§. VI.
Having now sufficiently shewn what the true Communion
of the Body and Blood of Christ is, how it is partaken of, and how
it has no necessary Relation to that Ceremony of Bread and Wine
used by Christ with his Disciples;
II. Whether this Ceremony be a necessary Part of the New Covenant, and Obligatory.it is fit now to consider the
Nature
and
Constitution of that
Ceremony (for as to the
proper Use of it,
we have had Occasion to speak before) whether it be a
standing Ordinance
in the Church of Christ obligatory upon all, or indeed whether
it be any necessary Part of the Worship of the
New Covenant
Dispensation, or hath any better or more binding Foundation than
several other Ceremonies appointed and practised about the same
Time, which the most of our Opposers acknowledge to be ceased,
and now no Ways binding upon Christians. We find this Ceremony
only mentioned in Scripture in four Places, to wit,
Matthew,
Mark, and
Luke, and by
Paul to the
Corinthians. If any would infer
any Thing from the Frequency of the mentioning of it, that will
add nothing; for it being a Matter of Fact, is therefore mentioned
by the Evangelists; and there are other Things less memorable as
often, yea, oftener mentioned.
Matthew and
Mark give only an
Account of the Matter of Fact, without any Precept to do so afterwards;
simply declaring,
[132]That Jesus at that Time did desire them
to
eat of the Bread, and drink of the Cup; to which
Luke adds these
Words,
This do in Remembrance of me. If we consider this Action of
Christ with his Apostles, there will appear nothing singular in it,
for a Foundation to such a strange
Superstructure, as many in their
airy Imaginations have sought to build upon it; for both
Matthew
and
Mark express it as an Act done by him as he was eating.
The breaking of Bread was no singular Thing, but a Custom among the Jews.Matthew saith,
And as they were eating; and
Mark,
And as they did eat, Jesus
took Bread, &c. Now this Act was no singular Thing, neither
any solemn Institution of a
Gospel Ordinance; because it was a constant Custom among the
Jews,
P. Riccius.as
Paulus Riccius observes at Length in his
Celestial Agriculture, that when they did eat the Passover, the
Master of the Family did take Bread, and bless it, and breaking it,
gave of it to the rest; and likewise taking Wine, did the same; so
that there can nothing further appear in this, than that Jesus Christ,
who fulfilled all Righteousness, and also observed the
Jewish Feasts and
Customs, used this also among his Disciples only, that as in most
other Things he laboured to draw their Minds to a further Thing,
so in the Use of this he takes Occasion to put them in Mind of his
Death and Sufferings, which were shortly to be; which he did the
oftener inculcate unto them, for that they were averse from believing it.
What it is to do this in Remembrance of Christ.And as for that Expression of
Luke,
Do this in Remembrance
of me, it will amount to no more than this, that being the last Time
that Christ did eat with his Disciples, he desired them, that in their
eating and drinking they might have Regard to him, and by the Remembering
of that Opportunity, be the more stirred up to follow
him diligently through Sufferings and Death,
&c. But what Man
of Reason, laying aside the Prejudice of Education, and the Influence
of Tradition, will say, That this Account of the
Matter of
Fact given by
Matthew and
Mark, or this Expression of
Luke, to
Do
that in Remembrance of him, will amount to these Consequences, which
the Generality of Christians have sought to draw from it; as calling
it,
Augustissimum Eucharistiæ Sacramentum;
venerabile Altaris Sacramentum;
the principal Seal of the Covenant of Grace, by which all the Benefits of
Christ’s Death are sealed to Believers; and such like Things? But to
give a further Evidence, how these Consequences have not any
Bottom from the Practice of that Ceremony, nor from the Words
following,
Do this, &c. let us consider another of the like Nature, as
it is at Length expressed by
John, Chap. xiii. 3, 4. 8. 13, 14, 15.
Christ’s washing of Feet, and its Manner related.Jesus riseth from Supper, and laid aside his Garments, and took a Towel, and
girded himself: After that, he poureth Water into a Bason, and began to
wash the Disciples’ Feet; and to wipe them with the Towel wherewith he was
girded: Peter
said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my Feet; Jesus
answered
him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no Part with me. So after he had
washed their Feet,—he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If I then
your Lord and Master have washed your Feet, ye also ought to wash one
another’s Feet: For I have given you an Example, that ye should do as I have
done to you. As to which, let it be observed, that
John relates this
Passage to have been done at the same Time with the other of
breaking Bread;
Compared with the breaking of Bread.both being done the Night of the
Passover, after Supper.
