently fitted for those Sacramental Purposes, to which they are to be applied, it is a needless superstition to be solicitous about the kind of it, or indeed about any thing else of that nature, farther than the Laws of Decency, or the general Nature of the Sacrament may seem to exact of us. The same is to be said, and for the same reasons as to the kind of the Wine, though the Wines of Palestine were generally Red (b) Psal. 75.8. Prov. 23.31. Isa. 27.2. 63.2. (for which cause it is not improbable that they were styled the Blood (c) Deut. 32.14. of the Grape) and those therefore the most apt to represent the Blood of our Saviour. For whatever the Colour thereof may be, they may serve by the Liquidness thereof, and the pouring of them from one Vessel to another, to denote the shedding of his Blood, which is all that the Institution obligeth us to reflect upon. Upon which account I shall in this place confine myself to inquire, whether it ought to be mixed with Water, or no, as which seems to me to be the only material Enquiry in this Affair. And here indeed they, who think it enough to make use of pure Wine, may seem to be hardly pressed, whether we do consider the Antiquity of the contrary Usance, or the Reason, which is alleged for it: For it appears from Justin Martyr (d) Apol. 2. p. 97. to have been carefully practised in his time; And it appears too not only to have been pleaded for by St. Cyprian * Ad Caecil. Ep. 63. (even where he disputes against the forementioned Aquarii) but to such a degree also, as to represent the Sacrament as imperfect without it: The mixture of Wine and Water being, as he saith (e) Quando autem in chalice aqua vino miscetur; Christo populus adunatur, & credentium plebs ei in quem credidit, copulatur, & conjungitur. Quae copulatio; & conjunctio aquae, & vini sic miscetur in chalice domini, ut commixtio illa non possit ab invicem separari— Nam si vinum tantùm quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis; si vero aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Quando autem utrumque miscetur, & adunatione confusâ sibi invicem copulatur, tunc Sacramentum spiritale, & coeleste perficitur. , intended to signify the conjunction of Christ and his People, and that we can therefore in the sanctifying of the Lord's Cup no more offer Wine alone, than we may presume to offer Water only. These things to those, that have a regard to Antiquity, cannot but appear very considerable, and I must needs say, they weigh so much with me, as to believe, that the Wine of the Sacrament might have been from the beginning diluted with Water, yea that that very Wine might, which our Saviour consecrated into it. But this rather with respect to the Custom of the Eastern Country, and the generousness of their Wines (which might be but needful to be tempered, where the same Liquor was to be the Entertainment of their Love-Feasts, as well as the Matter of a Sacrament) than out of any regard to the Sacrament itself, or that particular Mystery in it, which St. Cyprian thought to be intended: Because there is not any the least hint either in the Evangelists, or St. Paul, of such a mixture, or Mystery, but rather an intimation of Christ's employing only the Fruit of the Vine, and his having a regard to the sole Properties thereof, and of that Blood of his, which he shed for our Redemption. If there were from the beginning any Mystery in such a mixture, it may most probably be thought to have been intended to make so much the more lively a Representation to us of that Blood, which it was designed to remember, and which we learn from St. John (f) Joh. 19.34. to have issued from his side attended with Water, and accordingly particularly remarked by him. Upon which account though I cannot press a mixture of Wine, and Water as necessary, yet neither can I condemn it, or those Churches, which upon that reason think fit to retain it, and enjoin on their respective Members the due observation of it. 3. But because there neither is, nor can well be a more material Enquiry, than wherein the Bread, and Wine of this Sacrament were intended as a Sign; Therefore it may not be amiss to pass on to the resolution of it, and employ all requisite diligence in it. For my more orderly performance whereof I will consider those Elements of Bread, and Wine, with respect to Christ's Body and Blood, whether as to the usage that Body, and Blood of his received, when he was subjected to Death for us, or as to the Benefit, that was intended, and accrued to us by them. If we consider the Elements of Bread and Wine with respect to Christ's Body, and Blood, as to the usage they received, when he was subjected to Death for us; So we shall find them again to be a Sign of that Body, and Blood, by what is done to them before they come to be administered, or by the separate administration of them, when they are. For in the former of these Notions the Bread manifestly became a Sign of Christ's Body by our Saviour's breaking of it; For which cause (as was before observed) St. Paul in his rehearsal of the Institution, attributes that breaking to Christ's Body, and describes its crucifixion by it. And not improbably the Wine of the Sacrament became a Sign of Christ's Blood by its being poured out of some other Vessel into that Cup, which he took, and blessed, and gave to his Disciples; There being not otherwise any thing in it to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood, which it appears by the several Evangelists, that our Saviour had a particular respect unto. Neither will it suffice to say (though it be true enough) that we do not read either in the Evangelists, or St. Paul, of our Saviour's before pouring the Wine of the Sacrament out of some other Vessel into that Cup, which he made use of for that purpose, and consequently cannot with equal assurance make the Wine to be a Sign of Christ's Blood by any such effusion of it. For whether we read of it, or no, such an Effusion must of necessity precede (the use of a Cup being not to keep Wine in, but to drink out of, after it hath received it by effusion from another) and that effusion therefore, and the particular mention there is of the effusion of that Blood, which is acknowledged to be signified by the Wine, no unreasonable intimation of that Effusion's being one of those things, wherein the Wine of the Sacrament was intended as a Sign or Representation of the other. By these means the Bread, and Wine become a Sign of Christ's Body, and Blood, as to what is done to them before they come to be administered. And we shall find them in like manner to be a Sign of the same Body, and Blood, by the separate administration of them, when they are. For as our Saviour's Body, and Blood were parted by Death, and accordingly required to be considered, the one as broken, and mortified, the other as shed, or poured out of it; So our Saviour did not only appoint divers Symbols to represent them, but administered them apart, and by themselves, and (if there be any force in Do this in remembrance of me) commanded them to be so administered afterwards. By which means they become, even by that separate administration, a yet more perfect, and lively Representation of Christ's Body, and Blood, as to the usage they received, when he, whose they were, was subjected to Death for us. But because the Body, and Blood of Christ are considered in this Sacrament as to the Benefit, that was intended, and accrued to us by them, as well as to the usage they received (For This is my Body, which is given, or broken for you, say St. Luke, and St. Paul, and This is my Blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in it, which is shed for you, say all the Evangelists upon this Argument) Therefore inquire we wherein the Elements of Bread, and Wine, are a sign of his Body, and Blood, as to that Benefit, they were so intended, and given for. Which will soon appear if we consider what the proper use of those Elements is, what we are required to do with them, and what is elsewhere said concerning that Body, and Blood, when considered with respect to our welfare, and advantage; These several things making it evident, that they become a sign of Christ's Body, and Blood, by the use they are of to nourish, and refresh us. For as we cannot lightly think, but that when our Saviour made choice of such things, as those, to represent the usefulness of his Body, and Blood to us, he made choice of them for that purpose with respect to their proper usefulness, as which is both most notorious in them, and most apt to affect the Mind of him, to whom they are suggested; So much less can we think otherwise of them, when he moreover requires us to eat of the one, and drink of the other, which are the ways by which we are to receive that nourishment, and refreshment, which we have said them to be so useful for. Otherwise any thing else might have been as proper for the purpose, as Bread, and Wine; Or if God, who may no doubt make use of what Methods he pleaseth, thought good however to make choice of Bread, and Wine, to represent Christ's Body, and Blood, yet he might have contented himself to have enjoined upon us the casting our Eyes upon them, and not, as we find he doth, prompted us to eat, and drink of them, as that too in remembrance of him, and them. For what need would there be of eating, and drinking those Elements in remembrance of his Body, and Blood, or indeed what aptness in so doing, to call them to our own Minds, or the Minds of others? were it not that there were somewhat in them to represent the usefulness of Christ's Body, and Blood, which was not to be drawn from them, or so sensibly perceived in them, as by eating, and drinking of them. This I take to be a competent evidence of Bread, and Wine's becoming a sign by the use they are of to nourish, and refresh us; But I am yet more convinced of it by what is elsewhere said concerning Christ's Body, and Blood, when considered (as they are here) as to our Benefit, and advantage. Even that his Flesh, or Body was food * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. indeed, and his Blood drink indeed (g) Joh. 6.55. , and that accordingly except his Disciples eaten that Flesh of his, and drank his Blood, (h) Joh. 6.53. they could have no life in them, but if they did (i) Joh. 6.54. they should have eternal Life; In fine, that the flesh (k) Joh. 6.51. , which he should give for the life of the World, was in the nature of Bread to them, and so represented by him throughout that whole Discourse. For if Christ's Body, and Blood be in the nature of Food, and drink to us; If they be so far such, that we are required to eat, and drink of them, and so also, that we cannot promise ourselves life without them: That Bread, and Wine, which in the present Sacrament are appointed to signify, and represent them, cannot be thought by any more proper way to be a Sign, or Representation of them, than by their usefulness as Bread, and Drink to nourish, and refresh our Bodies, to maintain them in their present beings, and fill them with joy, and gladness. 4. The fourth thing to be enquired as concerning the Bread, and Wine of this Sacrament is, what evidence there is of Christ's commanding us to receive them. A question, which one would think might soon be voided by the words of the Institution itself; Take, Eat, This is my Body being the voice of our Saviour concerning the Bread, and Drink ye all of it, and This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, being the words of the same Jesus in St. Matthew, and St. Paul concerning the Cup, which one would think to be sufficient expresses of Christ's command concerning it. But as nothing is enough to those, who are prejudiced against any Doctrine, as it is apparent that the Church of Rome was against the use of the Cup, when this business came to be debated in the Council of Trent; So that Council did not only determine, that whole, and entire Christ is contained under either species, and particularly under the species of Bread (l) Sess. 13. cap. 3. , but that the faithful are not obliged by any command of the Lord to receive both species (m) Sess. 21. cap. 1. , and that accordingly, if any shall say that all, and singular the faithful people of Christ are obliged to take both species, either by virtue of any command from God, or as of necessity to Salvation (n) ib. Can. 1. , he ought to be anathematised for it, or rather hath already incurred it. For which cause it will be necessary for us to show, that the faithful are obliged by the Command of Christ to receive the Cup, and then answer the principal reasons, that are brought against it. And here in the first place I would gladly know, whether there be, or ever were any command from Christ for the receiving of the Cup, whether by the Apostles at first, or the Priest that consecrates now, whatsoever become of simple Laymen, or the Priests, that do not officiate, and are therefore so far forth reckoned in the number of the other. The ground of which question is, because the Council of Trent doth not say, that there is no command from Christ for the faithful's receiving the Cup, but that the faithful are not bound by any command of his to the taking of both species; and again, that if any shall say that all the faithful aught to take both species by virtue of any command of God, let him be Anathema. For possibly (for aught that doth appear from the words of that Council) there may have been a Command from Christ for all the faithful's receiving the Cup, but which it is in the power of the Church (as we are not ignorant of the asserted plenitude thereof) to cassate, or dispense with it. And possibly too there is no command for any either Lay, or Clergies receiving either the Cup, or the Bread, and so, if the Church pleaseth, we may, and aught to bid Farewell to the Sacrament itself, as well as to the Cup of it. For that I make no unreasonable supposition here, is evident from Fisher the Jesuite's (o) See his Answer in White's Reply on Point 7. pag. 473. questioning, whether Christ gave any precept at all in the matter of the Cup, and his distinguishing between precept, and institution, which will avail as well against the Bread, as against the Cup. Which things being not first decided, it will indeed be to no great purpose to argue with them about the faithful's obligation to receive the Cup, or for them to put us upon the proof of it; Because the true Question may perhaps be, whether there be any Command at all for any sort of men's receiving the Cup, or indeed the Sacrament itself in any part of it. Which if it be, both Clergy, and Laity are under the same Condition, and the Question ought to be, Whether the whole matter of the Eucharist were not matter of Advice even to the Apostles themselves, rather than any thing of a Command. But as we cannot but think, that Take, Eat, and Drink ye all of this, are express Commands to some Persons, or other, because they run in the same form with Tell it to the Church, and Obey those that have the Rule over you, upon which kind of Texts all Ecclesiastical Authority is founded; so we shall therefore take it for granted, that the matter of the Cup is a Precept, and accordingly go on to inquire, for whom this Precept was intended, and to whom it was directed by our Saviour. Now as if this Precept was intended for any, to be sure it was intended for our Saviour's Disciples, because the Persons to whom it was immediately given; So it must consequently be intended for them, either in their personal capacity, and so, that it was to reach no farther than themselves, or as they were the Representatives of others also. If the Romanists say the former, they do not only alter the state of the Question, and make the future both Laity and Clergy in the same Condition as to this particular, but make it as indifferent too, as to any thing of a Command from Christ, whether the future Clergy, or Laity partake of the Sacrament at all, even in the Bread of it. Which how unreasonable it is, may appear from St. Paul's pressing the Corinthians with the Institution of Christ in the matter of the Eucharist, and particularly with the Precept, Take, Eat, and Do this in remembrance of me. For by that it should seem that what was enjoined upon the Disciples, at least as to the Element of Bread, was enjoined upon them, as the Representatives of others also. And if the Bread was so, why not also the Cup, that went along with it, and concerning which the words of our Saviour in S. Matthew are as express, Drink ye all of this, and St. Mark tells us, that he alike gave them, and they all drank of it? And I know of nothing, that can look like the shadow of an Objection against this way of reasoning, unless it be what some have vainly objected, that St. Paul doth not deliver it as a Precept from Christ, that the Apostles, and after them others should drink of it, but that, when they did drink of it, or as often as they did, they should do it in remembrance of him, as if there were nothing absolute concerning the Cup. But as the contrary is plain enough from St. Matthew, who brings in our Saviour enjoining them to drink all of it, and as it happens too without the addition of doing what they did in remembrance of him, lest any should satisfy themselves with so vain a subterfuge; So there was reason enough for St. Paul, after his accurate rehearsal of the whole Institution of the Bread, and of our Saviour's Command concerning it, to content himself with saying, Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: Partly, because this form of Speech, or Command was enough to confute, and discountenance that unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper, which was so rife among the Corinthians, and for the discountenancing whereof this account of Christ's Institution was given; But especially, because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in like manner the Cup, wherewith St. Paul ushers in that part of the Institution, which respected it, did sufficiently imply Christ's doing alike to, and enjoining alike concerning the Cup, as he had before affirmed him to have done to, or concerning the Bread, so far as the different nature of the Elements did permit. Otherwise we must suppose St. Paul to have thought the blessing of the Cup as indifferent a thing, as the Romanists make the use of it to be, which yet it is evident from this Epistle, that he did not: He representing that Blessing as a thing of so great concernment, as to give denomination to the Cup (p) 1 Cor. 10.16. , and not only so, but intimating it to be of like use to make it to become the Communion of Christ's Blood. The Cup therefore, or rather the Command concerning the use of it being manifestly intended for the Disciples of Christ, not in their personal capacity only, but as they were also Representatives of others; Inquire we in the next place, whether it was intended for them as Representatives of all the faithful whatsoever, or as Representatives of the Clergy only, and particularly of such of them, as were to consecrate the Bread, and it. A Question, which one would think might easily be answered by considering that, when the Sacrament was first instituted, the Disciples had no hand at all in the Consecration of the one, or the other Element, but he, by whom it was instituted. For our Saviour making no use of their Assistance in consecrating the Cup, or Bread, they are to be looked upon rather as Laymen, than Clergymen as to any thing they were then enjoined; Unless the thing enjoined could be otherwise made appear to be proper to Clergymen as such. Even as it is apparent that the Romanists themselves look upon such of their own Clergy, as do not consecrate the Eucharist, and accordingly withhold the Cup from them, as well as from the meanest Layman. Now what is there in the receipt of the Cup, that we should think it to be proper to the Clergy? What in the Command of Christ concerning it to intimate any such thing? what in the reason of the thing enjoined to persuade it? For as there is no difference, so far as we can see, between Take, Eat the Bread, and drink ye all of the Cup, that we should think one to respect the Clergy, any more than the other; So one would think the reason assigned by our Saviour in St. Matthew for their drinking all of it, even because it was his Blood of the New Testament, which was shed for many for the remission of Sins, should concern the Laity, as well as the Clergy that consecrate, and consequently that Precept also, which it was intended to enforce. Unless we should think, or indeed could, that the Laity, and fuch of the Clergy, as do not consecrate, have no interest in Christ's Blood, or the Benefits thereof, or at least that they were no way obliged with due thankfulness to remember it. But beside that our Saviour's Disciples had no interest in consecrating that Eucharist, which he celebrated with them, and were therefore so far forth to be looked upon rather as Laymen, than Clergymen, and consequently Representers of those, that were such, where there was nothing enjoined upon them, that was not manifestly peculiar to them as Priests; St. Paul, where he repeats the same Institution of Christ, doth not only make no difference between Priest and People as to this particular, but rather suppose the Cup to be common to all, and accordingly both warns all to beware of such an unworthy receiving of it, as they had been before guilty of, and exhorts them as indifferently, after they had well examined themselves, to drink of the Cup, as to eat of the Bread: Thereby farther intimating, that they were all alike concerned in the thing itself, I mean as to the receipt of it. So that, for aught that hitherto doth appear, we must not only look upon the receipt of the Cup as a thing under Command, but under such a Command too, as respects People, as well as Priest, yea as well as that very Priest that consecrates it, and the other Element. Which will consequently leave nothing more to inquire upon this head, than whether as the receipt of the Cup, even by the Faithful, be a thing under Command, so those Faithful are under the obligation of it, and bound by it to the receiving of the Cup. Now though a Command, as such, doth naturally oblige, and consequently they, that are under it, are obliged by it, and to that, which is the matter of it; Yet because question may seem to have been made by the Council of Trent rather concerning Men's being bound by any Precept of Christ to receive the Cup, than concerning the Precept itself, therefore I will set myself more particularly to the resolution thereof, and, together with that, of those Objections that are made against it. In order thereunto asserting, first, that if there be such a Command, as we have before evinced, they, for whom that Command was intended, are generally obliged by it to that, which is the matter of it: This being no more, than what the very nature of a Command enforceth, and the Credit of the Author of it persuades. For as it is of the nature of a Command to oblige, and consequently they, that are under it, generally obliged by it, as without which otherwise that Command would not have its end; So it is not for the Credit of him, that gave it, either to prescribe that, which cannot generally be observed, or not to hold those, that can, to the obligation of it: This opening a way to the contempt of his Authority, and not only to reject this, or that particular Command, but all. From whence as it will follow, that it must be only as to some Persons, and some Cases, that the Precept of the Cup must be thought not to oblige, if indeed it do not; So that alone being granted, the depriving of whole Towns, and Provinces, and Kingdoms of the Cup, will admit of no Excuse, which will be enough to justify us for separating from the Church of Rome in this Affair, and to condemn the Church of Rome for usurping so much upon the World against a Divine Institution, and Command: Only to dispense with a Law, as to the Major part, being rather to destroy, than dispense with it; How much more than to hinder the Major part from the observance of it by contrary Decrees, and by anathemas upon those, who shall not acquiesce in them? But because all we have hitherto said tends only to show, that the generality of Christians are obliged to the receipt of the Cup, which is an intimation, unless we proceed farther, that some Persons, and in some Cases, may be exempted from the Obligation; And because the Church of Rome pretends that she is not without reasons to show, that there is no Obligation upon all, and singular the Faithful, to receive it; Therefore I will now proceed to consider the reasons of that Pretence, and show whether, or no, and how far they ought to be admitted. And first it is pretended that there are some Countries in the World, which are not furnished with Wine, nor can, it may be, with any Conveniency furnish themselves from other places, or at all for public, and general Communions. And I will not deny but such places there may be, and that they cannot therefore (because no one can be tied to that which is impossible) be obliged either to celebrate, or receive the Eucharist in it. But as this signifies nothing to the defence of those, who forbidden it where it may be had, and is therefore very frivolously alleged in the present Case; So I shall upon the strength of what I have before said, refer it to Consideration, whether some other generous Liquor, which I suppose few Nations want, may not be substituted in the place of Wine, and so the Cup be preserved, though that specifical Liquor cannot. It is pretended, secondly, (which I doubt not might give the first occasion to the taking of it away) that there would be great danger of irreverence otherwise by shedding the Liquor of it either in the Church by carrying it to the Communicants there, or in carrying of it, especially over the Mountains in Winter, to sick Persons; By the hanging of some part of it in the Beards of the Laics, wheresoever it was delivered to them, or by its growing sour by being kept. For to these, and the like Purposes did some of the Fathers of the Council of Trent discourse (q) Hist. of the Council of Trent li. 6. p. 521. , and as it should seem too out of Gerson the learned Chancellor of Paris. But a Man would wonder, first, that if these were just Reasons for abridging the Laity of the Cup, they should not have prevailed with our Saviour (who certainly knew all, that might hereafter happen) not to admit them to it at the first, but however that they should not have taken him off from enjoining them to drink of it. A Man would wonder as much, secondly, why there should be thought to be so great a danger of shedding in carrying about the Cup in the Church, when among us, who practise it in great Congregations, no such danger doth appear, and when that danger may in a great measure be prevented by bringing those, that are to receive, to the Rails of the Communion Table, to take it from the Priest there. And a Man would wonder no less, thirdly, why so much ado should be made about the carrying of it to sick Folks, and the danger that attends it, especially when it is over Mountains. Because if Men were prompted, as they ought, to a frequent Communion in the public Assemblies, there would be the less need of carrying it to them, when sick; Or, if it were thought meet however, that they should receive the Communion, when sick, it might be consecrated, as well as administered to them at home, and a reasonable number of Communicants provided to receive with them, as it is with us. Or, if that were not thought fit neither, but that they must by all means be debarred the Cup, because of the danger of the Liquors growing sour by being kept for them, or of its shedding in the carriage; yet is there no imaginable reason why they, that are whole, and come to it, instead of expecting its being brought to them, should be therefore deprived of it even in the Church, because it may not be convenient to be brought to their Houses, it may be, once. These things, I say, a Man might well wonder at, but especially when they are urged, as they are, for a total removing of the Cup. But a Man would more than wonder, fourthly, if he did not know the force of Prejudice, and Custom, that the hanging of the Liquor in the Lay-men's Beards should be made so great a difficulty, and danger, as to debar them of the use of it. For not to say that it is strange that, if that were so considerable a thing, neither our Saviour should be ware of it, when he instituted the Cup, nor the Church in so many Centuries of Years take care to prevent it, especially when Beards were more in Fashion, than they have been of late; A Man would think, that if the Blood of Christ, and the observation of a Command of his were a matter of as great moment, as the fear of the loss of any of that Blood in the laymen's Beards; A Man would think, I say, that in such a Case both the Priests should have enjoined the Laity, and the Laity for that time have willingly submitted to the shaving of their Beards, rather than have suffered themselves, for the sake of such an excrement, to be robbed of Christ's Blood, or go against his Institution, and Command: To take away the Cup of the Sacrament for such like Fears as these, being somewhat more extravagant than Lycurgus' King of Thrace's cutting down all the Vines of his Kingdom for fear of the ill use that might be made of the Fruit of them. In fine, a Man might wonder (if such like things, as these, were an affront to the Holy Sacrament, and, as such, of sufficient force to remove the use of the Cup) why our Saviour should not have found out some more decent place, than the Stomach of the Faithful to bestow one Element of the Sacrament in, or than the Stomach of the Priest to bestow them both; They, who are acquainted with the inside of that, knowing it in that respect, to be a more unseemly place for one, or the other Element to be lodged in, than many of those, which they seem to be so jealous of, and for fear of any pollution by which they deprive the Faithful of the benefit of the Cup, and of that, whether Wine, or Blood, that is contained in it. The third thing pretended for depriving the Faithful of the Cup is, that whole, and entire Christ is contained under one only Species (r) Trid. Conc. Sess. 21. cap. 3. . Which the Council of Trent doth so peremptorily affirm, that it pronounceth an Anathema upon any one that shall deny (s) ib. Can. 3. , that whole, and entire Christ the Fountain, and Author of all Graces is received under the only Species of Bread. For, if that be true, what need is there of the receipt of the Cup by them, or indeed what presumption of Christ's having given any Command concerning it? But are they so sure, as they would be thought to be, that whole, and entire Christ is contained under the sole Species of Bread? Or, if it were, that it were therefore indifferent, whether we received the Cup, or no? Nay, is there not sufficient reason to believe that whole, and entire Christ is not contained under it, but under the one, and other Species? For beside that our Saviour, by making choice of two distinct Elements to become them, made as manifest a separation between his Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, as he did upon the Cross, and may therefore be presumed to give them (if he gave them at all in their sense) not conjunctly, but apart, and in that separate estate, in which he had put them; Beside that he required not only two distinct, and separate Acts (those of eating, and drinking I mean) but two Acts, that were distant in time toward the partaking of that Body, and Blood, and may therefore be yet more presumed to give them not conjunctly, but apart, and agreeably to those Acts, which he enjoined for the partaking of them; If the Body, and Blood of Christ are contained under, and received with the sole Species of Bread (as to be sure they must, if whole, and entire Christ be) It must be either by virtue of those words, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body; or by virtue of those words, and the words that follow, even This is my Blood of the New Testament (As one would think that they, who lay so much stress upon those words, should readily grant either the one, or the other) or by virtue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy (to speak the words (t) Sess. 13. cap. 3. of the Trent-Council) whereby the parts of the Lord Christ, who is now risen from the dead, no more to die again, are joined together between themselves. If they, who maintain whole Christ (and consequently his Body; and Blood) to be contained under the Species of Bread, affirm that to be by the sole virtue of those words, Hoc est corpus meum, or, This is my Body; They must consequently make them signify, This is my Blood, as well as my Body, as without which, even in their own opinion, so omnipotent an Effect is not to be produced. Which supposed, I would fain know whether they signify so much always, or only when the Sacrament is administered in one kind, and to those alone, to whom it is so administered. If the words, Hoc est corpus meum, signify so always, (and the like will follow, if the Body and Blood of Christ be by any means brought together under the Species of Bread) then is there no necessity, nor ever was of any Man's receiving the Cup, whether he be Priest, or private Person, Consecrater of the Bread, and it, or only a simple Communicant. Then every one too, that heretofore did, or now doth receive in both kinds, doth in one, and the same Eucharist receive the Blood twice, once in the Species of Bread, and again in the Species of Wine. In fine, by the same Rule, and their affirming whole Christ to be contained under either Species, Hoc est corpus meum may be as proper to make a Transubstantiation of the Cup, as it is a Transubstantiation of the Bread. The two former whereof render our Saviour's injunction concerning the receipt of the Cup perfectly unnecessary; The last gives us occasion to wonder, why our Saviour (who to be sure affected no change of Phrase) did not make use of the same Hoc est corpus meum to make an alteration of the Cup, especially when, if he had, it might have so aptly hinted to us the sufficiency of one only Species to possess us of his Body, and Blood. These I take to be the natural Consequences of making Hoc est corpus meum to signify at all times, This is my Body, and Blood, and by virtue thereof to possess the Receivers of that, over which they are pronounced, of whole, and entire Christ. And if, on the other side, they with whom we have to do, make those words to signify so only, where the Sacrament is administered but in one kind, and only to those, to whom it is so administered, they must consequently make the very same words, Hoc est corpus meum, to signify one thing to the Layman, who receives but in one kind, and another to the Priest, that consecrates, and receives in both. Which beside that it will make the signification of those words to be arbitrary, and according as the Priest shall intent them, will make them vary from the signification they had in the Institution of Christ, which is, and aught to be the Pattern of all: Our Saviour, as he both instituted, and distributed the Sacrament in both kinds, so to be sure making the words, Hoc est corpus meum, to signify only This is my Body apart from my Blood, as which latter he both appointed a distinct Element for, and (as they love to speak) converted that distinct Element into by words equally fitted for such a Conversion. I think, I shall not need to say much to show the Bread of the Sacrament not to be converted into Christ's Body, and Blood, by the force of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, as if the latter extended to the Species of the former, as well as to its own proper Sacrament, even the Liquor of the Cup: Both because those words are not applied even by themselves to the Bread, but to the Cup, and cannot therefore in reason be thought to have any operation upon the former; And because our Saviour in that Eucharist, which he consecrated for his Disciples, gave them the Bread of it to eat, before he proceeded to the Consecration of the Cup, and before therefore it could be supposed to receive any influence from those words, This is my Blood, as which were not till some time after, pronounced by him. One only Device remains to bring Christ's Blood, as well as Body under the Species of Bread, called by the Schoolmen Concomitancy, but aught rather by the Romanists explication of it, and indeed by the words natural connexion before used by the Council of Trent, to be termed, a real Union. By virtue of which if Christ's Blood, and Body are brought together under the Species of Bread, Christ's Body in the Sacrament, even that, which the words, Hoc est corpus meum, produced, is no more that Body, which was broken upon the Cross, at least considered as such (for that to be sure was separated from his Blood) but his Body entire, and perfect. And then farewell not only to the natural signification of Hoc est corpus meum, and quod pro vobis frangitur, but to the Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, which yet they have hitherto so contended for, as not to think it to be such only by a Figure or Memorial of it. Such reason is there to believe, how confidently soever the contrary is affirmed, that Christ's Body and Blood are not contained under the single Species of Bread. And yet if that could be proved, it would not therefore follow, that it were an indifferent thing, whether we received the Cup, or no. For the design of the several Species, and our receipt of them (u) 1 Cor. 11.26. being to show forth to others the Lord's Death, as well as to possess ourselves of his Body, and Blood; If that be not to be compassed without the receipt of the Cup, it will make the use of it to be so far necessary, what ever we may gain by the Bread alone: He satisfying not his Duty, who complies with one end of any thing to the neglect of another, as that too which tends apparently to the Honour of the Institutor, as to be sure the Commemoration of our Saviour's Death, and Passion doth. Now that the Death of our Saviour cannot be otherwise shown forth, or at least not as he himself represented it, without the receipt of the Cup, as well as Bread, may appear from his own representing his Death as a thing effected by the shedding, or pouring out of his Blood (For so it is in the several Evangelists) as well as by the breaking of his Body; Blood shed, or poured out of a Body being not to be represented in a Sacrament, but by a Species at least distinct from the Species of that Body, nor we therefore in a capacity so to represent, or show it forth by our receiving, but by the receipt of such a distinct one. Add hereunto, that as it is agreed among all Men, that the Death which we are to represent, or show forth, hath the nature of a Sacrifice, and the Eucharist itself for that reason represented by the Romanists as such; So it is alike certain, and agreed, that there is nothing more considerable in the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, than the shedding of his Blood, as to which he himself peculiarly attributes the Remission of Sins. Which Sacrifice therefore whosoever will show forth; as to that particular, by the receipt of the Sacrament of it, he must do it by the receipt of such a Symbol, as may represent the Blood of Christ as separated from his Body, which nothing but a Symbol distinct from that of the Body can, and therefore neither (because there is no other here) but that Cup, whereof we speak. I may not forget to represent as a fourth Pretence, because suggested by the Council of Trent (w) Sess. 21. cap. 2. that the receipt of the Cup is not of the substance of the Sacrament, and may therefore by the Church be either granted, or denied, as it shall seem most expedient to her. But as if any thing be of the substance of the Sacrament, the doing of that must be, which tends most apparently to set forth the Sacrifice of Christ's Death upon the Cross, as which was one great end of its Institution, and the most clearly expressed in it; So nothing doth, or can tend more apparently to the setting forth of that, than Men's partaking of that Cup, which was by our