As there is one Lord, and one Faith, so there is one Baptism; which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience before God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this Baptism is a Pure and Spiritual thing, to wit, the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire, by which we are Eph. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 6. 4. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 12. John 3. 30. 1 Cor. 1. 17. buried with him; that being washed and purged from our Sins, we may walk in newness of Life: Of which the Baptism of John was a Figure, which was Com­manded for a time, and not to continue for ever. As to the Baptism of Infants, it is a meer Humane Tradition, for which neither Precept nor Practice is to be found in all the Scripture.

WHen God in Condescension to his From whence I­dolatries and Hea­then-Su­perstitions did spring. chosen people, the Jews, did prescribe to them by his Servant Moses [Page 2] many Ceremonies and Observations, as Types and Shadows of the Substance, which in due time was to be Revealed; which con­sisted for the most part in Washings, out­ward Purifications and Cleansings, which were to continue, until the Time of the Reformation, until the Spiritual Worship should be set up, and that God by the more powerful pouring forth of his Spirit, and guiding of that Anointing, should lead his Children into all Truth, and teach them to Worship him in a way more Spiri­tual and acceptable to him, though less a­greeable to the Carnal and Outward Senses. Yet notwithstanding God's Condescension to the Jews in such things, we see, that that part in man, which delights to follow its own Inventions, could not be restrained, nor yet satisfied with all these Observati­ons; but that often-times they would be either declining to the other Superstitions of the Gentiles, or adding some New Ob­servations and Ceremonies of their own: To which they were so devoted, that they were still apt to prefer them before the Command of God, and that under the Notion of Zeal and Piety. This we see abundantly in the Example of the Phari­sees, The Pha­risees the Chiefest Sect a­mong the Jews. the Chiefest Sect among the Jews, whom Christ so frequently reproves for [Page 3] making void the Commandments of God by their Traditions, Matth. 15. 6, 9, &c. This Complaint may at this day be no less justly made, as to many bearing the Name of Christians, who have introduced many things of this kind, partly borrowed from Many things in Christen­dom are borrow'd from the Jews and Gentiles. the Jews, which they more tenaciously stick to, and more earnestly contend for, than for the weightier Points of Christiani­ty; because that Self yet alive and ruling in them, loves their own Inventions bet­ter, than God's Commands. But if they can by any means stretch any Scripture­practice, or Conditional precept or permission, fitted to the Weakness or Capacity of some, or appropriate to some particular Dispen­sation, to give some Colour for any of these their Inventions, they do then so tenaci­ously stick to them, and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them, that they will not patiently hear the most-solid Christian Reasons against them. Which Zeal, if they would but seriously Examine it, they would find to be but the prejudice of Education, and the Love of Self, more than of God, or his Pure Worship. This is verified concerning those things, which are called Sacraments; about which they Of Sacra­ments so many Con­troversies. are very ignorant in Religious Controver­sies, who understand not, how much De­bate, [Page 4] Contention, Jangling and Quarrelling there has been among those called Christi­ans: So that I may safely say, the Con­troversie about them, to wit, about their Number, Nature, Vertue, Efficacy, Admini­stration and other things, hath been more than about any other Doctrine of Christ, whether as betwixt Papists and Protestants, or among Protestants betwixt themselves. And how great prejudice these Controver­sies have brought to Christians, is very ob­vious; whereas the things contended for among them, are for the most part but Empty Shadows, and meer Out-side things: as I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudicate Reader.

§ II. That which comes first under Ob­servation, is the Name [Sacrament] which The Name of Sacra­ment (not found in Scripture) is borrow'd from the Heathens. is strange, that Christians should stick to, and Contend so much for, since it is not to be found in all the Scripture; but was borrowed from the Military Oaths among the Heathens, from whom the Christians, when they began to Apostatize, did bor­row many superstitious Terms and Observa­tions, that they might thereby Ingratiate themselves, and the more easily gain the Heathens to their Religion: which practice, though perhaps intended by them for good, yet, as being the fruit of Humane Po­licy, [Page 5] and not according to God's Wisdom, has had very pernicious Consequences. I see not, how any, whether Papists or Pro­testants, especially the latter, can in rea­son quarrel with us for denying this Term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the Pen-men of the Scrip­tures to leave unto us.

Obj. 1 But if it be said, That it is not the Name, but the Thing, they contend for:

Answ. I Answer: Let the Name then, as not being Scriptural, be laid aside, and we shall see at first Entrance, how much Be­nefit will redound by laying aside this Tra­ditional Term, and betaking us to plainness of Scripture-Language. For presently the great Contest about the Number of them will evanish; seeing there is no Term u­sed in Scripture, that can be made use of, whether we call them Institutions, Ordi­nances, Precepts, Commandments, Appoint­ments or Laws, &c. that would afford ground for such a Debate; since neither Papists will affirm, that there are only Se­ven, or Protestants only Two, of any of these forementioned.

Obj. 2 If it be said, That this Controversie ari­ses from the Definition of the Thing, as well as from the Name;

Obj. 1 It will be found otherwise: For what­ever [Page 6] way we take their Definition of a Sa­crament, The Defi­nition of Sacraments agrees to many o­ther things. whether as an outward, visible Sign, whereby inward Grace is conferred, or only signified: This Definition will agree to many things, which neither Papists nor Protestants will acknowledge to be Sacra­ments. If they be expressed under the Name of Sealing Ordinances, as some do, I could never see, neither by Reason nor Scripture, how this Title could be appro­priate to them, more than to any other Christian, Religious Performance: for that must needs properly be a Sealing Ordinance, What Sealing Ordinance doth mean? which makes the Persons receiving it infal­libly certain, of the Promise, or Thing sealed to them.

Obj. 3 If it be said, It is so to them, that are faithful.

Answ. I Answer: So is Praying and Preaching, and doing of every good Work: Seeing the Partaking or Performing of the one gives not to any a more certain Title to Heaven, yea (in some respect) not so much; there is no Reason to call them so, more than the other.

Besides, we find not any thing called the Seal and Pledge of our Inheritance, but the Spirit of God; it is by that we are said to be sealed, Eph. 1. 14. & 4. 30. which is also termed the Earnest of our Inheri­tance, [Page 7] 2 Cor. 1. 22. and not by outward Water, or Eating and Drinking; which as the Wickedest of Men may partake of, so many that do, do notwitstanding it, go to Perdition. For it is not outward Washing That out­ward Wash­ing doth not cleanse the Heart. with Water, that maketh the Heart clean, by which Men are fitted for Heaven: And as that which goeth into the mouth, doth not defile a Man, because it is put forth again, and so goeth to the Dung-hill; neither doth any thing which Man eateth, purifie him, or fit him for Heaven. What is said here in general, may serve for an Introduction, not only to this Proposition, but also to the other concerning the Supper. Of these Sa­craments (so called) Baptism is always first numbered, which is the Subject of the present Proposition; in whose Explanation I shall first demonstrate and prove Our Judg­ment; and then Answer the Objections, and Refute the Sentiments of our Opposers. Part I As to the first part, these things following, which are briefly comprehended in the Proposition, come to be proposed and pro­ved.

Prop. I § III. First: That there is but One Bap­tism, as well as but One Lord, One Faith, &c.

II Secondly, That this one Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, is not a washing [Page 8] with, or dipping in Water, but a being bap­tized by the Spirit.

III Thirdly: That the Baptism of John was but a Figure of this, and therefore, as the Figure, to give place to the Substance; which though it be to continue, yet the other is ceased.

Prop. I As for the first, viz. That there is but one Baptism, there needs no other Proof, than the Words of the Text, Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; where One Bap­tism pro­ved. the Apostle positively and plainly affirms, that as there is but One Body, One Spirit, One Faith, One God, &c. so there is but One Baptism.

Obj. 1 As to what is commonly alledged by way of Explanation upon the Text, That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this One Baptism by vertue of this Sacramental Union.