If we regard the Narration of this, and the Circumstances attending
it, it was done with far more Solemnity, and prescribed far more
punctually and particularly than the former. It is said only,
As he
was eating, he took Bread; so that this would seem to be but an
occasional
Business: But here
he rose up,
he laid by his Garments,
he girded
himself,
he poured out the Water,
he washed their Feet,
he wiped them with
a Towel: He did this to all of them; which are Circumstances surely
far more observable than those noted in the other. The
former was
a Practice common among the
Jews, used by all Masters of Families
upon that Occasion; but
this, as to the Manner, and Person acting
it,
to wit, for the Master to rise up, and wash the Feet of his Servants
and Disciples, was more singular and observable. In the
breaking of
Bread, and giving of Wine, it is not pleaded by our Adversaries,
nor yet mentioned in the Text, that he particularly put
them into the Hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave
it the nearest, and so they from Hand to Hand: But here it is
mentioned, that he washed not the Feet of one or two, but of
many. He saith not in the
former,
That if they do not eat of that Bread,
and drink of that Wine, they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he saith
expresly to
Peter, That
if he wash him not, he hath no Part with him;
which being spoken upon
Peter’s refusing to let him wash his Feet,
would seem to import no less, than not the Continuance only, but
even the Necessity of this
Ceremony. In the former he saith, as it
were passingly,
Do this in Remembrance of me; but here he sitteth
down again, he desires them to consider what he hath done, tells them positively,
The washing one another’s Feet was left as an Example.That as he hath done to them, so ought they to do to one
another: And yet again, he redoubles that Precept, by telling them,
He has given them an Example, that they should do so likewise. If we re
spect
the Nature of the Thing, it hath as much in it as either
Baptism
or the
breaking of Bread; seeing it is an outward Element of a
cleansing Nature, applied to the outward Man, by the Command
and the Example of Christ, to signify an inward Purifying. I would
willingly propose this seriously to Men, who will be pleased to
make use of that Reason and Understanding that God hath given
them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the Custom or Tradition
of others;
Whether this Ceremony, if we respect either the Time
that it was appointed in, or the Circumstances wherewith it was performed,
or the Command enjoining the Use of it, hath not as much to recommend it
for a standing Ordinance of the Gospel, as either Water-baptism
, or Bread
and Wine
, or any other of that Kind? I wonder then what Reason
the
Papists can give, Why they have not numbered it among their
Sacraments, except merely
Voluntas Ecclesiæ & Traditio Patrum.
Object.But if they say, That it is used among them, in that the Pope, and
some other Persons among them, used to do it once a Year to some poor
People;
Answ.I would willingly know what Reason they have why this should
not be extended to all, as well as that of the Eucharist (as they
term it) or whence it appears from the Text, that [Do this in Remembrance
of me] should be interpreted that the Bread and Wine were
every Day to be taken by all Priests, or the Bread every Day, or every
Week, by the People; and that that other Command of Christ, Ye
ought to do as I have done to you, &c. is only to be understood of the
Pope, or some other Persons, to be done only to a few, and that
once a Year? Surely there can be no other Reason for this Difference
assigned from the Text.
The Protestants use not the washing of Feet.And as to Protestants, who use not
this Ceremony at all, if they will but open their Eyes, they may
see how that by Custom and Tradition they are abused in this Matter,
as were their Fathers in divers Popish Traditions. For if we
look into the plain Scripture, what can be thence inferred to urge
the one, which may not be likewise pleaded for the other; or for
laying aside the one, which may not be likewise said against the Continuance
of the other? If they say, That the former, of washing the
Feet, was only a Ceremony; what have they, whence they can shew,
that this breaking of Bread is more? If they say, That the former was
only a Sign of Humility and Purifying; what have they to prove that
this was more? If they say, That one was only for a Time, and was no
Evangelical Ordinance; what hath this to make it such, that the other
wanted? Surely there is no Way of Reason to evade this; neither
can any Thing be alleged, that the one should cease, and not the
other; or the one continue, and not the other; but the mere Opinion
of the Affirmers, which by Custom, Education and Tradition,
hath begotten in the Hearts of People a greater Reverence for, and
Esteem of the one than the other; which if it had fallen out to be
as much recommended to us by Tradition, would no Doubt have
been as tenaciously pleaded for, as having no less Foundation in
Scripture. But since the former, to wit, The washing of one another’s
Feet, is justly laid aside, as not binding upon Christians; so ought also
the other for the same Reason.