Saviour himself intended to represent the Blood of that Sacrifice of his, as poured out for our Expiation, and Remission. PART V Of the inward Part of the Lord's Supper, or the thing signified by it. The Contents. The inward Part of the Lord's Supper, or the thing signified by it, is either what is signified on the part of God, and Christ, or on the part of the Receiver of it. The former of these brought under Consideration, and shown to be the Body and Blood of Christ, not as they were at, or before the Institution of this Sacrament, or as they now are, but as th●y were at the time of his Crucifixion, as moreover then offered up unto God, and offered up to him also as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. The Consequences of that Assertion briefly noted, both as to the presence of that Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, and our perception of them. The things signified on the part of the Receiver in the next place considered, and these shown to be, First, a thankful Remembrance of the Body, and Blood of Christ considered as before described. Secondly, our Communion with those, who partake with us of that Body, and Blood. Thirdly, a Resolution to live, and act as becomes those, that are partakers of them. The two latter of these more particularly insisted on, and that Communion, and Resolution not only shown from the Scripture to be signified on the part of the Receiver, but confirmed by the Doctrine, and Practice of the Ancient Church. II. THE outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper being thus accounted for, Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified. and that shown to be no other than Bread, and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received; Reason would, as well as the Method before laid down, that I should entreat of the inward part thereof, or the thing signified by it. Answer. The Body, and Blood of Crhist, which are verily, and indeed taken, and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper. Which on the part of God, and Christ, is that Christ's Body, and Blood; As, on our part, a thankful Remembrance of them, our Communion with those, who partake with us thereof, and a Resolution to live, and act as becomes those, that are partakers of them. That which our Catechism obligeth us especially to consider, is that which is signified on the part of God, and Christ, and which accordingly it declares to be that Christ's Body, and Blood. A thing, which considered in the general, admits of no dispute, because the plain Assertion of the Scripture, as well as the Acknowledgement of all sorts of Men, however otherwise divided about the Sacrament thereof, or the presence of that Body, and Blood in it: They all agreeing, as they must, that the Body of Christ is that, which is signified by one of its Signs, and the Blood of Christ, which is signified by the other. But as it is not so well agreed under what Notion we are to consider that Body, and Blood, nor, for aught that I have observed, much attended to, which is, it may be, the principal Cause of all the Controversy in this Particular; So I shall therefore, for the farther clearing of the thing, or things signified by this Sacrament, inquire under what Notion we ought to consider them, which (if we have a due regard to the words of the Institution) will not be so difficult to unfold. For from thence it will appear, first, that we ought to consider Christ's Body, and Blood here, not in the state wherein they were at, or before the Institution of this Sacrament, or in that more happy one, to which they are now arrived, but as they were at the time of our Saviour's Crucifixion; To wit, the one as given to Death, or broken, and the other as shed for us. Which St. Paul farther confirms, when he tells his Corinthians * 1 Cor. 11.26. , that as often as they eaten the Bread of this Sacrament, and drank the Cup of it, they did show forth the Lord's death till he came. The consequent whereof will be, secondly (because that Death of Christ is represented by the Scriptures as a Sacrifice) that we ought to look upon that Body, and Blood of Christ, which we have said to be signified by this Sacrament, as offered unto God by him, and as such to be considered in it. Which they of all Men have the least reason to refuse, who do not only affirm † Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 1. with us, that this Sacrament was intended for a Memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, but that the Body, and Blood of Christ is even now * Ibid. offered up to God in it under the respective Species thereof. It is as little to be doubted, thirdly, That as we ought to consider the Body, and Blood of Christ here as offered up to God for us, so we ought to consider them as offered up as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of those Persons, for whom it is offered. Which is not only evident from the words of the Institution, because representing the Cup of this Sacrament as the Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins, but abundantly confirmed by the suffrage of those Men, with whom we have most to do in this Affair; They not only representing the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are pleased to call this Sacrament, as one and the same Sacrifice with that, which our Saviour offered upon the Cross, but as a truly propitiatory one (a) Ib. cap. 2. , and which accordingly is of force for the sins of the quick and the dead, and tends to the remission of them. Of what use these Considerations are, will more fully appear, when I come to entreat of that relation, which the outward Signs of this Sacrament have to the inward part thereof, or the things signified by them. At present it may suffice briefly to note, that the Body and Blood of Christ considered as broken, and shed upon the Cross, having now no Existence in the World, nor any more capable of having such an Existence, than that, which is past, can be recalled; They cannot be substantially present either to the Sacramental Elements, or to the Person that receiveth them, nor be substantially eaten, and drunken by him, that eats, and drinks the other; That they must therefore be present to the Sacramental Elements in a Figure, or Mystery, and to the Receiver by their respective Virtue, and Efficacy; That being (as was before said) to be considered as offered up to God to atone his Wrath, and to procure the remission of our Sins, and all other Graces, they must consequently be looked upon not as the immediate producers of those Effects, which are attributed to them, but as meritorious Causes thereof, and disposing God, who is the giver of every good and perfect Gift, to produce them; That therefore if the Body, and Blood of Christ strengthen, and refresh the Soul of the Receiver, as the Sacramental Signs thereof do the Body of him, that receives them, they must do it in the way of a meritorious Cause, and such as disposeth God to grant to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament the pardon of his Sin, which is that, which especially refresheth the Soul, and Grace, whereby he may be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner Man; In fine, that the Body, and Blood of Christ cannot otherwise be eaten, and drunken, than by the Mind meditating upon the Merits, and Satisfaction of that Offering, which our Saviour made of them, and relying wholly upon them for that Salvation, which it expects. But leaving these things to be discussed in a more proper place, where I shall also have an occasion to add farther light and strength to them; Let us in the next place reflect upon that, which I have said to be signified on our part by the Signs of the Lord's Supper, which are these three especially: First, a thankful Remembrance of the Body, and Blood of Christ considered as before described; Secondly, our Communion with those, who partake with us thereof; Thirdly, a Resolution to live, and act, as becomes those that are partakers of them. Of the first of these, little need to be said after the account I have given of it in my Explication (b) Part 3. of the words of the Institution. It may suffice here to observe from thence, that as the words of our Saviour are express, that we should do what is enjoined as to the outward Elements of this Sacrament, for a thankful Remembrance of the offering up of his Body, and Blood; So what is done by the Priest to those Elements, and our receiving them from him in that state, is a lively Representation to our Minds of the offering up of Christ's Body, and Blood, and a thankful Remembrance thereof therefore not unreasonably looked upon as one of those things, which are signified on our part by the Sacrament thereof. The second thing signified on our part by the outward Elements of this Sacrament is our Communion with those, who partake with us of Christ's Body, and Blood. A thing which St. Paul doth not only fairly intimate, where he affirms (c) 1 Cor. 10.17. , that we being many are one Bread, and one Body, because we all partake of that one Bread, which he had before affirmed to be the Communion of Christ's Body; But points us to those things, by which this Communion of ours is signified, even the unity of that Bread, which is one of the Elements of this Sacrament, and our partaking together of it. For as there can be no better account given of St. Paul's calling us one Bread, and one Body, than that we ourselves, though many, are yet one mystical Body, as that Bread though made up of several Grains, is one Loaf, and ought accordingly to be thereby admonished of that intimate Communion, which ought to be between us in all Offices of Christian Love, and Friendship; So there is nothing more usual with the Ancients, than to represent that Unity of the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament as a Symbol of ours, and of that Communion, and Fellowship which ought therefore to be between us. For by this Sacrament, saith St. Cyprian * Ep. 63. ad Caecil. de Sacr. Dom. Calicis. Quo & ipso Sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unun collecta & commolita, & commixta, panem unum faciunt; Sic in Chrislo, qui est panis coelestis, unum sciamus esse Corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus & adunatus. , Our People is also showed to be made one, that as many Grains collected into one, and ground, and mixed together, make one Loaf; so in Christ, who is the heavenly Bread, we may know there is one Body, to which our number is conjoined and united. And again, Finally, saith the same Father † Denique unanimitatem Christianam firmâ sibi atque inseparabili charitate connexam etiam ipsa dominica sacrificia declarant. Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum; Et quando sanguinem sunm vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum, atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Epist. 76. ad Magnum de Bapt. Novatianis, etc. , the Sacrifices of our Lord do also declare that Christian Unanimity, which is connected to itself by a firm, and inseparable Charity. For when the Lord gives the title of his Body to that Bread, which is made up of the Union of many Grains, he shows our People, whom he carried, to be united together: and when he gives the title of his Blood to that Wine, which is pressed out of many Bunches and Grapes, and gathered into one, he also signifies our People coupled together by the commixture of an united multitude. Thus St. Cyprian, and other of the Ancients argue from the Unity of the Bread, and Wine, that Union, and Communion, which ought to be between the Faithful, and consequently show that Communion to be one of those things, which are signified, on our part, by the Elements of this Sacrament. And St. Paul, without any Comment upon him, will help us to infer, that the same Communion is signified by the Faithful's partaking together of them, where he declares us to be one Bread, and one Body, for that we all partake of one Bread. For if barely to eat, and drink together be a Symbol of Love, and Friendship, and accordingly often employed both by Jews, and Heathen (d) See a Discourse concerning the true Notion of the Lord's Supper, by R.C. cap. 6. as a Ceremony, whereby they declared their entering into Covenant, or being at Peace with one another; How much more may we affirm the same, after so clear an Affirmation of St. Paul, of men's partaking of the same mystical Bread, and Wine? Even of that mystical Bread, and Wine, which was instituted by him, who above all other things enjoined upon his Disciples the Love of one another, and gave that as the great Characteristick, whereby they should be known to be so. Sure I am, the Ancients were so persuaded of this Communion's being a thing signified by this Sacrament, that (as I have elsewhere (e) Expl. of the Creed. Art. The holy Catholic Church. shown from Irenaeus) the ancient Presbyters of Rome, in Testimony of that Communion, sent the Mysteries of this Sacrament to the Presbyters of those very Churches, that differed from them about the observation of Easter; And the like was done by other Churches, as appears by the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, till it was forbidden by that Council, because of the inconveniences thereof. The third thing signified, on our part, by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a Resolution to live, and act as becomes those, that are partakers of Christ's Body, and Blood. For the evidencing whereof we are to know, that as this Sacrament hath been shown to be a Sign of the New Covenant (f) Expl. of the Sacraments in Gen. Part 2. , which, as such, implies a Profession of something to be done on the part of God; So the taking of this Sacrament must consequently imply our Covenanting to perform whatsoever that New Covenant obligeth us unto. Which what it is, will need no other Proof, than what I have shown in another place (g) Expl. of the Prelimin. Quest. and Answ. etc. to be the importance of that Sacrament, whereby we enter into it. For if that Sacrament import the Profession of a good Conscience toward God; That new Covenant, of which it is a Sacrament, must consequently have the same good Conscience for the Object of it, and therefore also make the like Profession of it to be the Duty of that Man, who takes this other Sacrament thereof. And though it be true, that this part of the signification of the Lord's Supper is not so clearly expressed in the Stories of the Institution of it; Yet as they give us to understand, that we ought to take the Elements thereof in remembrance of Christ's giving his Body, and Blood for us, so they do consequently imply our taking them also with a Resolution to live, and act as becomes those, that are partakers of them: That Remembrance, as it can be no other than a thankful one, because the remembrance of such Benefits, as do above all others require such a Remembrance of us, so connoting, as such, a readiness to walk wellpleasing unto him, by whom those Benefits are bestowed. Agreeable hereto is the both Language, and Practice of the Ancient Christians, as appears by that account, which I have before given of them; (h) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 1. They not only giving this Institution as well as Baptism, the Name of a Sacrament, in consideration of that Obligation they supposed it to lay upon the Persons, that took it, but obliging themselves by this Sacrament, not (as too many have since learned to do) to the perpetrating of any notorious wickedness, but to avoid all Thefts, and Robberies, and Adulteries, the falsifying of their Trusts, or the denying of any thing, that was committed to their Custody, when they were called upon by the true Owner to restore it. For that those words of Pliny are to be understood of this Sacrament, is not only evident from its being represented as a constant Attendant of the Christians public Assemblies, and particularly of their Assemblies before day, which the Eucharist is known to have been (i) Tert. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. , but from the no mention there is in Ecclesiastical Story of any other Sacrament in them. PART VI. What farther relation the Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the Body, and Blood of Christ. The Contents. The outward Part, or Sign of this Sacrament considered with a more particular regard to the Body, and Blood of Christ, and Enquiry accordingly made, what farther relation it beareth to it. That it is a Means, whereby we receive the same, as well as a Sign thereof, shown from the Doctrine of our Church, and that Doctrine confirmed by Saint Paul's entitling it the Communion of Christ's Body, and Blood, and by his affirming Men to be made to drink into one Spirit by partaking of the Cup of it. Enquiry next made, what kind of Means this Sign of the Lord's Supper is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Christ, and how we receive them by it. To each of which Answer is made from the Doctrine of our Church, and that Answer farther confirmed by the Doctrine of the Scripture. The sum of which is, that this Sign of the Lord's Supper is, so far forth, a Mean spiritual, and heavenly; That it conveys the Body, and Blood of Christ to us, by prompting us to reflect, as the Institution requires, upon that body, and Blood of his, and by prompting God, who hath annexed them to the due use of the Sign, to bestow that Body, and Blood upon us; In fine, that we receive them by the Sign thereof, when we take occasion from thence to reflect upon that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was intended to represent, and particularly with Faith in them. What Benefits we receive by Christ's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquired, and as they are resolved by our Catechism to be the strengthening, and refreshing of the Soul, so Enquiry thereupon made what is meant by the strengthening, and refreshing of the Soul, what Evidence there is of Christ's Body and Blood being intended for it, and how they effect it. The Sign of the Lord's Supper a Pledge to assure us of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as a Means, whereby we receive them. III. WHat the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper is, and what the inward Part, or thing signified by it, enough hath been said to show, neither shall I need to resume the Consideration of them. That, which will more concern me to intent, is, What farther relation, beside that of a Sign, that outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper hath to the inward part, or thing signified, and particularly to the Body, and Blood of Christ. Where first, I will declare, and confirm the Doctrine of our own Church concerning it, and then inquire into the truth of those Relations which the Church of Rome hath advanced on the one hand, and the Lutheran Churches on the other. Now as our Church hath defined a Sacrament to be such an outward, and visible Sign of an inward, and Spiritual Grace, as is also ordained as a means whereby we receive the same, and must therefore be supposed to have the same opinion of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; So it hath said enough both in its Catechism, and elsewhere concerning that Sacrament, to show this to have been its opinion of it. For it gives us to understand * Catechism. , that the Faithful (for whom, to be sure, this Sacrament was principally ordained) do verily, and indeed receive the thing signified, even the Body, and Blood of Christ, as well as the Signs of them, and that they do verily and indeed receive that Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper, which, one would think, were a competent Evidence of that's being a Means, whereby we receive them. It, consequently thereto, teacheth us to pray † Pray. of Cons. in the Commun. Service. , which one would think to be of equal force as to this Particular, that we receiving God's Creatures of Bread and Wine according to his Son, and our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. In fine, it gives us to understand * Art. of Rel. 28. , (which is yet more express) that to such as rightly, worthily, and with a true Faith receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Bread, which we break, is the partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing, a partaking of the Blood of Christ. For what more could have been said (unless it had made use of that particular Expression, which yet it doth use where it declares the general nature of a Sacrament) what more, I say, could have been said to show, that this Sacrament is no naked, or ineffectual Sign of the Body, and Blood of Christ, but such a Sign as is also ordained as a Means, whereby we receive the same, and so sure, and certain a one, that, if we rightly, and worthily receive that Sign, we do as verily receive the Body and Blood of Christ, as we do the Sacrament thereof. How well the Scripture agrees with the Doctrine of our Church in this Particular, will not be difficult to show, whether we do consider its making use of the most emphatical Phrase which our Church doth concerning this Sacrament, or the Effects, which it attributeth to it. For it is St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16. , as well as our Church, that affirms, that the Bread, which we break, is the Communion of the Body of Christ, and that the Cup, which we bless, is the Communion of his Blood. Words, which considering the place they have in that Chapter from whence they are borrowed, cannot admit of a lower sense, than that the elements of this Sacrament are at least a Means of that Communion, because alleged by him as a proof, or at least as an illustration of their really having fellowship with Devils, that partook of the Sacrifices, that were offered to them. For if the Bread, and Wine of the Sacrament were not a Means, as well as a sign of the Communion of the Body, and Blood of Christ; Neither could the Gentiles Sacrifices be a Means of their, or other Men's Communion with those Devils, to whom they were offered, and therefore neither charge them with any real fellowship with Devils, but only with a sign, or semblance of it. Which how it agrees with St. Paul's charging the partakers of those Sacrifices with having fellowship with Devils, as that too upon the account of the Gentiles Sacrificing to Devils, and not to God, I shall leave all sober Men to judge. Such evidence there is from that one place of St. Paul concerning the Lord's Supper being a Means, as well as a Sign, whereby we come to partake of the Body, and Blood of Christ. And we shall find it no less confirmed by an effect, which the Scripture attributes to one of its Symbols, and which is in that place by an usual Synecdoche set to denote the whole Sacrament; That, I mean, where St. Paul affirms (b) 1 Cor. 12.13. , that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For as the foregoing mention of Baptism makes it reasonable to believe, that these words ought to be understood of the Cup, or Wine of the Lord's Supper; So we cannot without great violence to the words, understand less by being made to drink into one Spirit, than our partaking, by Means of that Cup, of the Blood of Christ, and the Benefits thereof, of which the Spirit of God is, no doubt, one of the principal ones: To be made to drink into that Blood, or the Spirit of God importing somewhat more, even in common understanding, than to receive a naked sign of them. And though I know that some of the Reformed Churches, and particularly those of Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius' institution have been charged with meaner thoughts concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; Yet whosoever shall take the pains to peruse what our Cousins (c) Hist. Transubstant. Papal. cap. 2. hath collected upon this Argument, and particularly what he quotes from Bucer (d) ibid. , will find that they always thought, or at least now do, that Christ's true Body, and Blood are truly exhibited, given, and taken, together with the visible signs of Bread, and Wine, as well as signified by them. But because the question is not so much at present concerning this Sacrament's being a Means, whereby we receive the Body, and Blood of Christ, as what kind of Means it is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Christ, and how we receive them by it; Therefore inquire we, so far as we may, what our Church delivers in these particulars, and what evidence there is from the Scripture of our Church's Orthodoxy therein. Now though we may not perhaps find in any Monument of our Church a distinct, and particular Answer to the questions before proposed; Yet we may find that in the eight and twentieth Article of our Church, which may serve for a general Answer to them all, and for a particular answer too to the last of them: The Doctrine thereof being, that the Body of Christ (and the same, mutatis mutandis, must be said of his Blood) is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly, and spiritual manner only; and again, that the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received, and taken in the Supper, is Faith. For if the Body, and Blood of Christ be given, taken, and eaten, or drunken in the Supper after a heavenly, and spiritual manner only, that Supper must so far forth be a means purely heavenly, and Spiritual, the conveyance thereof of the same heavenly and spiritual nature, and the reception of it also. And if, again, the Mean, whereby the Body, and Blood of Christ are received, and taken in the Supper, is Faith, then do we in the opinion of our Church receive them by Faith, which will serve for a particular answer to the last of the questions proposed. To all which if we add our Churches teaching us to pray to God, even in the prayer of Consecration, that we receiving the Creatures of Bread, and Wine according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's Holy Institution, may be partakers of his most blessed Body, and Blood, so we shall be able to make out a more particular answer to the questions proposed, and such as we shall find reason enough to allow. For it appears from the premises, and particularly from the prayer of Consecration, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is such a spiritual Mean, as depends, for the force of it, not upon any virtue that is infused into it, and much less upon any natural union there is between that, and the Body, and Blood of Christ, but upon our receiving it, on the one hand, according to our Saviour's Holy Institution, and God's bestowing, on the other hand, Christ's Body and Blood, upon such a reception of it. It appears therefore that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper cannot any other way convey Christ's Body, and Blood to us, than by prompting us, by the representation it makes to us of the offering of that Body, and Blood upon the Cross for us, to meditate upon it, and rely upon it for our Salvation, and by prompting God, who hath annexed that Body, and Blood to the due use of the Sacrament, to confer that Body, and Blood upon us. In fine, it appears from the premises, and from a passage, or two (e) For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart, and lively faith we receive that Holy Sacrament, for than we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, etc. And above all things ye must give most humble, and hearty thanks to God the Father, etc. for the Redemption of the World by the death and passion of our Saviour, etc. in our Church's exhortation to the Communion, that we receive the Body, and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, when we are thereby prompted to reflect with a penitent, and thankful heart upon the offering Christ made of that Body, and Blood of his upon the Cross for us, and to rely upon it for our Salvation. Which several assertions what foundation they have in the Scripture, is in the next place to be enquired, and the Doctrine of our Church therein established by it. In order whereunto we are to know, that the Body, and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as well as out of it, are in the opinion of the Scripture not corporal, but spiritual food, and as such therefore to be looked upon, and owned by us. For St. Paul affirming of the Ancient Jews, that they received in their Eucharist of Manna, and Water of the Rock, the same spiritual Meat (f) 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. , and drink, which we also do, and which he afterwards (g) 1 Cor. 4. declares to be Christ, must consequently suppose what there is of Christ in our Eucharist to be of the same spiritual nature, and because the Body and Blood of Christ is that, which we receive by it, that that also is Spiritual Meat and Drink, and as such to be looked upon, and owned by us. Now as if the Body, and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist are Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink, they must consequently be communicated rather to the Soul, than to the Body, as which alone is qualified to taste of them, and be nourished by them; So they must be communicated to the Soul by such ways, and means, as are proper to possess the Soul of them, and received by the same Soul by such act, or acts thereof, as are proper to apprehend them. Which things being granted, it will not be difficult to make answer, what kind of Mean the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is, how it conveys to us the Body, and Blood of Christ, and how we receive them by it. For if the things, which this Sacrament professeth to convey, be Spiritual Meat and Drink, such as are proper for the nourishment of the Soul, and accordingly communicated to it; Then must this Sacrament, so far forth, be a Spiritual Mean also, as which alone can make way for such Spiritual nourishment to enter into the Soul. If again the things, which this Sacrament conveys, must be conveyed to the Soul by such ways, as are proper to possess the Soul of them; Then must this Sacrament convey them to it, either by prompting the Soul to reflect, as the Institution requires, upon that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was intended to represent, or by prompting God, who hath annexed that Body, and Blood to the due use of it, to confer that Body, and Blood upon us: These being the only ways by which that Spiritual repast can be communicated to that Soul, for which it was intended. In like manner, if the things, which this Sacrament conveys, are to be received by such Act or Acts of the Soul, as are proper to apprehend them; Then, if the Soul do receive the Body, and Blood of Christ by means of the Sacrament, it must do it by taking occasion from that Sacrament to reflect, as the Institution requires, upon that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was designed to represent, and particularly with Faith in that Body, and Blood, as which is of all other things most required to apply them to us. And though it be true, that the Church of Rome hath found out another sort of food, and another sort of receiving it, as shall be more fully declared, when I come to the handling of it; Yet as the Tridentine Fathers have been forced to confess, that our Saviour required this Sacrament to be taken (h) Sess. 13. cap. 2. as the spiritual food of Souls, by which they are nourished, and strengthened; So they have in like manner acknowledged, that it ought to be spiritually taken (i) ib. cap. 8. , as well as Sacramentally, in order to our profiting by it. But because our Catechism, Question. What are the benefits, whereof we are partakers thereby? Answer. The strengthening, and refreshing of our souls by the Body, and Blood of Christ, as our Bodies are by the Bread, and Wine. where it entreats of the faithful's receiving the Body, and Blood of Christ, proceeds to ask, as is but reason, what are the benefits we partake of by it, and makes answer, that they are the strengthening, and refreshing of our Souls by the Body, and Blood of Christ, as our Bodies are by the Bread, and Wine; Therefore it will be but needful, before we pass any farther, to reflect upon those Benefits, and accordingly inquire, 1. What is meant by the strengthening and refreshing of the Soul? 2. What Evidence there is of the Body, and Blood of Christ being intended for it? 3. How the Body, and Blood of Christ effect it? 1. Now as Strength and Refreshment are things, which relate rather to the Body, than the Soul, and must therefore receive their Explication from thence; So the former, when applied to the Body, signifies an ability for those operations, for which it is intended, as the latter a freedom from all heaviness, and lumpishness. And they are brought about especially by the Food, which we receive, and particularly by that Food, which was made choice of for the present Sacrament; Bread, as the Scripture speaks (k) Psal. 104.15. , being that, which strengthens the Heart, and Wine that, which cheers (l) Judg. 9.13. , and refresheth it. By Analogy to which, as the strength, and refreshment of the Soul must signify in like manner an ability for its proper operations, and particularly for such as Christianity obligeth it to, and a freedom from all trouble, and disquiet; So that, which is said to strengthen, and refresh it, must consequently furnish it with such an ability, and freedom, and both enable it to do those things, which God requireth of it, and deliver it from those troubles, and disquiets, which its own guilt, or any thing else might be apt to fill it with. 2. This therefore being that strengthening, and refreshing of the Soul, which it is said to receive by the Body, and Blood of Christ; Inquire we in the next place what Evidence there is of their being intended for it. Which will soon appear from their being intended by Christ as the Meat, and Drink of the Soul, and particularly as such Meat, and Drink, as Bread, and Wine are to the Body. For Meat, and Drink being intended for the strengthening, and refreshing of Men's Bodies, and particularly such Meat, and Drink, as are the outward part of the present Sacrament; If the Body, and Blood of Christ were intended as such to the Soul, they must be consequently intended for its strengthening, and refreshing. Now that the Body, and Blood of Christ were intended as Meat, and Drink to the Soul, and particularly as such Meat, and Drink, as Bread, and Wine are to the Body, is evident for the former of these from several passages of the sixth of St. John's Gospel * See Part 3. , where it is so declared in express terms; and for the latter from our Saviour's making use of Bread, and Wine to represent them, and (which is more) calling upon us to eat, and drink of them in remembrance of Christ's giving that Body, and Blood of his for us: This, as it farther shows them to have been intended as our Spiritual Meat, and Drink, so to have been intended too in a Spiritual manner to be eaten, and drunken by us, and so made yet more subservient to our strengthening and refreshment. 3. Now this the Body, and Blood of Christ effect first, and chief, as the meritorious cause of that Grace, by which that strengthening, and refreshing is immediately produced; Or secondly, as stirring up the Minds of the Faithful to contemplate the meritoriousness thereof, and, in the strength of that, to grapple with all Difficulties, and bear up under all Troubles, and Disquiets. For beside that the Body, and Blood of Christ, as was before observed (m) Part 5. , are to be considered in this Sacrament under the Notion of a propitiatory Sacrifice, and which, as such, doth rather dispose God to grant us that strength and refreshment, which we desire, than actually collate them on us; There is nothing more evident from the Scriptures, than that it is the Spirit of God (n) Eph. 3.15. , and his Graces, by which we must be immediately strengthened with might in the inner Man, and that it is by him (o) Acts 9.31. , that we receive comfort, and consolation. For which cause our Saviour gives him the title of the Comforter, and professeth to send him to supply his own place in that, as well as in other particulars. From whence as it will follow, that it is to the Spirit of God, and his Graces, that we are immediately to ascribe that strength, and refreshment, which we expect; So that we ought therefore to look upon Christ's Body, and Blood as conferring to it, not so much by any immediate influence thereof upon the Soul, as by their disposing God to grant that Spirit, by which both the one, and the other are produced. Upon which account we find St. Paul, where he attributes the several Graces of a Christian to the immediate Influences of that Spirit, affirming those, that partake of this Cup, to be made to drink into the same Spirit, as that which is the immediate Author of them. This I take to be in an especial manner that strengthening, and refreshing, which our Catechism, and the Scripture prompts us to ascribe to the Body, and Blood of Christ; Neither can I think of any other, than what the contemplation of the meritoriousness thereof may infuse into the Soul of him, who seriously reflects upon it: That, I mean, whereby the Soul becomes so confident of the Divine Assistance, and Favour, as neither to doubt of his enabling it to do what he requires, nor despair of his delivering it from all its fears, and troubles. I will close this Discourse, when I have added, that as the Sign of this Sacrament hath the relation of a Means, whereby God conveys, and we receive the Body, and Blood of Christ; So it hath also the Relation of a Pledge to assure us thereof, or, as our Church elsewhere expresseth it (p) Art. 19 , a certain sure Witness of it. A Relation, which is not more generally acknowledged, than easy to make out from the former one. For what is ordained by Christ as a Mean for the conveying of his Body, and Blood, being as sure to have its effect, if it be received, as it ought to be; He, who so receives what Christ hath thus ordained, will need no other Proof, than that, of his receiving that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was so ordained to convey. PART VII. Of Transubstantiation. The Contents. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation briefly deduced from the Council of Trent, and digested into four capital Assertions. Whereof the first is, that the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood. The grounds of this Assertion examined both as to the possibility, and actual being of such a change. What is alleged for the former of these from the substantial changes mentioned in the Scripture of no force in this particular, because there is no appearance of the actual existing of those things, into which the change was made at the instant the other were changed into them. As little force shown to be in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements, whether we consider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread, and Wine, or The thing I now give you. That supposed change farther impugned by such Scriptures, as represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration, by the concurrent Testimony of Sense, and the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers. Enquiry next made into that Assertion, which imports, that the substances of the Sacramental Elements are so changed, as to retain nothing of what they were before, save only the Species thereof. Where is shown, that if nothing of their respective Substances remain, there must be an annihilation, rather than a change, and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them, either from the nature of those Species, the words of Consecration, or the Testimony of Sense. That the true Body, and true Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, a third Capital Assertion in this Matter, but hath as little ground in the words of Consecration, as either of the former. First, because those words relate not to Christ's glorified Body, and Blood, which are the things affirmed to be contained under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, but to Christ's Body, as broken, and to his Blood as shed at his Crucifixion. Secondly, because however they may import the being of that Body, and Blood in the Eucharist, yet they specify nothing as to the modus of it, and much less intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof. That that Body, and Blood (which is the fourth Capital Assertion in this Matter) are truly, really, and substantially under the Sacramental Species, shown to be as groundless; and Evidence made of the contrary by such Arguments from Sense, and Reason, as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation. Some brief Reflections in the close upon the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament, and more large ones upon what the Romanists advance concerning the real eating of him in it. Where is shown that that, which they call a real eating, is a very improper one, that it is however of no necessity, or use toward our spiritual nourishment by him, and not only no way confirmed by the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel, but abundantly confuted by it. BUT because whatever Sacramental Relations our Church may content itself with, yet it is certain, that that, which calls itself Catholic, hath advanced one of a far different nature, and those of Luther's Institution another, before I pass any farther, I will examine both the one, and the other, the grounds upon which they are built, and the supposed Reasonableness thereof. That, which I intent to examine here, is the relation which the Church of Rome advanceth, by which (as the Council of Trent. * Sess. 13. c. 4. instructeth us) the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood; There remaining no more, after that, † Can. 2. of the Bread, and Wine, saving only the Species thereof, and the Body, and Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, coming in the place of those Elements, and truly, really, and substantially * Can. 1.3. contained under the Species of them. By which means the same Christ comes to be worshipped with divine Worship in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (a) Can. 6. , and to be really (b) Can. 8. eaten in it, as well as either Spiritually, or Sacramentally. Now as such Assertions as these, had need to be well proved, because apparently contrary to Sense, and Reason; So especially such of them as are the Foundations of Transubstantiation, which are these following one's, 1. That the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood. 2. That those Substances of Bread, and Wine are so changed into the substances of Christ's Body, and Blood, as to retain nothing of what they were before, save only the Species thereof. 3. That the true Body, and true Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of those Elements. 4. That they are truly, really, and substantially contained in, or under them. Which four Assertions I will consider in their order, and after I have examined the grounds upon which they stand, oppose proper Arguments to them. 1. That, which is first to be considered, is, that the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood. An Assertion, which though it require as substantial a Proof, yet hath nothing of moment to support it, whether as to the Possibility, or actual Existence of it. For though the Scriptures of the Old, and New Testament make mention of substantial changes, and from which therefore we may infer a Possibility of the like (For thus we read of Moses' Rod being changed by the Divine Power (c) Exod. 4.3. into a Serpent, and from a Serpent again (d) Exod. 4.4. into a Rod, of Lot's Wife being turned (e) Gen. 19.26. into a Pillar of Salt, and of Water (f) Joh. 2.9. into Wine) Yet is there no appearance of their being changed into things, that had an actual Existence at the instant, when they were changed into them, which is the change, that Transubstantiation imports. If there be any change of that Nature to make out the Possibility of this, it must be that, which is made of the Nourishment we receive, into the substance of our Body, and Blood. But beside that this is a change by augmentation, and must consequently be either preceded by an impairing of Christ's glorious Body, which is not so consistent with that estate, or make it in time grow into a monstrous one; It is a change, which will not do the Business of Transubstantiation, even to bring whole, and entire Christ (g) Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 3. under either Species: A change by augmentation being a change of the Object of it, not into the whole substance of that, into which it is changed, but only into a part of it. But it may be, there is better proof of the actual being of the change we speak of, than there is in any thing else of the possibility thereof; As indeed such a stupendous change, as this, aught to be without Example. Be it so; But let us at least see so clear, and express a Proof, that our Faith may acquiesce in it, if our Reason cannot; let us see it affirmed by him, to whom so great a change is ascribed. And neither are we without one, if the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, may pass for such a Proof, as they have been hitherto represented to us. I will not now say, because I have elsewhere shown it (h) Parts 3-8. , that there is much more reason to believe, that they ought to be figuratively taken, and cannot therefore be any ground for such a change, as is sought to be established by them. I shall choose rather for once to allow, that they may be literally taken, and leave it to those, that can, to infer such a change from them. For whether by the word This, in This is my Body, be meant the Bread before spoken of (As indeed how the change of the substance of the Bread into the substance of Christ's Body can be proved from those words, which profess not to speak of that Bread, is as hard to conceive as Transubstantiation itself) But whether, I say, be thereby meant the Bread before spoken of, or The thing, which I now give you, there is no appearance in the proposition of any substantial change, and much less of such a substantial change, as is intended to be inferred from them. All that the words profess to say (supposing them to mean Bread by the Particle This) is, that one thing is the other, but in what manner, or by what kind of change, they do not in the least pretend to affirm. And if the Text do not determine either, where is that clear, and express proof of such a substantial change, as they profess to speak of? Or where our either stupidity, or infidelity for not being convinced by it? But it will be said, it may be, that (literally speaking) one thing cannot be another, unless it be substantially changed into that, which it is said to be, and therefore if the Bread be Christ's Body, it must be substantially changed into it. To which I answer, that they, who say that (literally speaking) one thing cannot be another, unless it be substantially changed into that, which it is said to be, do either mean, that it cannot be so standing the ordinary Laws of Nature, or that it cannot be so, even by the extraordinary Power of God. If the former of these be their meaning, they say nothing, that can be of force to persuade, that one thing can be another, even by being substantially changed into that, which it is said to be; Because, standing the ordinary Laws of Nature, at the same time any thing is substantially changed into another, it is no more that, which it sometime was, and cannot therefore in propriety of speech, be said to be that, which it is substantially changed into. On the other side, if they, who say that, literally speaking, one thing cannot be another, unless it be substantially changed into that, which it is said to be, mean thereby that it cannot be so, even by the extraordinary Power of God; They do not only take away from themselves the power of pressing upon our Belief, the contradictions of Christ's corporal Presence in the Sacrament upon the score of God's extraordinary Power (For it should seem by that, that there are things, to which even an extraordinary Power cannot reach) but leave us at liberty, where the like impossibilities occur, to order our Interpretations of Scripture accordingly, and consequently, if the literal sense of a Text lead to them, to abdicate that, and impose upon it a figurative one. Which if we do, we shall find a necessity of putting a figurative sense upon those very words, which are the subject of the present Consideration. For how is it more impossible for God to make Bread, continuing Bread, to be Christ's Body, than it is to make that Body, continuing a Body, to be circumscribed, and not circumscribed, as it must be, if it be whole, and entire in this, or that particular Sacrament, and yet at the same time be in ten thousand others, and as many more, as they shall be pleased to consecrate. So little reason is there to believe, that if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread of the Sacrament, any substantial change of it can be inferred from them. And there is as little reason to believe it, if by the word This, in This is my Body, be meant the Thing which I now give you. For either our Saviour meant the Bread by it, and then the former exceptions will recur, or there are no footsteps in the words of any change whatsoever, and much less of that substantial change, which is endeavoured to be inferred from them. But beside that the change, we speak of, hath no ground in the former words, though they should be literally understood; There is enough to oppose against it from other places of Scripture, and particularly from those, which represent the Bread of the Eucharist, as remaining after Consecration: Such as they are, that mention it as eaten by the Communicants (i) 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. , and as the Communion (k) 1 Cor. 10.16. of that Body, which it was intended as a Symbol of. For how is that eaten in the Sacrament, which hath not now any existence? or how the Communion of Christ's Body, which hath no being of its own? But it may be, for all St. Paul's naming it Bread, he meant nothing such, but either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread, or only those species themselves. I will not now say, though I might, that the Scripture will be a very uncertain thing, if such forced interpretations as these be easily admitted. But I say, that neither of these interpretations alone will fit the texts we speak of, and that there is as little reason to admit them both. For thus, for instance, though we should allow the word Bread to signify the Body of Christ under the species of Bread, where the Scripture makes mention of its being eaten by the Communicants; Yet can we not allow it the same signification, where it is affirmed to be the Communion of Christ's Body: Because that, which is the Communion of any thing, must be a distinct thing from that, which it pretends to be the Communion of. On the other side, though we should allow the word Bread to signify only the species thereof, where the Scripture makes mention of its being the Communion of Christ's Body; Yet can we not with the like reason allow it the same signification, where it is said to be eaten by the Communicants: Because it is such Bread, as makes the unworthy eaters of it to be guilty of Christ's Body (l) 1 Cor. 11.27. , which, according to the Doctrine of the Romanists, nothing but the eating of that Body itself can do. If any thing be to be said in this particular, it must be, that the word Bread is sometime to be taken for the Body of Christ under the species of Bread, and sometime also for those species themselves. But beside that (as Tully sometime spoke concerning those that assigned Atoms a motion of declination) this is, as it were, to allot words their respective Provinces, and prescribe them what they shall signify in this, or that particular place; I do not see how either of these senses can, without great violence to the text, be imposed upon those words of St. Paul, The Bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ: Because if, as is probable enough, the Bread were then broken, as it was in our Saviour's Eucharist, before the words, This is my Body, passed upon it, no other Bread can be meant by it, even in the opinions of the Romanists themselves, than true, and proper Bread, and not either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread, or the species of Bread separate from the substance of it. Agreeable hereto is the testimony of Sense, and which is the more considerable here, because it hath not only no clear revelation against it, but, as appears from the premises, hath plain revelation for it. For whatever pretence may be made against the testimony of Sense where there is any just surmise of revelations being against it; Yet can there not certainly be any, where there is not only no such surmise, but as plain, and express revelation, as can be reasonably desired: To question our Senses in such a case, being to question revelation also, because concurring with the Testimony thereof. Only, if any think that revelation not to be clear enough, because (as hath been sometime suggested) St. Paul may as well give the title of Bread to that Body of Christ, which was made of it, as Moses (m) Exod. 7.12. did that of a Rod to those Serpents, which arose from them; It will not be difficult to make answer, that that notion can have no place, where St. Paul makes it his business (as he doth, where he recites the Institution) to awe Men into a reverential receipt of this Holy Sacrament: To think that St. Paul would so often call that Bread, which was a thing infinitely above it, when his Design was to awe Men into a reverential receipt of it, being to think, he either knew not how to suit his Expressions to it, or that he basely, and invidiously betrayed it. I will conclude what I have to say against the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements, when I have shown from the Ancients, that such a change was unknown to them. Which I shall endeavour to evince first from what they say concerning their continuing in the same nature, in which they were before, and then from what they say concerning their being Types, and Symbols and Images of that Body, and Blood, into which the Romanists affirm them to be transubstantiated. That the Ancients represented the Sacramental Elements as continuing in the same nature, in which they were before, will appear, first from what I have elsewhere said (n) Part 1. concerning their representing our Eucharist as an Eucharist for the things of this World, and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the Body, and Blood of Christ, and professing to eat of the Bread of it, even when become the Body of Christ by Prayer, as a Testimony of their Thankfulness for the other. For how is that an Eucharist for the things of this World, and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth, which is now all Heavenly, neither hath any thing of an earthly sustenance remaining? Or how we said to eat of the Bread of it in token of such a Thankfulness, if there be nothing at all in it of what we profess to give thanks for? All other Offerings, beside this, having some affinity with that, which they pretend to be Offerings of Thanks for. Neither will it avail to say, which is all that can be said, that our Eucharist may become such, even for earthly Boons, by the remaining species thereof. For beside that the Ancients make no mention of any such separate species, and we therefore not to interpret what they say of Bread, and other such substantial things, concerning the bare species thereof; It is plain from what was before quoted out of Irenaeus, that that, which was tendered unto God in this Eucharistical offering, was the creatures of Bread, and Wine, and from Origen, that the Eucharistical Offering consisted in eating of what was tendered to him, as well as in the tendry itself. So that if they were the Creatures of God, that were tendered to him, and not only the species thereof, they were the same Creatures, and not only the species thereof, that were in their opinion eaten, and drunken by them, and consequently by which they gave thanks to God for the Fruits of the Earth, as well as for the great Blessing of our Redemption. But of all the things, that are said by the Ancients to show their belief of the Sacramental Elements continuing in the same nature in which they were before, nothing certainly is of more force than the use they make of that relation, which is between them, and Christ's Body, and Blood, to show against the Apollinarians, and Eutychians, that the divine, and humane nature, however united in the person of Jesus Christ, yet are not so made one, as to be confounded, and mixed together, as the Apollinarians taught his divine nature, and flesh to be; or the humane nature to be swallowed up into the divine, as the Eutychians did. For to confute each of these, and to show the distinction there is between the two natures of Christ, the Ancients alleged the near relation there is between the Sacramental Elements, and Christ's Body, and Blood, but which, how near soever, doth not confound, or destroy the truth of their respective natures, but preserves both the one, and the other of them entire. For thus St. chrysostom, in his Epistle to Caesarius lately published (o) Appendix to the Def. of an Exposit. of the Doctrine of the Church of England against de Meaux. , against the Doctrine of the Apollinarians. As before the Bread is sanctified, we name it Bread, but, the divine Grace sanctifying it through the mediation of the Priest, it is freed from the title of Bread, and thought worthy of the title of the Body of the Lord, although the nature of Bread remaineth in it, and it is not said to be two Bodies, but one Body of the Lord; So also here the divine nature being placed in the Body, they both together make up one Son, and one person, but without confusion, as well as division, not in one nature, but in two perfect ones. So that as surely as the two natures of Christ continue distinct, and unconfounded, so the Sacramental Elements, and the thing signified by them do, because made use of to illustrate the distinction of the other. To the same purpose, though more clearly, and fully, doth Theodoret discourse in his Dialogues against the Eutychians. For taking notice in one place (p) Dial. 1. c. 8. of our Saviour's calling Bread by the name of his Body, and in like manner his Flesh by the name of Meat, he proceeds to give this reason of that change of names; To wit, That he intended thereby to prompt those, that partake of the divine Mysteries, not to attend to the nature of the things, that are seen, but by that change of names to give belief to that change, which is made by grace. For he that called his natural Body Meat, and Bread, and again named himself a Vine, the very same person honoured the Symbols, that are seen, with the title of his Body, and Blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature. And again (q) Dial. 2. c. 24. , after he had acknowledged to the Eutychian, that the gift, that was offered, was called by its proper name before the invocation of the Priest, but the Body, and Blood of Christ after the sanctification of it; and the Eutychians replying thereupon, that as the Symbols of the Lord's Body, and Blood, are one thing before the invocation of the Priest, but after that invocation they are changed, and become other things; so the Lord's Body, after its assumption, is changed into the divine essence, He hath these very emphatical words, You are caught, saith he, in those nets which you yourself have weaved. For neither do the mystical Symbols, after their sanctification, go out of their own nature. For they abide in their former essence, and figure, and fashion, and are visible, and palpable as they were before. But they are understood to be Blood, they have been made, to wit, Symbols of Christ's Body, and what and believed, and reverenced as being what they are believed. In like manner the natural Body of Christ, which is the Archetype thereof, hath its former form, and figure, and circumscription, and in a word the essence of a Body. But after the resurrection it became immortal, and above corruption, and was thought worthy to sit at the right hand of God, and is worshipped by every creature, as being called the Body of the Lord of nature. So that if the two natures of Christ ought to be looked upon even now as two distinct, and different ones, and not one nature swallowed up into the other; We also, in the opinion of this Holy Man, aught to look upon this Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, as two distinct things, and upon the Sacrament in particular, however dignified with a noble relation, yet as of the same nature, and figure, and form, as it was before it was advanced to it. For Theodoret arguing the distinction of Christ's two natures from the distinction there is between the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, and particularly from that Sacrament's continuing in its former nature, and essence, must consequently suppose that to have been a thing then known, and confessed, as from which otherwise he could not reasonably have argued the other. I am not ignorant indeed, that even these passages have met with subtle evasions, and such as show in some measure the art of those, that framed them. But as whosoever shall compare them with those words, to which they are applied, will find them to be rather subtle, than solid; So they put such a sense upon the words of their respective Authors, as if they should be admitted, would make them look rather like Sophisters, than Fathers of the Church, like Men, who intended to impose upon their Disciples, rather than to enlighten them in the Truth. For what other would it have been in Theodoret to have argued against the change of Christ's Body into the divine essence, from the continuing of the Symbols of it in their essence, and figure, and form, if he had meant no more thereby, than that they remained what they were in their outward appearances, as the Romanists are willing to understand him, or (as they are sometime pleased to phrase it) in their outward substance? For so the Body of Christ also might have remained as to the outward appearances thereof, and yet have been as substantially changed into the divine essence, or nature, as the Bread of the Sacrament is said to be into the substance of Christ's Body. But beside that the Ancients represent the Sacramental Elements as continuing what they were, and thereby sufficiently impugn that substantial change of them into Christ's Body, and Blood, which this first Assertion imports; They represent them also as Types, and Symbols, and Images thereof, and (as we should therefore think) as distinct things from them: No like being the same with that, to which it is said to be like, nor indeed any more capable of being so, than that, which is the most different from it. Now how, standing the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements, can these titles be admitted? Or what is there to build that Typicalness or Symbolicalness, or resemblance on; Certainly no other than those airy species thereof which in the opinion of those, that maintain them, have themselves no subject to uphold them. But as it doth not appear that the Ancients believed any such species, and one (x) August. ep. ad Dardan. 57 Tolle ipsa corporae qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint; Et ideo necesse est ut non sint— Veruntamen si moles ipsa corporis, quantacunque vel quantulacunque sit, penitus auseratur, qualitates ejus non erit ubi sint, quamvis non mole metiendae sint. of the Learnedest of them denied the possibility thereof; So they sometime place the Symbolicalness of the Sacramental Elements in such properties thereof, as can belong to no other, than their respective substances. For thus they apparently do, when they represent them as Symbols of Christ's mystical Body upon the account of their being made up of the substance of sevelal grains, and several Grapes, as that Body of Christ is of the respective members of it; This importing the union of several substances into a Mass, or Body, and consequently that that is much more a substance, which is made up of an aggregation of them. 2. It appearing from the premises, how little ground there is to believe, that the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of Christ's Blood; We shall the less need to concern ourselves in the examination of that, which follows, even that those substances of Bread, and Wine are so changed into the substances of Christ's Body, and Blood, as to retain nothing of what they were before, save only the species thereof. For if they can in no sense be said to be substantially changed, how much less to such a degree as to retain nothing of what they were, save only the species thereof? But as this Assertion, whatever it is, hath something peculiar in it in the common understanding of the World; So it may not therefore be amiss, especially when the Council of Trent seems to have made a peculiar Article of it, to consider it apart, and both inquire what grounds it hath to support itself, and oppose proper reasons to it. In order whereunto I will consider it as importing first, that nothing of the substance of Bread, and Wine remains, and secondly as importing that the species, or accidents thereof do. If they, who affirm that nothing of the substance of the Bread, and Wine remains, mean no more thereby, than that nothing thereof remains in the form, or essence of Bread, and Wine, as one would think they should not, by their affirming them to be changed into the substance of Christ's Body, and Blood; They may then be thought to say somewhat, which may seem to have some foundation in those words, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, because those words make no mention of any thing else, but them. But then as they must also suppose, that the matter thereof remains, though in another form, or essence, because otherwise the substance thereof will not be changed, but annihilated; So they must suppose too an addition made thereby to the substance of Christ's Body, because a new accession of matter to it. Which being granted, the change will be made, not into the whole substance of Christ's Body, and Blood, as Transubstantiation was before said to import, but only into that part thereof, into which they are affirmed to be changed. On the other side, if they, who affirm that nothing of the substance of Bread, and Wine remains, mean thereby, that nothing remains in the form of Bread, and Wine, or any other substance; They then do not only destroy the change of them into the substance of Christ's Body, and Blood, because that change supposeth the former matter of them to abide, though in another form, or essence, but take away all pretence of founding that Assertion of theirs in This is my Body, and This is my Blood. For though those words may assure me, that the Body, and Blood of Christ are there, where I discern the species of the Sacramental Elements to be, and consequently that, naturally speaking, the substances of those Elements cannot; Yet as they do not so much as hint, that the substances of those Elements neither are, nor can be there by the extraordinary power of God, so they say nothing to let us understand by what means they are conveyed away, if they do not remain there. But because this Assertion imports as well the remaining of the species, or accidents of the Sacramental Elements, as the not remaining of the substances thereof; Therefore inquire we, so far as we may, what the grounds of that part of the Assertion are, and, if there be any need of it after such an enquiry, oppose proper Arguments to it. For the truth is, that as those accidents are forced to subsist without a subject, so they seem to have no other support, save what the necessity of a bad cause, and a confident asseveration can give them. For is there any thing in the nature of an accident to persuade us, that the thing is so much as possible, and that though the substance of the Sacramental Elements remains not, yet the species, or accidents thereof may? On the contrary they, who believe any such thing as an accident, make the inhering thereof in a subject to be of the very essence of it, and that at the same time it ceaseth to inhere (as it must do, when the subject thereof is removed) it also ceaseth to be. Is it then, that those separate species, or accidents have any thing in the words, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, to afford them any support? But alas, as the words my Body, and my Blood are so far from giving any countenance to them, that they rather bid defiance to them, because professing to contain nothing less in them than the August Body, and Blood of Christ; So the word This is as much afraid of owning them, for fear it should injure the substances thereof, and instead of betokening the conversion of those into the substances of Christ's Body, and Blood, proclaim the conversion of the species, or accidents thereof into them, and so bid a far greater defiance to our already too much offended Senses. Shall we then (which is all we have to trust to at the last) appeal to the testimony of our Senses for them? But beside that no wise Transubstantiator ought to give any belief to his Senses, as which will tell him farther, if he listen to them, that there is the substance of Bread, and Wine under them; Those Senses of ours do never represent those species as things distinct from their proper substances, and much less as separate from them, but as inherent in them, and proper characters of them, and so leading us more to the contemplation of their respective substances, than to that of their own particular natures. So little reason is there to believe the being of such Species, or Accidents, after their proper Substances are removed. And there is this substantial Reason against it, that the admission of such Species, or Accidents in the Sacrament would render the Testimony of our Senses uncertain in other things: Because whatever Pretence there may be from Revelation for the being of Christ's Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, yet there is no Pretence at all from that for the being of any such separate Species, or Accidents, and we therefore as much at liberty to believe them elsewhere, as there, and so boggle at any farther notice, that may be supposed to come to us by the Species of any thing whatsoever. 3. The third Assertion, on which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded, is that the true Body, and true Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements. An Assertion, which the Romanists seem to be so confident of, from the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that they make no end of inculcating it, and think all Men either blind, or obstinate, who will not as readily assent to it. But with how little reason, and how much against it also, will soon appear, if we compare them together, whether as to that Body, and Blood of Christ, which they both profess to entreat of, or as to the being of them in the Sacrament; There being a manifest difference in each of these between the Assertion I am now upon, and those words from which they profess to deduce it. For first, whereas the Body, and Blood of Christ in the words of our Saviour are his Body, and Blood, as broken, and shed at his Crucifixion, and not as they were at the time of our Saviour's uttering those words, or since his resurrection from the Dead; The Body, and Blood of Christ affirmed to be contained under the Species of Bread, and Wine, are the Body, and Blood of Christ in that glorious estate, wherein they now are, now no more to fall under those Accidents, which they sometime underwent. For it is no way repugnant (saith the Council of Trent (s) Sess. 13. cap. 1. ) that our Saviour himself should always sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven according to a natural manner of existing, and yet nevertheless be Sacramentally present to us by his substance in other places after that way of existing, which though we can scarce express in words, yet we believe to be possible to God. And again (t) Ib. cap. 3. , which shows it yet more to speak of Christ's glorified Body, the Faith of the Church hath always been, that presently after the Consecration, the true Body, and true Blood of Christ, together with his Soul, and Divinity, are under the Species of Bread, and Wine; But the Body indeed under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of Wine by virtue of the words; but the Body itself under the Species of Wine, and the Blood under the Species of Bread, and the Soul under both by virtue of that natural Connexion, and Concomitancy, by which the parts of Christ our Lord, who is now risen from the Dead, now no more to die, are coupled among themselves. Than which what can be more plain, that it is the Body, and Blood of Christ, as they now are, which they affirm to be contained under the Species of those Elements, and not as broken, and shed for us? It is true indeed, that when the same Tridentine Fathers come to entreat of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Propriety of that Sacrifice, they may seem to sing another Song, because (as was before * Part 5. observed) representing it as the very same Sacrifice with that, which he offered up upon the Cross. But as they sufficiently unsay it again, when they represent it as an unbloody Sacrifice, and as an Oblation that is made of Christ's Body, and Blood under the Species of Bread, and Wine; So they thereby ascribe the breaking, or shedding of this Sacrifice, rather to the Species, under which they are offered, than to the Body, and Blood of Christ under them. But beside that there is a manifest difference between the Assertion I am now upon, and our Saviour's words, as to that Body, and Blood of Christ, which they both profess to entreat of; There is no less signal a difference between them, as to the existence of that Body, and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which will be a yet farther prejudice against the inferring of this Assertion from them. For whereas the utmost, that our Saviour's words can be thought to import, is the simple existence of his Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, the Assertion we are now upon proceeds to affirm, that they exist under the Species of the Sacramental Elements, as that too not only under the Species of their proper Element, but under the one, and the other of them. Which how different it is from the importance of our Saviour's words will not be difficult for those to see, who can discern any difference between a simple affirmation of any thing, and that, which proceeds also to determine the modus of it. But it will be said, it may be, that though our Saviour's words do not expressly affirm the existing of his Body, and Blood under the Sacramental Species, yet they say that, from which it may by just consequence be deduced. If they do, I willingly yield they say enough to justify the present Assertion; But I say withal, that there is nothing in them, which can give countenanee to such a Surmise. For beside that they make no express mention of those Sacramental Species, under which this Body, and Blood are supposed to exist; If they say any thing, which may be thought to concern those Species, it must be the conversion of them also into that Body, and Blood, into which their respective substances are changed: That, which our Saviour pronounced the words over, being, no doubt, Species, as well as Substances, and those Species therefore, as well as their Substances, to fall under the same change, if those words were intended to effect one. 4. Now though these are Difficulties enough to choke any indifferent Man's Belief, if they do not also trouble the Belief of those, who pretend to be the most zealous Asserters of Transubstantiation; Yet, lest either they, or we should want any thing to exercise it, or improve the meritoriousness thereof, they proceed to assert in express terms, that this true Body, and true Blood of Christ are as truly, really and substantially contained in, or under those Species, under which they are affirmed to exist. I will not as yet allege any of those Difficulties, wherewith this Assertion is encumbered, because it may be time enough to do that, when we have enquired into the grounds of it. But as those Difficulties are apparent enough to make any Man stand upon his guard, when such Assertions as these are endeavoured to be imposed upon him; So one would think they should prevail so far with those, who pretend to advance them, as to see that they have sufficient ground for their Confidence in it. Which whether they have, or no, let those Persons judge, who consider first (what can never be too often inculcated) that whatever ground there is for a substantial Presence in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, it is for the substantial Presence of a Body broken, and Blood shed (for so the very Letter of the Text informs us) and not for the substantial Presence of glorified ones. Neither will it avail to say, that they also affirm them to be broken, and shed in their respective Species, and ought not therefore to be debarred the use of those words for the proof of that substantial Presence, which they advance. For as it is evident that they mean no more thereby, than that those Species are broken, and shed, as appears from their representing the immolation of Christ himself as a bloodless one; So it is alike evident therefore that they mean not such a Body, and Blood as the Text advanceth, and ought not therefore to argue the substantial Presence thereof from it. But let us suppose that our Saviour, and the Tridentine Fathers meant one and the same Body, and Blood, I mean Christ's glorified ones, and consequently that so far forth they have a right to make use of the present words; yet how doth it appear that any substantial Presence of that Body, and Blood can be inferred from them? What is there in the Words themselves, that can give any countenance to it? If there be any thing in the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that may be thought to look that way, it is manifestly that [Is], which connects the Subject, and Predicate together, because the word, which the Romanists themselves make use of to press us with the Belief of that substantial Presence, which they inculcate. But what reason have they to take that for a proof of a substantial Presence of Christ's glorified Body, and Blood, which in their own opinion doth not reach it, because having a respect only to that whether Body, or Blood, to which it is prefixed, and not (as it must, and aught to be, to betoken a substantial Presence of a glorified Christ) to both of them together. For though the Tridentine Fathers assert, that the glorified Body, and Blood of Christ are contained indifferently under the Species of either Element, yet only the Body under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of the Wine by virtue of the words; And the word [Is] therefore not of sufficient force to prove any substantial Presence of them. Because Christ's glorified Body, and Blood, though they may be virtually, and objectively present to us, when considered apart, yet cannot be substantially present, but by a real Union, and Connexion, as they themselves have taught us to believe. Now as, where there is so little ground for the belief of a substantial Presence, there may be place for alleging Arguments against it both from Sense and Reason (For though Sense, and Reason should be of no force against the certain Revelations of God, yet nothing hinders but they may be, where no such Revelation doth appear) so especially, if we find that the Arguments, which they offer, are such as are confirmed to us by Revelation, and in a manner put into our mouths by it. For such I account that, which Sense offers us for that's being Bread, and not a humane Body, which is put into our Hands, or Mouths, and from thence transmitted to our Stomaches; Our Eye, and Touch, and Taste assuring us that it is Bread, and not the Body of a Man under the Species of Bread, and much less that glorified Body, which the Romanists would persuade us into. For what other is that Argument, for the substance thereof I mean, which our Saviour sometime offered to his Disciples to prove the Body, in which