Answ. I Answer; This Exposition hath taken place, not because grounded upon the Testimony of the Scripture, but because it wrests the Scripture, to make it suit to their Principle of Water-Baptism: and so Whether Two Bap­tisms do make up the One? there needs no other Reply, but to deny it, as being repugnant to the plain words of the Text, which saith not, That there are Two Baptisms, to wit, one of Water, the other of the Spirit, which do make up the [Page 9] One Baptism; but plainly, that there is One Baptism, as there is One Faith and One God. Now there goeth not Two Faiths, nor Two Gods, nor Two Spirits, nor Two Bodies, whereof the one is Outward and E­lementary, and the other Spiritual and Pure, to the making up of the One Faith, the One God, the One Body, and the One Spi­rit; so neither ought there to go Two Bap­tisms to make up the One Baptism.

Obj. 2 But Secondly: If it be said, The Baptism is but One, whereof Water is the one part, to wit, the Sign; and the Spirit, the thing sig­nified, the other.

Answ. I Answer: This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine: For if Water be only the Sign, it is not the Matter of the One Bap­tism If Water be the Type, the Substance must re­main. (as shall further hereafter by its De­finition in Scripture appear and we are to take the One Baptism for the Matter of it, not for the Sign, or Figure and Type that went before. Even as where Christ is called the One Offering in Scripture, though he was Typified by many Sacrifices and Of­ferings under the Law, we understand on­ly by the One Offering his Offering himself upon the Cross: whereof though those ma­ny Offerings were Signs and Types; yet we say not, that they go together with that Offering of Christ, to make up the One Of­fering: [Page 10] So neither though Water-Baptism was a Sign of Christ's Baptism, will it fol­low, that it goeth now to make up the Baptism of Christ. If any should be so Ab­surd, as to affirm, That this One Baptism here, were the Baptism of Water, and not of the Spirit: That were foolishly to contra­dict the positive Testimony of the Scripture, which saith the contrary; as by what fol­loweth will more amply appear.

Prop. II Proof. I Secondly: That this One Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, is not a Washing with Water, appears first, from the Testi­mony of John, the proper and peculiar Ad­ministrator of Water-Baptism, Matt. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repen­tance; but he that cometh after me, is migh­tier than I, whose shooes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. Here John mentions two They that had John's Baptism, had not therefore Christ's. manners of Baptisings, and two different Bap­tisms, the one with Water, and the other with the Spirit; the one whereof he was the Minister of, the other whereof Christ was the Minister of: and such as were bap­tized with the first, were not therefore baptized with the second: I indeed baptize you, but he shall baptize you. Though in the present time they were baptized with the Baptism of Water; yet they were not [Page 11] as yet, but were to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ. From all which I thus Argue,

Arg. I If those that were baptized with the Bap­tism of Water, were not therefore bap­tized with the Baptism of Christ; then the Baptism of Water is not the Bap­tism of Christ.

But the first is true:

Therefore also the last.

And again,

Arg. II If he, that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water, did notwithstand­ing declare, That he neither could, nor did baptize with the Baptism of Christ; Then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ.

But the first is true:

Therefore, &c.

And indeed to understand it otherwise, would make John's Words void of good sense: For if their Baptisms had been all one, why should he have so precisely Con­tradistinguished them? Why should he have said, that those whom he had alrea­dy baptized, should yet be baptized by ano­ther Baptism?

Object. If it be urged, That Baptism with Water was the one part, and that with the Spirit the other part, or Effect only of the former.

[Page 12] Answ. I Answer: This Exposition contradicts the plain words of the Text. For he saith One Bap­tism is no Part nor Effect of the other. not, I baptize you with Water; and he, that cometh after, shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit, &c. or he shall accomplish this Baptism in you; but he shall Baptize you. So then, if we under­stand the Word truly and properly, when he saith, I Baptize you, as consenting, that thereby is really signified, that he did baptize with the Baptism of Water; we must needs, unless we offer Violence to the Text, understand the other part of the sentence the same way; that where he adds presently, But he shall baptize you, &c. that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another Baptism, than what he did baptize with: Else it had been Non-sense for him thus to have Con­tradistinguished them.

Proof. II Secondly: This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself, Acts 1. 4, 5. Who were baptized by John, were still to wait for Christ's Baptism with the Spirit. But wait for the promise of the Father, which (saith he) ye have heard of me: For John truly baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with th Holy Ghost not many days hence. There can scarce Two places of Scripture run more parallel, than this doth with the former a little before mentioned, and therefore concludeth the same way, [Page 13] as did the other. For Christ there grants fully, that John compleated his Baptism, as to the matter and substance of it: John saith he, truly baptized with Water; which is as much as if he had said, John did tru­ly and fully Administer the Baptism of Wa­ter; But ye shall be Baptized with, &c. This sheweth, that they were to be Baptized with some other Baptism, than the Baptism of Water; and that, although they were formerly Baptized with the Baptism of Wa­ter, yet not with that of Christ, which they were to be Baptized with.

Proof. III Thirdly; Peter observes the same distin­ction, Acts 11. 16. Then remembred I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John in­deed The Bap­tism with the Holy Ghost, and that with Water, dif­fer. Baptized with Water; but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost. The Apo­stle makes this Application upon the Ho­ly Ghost's falling upon them; whence he in­fers, that they were then Baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit: As to what is urged from his Calling afterwards for Wa­ter, to it shall be hereafter spoken. From all which Three Sentences relative one to another, First of John, Secondly of Christ, and Thirdly of Peter, it doth evidently fol­low, that such as were truly and really Baptized with the Baptism of Water, were notwithstanding not Baptized with the [Page 14] Baptism of the Spirit; which is that of Christ: and such as truly and really did administer the Baptism of Water, did in so doing, not administer the Baptism of Christ. So that, if there be now but One Baptism, as we have already proved, we may safe­ly conclude, that it is that of the Spirit, and not of Water; else it would follow, that the One Baptism, which now conti­nues, were the Baptism of Water, i. e. John's Baptism, and not the Baptism of the Spirit, i. e. Christ's, which were most Absurd.

Object. If it be said further, That though the Baptism of John, before Christ's was admi­nistred, was different from it, as being the Figure only; yet now that both it as the Fi­gure, and that of the Spirit as the Substance, is necessary to make up the One Baptism.

Answ. I Answer: This urgeth nothing, unless it be granted also, that both of them belong to the Essence of Baptism; so that Baptism is not to be accounted as truly Administred, where both are not: which none of our Ad­versaries will acknowledge; but on the Water Bap­tism is not the true Baptism of Christ. contrary account not only all those truly Baptized with the Baptism of Christ, who are Baptized with Water, though they be uncertain whether they be Baptized with the Spirit, or not; but they even account [Page 15] such truly Baptized with the Baptism of Christ, because Sprinkled, or Baptized with Water, though it be manifest and most cer­tain, that they are not Baptized with the Spirit, as being Enemies thereunto in their Hearts by wicked Works. So here, by their own Confession, Baptism with Water is without the Spirit: Wherefore we may far safer conclude, that the Baptism of the Spirit, which is that of Christ, is and may be without that of Water; as appears in that Acts 11. where Peter testifies of these Men, that they were Baptized with the Spi­rit, though not then Baptized with Water. And indeed, the Controversie in this, as in most other things, stands betwixt us and our Opposers, in that they not only often­times prefer the Form and Shadow to the Power and Substance, by denominating per­sons, as Inheritors and Possessors of the thing, from their having the Form and Shadow, though really wanting the Power and Substance; and not admitting those to be so denominated, who have the Power and Substance, if they want the Form and Shadow. This appears evidently, in that they account those truly Baptized with the One Baptism of Christ, who are not bapti­zed with the Spirit (which in Scripture is particularly called the Baptism of Christ) [Page 16] if they be only baptized with Water; which themselves yet Confess to be but the Sha­dow, or Figure. And moreover, in that The Bap­tism of the Spirit needeth no Sprink­ling or Dipping in Water. they account not those, who are surely baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit, baptized, neither will they have them so denominate, unless they be also Sprinkled with, or Dipped in Water: But we on the Contrary, do always prefer the Power to the Form, the Substance to the Shadow; and where the Substance and Power is, we doubt not to denominate the Person accordingly, though the Form be wanting. And there­fore we always seek first and plead for the Substance and Power, as knowing that to be indispensibly necessary; though the Form sometimes may be dispensed with, and the Figure or Type may cease, when the Sub­stance and Anti-type comes to be enjoyed; as it doth in this Case, which shall here­after be made appear.