§. VII.
The breaking of Bread not used now in the same Manner as Christ did.But it is strange that those who are so clamorous for this
Ceremony, and stick so much to it, take Liberty to dispense with the
Manner or Method that Christ did it in; since none that ever I
could hear of, except some Baptists who now do it, use it in the same
Way that he did: Christ did it at Supper, while they were eating;
but the Generality of Protestants do it in the Morning only by itself.
What Rule walk they by in this Change?
Object.If it be said, These are but Circumstances, and not the Matter; and
if the Matter be kept to, the Alteration of Circumstances is but of small
Moment;
Answ.What if it should be said the Whole is but a Circumstance, which
fell out at that Time when Christ eat the Passover? For if we have
Regard to that which alone can be pleaded for an Institution, viz.
these Words, Do this in Remembrance of me; it doth as properly relate
to the Manner as Matter. For what may or can they evince in Reason,
that these Words, Do this, only signify eat Bread, and drink
Wine, but it is no Matter when ye eat, or how ye eat it; and not as ye
have seen me eat it at Supper with you, who take Bread, and break it, and
give it you; and take the Cup, and bless it, and give it you; so do ye likewise?
And seeing Christ makes no Distinction in those Words, Do
this, it cannot be judged in Reason but to relate to the Whole;
which if it do, all those that at present use this Ceremony among
Christians, have not yet obeyed this Precept, nor fulfilled this Institution,
for all their Clamours concerning it.
Object.If it be said, That the Time and Manner of doing it by Christ
was but accidentally, as being after the Jewish Passover, which was at
Supper;
Answ.Besides that it may be answered, and easily proved, That the
Whole was accidental, as being the Practice of a Jewish Ceremony, as
is above observed;
The breaking of Bread was a Jewish Ceremony.may it not the same Way be urged, That the
drinking of Wine is accidental, as being the natural Product of that
Country; and so be pleaded, That in those Countries where Wine
doth not grow, as in our Nation of Scotland, we may make use of
Beer or Ale in the Use of this Ceremony; or Bread made of other Grain
than that which Christ used? And yet would not our Adversaries
judge this an Abuse, and not right Performing of this Sacrament?
Yea, have not Scruples of this Kind occasioned no little Contention
among the Professors of Christianity?
Contests between the Greek and Latin Churches, concerning the leavened and unleavened Bread in the Supper.What great Contest and Strife
hath been betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches concerning the
Bread? While the one will have it unleavened, reckoning, because
the Jews made use of unleavened Bread in the Passover, that it was
such Kind of Bread that Christ did break to his Disciples; the
other leavened: Therefore the Lutherans make use of unleavened Bread,
the Calvinists of leavened.
Farellus.And this Contest was so hot, when the
Reformation was beginning at Geneva, that Calvin and Farellus were
forced to fly for it. But do not Protestants, by these Uncertainties,
open a Door to Papists for their excluding the People from the Cup?
Will not [Do this] infer positively, That they should do it in the
same Manner, and at the same Time, as Christ did it; as well as that
they should use the Cup, and not the Bread only? Or what Reason
have they to dispense with the one, more than the Papists have to do
with the other? Oh! What strange Absurdities and Inconveniencies
have Christians brought upon themselves, by superstitiously adhering
to this Ceremony! Out of which Difficulties it is impossible for them
to extricate themselves, but by laying it aside, as they have done
others of the like Nature.
The Clergy taking Bread do bless, and give it: The Laity must take and eat, not bless it.For besides what is above-mentioned, I
would gladly know how from the Words they can be certainly resolved
that these Words [Do this] must be understood to the Clergy,
Take, bless, and break this Bread, and give it to others; but to the Laity
only, Take and eat, but do not bless, &c.
Object.If it be said, That the Clergy only were present;
Answ.Then will not that open a Door for the Popish Argument against
the Administration of the Cup to the People? Or may not another from
thence as easily infer, That the Clergy only ought to partake of this Ceremony;
because they were the Apostles only then present, to whom it
was said, Do this? But if this [Do this] be extended to all, how
comes it all have not Liberty to obey it, in both blessing, breaking,
and distributing, as well as taking and eating?