he appeared to them, to be a real Body, and not a Spirit under the appearances of one? For, handle me (saith he * Luk. 24.39. ) and see; For a Spirit hath not Flesh, and Bones, as ye see me have. For there, as well as we here, our Saviour appealed to the Senses of his Disciples for the reality, and substantialness of that Body of his, which then presented itself to their Eyes; And there too, as well as we do here, he appealed to the Testimony of the same Senses, that it was not a thing different from a body, even a Spirit. Which last particular is the more to be taken notice of, as because, according to that, the Testimony of Sense may be a sufficient Evidence of the not being of a thing, that appears not, as well as of the being of a thing, that doth; So because (as the Romanists order the matter concerning the glorified Body of Christ in the Sacrament) there is no material difference, if any at all, between that glorified Body of his, and what our Saviour in the place before quoted calls a Spirit: They representing that Body as present in an invisible, and impalpable manner, which is the very presence of a Spirit. By the same reason therefore that our Saviour might argue from his own falling under their Eye, and Touch, that that substance, wherein he presented himself to them, was a Body, and not a Spirit; By the same reason may we argue that that, which our Senses assure us to be Bread, is really such, and not such a Body as, according to the Romanists, is an invisible, and impalpable one, and so far forth of the nature of a Spirit. Of the same force, as well as nature, I judge the Arguments, which Reason offers against the substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and particularly that, which it offers to us from the impossibility of a Body's being in so many places at once, as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation obligeth us to believe concerning the Body of Christ. For what other is that Argument, which the Angels offered to the Women (x) Mat. 28.6. , that sought Christ in the Grave after he was risen from it? He is not here, for he is risen, as he said; Come, see the place, where the Lord lay. For by the same reason, that Christ's Body could not be in the Grave, because he was risen, and departed from it; By the same reason it cannot be in this, or that particular place on Earth, now it is departed from the whole of it to Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God there. And I must needs say, I could not therefore but wonder, when I read in the Council of Trent (y) Sess. 13. cap. 1. that they were things no way repugnant to each other for our Saviour to sit always at the right hand of the Father in Heaven after a natural manner of existing, and yet in many other places be sacramentally present to us by his substance. For as they thereby sufficiently intimate, that even the glorified Body of our Saviour cannot be in Heaven, and here after its natural manner of existing; So setting aside the disguise of the word Sacramentally, that Council says nothing at all to hinder our belief of its falling into that very absurdity itself. For understanding by Sacramentally no other than substantially, and which accordingly they just before express by the same term, as well as in other places (z) Ib. Can. 1. of that Session, they must consequently (because it is a corporeal substance, whereof they speak) be thought to mean corporally also, which is certainly its natural manner of existing. For if to be substantially present be no other, than to be present after the manner of a substance; to be substantially present, when applied to such, or such a sort of substance, must be to be present after the manner of such, or such a substance; and consequently, if we speak of a corporeal substance, to be coporally present, or after the manner of a Body, and not after the manner of a Spirit. These four Capital Assertions being thus destroyed, and shown to be both without Reason, and against it, we shall not need to concern ourselves much about the other two, as being only the Consectaries thereof, and therefore falling together with them. For if the Body, and Blood of Christ be not substantially in the Eucharist, there can be no ground, even in the opinion of the Romanists, for worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it; And there can be as little Pretence for his being really eaten in it, as well as spiritually, and sacramentally. Only because these two Assertions are as much stood upon as any of the other, and the former is also of pernicious consequence, I think it not amiss to say somewhat to each of them, and first to the worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it. And here in the first place, I cannot but observe, that however the Tridentine Fathers may in some places seem to confine this Divine Worship to Christ as present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (For so they do both in the Reason they * Sess. 13. cap. 5. Nam illum eundem deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem pater aeternus in orbem introducens, etc. give of the Divine Worship of the Host, and in the Canon † Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum, etc. non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum, etc. they make against those, that shall deny it) yet do they also extend it to that Sacrament, in which they suppose him to be present, and, as we should therefore think, are guilty of gross Idolatry in it, though Christ should be allowed to be worshipped with Divine Worship in it. For as the title of that Chapter * Cap. 5. De cultu, & veneratione huic sanctissimo Sacramento exhibenda. , which professeth to entreat of this Matter, is concerning the Worship, and Veneration, which is to be exhibited to this most holy Sacrament; So the Chapter itself gins with these express words (a) Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ semper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum, quòd fuerit à Christo domino, ut sumatur, institutum. , There is therefore no place for doubt, but that all Christ's faithful ones, after the manner always received in the Catholic Church, aught with Veneration to exhibit to this most holy Sacrament that Worship of Latria, which is owing to the true God. For neither is it therefore the less to be worshipped, because it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be received. For can there be any thing more plain (especially when the very next words (b) Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum omnes Augeli Dei, etc. speak of the very same God being present in it) than that the Tridentine Fathers meant by the former words the Sacrament properly so styled, even those species, under which they elsewhere affirm Christ to be, and that accordingly they required divine worship to be given to them? And, if that was their meaning, that they thereby required divine worship to be given to Creatures, yea the most imperfect ones, and such too, as because not inhering in that Body of Christ, which is said to be under them, cannot be supposed to be personally united to him? Than which what can be said, that doth more entrench upon the divine honour, yea upon the honour of that Christ, whom they pretend to worship in this Sacrament? Those species, though no part at all of him, being yet joined in equal honour with him; that, which is in effect but the shadow of a mere Creature, with the great Creator, and Redeemer of the World. But let us suppose that those Fathers meant no more by the word Sacrament, than Jesus Christ in it, and consequently that so far forth there is no pretence for the charge of Idolatry in this affair; Yet how will the Romanists acquit themselves from it, supposing (as we often may) that the Elements are not rightly consecrated, and no real presence therefore of Christ's Body, and Blood under the species of them? For in that case their worship must be terminated on the Bread, because there is nothing else to receive it. Now that the supposition I before made is no way unreasonable, will appear from their affirming that the intention of the Minister to do at least, what the Church enjoins, (c) Sess. 17. can. 11. is required to the making of a Sacrament. For what if the intention of the Minister, when he comes to the words of Consecration, wander from the matter in hand? Or, if not so, yet doth not aim to do what the Church doth, as they, that believe not Transubstantiation, certainly cannot, of which number (d) See Pref. to the Discourse of the Holy Euch. etc. there are not a few? Or (which is worst of all) as a Priest is sometime said to have directed his (e) Meric Casaub. Necess. of Res. p. 75. for seven, or eight years together, be set upon doing honour to the Devil, rather than to our Lord Jesus Christ? In each of these cases certainly there can be no real conversion of the Elements into the Body, and Blood of Christ, and therefore they, that pay adoration to them, rather worshippers of the Creature, than of him, who was the Institutor of this Sacrament. And I know not of any tolerable evasion in this affair, save what is said to have been suggested by Gerson, even by worshipping the host conditionally, and upon supposition of its being the Body of Christ. But as that is a sort of worshipping, which few of the unlearned are acquainted with, and which can do no great good to those, that are; Such an uncertainty, as that, being as likely to take off the edge of their devotions, as to help them in the directing of their intentions; So that cannot however hinder the external act from being fixed upon the Creature, and consequently cannot but make the door of that external act guilty of material Idolatry, though not of any formal one. Which material Idolatry, though it may not perhaps reflect upon the worshipper, because of his invincible ignorance in this affair; Yet, which is worse, will, if supposed, reflect upon God for not providing against it in so many cases as may happen: Especially, if the like intention be either wanting, or perverted in the person, that baptised, or ordained the Consecrater, because then all he doth at any time will be null. For how is it consistent with the honour, or goodness of that God, who was in their opinion so gracious to his Church as to furnish it with an infallible guide, not to provide against so many members of it paying their external adoration to a piece of Bread, at the same time they desired, and intended to address it to his Son? I will conclude my discourse of this assertion when I have taken notice of one piece of Sophistry, which is employed by the Romanists to save themselves from the imputation of Idolatry, though there should be no such thing as Transubstantiation in the World; That I mean, which they allege, and our Tailor (f) Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. num. 16. in their behalf, concerning their directing their worship, not to Bread, which they believe not to be present, but to the Body, and Blood of Christ, or rather to Christ in person, whom they conceive to be corporally present in it. But as they do not, I confess, intentionally direct their worship to Bread, or at least not to Bread, as such, because they believe it not to continue, where they direct their worship; So I do not see how that hinders their directing it indeed, and in truth to Bread, supposing that not to be transubstantiated into Christ's Body: Because as their outward worship is manifestly directed to that substance, which is under the species of Bread; So believing, as they do, that that Substance is Christ's Body, they must consequently be thought to direct their inward worship also to it, and, if therefore there be nothing else there, to simple Bread. And I know of nothing, that can excuse them in this point, unless it be their own mistake, which how far it will avail them in this particular, I, for my part, shall not take upon me to determine. But as that mistake of theirs will not however change the nature of the action, or make it cease to be the adoration of a Creature; So it will not change it in the sight of God, if the mistake be gross, and affected, which they have just cause to look after, who have so little ground from Scripture for the belief of that Transubstantiation, which is the foundation of it, and so much against it from the same Scripture, and Antiquity, and Sense, and Reason, which are all the Topics we can argue from. Next to the worshipping of Christ as present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, consider we our really eating him in it, as well as either spiritually, or sacramentally. A thing, as the Romanists themselves confess, which depends upon his being substantially there, and must therefore fall of course with that substantial presence, which I have before destroyed. But as this Assertion is not without weakness of its own, and would therefore be considered apart; So I think it therefore but reasonable to be more particular in the handling of it, than would otherwise be necessary for me to be. And here in the first place I cannot but observe, that where the Council of Trent entreats of this affair, it opposeth real, as well as sacramental manducation to that, which is spiritual, as if the latter, though undoubtedly the principal, were an imaginary one. But as we gain thus much by it, that that Council by real must consequently mean a corporal one, so I shall therefore make no farther use of that opposition at present, than to inquire into the truth of that real manducation understood as is before described. In order whereunto that, which I shall in the next place take notice of, is, that the word manducare, which the Council makes use of, signifies primarily, and properly chewing, and consequently, where intended to denote a corporal manducation, aught to be understood of such a one, as is made by the breaking of the thing eaten by the Teeth. And indeed, as this is the true corporal manducation, and which alone therefore deserves the name of a real one; So the Church of Rome appears to have been heretofore of the same mind by the recantation it put into the Mouth of Berengarius: The words thereof, so far, being (g) Baron. Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 1059. , that he believed the true Body of Christ to be sensually, not only in Sacrament, but in truth handled, and broken by the hands of the Priest, and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the faithful. And thus if the Romanists were still persuaded, they might pretend to a real manducation indeed, and such as had some title to that name, which they bestow upon it. But as they saw such a manducation to agree but ill with that glorious Body, to which they ascribed it, and have not therefore failed to set a brand upon those words, which were made use of to express the Church's mind; So they now put off that manducation to those Capernaites, to whom our Saviour discoursed in St. John concerning eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, and make that to be the very eating, which our Saviour faulted them for the imagination of, and not that more refined one, which they themselves advance. But what then is that real manducation, or eating of Christ, which the Romanists advance? What is that, which they think fit to give that name unto? Nothing, for aught that I can discern, save the receiving of him with their mouth, and transmitting him from thence into their stomaches. If there be any thing else, that looks like manducation, the poor species are fain to bear it; For that is the Sum, and substance of their eating Christ in them. But in conscience can this manducation of Christ look like a real one? Is this answerable to that literal sense, which they seem to be so fond of in other things? For why, if the letter of the text persuades that the very Body of Christ is in the Sacrament, as that too not figuratively, or spiritually, but properly, and substantially, should not the same letter persuade, that it is eaten as literally, and properly, and not only spiritually, and sacramentally? Especially, when they themselves advance a real manducation, as well as a sacramental, and spiritual one. But as they, who contend so eagerly for the very Body of Christ being in the Sacrament, and (which is more) will have it to be substantially there, do yet arbitrarily enough assert its being only spiritually there, or after the manner of a Spirit; So out of the same mere will, and pleasure they assert also a real manducation, and yet at the same time make that real manducation to be no other than men's receiving Christ's Body into their Mouths, and transmitting it from thence into their Stomaches. As if our Saviour had given them an absolute Empire over his words, and empowered them to give those words a proper, and improper Sense, as best suited with their own Hypotheses, and interests. For if the letter of the words will prevail so far as to make us understand the eating enjoined of such an eating as is performed by the Mouth, I do not see, without the Empire before spoken of, why they should not understand it of such an eating, as is also performed by the Teeth, and profess (as Berengarius was taught to do) that the Body of Christ is sensually, not in Sacrament, but in truth handled, and broken by the hands of the Priest, and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the Faithful. Beside, to what purpose any corporal eating at all? To what purpose our so much as receiving Christ with our Mouths, and transmitting him from thence into our Stomaches? when, for aught appears by the Council of Trent itself, this Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood was intended not for the corporal nourishment of our Bodies, but for the spiritual nourishment of our Souls: That Council where it professeth to entreat of the Reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament (h) Sess. 13. cap. 2. , affirming only, that our Saviour would have this Sacrament to be taken as the Spiritual Food of Souls, whereby they are nourished, and strengthened, living by the Life of him, that said, He, that eateth me, even he shall live by me. For such as the Food is, such in reason ought to be that eating, by which it is to be received; And therefore, if the Body of Christ in the Sacrament were intended for the Spiritual Food of our Souls, to be spiritually eaten also, and not after a corporal manner. But that, which will show yet more the no necessity there is of this corporal eating of Christ's Body, any more than of that Body's being really, and locally present in the Sacrament, is what is assigned by Mons. Claud (i) Resp. au ●. Traite de la Perpet. c. 4. , where he entreats of the no necessity of the latter, and which because I know not how to do better, I will express in that Author's words; To wit, that the Flesh, and Blood of Christ are indeed a Principle of Peace, and Life, and salvation to our Bodies, and Souls, not in the quality of Physical Causes, which act by contact, and by the position of their substances, but in the quality of meritorious Causes, which act morally, or of Causes Motives, which do not only operate, and produce their Effects being absent, but when they themselves are not as yet in being, as appears by the Examples of the Ancient Patriarches, who were saved by the virtue of Jesus Christ, even as we. For what necessity can there be of any corporal eating of Christ's Body, when that Body is not a Principle of Life to us in the quality of a Physical Cause, but of a meritorious, and moral one? And when moreover they, who were antienly saved by it, as well as we now are, were not in a capacity so to eat of it, because that, which was to be the matter of it, had not at that time a being in the World? Agreeable hereto is the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel, and after which it is a wonder that any Man should think of eating Christ's Flesh after a corporal manner. For when they, who were present at it, desired him evermore to give them of that Bread (k) Joh. 6.34. , which he had but just before affirmed to give Life unto the World, he not only declared to them in express words, that he (l) Joh. 6.35. was that Bread of Life, but sufficiently intimated that the way for them to attain it, and that Life together with it, was by coming to him, and believing on him. For he that cometh to me (saith our Saviour (m) Ibid. ) shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. And he farther confirms that sort of eating, by suggesting, as he goes, that it was the Will of his Father, that every one, which seethe the Son (n) Joh. 6.40. , and believeth on him, should have everlasting Life, and that he, that believeth on him (o) Joh. 6.47. , hath everlasting Life. For how was that either pertinent to the account he gave of his being the Bread of Life, or but consistent with what he afterward saith, that except (p) Joh. 6.53. they eaten his Flesh, and drank his Blood, they had no Life in them, if that belief in him were not the thing intended by the eating of him, and that eating therefore a spiritual, rather than a corporal one? In like manner, when some of his Disciples conceiving he intended another sort of eating, were offended with that Discourse of his, and represented it as an hard (q) Joh. 6.60. , and unnatural one; After he had asked them, What if they should see the Son of Man ascend up (r) Joh. 6.62. , where he was before, whether the more to enhance the Difficulty before he resolved it, or, by the mention of his ascending into Heaven, to take them off from understanding him in a carnal sense, he hath these following words (s) Joh. 6.63. , It is the Spirit, that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing; The words, that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life. The most plain, and obvious meaning of which words is, that it was the spiritual eating, and not the carnal one, that availed unto Life, and that it was of such an eating, that he had spoken all along, as the only one from which eternal Life could be expected. And indeed, as the latter part of the words cannot well bear any other sense, because words cannot be Spirit, and Life, unless it be as to the sense, and meaning of them; So I do not see how any other sense can answer that Design, for which these, and the former words were produced, even the softening of that hard saying, which the Disciples were so offended at: To say, as the Romanists (t) Annot. in loc. in Verse. de Mons. do, that our Saviour intended thereby, that it was his Spirit, or Divinity, which made that Flesh of his to be such living Food, and not any Property of the Flesh considered, as separated from it, answering in some measure what scruple they might have concerning its giving eternal Life to those, that eat of it, but answering not at all the scruple they had concerning the possibility of that Flesh of his being divided among so many, or the lawfulness of their eating of it, though it could be so divided. For so far is the sense of the Romanists from answering the latter of these Scruples, that it makes it yet more painful, by how much more unnatural it is to eat the Flesh of him, that was God-man, as well as a living one, than that of a mere Man, and one that is also dead. Sure I am, St. Augustine was so choked with the literal sense of that, which Christ's Disciples, and the Jews are said to have been offended at, that he took occasion from thence to assert (u) De Doct. Christ. li. 3. cap. 15. Si autem [praeceptiva locutio] flagitium, aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem, an't beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: fa●inus, vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse Communicandum, & suaviter, atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ, quòd pro nobis caro ejus Crucifixa, & vulnerata sit. , not only that that, and other such like Precepts, as seem to command any great wickedness, aught to be looked upon rather as figurative, than proper, but resolved the meaning of what is said concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood to be, that we ought to communicate with his Passion, and sweetly, and profitably to lay up in our Memory, that his Flesh was crucified, and wounded for us. Conformably to which he elsewhere (w) In Joh. Tract. 26. & En. in Psal. 98. understands by those words, They are Spirit, and they are Life, They ought to be spiritually understood, and will be Spirit and Life to those, which have that understanding of them. And therefore, as I cannot but wonder that the Romanists should think to free themselves from the Carnality of Christ's Disciples, and the Jews, because they do not understand our Saviour here of tearing his Flesh with their Teeth, as the other are thought to have done (For to take that Flesh into their Mouths, which is their avowed opinion, and transmit it from thence into their Stomaches, though it look like an improper eating, yet will hardly pass for a figurative, or spiritual one, as the Scripture, and St. Augustine, represent the eating here enjoined) so I cannot forbear with the same St. Augustine to admonish, even with respect to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament (x) Nolite parare fauces, sed cor. Ind commendata est ista coena. Ecce credimus in Christum, cum fide accipimus. In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus. Modicum accipimus, & in cord saginamur. Non ergo quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit. De verbis Dom. Serm. 33. , that we prepare not our Jaws, but our Heart, because the commendation of that Supper is, that it was prepared for the latter. Behold we then believe in Christ, we receive him with Faith. In receiving we know, what we ought to think upon. We receive a little, and are fattened in the Heart. It is not therefore that, which is seen, that feeds, but that, which is believed. PART VIII. Of Consubstantiation. The Contents. An account of that Doctrine, which is by us called Consubstantiation, out of the Augustan Confession, and Gerhard; And as it is founded by him, and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, so Enquiry thereupon made first, whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense; Secondly, whether, if so taken, Consubstantiation can be inferred from them. That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavoured by the Lutherans to be proved by general, and special Arguments, and those Arguments therefore proposed, and answered. What is alleged in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to be preferred before the figurative, willingly allowed; But that no exception ought to be made, unless where the Scripture itself obligeth us to departed from the literal sense, shown to be neither true in itself, nor pertinent to the present Texts, because there is enough in the words, that follow them, to oblige us to prefer the figurative sense before it. The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration, and First that, which is drawn from the supposed newness, and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first, and which consequently required, that they should be delivered in proper, and literal Expressions, as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them. Where is shown, that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new, and strange things at the first Institution of them, as is pretended (There having been the like under the Old Testament) nor under any necessity, if they had been such, of being delivered in literal, and proper Expressions, because figurative Expressions, with a Key to open them, might have sufficiently declared the nature of them. What is urged in the second place from the nature of a Testament, under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20. to have been instituted, shown to be of as little force; Partly, because it is justly questionable, whether what we there render Testament, ought not rather to be rendered a Covenant; and partly because even Civil Testaments are shown to admit of figurative Expressions. A short Answer made to what is alleged in the third, and fourth place from the Majesty of him, that instituted this Sacrament, and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists, and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question; And a more full one to what is offered in the fifth place to show the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject, Predicate, or Copula. The Copula, or the word [Is] thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in, and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logic, and from the Scripture. That the literal Sense is not, as is pretended in the sixth Argument, the only one that can quiet the Mind, or secure the Conscience, briefly shown; And Enquiry next made, whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allowed, Consubstantiation could be inferred from them. Which that it cannot, is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This, to denote that complexum quid, which Consubstantiation advanceth. IF Transubstantiation be a hard word, and such as will not easily down with the Romanists themselves; That, which the generality of Men call Consubstantiation, but the Lutherans themselves † Confess. August. Art. 10. & Cons. Cassand. ad dict. Art. a true, real, and substantial Presence of Christ's Body, and Blood, will be found to be of no very easy digestion by those, that shall take the pains to consider it. For though it doth not pretend to annihilate, or transform the Sacramental Elements, and therefore neither offer that violence to our Senses, and the Scripture, which Transubstantiation doth; Yet, which is hard enough to believe, it professeth to teach * Gerhard. Loc. Commun. Tract. de Sacr. Caenâ cap. 10. , that the Body of Christ is so united to the blessed Bread, and the Blood of Christ to the blessed Wine, that together with that Bread we receive, and eat the Body of Christ by one Sacramental Manducation, and together with that Wine receive, and drink the Blood of Christ by one Sacramental Draught. By which means Christ's glorious Body is not only contrary to the nature of a Body, made to be present to many places at once, even to Heaven, and as many other, as this holy Sacrament is celebrated in; but (for aught that I can discern) jumbled together into one Physical Mass with those Sacramental Elements, to which it is affirmed to be united, which is that Consubstantiation, which they seem so desirous to avoid: This Union, as it is in their own opinion an union of Substances, and of corporeal Substances also, So, so straight a one, as to occasion their own affirming, that the Body, and Blood of Christ are given in, with, and under their respective Elements, which how they should be without the former Consubstantiation, is not easy to imagine. Now as this opinion of the Lutherans is founded by themselves upon the literal sense of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, and must therefore stand, or fall with it; So I shall therefore think it enough to inquire 1. Whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense. 2. Whether supposing that they should be so understood, that, which we call Consubstantiation, can be inferred from them. 1. That the words This is my Body, and This is my Blood, Vid. Gerhard. ubi supra. aught to be taken in the literal sense, is affirmed by the Lutherans, as well as by the Romanists, and both general, and special Arguments alleged for it. Whereof the former are, that the literal sense, because the first, and most natural, is generally to be preferred before the figurative one; That this aught especially to be observed in the Interpretation of the Scripture, unless the Scripture itself oblige us to departed from it, but most of all in divine Precepts, Promises, and Articles of Faith: Partly, because of the danger there may be of running into great errors, if the literal sense should not generally be adhered to, and partly because it is pretended that there is nothing of the former nature, which in some place of Scripture, or other is not delivered in plain, and literal expressions, and by which judgement may be made of what is elsewhere delivered in figurative ones. And I willingly grant that the literal sense, because the first, and most natural, is generally to be preferred before the figurative; And I grant too, that this aught especially to be observed in the Interpretation of the Scripture. But that no exception ought to be made from this general rule, unless the Scripture itself oblige us to departed from the literal sense, is a thing I see no reason for, where the matter entreated of is a proper matter of Reason, or of that law of Nature, which is conducted by it: Partly, because in such a case Reason, and Nature may be presumed to be competent judges of the thing entreated of, and consequently may prescribe against the literal sense of such expressions, as shall be found to be manifestly contrary to the dictates of it; And partly, because the great design of Scripture being to direct us in supernatural things, it may well enough be presumed to leave things of the former nature to be judged of, for the main, by that Reason, to whose cognisance they do belong. Thus, for instance, because the preservation of those natures, which God hath given us, is a thing proper enough for the cognisance of Reason, and Nature, and manifestly prescribed by the dictates of it, not only we, but all Christians whatsoever think themselves licenced, if not obliged, to put a figurative sense upon those words, which command the pulling out an offending eye, or cutting off an offending hand, yea though there should not be, as perhaps there is not, any so express precept of Scripture against the mutilation of ourselves. But let us examine yet more nearly the purport of the former Argument, as it relates to such divine precepts, and promises, as may seem to have a more particular regard to the life to come, and so may be rather reckoned to supernatural truths, than moral ones. For neither here is it so clear that the literal sense is to prevail, unless some text be produced, which shall oblige us to the contrary; Neither, if it were, would it be of force to conclude against a figurative interpretation of those words, for which this Argument is alleged. I instance for the former of these in what was but even now † Part 7. quoted out of St. Augustine concerning our looking upon that as a figurative expression, which enjoins the eating of Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood in order to eternal life. For as that Father thought it enough to prove that expression to be such, because it seemed to command a great wickedness, without so much as taking notice of any Scripture, that represented it as such; so I do not see what text can be produced, that is so express against the eating of humane Flesh, and drinking humane Blood, as this is for the eating, and drinking them in the present instance. In which case, that wickedness, which St. Augustin affirms the former precept to lead to in the literal sense, must be pronounced as such by the law of Reason, and Nature, and no necessity therefore of sticking to the literal sense of any Scripture, till we can find as express a text elsewhere to take us off from the embracing of it. But let us suppose that the literal sense is to prevail, till some text of Scripture can be produced, which shall oblige us to a contrary one; Yet will it not therefore follow, but that the words, we are now upon, may, and aught to be figuratively taken, because there is enough in those, that follow, to oblige us to it. I allege for this purpose our Saviour's representing the things he gave as his Body broken, and Blood shed, which his natural Body, and Blood were not at the Institution of this Sacrament, nor can now be since his Resurrection from the dead. For if the Body, and Blood of Christ were not then broken, or shed, nor can be so since his Resurrection from the dead, what our Saviour then gave, or we now receive, cannot be that Body, and Blood, and therefore to be understood rather as Signs, and efficacious Means of conveying the Merit of that Body, and Blood to us, than (as the letter of the words seems to import) that Body, and Blood itself. The same is yet more evident from our Saviour's requiring his Disciples to do that whole action, and particularly to eat, and drink the things given in remembrance of him, and of his death? That which is designed as a memorial of any thing, being in reason to be looked upon as a thing distinct from that, which it was intended as a memorial of, and designed to supply the place of. Neither will it avail to say (as it is in my opinion idly enough) that if the last suggestion were true, Christ's Body, and Blood must have been absent from that Sacrament, which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples, which it is certain from the Story, that they were not. For as that Sacrament itself was principally designed for the times succeeding our Saviour's passion, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or remembrance, in all probability made use of with a particular relation to them; So Christ's Body broken and Blood shed were as much absent from that Table, and Sacrament, as they are from our Sacramental Tables, or any other. Those general Arguments of the Lutherans being of no more force, let us cast our eyes upon their special ones, or at least upon such of them, as seem most worthy of our regard. Whereof the first, that occurs, is taken from the nature of a Sacrament, which (as they say) being a thing perfectly new, and accordingly unknown to all Men, till it come to be revealed, is in reason to be delivered in proper and literal expressions, as concerning which otherwise there can be no certain knowledge. Which supposed, the words, that declare this Sacrament, must be concluded to be such, and as such understood, and asserted. A Man would wonder to hear Learned Men argue at this rate concerning the Sacraments of our Saviour, when it appears by what I have elsewhere (‖) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 4. said, that there were several such things before, and by which St. Paul tells us, that the Jews did all eat the same spiritual meat with us, and drank the same spiritual drink, even Christ; Yea though the natural Body, and Blood of Christ were not then in being, and consequently could not literally be eaten, or drunken. For how come our Sacraments to be such new, and unknown things, when there were the like long before? Or how under a necessity of being delivered in literal, and proper expressions, when there were not only such like Sacraments to give light to them, though figuratively delivered, but the Doctrine of those Ancient Sacraments delivered even by St. Paul in those very figurative expressions, which are thought to be such absurdities in ours? For however we may be thought literally to eat, and drink Christ's Body, and Blood; yet they, to be sure, cannot be thought to have done so, who lived before that Body, and Blood of Christ were in being. Though granting that our Sacraments were at first as new, and unknown, as it is pretended that they are; Yet will it not therefore follow, but that they might be delivered in figurative, as well as in literal expressions: Because figurative expressions, according to themselves may be easily enough understood, if there be but a Key to open them. Now whether there be not such a Key to open the figurative expressions of the present Sacrament, I shall leave to those to judge, who shall reflect upon our Saviour's representing the Symbols of this Sacrament as his Body broken, and Blood shed, and willing us moreover to eat, and drink of them in remembrance of him, and of his crucifixion; Those two things being enough to assure us, that the things given by our Saviour were rather Memorials of that Body, and Blood of his, and conveyors of the Merits of them, than either the substance of that Body, and Blood, or the Means of communicating it to the Mouths, and Stomaches of those, who were to partake of them. But it may be there is more force in what they argue from the nature of a Testament upon occasion of those words of our Saviour, This is my Blood of the New Testament, or