permit. Repentance and faith are requifite, not before they are poffible, but when they are poffible. Repentance is what infants need not as yet, being clear of perfonal guilt: and happy would it be, were they never to need it. Faith, it may be reasonably prefumed, by the security given for their Chriftian education, they will have, as foon as they have occafion to exert it. And in the mean time, baptism may very fitly be administered: becaufe God, on his part, can certainly exprefs by it, both his removing, at present, the disadvantages which they lie under by the fin of Adam: and his removing hereafter, on proper conditions, the disadvantages which they may come to lie under by their own fins. And though they cannot, on their parts, exprefsly promise to perform these conditions; yet they are not only bound to perform them, whether they promise it or not; but (which is the point that our catechifm infifts on) their fureties promife for them, that they fhall be made fenfible, as foon as may be, that they are fo bound; and ratify the engagement in their own perfons: which when they do, it then becomes complete. For it is by no means neceffary, that a covenant should be executed, by both the parties to it, at juft the fame time: and as the Chriftian Covenant is one of the greatest equity and favour, we cannot doubt, to speak in the language of our Liturgy, but that God favourably alloweth the charitable work of bringing infants to his boly baptifm. For the promise of the Covenant being expressly faid to belong to us and to our children*, without any limitation of age; why should they not all, fince they are to partake of the promise, partake also of the fign of it? especially, fince the infants of the Jews were, by a folemn fign, entered into their covenant; and the infants of profelytes to the Jews, by this very fign, amongst others, of baptifm. So that, fuppofing the apostles to imitate either of thefe examples, as they naturally would, unless they were forbidden, which they were not: when they baptized (as the fcripture, without making any exception, telis us they did) whole families at once; we cannot queftion but they baptized (as we know the primitive Christians, their fucceffors, did) little children among the reft; concerning whom our Saviour fays, that of fuch is the king

*Acts ii. 39. † Acts xvi. 15, 33.

dom

dom of God: and St Paul fays, they are holy t; which they cannot be reputed, without entering into the gospel covenant : and the only appointed way of entering into it is by baptism; which therefore is constantly represented in the New Testament as neceffary to falvation.

Not that fuch converts, in ancient times, as were put to death for their faith, before they could be baptized, loft their reward for want of it. Not that fuch children of believers now, as die unbaptized by sudden illness, or unexpected accidents, or even by neglect, (fince it is none of their own neglect) fhall forfeit the advantages of baptifm. This would be very contrary to that mercy and grace, which abounds thro' the whole of the gospel dispensation. Nay, where the perfons themselves do defignedly, through mistaken notions, either delay their baptism, as the Anabaptists; or omit it entirely, as the Quakers; even of these it belongs to Christian charity not to judge hardly, as excluded from the gospel covenant, if they die unbaptized; but to leave them to the equitable judgement of God. Both of them indeed err; and the latter especially have, one fhould think, as little excufe for their error as well can be: for furely there is no duty of Christianity which ftands on a plainer foundation, than that of baptizing with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. But ftill, fince they folemnly declare, that they believe in Christ, and desire to obey his commands; and omit water-baptism only because they cannot fee it is commanded; we ought (if we have cause to think they speak truth) by no means to confider them in the fame light with total unbelievers,

But the wilful and the carelefs defpifers of this ordinance : who, admitting it to be of God's appointment, neglect it notwithstanding; these are not to be looked on as within his covenant, And fuch as, though they do obferve it for form's fake, treat it as an empty infignificant ceremony, are very unworthy of the benefits which it was intended to convey. And, bad as these things are, little better, if not worse, will be the cafe of thofe, who, acknowledging the folemn engagements into which they have entered by this facrament, live without care to make them good. For to the only valuable purpose,

purpose, of God's favour and eternal happiness, he is not a Christian, which is one outwardly; neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Chriftian, which is one inwardly; and baptifm is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whofe praife is not of men, but of God*.

*Rom. ii. 28, 29.

LECTURE

XXXVI.

Of the LORD'S SUPPER.

PART I.

AS by the Sacrament of Baptifm we enter into the Chriftian

Covenant; fo by that of the Lord's Supper we profess our thankful continuance in it: and therefore the first answer of our catechism, concerning this ordinance, tells us, it was appointed for the continual remembrance of the facrifice of the death of Chrift, and of the benefits which we receive thereby. Now the nature and benefits of this facrifice have been alrea dy explained, in their proper places. I fhall therefore proceed to show, that the Lord's Supper is rightly faid here to be ordained for a remembrance of it; not a repetition, as the church of Rome teaches.