Hot Contests about the Manner of taking it, and to whom to give it.Besides all these, even
the Calvinist Protestants of Great Britain could never yet accord among
themselves about the Manner of taking it, whether sitting, standing, or
kneeling; whether it should be given to the Sick, and those that are
ready to die, or not? Which Controversies, though they may be
esteemed of small Moment, yet have greatly contributed, with
other Things, to be the Occasion, not only of much Contention, but
also of Bloodshed and Devastation; so that in this last Respect the Prelatick
Calvinists have termed the Presbyterians schismatical and pertinacious;
and they them again superstitious, idolatrous, and papistical.
Who then, that will open their Eyes, but may see that the
Devil hath flirted up this Contention and Zeal, to busy Men about
Things of small Moment, that greater Matters may be neglected, while
he keeps them in such ado about this Ceremony; though they lay
aside others of the like Nature, as positively commanded, and as punctually
practised; and from the Observation of which half so many
Difficulties will not follow?
§. VIII.
How then? Have we not Reason, not finding the Nature
of this Practice, to be obligatory upon us, more than those
others which our Adversaries have laid aside, to avoid this Confusion;
since those that use it can never agree, neither concerning the
Nature,
Efficacy, nor
Manner of doing it? And this proceeds, because
they take it not plainly, as it lies in the Scripture; but have so
much intermixed their own Inventions. For would they take it as
it lies, it would import no more, than that
Jesus Christ at that Time
did thereby signify unto them, that his Body and Blood was to be offered for
them; and desired them, That
whensoever they did eat or drink, they
might do it in Remembrance of him, or with a Regard to him, whose Blood was
shed for them. Now that the
Primitive Church, gathered immediately after
his Ascension, did so understand it, doth appear from their Use and
Practice, if we admit those Places of the
Acts, where
breaking of Bread
is spoken of, to have Relation hereto;
By breaking of Bread they had all Things in common, remembering the Lord.which as our Adversaries do, so
we shall willingly agree to: As
First,
Acts ii. 42.
And they continued stedfastly
in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, &c. This
cannot be understood of any other than of their ordinary eating;
for as nothing else appears from the Text, so the Context makes it
plain; for they had all Things in common: And therefore it is
said, Ver. 46.
And they continuing daily with one Accord in the Temple, and
breaking Bread from House to House, did eat their Meat with Gladness and
Singleness of Heart. Those who will not wilfully close their Eyes,
may see here, that the
breaking being joined with their
eating, shews,
that nothing else is here expressed, but that having all Things in
common, and so continuing together, they also did break their Bread,
and eat their Meat together: In doing whereof, I cannot doubt but
they remembered the Lord; to follow whom they had, with so
much Zeal and Resignation, betaken themselves. This is further
manifest from
Acts vi. 2. for the
Apostles, having the Care and Distribution
of that Money, which the Believers, having sold their Pos
sessions,
gave unto them, and finding themselves overcharged with
that Burthen, appointed
Deacons for that Business, that they might
give themselves continually to
Prayer, and to the
Ministry of the Word;
not leaving that, to serve Tables.
Deacons appointed for serving Tables.This cannot be meant of any
sacramental Eating, or
religious Acts of Worship; seeing our Adversaries
make the Distributing of that the proper Act of
Ministers, not of
Deacons:
And yet there can be no Reason alleged, That that
breaking of
Bread, which they are said to have
continued in, and to have done
from
House to House, was other than those
Tables which the Apostles
served; but here gave over, as finding themselves overcharged with
it. Now as the Increase of the Disciples did incapacitate the Apostles
any more to manage this; so it would seem their further Increase,
and dispersing in divers Places, hindered the Continuance
of that Practice of
having Things in common: But notwithstanding,
so far at least to remember or continue that
ancient Community, they
did at certain Times come together, and break Bread together.
At Troas the Supper deferred till Midnight.Hence it is said,
Acts xx. 7. on
Paul’s coming to
Troas, That
upon
the fist Day of the Week, when the Disciples came together to break Bread,
Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the Morrow, and continued his
Speech until Midnight. Here is no Mention made of any
sacramental
Eating; but only that
Paul took Occasion from their being together
to preach unto them. And it seems it was a
Supper they intended
(not a
Morning-bit of
Bread, and
Sup of
Wine) else it is not very probable
that
Paul would from the
Morning have preached until
Midnight.
But the 11th Verse puts the Matter out of Dispute, which
is thus:
When he therefore was come up again, and had broken Bread,
and eaten, and talked a long While, even till Break of Day, so he departed.
This shews, That the
breaking of Bread was deferred till that Time;
for these Words [
and when he had broken Bread, and eaten] do shew,
That it had a Relation to the
breaking of Bread before-mentioned,
and that that was the Time he did it.