The New Testament in it, which is shed for many for the remission of Sins. For since it should seem by those expressions, that that Sacrament was instituted under the form of a Testament, the words whereof aught in reason to be taken in the literal sense, as without which all Testaments would be very uncertain, and litigious; Therefore the words of this Sacrament, and particularly such of them as respect the principal Legacies in it, aught to be taken in the literal sense, and not in a figurative one. If a Man should make answer, as I have elsewhere (a) Expl. of the ●●●r in Gen. Part ●. done, and I think too not without great reason, that what we render Testament ought to be rendered a Covenant, all that argument would be sponed, and whatever the promoters of it have brought concerning Testaments, out of the Body of the Civil Law, or the Interpreters thereof. But I will however allow for once the usual rendering of the Word, and answer directly to that Argument, which is form from it. As indeed what should hinder me, when those very Laws, which they pretend to, do not prove what they are designed for? For such I look upon that (b) Ille, aut ille D. de legate. & fidei commiss. , which saith, that, when there is no ambiguity in the words, there ought to be no question made concerning the Will of the testator. For who will allow these Men to suppose, that there is no ambiguity in the words of the present Testament strictly, and literally understood, and particularly in those words, that are the subject of the present controversy? As little force is there in that Law (c) L. Non aliter D. de legatis, etc. , which saith, that we ought not otherwise to departed from the natural signification of words, than when it is manifest that the testator meant somewhat else, than what seems to have been expressed in them. For one would think, that should consider what impossibilities, and contradictions the literal sense of, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, involves, one would think, I say, that those alone should make it manifest enough, that the testator meant somewhat else, than what the literal sense of the words will necessarily lead Men to. So little reason is there to believe, that there is any thing even in the Civil Law to persuade a strict, and literal interpretation of all, that a Testament contains. And they, who produce the two former Laws to persuade such an Interpretation, are the more inexcusable in it, because if they had pleased to read on to the paragraph Titius in the latter of them, they would have seen enough to make them ashamed of their pretensions; Because it is there affirmed in express terms, that we are not in a cause of Testaments to descend to a strict definition of words, since for the most part Testatours speak abusively, neither do they always use proper Names, and Titles. All which things I have said, not as constrained thereto by the force of the present Argument (For I know no reason why the sense of the New Testament should be judged of by the niceties of the Law) but to let the World see, how partial Men are in the allegations of such proofs as they think to be of use to them. For beside what was before quoted from the Law concerning Testatours speaking abusively, and improperly, the same Law gives us to understand (d) L. ex facto D. de haered. institu. Paragr. Rerum aubem Italicarum. , that the will of the deceased doth all, and that (e) L. Siquis ●ta. D. de adimendis, vel t●ansferendis, etc. Par. Conduit. Legati. his sense is more to be regarded, than the words. Which could have no sense in it, if Legitimate Testaments were always to be taken in the strictness of the letter; For then the will, or sense of the testator, and the words of his Testament would be perfectly the same. The next argument for the literal sense of the words in question is taken from the Majesty of him, that instituted this Sacrament, and from all those glorious Attributes, that make it up. Such as are his Truth, and the place he holds under God of our Instructor, his being the very wisdom of the Father, and omniscient, his being nigh unto death, when he instituted this Sacrament, and so much the more likely still to weigh all the words he uttered in this important affair; as, in fine, his being so far from giving any indication of other than a literal Interpretation of the present words, that, when he was advanced to Heaven, he revealed the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the very same words, wherein he had before exhibited it. Things, which for the most part, must be acknowledged to be duly attributed to Christ; but which have no force at all to conclude the thing in question. For what if Christ be true, and appointed by God to be our Instructor? Will it therefore follow, that we must understand all he saith in the Letter, though we want not sufficient Indications, even from some of his own words, that we ought to understand him in a figurative sense. All that they, who press us with Christ's Truth, and the Place he holds under God, seem to pretend to, is, that we ought to hear him, and be guided by him in our Belief. Which I suppose they do to very good purpose, who submit their Belief to that, which, all things considered, they are firmly persuaded to be his Mind, and Will. But it is farther alleged, that Christ is the very Wisdom of the Father, and one who could therefore express his Mind clearly, and plainly, and in proper and literal Expressions, as well as in figurative ones. And whoever doubted of it, or could doubt of it, who looked upon him but as an ordinary Prophet, and not as one, who was also of the same Essence with the Father? But as the Question is not, What Christ could do, but, What he hath done? So we find no reason to grant, but that our Saviour hath spoken plainly enough to those, that are willing to understand him. The Argument goes on to allege, that our Saviour was omniscient, and as he could not therefore but know what Contentions would arise about this part of heavenly Doctrine to the certain destruction of Souls; So it is not at all likely that he would so far contribute to it, as of set purpose to wrap the true, and certain meaning of this holy Mystery in the dark cover of figurative words. But as I do not find any necessity to grant, that Christ was bound to do all he could, to prevent the Contentions that might afterwards happen, because (as St. Paul spoke (f) 1 Cor. 11.19. concerning Heresies) this Good might accrue by them, that they that were approved, might thereby be made manifest; So I see as little reason to grant, that Christ did any way contribute to those Contentions, or the ruin of Souls by them, by those figurative Expressions, which he made use of in the present instance: Those Cover, wherein the Doctrine of the Sacrament is supposed to be wrapped up, being not so thick, or obscure, but that they may be seen through by Men of unprejudiced Minds. I know not why it is added, unless it be to fill up the number of its forces, that our Saviour was near to death, when he instituted this Sacrament, and therefore no doubt well weighed beforehand what he spoke concerning it. For who, but a blasphemous Heretic, ever thought, or said, that our Saviour under any Circumstances knew not what he spoke? And therefore I shall only take notice of that, which concludes the present Argument, even that our Saviour was so far from giving any indication of other, than a literal interpretation, that, after he was advanced to Heave, he revealed the Doctrine of it in the same words, wherein it was at first delivered. For not to say any thing at present to the latter part of this Allegation; Our Saviour (as was before shown) gave sufficient Indications of a figurative Interpretation, when he represented the things given as his Body broken, and Blood shed, which they were not then nor can be now, and moreover willed his Disciples to partake of what he gave them in remembrance of him, and of his death. A fourth Argument for the literal sense of the words in question, is the great Conformity there is between the several Historians of the Institution, as to the words we are now upon; It being not to be thought, but that, if they had been to be taken in other, than a simple, and proper sense, one, or other of those holy Men would have added an Explication of them. But neither is there that Conformity between them as to the words, whereof we speak, neither can it be said, that none of those Historians have given an Explication of them. For though, for instance, This is my Body, is indeed in all of them, and we so far forth obliged to acknowledge a Conformity between them in their account of the present words; Yet St. Luke, and St. Paul add to those words, which is given for you, and which is broken for you, which are not only Additions, but (if what I have elsewhere said (g) Part 5. be well weighed) due Explications of them also, and such as show them not to be capable of that literal Interpretation, which they are so willing to put upon them. There is as little truth in what is added, that none of those Historians have given any explication of them. For not to repeat what was but now said concerning the words, which is given, or broken for you; St. Luke, and St. Paul take care to remark, that our Saviour enjoined his Disciples to eat what he gave them in remembrance of him, and of his Death, which is no obscure Indication of those words being to be figuratively understood. The fifth Argument for the literal Sense, is the supposed Absurdity of the figurative; Which the better to evince, it is pretended that there is no place for any Figure either in the Subject, Predicate, or the Copula, that ties them together. And if there be no Figure in either of these, there is no Figure at all, and the Propositions therefore, that are composed of them, to be literally understood. Now as I have elsewhere (h) Part 3. affirmed the figurativeness of these Propositions to consist in the word [Is], as which I have there shown to be the same in sense with signifies, and accordingly so used in Speeches of the like nature; So I shall therefore content myself to return an Answer to what is objected as to the figurativeness of that word, whether it be from Logic, or from the Scripture. Now the first thing, that is objected from the former of these Heads, is, that the Copula or the word [Is] is no part of a Proposition according to Aristotle, and others, and therefore the figurativeness of the whole not to be placed in it. I will leave it to the Sophisters to answer to Aristotle's Authority, because I think that Office is fit for them, than for a Divine; It shall suffice me to make answer, that as a Man of good natural Understanding would take that to be a part of a Proposition, without which in many Propositions the Subject, and Predicate could have no connexion, nor any more constitute a Proposition, than Stone, and Timber, and other Materials do a House, till they are united to one another, and compacted into a Building of that Shape, and use; So men, that have had a Name for this Art of Reasoning, have been of a quite different opinion from the Objectors, and not only not looked upon the word [Is] as no part of the Proposition, but as the very Soul of it. For the Copula (saith Petrus à Sancto Joseph (i) Idea Phil. Ration. li. 2. Art. 4. ) is to the Subject, and Predicate, as the Form is to the material parts of any thing, and gives them the Essence of a Proposition; After the same manner as the formal part of a House is not the Stones, and Timber of it, but that, by which they are connected. And Burgersdicius, an Author better known, and as terrible a Man at the Art of Reasoning, is not only of the same Mind with the former as to the word [Is] being part of a Proposition, but tells us moreover (k) Instit. Log. li. 1. cap. 27. , that it is a part of the Predicate, and indeed the very Form, and Soul of it. Which he proves by a thing, that is agreed on among the differing Parties, even that the word [Is], when included in another Verb, is part of the Predicate. For if (saith he) the word [Is] when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate, why shall it not be a part of the Predicate, when it is set by itself? Which, with the Instance, which he subjoins, and another Reason for it, I shall leave to the Logicians of the other side to answer. But beside that more remote Objection of the Copula's being no part of a Proposition, and therefore the figurativeness of the present ones not to be placed there; It is farther added, that this Copula, or the word [Is] is a word of no certain signification in itself (For I forbear the mention of that hard Name, which the Logicians give it) whereas Tropes, and Figures can have place only in words of certain signification, because altering them from their native signification to a foreign one. And it must be granted, that the word [Is] is so far forth of an uncertain signification, that it may, and is wont to be applied to several sorts of Predications, and particularly to such as are only accidental, as well as to those that are essential. For thus we may, and do affirm, that Socrates, for instance, is of this, or that Colour, which denotes only an Accident, as well as that he is a reasonable Creature, which points out the very Essence of him. But as the word [Is] hath this certain signification in the general, as to point to somewhat that naturally belongs to the Subject, to which it relates, whether it be of the Essence, or only an Accident thereof; So it may so far forth be capable of being altered from its native signification to a foreign one, which is the thing this Argument was intended to impugn. But leaving such Niceties, as these, to such as take more pleasure in them, that so we may with more freedom apply ourselves to the Consideration of the Scriptures; Let us, as is no doubt more for our Profit, consider what they allege from thence to impugn the figurativeness of this so much controverted word [Is]. Where the first thing, that occurrs, is, that in those words, which respect the Cup, the word [Is] in the original Greek is wanting in St. Luke; For, whatever is pretended, it is not wanting in S. Paul, though it be out of its usual order. And this, for aught I can see, is made one of those potent Arguments, which confounded Piscator, and caused him; after he had many years stoutly defended the Figurativeness thereof; to retract his Opinion in that Particular. But as I see no such force in this, or the other Arguments to occasion any change of Opinion; So the word [Is] is so often understood, that St. Luke might, upon that account, take the less care to express it, especially having before made use of it in the matter of the other Element. And I shall only add, that if there be any thing, which seems to press hard upon the supposed figurativeness of the word [Is], it must be that the Hebrew, for aught appears, hath no word to express [Is] or Are, and our Saviour therefore, when he pronounced the present Propositions, to have uttered them without any word to answer to it, only mentioning, This my Body, and, This my Blood, as the Scripture speaks in the like Cases. Which supposed, one would think, the figurativeness of those Propositions should not be placed, where we have done it, and (because there seems nothing else to place it in) to be utterly banished from them. But as it is plain from the Evangelists translating those words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, that the word [Is], though not expressed, yet was always understood by the Hebrews; So to suppose the contrary, is to destroy the literal Sense, as well as the figurative, because there can be no Sense at all, unless it be either expressed, or understood. By the same Reason therefore that they, who advance the literal Sense of those Propositions, place that literal Sense in the word [Is], though it be rather supposed, than expressed; By the very same Reason may we place the figurativeness thereof in it, and interpret those Propositions by it. One only Argument remains, if yet it deserve that Name, that the literal sense is the only one, that can bring Men to a setledness in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, or give us any good Assurance, when we come to appear before Christ's Judgment-Seat; They, who run after Tropes, and Figures, knowing not where to fix, as appears by the differences, that are between them, and much less likely to stand in the day of Temptation, or in that more terrible day of the Lord Jesus. But as it is now pretty evident, that they, who follow a figurative Sense, are neither so uncertain in themselves, nor so different from one another (l) Vid. Cousins. Hist. Trans. Papal. cap. 2. , that any Man can with Reason reproach them upon that account; So they, who pretend to follow the literal Sense, are so far from coming to any settledness in this Affair, that they cannot agree what that literal Sense is, and ought not therefore to be more confident of their own future standing at the day of Trial, than a sincere pursuit of the Truth, and a belief they have it will be able to give them. Which, as it is not denied to them by us, so will, it is hoped, be as easily granted to us by them, when they consider more calmly of our Opinions, and the grounds of them. 2. But let us suppose that the words in controversy were to be taken in the literal sense, and whatever can be fairly deduced from thence to be the genuine issue of Christianity; Yet how doth it appear that that, which we call Consubstantiation, and they, though improperly enough, a true, real, and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, can receive any countenance from it? For not only do the Lutherans maintain a simple Presence of them in the Eucharist, but so intimate a Presence also, that they, and the Sacramental Elements make up one compound; By means whereof, as the Person of Christ by the union of his Divine and Humane Nature may be said to be either God, or Man, so that, which is made up of the Sacramental Element, and the thing of the Sacrament may by that union of theirs be in like manner affirmed to be either the one, or the other, without any kind of impropriety, or figure. Consequently whereto, as our Saviour called this Compound thing by the Name of his Body, and Blood, so St. Paul might as well give it the Title of Bread, or Wine, where he speaks so often of its being eaten, or drunken by both the worthy, and unworthy partakers of it. Now what is there in the letter of the words, This is my Body, and, This is my Blood, to found such a Doctrine on? What is there in them, that they themselves can think of any moment to infer it? Nothing, for aught that I can discern, but the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Hoc, and which because it agrees not in Gender with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Bread, must be taken not adjectively, but substantively, and consequently for that complexum quid, or compound thing, which they advance. But if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Hoc being of the Neuter Gender, do not hinder its referring to the Bread; If it be so far from being any impropriety in construction, when so referred, that it is agreeable to the use of the best Authors both in Greek, and Latin; Lastly, if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Hoc may as well be rendered This thing, meaning the Bread before spoken of, as this Compound of the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, as hath been heretofore (m) Part 3. declared at large; Then is all this Presence, and Union without any kind of foundation in the Text, and they must either believe, as we do, that Christ meant no more by This is my Body, and Blood, than, This is the Sacrament thereof, Or, that that Bread, and Wine, which he gave to his Disciples, is by his Almighty Power transubstantiated into his very Body and Blood, Or that his Body, and Blood are in the Sacrament, but after what manner they are utterly ignorant, and are not curious to inquire, and much less of Courage enough to determine. For as for whatever else they advance upon this Head, it is either founded upon this supposed Union, or tends only to show that there is a real, and substantial Presence of Christ's Body, and Blood in the Sacrament, and which, because I have already sufficiently considered, I think it not worth the while to speak again unto. And I shall only add, that as it doth not appear that our Saviour meant any compound thing by that, which he affirmed to be his Body, and much less such a compound thing, as answers to that, which ariseth from the Union of the two Natures in Christ, without which they themselves confess, that it could not be affirmed to be Christ's Body; So St. Luke, and St. Paul give this great presumption against it, that when they come to speak of the Cup, they do not set the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This to express the Subject of this great Predication, but add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Cup to it. For beside that that makes it yet more probable, that they meant no other by it, than that Cup, which they before affirm our Saviour to have taken, and which to be sure did not then contain that compound thing, which the Lutherans advance; St. Paul, where he entreats of the end of men's drinking of it, opposeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or This Bread, and so offers a yet greater presumption against our understanding it of any other. PART IX. Of the foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of the Lord's Supper. The Contents. The foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward parts of this Sacrament, shown from some former Discourses, to be the Institution of Christ, not so much as delivered by him, as applied to those Elements, that are to put it on, by the Minister's executing the Commands of it, and by Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof. What is the foundation of this relation, on the part of the former, the subject of the present Enquiry, and his pronouncing the words, Hoc est corpus meum, and, Hic est calix, etc. shown not to be it, from the insufficiency of those grounds, on which it is built. What is urged in the behalf of those words more particularly considered, and evidence made, that as there wants not in the Prayers, and Praises of the Communion-Office, that which may tend to the founding of this Relation, so that the words, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. neither now have, nor, when Christ himself used them, had in them the power of producing it. What the true foundation of this relation is, or what that is, which consecrates those Elements, which are to put it on, endeavoured to be made out from some former Discourses; And those Elements accordingly considered, either as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body, and Blood, or as being to become also a Means of Communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. The former of these relations brought about by a declaration of those Purposes; for which the Elements are intended, whether in the words of the Institution, or any other; The latter by Thanksgiving, and Prayer. The usefulness of this Resolution to compromise the Quarrels, that have arisen in this Argument upon occasion of what the Ancients have said on the one hand for attributing the Power of Consecration to the Prayers, and Thanksgivings of the Priest, and, on the other hand, to the words of the Institution; Those Quarrels being easily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Institution rather as applied, than as delivered, and as applied also by Prayer, and Thanksgiving, more than by the rehearsal of it. iv HAving thus given an account of the outward Part, or Sign of the Lord's Supper, of the inward Part, or thing signified by it, and of the Relation, that is between them; My proposed Method obligeth me to inquire, What is the Foundation of that Relation, or (that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church) What that is, which consecrates the Bread, and Wine of it, and makes them become the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood. Now though that hath in a great measure been satisfied already, and so may seem less necessary to be considered a second time; Yet because what I have said upon it lies dispersedly in several Discourses, and will therefore require more pains to put it together than will be fit for me to impose upon my Reader; And because too many things may, and must be added to it, to give the World a more distinct knowledge of this Affair; I shall (though so much the more briefly) repeat what hath been elsewhere said, and add farther light, and strength to it. In the general I observe from what I have elsewhere * Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2, 3. discoursed, that the Foundation of that relation, which is between the outward, and inward part of the present Sacrament, is the Institution of Christ, not as delivered by him (For so it hath no more influence upon the Bread, and Wine of the Lord's Supper, than upon those of our ordinary Repasts) but as applied to those particular Elements, that are to put on the relation of a Sacrament. I observe farther, that the Institution of Christ consisting of Commands, and Promises, to make it effectual to the producing of this Sacramental relation in the Elements, it must be applied to them by a due observation of those Commands, and by a like Completion of its Promises. The Consequent whereof will be, thirdly, that it must be applied to them on the one hand by the Stewards of this Mystery, as to whom belongs the execution of its Commands, and, on the other, by Christ himself, as to whom alone belongs the Completion of the other. That though that application, which is to be made by Christ, is no doubt of the most Efficacy toward the producing of this Sacramental Relation, and, in strictness of speech, the only one, which can make those Elements the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood; Yet that that application, which is to be made by the Stewards of this Mystery, is in order of Nature before it, neither can Men expect that Christ should convert those Elements into a Sacrament, unless what he enjoins concerning them be first observed by the other. I observe lastly, that when question is made in this particular, what is the Foundation of this Sacramental Relation, or (that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church) what that is, which consecrates the Sacramental Elements; The meaning thereof is, what is the Foundation of that relation, on the part of the Stewards of this Mystery, and what is required of them to dispose Christ to perform his part in this Affair, and cause those Elements, which in themselves are no way fitted for it, to become to all intents and purposes, the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. The Romanists, as is very well known, make the words, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. to be the words of Consecration, and that it is to them, and them only, that this great relation is owing, and (which is more) a substantial change of the Elements into the very Body, and Blood of Christ. For though the Council of Trent is no way clear in this particular, as may appear to any, that shall take the pains to consult it † Sess. 13. cap. 1. ; Yet as it is the general opinion of their Writers, and the only one, that can safely be maintained among them, so it is that, which the Roman Missal doth sufficiently confirm: Because entitling those words, and those alone, the words of Consecration. A man would willingly see something like a Reason for this Assertion, that so he might return something like an Answer to it. But if you look into the Master of the Sentences (a) Lib. 4. Dist. 8. , or his great Commentator Aquinas (b) Summ. tert. part, qu. 78. Art. 1. , you shall find no other than this, that in the other parts of this Service there is only Praise given to God, or Prayer made unto him; But when this Sacrament comes to be made, the Priest doth not then use his own words, but the words of Christ himself, therefore the word of Christ [even Hoc est corpus meum, etc.] makes this Sacrament. I say nothing at this time that this Argument, such as it is, is drawn from the Service of the Church, and not (as one would have thought, and had been but reasonable) from the words of the Institution, or from some other words of our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles. But I say, which will be enough, that let the Service of the Church be as legitimate as may be, yet there is nothing in it to persuade what is endeavoured to be inferred from it. For what, though in the other parts of the Service, there is nothing but Praise given to God (including therein, as I suppose, the giving of Thanks) and Prayer to God? Yet how will it thence follow, that there is nothing in it tending to the Consecration of the Elements? For it appears by St. Luke, and St. Paul's making use of the word gave Thanks, for what the other Evangelists express by blessed, that our Saviour blessed by giving Thanks. And why might not he then, or we now bless the Sacramental Elements in like manner, and by that blessing change them into a Sacrament, which is as much as to say, Consecrate? And it appears also, that as little as the Romanists seem to esteem of Prayer in this particular; Yet as there is even in their own Missal a Prayer to God, that he would vouchsafe to make their Oblation a blessed One, etc. that it might become to them the Body, and Blood of his Son, So Prayer itself, so far as Man is capable of blessing, is no contemptible one, yea such a Blessing, as God himself thought no improper one for a Priest, or rather (c) Num. 6.23. etc. for the High Priest himself. But it may be, there is more in what they allege, that when this Sacrament comes to be made (For still they will take that for granted) the Priest doth not then use his own words, but the words of Christ himself; The Priest (as Aquinas afterwards (d) Vbi supra. tells us) speaking as it were in the Person of Christ, to let us understand, that in the perfection of this Sacrament he doth nothing but pronounce the words of Christ. But first, if the Priest's using not his own words, but the words of Christ, be that, which makes what he saith, to have the force of Consecration; How comes it to pass, that his using the words, Accipite, & manducate, which are as certainly the words of our Saviour, comes to have no part in it? Especially, when Hoc est enim corpus meum (for so they express it in their Missal) do so manifestly refer to the former, and are as manifestly a Reason of what is exhorted to in them. I say secondly, that though it be true, that the Priest doth not then use his own words, but those of Christ himself; Yet he doth not use them as one speaking in the Person of Christ, as Aquinas would insinuate, but as a bare reciter of them, and a reciter of them too as spoken the Night before he suffered, and with respect to that particular Eucharist, which he gave to his Disciples. Which how it should convert the Elements then before him into the Body, and Blood of Christ, is a thing as hard to be understood, as that conversion itself; Words being in reason to be construed with relation to that, and that alone, to which they are applied by the Author of them. Neither will it avail to say, that though the words considered in themselves respect only that particular Eucharist, which our Saviour gave to his Disciples, yet as applied by the Priest to the Elements, that are before him, they may affect them also. For if they are any otherwise applied to them, than to show what our Saviour intended this Sacrament for, and consequently what we may expect in those Elements, which we set apart for it, if we follow his directions in the Consecration of them; They are no more the words of our Saviour Christ, but of the Priest, who so applies them, and from which therefore no such effect can be expected. This I take to be a sufficient Bar against placing the Power of Consecration in those words, yea though, when uttered by our Saviour, they should be thought to have had that force in them. How much more, if even so they were rather declarations from Christ of what the Elements were already become, than any way productive of a Sacramental relation in them? For neither could our Saviour have truly said, This is my Body, unless at that instant, when he spoke those words, it were really such; And much less could that have been any reason, why he should exhort them to take, and eat what he then offered them, as both the tenor of the words, and the Hoc est enim corpus meum in the Roman Missal doth yet more plainly declare: Because if the words, Hoc est corpus meum, make the change, it must have been Bread, and not his Body, which our Saviour offered his Disciples before he uttered them, and willed them to take, and eat of. But not any longer to insist upon the destruction of that sort of Consecration, Let us inquire, if it may be, after a more legitimate one, and such as shall not only be free from the like Exceptions, but better answer those Sacramental relations, which it is to give birth unto. In order whereunto, I will consider the Sacramental Elements first, as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood, and then as also a Means to communicate that Body, and Blood to us, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. If we consider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Sign of Christ's crucified Body, and Blood, and accordingly to represent them both to our own Minds, and those of others; So it cannot but be thought necessary to declare, whether by the words of the Institution, or others, for what purposes they are designed, and what they were intended to represent. For those Elements (e) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2. being not so clear a representation of the things intended by them, as by their own force to suggest them to the Minds of those, for whom they were intended; Being much less so clear a representation of them, as to invite those to reflect upon them, who are either slow of understanding, or otherwise indisposed to contemplate them, such as are the generality of Men; It cannot but be thought necessary, even upon that account, to call in the assistance of such words, as may declare to those, that are concerned, for what ends, and purposes they were appointed. Otherwise Men may either look upon the whole of that Sacrament as a purely civil Action, or (if the Person, that administereth it, and other such like Circumstances prompt them to conceive of it as a religious one) yet fancy to themselves such ends, and purposes, as are either different from, or contrary to the due intendment of it. And though it be true, that in that Eucharist, which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples, there appears no such declaration of the ends of Christ in it, till he comes to admonish them to take what he gave as his Body, and Blood, which supposeth them to have been made so before; Yet as it is clear from thence, that he thought such a declaration to be necessary to manifest his ends in it, so it is no way unlikely, but rather highly probable, that he interlaid that Thanksgiving, and Prayer, wherewith he is said to have blessed the Elements of this Sacrament, with a declaration of those ends, for which they were designed by him: It appearing not otherwise how that Thanksgiving, and Prayer, could have fitted the matter in hand, or stirred up the Minds of his Disciples to intent it with that devotion, which the importance thereof required. On the other side, if we consider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Means of communicating that Body, and Blood to us, and, which is but consequent thereto, a Pledge to assure us thereof; So it is as little to be doubted, but that it must be brought about by Thanksgiving to God, on the one hand, for giving him to die, whose crucified Body, and Blood this Sacrament was intended to convey; and by Prayer to him, on the other, to make those Elements become the Communion of them: The former, because Thanksgiving appears to have been the Means by which our Saviour blessed them, and moreover, the principal design of this Sacrament toward God, and which therefore unless we comply with, we cannot reasonably hope for the Benefits of; The latter, because (as hath been elsewhere shown) Prayer was a part of that Thanksgiving, and because it is undoubtedly the general Means appointed by Christ for the obtaining of all Benefits whatsoever. Which things, how momentous soever, I have thus lightly passed over, because I have spoken to them sufficiently elsewhere, and particularly, where I entreated of the Institution of this Sacrament, and of that Thanksgiving, by which our Saviour is affirmed to have blessed it. That, which in my opinion ought more especially to be considered, is the usefulness of the former Resolution to compromise those Quarrels, which have for some time been raised in this Argument. For whilst some contend earnestly for Consecration by Thanksgiving, and Prayer, as they have reason enough to do upon the account of our Saviour's being affirmed to consecrate by it, and of Justin Martyr, Origen, and several others representing the Elements of this Sacrament, as becoming what they were intended by the force of those Thanksgivings, and Prayers, which were made over them; And whilst others again contend as earnestly, that they are made such by the words of the Institution, and allege with the same heat Irenaeus his affirming (f) Adu. haeres. li. 5. cap. 2. the mixed Cup, and broken Bread to become the Eucharist of Christ's Body, and Blood by receiving the Word of God, and St. Augustine's more celebrated saying, that let the Word come to the Element, and it becomes a Sacrament: They say things, which will be easily made to agree with each other, if they, who allege them, will but hear one another speak. For it is the word of the Institution applied, as that Institution directs, which consecrates the Elements into those several relations, which they assume. And it is the same word of Institution declared, which contributes more particularly to the making of those Elements become a Sign of Christ's Body, and Blood. But then as it is applied by Thanksgiving, and Prayer (because they are a part of its Commands) as well as by a declaration of the whole; So that Thanksgiving, and Prayer contribute to those relations, which do most ennoble them, even those, by which the Elements become the Communion of Christ's Body, and Blood, and a Pledge to assure us thereof: Not by any force, which is in the Letters, and Syllables thereof, as Aquinas makes Hoc est corpus meum, and Hic est Calix sanguinis mei to do, but by the force of that Institution, which prescribes them, and by their natural aptitude to dispose God, to whom alone such great Effects are to be ascribed, to give the Elements of this Sacrament those most excellent relations, and efficacy. PART X. Of the right Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Contents. Entrance made with enquiring, How this Sacrament ought to be administered, and therein again whether that Bread, wherewith it is celebrated, aught to be broken, and whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution, or otherwise to make an offering unto God of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken, as that too for the better representation of the breaking of Christ's Body, asserted against the Lutherans, and their Arguments against it produced, and answered. Whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise, to make an offering to God of Christ's Body, and Blood, in the next place enquired into, and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair, consideration had of those grounds, upon which the Fathers of that Council establish it. The words, Do this in remembrance of me, more particularly animadverted upon, and shown not to denote such an Offering, whether they be considered, as referring to the several things before spoken of, and particularly to what Christ himself had done or enjoined the Apostles to do, or as referring only to that Body, and Blood, which immediately precede them. In which last Consideration of them is made appear, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may as well, and more naturally signify make; That there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing, or, if there were, that it must import rather a Commemorative, than Expiatory one. What is alleged by the same Council from Christ's Melchizedekian Priesthood, etc. more briefly considered, and answered; And that Sacrifice, which the Council advanceth, shown in the close, to be inconsistent with itself, contrary to the present state of our Lord, and Saviour, and more derogatory to that Sacrifice, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross. The whole concluded with enquiring, To whom this Sacrament ought to be administered, and particularly, whether it either aught, or may lawfully be administered to Infants. Where the Arguments of Bishop Taylor, for the lawfulness of Communicating Infants, are produced, and answered, and particularly, what he allegeth from Infants being admitted to Baptism, though they are no more qualified for it, than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. V THE nature of this Sacrament being thus unfolded, and the Minds of Men so far forth imbued with a due apprehension of it, I might with the leave of that Catechism, which I have taken upon me to explain, proceed to that, which is the last in order, even to show, What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper. But because, unless it be rightly administered, it cannot be rightly received, or at least not with that advantage, which men might otherwise promise to themselves from it: And because those with whom we have to do in this Affair, differ as much from us about the Administration of this Sacrament, as they do about the Nature of it; I think it but reasonable, so far forth as those differences, or the nature of the thing shall lead me to it, to make that also the subject of my Discourse, and accordingly inquire first, how it ought to be administered, and then to whom it ought to be so. I. Now there are two things again, which will be necessary to be enquired into, as concerning the manner of its Administration, 1. Whether that Bread, wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated, aught to be broken. 2. Whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution, or otherwise, to make an Offering unto God of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. 1. Whether that Bread, wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated, aught to be broken, is a Question between us, and the Lutherans, who look upon the breaking of it as not otherwise necessary, than as the Bread, which we employ, may make it to be so for the distribution of it. Agreeably to which Opinion of theirs, they furnish themselves with such small round Wafers, as require no breaking at all, and communicate both themselves, and their People with them. We, on the other side, led thereto, as we suppose, by the Institution of Christ, have a quite different opinion of it, and do not only think it necessary for the distribution of larger Loaves, but, so far forth at least as a divine Precept can make it such, necessary also as a Sacramental Act, and for the better representation of the usage of that Body of Christ, which it was intended to denote: Which Opinion of ours we are farther confirmed in by what we learn from the care, that was used by the Jews in the breaking of that Eucharistical Bread of theirs, which seems to have been the Exemplar of ours; By the Scriptures, and the Ancients representing the whole of this Sacrament under the title of breaking of Bread, and by S. Paul's intimating the Bread, which they broke, to be as much the Communion of Christ's Body, as the Cup of Blessing, which they then blessed, was the Communion of his Blood. A Man would think that they, who stand out against the force of these Arguments, should be provided of sufficient Answers to them, and not only so, but of sufficient Arguments too, to strengthen their own Opinion. But whether either the one, or the other are of that force, which they are supposed to be of, shall be permitted to judgement, after I have taken a view of them. To begin with the Answers * Vid. Ge●●. hard. Loc. Theolog. Tract. de Sacr. Coen. cap. 14. , which they return to the former Arguments, and particularly with what they answer to what is urged from the Institution of Christ. Where they tell us in the first place, that though Christ broke the Bread, and may so far forth perhaps be thought to prescribe the like to those, that were to administer the Sacrament after him; Yet it was rather in order to the distribution of it (the Bread then used requiring him so to do) than to represent the breaking of his own Body. But beside that what they affirm in the former part of it is said without any other proof, than that the Bread then used required breaking, in order to the distribution of it (For, as to any thing they advance to the contrary, Christ might break the Bread for representation, as well as for distribution) St. Paul hath said enough to show, that Christ broke the Bread of this Sacrament to represent the ill usage of his Body; There being not any tolerable reason, why St. Paul should, in the very History of the Institution, attribute so improper a term as that of breaking to Christ's Body, but that the breaking of the Bread, which was a Figure of it, was intended to denote that violence, which was offered to his crucified one. That Answer not succeeding, they fly unto another, and tell us that the words, Do this, refer principally to what the Apostles were to do in the present Action, amongst which the breaking of Bread being not then to be, because the Bread was before broken to their hands, the Command of, Do this, is not to be thought to extend properly, and principally to the breaking of the Bread, but to the taking, and eating of it. It is a strange thing to see how Prejudice will cast a mist before wise men's Eyes, and prompt them to say that for the defence of their Opinions in one thing, which will do them as much mischief in another. For the very same Argument, mutatis mutandis, will serve alike to overthrow that blessing of the Bread, which they, as well as we, think themselves obliged to maintain, as without which indeed it can be no part of the present Sacrament. For if the words, Do this, are to be thought to extend no farther, than to what the Apostles were to do in that Sacrament, which they celebrated with our Saviour, then are they of as little force to conclude the blessing of the Bread before we eat it, because the Bread was at that time, as much blessed to their hands, as it is affirmed to have been broken to them. But beside that that Answer is as much of force against themselves in the blessing of the Bread, as it can be supposed to be against us in the breaking of it; It hath nothing in it, which can conclude against the force of those words, from which the breaking of the Bread is inferred. For whether principally, or less principally, if the words, Do this, referred to somewhat else, than what the Apostles were then to do, then might they refer also to the breaking of the Bread, and consequently the breaking of the Bread be inferred from them, as well as the eating of it. And indeed as he, who suggests this Answer, lays the necessity of blessing the Bread † Gerhard ubi supra. cap. 13. Sect. 149. in Christ's commanding us to do the same thing, which he did, which if he did in any words of the Institution, it was in the present ones, and thereby shows them to extend to somewhat else beside eating; So if they relate to succeeding Sacraments, as well as to what our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples, as is evident from his adding in remembrance of me, they must consequently relate to all that, which was necessary to make the Bread, which he enjoined us to eat, to become the Sacrament of his Body, because the Bread, which he commanded his Disciples to eat, was represented by him as such. From whence as it will follow, that somewhat else was referred to by the words, Do this, than that eating, which was just before enjoined upon the Disciples, even that Blessing, or Thanksgiving, which Christ is said to have premised to this whole Action; So it is but just to believe, that that breaking also was, which followed immediately upon it, and which appears from what hath been said to represent the breaking of that Body, which the Bread they were commanded to eat, was intended as a Representation of. I say thirdly, and lastly, that how confidently soever it is affirmed, that the words, Do this, relate principally to the eating next before enjoined, yet is there no reason to believe, that it related more to eating, than to any of the foregoing Actions, otherwise than as that eating was the Compliment of the whole, and consequently presupposed all the former Actions to have been performed. Partly, because if eating in itself considered, had been the principal thing designed, the repetition of the same word eat would have better fitted the end of the Speaker; And partly, because, setting aside those general words, Do this, there would have been nothing in the Institution to express with any clearness that Blessing, and distribution of the Bread, which they, as well as we, think to be enjoined upon us in the administration of this Sacrament. One other Answer they have, if it be lawful so to call it, that if we will argue from what Christ did in this particular, to what we ourselves are to do, we must either show that action to be otherwise necessary, or find ourselves obliged to celebrate this Holy Sacrament in the like posture, and time, and place, wherein we read our Saviour to have done it. But beside that we do not argue simply from what our Saviour did in this particular, but from that Action of his being placed between two, that are confessed to be intended by the words, Do this, and so in all reason to be looked upon as alike enjoined by them; We cannot but think that it hath farther evidence for the necessity of it from its so well representing that ill usage, which our Saviour's Body received, that St. Paul, when he came to speak of that usage of it as a thing commemorated in this Sacrament, expressed it by the breaking of it. The Argument from the Institution being thus secured, and vindicated from the Exceptions of its Adversaries, we shall the less need to concern ourselves about what the Lutherans answer to those, that follow, as which we ourselves make use of rather to strengthen our Assertion, than that we think them of themselves to be a just foundation of it. Only that it may appear, that even they are not without their weight, I shall, though very briefly, reply to what is answered to them. Now as that, which the Lutherans answer upon all occasions; is, that that breaking, which was made use of by our Saviour, and his Apostles, was rather for the better distribution of the Bread they used, than for any significancy in it; So when we press them with the Jews breaking their Eucharistical Bread, which in all probability gave occasion to the Institution of ours, they tell us, that as the Bread, which the Jews made use of, was more easy to be broken than ours, as being made not so thick as ours now is, but broader, and thinner, and indeed rather like Cakes, than Loaves; so the only end of that breaking was to distribute the Bread they used among those, that were to partake of it. But as whatever is to be said concerning the usual Bread of the Jews, yet if I can understand the account, that is given by Cassander out of Paulus Fagius (For I have not Fagius his discourse upon this Argument to consult) the Bread the Jews both heretofore, and now make use of in their Eucharist, was cast into so thick a mass, that it could not well be broken in pieces; so this Ceremony of breaking was, and is so religiously observed in the present instance, that though they almost cut off from the whole that part, which they are to make use of, yet they leave so much of it uncut, as may serve still for the breaking of it, which shows that there was somewhat else in it. The next thing alleged by us to strengthen the present Assertion, is this Sacrament's being described both in the Scripture, and the Ancients by the Name of breaking of Bread, which we suppose it would hardly have been, if that had not been accounted a considerable Action in it, and much less, if it had been accounted so indifferent a one, as the Lutherans are willing to have it thought. But as, where they can, they endeavour to turn those Expressions to another sense, but with how little reason the places before quoted (a) Part 2. will show; So the burden of their Song always is, that the breaking there mentioned, had no other design, than the distribution of the Bread among those, that were to receive it, which few impartial Men will believe, who find St. Paul representing the Bread which our Saviour broke, as that Body, which was broken for his Disciples. I find nothing of moment returned to what is before alleged by us concerning St. Paul's intimating the Bread, which we break, to be as much the Communion of Christ's Body, as the Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is the Communion of his Blood. And therefore I shall only add, that though I do not pretend to infer from thence, that the breaking of the Bread ought to be ranked in the same order with the blessing of the Cup; Yet I can hardly think, that if St. Paul had thought it so inconsiderable a thing as the Lutherans seem to do, he would have made use of no other Epithet, than that of broken to denote that Bread, which he intimated to be as much the Communion of Christ's Body, as the Cup that is blessed, is the Commnnion of the other. For to make the words which we break to signify no other, than what we give, or distribute (which is the common Answer to all Difficulties) is without any foundation in the present place; Because what St. Paul affirms of the Cup relates to that, which makes it to be a Sacramental one, and not to the delivery of it to those, that are to partake of it. But it may be their Arguments are better than their Answers, and so they had need to be to give any strength to their Opinions. But whosoever shall take the pains to consider them, or indeed, but to look over them, will soon be convinced of the contrary. For to say nothing at all to what they allege concerning this Ceremony of breaking being without any divine Command, because the contrary thereof hath been shown already; How absurd is it to say, that it is repugnant to the nature of the New Testament to have any thing in it to represent another, when not only the Waters of Baptism, and their cleansing quality are a manifest Image of a better Purification, but the plunging the baptised Party in them, and his rising from thence was thought to be so clear a one of our being buried, and rising after a spiritual manner, that St. Paul describes the former by being buried with him by Baptism into death (b) Rom. 6.4. , and by being planted together in the likeness (c) Rom. 6.5. of it? But it may be there is more reason in that which it follows, even that the breaking of the Bread cannot be thought to be a representation of that in the Body of Christ, which is expressly denied of it; For so they think that breaking to be, where it is said (d) Joh. 19.26. that they broke not his Legs, according to a Prophecy (e) Psal. 34.10. , that went of old concerning him. But as they ought to have remembered that St. Paul, notwithstanding that, affirms Christ's Body to have been broken, and in that very place also where he speaks of the breaking of the Sign of it, which shows that he thought all breaking of Christ's Body not to be denied; There is no necessity that that, which is intended to be represented, should strictly, and literally answer what was designed as a representation of it. Otherwise the spiritual things of the New Testament will hardly pass as things represented by the sensible ones of the Old Testament, which yet these latter being affirmed to be Figures (f) Heb. 9.24. of the former will oblige us to believe. It is enough in things, that are of a very different nature, that there is some general resemblance between them, and such as that difference, which is between them, will allow. Which supposed, there may be enough in our Saviour's Body, though not capable of a strict, and proper breaking, to answer that breaking, which St. Paul attributes to it, and the breaking of that Bread, which was designed to represent it; Our Saviour's Body having had thus much of a breaking in it, that an equal violence was offered to it, and the continuity thereof dissolved in several parts of it by those Nails, and Spear, that pierced it. The same persons go on to object, that if the breaking of the Bread be necessary to design the breaking of Christ's Body, the pouring out of the Wine will be as necessary to mark out the shedding of his Blood. Which latter being not to be pretended, because of the silence there is of it in the Institution, the former hath as little reason to be believed, or asserted. But as it appears from what hath been elsewhere said (g) Part 4. , that there are very fair intimations of that pouring out of the Wine, which is here so expressly denied, and the significancy of the breaking of the Bread not to be denied upon that account; So the Argument alleged against the necessity thereof proceeds upon the supposition of our thinking it to be necessary in itself, and so, that the Sacrament cannot be salved without it. Whereas all, that we pretend to affirm, is its being necessary by a Divine Precept, and otherwise convenient enough to mark out that violent usage of him upon the Cross, which the whole Sacrament was confessedly intended for a Memorial of. Both which things may be affirmed without inferring any necessity of the pouring out of the Wine, or of our Saviour's giving Command concerning it. For if even the breaking of the Bread, abstracting from the Command of Christ, be rather convenient, than necessary, the pouring out of the Wine can be no more than such; And if neither of them be necessary, Christ may, no doubt, command one, and not the other, and what he hath therefore said concerning the breaking of the Bread of no force to conclude, that there ought to be the like Command for the pouring out of the other Element. It is objected yet again (For what is wanting in strength, men commonly endeavour to make up by the number of their forces) it is objected, I say, that if Christ should have instituted this Sacrament to represent the breaking of his Body, and the shedding of his Blood, by the breaking, or pouring out of those Elements, that were intended to represent them, he should have made choice of a more obscure Figure to come in the place of a clearer one, which is not to be supposed of him: There being no doubt, but the kill of the Paschal Lamb, was a more lively Image of what was done unto our Saviour, than what is done to the Elements of this Sacrament. But as it becomes not us to dispute what was most proper for God, or Christ to do, where they have at any time declared their own will and pleasure; So Christ might have reason enough to prefer the Representation he here made use of, though perhaps not so clear, before that which he made choice of among the Jews: As because that People, by reason of the grossness of their Understandings, stood in need of clearer Figures, than we ourselves do, to insinuate into their Minds the things intended by them; So because whilst he taught them upon the matter only by Types, and Figures, he teacheth us for the most part by plain Declarations, and from which therefore, if there be any need of it, we may easily collect what is the intention of the other. It is objected lastly (For so low at length do their Arguments run) that our Doctrine concerning the mystical signification of the breaking of the Bread savours of Popery, and ministers to Socinianism, though how it should do both, considering the contrariety of those two Hypotheses, is not so easy to apprehend. But as I see not how that Doctrine savours at all of Popery, because the signification we give to the breaking of the Bread is of a quite different nature from what the Papists suggest, and indeed no other than the Institution itself offers to us (For we, no more than the Lutherans, believe that the Host ought to be broken into just three parts, or for the reasons, that are given by them for it) so I see as little, how our Doctrine ministers to Socinianism, even in the point, that is now before us; Because though we declare the breaking of the Bread to have been intended for a representation of our Saviour's crucified Body, yet we do not believe, as they do, that that was the sole intendment of that, and other the usances of the present Sacrament, but that as Christ meant we should show forth by them what he suffered in his Body, so we should also thereby be made partakers of it, and of the Benefits thereof. 2. But not any longer to insist upon the breaking of the Bread, because, as I suppose, sufficiently cleared; Let us go on to inquire, because a Question of far greater moment, whether he, who administers this Sacrament, is obliged by the words of the Institution, or otherwise, to make an Offering to God of Christ's Body, and Blood, as well as to make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men: The Council of Trent, as is well known, avowing that to be the importance of the words, Do this in remembrance of me, and that the Apostles were by the same words appointed Priests to offer them. For my more advantageous resolution whereof, I will show, 1. What they, who advance this Offering, declare concerning it. 2. The vanity of those Grounds, upon which it is built, and 3. Oppose proper Arguments to it. 1. That, which the Council of Trent teacheth concerning this pretended Offering, is, that it hath for the matter of it, the Body, and Blood of Christ (h) Sess. 22. cap. 1, 2. & Can. 3. , or rather Christ himself under the Species of Bread, and Wine; That the Offering, which is made of it, is no simple tender of it to the Father, but the offering of it up by way of a Sacrifice, and accordingly he himself sacrificed, or slain in it, but after an unbloody manner; That this Sacrifice is not only an Eucharistical, or Commemorative Sacrifice, but a truly propitiatory one for quick, and dead, and by which God is so far appeased, as to grant Pardon, and Grace to the one, and a Refrigerium to the other. 2. How well these things agree either with one another, or with that Sacrifice, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross, shall then be considered, when I come to oppose proper Arguments to it. My present Business shall be to examine the Grounds, upon which it is built, and show the vanity thereof. Where again I will insist upon no other Grounds, than what the same Council of Trent offers for it, and which therefore those of the Roman Communion must think themselves obliged either to stand, or fall by. Now that, which the Council of Trent principally found'st itself upon in this Affair, is on the one hand the conversion of the Bread, and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body, and Blood of Christ, as without which there could be no Pretence for the offering of them up under the Species of the other; And, on the other hand, those known words of Christ to his Apostles, and their Successors, Do this in remembrance of me: These words, as that Council tells us, having been always understood and declared by the Catholic Church as a Command of Christ to them, to offer up his Body, and Blood. But as enough hath been said already (i) Part 7. to show the unsoundness of the former of these grounds, and that therefore no just foundation of the offering of Christ's Body; and Blood in the present Sacrament; So we shall find there is as little solidity in that supposed Command of Christ to his Apostles, and their Successors in the words, Do this in remembrance of me. For neither can those words be fairly drawn to signify the offering up of Christ's Body, and Blood, neither doth it appear, whatever is pretended, that the Catholic Church hath had that understanding of them. That the words themselves cannot be fairly drawn to signify the offering up of Christ's Body, and Blood, will appear if we consider them either as referring to the several things before spoken of, and particularly to what he himself had done, or enjoined them to do, or as referring only to that Body and Blood, which immediately precede them, and in which sense they are supposed to signify the sacrificing, or offering of them. If we consider the words, Do this in remembrance of me, as referring to the several things before spoken of, even those, which Christ himself had done, or enjoined them to do; So there is no appearance of their being a Command to the Apostles, or their Successors to offer up his Body, and Blood, unless there had been any precedent mention of Christ's offering them up himself, or any kind of intimation of his enjoining them to do it. The latter of which two, as it is not to by affirmed by those, who make the words, Do this in remembrance of me, to be those, which constituted both the Sacrifice, and the offerers of it; So I see as little reason for the affirming of the former, how confidently soever the Church of Rome advanceth it. For what mention can we expect, for instance, of Christ's offering up his Body under the Species of Bread, when till he had spoken the words, This is my Body (which was not, till he had done all appertaining to that Element) there was no such thing under the Species of Bread for Christ to offer up, because not to be, till those words had passed upon it. But it may be, there is more force in the words, Do this, as referring to that Body, and Blood, which immediately precede them, in which sense they are supposed to signify the sacrificing or offering of them. And so no doubt there is, or they will be found to have little force in them. But what if we should say first, that there is as little appearance of their referring to the words, Body, and Blood, as what St. Paul subjoineth to them, and the very Canon of the Mass persuades? For St. Paul inferring upon those words, that as oft as they eaten that Bread, and drank that Cup, they did show forth the Lord's death till he came; And again, that whosoever should eat that Bread, and drink that Cup of the Lord unworthily, should be guilty of the Body, and Blood of the Lord, He doth not obscurely intimate, that when our Saviour said with relation to each Element, Do this in remembrance of me, his meaning was, that they should do what he had before enjoined them concerning each in remembrance of himself, and particularly that they should eat, and drink them with that design. Which they of all Men, ought not to refuse, who are taught by the Canon of the Mass to look upon the words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, and, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei (for so the Roman Missal expresseth them) as a Reason of what is before enjoined, and particularly of the Disciples eating, and drinking the things given to them. For if those very words referred to what was before enjoined, and particularly to their eating, and drinking the things given to them; The words, Do this in remembrance of me, aught in reason to refer to the same eating, and drinking, and no otherwise to the Body, and Blood of Christ, than as that was an inducement to them to do what they did in remembrance of Him, and of his Death. But let us suppose however, because some of the Roman Communion will have it so, that the words, Do this, etc. refer to the Body, and Blood of Christ, and that it must therefore be somewhat about those, that this Precept of Christ must be thought to enjoin. Yet how doth it appear, which is the only thing, that can advantage them, that we are to understand thereby, Sacrifice, or make an Offering of them? For though I grant that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be considered with respect to Christ's Body, and Blood, it must have another sense, than we are wont to put upon it; Yet why should it not signify make, as well as sacrifice, especially when that sense is both the most natural, and the most obvious one? For so it will yet more agree with the opinion these Men have of their converting the Bread, and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body, and Blood of Christ, and accordingly producing that Body, and Blood out of them. And indeed as one would think that they, who give the Priest the privilege of making his God, should be willing to understand the words in that sense, because, setting those aside, there is nothing else from whence that Power can be colourably deduced; So one would think too, that they should secure to themselves that Power, before they pretend to offer him, as without which there can be no place for it. But let that Notion also, how natural soever even in their own opinion, be laid aside with the rest, if it be only to make way for that other of sacrificing, or offering; Yet how will it appear that this latter one ought to have place here, or if it hath, that it denotes such a sacrificing, or offering, as they advance? For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, agreeably to the notion of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signify to sacrifice, or offer, (for so it doth Leu. 15. 15-30. and in other places according to the Septuagint Version * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— ) Yet as even there it comes to have that sense, rather from the matter entreated of, than from any natural signification of the word; So there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to that sense, or oblige us to such an understanding of it. Though if that also should be allowed, which yet there is not the least necessity of doing, yet will not the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reach that Sacrifice, which is intended to be superstructed upon them: Because he, who commands Men to sacrifice, or offer in remembrance of himself, doth rather enjoin a Commemorative, than Expiatory one, and consequently not that Sacrifice, which is intended. So little is there in the words themselves, how favourably soever considered, to oblige us to understand them of such an Offering, as the Church of Rome advanceth. And we shall find them to signify as little, though we take in the sense of the Catholic Church upon them, how conformable soever the Council of Trent affirms it to be unto its own: Because though the Ancients did all agree upon a Sacrifice, and, which is more, looked upon those words as either directly, or indirectly obliging to the offering of it, yet (as hath been elsewhere (k) Part 2. shown) they advanced other kind of Sacrifices, than what the Church of Rome now doth, and consequently cannot be supposed to give any countenance to it. And I shall only add, that though Justin Martyr (l) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 259, etc. represented that Offering of fine Flour, which was offered for those, that were cleansed from the Leprosy, as a Type of the Bread of the Eucharist; Though he moreover applied the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Bread, and, if any of the Fathers therefore did, affirmed Christ to command us to make, or offer that Bread to God; Yet he adds, that he commanded us to do so in remembrance of that Passion, which he suffered for those, that were cleansed in their Souls; And again, that we might at the same time give thanks to God for his having made the World, and all things in it for the sake of Man, and for his having delivered us by Christ from that wickedness, in which we sometime were, and dissolved all noxious Principalities, and Powers. Which shows him not to have thought in the least of our being commanded to offer Christ's Body and Blood, under the Species of Bread, or indeed of any other Sacrifice, than a Commemorative, or Eucharistical one. The principal Argument of the Tridentine Fathers being thus discharged, and the Sacrifice of the Mass so far forth deprived of its support; We shall the less need to concern ourselves about those, which are of an inferior rank, and in truth rather Assistants to the former Argument, than any proper proofs of the Sacrifice itself. For what boots it to allege that our Saviour's Priesthood, like that of Melchizedek, being not to be extinguished by death, we are in reason to presume, that upon his departure hence, he appointed his Apostles, and their Successors, to offer up continually that Offering, which Melchizedek first, and after him, our Saviour offered. For beside that there is no appearance of Melchizedek's offering up Bread and Wine, and we therefore not to argue from the Bread, and Wine, which he brought forth, that our Melchizedek was either to offer, or appoint any such Sacrifice; Our Melchizedek was to abide for ever, as well as his Priesthood, yea, he was to abide in his Priesthood for ever, as well as in his Person. Witness not only the Psalmist's affirming, that he was to be a Priest for ever, but St. Paul's affirming also, that (m) Heb. 7.23, 24. whereas the Aaronical Priests were of necessity to pass over their Priesthood from one to another, because no one of them could continue by reason of Death, our Melchizedekian Priest, because he was to abide for ever, was invested with an unchangeable Priesthood, and such as should not pass away from him. For what was this, but to say, that he should keep his Priesthood in his own Person, and should not therefore either need, or be in a capacity to appoint other Priests in his room, or furnish them with any Sacrifice to employ them? There is as little force, if it be duly considered, in what the same Fathers allege from the Prophet Malachi (n) Mal. 1.11. , where it is said, that from the rising up of the Sun, unto the going down of the same, God's Name should be great among the Gentiles, and that in every place Incense should be offered unto his Name, and a pure Offering. For though it be true, that the Ancients applied this Text to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and thought that to be the pure Offering, which was to be offered up unto God; Yet as they, who did so, applied it rather to the Sign, than to the thing signified (for so Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen apparently do) but however represented it as an Eucharistical, or Commemorative Oblation, and not as an Expiatory one; So they, who follow the Ancients too nearly, will find themselves obliged by the present words to offer up Incense unto God, as well as that Oblation, whereof they speak. For by the same reason that a strict, and proper, and material Oblation is to be understood, by the same reason a true, and proper Incense is to be understood also, because equally foretold by the Prophet, and coupled with the other. It is enough to salve the Prophecy, that God should have his public Worship among the Gentiles, and a Service as notorious, and more acceptable than the Jews Incense, and Oblations were. And he, that makes the Prophecy to import any thing more, may as well argue from it the continuance of the Jewish Service among the Gentiles, because, if we take the Prophecy in the Letter, it cannot be thought to denote any thing else, than the offering of the same Incense, and Oblations, that the then Jews did, though more free from impurity than theirs. If the Prophecy had a more particular relation to the Eucharist, as it should seem by the Comments of the Ancients that it had, I should think it was rather because it was an eminent part of the Christian Service, and because of those Prayers, and Thanksgivings, which attended it, than for any formal Oblation of the Signs of it, or of that Body, and Blood of Christ, which it was signified by them. Which Justin Martyr (though elsewhere (o) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. seeming to refer it to the very Oblation of the Bread, and the Cup of the Eucharist) gives no small countenance to, when in answer to Trypho the Jew (p) Ib. p. 345. , who, it seems, interpreted this Prophecy of the Prayers of the Jews in their dispersion among the Gentiles, he saith, that such Prayers, and Thanksgivings, as were made by worthy Men, were acknowledged by him also to be the only perfect Sacrifices, and such as were wellpleasing unto God; And that these were the only things, which the Christians had received to do, even in the remembrance of their both dry, and liquid Food, wherein also is commemorated that Passion, which the Son of God suffered by himself, as our Mede hath well mended that latter Clause of the words. For if Justin Martyr thought, as he professeth to do, that Prayers, and Thanksgivings were the only perfect, and acceptable Sacrifices, and that they too were the only things, which the Christians had received to do, or offer in the Eucharist itself; Then did not the present Prophecy, either in his, or other Christians opinion, refer more particularly to the Eucharist upon the account of any proper Oblation of the Sign● of it, and much less upon the account of any propitiatory Sacrifice, that was there made of the Body, and Blood of Christ, but upon the account of those Sacrifices of Praise, and Thanksgiving which attended it, and were indeed the principal part of that Service. The Council of Trent therefore, not daring to trust too much to this Prophecy of Malachi, goes on to suggest, that the Sacrifice, which it advanceth, is not obscurely intimated by St. Paul, where he tells his Corinthians (q) 1 Cor. 10.21. , that they, who are polluted by partaking of the table of Devils, cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, understanding in both places by the word Table, an Altar; And consequently (because every Altar must have its Victim) that the Table, of which the Christians partook, had its Victim also, even that Body, and Blood of Christ, which they professed to partake of, and which he himself had before affirmed the Bread, and Cup of the Eucharist to be the Communion of. It is very well said by the Council, that the Sacrifice, whereof it entreats, is intimated by those words of St. Paul; For, to be sure, they are no plain, and express declarations of it. But that it is not obscurely intimated by those words of his, is a thing which we can by no means grant, because we cannot grant that, which is the foundation of their Argument, even that St. Paul by Table, understood an Altar. For beside that it is not easy to be thought, that even the Heathen Deities did so far forget the place they had usurped, as to admit their Worshippers to their own proper Tables (for so I take the Altars of those Deities to have been) but only to have allowed of their receiving by the hands of their Priests some Portions from their Altars, and eating of them at Tables purposely prepared for them; It is manifest by the description, which Virgil (r) Aeneid. li. 8. v. 103, etc. & v. 172— gives us of this Affair, where he entreats of the Sacrifice of Hercules, that though the Gentiles partook of those Meats, which were offered to their Idols, and might so far forth also be said to partake with their Altars, and them, yet they did not eat of them at the Altars of their Idols, but on Tables prepared for them, for that purpose. Which supposed, neither St. Paul's Table of Devils, nor his Table of the Lord, will be found to be Altars, and no Argument therefore to be made from thence, that that Table of the Lord, imports the offering up of that Lord upon it, or that we are under any Obligation to make such an Offering of him. The utmost, that can with reason be inferred from St. Paul's arguing from the one to the other Table, is, that as both of them presuppose a Victim, or Sacrifice, so they in like manner suppose our Victim, or Sacrifice to be exhibited on that Table, which we Christians are to partake of. Which though it may be no proof of the offering up of Christ's Body, and Blood upon it, yet may seem to be some proof of the Presence of that very Body, and Blood upon it, which Christ sometime offered upon the Altar of the Cross. But as whosoever shall consider, that it was only a part of the Victim, that was brought from the Idols Altar to the Table of his Worshippers, will find himself obliged to confess, either that there is no exact similitude between the Devil's Tables, and ours, or that we, no more than the Heathen, can expect the whole of our Victim upon them, which is expressly contrary to the Doctrine of the Romanists; So supposing the similitude between them not to be exact (as no similitude, they say, runs upon all four) there may be place for partaking of our Victim by means of that Bread, and Wine, which is prepared for us, as well as for the Heathens partaking of their Victimes by means of those parts thereof, that were set before them: Because how far soever that Bread, and Wine may be in themselves from being parts of our Victim, or Sacrifice, or possessing us of the Benefits thereof; Yet they may, by the appointment of God, become a means of exhibiting that Victim, or Sacrifice to our Souls, and possessing us of the happy Fruits of it. I know not whether I ought to take notice of what is added in the close, That this is that Oblation, which is figured by the several Oblations of former days, as well those which prevailed in the time of Nature's Law, as those which were in use under that of Moses. Because it doth not appear to me (which is the proof the Council of Trent gives of it) that it contains in it all those good things, that are signified by the other, as the consummation, and perfection of them. For neither (for aught that doth appear from the Roman Missal) doth it any way contain in it an Atonement for the unconverted World; Neither doth it contain in it what it doth, as the consummation, and perfection of those Sacrifices, or Oblations, which were made in ancient times: This (as I shall by and by show) being the Privilege of that Sacrifice, which our Saviour made of himself upon the Altar of the Cross, and no other way belonging to the Eucharist, than as a means appointed by God to convey to us the Benefits of the other. 