out making any exception, tells us they did) whole families at once; we cannot question but they baptized (as we know the primitive Christians, their successors, did) "little children" amongst the rest; concerning whom our Saviour says, that "of such is the kingdom of God;" and St. Paul says, "they are holy ;"2 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 necessary to salvation.

Not that such converts, in ancient times, as were put to death for their faith, before they could be baptized, lost their reward for want of it. Not that such children of believers now, as die unbaptized by sudden illness, or unexpected accidents, or even by neglect, (since it is none of their own neglect) shall forfeit the advantages of baptism. This would be very contrary to the mercy and grace which abound through the whole of the Gospel dispensation. Nay, where the persons themselves do designedly, 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 judgment of God. Both of them indeed err: and the latter especially have, one should think, as little excuse for their error as well can be; for surely there is no duty of Christianity which stands on a plainer foundation, than that of baptizing with water in the name of the holy Trinity. But still, since they solemnly declare, that they believe in Christ, and desire to obey his commands; and omit water baptism only because

(9) Acts xvi. 15, 33. (1) Mark x. 14. (2) 1 Cor. vii. 14

they cannot see it is commanded; we ought (if we have cause to think they speak truth) by no means to consider them in the same light with unbelievers.

And

But the wilful and the careless despisers 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. such as, though they do observe it for form's sake, treat it as an empty insignificant 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 case of those, who, acknowledging the solemn engagements into which they have entered by this sacrament, live without care to make them good. For to the only valuable 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 Christian, "which is one inwardly; and baptism is that of "the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; "whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 3

LECTURE XXXVI.

LORD'S SUPPER.

PART I.

AS by the sacrament of Baptism we enter into the Christian covenant; so 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 ap pointed for the continual remembrance of the

(3) Rom. ii. 28, 29.

"sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the "benefits which we receive thereby." Now the nature and benefits of this sacrifice have been already explained, in their proper places. I shall therefore proceed to show, that the Lord's Supper is rightly said here to be "ordained for a remem"brance" of it; not a repetition, as the Church of Rome teaches.

Indeed every act, both of worship and obedience, is in some sense a sacrifice to God, humbly offered up to him for his acceptance. And this sacrament in particular, being a memorial and representation of the sacrifice of Christ, solemnly and religiously made, may well enough be called, in a figurative way of speaking, by the same name with what it commemorates and represents. But that he should be really and literally offered up in it, is the directest contradiction that can be, not only to common sense, but also to Scripture, which expressly says, that he was not to be "offered "often, for then must he often have suffered; but "hath appeared once to put away sin by the sa"crifice of himself," and after that, "for ever "sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are "sanctified." 2

66

This ordinance then was appointed, not to repeat, but to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ, which though we are required to do, and do accordingly, more or less 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 Catechism teaches, in the second answer, that "the outward part, or sign, is bread and wine, which the Lord hath "commanded to be received." And indeed he hath so clearly commanded both to be received, (2) Heb. x. 12, 14.

66

(1) Heb. ix. 25, 26.

that no reasonable defence in the least can be made, either for the sect usually called Quakers, who omit the sacrament 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 appointed all without exception to do. They plead, indeed, that all, whom Christ 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 service; which the Apostles did not perform, but their Master. And besides, if the appointment of receiving the cup belongs only to priests, that of receiving the bread too must relate only to priests; 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 also; which that they did accordingly, 1 Cor. xi. makes as plain as words can make any thing; nor was it refused them for twelve hundred years after. They plead further, that administering the holy sacrament is called in Scripture "breaking of bread," without mentioning the cup at all. And we allow it. But when common feasts are expressed in Scripture by the single phrase of "eating bread," surely this doth not prove that the guests drank nothing; and if, in this religious feast, the like phrase could prove, that the laity did not partake of the cup, 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, besides that our Saviour, who was surely the best judge, appointed both; they quite forget that this sacrament 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 signs, therefore, which Christ hath commanded to be received, equally received, by all Christians, are bread and wine. Of these the Jews hath been accustomed to partake, in a serious and devout manner, at all their feasts, after a solemn blessing, or thanksgiving to God, made over them, for his goodness to men. But especially at the feast of the Passover, which our Saviour was celebrating with his disciples, when he instituted the holy sacrament; at that feast, in the abovementioned 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 resembling that infinitely more important redemption of all mankind from sin and ruin, which our Saviour was then about to accomplish; he very naturally directed his disciples, that their ancient custom should for the future be applied to this greatest of divine blessings, and become the memorial of Christ, "their Passover, sacrificed for "them;" "3 as indeed the bread broken aptly enough represented his body; and the wine poured forth most expressly figured out his blood shed for our salvation. Thes, etherefore, as the third answer of our Catechism very justly teaches, are "the inward part "of this sacrament, 66 or the thing signified."

66

But the Church of Rome, instead of being content with saying, that the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ, insist on it, that they are turned into the very substance of his body and blood: which imagined change they therefore call transubstantiation. Now, were this true, there would be no outward sign left; for

(3) 1 Cor. v. 7.