Secondly, These Words joined
together [
and when he had broken Bread, and eaten, and talked] shew,
it was no religious Act of Worship, but only an Eating for bodily
Refreshment,
They only did eat for refreshing the Body.for which the
Christians used to meet together some
Time; and doing it in
God’s Fear, and
Singleness of Heart, doth
notwithstanding difference it from the Eating or Feasting of
profane
Persons.
By some called a Love-feast.And this by some is called a
Love-feast, or a being together,
not merely to feed their Bellies, or for outward Ends; but
to take thence Occasion to eat and drink together, in the Dread and
Presence of the Lord, as his People; which
Custom we shall not condemn.
But let it be observed, That in all the
Acts there is no other
nor further Mention of this Matter. But if that
Ceremony had been
some
solemn Sacrifice, as some will have it, or such a
special Sacrament
as others plead it to be; it is strange that that
History, which in
many less Things gives a particular Account of the
Christians Behaviour,
should have been so silent in the Matter: Only we find,
That they used sometimes to meet together to break Bread, and eat.
The Christians began by Degrees to depart from the Primitive Purity.Now as the
early Christians began by Degrees to depart from that primitive
Purity and Simplicity, so did they also to accumulate superstitious
Traditions, and vitiate the innocent Practices of their Predecessors,
by the Intermixing either of
Jewish or
Heathenish Rites;
and likewise in the Use of this, Abuses began very early to creep in
among Christians, so that it was needful for the Apostle
Paul to reform
them, and reprove them for it, as he doth at large, 1
Cor. xi.
from Ver. 17. to the End:
1 Cor. 11. 17.Which Place we shall particularly examine,
because our Adversaries lay the chief Stress of their Matter
upon it;
Concerning the Supper of the Lord (so called) explained.and we shall see whether it will infer any more than we
have above granted.
First, Because they were apt to use that Practice
in a superstitious Mind beyond the true Use of it, so as to make
of it some
mystical Supper of the Lord, he tells them, Ver. 20. That
their
coming together into one Place, is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; he
saith not,
This is not the right Manner
to eat; but,
This is NOT to eat
the Lord’s Supper; because the
Supper of the Lord is spiritual, and a
Mystery.
Secondly, He blames them, in that they came together for the
Worse, and not for the
Better; the Reason he gives of this is,
Ver. 21.
For in Eating every one hath taken before his own Supper; and
one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Why the Custom of Supping in common was used among Christians.Here it is plain that the
Apostle condemns them in that (because this Custom of
Supping in
General was used among Christians to increase their Love, and as a
Memorial of Christ’s Supping with the Disciples) they had so vitiated
it, as to eat it apart, and to come full, who had Abundance;
and hungry, who had little at Home; whereby the very Use and
End of this
Practice was lost and perverted: And therefore he blames
them, that they did not either eat this in Common at Home, or reserve
their Eating till they came all together to the publick Assembly.
This appears plainly by the following Ver. 22.
Have ye not
Houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and shame
them that have not? Where he blames them for their irregular Practice
herein, in that they despised to eat orderly, or reserve their Eating
to the publick Assembly; and so shaming such, as not having
Houses, nor Fulness at Home, came to partake of the common
Table; who, being hungry, thereby were shamed, when they observed
others come thither full and drunken. Those that without
Prejudice will look to the Place, will see this must have been the
Case among the
Corinthians: For supposing the Use of this to have
been then, as now used either by
Papists,
Lutherans, or
Calvinists, it
is hard making Sense of the Apostle’s Words, or indeed to conceive
what was the Abuse the
Corinthians committed in this Thing. Having
thus observed what the Apostle said above,
The Rise of that Custom.because this Custom
of
Eating and Drinking together some Time had its Rise from Christ’s
Act with the Apostles the Night he was betrayed; therefore the
Apostle proceeds, Ver. 23. to give them an Account of that:
For I
have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord
Jesus, the same Night in which he was betrayed, took Bread, &c. Those
that understand the Difference betwixt a
Narration of a Thing, and
a
Command, cannot but see, if they will, That there is no Command
in this Place, but only an Account of
Matter of Fact; he saith not,
I received of the Lord, that as he took Bread, so I should command it to you
to do so likewise; there is nothing like this in the Place: Yea, on the
contrary, Ver. 25. where he repeats Christ’s imperative Words to
his Apostles, he placeth them so as they import no Command;
This
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in Remembrance of me: And then he adds,
For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lord’s
Death till he come:
That [As often] imports no Command of this Supper.But these Words [
As often] import no more a
Command,
than to say,
As often as thou goest to Rome
, see the Capitol, will
infer a
Command to me to go thither.