Proof. IV § IV. Fourthly: That the One Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water, ap­pears from 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like Figure, The plain­est Defini­tion of the Baptism of Christ in all the Bi­ble. whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience to­wards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a definition of Baptism is not in all the Bible: and therefore, seeing [Page 17] it is so Plain, it may well be preferred to all the coined definitions of the School-men. The Apostle tells us first, Negatively, what it is not, viz. Not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh; then surely it is not a Washing with Water, since that is so. Se­condly, He tells us Affirmatively, what it is: viz. The Answer of a good Conscience towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: where he Affirmatively Defines it to be the Answer (or Confession, as the Sy­riack Version hath it) of a good Conscience. Now, this Answer cannot be, but where the Spirit of God hath purified the Soul, and the Fire of his Judgment hath burned up the unrighteous nature; and those, in whom this Work is wrought, may be truly said to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ, i. e. of the Spirit and of Fire. Whatever way then we take this Defini­tion of the Apostle of Christ's Baptism, it confirmeth our sentence: For if we take the first or Negative part, viz. That it is Water Bap­tism shut out from the Baptism of Christ. not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh; then it will follow, that Water-Baptism is not it, because that is a putting away of the filth of the Flesh. If we take the second and Affirmative Definition, to wit, That it is the Answer, or Confession of a good Consci­ence, &c. then Water-baptism is not it; [Page 18] since, as our Adversaries will not deny, Water-baptism doth not always imply it, neither is it any necessary Consequence thereof. Moreover, the Apostle in this place doth seem especially to guard against those, that might esteem Water-baptism the true Baptism of Christ; because (lest by the Comparison induced by him in the preceding verse, betwixt the Souls that were saved in Noah's Ark, and us, that are now saved by Baptism; lest, I say, any should have thence hastily concluded, that because the former were saved by Water, this place must needs be taken to speak of Water-Baptism) to prevent such a mistake, he plainly affirms, that it is not that, but another thing. He saith not, that it is the Water, or the putting away of the filth of the Flesh, as accompanied with the Answer of a good Conscience, whereof the one, viz. the Water, is the Sacramental Element admini­stred by the Minister; and the other, the Grace or thing signified, Conferred by Christ; but plainly, That it is not the putting away, &c. than which there can be nothing more ma­nifest to Men unprejudicate and judicious. Moreover, Peter calls this here, which saves, the Antitypos, the Anti-type, or the thing figured, whereas it is usually transla­ted, as if the like Figure did now save us; [Page 19] thereby insinuating, that as they were Sa­ved by Water in the Ark, so are we now by Water-baptism. But this Interpretation cros­seth his sense, he presently after declaring the Contrary, as hath above been observed: and likewise it would Contradict the Opi­nion of all our Opposers. For Protestants The Pro­testants de­ny Water-baptism its absolute necessity to mens Sal­vation: Al­tho' the Papists say, none can be sav'd with­out it, yet grant Ex­ceptions. deny it to be absolutely necessary to Salva­tion: And though Papists say, None are saved without it; yet in this they admit an Exception, as of Martyrs, &c. and they will not say, that all that have it, are Saved by Water-baptism: which they ought to say, if they will understand by Baptism (by which the Apostle saith, we are Saved) Water-baptism, for seeing we are saved by this Baptism, as those that were in the Ark, were Saved by Water, and that all those, that were in the Ark, were Saved by Wa­ter; it would then follow, that all those, that have this Baptism, are Saved by it. Now this Consequence would be false, if it were understood of VVater-baptism; be­cause many, by the Confession of all, are baptized with VVater, that are not saved: but this Consequence holds most true, if it be understood, as we do, of the Baptism of the Spirit; since none can have this An­swer of a good Conscience, and abiding in it, not be Saved by it.

[Page 20] Proof. V Fifthly: That the One Baptism of Christ is not a VVashing with VVater, as it hath been proved by the Definition of the One The Ef­fects and Fruits of the Bap­tism of Christ. Baptism, so it is also manifest from the Necessary Fruits and Effects of it, which are three-times particularly expressed by the A­postle Paul: As first, Rom. 6. 3, 4. where he saith, That so many of them, as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his Death; buried with him by Baptism into Death, that they should walk in Newness of Life: Secondly, to the Gal. 3. 27. he saith positively, For as many of you, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ: and Thirdly, to the Col. 2. 12. he faith, That they were Buried with him in Bap­tism, and Risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God. It is to be observ­ed here, that the Apostle speaks generally, without any Exclusive Term, but Compre­hensive of all: he saith not, Some of you, that were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; but As many of you: which is as much, as if he had said, Every one of you, that hath been baptized into Christ, hath put on Christ. Whereby it is evident, that Which Ef­fects Wa­ter-Bap­tism wants. this is not meant of VVater-baptism, but of the Baptism of the Spirit; because else it would follow, that, whosoever had been baptized with VVater-baptism, had put on [Page 21] Christ, and were Risen with him; which all acknowledge to be most Absurd. Now supposing, all the Visible Members of the Churches of Rome, Galatia and Coloss had been outwardly baptized with Water, (I do not say, they were; but our Adversa­ries will not only readily grant it, but also contend for it) suppose (I say) the Case so, they will not say, they had all put on Christ; since divers Expressions in these Epistles to them, shew the contrary. So that the Apostle cannot mean Baptism with Water; and yet that he meaneth the Bap­tism of Christ, i. e. of the Spirit, cannot be denied; or that the Baptism, where­with these were baptized (of whom the Apostle here testifies, that they had put on Christ) was the One Baptism, I think none will call in question. Now admit, as our Adversaries Contend, that many in these Churches, who had been baptized with Water, had not put on Christ; it will follow, that notwithstanding that Water­baptism, they were not baptized into Christ, or with the Baptism of Christ; seeing as many of them, as were baptized into Christ, had put on Christ, &c. From all which I thus Argue;

Arg. I If the Baptism with Water were the One Baptism, i. e. the Baptism of Christ, [Page 22] as many as were baptized with Water, would have put on Christ.

But the last is false;

Therefore also the first.

And again;

Arg. II Since as many, as are baptized into Christ, i. e. with the One Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, have put on Christ; Then Water-baptism is not the One Baptism, viz. the Baptism of Christ.

But the first is true:

Therefore also the last.

Prop. III § V. Thirdly: Since John's Baptism was a Figure, and seeing, the Figure gives way to the Substance, albeit the thing figured re­main, Proved. to wit, the One Baptism of Christ, yet the other ceaseth, which was the Baptism of John.

I That John's Baptism was a Figure of John's Baptism was of Christ's a Figure. Christ's Baptism, I judge will not readily be denied; but in Case it should, it can easily be proved from the Nature of it. John's Baptism was a being baptized with Water; but Christ's is a baptizing with the Spirit: Therefore John's Baptism must have been a Figure of Christ's. But fur­ther, that Water-baptism was John's Bap­tism, will not be denied; That Water-baptism is not Christ's Baptism, is already [Page 23] proved. From which doth arise the Con­firmation of our Proposition, thus;

There is no Baptism to continue now, but the One Baptism of Christ.

Arg. Therefore Water-baptism is not to conti­nue now; because it is not the Baptism of Christ.

That John's Baptism is Ceased, many of II. John's Baptism is Ceas'd, our Opposers confess. our Adversaries confess: but, if any should alledge it otherwise, it may be easily pro­ved by the express words of John, not on­ly as being insinuated there, where he Con­tradistinguished his Baptism from that of Christ; but particularly where he saith John 3. 30. He [Christ] must Increase, but I [John] must Decrease. From whence it clearly follows, that the Increa­sing or taking place of Christ's Baptism is the Decreasing or abolishing of John's Bap­tism: so that, if Water-baptism was a par­ticular part of John's Ministry, and is no part of Christ's Baptism, as we have alrea­dy proved, it will necessarily follow, that it is not to Continue.

Arg. If Water-baptism had been to continue a Perpetual Ordinance of Christ in his Church, he would either have practi­sed it himself, or Commanded his A­postles so to do.

But that he practised it not, the Scripture [Page 24] plainly affirms, John 4. 2. And that he Commanded his Disciples to baptize with Water, I could never yet read. [As for what is alledged, that Mat. 28. 19, &c. (where he bids them baptize) is to be understood of Wa­ter-baptism, that is but to beg the Question, and the grounds for that shall be hereafter examined.]