3. Now to make it appear to the World, that we are no more without Arguments against this pretended Sacrifice, than we are unprovided of Answers to what the Romanists allege in its behalf, I will make it my Business to show, 1. That this Sacrifice, as explained by them, is inconsistent with itself. 2. That it is contrary to the present state of our Lord, and Saviour. 3. That it is extremely derogatory to the dignity of that Sacrifice, which Christ made of himself upon the Altar of the Cross. That this Sacrifice, as explained by those that advance it, is inconsistent with itself, will need no other proof, than that unbloody Immolation, or Offering, which is attributed to it. For how is that an Immolation, or Offering (understanding it as they do of a propitiatory Sacrifice) which is without any shedding of Blood, when both the Old, and the New Testament assure us, that it was the Blood, which was to make the Atomement, and that without shedding of Blood there is no Remission? For what is this, but to say that it is a Sacrifice, and no Sacrifice, that it is a truly propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick, and dead, and yet hath nothing of that, which is to make a Propitiation for them? It is true indeed that an unbloody Immolation, or Offering, is an Expression that may pass well enough, where it is attributed to that, which is rather the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, than any true, and proper one. But to attribute such an Immolation, or Offering to a Sacrifice properly so called, is to deny it to be what we affirm it, and indeed rather a piece of nonsense, than any legitimate Predication, or so much as a witty one. But beside that this Sacrifice, as explained by the Romanists themselves, is inconsistent with itself, and as such therefore might be reasonably rejected; We shall find it to be as inconsistent with the present state of our Lord, and Saviour, and indeed directly contrary to it. For if there be any kind of Propriety in the Immolation, that is offered to it, it must betoken some kind of violence to be offered to that Body, which is the subject of it, and consequently of a glorious Body, make it an inglorious one. Which they of all Men ought not to refuse, who do sometime tell us of the bleeding of the Host, and so turn this unbloody Immolation into a bloody one. Neither will it avail to say, as the Council of Trent doth, and their Authors commonly gloss this Immolation, That this Body of Christ is offered under the Species of Bread, and Wine, and again under the visible Signs. For whether under the Species, or no, yet still according to them Christ is truly immolated; Neither is there any more difference between the Immolations, than there would have been between the murdering of an Infant covered over with Meal, as the Heathen in Minutius Felix chargeth the Primitive Christians to have done, and the murdering of one under no such disguise. For as the Murder is the same in both, so the Immolation must be so too, and those Species can no more privilege our Saviour's Body from violence, than the Meal, wherewith an Infant is covered, can hinder the violence that is offered to it, to be really a Murder, or those, that offer it, from being really guilty of one. But that, which is most to be considered in this Affair, and is in truth the greatest prejudice against this pretended Sacrifice, is, that it is extremely derogatory to the dignity of that Sacrifice, which Christ made of himself upon the Altar of the Cross. For whereas it is the peculiar Privilege of this Sacrifice to be so perfect, as not to need to be repeated, whilst those of the Levitical Law daily were (For every Priest, saith the Author to the Hebrews (s) Heb. 10.11, etc. standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices, which can never take away Sins. But this Man, after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool) The Sacrifice of the Mass doth at the best pretend to repeat that Sacrifice, and, though in another way, to offer it up again, yea, makes our Saviour himself to do it by the Ministry of his Priests. Whereas, again, it is the Privilege of that Sacrifice, which our Saviour made of himself upon the Cross, to procure eternal Redemption for us (t) Heb. 9.12. , and such a Redemption too (u) Heb. 9.15. , as should draw after it the receipt of an eternal Inheritance, in the mean time so perfecting for ever them, that are sanctified (w) Heb. 10.14. , that they should not only not need any more offering for Sin, but have boldness by the Blood of it to enter into the Holiest; The sacrifice of the Mass, by pretending to be a truly propitiatory one, makes the redemption of that former Sacrifice to be imperfect, as without which there could have been no need of a farther propitiatory one, and much less of the frequent offering of it. Neither will it suffice to argue, as the Council of Trent seems to do, that that cannot be thought to derogate from Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross, which is taught by themselves to be a Means, whereby the fruits of the other are most plentifully conveyed. For either it is such a Means, as doth also propitiate God, and then it will however derogate from the Propitiation, and Redemption of the other, or it is not such a Means, and then it is not a Propitiatory Sacrifice at all. If there be any thing to hinder this pretended Sacrifice from entrenching upon that of the Cross, it must be by attributing to it another, and a lower sort of Propitiation, than they think to be due unto the other. But as the Council of Trent seems so far from allowing that, that it professeth to believe that God is so far appeased with the Oblation of this Sacrifice, as to grant Repentance and Pardon of Sin upon it, and (as one would think too by the Reason annexed) with little difference from what is granted upon the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross (For it is, saith that Council, one, and the same Host that is offered, it is one, and the same Person, that now offers it by the ministry of his Priests, who then offered up himself upon the Cross, only after a different manner of offering) so the great Trust their People are prompted to repose on this Oblation, even when they do not communicate at it, as that too upon the account of its being offered up for all the Faithful, and for those in particular, that are mentioned by name in it, giveth cause enough to believe, that they think not much otherwise of it, than they do of that Oblation, which Christ made of himself upon the Cross, if yet, because of the more particular application of it to themselves, they do not entertain a higher opinion of it. II. The manner of the Administration of this Sacrament being thus accounted for, and consideration therein had of what is most in controversy in it; It remains that I inquire, To whom it ought to be administered. Which in the general are such, as have given up their Names to Christ, for so our Saviour first administered it, and no doubt therefore intended that it should afterwards be: More particularly those of them, who are qualified by their Understanding, and Life, to partake worthily of it, to do what they do in remembrance of Christ, and to the comfort and benefit of their own Souls, the salvation whereof was thereby intended. Which both general, and particular Qualifications, Justin Martyr seems not obscurely to insinuate (x) Apol. 2. pag. 97. , when immediately after the account he gives us of the Administration of this Sacrament in his time, he tells us, that the Eucharistical Food thereof was lawful for none to partake of, but him that believed those things to be true, that were taught by them, who was moreover washed in that Laver, which was appointed for remission of Sins, and lived also as Christ delivered to us. If there be any considerable difficulty in this Affair, it is about the Administration of this Sacrament to Infants, and which as some Ages of the Church seem to believe to have been necessary, so one (y) Jer. Taylor's Worthy Communicant, cap. 3. sect. 2. among ourselves hath taken upon him to defend, as to the lawfulness thereof. As touching the necessity of its Administration to Infants, little needs to be said, because it is manifestly built upon a Text, which considered without prejudice, cannot tend in the least to the support of it. That, I mean, where it is said, that, unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, we can have no Life in us. For it appearing from the Text itself, and from what I have elsewhere (z) Part 7. said upon it, that this Passage relates not to a Sacramental Manducation, but rather to a Spiritual one, the Communion of Infants is so far from being established by it, that the Communion even of elder Persons cannot be concluded from it. But because the Question is not so much at present concerning the necessity of administering this Sacrament to Infants, as concerning the lawfulness thereof; And because he, who professeth to deny the one, hath taken upon him to defend the other, and the Practice of several of the Ancients in it; I think it not amiss to make that also the subject of my Discourse, and both show why I look upon it as a thing no way lawful, and examine the Arguments, that are brought in the behalf of it. That, which makes me look upon it as no way lawful to administer this Sacrament to Infants, is their being not in a capacity to answer what is required on the part of Communicants, whether before, or in the receiving of it. For neither can they, as St. Paul requires, examine themselves before they address themselves to this Sacrament, neither can they (which is more material, and required by Christ himself) do what they do in it in remembrance of Christ, and of his Death. By which means as they must be looked upon as no way qualified for it, so, as such, therefore excluded from the participation of it by him, who was the Instituter thereof. Neither will it avail to say, as the forequoted Author objects, that the former of these Precepts concerns those only, that need an examination, and have an ability for it, and consequently cannot concern Infants, in whom no such need, or ability is. For as I willingly grant, that that Precept doth not concern Infants, so I think therefore that they have as little concernment in that Sacrament, to which such an Examination is pre-required: He, who cannot do that, which is prerequired to the receiving of any Sacrament, being to be looked upon as one, for whom that Sacrament was never intended, and consequently as one, who ought not to be admitted to it. Otherwise we must suppose Christ to have intended his Sacraments for those, who are not in a condition to perform such things, as are prerequired by himself to the partaking of it. I am yet less concerned at what the same Author seems to answer to what our Saviour enjoins concerning the doing what we do in this Sacrament in remembrance of him, and of his Death. For as all the Answer he makes to it is, that one may show forth Christ's Death, by the very Act of Communicating, and consequently that Infants, because capable of that Act, may show forth Christ's Death also; So that Answer is defective in this, that it supposeth the showing forth of Christ's Death to others to be all, that our Saviour required by doing what we do in remembrance of him. The contrary whereof is evident, because he commands the Communicant but just before to take what is given him as his Body, and Blood, and his Apostle St. Paul adjudge some Communicants to condemnation for not discerning in themselves the Lord's Body. Both which Passages suppose that the Communicant aught to reflect in his own Mind upon the Death of our Lord, and Saviour, as well as show it forth to other Men. If therefore the Communion of Infants receive any relief, it must be from those Arguments, that are alleged in its behalf, and which accordingly I come now to consider. And first it is alleged that the Sacraments of the Gospel are the great Channels of the Grace of God; Which is willingly granted, if it be understood as to those Persons, for whom they were intended. But whether this in particular, was intended for Infants, is a thing which, for the Reasons before mentioned, may very well be made a Question, but aught however to be otherwise made appear. Which it will hardly be by alleging, as it is in the second place, that that Grace doth always descend upon them, that do not hinder it: Because if God require some positive qualifications in him, that receives the Sacrament, the not putting a bar to the Grace of it will not suffice the Party for the receiving of it. There was therefore but need of adding thirdly, that to Baptism there are many acts of predisposition required, as well as to the Communion, and yet the Church, who very well understands the obligation of those Precepts, supposeth no Children to be obliged to those predispositions to either, but fits every Commandment to a capable subject. The meaning of which Argument, setting aside what is there said of the Church, is, that if the want of such Dispositions, as are prerequired to Baptism, do not hinder Infants from being admitted to it, neither aught the want of the like predispositions to the Communion to debar them of that, or hinder us from believing that our Saviour did intent it for them. And I willingly grant there would be the same reason for both, if there were the like presumption of God's dispensing with his own Law in both, and admitting Infants, notwithstanding those wants, to the participation of the Lord's Supper, as there is for his admission of them to Baptism. Which that there is not, will appear as from the Arguments I have elsewhere produced for the Baptising of them, so from the necessity there is of the one, above what there can be of the other. For whereas there is a necessity of Baptism to bring Infants out of their natural estate, and give them a title to his Kingdom. (For except a Man be born again, saith our Saviour (a) Joh. 3.5. , of Water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven) There cannot be the like necessity of their receiving the Lord's Supper, because before delivered from that their natural estate, and entitled to his heavenly Kingdom. Whereas again the Grace of Baptism, ordinarily speaking, is absolutely necessary, so that no one can without that be presumed to be in a salvable estate; The Lord's Supper may seem to be only conditionally so, and on supposition (b) See Part 1. of our falling into new Errors, and so needing a new Remedy against them, and a new assurance against the guilt of them. Which new Errors falling not upon an Infant estate, neither can there be any such need of that either Remedy or Assurance, and therefore neither of that second Sacrament, which was intended to convey them. Though therefore God should admit Infants to Baptism without the previous dispositions of it, because of the necessity of that Sacrament; Yet there is not the like Reason to presume, because there is no such necessity of the Sacrament itself, of his so admitting them to the Lord's Supper, and therefore neither for arguing from the administration of Baptism to Infants, that we may as well administer to them the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper also. It is alleged, fourthly, That whereas in a Sacrament there is something done on God's part, and something on ours, what belongeth to us obligeth us then, when we can hear, and understand, but not before; but what is on God's part, is always ready to them that can receive it. Which Allegation is indeed true, but no way pertinent to the matter in hand, unless it could be proved, which hath not as yet been, that this Sacrament belongs to Infants, either as to its Obligations, or Graces. It is alleged, fifthly, and with as little pertinency, That though Infants cannot come alone to Christ, yet the Church their Mother can bring them in her Arms. For though the Church can bring them in her Arms, yet she will bring them with little effect, if she bring them to other Sacraments, than Christ hath appointed for them. It is alleged, sixthly, That they, who are capable of the Grace of a Sacrament, may also receive the Sign, and therefore the same Grace being conveyed to them in one Sacrament, may also be imparted to them in the other. But as I do not see how Infants are capable of the Grace of the Lord's Supper, because intended to supply those defects, which the neglect of the former hath occasioned; So I see as little what need, or expectation there is of their receiving that Grace by a second Sacrament, which hath been already imparted to them by a former. It is alleged, seventhly, That as Infants can be born again without their own consent, so they may be fed by the hands of others, and what gins without their own actual choice, may be renewed without their own actual desire. Both parts of which Allegation suppose that Infants stand in need of Spiritual Supplies, which I for my part, see no necessity to grant, nor indeed any reason to believe: Because till they come to years, they are out of the reach of those temptations, which occasion our spiritual decays. It is alleged, eighthly, That if upon pretence of figurative Speeches, Allegories, and Allusions, and the Injunction of certain Dispositions, the holy Communion be denied to Infants, there may be cause enough to fear that a gap may be opened upon equal pretence to deny them Baptism. The latter part of which Argument as I have already returned a sufficient Answer to, so I shall leave it to those, who trade in figurative Speeches, and Allegories, and Allusions to answer to the former. It is alleged, ninthly, which looks somewhat more like an Argument, than many of the former, That since the Jewish Infants being circumcised, is used as an Argument, that they might be baptised, their eating of the Paschal Lamb may also be a competent Warrant to eat of that Sacrament, in which also, as in the other, the sacrificed Lamb is represented as offered, and slain for them. But as the Parallel is not so clear in the Scripture between the Paschal Lamb, and the Lord's Supper, as it is between Circumcision, and Baptism, and we therefore not to argue with the same freedom from the Paschal Lamb to the Lord's Supper, as we do from Circumcision to Baptism; So it is much farther from being clear, that the Jewish Infants partook of the Paschal Lamb, which is that, upon which the present Argument proceeds. For all that is said in the Book of Exodus, is, that it was to be eaten by the Household (c) Exo. 12. ●. , of which the younger Infants, to be sure, were no way capable; And it appears from a Passage in Josephus (d) Jud. Antiqu. li. 12. cap. 4.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , that no one, that was born, was to taste of any Sacrifice, till he came to the Temple, which we learn from the instance of our Saviour (e) Luke 2.42. & Grot. in loc. , not to have been till they were twelve Years of Age. At, or after which time they might be in a capacity to inquire into the meaning of their Paschal Service, and receive a due information concerning it. Which, instead of justifying the communicating of Infants, will rather overthrow it, and persuade the deferring of it, till they be of understanding to consider the nature of the Sacrament, and prepare themselves in some measure for the receiving of it. One only Argument remains for the administering of this Sacrament to Infants, even the long, and general practice of the Ancient Church in this particular, and the like general practice at this day of the Greeks, Aethiopians, Bohemians, and Moravians. All which to condemn of Error may seem a little hard, as we must do, unless we will at least allow of the lawfulness of the Practice, whatsoever we do of the necessity thereof. But as I must needs say, that I do not see, how we can acquit them for Error, considering what hath been before said against the Communion of Infants; So I a little wonder how he should stick at the condemnation of the thing itself, who so freely acknowledged the Practice to be built upon a Text, which he himself confesseth to have been mistaken by them. The utmost, in my opinion, that is to be said in behalf of the Ancients, and accordingly of those Churches, which derive their Practice from them, is, that the Communicating of Infants was an Error of their charity toward them, and whom whilst they were willing to deliver from that Original Corruption, wherein they were born, and bring them to Christ's Kingdom, and Happiness, they did not only confer upon them the Sacrament of Baptism, which they had learned from the words of our Saviour (f) Mark 10.13. , the Doctrine of St. Paul (g) 1 Cor. 7.14. , and the Circumcision of the Jewish Infants to be but proper for them, but mistaking what our Saviour spoke in St. John concerning the necessity of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, for the necessity of a Sacramental Manducation, gave them this Sacrament also, so the better to secure them of eternal Life, and Heaven. For as for that Salvo of the Council of Trent (h) Sess. 21. cap. 4. , that the Ancients gave them the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of some probable, and temporary Reasons, and not out of a Belief of the necessity thereof unto Salvation; or the like Salvo of Mr. Thorndike * Epilogue. to the Trag. of the Ch. of Engl. li. 1. cap. 23. , who, agreeably to the same Opinion, makes them look upon that Text in St. John as sufficiently answered by the Sacrament of Baptism, and their partaking of Christ's Body, and Blood in it; It is so contrary to the Doctrine of the Ancients, and particularly to that of St. Cyprian (i) Cypr. Test. ad Quirin. li. 3. cap. 27. , Pope Innocent (k) Epist. 93. apud August. , and St. Augustine in many places of his Works, that it is not a little to be wondered at, that so learned a Man as Mr. Thorndike could advance so groundless an Assertion. For though it be true that St. Cyprian, where he makes it his Business to show that none can enter into the Kingdom of God, unless he be baptised, and born again, doth not only allege that Text for it (l) Joh. 3.5. , which doth more immediately concern it, but that unless Men eat Christ's Flesh, and drink Christ's Blood, they shall have no Life in them; Yet that he did not intent thereby their receiving that Body, and Blood in Baptism, but in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and only made use of that Text as proving Baptism â fortiori, because enforcing the necessity of a Sacrament, which was to be administered after it, is evident from his beginning his next Testimony, or Christian Doctrine with these very words, That it was a small matter to be baptised, and receive the Eucharist, unless a Man profit in good Works. For how comes the Eucharist to be joined with Baptism in Testimonies, that depend so upon one another, but that he had spoken of it just before, and consequently meant no other than that Eucharist by eating Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood, according as is but just before alleged? In like manner, though Pope Innocent, to show the foolishness of the Pelagians, in affirming that little Children could have eternal Life without Baptism, make use of these very words to prove it, For unless they shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they shall have no Life in them; Yet whosoever shall consider what he saith, as it is worded by himself, will find that he did not at all intent their receiving the Flesh, and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism, but in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that he esteemed that Sacrament to be as necessary as the former, and intended to prove the necessity of Baptism by the necessity of that Sacrament, which was to follow it. For thus he in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Milevitan Council. Now that, which your Brotherhood affirms them to preach, that little Children may have their rewards of eternal Life even without the Grace of Baptism, is extremely foolish. For unless they shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they shall not have Life in them. For what was this but to say, that they should be so far from having eternal Life without the Grace of Baptism, that they could not, by the Dispensation of the Gospel, attain that Life without the Grace of the Eucharist also? Agreeable hereto is the Doctrine of St. Augustine, as appears from this following Testimony (m) De peccat. merit. & Rem. li. 4. cap. 24. ; Where having said, that by an Ancient, and Apostolical Tradition, as he thought, the Churches of Christ were intimately persuaded, that without Baptism, and the participation of the Lord's Table, none could come to the Kingdom of God, and eternal Life, and confirmed that Opinion of theirs, and his own by Scriptures peculiar to each Sacrament, and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by that so much celebrated saying of our Saviour, Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, etc. he hath these following words: If therefore (as so many, and so great Divine Testimonies do agree) neither Salvation, nor Life can be hoped for by any one without Baptism, and the Body, and Blood of Christ, in vain is it promised to little Children without them, even without those two Sacraments, which he had before entreated of, and which he affirms in the next words, the guilt of that sin in Children to be loosed by, concerning which the Scripture affirms, that no one is free from it, though his Life be but of a days continuance. PART XI. How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be received. The Contents. The receipt of this Sacrament supposed by the present Question, and that therefore first established against the Doctrine of those, who make the supposed Sacrifice thereof to be of use to them, who partake not Sacramentally of it. Enquiry next made, How we ought to prepare ourselves for it, how to demean ourselves at the celebration of it, and in what Posture to receive it. The preparation taken notice of by our Catechism the Examination of ourselves, whether we truly repent us of our sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new Life, etc. and the both necessity, and means of that Examination accordingly declared. The examination of our Repentance more particularly insisted upon, and that shown to be most advantageously made by enquiring how we have gained upon those sins, which we profess to repent of, and particularly upon our most prevailing ones, which how they are to be discovered, is therefore enquired into, and the marks, whereby they are to be known, assigned, and explained. A transition from thence to the examination of the steadfastness of our Purposes to lead a new Life, of our Faith in God through Christ, our remembrance of his Death, and Charity; Where the necessity of that Examination is evinced, and the means whereby we may come to know whether we have those Qualifications in us, discovered, and declared. How we ought to demean ourselves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquired into, and that shown to be by intending that Service, wherewith it is celebrated, and suiting our Affections to the several parts of it. The whole concluded with enquiring, in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be received; Where is shown, first, that the Ancients, so far as we can judge by their Writings, received in a posture of Adoration, and particularly, in the posture of standing; Secondly, that several of the Reformed Churches receive in that, or the like posture, and that those, that do not, do not condemn those that do; Thirdly, that there is nothing in the Example of Christ, and his Disciples at the first Celebration of this Supper, to oblige us to receive it sitting, nor yet in what is alleged from the suitableness of that Posture to a Feast, and consequently to the present one: This, as it is a Feast of a different nature from common ones, and therefore not to receive Laws from them, so the receipt thereof intended to express the grateful resentment we have of the great Blessing of our Redemption, and stir up other Men to the like resentment of it; Neither of which can so advantageously be done, as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in such a posture of Body, as shows the regard we have for him, who is the Author of it. VI THE sixth, and last Question proposed to be discoursed of, Question. What is required of them, who come to the Lord's Supper? Answer. To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new Life, have a lively Faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his Death, and be in charity with all men. is, How this Sacrament ought to be received? Which Question I have proposed in those terms, partly that it may come so much the nearer to the last Question of our own Catechism, and partly because there is no one sort of Men, that doth expressly deny that it ought to be received by all, that are qualified for it, as well as administered by those, who are the proper Stewards of it. For though the Socinians, out of a belief of Baptism's being proper only to Jewish, or Gentile Converts, have thrown off that Sacrament altogether, and (which is more) have represented the showing forth of Christ's Death as the only design of this; yet they have thought fit to retain the use of it, as a thing enjoined by our Lord himself. Though the Tridentine Fathers have also in a great measure transformed this Sacrament into a thing of another nature, and accordingly pointed out other ways for Men to receive benefit by it, beside their communicating at it; Yet they have declared an Anathema (a) Sess. 13. Can. 9 against any one, that shall deny all, and singular the faithful People of Christ to be obliged, when they come to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the Precept of holy Mother the Church. Only because those Fathers seem to found even that single Communion upon the Precept of the Church, or at least, do not represent it, as enjoined by any Divine Law; And because though they elsewhere profess to wish that they, who assist at their several Masses, did also Sacramentally communicate at them for their receiving greater benefit by them (b) Sess. 22. cap. 6. , yet they represent even those, where the Priest alone Communicates, as common to them that do not; I think it not amiss to premise something concerning the obligation of the Faithful to receive this Sacrament, as well as to assist at the celebration of it, and examine what those Fathers allege for their losing the Faithful from it. That the Faithful are under an obligation of receiving this Sacrament, as well as of assisting at the celebration of it, is so evident from the words of the Institution, that I know not how our Saviour could have more expressly enjoined it. For, Take, Eat, saith he, concerning the Bread of it; And, Drink ye all of it, saith the same Jesus concerning the Cup: With this farther Reason, as we learn from the Hoc est enim corpus meum, and, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal, because the one is his Body, and the other as certainly the Cup of his Blood, as that Missal expresseth it. So that if a Command, with so substantial a Reason annexed, may be concluded to be obligatory, the receipt of this Sacrament is; And we can no more be freed from doing it, than we can be freed from believing that it is Christ's Body, and Blood, that is tendered to us, or, believing it, than we may reject so signal a Blessing as that is, which was either broken, or shed for our Redemption. For what is this, but (as the Author to the Hebrews speaks (c) Heb. 10.28, 29. ) to despise not Moses' Law, but one, the transgression whereof is worthy of a sorer punishment, yea, to tread under foot the Son of God, and count the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith we are sanctified, an unholy thing, and as such contemptuously to reject it? Neither will it avail to say, as possibly it may be, that they cannot be looked upon as despisers of Christ's Body, and Blood, who do, even when they avoid the partaking thereof, humbly, and devoutly adore them. For whatever may be said of that adoration of Christ's Body, and Blood; To adore them, is not to eat, or drink of the Symbols of them, and that Law therefore, that enjoins both the one, and the other, as much despised, as if they adored them a thousand times, and, together therewith, that Body, and Blood, which it so graciously enjoins us to partake of. Agreeable to this Command of our Saviour concerning eating, and drinking the Sacramental Elements, is his own subjoyning to the mention of each of those Acts (d) 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. , that they should do them in remembrance of him, and of his death, which is a farther inculcating of the former Command of Christ, and of the Faithful's doing honour to him by the observation of it. And to the same purpose is St. Paul's reckoning that eating, and drinking in the number of those things, whereby we are to show (e) 1 Cor. 11.26 forth Christ's death (For so the connexion of those words with Do this in remembrance of me, persuades); His cautioning the Corinthians thereupon against an unworthy (f) 1 Cor. 11.27.29 eating, and drinking, and willing them, after they had examined themselves, so to partake (g) 1 Cor. 11.28. of the Sacramental Elements; In fine, his supposing the Christians, when they came together to the places of their Assemblies, to come together to eat (h) 1 Cor. 11.20.33. the Lord's Supper. For what are these but so many several Proofs, that he looked upon that eating, and drinking, not only as things enjoined by Christ in this Solemnity, but the principal end of their meeting at it, and the very top, and perfection of it? A Man would think that these Arguments were of sufficient force to show our receipt of the Sacramental Elements to be a thing ordinarily enjoined upon us, and without the doing whereof therefore we cannot expect to reap the benefit of them. But the Tridentine Fathers tell us another story, and as they have transformed a Sacrament of Christ, into a Sacrifice of their own making, so they tell us that that Sacrifice, though the Priest alone partake Sacramentally of it, is common to those that do not, Partly, because the people communicate spiritually in it (i) Sess. 22. cap. 6. , and partly because it is celebrated by the public Minister of the Church, not only for himself, but for all the Faithful, that pertain to Christ's Body. It is very well, though I think not very agreeably to their own Principles, that they make the commonness of such Masses, or Sacrifices, to consist partly in the People's communicating spiritually in them; For so some kind of communicating will appear to be necessary, whatever the Sacramental one is, which I do not see how the Dead are capable of. But certainly, Take, Eat, or (as the Roman Missal reads it) Take, and eat ye all of this, and, drink ye all of this, betoken a Sacramental eating, and drinking, as well as a Spiritual one. Otherwise those words will be ill employed to prove that corporal manducation and drinking of Christ's Body, and Blood, which the Romanists so studiously advance. Now if Christ himself require a Sacramental communicating at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or (as the Romanists are pleased to phrase it) at the celebration of the Mass, I doubt a bare Spiritual communicating at it will hardly obtain the benefit thereof for those, who do so communicate, when they may pass to a Sacramental one. This I take to be a sufficient Answer to what is alleged in the first place for those Masses, at which the Priest only communicates, being common to the People with him. And I think it will be as easy to answer to what is alleged for it in the second place, from those Masses being offered up by the public Minister of the Church, not only for himself, but for all the Faithful, that pertain to the Body of Christ. For granting such an Offering, as is pretended, yet can they not expect the benefit of it, who partake not of it as he enjoined, who was both the Instituter, and Exemplar of it; The Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ being no farther available to any, than it is apprehended, and applied, as he, who offered it up, appointed. But to return to that, which is the proper subject of this Enquiry, even to show how this Sacrament ought to be received by us; Where again I will inquire, 1. How we ought to prepare ourselves for it. 2. How we ought to demean ourselves at the celebration of it. 3. In what posture to receive it. 1. It is the first of these, which our Catechism speaks to, even how we ought to prepare ourselves for it. Which it affirms to be by examining ourselves, whether we repent us truly of our sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new Life, have a lively Faith in God's Mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his Death, and be in Charity with all Men. That we ought to examine ourselves about the truth of our Repentance is manifest, on the one hand, from the necessity thereof toward the procuring of that Pardon, which this Sacrament is intended to convey, and on the other from our aptness to be deceived in it. For, generally speaking, every little sorrow for sin, though it be occasioned only by what we are likely to suffer by it, passeth with us for true Repentance; And provided we lament our sins, upon what account soever it be, we think ourselves truly penitent, and as such therefore duly qualified for that, or any other religious performance. But as it appears from what I have elsewhere said (k) Expl. of Bapt. Part 10. , that the Repentance, which the Gospel requires, is a repentance toward God, and a sorrow according to God, and must therefore proceed from a due sense of the affront we have offered, whether to his Authority, or Kindness; So the best, and most certain way to know whether our Repentance be such, is by the amendment it produceth in us, and particularly as to those Errors, that prevail most in us, and which the Scripture entitles (l) 1 Kings 8.38. the plague of a man's own heart. For he, that finds himself to gain upon these, needs not suspect the truth