14.

ART. shewed him, that he should call no man common or unclean; XXVII. in allusion to all which St. Paul determines the case, not by Acts x. 28. an immediate revelation, but by the inferences that he drew 1 Cor. vii. from what had been revealed to him; he does appoint the Christian to live with the infidel, and says, that the Christian is so far from being defiled by the infidel, that there is a communication of a blessing that passes from the Christian to the infidel; the one being the better for the prayers of the other, and sharing in the blessings bestowed on the other: the better part was accepted of God, 'in whom mercy rejoices over judgment.' There was a communication of a blessing that the Christian derived to the infidel; which at least went so far, that their children were not unclean; that is, shut out from being dedicated to God, but were holy. Now it is to be considered that in the New Testament Christians, and saints, or holy, stand all promiscuously. The purity of the Christian doctrine, and the dedication by which Christians offer up themselves to God, makes them holy.

In scripture, holiness stands in a double sense; the one is a true and real purity, by which a man's faculties and actions become holy; the other is a dedicated holiness, when any thing is appropriated to God; in which sense it stands most commonly in the Old Testament. So times, places, and not only persons, but even utensils applied to the service of God, are called holy. In the New Testament, Christian and saint are the same thing; so the saying that children are holy when one of the parents is a Christian, must import this, that the child has also a right to be made holy, or to be made a Christian; and by consequence, that by the parents' dedication that child may be made holy, or a Christian.

Upon these reasons we conclude, that though there is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants, yet it is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, since he conformed his institutions to those of the Mosaical law, as far as could consist with his design; and therefore in a thing of this kind, in which the just tenderness of the human nature does dispose parents to secure to their children a title to the mercies and blessings of the gospel, there is no reason to think that this being so fully set forth and assured to the Jews in the Old Testament, that Christ should not have intended to give parents the same comforts and assurances by his gospel that they had under the law of Moses: since nothing is said against it, we may conclude from the nature of the two dispensations, and the proportion and gradation that is between them, that children under the new testament are a holy seed, as well as they were under the old; and by consequence, that they may be now baptized as well as they were then circumcised.

If this may be done, then it is very reasonable to say what is said in the Article concerning it, that it ought in any wise

to be retained in the church for the same humanity that ART. obliges parents to feed their children, and to take care of XXVII. them while they are in such a helpless state, must dictate, that it is much more incumbent on them, and is as much more necessary as the soul is more valuable than the body, for them to do all that in them lies for the souls of their children, for securing to them a share in the blessings and privileges of the gospel, and for dedicating them early to the Christian religion. The office for baptizing infants is in the same words with that for persons of riper age; because infants being then in the power of their parents, who are of age, are considered as in them, and as binding themselves by the vows that they make in their name. Therefore the office carries on the supposition of an internal regeneration; and in that helpless state the infant is offered up and dedicated to God; and provided, that when he comes to age he takes those vows on himself, and lives like a person so in covenant with God, then he shall find the full effects of baptism; and if he dies in that state of incapacity, he being dedicated to God, is certainly accepted of by him; and by being put in the second Adam, all the bad effects of his having descended from the first Adam are quite taken away. Christ, when on earth, encouraged those who brought little children to him; 'he took them in his arms, and laid his hands on them, and Matt. xix. blessed them,' and said, 'Suffer little children to come unto 13, 14. me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.' Whatever these words may signify mystically, the literal meaning of them is, that little children may be admitted into the dispensation of the Messias, and by consequence that they may be baptized.

ART. XXVIII.

ARTICLE XXVIII.

Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a Sign of the Love that Chris-
tians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather
it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death: Inso-
much that to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith, receive
the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body
of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the
Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the Change of the
Substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, can-
not be probed by Holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain
Words of Scripture, overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament,
and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of
Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a
Heavenly and Spiritual Manner; and the mean whereby the
Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Or-
dinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, and worshipped.
In the edition of these Articles in Edward VI.'s Reign, there was
another long paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these
words: Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth that
the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one Time in
divers Places, but must needs be in one certain Place; therefore
the Body of Christ cannot be present at one Time in many and
dibers Places: and because, as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ
was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue unto the
End of the World; a Faithful Man ought not either to beliebe,
or openly confess, the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it,
of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper.

WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the convoca-
tion in queen Elizabeth's reign, this paragraph was made a
part of them; for the original subscription by both houses of
convocation, yet extant, shews this. But the design of the
government was at that time much turned to the drawing
over the body of the nation to the Reformation, in whom the
old leaven had gone deep; and no part of it deeper than the
belief of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament;
therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so
particular a definition in this matter; in which the very word
real presence was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also sug-
gested, that here a definition was made that went too much

upon the principles of natural philosophy; which how true ART. soever, they might not be the proper subject of an article of XXVIII. religion. Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this paragraph; though it was a part of the Article that was subscribed, yet it was not published, but the paragraph that follows, The body of Christ, &c. was put in its stead, and was received and published by the next convocation; which upon the matter was a full explanation of the way of Christ's presence in this sacrament; that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the mean by which he is received. This seemed to be more theological; and it does indeed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we see what was the sense of the first convocation in queen Elizabeth's reign; it differed in nothing from that in king Edward's time and therefore though this paragraph is now no part of our Articles, yet we are certain that the clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the truth of it; we are sure it was their opinion; since they subscribed it, though they did not think fit to publish it at first; and though it was afterwards changed for another, that was the same in sense.

In the treating of this Article, I shall first lay down the doctrine of this church, with the grounds of it; and then I shall examine the doctrine of the church of Rome, which must be done copiously; for next to the doctrine of infallibility, this is the most valued of all their other tenets; this is the most important in itself, since it is the main part of their worship, and the chief subject of all their devotions. There is not any one thing in which both clergy and laity are more concerned; which is more generally studied, and for which they pretend they have more plausible colours, both from scripture and the fathers: and if sense and reason seem to press hard upon it, they reckon, that, as they understand the words of St. Paul, every thought must be captivated into 2 Cor. x. 5. the obedience of faith.'

3-14.

In order to the expounding our doctrine, we must consider the occasion and the institution of this sacrament. The Jews were required once a year to meet at Jerusalem, in remembrance of the deliverance of their fathers out of Egypt. Moses appointed that every family should kill a lamb, whose Exod. xii. blood was to be sprinkled on their door-posts and lintels, and whose flesh they were to eat; at the sight of which blood thus sprinkled, the destroying angel, that was to be sent out to kill the firstborn of every family in Egypt, was to pass over all the houses that were so marked: and from that passing by or over the Israelites, the lamb was called the Lord's passover, as being then the sacrifice, and afterwards the memorial of that passover. The people of Israel were required to keep up the memorial of that transaction, by slaying a lamb before the place where God should set his name; and by eating it up that night: they were also to eat with it a salad of bitter

ART. herbs and unleavened bread; and when they went to eat of XXVIII. the lamb, they repeated these words of Moses; that it was the Lord's passover.' Now though the first lamb that was killed in Egypt was indeed the sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their houses; yet the lambs that were afterwards offered were only the memorials of it; though they still carried that name, which was given to the first, and were called the Lord's passover.

So that the Jews were in the paschal supper accustomed to call the memorial of a thing by the name of that of which it was the memorial: and as the deliverance out of Egypt was a type and representation of that greater deliverance that we were to have by the Messias, the first lamb being the sacrifice of that deliverance, and the succeeding lambs the memorials of it; so, in order to this new and greater deliverance, Christ 1 Cor. v. 7. himself was our 'passover, that was sacrificed for us:' he was John i. 29. the Lamb of God' that was both to take away the sins of the world,' and was to lead captivity captive;' to bring us out of the bondage of sin and Satan into the obedience of his gospel.

6.

22.

Compare He therefore chose the time of the passover, that he might Matt. xxvi. be then offered up for us; and did institute this memorial of Mark xiv. it while he was celebrating the Jewish pascha with his disciples, who were so much accustomed to the forms and phrases of that supper, in which every master of a family did 1 Cor. xi. officiate among his household, that it was very natural to them to understand all that our Saviour said or did according to those forms with which they were acquainted.

Luke xxii.

19.

23.

6

There were after supper, upon a new covering of the table, loaves of unleavened bread, and cups of wine set on it; in which, though the bread was very unacceptable, yet they drank liberally of the wine: Christ took a portion of that bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of me.' 'He did not say only, This is my body,' but This is my body broken; so that his body must be understood to be there in its broken state, if the words are to be expounded literally. And no reason can be assigned why the word broken should be so separated from body; or that the bread should be literally his body, and not literally his body broken the whole period must be either literally true, or must be understood mystically. And if any will say, that his body cannot be there, but in the same state in which it is now in heaven; and since it is not now broken, nor is the blood shed or separated from the body there, therefore the words must be understood thus; This is my body which is to be broken.' But from thence we argue, that since all is one period, it must be all understood in the same manner; and since it is impossible that broken and shed can be understood literally of the body and blood, that therefore the whole is to be mystically