Therefore to baptize with Water is no Perpetual Ordinance of Christ to his Church.

This hath had the more Weight with me, because I find not any standing Ordinance or Appointment of Christ necessary to Christians, for which we have not either Christ's own Practice, or Command, as to o­bey all the Commandments, which compre­hend both our Duty towards God and Man, &c. and where the Gospel requires more than the Law; which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th Chapters of Matthew, and elsewhere. Besides as to the Duties of Worship, he exhorts us to Meet, promising his Presence; commands to Pray, Preach, Watch, &c. and gives Precepts concerning some Temporary things, as the Washing of one anothers Feet, the breaking of Bread, hereafter to be discussed: only for this one thing of baptising with Water (though so [Page 25] earnestly contended for) we find not any Precept of Christ.

§ VI. But to make Water-baptism a ne­cessary Institution of the Christian Religion, which is Pure and Spiritual, and not Car­nal and Ceremonial, is to derogate from the New Covenant-Dispensation, and set up the Legal Rites and Ceremonies, of which this of Baptism, or Washing with Water, was one; as appears from Heb. 9. 10. where the Apostle speaking thereof, saith, III that it stood only in Meats and Drinks, and The Go­spel puts an end to Carnal Or­dinances. divers Baptisms, and Carnal Ordinances impo­sed, until the Time of Reformation: If then the Time of Reformation, or the Dispensa­tion of the Gospel, which puts an end to the Shadows, be come, then such Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances are no more to be imposed, For how Baptism with Water comes now to be a Spiritual Ordinance more than before in the time of the Law, doth not appear; seeing it is but Water still, and a Washing of the Outward Man, and a putting away of the filth of the Flesh still: And as before those, that were so Washed, were not thereby made perfect, as pertain­ing to the Conscience, neither are they at this day; as our Adversaries must needs acknowledge, and Experience abundantly sheweth. So that the matter of it, which [Page 26] is a Washing with Water, and the Effects of it, which is only an Outward Cleansing, being still the same, how comes Water-bap­tism to be less a Carnal Ordinance now, than before?

Obj. 1 If it be said, That God confers inward Grace upon some, that are now baptized?

Answ. So no doubt he did also upon some, that used those Baptisms among the Jews.

Obj. 2 Or if it be said; Because 'tis commanded by Christ now under the New Covenant.

Answ. I Answer First, That's to beg the Que­stion; of which hereafter.

But Secondly, We find, That where the Matter of Ordinances is the same, and the End the same, they are never accounted more or less Spiritual, because of their dif­ferent Times. Now, was not God the Author of the Purifications and Baptisms under the Law? Was not Water the Mat­ter of them, which is so now? Was not the End of them to signifie an Inward Puri­fying by an Outward Washing? And is not that alledged to be the End still? And are the necessary Effects or Consequences of it Men are no more now than before by water bap­tism in­wardly cleansed. any better now, than before, since men are now by vertue of Water-baptism, as a necessary Consequence of it, no more than be­fore made Inwardly Clean? And if some by God's Grace, that are baptized with Water, [Page 27] are inwardly purified, so were some also un­der the Law: So that this is not any Neces­sary Consequence nor Effect neither of this nor that Baptism. It is then plainly Re­pugnant to Right Reason, as well as to the Scripture-Testimony, to affirm that to be a Spiritual Ordinance now, which was a Car­nal Ordinance before, if it be still the same both as to its Author, Matter and End, however made to vary in some small Cir­cumstances: The Spirituality of the New Covenant, and of its Worship established by Christ, consisted not in such superficial Alterations of Circumstances; but after ano­ther manner. Therefore let our Adversa­ries shew us, if they can, (without beg­ging the Question, and building upon some one or other of their own Principles de­nied by us) wherever Christ appointed or ordained any Institution or Observation under the New Covenant, as belonging to the Nature of it, or such a necessary part of its Worship, as is perpetually to Continue, which being one in Substance and Effects, (I speak of necessary not accidental Effects) yet because of some small difference in Form or Circumstance, was before Carnal, not­withstanding it was commanded by God un­der the Law, but now is become Spiritual, because commanded by Christ under the Go­spel? [Page 28] And if they cannot do this, then if Water-baptism was once a Carnal Ordinance, as the Apostle positively affirms it to have been, it remains a Carnal Ordinance still; and if a Carnal Ordinance, then no necessa­ry part of the Gospel, or New Covenant-Dis­pensation; and if no necessary part of it, then not needful to Continue, nor to be Practi­sed by such, as live and walk under this Dispensation. But in this, as in most o­ther things (according as we have often observed) our Adversaries Judaize, and renouncing the Glorious and Spiritual Pri­viledges of the New Covenant, are sticking in, and cleaving to the Rudiments of the Old, both in Doctrine and Worship, as be­ing more suited and agreeable to their Car­nal Apprehensions and Natural Senses. But we on the contrary travel above all to lay hold upon, and cleave unto the Light of the Glorious Gospel Revealed unto us: And the Harmony of the Truth we profess The Law distin­guisht from the Gospel. in this, may appear, by briefly observing, how in all things we follow the Spiritual Gospel of Christ, as contradistinguished from the Carnality of the Legal Dispensa­tion; while our Adversaries through re­jecting this Gospel, are still labouring un­der the burthen of the Law, which neither they, nor their Fathers were able to bear.

[Page 29] For the Law and Rule of the Old Cove­nant The Out­ward Bap­tism, Wor­ship, Law, distin­guisht from the Inward. and Jews was Outward, written in Ta­bles of Stone and Parchments: So also is that of our Adversaries. But the Law of the New Covenant is Inward and Perpetual, written in the Heart: So is ours.

The Worship of the Jews was Outward and Carnal, limited to set Times, Places and Persons, and performed according to Set, Prescribed Forms and Observations; so is that of our Adversaries. But the Worship of the New Covenant is neither limited to Time, Place nor Person, but is performed in the Spirit, and in Truth, and is not acted according to set Forms and Prescriptions, but as the Spirit of God immediately acts, moves and leads, whether it be to Preach, Pray, or Sing; and such is also our Worship.

So like wise the Baptism among the Jews under the Law was an outward Washing with outward Water, only to Typisie an inward Pu­rification of the Soul, which did not necessari­ly follow upon those that were thus baptized: But the Baptism of Christ under the Gospel, is the Baptism of the Spirit and of Fire; not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God: And such is the Baptism, that we labour to be baptized withal, and contend for.

[Page 30] Arg. § VII. But again: If Water-baptism had been an Ordinance of the Gospel, then the Apostle Paul would have been sent to Ad­minister it; but he declares positively 1 Cor. 1. 17. That Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel. The Reason of that Consequence is undeniable, because the Apostle Paul's Commission was as large, as that of any of them, and con­sequently he being in special Manner the Apostle of Christ to the Gentiles, if Water-baptism IV (as our Adversaries contend) be That Water-bap­tism is no Badge of Christians, like Cir­cumcision of the Jews. to be accounted the badge of Christianity, he had more need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water, that he might Mark the Gentiles Converted by him, with that Christian Sign. But indeed, the Reason holds better thus: That since Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, and that in his Ministry he doth through all (as by his Epistles appears) labour to wean them from the former Jewish Ceremonies and Ob­servations, (though in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his Brethren, who were unwilling to lay aside those Ceremonies) therefore his Com­mission (though as full, as to the Preach­ing of the Gospel and New Covenant-Dispen­sation, as that of the other Apostles) did not require of him, that he should lead [Page 31] those Converts into such Jewish Observati­ons, and Baptisms, however that Practice was Indulged in, and practised by the other Apostles among their Jewish Proselites: for which cause he thanks God, that he bapti­zed 1 Cor. 1. 14. so few; intimating, that what he did therein, he did not by vertue of his Apo­stolick Paul was not sent to baptize. Commission, but rather in Condescen­dence to their Weakness; even as at another time he Circumcised Timothy.

Obj. 1 Our Adversaries, to evade the Truth of this Testimony, usually alledge, That by this is only to be understood, that he was not sent principally to baptize, not that he was not sent at all.