Object.But whereas they urge the last Words, Ye shew forth the Lord’s
Death till he come; insinuating, That this imports a necessary Continuance
of that Ceremony, until Christ come at the End of the World to Judgment;
Answ.I answer, They take two of the chief Parts of the Controversy
here for granted, without Proof. First, That [as often] imports a
Command; the contrary whereof is shewn; neither will they ever be
able to prove it.
Christ’s outward and inward Coming.Secondly, That this Coming is to be understood of
Christ’s last outward Coming, and not of his inward and spiritual, that remains
to be proved: Whereas the Apostle might well understand it
of his inward Coming and Appearance, which perhaps some of those
carnal Corinthians, that used to come drunken together, had not
yet known; and others, being weak among them, and inclinable
to dote upon Externals, this might have been indulged to them
for a Season, and even used by them who knew Christ’s Appearance
in Spirit (as other Things were, of which we shall speak
hereafter) especially by the Apostle, who became weak to the Weak,
and all to All, that he might save some.
To remember Christ’s Death till he come to arise in the Heart.Now those weak and carnal
Corinthians might be permitted the Use of this, to shew forth,
or remember Christ’s Death, till he came to arise in them; for
though such need those outward Things to put them in Mind of
Christ’s Death, yet those who are dead with Christ, and not only dead
with Christ, but buried, and also arisen with him, need not such Signs
to remember him: And to such therefore the Apostle saith, Col. iii. 1.
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those Things which are above, where
Christ sitteth on the right Hand of God: But Bread and Wine are not those
Things that are above, but are Things of the Earth. But that this
whole Matter was a mere Act of Indulgence and Condescension of
the Apostle Paul to the weak and carnal Corinthians, appears yet more
by the Syriack[133] Copy, which Ver. 17. in his entering upon this
Matter, hath it thus; In that concerning which I am about to command
you (or instruct you) I commend you not, because ye have not gone forward,
but are descended unto that which is less, or of less Consequence: Clearly importing,
That the Apostle was grieved that such was their Condition,
that he was forced to give them Instructions concerning those outward
Things; and doting upon which, they shewed they were not gone
forward in the Life of Christianity, but rather sticking in beggarly Elements.
And therefore Ver. 20. the same Version hath it thus, When
then ye meet together, ye do not do it, as it is just ye should do in the Day of
the Lord, ye eat and drink it: Therefore shewing to them, That to meet
together to eat and drink outward Bread and Wine, was not the Labour
and Work of that Day of the Lord. But since our Adversaries are so
zealous for this Ceremony, because used by the Church of Corinth
(though with how little Ground is already shewn) how come they
to pass over far more positive Commands of the Apostles, as Matters
of no Moment? As First, Acts xv. 29. where the Apostles peremptorily
command the Gentiles,
To abstain from Things strangled.as that which was the Mind of the
Holy Ghost, To abstain from Things strangled, and from Blood: And
James v. 14.
The Anointing with Oil.where it is expresly commanded, That the Sick be anointed
with Oil in the Name of the Lord.
Object.If they say, Those were only temporary Things, but not to continue;
Answ.What have they more to shew for this; there being no express
Repeal of them?
Object.If they say, The Repeal is implied, because the Apostle saith, We ought
not to be judged in Meats and Drinks;
Answ.I admit the Answer: But how can it be prevented from militating
the same Way against the other Practice? Surely not at all: Nor
can there be any Thing urged for the one more than for the other,
but Custom and Tradition.
Object.As for that of James, they say, There followed a Miracle upon it,
to wit, The Recovery of the Sick; but this being ceased, so should the
Ceremony.
Answ.Though this might many Ways be answered, to wit, That Prayer
then might as well be forborn, to which also the Saving of the Sick is
there ascribed; yet I shall accept of it, because I judge indeed that
Ceremony is ceased;
A Ceremony ought to cease, its Virtue failing.only methinks, since our Adversaries, and that
rightly, think a Ceremony ought to cease where the Virtue fails, they
ought by the same Rule to forbear the laying on of Hands,
Thus laying on of Hands.in Imitation
of the Apostles, since the Gift of the Holy Ghost doth not follow
upon it.
§. IX.