Indeed every act, both of worship and obedience, is in fome fense a facrifice to God, humbly offered up to him for his acceptance. And this facrament, in particular, being a memorial and representation of the facrifice of Christ, folemnly and religiously made, may well enough be called, in a figurative way of speaking, by the fame name with what it commemorates and reprefents. But that he should be really and literally offered up in it, is the directeft contradiction that can be,

2.

not

not only to common fenfe, but also to fcripture, which exprefsly fays, that he was not to be offered often, for then must he often have fuffered; but bath appeared once to put away fin by the facrifice of himself*, and after that for ever fat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfetied for ever them that are fanctified †.

This ordinance then was appointed, not to repeat, but to commemorate the facrifice of Chrift ;which though we are required to do, and do accordingly, more or lefs explicitly, in all our acts of devotion, yet we are not required to do it by any visible representation, but that of the Lord's Supper: of which therefore our catechifm teaches, in the fecond anfwer, that the outward part, or fign, is bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received. And indeed he hath fo clearly commanded both to be received, that no reasonable defence in the least can be made, either for the fe& ufually called Quakers, who omit this facrament entirely; or for the Church of Rome, who deprive the laity of one half of it, the cup; and forbid all but the priest to do, what Christ hath ap-. pointed all without exception to do. They plead indeed, that all, whom Chrift appointed to receive the cup; that is, the apostles; were priests. But their church forbids the priests themselves to receive it, excepting those who perform the fervice which the apoftles did not perform, but their Mafter." And befides, if the appointment of receiving the cup belongs. only to priefs, that of receiving the bread too must relate only to priefts for our Saviour hath more expressly directed all to drink of the one, than to eat of the other. But they own, that his appointment obliges the laity to receive the bread and therefore it obliges them to receive the cup alfo : which that they did accordingly, 1 Cor. xi. makes as plain as words can make any thing: nor was it refused them for 1200 years after. They plead farther, that adminiftering the holy facrament is called in fcripture, breaking of bread, without mentioning the cup at all. And we allow it. But when common feafts are expreffed in fcripture by the fingle phrase of eating bread, furely this doth not prove that the guests drank nothing: and if, in this religious feaft, the like phrafe could prove, that the laity did not partake of the cup, VOL. IV. 3 &

it

it will prove equally, that the priests did not partake of it either. They plead in the last place, that by receiving the bread, which is the body of Christ, we receive in effect the cup, which is the blood at the same time: for the blood is contained in the body. But here, befides that our Saviour, who was furely the best judge, appointed both; they quite forget that this facrament is a memorial of his blood being shed out of his body of which without the cup, there can be no commemoration: or, if there could, the cup would be as needless for the clergy as for the laity.

The outward figns therefore, which Chrift hath commanded to be received, equally received, by all Christians, are bread and wine. Of these the Jews had been accustomed to partake, in a ferious and devout manner, at all their feasts after a solemn bleffing, or thanksgiving to God, made over them, for his goodness to men. But especially at the feast of the Pallover, which our Saviour was celebrating with his difciples, when he inftituted this holy facrament; at that feaft, in the above-mentioned thanksgiving, they commemorated more at large the mercies of their God, dwelling chiefly however on their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. Now this having many particulars refembling that infinitely more important redemption of all mankind from fin and ruin, which our Saviour was then about to accomplish; he very naturally d rected his difciples, that their ancient cuftom fhould for the future be applied to this greatest of divine bleflings, and become the memorial of Chrift, their Paffover, facrificed for them*: as indeed the bread broken aptly enough reprefented his body; and the wine poured forth moft expreffively figured out his blood, fhed for our falvation. Thefe therefore, as the third answer of our catechifm very juftly teaches, are the inward part of this facrament, or the thing fignified.

But the Church of Rome, instead of being content with faying, that the bread and wine are figns of the body and blood of Chrift, infift on it, that they are turned into the very fubftance of his body and blood: which imagined change they therefore call tranfubftantiation. Now, were this true, there would be no outward fign left: for they fay, it is converted into the thing fignified: and by confequence there would be