Answ. But this Exposition, since it Contradicts the positive Words of the Text, and has no better Foundation, than the Affirmati­on of its Assertors, is justly rejected as spu­rious, until they bring some better Proof for it: He saith not, I was not sent princi­pally to baptize; but, I was not sent to bap­tize.

Confirm. As for what they urge by way of Confir­mation from other places of Scripture, where [not] is to be so taken, as where it's said, I will have Mercy, and not Sacri­fice, Matth. 9. 13. Hos. 6. 6. which is to be understood, that God requires principally Mercy, not excluding Sacrifices.

[Page 32] Refut. I say, this Place is abundantly Explained by the following words [and the Know­ledge of God more than burnt-Offerings:] by which it clearly appears, that burnt-Offerings, which are one with Sacrifices, are not Excluded. But there is no such word added in that of Paul, and therefore the Parity is not demonstrated to be alike, and consequently the Instance not suffici­ent; unless they can prove, that it ought so to be admitted here: Else we might interpret by the same Rule all other Places of Scripture the same way; As where the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 2. 5. That your Faith might not stand in the Wisdom of Men, but in the Power of God; it might be understood, it shall not stand Principally so. How might the Gospel by this Liberty of Interpretation be Perverted?

Obj. 2 If it be said, That the Abuse of this Bap­tism among the Corinthians, in dividing themselves according to the Persons, by whom they were baptized, made the Apostle speak so; but that the Abuse of a thing doth not a­bolish it.

Answ. I Answer; It is true, it doth not, pro­vided the thing be lawful and necessary; and that, no doubt, the Abuse abovesaid gave the Apostle occasion so to write: But let it from this be considered, how the A­postle [Page 33] excludes Baptizing, not Preaching, though the Abuse [mark] proceeded from that no less, than from the other. For these Corinthians did denominate them­selves from those different Persons, by whose Preaching (as well as from those, by whom they were baptized) they were Converted, as by the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. ver. of the 3d Ch. may appear; and yet for to That Preaching is a stand­ing Ordi­nance, and not to be forhorn. remove that Abuse, the Apostle doth not say, he was not sent to preach; nor yet doth he rejoice, that he had only preached to a few; because preaching being a standing Or­dinance in the Church, is not because of any Abuse, that the Devil may tempt any to make of it, to be forborn, by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God; wherefore the Apostle accordingly Chap. 3. 8, 9. informs them as to that, how to Remove that Abuse: But as to Water-bap­tism, for that it was no standing Ordinance of Christ, but only practised as in Conde­scendence to the Jews, and by some Apo­stles to some Gentiles also, there so soon as the Apostle perceived the Abuse of it; he let the Corinthians understand, how little stress was to be laid upon it; by shewing them that he was glad, that he had admi­nistred this Ceremony to so few of them, and by telling them plainly that it was no [Page 34] part of his Commission, neither that, which he was sent to Administer.

Query. Some ask us, How we know, that Bapti­zing here is meant of Water, and not of the Spirit? Which if it be, then it will exclude Baptism of the Spirit, as well as of Water.

Answ. I Answer: Such as ask the Question, I suppose speak it not as doubting, that this was said of Water-baptism; which is more than manifest. For since the Apostle That which Con­verts to Christ, is Baptism of the Spirit. Paul's Message was to turn People from Dark­ness to Light, and Convert them to God; and that as many as are thus turned and con­verted (so as to have the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, and to have put on Christ, and be arisen with him in Newness of Life) are baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit; but who will say, that only these few mentioned there to be baptized by Paul, were come to this? or that to turn or bring them to this Condition, was not (even admitting our Adversaries Interpretation) as principally a part of Paul's Ministry, as any other? Since then our Adversaries do take this place for Water-baptism (as in­deed it is) we may lawfully, taking it so also, urge it upon them. Why the Word Baptism and baptizing is used by the Apo­stle, where that of Water, and not of the Spirit, is only understood, shall hereafter [Page 35] be spoken to. Part. II I come now to consider the Reasons alledged by such as plead for Wa­ter-baptism; which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it.

Obj. 1 § VIII. First, Some Object, That Christ, who had the Spirit above measure, was not­withstanding baptized with Water. As Nic. Arnold. against this These, Sect. 46. of his Theological Exercitation.

Answ. I Answer: So was he also Circumcised; it will not follow from thence, that Cir­cumcision is to Continue. For it behoved Why Christ was baptized by John. Christ to fulfil all Righteousness, not only the Ministry of John, but the Law also; therefore did he observe the Jewish Feasts and Rites, and kept the Passover: It will not then follow, that Christians ought to do so now. And therefore Christ Matth. 3. 15. gives John this reason of his being baptized, desiring him to Suffer it to be so now: Whereby he sufficiently intimates, that he intended not thereby to Perpetuate it, as an Ordinance to his Disciples.

Obj. 2 Secondly, They Object Matth. 28. 19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, bap­tizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Answ. This is the great Objection, and upon which they build the Whole Superstructure: Whereunto the first general and sound An­swer [Page 36] is, by granting the whole; but put­ting them to prove, that Water is here meant, since the Text is silent of it. And though in reason it be sufficient upon our What Bap­tism Christ doth mean in Matth. 28? part, that we Concede the whole expressed in the place, but deny, that it is by Wa­ter, which is an Addition to the Text; yet I shall premise some Reasons, why we do so; and then consider the Reasons alledged by those, that will have Water to be here understood.

Arg. I The First is a Maxime yielded to by all, that

We ought not to go from the literal signi­fication of the Text, except some urgent necessity force us thereunto.

But no urgent Necessity in this place for­ceth us thereunto.

Therefore we ought not to go from it.

Arg. II Secondly, That Baptism, which Christ commanded his Apostles, was the one Baptism, id est, his own Baptism.

But the one Baptism, which is Christ's Baptism, is not with Water (as we have already proved.)

Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles, was not Water-baptism.

Arg. III Thirdly: That Baptism, which Christ commanded his Apostles, was such, [Page 37] that as many as were therewith bap­tized, did put on Christ.

But this is not true of Water-baptism.

Therefore, &c.

Arg. IV Fourthly: The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles, was not John's Baptism:

But Baptism with Water was John's Baptism:

Therefore, &c.

Allegat. I But First, They alledge, That Christ's Baptism, though a Baptism with Water, did differ from John 's, because John only bap­tized with Water unto Repentance, but Christ commands his Disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; reckoning, that in this Form there lieth a great difference betwixt the Baptism of John, and that of Christ.

Answ. I Answer, as to that, John's Baptism was unto Repentance, the Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ's also. For our Adversaries will not deny, but that Adult Persons, that are baptized, ought, ere they be admitted to it, to Repent and Confess their Sins; yea, and that Infants with a respect to, and Consideration of their Baptism, ought to Repent and Confess: So that the difference lieth not here; since this of Repentance and Confession agrees as [Page 38] well to Christ's, as to John's Baptism. But in this our Adversaries are divided: for Calvin will have Christ's and John's to be all one; Inst. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 7, 8. Yet they do differ, and the difference is, in that the one is by Water, the other not, &c.

Secondly: As to what Christ saith, in commanding them to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Spirit, I confess that states the Difference, and it is great; but that lies not only in admitting Water-bap­tism in this different Form, by a bare ex­pressing of these Words: For as the Text saith no such thing, neither do I see, how it can be inferred from it. For the Greek Of the Name of the Lord, how taken in Scrip­ture. is [...], that is, into the Name; now the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for something else, than a bare sound of Words, or literal Expression, e­ven for his Vertue and Power, as may ap­pear from Psalm 54. 3. Cant. 1. 3. Prov. 18. 10. and in many more. Now, that the Apostles were by their Ministry to bap­tize the Nations into this Name, Vertue and Power, and that they did so, is evident, by these Testimonies of Paul above menti­oned, where he saith, That as many of The Bap­tism into the Name what it is? them, as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ: This must have been a baptizing [Page 39] into the Name, i. e. Power and Vertue, and not a meer formal Expression of Words adjoined with Water-baptism; because, as hath been above observed, it doth not fol­low, as a natural or necessary Consequence of it. I would have those, who desire to have their Faith built upon no other foun­dation, than the Testimony of God's Spirit, and Scriptures of Truth, throughly to Con­sider, whether there can be any thing fur­ther alledged for this Interpretation, than what the prejudice of Education and influ­ence of Tradition hath imposed: Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconside­rate Reader, as if the very Character of Chri­stianity were abolished, to tell him plainly, that this Scripture is not to be understood of baptizing with Water, and that this form of baptizing in the Name of Father, Son and Spirit, hath no warrant from Matth. 28. &c.