But since we find that several Testimonies of Scripture do
sufficiently shew, That such
external Rites are no necessary Part of the
New Covenant Dispensation, therefore not needful now to continue, however
they were for a Season practised of old, I shall instance some few of
them, whereby from the Nature of the Thing, as well as those Testimonies,
it may appear, That the Ceremony of
Bread and Wine is
ceased, as well as those other Things confessed by our Adversaries
to be so.
The Ceremony of Bread and Wine is ceased.The first is
Rom. xiv. 17.
For the Kingdom of God is not
Meat and Drink, but Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost:
Here the Apostle evidently shews, That the
Kingdom of God, or
Gospel
of Christ, stands not in
Meats and Drinks, and such like Things, but
in
Righteousness, &c. as by the Context doth appear, where he is
speaking of the
Guilt and
Hazard of judging one another about
Meats
and Drinks. So then, if the
Kingdom of God stand not in them, nor
the
Gospel, nor
Work of Christ, then the eating of outward
Bread and
Wine can be no necessary Part of the
Gospel-worship, nor any
perpetual
Ordinance of it. Another of the same Apostle is yet more plain,
Col. ii. 16. the Apostle throughout this whole
second Chapter doth
clearly plead for us, and against the
Formality and
Superstition of our
Opposers: For in the Beginning he holds forth the great
Privileges
which Christians have by Christ, who are indeed come to the
Life
of Christianity; and therefore he desires them, Ver. 6.
As they have received
Christ, so to walk in him; and to beware, lest they be spoiled through
Philosophy and vain Deceit, after the Rudiments or Elements of the World;
because that in Christ, whom they have received, is all Fulness: And that
they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands (which he
calls the
Circumcision of Christ) and being buried with him by Baptism,
are also arisen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God. Here
also they did partake of the
true Baptism of Christ; and being such
as are
arisen with him, let us see whether he thinks it needful they
should make use of such
Meat and Drink as
Bread and Wine,
to put
them in Remembrance of Christ’s Death; or whether they ought to be
judged, that they did it not; Ver. 16.
Let no Man therefore judge
you in Meat and Drink: Is not
Bread and
Wine Meat and
Drink? But
why?
Which are a Shadow of Things to come: But the Body is of Christ.
’Tis but a Sign and Shadow they confess.Then since our Adversaries confess, That their
Bread and
Wine is
a
Sign or
Shadow; therefore, according to the Apostle’s Doctrine,
we ought not to be
judged in the Non-observation of it. But is it
not fit for those that are
dead with Christ to be subject to such Ordinances?
And which do perish with the Using.See what he saith, Ver. 20.
Wherefore if ye be dead with
Christ
from the Rudiments of the World, why, as though living in the
World, are ye subject to Ordinances? (Touch not, taste not, handle not:
Which all are to perish with the Using) after the Commandments and Doctrines
of Men. What can be more plain? If this serve not to take
away the absolute Necessity of the Use of
Bread and
Wine, what can
it serve to take away? Sure I am, the Reason here given is applicable
to them,
which all do perish with the Using; since
Bread and
Wine perish with the Using, as much as other Things. But further,
If the Use of
Water, and
Bread and
Wine, were that wherein the very
Seals of the
New Covenant stood, and did pertain to the chief
Sacraments
of the
Gospel and
Evangelical Ordinances (so called) then would
not the
Gospel differ from the
Law, or be preferable to it.
The Law was Meats and Drinks; not so the Gospel.Whereas
the Apostle shews the Difference,
Heb. ix. 10. in that such Kind of
Observations of the
Jews were as a Sign of the
Gospel, for that they
stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings. But if the
Gospel-worship
and
Service stand in the same, where is the Difference?
Object.If it be said, These under the Gospel have a spiritual Signification;
Answ.So had those under the Law; God was the Author of those, as
well as Christ is pretended to be the Author of these. But doth
not this contending for the Use of Water, Bread and Wine, as necessary
Parts of the Gospel-worship, destroy the Nature of it, as if the
Gospel were a Dispensation of Shadows, and not of the Substance?
The Law has Shadows, the Gospel brings the Substance.Whereas the Apostle, in that of the Colossians above-mentioned, argues
against the Use of these Things, as needful to those that are dead
and arisen with Christ, because they are but Shadows. And since,
through the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, he argues with the Jews, to
wean them from their old Worship, for this Reason, because it was
typical and figurative; is it agreeable to right Reason to bring them
to another of the same Nature? What Ground from Scripture or
Reason can our Adversaries bring us, to evince that one Shadow or
Figure should point to another Shadow or Figure, and not to the
Substance? And yet they make the Figure of Circumcision to point to
Water-baptism, and the Paschal Lamb to Bread and Wine. But was it
ever known that one Figure was the Anti-type of the other, especially
seeing Protestants make not these their Anti-types to have any
more Virtue and Efficacy than the Type had?