of his Repentance, because nothing else, but a due sorrow for Sin, can carry a Man to abandon that, to which the bent of his own nature doth forcibly incline him. Upon which account I should advise that, instead of running over a long catalogue of sins, which few Men have leisure for, and doth however but divert them from the main, they would endeavour to find out their most prevailing sins, and examine the truth of their Repentance by their conquest over them. In order whereunto, I shall lay down three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or marks, whereby those prevailing sins may be known. Now the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or mark, whereby we may come to know them, is to consider with ourselves, what that particular sin is, into which we most frequently fall. For as he is in reason to be looked upon as our Lord, and Master, to whom we yield ourselves Servants to obey, and we therefore may conclude that God is our Master, if we conform to his Precepts, but Sin, if we perform the Lusts thereof; So if we have different sins, that that is our Chief, to whom we do most often pay obedience. And this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or mark I do the rather allege, because it is one of the most infallible, and one too of the most plain, and obvious. It is one of the most infallible, because it hath express Scripture to warrant it; Because not only teaching us, that out of the abundance of the Heart (m) Luk. 6.45. Men do both speak, and act, and that out of it (n) Pro. 4.23. are the issues of life, and death, but also commanding us to judge of this Root by the Fruit it bears (o) Mat. 7.20. , of the Heart of Man by the actions it produceth. For it being evident from thence, that our outward actions are the proper, and genuine issues of our Hearts, as our Hearts must be concluded to be corrupt, or evil, if the Fruits, that proceed from them, are such; So to be most infected with that particular corruption, which most shows itself in our Life, and Conversation. Even as when any Water carries in it the taste of Sulphur, or any such mineral substance, we do not only conclude it to have passed through a tainted Earth, but through such particular Veins, where those mineral substances abound, the scent, or taste of which those Waters do most partake of. Again, as the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or mark, is one of the most infallible ones, I mean that whereby we judge of our prevailing sin by giving most obedience to it, so it is also one of the most plain, and obvious, and which indeed lies open to the view of all Men whatsoever. For though, as the Scripture speaks (p) Prov. 20.5. , the Heart of Man be a great depth; Though, as the same Scripture expresseth it (q) Jer. 17.9. , it be deceitful above all things, as well as desperately wicked, and consequently the wind thereof not easy to be traced, even by the thoughts of that Heart itself; Yet the actions of Men, by which we are before taught to judge, are apparent, and obvious, they are evident to our Sense, as well as to our Understanding: And though we cannot otherwise so well tell what kind of Plague is within, yet surely we may tell in what kind of Spots, or Blotches it most breaks out, and what Parts, or Members it most seizeth on. But as we may know our prevailing Sin, by our often commission of it, more than of any other, so also by our great unwillingness to hear of it, and our equal disgust of those Discourses that are made against it. For it is with every particular Soul, that is not devoid of all goodness, as the Scripture tells us, it was with Herod (r) Mark 6, 16, etc. . We can hear John Baptist, or any other such sour Preacher of Repentance, with a great deal of Complacency, when he toucheth upon some sins, and those too, which perhaps we ourselves are not altogether guiltless of. But when the same person comes to touch upon others, when he comes to tell us of marrying our Brother Philip's Wife, than our Hearts rise both against the Preacher, and his Doctrine, and that Voice, which (as the Prophet Ezekiel speaks (s) Ezek. 33.32. ) was before as a lovely Song of one, that hath a pleasant Voice, and can play well upon an Instrument, doth now sound as harsh as the croaking of a Raven, or the groans of one departing out of the World. Of which difference, as was before intimated, what reason can be given, but that it is our beloved sin, the dear Plague of our own Heart: And indeed, so far are we from brooking a Reproof from another, of the sin we do most indulge, That we cannot so much as endure to hear of it from ourselves, or commune with our own Hearts about it. A Character, which I choose rather to insist upon, as because it is somewhat of kin to the former, so because even they, who avoid communing with their own Hearts, cannot but observe, and take notice of it. For though a Man may avoid the considering what the plague of his own Heart is, yet he cannot but see what that sin is, which he most flies the thought of, which is enough to show him what the plague of his own Heart is. And it brings to my Mind the observation of Tacitus, touching the Effigies of Brutus and Cassius, not appearing in the Funeral of Junia. For as it is affirmed by him, that Brutus and Cassius shone so much the more, because their Images were not seen at it; So our prevailing sins cannot be made more conspicuous, than they are by our studious suppressing the thought of them: Inasmuch as we would not do so, but that we should thereby be constrained to give them a Bill of Divorce, which shows how nearly linked we are to them in our Affections. The third, and last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or mark, whereby to judge of our prevailing sin, is our Constitution, Age, or course of Life; Those sins, which do most symbolise with these, being most commonly our prevailing ones. For as it is easy to suppose, that the Devil will most assault us there, where he finds us most easy to be overcome; So also because the business of Sin is to gratify our Passions, and Inclinations, that the evil of our Heart's will mostly run out that way, whereto those unruly Guides lead us. Thus if Choler, and an angry Temper predominate in us, our reigning sin is Malice, and Revenge; If a soft and effeminate one, Lasciviousness, and Uncleanness, with all other the works of darkness. If we are of a meek, and humble temper, our prevailing sin is want of courage in executing the Commands of our Creator. If of a bold and confident one, Pride, and Haughtiness, and the despising of all those, that are below us. The same is to be said concerning the different Ages of Men, and particularly of Youth, and old Age. For, according to these, men's prevailing sins are many times divers, not only from other Mens, but from their own. For thus Youth is generally tainted with the sins of Pleasure and Vanity, and such other sins, as best suit with their green, and giddy thoughts; Whilst the prevailing sin of old Age, is an excess of love to the World, and taking more care for the short remainder of their Life, than they did before for a much longer one. Lastly (that I may speak somewhat of that also, as being an excellent means to come to the knowledge of our prevailing sin) if our course of Life lead us to converse in Courts, our prevailing sin is generally Luxury, and Vanity; If in a City, or other place of Trade, Deceit, and Covetousness; If in a mean estate any where, repining, and murmuring; If in a more honourable one, oppressing, or Lording it over other Men. By one, or other of these marks, a Man may come to know his prevailing Sin, and, knowing it, to know also the truth of his repentance for them, and others. For if he finds himself to get ground on such sins, he shall not need to doubt of the truth of his Repentance, because there cannot be a better proof of that, than its leading Men to abandon their sins, and particularly such of them, as have the greatest force with the committers of them, and are therefore the most difficult to be overcome. And though it be true, that all Men neither have, nor can have that proof of their Repentance (For they, who have but lately begun to make a strict search into themselves, must of necessity be without it, how true soever their Repentance is) Though they ought not therefore, if they find no other reason to question the truth of it, to condemn, or doubt of that their Repentance, because true Repentance must of necessity precede the Fruits of it: Yet I think they will act most safely for themselves, and most for the comfort of their own Souls, I do not say, if they stay so long from the participation of this Sacrament, till they can have the Fruits of their Repentance to justify the sincerity thereof, but if, when they may, they think betimes and often, what Repentance they are to bring with them to this Sacrament, and accordingly set themselves as early to improve what they have, and bring forth the fruits of it in those instances, wherein they have been most peccant, and are by their natural inclinations most likely to be so still. For so they shall be able to see by the event, what the nature of their Repentance is, and accordingly be stirred up to labour after a more sincere one, or be satisfied by the fruits they have brought forth, that they are so far duly qualified for the partaking of this so excellent a Sacrament. Having said thus much concerning the examination of our Repentance, which I judge of all other things to be most necessary to be enquired into, I shall need to say the less concerning that, which follows, even the examination of our steadfast purpose to lead a new Life, as well as of the truth of our Repentance. For as it is evident from what hath been said elsewhere (t) Part V. , that that ought to be enquired into, because the thing we are to make profession of in the receipt of this Sacrament; So he, who is satisfied of the truth of his Repentance by the fruits, which it hath produced, may by the same fruits satisfy himself of the steadfastness of his present Purpose, to abandon his former sins, and pursue the contrary Graces: There being no great likelihood of his departing from his present Purpose, who knows himself to have already produced those good fruits which he now resolves upon, as that too, out of the Conscience of his own obligation to them, and the just sense he hath of his former aberrations, and the Affront he offered to his both Authority, and Kindness, to whom he now devotes himself anew. Only, if any Man find not in himself this most sure proof of the steadfastness of his Purpose, and yet find in himself a disposition thus to show forth his Saviour's death, and a desire to partake of the several Graces, and Benefits of this Sacrament; Let him see whether he can by his own earnest Prayers, and reflections, and God's Blessing upon them both, bring himself to resolve as well against the particular ways, and means, whereby he was formerly trained into sin, as against the sin itself, and upon such particular ways, and means also, whereby it is most certainly prevented. For so I do not see why he should not look upon his Resolution as steadfast, and such as God will both accept of in the present case, and add farther strength to by the participation of this Sacrament: those Resolutions, which prove in the event to be uncertain, and tottering, being for the most part only general ones, and such as descend not to those particular ways, and means, whereby men come to be ensnared, or whereby that seduction of theirs may be certainly prevented Thus, for instance, if a Man, who hath heretofore given himself more liberty in drinking, than the Laws of Temperance will allow, should reflect so far upon his former failings this way, as not only to resolve against the like intemperance for the future, but against such Company too, so far as he may, by which he hath been drawn into it, or to keep however within such measures, that there can be no danger for him of offending, I do not see why that Man may not look upon such a Resolution as a steadfast one, and which God, the giver of all Grace, will add farther firmness, and steadfastness to, and make it hold out, even against those temptations, which at present it may be, it is not in a condition to grapple with. The Catechism goes on to tell us, That we ought to examine ourselves in the third place, whether we have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ; As well it way, when he, who was the Institutor of this Sacrament, prompts us to receive the Elements thereof as that Body of his, which was broken for us, and as that Blood, which was shed for the remission of our sins: That, as it supposeth that we ought to look upon the mercy of God, as conveyed to us by Christ's death, and accordingly expect that mercy by it, and trust upon that death for it, which is that our Church understands by Faith (u) See Expl. of Bapt. Part 10. , so supposing too, that we ought to approach this Sacrament with such a sorrow for sin, and resolution against it, as so great a Benefit requires, which will convert this Faith, or trust into a lively, and operative one. Now whether we have such a lively Faith, or no, we may easily satisfy ourselves by its being attended, or not attended with that sorrow, and resolution, and which how they are to be known, I have already accounted for. I shall hardly need to say any thing concerning examining ourselves in the fourth place, whether we have a thankful remembrance of Christ's death. Partly, because that thankful remembrance is one of the principal things enjoined in the celebration of this Sacrament, and we therefore to bring that with us to the due receiving of it; And partly, because it will not be difficult for us to discover, whether we have such a Remembrance, or no: That being to be judged in part by our own desire of receiving the present Sacrament, but more by the care we take to prepare ourselves for it, as by other ways, and means, so by an earnest reflection upon the Benefits of that Death, which this Sacrament was intended to commemorate. For he, who carefully reflects upon that Death, will find enough in it to incite him to a thankful remembrance of it, yea, to intent it with all his might, when he receives the Sacrament thereof. But of all the things, which we ought to examine ourselves about, when we think of approaching this most holy Sacrament, nothing certainly more imports us to inquire, than whether we are in Charity with all Men, as our Catechism expresseth it, and particularly with those, that are of the same Household of Faith. For one great design of this Holy Sacrament (w) Part 5. being to testify our Communion with one another, and with all, that are of the same holy Family, it can be no other than a flat contradiction to it, to come to this Holy Sacrament without so necessary a Grace. But because what the peculiar properties of this Grace are, and what particular actions it obligeth to, is more proper for the discussion of those, who entreat de industriâ of this, and other preparatories to this Sacrament, than for a general discourse concerning them; It shall suffice me to admonish, that to be in charity with all Men, and particularly with all Christians, is to have a Mind ready to oblige all Men, that shall stand in need of our assistance, with such supplies as we are able to afford them, whether of our Prayers, or Purses, or Endeavours; That we ought much more, if we pretend to any thing of that Grace, to be free from giving them any just offence, and as willing, and ready to make amends for it, if we are conscious to ourselves of it; That if others break this most excellent band of Charity with us, yet we do not imitate them therein, nor return railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing; That we be as ready to forgive injuries, as to pass by affronts, and actually do so, where the injury may be born, but however where the offending Person returns, and reputes; That, when necessity obligeth us to seek a satisfaction, we rather seek a satisfaction for the damage we sustain, than of our own vindictive humour, and pursue our satisfaction by such ways, and means, as are rather necessary for us, than vexatious to them; In fine (which is the sum of all, and is perhaps the most useful, as well as the most general advice, that can be given in this Affair) that we show forth such charity to others, as we ourselves would expect in the like Circumstances, or shall look for from God, and Christ at the great day of retribution. Which it will not be difficult to bring ourselves to, if we reflect as we ought upon the instances God gives us even now of his immense love toward us, or the need we shall stand in at the last day of a far greater Charity, how careful soever we are to approve ourselves unto him. And I shall only add for the sake of those, who may perhaps be dazzled with so glorious a Light, the resolution of two Cases, which I have met with in the course of my Ministry, and which others, it may be, may be as much staggered by. Whereof the former respects the Love of Enemies, the other that perfect Charity, which our Liturgy (x) Exhort. to the Commun. seems to require of all that approach this Sacrament. It is sometime thought by well-meaning Persons, for want of understanding the true nature of the Love of Enemies, that the Love, which we ought to have for them, ought not only to be such, as will dispose us to pray for them, and do good to them, but such as will alike dispose us to take them into our bosom, or at least to converse with them with that freedom, and cheerfulness, as we do with other Men, with whom we have had no such difference. Which Love therefore, whilst the foremention'd persons find not in themselves, they begin to think they are so far forth without that Charity, which is requisite for the Communion, and upon that account exclude themselves from it. And I willingly grant that their scruple were reasonable enough, if they had to do with such Enemies, as had returned, and repent, and given them due proofs of it. For not to admit such persons into their former state at least, is in truth to retain some part of our displeasure against them, and consequently, not so much as to forgive them perfectly, but however not to forgive them, as we desire, and expect to be forgiven by God. But that we should have such a Love as this for Enemies, continuing such, is a very great mistake, and such as not only, no Law of Christ requires, but no example of God, or Christ doth. For the clearing whereof we are to distinguish of a twofold Love, whereof the former for distinction sake, may be called a Love of Complacency, and Delight, the other a Love of good Will, and Compassion. I call that a Love of Complacency, and Delight, which is between Friends, and such as disposeth them to desire, and delight in each others conversation, or to be troubled at the want of it; Whilst that of good will, and compassion prompts us only to desire, and endeavour the good of those we have to do with. Now as the former of these is the Love, that is now in question, because described as such as disposeth us to take Men into our bosom, or at least to converse with them, with the same freedom, and cheerfulness, as we would do with those, with whom we have no such difference; So we are not in the least to think that any such Love is due to Enemies, because having nothing in them to engage it, but rather to stir up an aversation for them. And we may know it more perfectly from hence, that God, by whose example we are taught to love our Enemies, doth not so love his, even the evil, and unjust. His delight is in his Saints, and such as are after his own Heart, both in the Piety of their Minds, and the Holiness of their Lives. But for the evil, and the unjust, whilst they continue such, he rather hates, and abhors them, and indeed, considering the Purity of his Nature, cannot be supposed to do otherwise. Only as the hatred he bears to such persons, hinders him not however from desiring their welfare, and pursuing it, that so he may make them his Friends, and love them as such; So that that is all the Love, which either he himself shows to his Enemies, or requires of us, is evident from those very Scriptures, which profess to give an account of that Love of his, and of our imitation of it: They representing it as such a Love, as disposeth him to cause his Sun to arise on the evil, and the good, (y) Mat. 5.45. and to send Rain on the just, and unjust. Which Love of Enemies therefore, if we comply with, we have all that God can be thought to require of us, I do not say by his Precepts, but even by his own blessed Example. But because some persons, as they conceive, find in themselves some indisposition, even to this latter sort of Love, because not exerting the acts of it with that pleasure wherewith they should, though at the same time, as they themselves confess, they are infinitely troubled at it, and both pray, and strive against that their indisposition; And because they look upon that their indisposition, as irreconcilable with that perfect Charity, which our Liturgy mentions, and which, as they think, the Scripture requires (z) Mat. 5.48. , when it commands us to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect; Therefore I think it not amiss to add, That Charity may be said to be perfect two manner of ways, To wit, either as excluding all wilful uncharitableness, or as excluding also involuntary aversations, or disgusts. In the former sense there is no doubt, every Man ought to be in perfect Charity, neither is there any thing in the former Case to persuade, that the persons before described are not. For they certainly, who do not only exert the proper acts of Love, but are troubled that they cannot do it more readily, and cheerfully, have nothing of wilful, or affected uncharitableness in them. All that is to be said of such persons, is, that their Charity is not so perfect as to exclude all involuntary aversations, or disgusts. Which, who hath, or can have, where there is such a thing as Flesh, and Spirit, and between which, the Scripture tells us, there will be a perpetual Combat? It is enough, and, perhaps, as much as can be expected from us, to strive against those natural rise of our own Hearts, and so, as to do those things, which Charity requires of us, notwithstanding them; Being moreover troubled that we cannot do what we do more cheerfully, and readily, and both ask God pardon for it, and desiring a farther assistance of his Grace in order to it. Which, as they are the qualifications of the persons before described, so seem to me, to be a better proof of the truly charitable temper of the Parties, than they dare challenge to themselves. Because I do not see how any one can both do the things, which Charity requires of him, and lament his not more cheerfully performing them, if he had not in him a sincere, though imperfect Charity toward those, that are the Objects of it. 2. I have little to return by way of Answer, to what is enquired in the second place, concerning our Demeanour at the Celebration of this Sacrament; Unless it be that Hoc age, which the old Romans premised to the offering of their respective Sacrifices. For than shall we demean ourselves, as we ought, at the Celebration of this Sacrament, when we make our thoughts, and affections go along with the Priest's words, and actions, neither suffer any thing, how useful soever, to possess our Minds, which they do not suggest to us.: Because as the whole of that Service was intended for our Instruction, and Edification, so the main of it consists of such Prayers, and Praises, as are offered up in our name, and which therefore we cannot expect the benefit of, unless our Thoughts, and Affections say an Amen to them all the way, as well as our Voice doth at the conclusion of them. If the distribution of the Sacramental Elements leaves any void places for our private Devotions (as it cannot well do otherwise, where there is any number to partake of them) they are, and may be so filled up with those Meditations, and Ejaculations, which our printed Manuals of Devotions furnish, that it will be in vain for me to offer any thing toward the supplying of them. Only amidst those transports of joy, and thankfulness, which the remembrance of Christ's Death, or our own Meditations upon it, may suggest unto us, let us not forget, that we meet together to oblige ourselves by the present Sacrament, as well as to receive benefit from it, and accordingly, to vow to God, the abandoning of those sins, by which we have been heretofore ensnared, and particularly our most beloved ones. 3. The third, and last Question remains to be discussed, even in what posture of Body, we ought to receive this holy Sacrament. A Question, which I should hardly have thought fit to propose, had not the singularity of some among ourselves, represented the Posture of sitting, as the only allowable one. I call it a Singularity, first, because, so far as we can judge by their Writings, the Ancients always received it in a posture of Adoration. And I appeal for the proof hereof to Justin Martyr in the first place, as being not only one of the most Ancient, but one too, who gives the most accurate account of this Solemnity. For though it be true, that that Father makes no express mention of the posture, wherein this Sacrament was received; Yet as he takes particular notice of the whole Assemblies rising up to Prayers after the reading of the Scriptures, and the Bishop's Exhortation out of them, so he takes no notice at all of their changing their posture afterwards, either in the Service of the Eucharist, or the distribution, or reception of it. Which is to me a probable Argument, that they continued in the same posture, and consequently received the Sacrament in it. And indeed, as it is not to be thought, that they should use any less reverend posture in the Prayers, and Thanksgivings of this Sacrament, than they did in the Prayers, that preceded it, which shows that so far, to be sure, they continued still in the posture of standing; So that Father's subjoining immediately to that Service, that the Deacons thereupon gave, or distributed the Elements so blessed, to each of those, that were present, and carried them away to those, that were absent, makes it farther probable, that they, who were to communicate, did not come up to the Table, and there sit, and receive with the Precedent, or Bishop, which they must have done, if they had kept to the posture now contended for, but continued where they were before, and in the same reverential Posture, wherein they but now were at Prayers. For to imagine them sitting in their proper places, and so receiving, is not only without any the least ground in that Father, but without any ground also from the reason of that posture in the Sacrament, even its being, as they tell us, the posture of a Feast. For how doth it agree to a Feast, for those, that are invited to it, not to approach that Table, upon which the Feast is set, or at least some other, that is placed near to it. But beside the Probabilities we have from Justin Martyr, of the Churches anciently receiving in a posture of Adoration, and particularly, in the posture of standing; It is not to be despised, that the same Ancients had a very venerable esteem for the Sacramental Elements, which makes it yet more probable, that they received them in such a posture, as was agreeable to so venerable an esteem. For we do not, saith the same Justin Martyr (a) Apol. 2. p. 98. , receive these things as common Bread, and common Drink. But as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by the Word of God, took both Flesh and Blood, for our Salvation, so also we have been taught that that Meat, which is made Eucharistical by the Prayers of that Word, which came from him, and by which our Flesh, and Blood are nourished through the conversion thereof into them, is the Flesh, and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate. And that they had not a less venerable esteem for the same Sacramental Elements in the succeeding times, may appear from Tertullian's (b) Despectac. cap. 25. giving them the title of Sanctum, or the Holy thing, and from the Bishop, or Priest's delivering them with these words (c) Tert. ib. cum notis Rigalt. , The Body of Christ, or The Blood of Christ, and the People's receiving them with an Amen, or So be it (d) Iterum. & Euseb. Eccles. Hist. li. 6. cap. 43. cum notis Valesii. ; So praying, that what was intended by Christ, and accordingly delivered by his Minister, as the Communion of Christ's Body, and Blood, might prove such effectually to them. For who can think after all this, unless there were some presumption of their receiving the Elements in any other posture, but that they received them in such a one as was suitable to such thoughts, and such practices, and not in one, which hath no affinity at all with them? Especially, if there appear any express proof near those times of their receiving them in a posture of Adoration, and particularly in the posture of standing. Which that there is, is evident from an Epistle of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, to Xystus, Bishop of Rome. (e) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. cap. 9 For speaking therein of one, who had been long admitted among the Faithful, but beginning to doubt of the truth of his Baptism among Heretics, was importunate with him, to Baptise him anew, he tells Xystus, that he, for his part, did not dare to do it, and therefore answered the Person, That that long Communion, which he had in the Church, sufficed him for that Purpose. For how could he have the confidence to renew him again, who had oftentimes heard the Service of the Eucharist, and with the rest of the Congregation, answered Amen to it, who had stood by the Table, and stretched out his hands to receive the holy Food, in fine, who had received that holy Food, and for a long time been partaker of the Body, and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? But beside that the Ancients received in a posture of Adoration, and they therefore, who represent sitting, as the only allowable one, so far forth guilty of singularity; It will be hard to find any among the Moderns, who do not receive in a posture of Adoration, or at least, do not believe it to be lawful, which is a farther proof of the others singularity. For the Bohemian Churches, who were the first that reformed from Popery, in those poor remains of them, that yet continue, receive kneeling (f) Durel. View of the Gou. and publs. Worsh. etc. Sect. 1. Par. 57 to this day, and (which is more) when they joined with those of Polonia Major, and Lithuania, agreed unanimously, to forbid the receiving of the Sacrament sitting, as a Custom, which was brought in by the Arrians. The Reformed Churches (g) Durel. Serm. of the Liturg. of France, so long as they continued, received standing, and the great Men thereof (as a reverend Person of our Nation (h) Hammond. View of the New Direct. etc. informs us) made a low Cringe, before they took it into their hands. Both French, and Dutch, in fine, when they gave their Opinion concerning the Gesture used by the Bohemians, did also deliver it as such, That every Church ought to be left to its own liberty (i) Ham. L'Estrange Alli. of Diu. Offic. Cap. 7. in Annot. in this particular. All which things considered, it will appear, that, if they among us, who advance sitting at the Sacrament, be not therefore guilty of singularity, yet they must be for advancing it as the only allowable one, as if their Reasons were good, they must be thought to do. But because how singular soever this Opinion of theirs may be, yet it is pretended, that it hath Christ, and his Disciples example on its side, together with the suffrage of Reason; Therefore it will be but just to examine those Pretences, and see what there is of strength in them. And first it is pretended, that our Saviour Christ, and his Disciples sat at the receiving of this Sacrament, or at least, used such a posture, as was answerable to sitting among us, even lying along upon Beds, as the fashion of those Countries was. And it is not to be denied, that there is sufficient ground from the Scripture, for their using that Posture at the Passover, and not unlikely neither, that they held it on at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper. But will it therefore follow, that we ought to look upon no other Posture than that, or one of the same nature, as allowable? For beside that things, which are but probable, may be false, and things, improbable, true; Beside that things probable, for that very reason, cannot conclude the Conscience of any Man, and aught much less to be made use of to conclude the Consciences of others; If Christ, and his Disciples practice in this particular, were as certain, as it is supposed to be probable, yet could it not be of force to conclude ours, unless there were some Command to oblige us to follow it, or some cogent Reason in the Practice itself, to show the necessity thereof: Because Example, considered in itself, is no Rule of humane Actions, in as much as it rather shows what others have done before us, than what we ourselves are to do in any Affair. Which is so true, as to that very Example, which we have now before us, that they, who insist upon it in the posture of receiving, do yet without any hesitancy depart from it in other Circumstances, and such too, as are more certain than the posture of receiving is. For they, no more than we, think themselves obliged to receive either in the Evening, or in an upper Room, or in unleavened Bread, all which Christ, and his Disciples must be acknowledged to have done in that Supper, which he celebrated with them. But therefore, as if they will have this Example of Christ and his Disciples, to be obligatory, they must find out some Command obliging us to follow it, or some cogent Reason in the practice of itself to show the necessity thereof; So, if we stay till that be done, we may stay long enough, because there is no just Pretence for the one, or the other of them. For what shadow is there, for instance, of any Command to follow Christ, or his Disciples Example in this, as there is for the taking of the Sacramental Elements, and eating, or drinking of them? Unless they should perhaps urge the Command of, Do this, as a Command that extends to the Circumstances of the things then done, or enjoined, as well as to the Actions themselves. But beside, that the words, Do this, do in their own nature refer rather to the things then done, or enjoined, than to the Circumstances thereof; If the words, Do this, extend to the Circumstances of the things then done or enjoined, as well as to the things themselves, they must alike extend to the time, and place, wherein this Sacrament was celebrated, and to the quality of that Bread, wherewith it was. Which when we shall see them alike insist upon, we shall think of another Answer, but till then acquiesce in this. If there be any thing to make the posture of our Saviour, and his Disciples to be obligatory, it must be some cogent Reason in the practice itself, to show the necessity thereof. And indeed, as the advancers of this Posture, are forced to come to this at length, which shows how weakly our Saviour, and his Disciples mere Example is urged in this Affair; So they think they have reason enough on their side, because the posture of sitting, is more proper for the Lord's Supper, than any other posture is. I will not now say, though I might, that if that posture be only more proper, than any other, there may be place upon occasion for other postures beside that, which shows it, even in their own Opinion, not to be the only proper, or necessary one; But I say, that it cannot be concluded to be the more proper one in the present instance, unless the Supper of the Lord were of the same nature with common ones, or at least, with that of the Paschal Lamb, the Design whereof was to feed the Bellies of its Guests, as well as the desires of their Souls. Now is there any thing in the Lord's Supper, that looks that way? Nay, doth not the instituting of it, after that of the Paschal Lamb, proclaim the contrary, and direct Men to look after a spiritual Satisfaction, rather than a natural one? And may Men then prescribe Rules to such a Feast, from the modes of those of another nature? Or, because sitting is most suitable to those, conclude it is also such to this? Would not one rather think (if we speak only of more, or less proper) that some other posture would be more proper for this Feast, even such a one, as doth more bespeak the reverence of those, that are invited to feast with, and upon so great a Person as Christ? Especially, when one great Reason of its Institution was to express by the receipt of it the grateful Remembrance we have of the inestimable Benefits of his Death? And I know of nothing, that can be replied against this way of Reasoning, unless it be the presumption there is, that Christ, who certainly knew what was most proper in this Affair, gave it to his Disciples sitting, or lying along. For if he thought the ordinary posture of a Feast to be the most proper, why should we represent another as such, unless we would be wiser than he that instituted it? And I no way doubt, supposing our Saviour to have given it to his Disciples in the ordinary posture of a Feast, that he thought it the most proper at that time, and that we must have always looked upon it as such, if he had enjoined the use of it for the time to come. But doth it therefore follow, though there be no such Precept for it, that we ought always to look upon it as such? Or think, because it was then the most proper one, that it must ever be so? For possibly the making use of that posture then, was not so much out of a Belief of its being in itself the most proper one, but more proper for that time, and place, because more agreeable to the Ceremonies of that Solemnity, from which this Sacrament was borrowed, and where it appears from Paulus Fagius (k) Liturgic. Cassand. in initio. , That the Father of the Family, and his Guests sat, or lay down to Meat, before he either blessed, or they received that Eucharist from him. Possibly also, though Christ, and his Disciples lay along during that whole Action, yet they did otherwise express, whether by the bowing the Head, or lifting up their Eyes, the regard they had to that God, by Thanksgiving to whom that Solemnity was begun: I do not say only, because it was intended as a Sacrifice of Praise to God, for the blessing of our Redemption, but because it was intended also to show it forth to others, and excite them to the same grateful, and honourable Remembrance of it, and of his Death, by whom it was to be accomplished; That being not very advantageously to be done, where the posture of receiving the Symbols of it is not at least intermixed with something, that hath in it a different Air from that of an ordinary Feast. Which supposed, it will not be difficult to show in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be received. For, for aught that I can see by the very nature of the Sacrament itself, and the practice of the Ancients, a posture of Adoration is the most proper for the receipt of it, and, as such, to be preferred before any other whatsoever. That provided the posture made use of, be a posture of Adoration, it matters not in itself, what kind of one is made choice of, because there is no Command for any particular one. That both standing, and kneeling, therefore must be looked upon as proper ones, because both of them postures of Adoration, and as such, accordingly made use of in several Ages of the Church, and by several Churches of the same. That by how much the more any posture is removed from a posture of Adoration, so much the more improper is it for the receipt of this Sacrament, and that sitting at it therefore, is of all others, the most unsuitable one. In fine, that if sitting were more proper, than indeed it is, yet being not under any Divine Command, it ought in reason to give place to that posture, which hath the general practice of the Church to warrant it, and the particular Commands of those, whom God himself hath obliged us to obey. FINIS.