For which, besides the Reason taken Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of Baptism in Matth. 28. from the Signification of [the Name] as being the Vertue and Power above expres­sed, let it be considered, that, if that had been a Form prescribed by Christ to his A­postles, then surely, they would have made use of that Form in the administring of Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water; but though particular men­tion [Page 40] be made in divers places of the Acts, Who were baptized, and how? and though it be particularly expressed, that they bap­tized such and such, as Acts 2. 41: 8. 12, 13, 38: 9. 18: 10. 48: 16. 15: 18. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form. And in two places, Acts 8. 16: 19. 5. it is said of some, that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus; by which it yet more appears, that either the Author of this Hi­story hath been very defective, who having so often occasion to mention this, yet omit­teth so substantial a part of Baptism, (which were to accuse the Holy Ghost, by whose guidance Luke wrote it) or else that the Apostles did no ways understand, that Christ by his Commission Matth. 28. did injoin them such a Form of Water-baptism, seeing they did not use it. And therefore it is safer to conclude, that what they did in administring Water-baptism, they did not by vertue of that Commission; else they would have so used it: For our Adversa­ries, I suppose, would judge it a great He­resie to Administer Water-baptism without that, or only in the Name of Jesus, with­out mention of Father or Spirit, as it is ex­presly said they did, in the two places a­bove cited.

Allegat. II Secondly, They say: If this were not un­derstood [Page 41] of Water-baptism, it would be a Tautology, and all one with Teaching.

I say, Nay: Baptizing with the Spirit How Teaching and Bapti­sing differ. is somewhat further, than Teaching or In­forming the Understanding; for it imports a Reaching to, and melting the Heart, whereby it is turned, as well as the Under­standing informed. Besides, we find often in the Scripture, that Teaching and Instru­cting are put together without any Absur­dity or needless Tautology; and yet these two have a greater Affinity, than teaching and baptizing with the Spirit.

Allegat. III Thirdly, They say; Baptism in this Place must be understood with Water, be­cause it is the Action of the Apostles; and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit, which is IV the Work of Christ, and his Grace, not of Man, &c.

Answ. I Answer: Baptism with the Spirit, though not wrought without Christ and his Grace, is Instrumentally done by Men, fitted of God for that purpose; and there­fore The Bap­tism with the Spirit [...]scrib'd to Godly Men as Instru­ments. no Absurdity follows, that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed, as the Action of the Apostles: For though it be Christ by his Grace, that gives Spiritual Gifts, yet the Apostle, Rom. 1. 11. speaks of his Imparting to them Spiritual Gifts; and he tells the Corinthians, that he had begot­ten [Page 42] them through the Gospel, 1 Cor. 4. 15. And yet to beget People unto the Faith, is the work of Christ and his Grace, not of Men. To Convert the Heart is properly the Work of Christ; and yet the Scripture often-times ascribes it to Men, as being the Instruments: And since Paul's Commission was to turn People from Darkness to Light, though that be not done without Christ co-operating by his Grace, so may also bap­tizing with the Spirit be expressed, as per­formable by Man, as the Instrument, tho' the Work of Christ's Grace be needful to concur thereunto: So that it is no Absur­dity to say, that the Apostles did Admi­nister the Baptism of the Spirit.

Allegat. IV Lastly, They say, That since Christ saith here, that he will be with his Disciples to the end of the World, therefore Water-baptism must continue so long.

Answ. If he had been speaking here of Water­baptism, then that might have been urged; but seeing that is denied, and proved to be false, nothing from thence can be gather­ed; He speaking of the Baptism of the Spi­rit, which we freely confess doth remain to the End of the World, yea, so long as Christ's Presence abideth with his Chil­dren.

Obj. III § IX. Thirdly, They Object the Con­stant [Page 43] Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church, who, they say, did always Admini-Water-baptism to such, as they Converted to the Faith of Christ; And hence also they further urge, that of Matth. 28. to have been meant of Water, or else the Apostles did not understand it, in that in baptizing they used Water; or that in so doing they walked with­out a Commission.

I Answer: That it was the Constant Practice of the Apostles, is denied; for we have shewn in the Example of Paul, that it was not so; since it were most absurd to judge, that he Converted only those few, even of the Church of Corinth, whom he saith he baptized; nor were it less absurd to think, that that was a constant Aposto­lick Practice, which he, that was not Infe­rior to the Chiefest of the Apostles, and who declares, he laboured as much as they all, rejoyceth, he was so little in. But further, How the Apostles Baptized. the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice of baptizing with Water, to evince, that they understood Matth. 28. of Water­baptism, doth not hold: For though they baptized with Water, it will not follow, that either they did it by vertue of that Commission, or that they mistook that place; nor can there be any Medium brought, that will infer such a Conclusion.

[Page 44] As to the other insinuated Absurdity, That they did it without a Commission; It is none at all: For they might have done it by a Permission, as being in use, before Christ's Death; and because the People nursed up with Outward Ceremonies, could not be weaned wholly from them. And thus they used other things, as Circumcision, and legal Purifications, which yet they had no Commission from Christ to do, (to which we shall speak more at length in the fol­lowing Proposition concerning the Supper.)

Object. But if from the Sameness of the Word, because Christ bids them baptize, and they afterwards in the Use of Water are said to baptize, it be judged probable, that they did understand that Commission, Matth. 28. to authorize them to baptize with Water, and accordingly practised it.

Answ. Although it should be granted, that for a season they did so far mistake it, as to judge, that Water belonged to that Baptism, (which however I find no necessity of granting) yet I see not any great Absur­dity would thence follow. For it is plain, they did mistake that Commission, as to a main part of it, for a Season; as where he bids them, Go teach all Nations, since some time after they judged it unlawful to Teach the Gentiles: Yea, Peter himself scrupled [Page 45] it, until by a Vision constrained thereunto; for which after he had done it, he was for a season (until they were better informed) judged by the rest of his Brethren. Now, The Apo­stles did scruples the Teach­ing the Gentils. if the Education of the Apostles, as Jews, and their Propensity to adhere and stick to the Jewish Religion, did so far influence them, that even after Christ's Resurrection and the pouring forth of the Spirit, they could not receive nor admit of the Teaching of the Gentiles, though Christ in his Com­mission to them, commanded them to Preach to them; what further Absurdity were it to suppose, that through the like Mistake the Chiefest of them, having been the Dis­ciples of John, and his Baptism being so much prized there among the Jews, that they also took Christ's Baptism, intended by him of the Spirit, to be that of Water, which was John's, and accordingly practi­sed it for a season; it suffices us, that, if they were so mistaken (though I say not, that they were so) they did not always remain under that Mistake: Else Peter would not have said of the Baptism, which now saves, that it is not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh; which certainly Water­baptism is.

But further they urge much Peter's bap­tising Cornelius: In which they press two [Page 46] things; First, That Water-baptism is used even to those, that had received the Spirit Secondly, That it is said positively, he com­manded them to be baptized, Acts 10. 47, 48.