Their Sacraments confer not Grace.For since, as they say,
and that truly, That their Sacraments confer not Grace, but that it is conferred
according to the Faith of the Receiver, it will not be denied
but the Faithful among the Jews received also Grace in the Use of
their Figurative Worship. And though Papists boast that their Sacraments
confer Grace ex opere operato, yet Experience abundantly
proveth the contrary.
§. X.
Opposers claim a Power to give their Sacraments; from whence do they derive it?But supposing the Use of
Water-baptism and
Bread and Wine
to have been in the Primitive Church, as was also that of
abstaining
from Things strangled,
and from Blood,
the Use of Legal Purification, Acts
xxi. 23, 24, 25. and
anointing of the Sick with Oil, for the Reasons
and Grounds before mentioned; yet it remains for our Adversaries
to shew us how they come by Power or Authority to administer
them. It cannot be from the Letter of the Scripture, else they
ought also to do those other Things, which the Letter declares also
they did, and which in the Letter have as much Foundation. Then
their Power must be
derived from the Apostles, either
mediately or
immediately;
but we have shewn before, in the
tenth Proposition, that they
have no
mediate Power, because of the Interruption made by the
Apostasy; and for an
immediate Power or
Command by the Spirit of God
to administer these Things, none of our Adversaries pretend to it.
We know that in this, as in other Things, they make a Noise of
the
constant Consent of the Church, and of Christians in all Ages;
Tradition no sufficient Ground for Faith.but as
Tradition is not a sufficient Ground for
Faith, so in this Matter especially
it ought to have but small Weight; for that in this Point of
Ceremonies and
superstitious Observations the Apostasy began very early,
as may appear in the
Epistle of
Paul to the
Galatians and
Colossians; and
we have no Ground to imitate them in those Things, whose Entrance
the Apostle so much
withstood, so heavily
regretted, and so
sharply
reproved. But if we look to
Antiquity, we find that in such
Kind of Observances and Traditions they were very uncertain and
changeable; so that neither
Protestants nor
Papists do observe this
Ceremony as they did, both in that they gave it to
young Boys,
and to
little Children:
The Supper they gave to young Boys and Children.And for aught can be learned, the Use of this
and
Infant-baptism are of a like Age, though the one be laid aside
both by
Papists and
Protestants, and the other, to wit,
Baptism of Infants,
be stuck to. And we have so much the less Reason to lay
Weight upon
Antiquity, for that if we consider their Profession of
Religion, especially as to Worship, and the ceremonial Part of it,
we shall not find any Church now, whether
Popish or
Protestant, who
differ not widely from them in many Things,
Dallæus.as
Dallæus, in his
Treatise concerning the
Use of the Fathers, well observeth and demonstrateth.
And why they should obtrude this upon us because of the
Ancients Practice, which they themselves follow not, or why we may
not reject this, as well as they do other Things no less zealously
practised by the
Ancients, no sufficient Reason can be assigned.
Nevertheless I doubt not but many, whose Understandings have
been clouded with these Ceremonies, have notwithstanding, by the
Mercy of God, had some secret Sense of the Mystery, which they
could not clearly understand, because it was sealed from them by
their sticking to such outward Things; and that through that secret
Sense diving in their Comprehensions they ran themselves into
these carnal Apprehensions, as imagining the Substance of the Bread
was changed, or that if the Substance was not changed, yet the Body
was there, &c.
Calvin’s ingenuous Confession commended.And indeed I am inclinable very favourably to
judge of Calvin in this Particular, in that he deals so ingenuously to
confess he neither comprehends it, nor can express it in Words; but yet by
a feeling Experience can say, The Lord is spiritually present. Now as I
doubt not but Calvin sometimes had a Sense of his Presence without
the Use of this Ceremony, so as the Understanding given him of
God made him justly reject the false Notions of Transubstantiation and
Consubstantiation, though he knew not what to establish instead of them,
if he had fully waited in the [134]Light that makes all Things manifest, and
had not laboured in his own Comprehension to settle upon that external
Ceremony, by affixing the spiritual Presence as chiefly or principally,
though not only, as he well knew by Experience, there, or
especially to relate to it, he might have further reached unto the
Knowledge of this Mystery than many that went before him.