But neither of these doth necessarily in­fer Water-baptism to belong to the New Co­venant-Dispensation, nor yet to be a Perpe­tual standing Ordinance in the Church. For First, All that this will amount to, was, Whether Peter's Baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church? That Peter at that time baptized these Men; but that he did it by vertue of that Commission, Matth. 28. remains yet to be proved. And how doth the baptising with VVater, after the receiving of the Holy Ghost prove the Case more, than the use of Circumcision and other Legal Rites ac­knowledged to have been acted by him af­terwards? Also no wonder, if Peter, that thought it so strange (notwithstanding all that had been professed before, and spoken by Christ) that the Gentiles should be made Partakers of the Gospel, and with great difficulty, not without a very extra­ordinary Impulse thereunto, was brought to come to them, and eat with them, was apt to put this Ceremony upon them; which being, as it were, the particular Dispensation of John, the Fore-runner of Christ, seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel, than the other Jewish Ce­remonies [Page 47] then used by the Church: but that will no ways infer our Adversaries Conclusion. Secondly, As to these Words, And he commanded them to be baptized, it declareth matter of Fact, not of Right; and amounteth to no more, than that Pe­ter did at that time pro hic & nunc, Com­mand those persons to be baptized with Water; which is not denied: but it saith nothing, that Peter commanded Water­baptism to be a Standing and Perpetual Or­dinance to the Church; neither can any Man of sound Reason say (if he heed what he says) that a Command in matter of Fact to Particular Persons, doth infer the thing commanded to be of general obligation to all, if it be not other ways bottomed upon some Positive Precept. Why doth Peter's Commanding Cornelius and his Houshold to be baptized at that time, infer Water­baptism to Continue, more than his Con­straining (which is more than Command­ing) the Gentiles in general to be Circum­cised, and observe the Law? We find, that at that time, when Peter baptized Cornelius, it was not determined, whether the Gentiles should not be Circumcised; but on the contrary, it was the most general Sense of the Church, that they should: And therefore no wonder, if they thought it [Page 48] needful at that time, that they should be baptized, which had more Affinity with the Gospel, and was a Burthen less grie­vous.

Obj. IV § X. Fourthly, They Object from the Signification of the Word [baptize] which is as much as to Dip and Wash with Water, alledging thence, that the very Word imports a being baptized with Water.

Answ. This Objection is very weak. For since baptizing with Water was a Rite among the Jews, as Paulus Riccius sheweth, even Baptizing signifies Dipping or Washing with Wa­ter. before the coming of John; therefore that Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice, as used both by the Jews and by John. Yea we find, that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more Spiritual Sig­nification: Circumcision was only used and understood among the Jews, to be that of the Flesh; but the Apostle tells us of the Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit, made without Hands. So that, though Baptism was used among the Jews, only to signifie a Washing with Water, yet both John, Christ, and his Apostles, speak of a being bap­tized with the Spirit and with Fire, which they make the Peculiar Baptism of Christ, as contradistinguished from that of Water, which was John's (as is above shewn.) [Page 49] So that, though Baptism among the Jews was only understood of Water, yet among Christians it is very well understood of the Spirit without Water; as we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand things, under the Terms of what had been Shadows before. Thus Christ speaking of his Body, (though the Jews mistook him) said, he would Destroy this Temple, and build it a­gain in three days; and many more, that might be instanced. But if the Etymology of the Word should be tenaciously adhe­red to, it would militate against most of our Adversaries, as well as against us. For the Greek [...] signifies Immergo, to [...] Immergo, Intigo, to plunge and dip in. plunge and dip in, and that was the proper use of Water-baptism among the Jews, and also by John, and the Primitive Christians, who used it; whereas our Adversaries for the most part only Sprinkle a little Water Those that of old used Water-bap­tism were dipt and plunged; and those that were only sprinkled, were not admitted to any Of­fice in the Church: and why? upon the Forehead, which doth not at all answer to the Word [Baptism.] Yea those of old among Christians, that used Water-baptism, thought this dipping and plunging so needful, that they thus dipped Children: And forasmuch as it was judged, that it might prove hurtful to some weak Con­stitutions, Sprinkling, to prevent that hurt, was introduced; yet then it was likewise appointed, that such, as were only sprink­led, [Page 50] and not dipped, should not be admit­to have any Office in the Church, as not be­ing sufficiently baptized. So that, if our Adversaries will stick to the Word, they must alter their Method of Sprinkling.

Obj. V Fifthly, They Object, John 3. 5. Ex­cept a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, &c. hence inferring the necessity of Water-baptism, as well as of the Spirit.

Answ. But if this prove any thing, it will prove Water-baptism to be of absolute Neces­sity: And therefore Protestants rightly af­firm, The Wa­ter that Regene­rates, is Mystioal and In­ward. when this is urged upon them by Papists, to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism, that [Water] is not here understood of Outward Water; but mysti­cally of an Inward Cleansing and Washing. Even as where Christs speaks of being bap­tized with Fire, it is not to be understood of outward material Fire, but only of Puri­fying, by a Metonymy; because to purifie is a proper Effect of Fire, as to Wash and make clean is of Water. Therefore the Scripture alludes to Water, where it can as little be so understood: As where we are said to be Saved by the Washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. Yea, Peter saith expresly in the place often cited, as Calvin well observes; That In the 4th. Book of his. Instit. Chap. 15. the Baptism, which saves, is not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh: So that, since [Page 51] [Water] cannot be understood of outward Water, this can serve nothing to prove Water-baptism.

If it be said, that [Water] imports here Object. necessitatem Praecepti, though not Medii.

I Answer; That is first to take it for Answ. granted, that outward VVater is here un­derstood; the contrary whereof we have already proved. Next, VVater and the Necessitas Praecepti and Medii, urged. Spirit are placed here together, [Except a Man be born of VVater and the Spirit] where the Necessity of the one is urged, as much as of the other. Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary, so will also Water: And then we must either say, that To be born of the Spirit, is not absolutely necessa­ry, which all acknowledge to be false; or else that Water is absolutely necessary, which, as Protestants, we affirm and have proved, is false: else we must confess, that Water is not here understood of out­ward Water. For to say, that when Wa­ter and the Spirit are placed here just to­gether, and in the same manner, though there be not any difference or ground for it visible in the Text, or deduceable from it, That the necessity of Water is here Praecepti, but not Medii, but the necessity of the Spi­rit is both Medii and Praecepti; is indeed confidently to affirm, but not to prove.

[Page 52] Obj. VI Sixthly, and lastly, They Object; That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge, to distinguish Christians from Infi­dels, even as Circumcision did the Jews.

Answ. I Answer; This saith nothing at all, unless it be proved to be a necessary Precept, or part of the New Covenant-Dispensation; it not being lawful to us to impose outward Ceremonies and Rites, and say, they will distinguish us from Infidels. Circumcision Circumci­sion a Seal of the first Covenant. Water-bap­tism falsly called a Badge of Christiani­ty. Which is the Badge of Christi­anity? was positively commanded, and said to be a Seal of the first Covenant; but as we have already proved, that there is no such Com­mand for Baptism, so there is not any Word in all the New Testament, calling it a Badge of Christianity, or Seal of the New Covenant: And therefore to conclude, it is so, because Circumcision was so, (unless some better Proof be alledged for it) is mi­serably to beg the Question. The professing of Faith in Christ, and a holy Life answering thereunto, is a far better Badge of Christia­nity, than any outward Washing; which yet answers not to that of Circumcision, since that affixed a Character in the Flesh, which this doth not: So that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his being baptized, especially when he was a Child, unless he tell them so much. And may not the Professing Faith in Christ signifie [Page 55] that as well? I know, there are divers of those, called Fathers, that speak much of What the Fathers say of Water­baptism, and of the Sign of the Cross. Water-baptism, calling it Character Chri­stianitatis; but so did they also of the Sign of the Cross, and other such things, justly rejected by Protestants. For the Mystery of Iniquity, which began to work even in the Apostles days, soon spoiled the Simpli­city and Purity of the Christian Worship; so that not only many Jewish Rites were re­tained, but many Heathenish Customs and Heathen­ish Cere­monies in­troduc'd into the Christian Worship. Ceremonies introduced into the Christian Worship; as particularly that Word [Sa­crament.] So that it is great folly, espe­cially for Protestants, to plead any thing of this from Tradition or Antiquity; for we find, that neither Papists nor Prote­stants use these Rites exactly, as the Anci­ents did, who in such things not walking by the most certain Rule of God's Spirit, but doting too much upon Outwards, were very Uncertain. For most of them all, in the Primitive Time did wholly Plunge and Dip those they Baptized; which neither Papists nor Protestants do: Yea, several of the Fathers accused some as Hereticks in their Days, for holding some Principles common with Protestants, concerning it; as particularly Augustine doth the Pelagians, for saying, That In­fants [Page 56] dying Unbaptized, may be saved. And the Manichees were Condemned, for deny­ing, that Grace is universally given by Bap­tism; and Julian the Pelagian by Augu­stine, for denying Exorcism and Insufflati­on Exorcism or Adjura­tion. in the use of Baptism: All which things Protestants deny also. So that Protestants do but foolishly to upbraid us, as if we could not shew any among the Ancients, that denied Water-baptism; seeing they cannot shew any, whom they acknow­ledge not to have been Heretical in several things, to have used it, nor yet, who u­sing it, did not use also the Sign of the Cross, and other things with it, which The Sign of the Cross. they deny. There were some neverthe­less in the darkest Times of Popery, who testified against Water-baptism. For one Alanus, page 103, 104, 107. speaks of some in his Time, that were burnt for the Many in former A­ges testifi­ed against Water-bap­tism. denying of it: For they said, that Bap­tism had no Efficacy either in Children or A­dult Persons; and therefore Men were not ob­liged to take Baptism: Particularly Ten Ca­nonicks (so called) were burnt for that Crime, by the Order of King Robert of France; as P. Pithaeus tells in his Fragments of the History of Guienne. Which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis, a Monk (who was famous at that Time) [Page 57] in his Epistle to Oliva, Abbot of the Au­sonian Church: I will (saith he) give you to understand concerning the Heresie, that was in the City of Orleans on Childer-mass­day: For it was true, if ye have heard any Ten Cano­nicks burnt at Orleans, and why? thing, that King Robert caused to be burnt alive nigh Fourteen of that City, of the Chief of their Clergy, and the more Noble of their Laicks, who were hateful to God, and abominable to Heaven and Earth; for they did stiffly deny the Grace of Holy Baptism, and also the Consecration of our Lord's Body and Blood. The Time of this Deed is no­ted in these Words by Papir. Masson. in his Annals of France, lib. 3. in Hugh and Robert, Actum Aureliae publice Anno Incar­nationis Domini 1022. Regni Roberti Re­gis 28. Indictione 5. quando Stephanus Hae­resiarcha & Complices ejus damnati sunt & exusti Aureliae.

Now for their calling them Hereticks and Manichees, we have nothing but the Testimony of their Accusers; which will no more invalidate their Testimony for this Truth against the use of Water-baptism, or give more ground to charge us, as being one with Manichees, than because some, called by them Manichees, do agree with Protestants in some things, that therefore Protestants are Manichees or Hereticks: [Page 58] which Protestants can no ways shun. For the Question is, Whether, in what they did, they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures? So that the Controversie is brought back again to the Scriptures, ac­cording to which I suppose I have former­ly discussed it.

As for the latter part of the Thesis, de­nying The Bap­tism of In­fants an Humane Tradition. the Use of Infant-baptism, it necessa­rily follows, from what is above-said. For if Water-baptism be Ceased, then sure­ly Baptizing of Infants is not warrantable. But those that take upon them to Oppose us in this matter, will have more to do, as to this latter part: For after they have done, what they can, to prove Water­baptism; it remains for them to prove, that Infants ought to be Baptized. For he that proves Water-baptism Ceased, proves, that Infant-baptism is Vain: But he that should prove, that Water-baptism continues, has not thence proved, that Infant-baptism is necessary; That needs something fur­ther. And therefore it was a pitiful Sub­terfuge of Nic. Arnoldus against this, to say, That the denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the Gangrene of Anabaptists; without adding any further Probation.

§ I. THE Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is a Myste­ry hid from all natural men in their first, [Page 60] fall'n and degenerate State; which they cannot understand, reach to, nor compre­hend, as they there abide, neither as they there are, can they be Partakers of it, nor yet are they able to Discern the Lord's Bo­dy. And forasmuch as the Christian World (so called) for the most part hath been still labouring, working, conceiving and imagining in their own natural and unrenewed Understandings about the things of God and Religion, therefore hath this Mystery much been hid and sealed up from them, while they have been conten­ding, quarrelling and fighting one with another about the meer Shadow, Outside and Form, but strangers to the Substance, Life and Vertue.

§ II. The Body then of Christ, which The Body and Blood of Christ is Spiritual. Believers partake of, is Spiritual, and not Carnal; and his Blood, which they drink of, is pure and Heavenly, and not hu­mane or Elementary; as Augustin also af­firms of the Body of Christ, which is Eat­en, in his Tractat, Psal. 98. Except a Man eat my Flesh, he hath not in him Life Eter­nal: And he saith; ‘The Words, which I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life, understand spiritually what I have spo­ken. Ye shall not eat of this Body, which ye see, and drink this Blood, [Page 61] which they shall spill, that Crucifie me: I am the Living Bread, which have descen­ded from Heaven; he called himself the Bread, who descended from Heaven, ex­horting that we might believe in him, &c.’

Quest. If it be asked then, What that Body, What that Flesh and Blood is?

Answ. I Answer: It is that Heavenly Seed, that Divine, Spiritual, Coelestial Sub­stance, of which we spake before in the 5th and 6th Propositions. This is that Ve­hiculum Dei, What the heavenly Seed is, whereby formerly and also now Life and Salva­tion was and is Com­municated. or Spiritual Body of Christ, whereby and where-through he commu­nicateth Life to Men, and Salvation to as many as believe in him, and receive him; and whereby also Man comes to have Fel­lowship and Communion with God. This is proved from the 6th of John, from verse 32. to the end, where Christ speaks more at large of this matter, than in any other place: And indeed, this Evangelist and beloved Disciple, who lay in the Bo­som of our Lord, gives us a more full ac­count of the Spiritual Sayings and Do­ctrine of Christ: And it's observable, that though he speaks nothing of the Ceremo­ny used by Christ, of Breaking Bread with his Disciples, neither in his Evangelical Account of Christ's Life and Sufferings, [Page 62] nor in his Epistles; yet he is more large in this account of the Participation of the Bo­dy, Flesh and Blood of Christ, than any of them all. For Christ in this Chapter perceiving, that the Jews did follow him for Love of the Loaves, desires them (ver. 27.) to labour not for the Meat which peri­sheth, but for that Meat which endureth for ever: But forasmuch as they, being Car­nal in their Apprehensions, and not under­standing the Spiritual Language and Do­ctrine of Christ, did judge the Manna, which Moses gave their Fathers, to be the most Excellent Bread, as coming from Heaven; Christ, to rectifie that mistake, and better inform them, affirmeth First, That it is not Moses, but his Father, that The Ori­gine, Na­ture and Effects of the Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ. giveth the true Bread from Heaven, ver. 32. and 48. Secondly, This Bread he calls himself, ver. 35. I am the Bread of Life: And ver. 51. I am the living Bread, which came down from Heaven: Thirdly, He de­clares, that this Bread is his Flesh, ver. 51. The Bread, that I will give, is my Flesh: And ver. 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed: Fourthly, The Necessity of Partaking thereof, ver. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you: And lastly, ver. 33. the blessed Fruits and ne­cessary [Page 63] Effects of this Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; This Bread gi­veth Life to the World, ver. 50. He that eateth thereof dyeth not; ver. 58. He, that eateth of this Bread, shall live for ever, ver. 51. Whose eateth this Flesh, and drinketh this Blood, shall live for ever, ver. 54. And he dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him; ver. 56. And shall live by Christ; ver. 57. From this large Description of the Origine, Na­ture and Effects of this Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ, it is apparent, that it is Spiritual, and to be understood of a Spiri­tual Body, and not of that Body or Tem­ple of Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which he walked, li­ved and suffered in the Land of Judea; because that it is said, both that it came down from Heaven, yea, that it is He, that came down from Heaven. Now all Christi­ans at present generally acknowledge, that the outward Body of Christ came not down from Heaven, neither was it that part of Christ, which came down from Hea­ven. And to put the matter out of doubt, when the Carnal Jews would have been so understanding it, he tells them plainly, ver. 63. It is the Spirit, that quickeneth, but the Flesh profiteth nothing. This is also founded upon most sound and solid Rea­son; [Page 64] because that it is the Soul, not the Solid Rea­sons, that it is Ilis Spiri­tual Body, Christ speaks of. Body, that is to be nourished by this Flesh and Blood. Now outward Flesh cannot nourish nor feed the Soul; there is no pro­portion, nor Analogy betwixt them; nei­ther is the Communion of the Saints with God by a Conjunction and mutual Partici­pation of Flesh, but of the Spirit: He that 1 Cor. 6. 17. is joined to the Lord, is One Spirit, not one Flesh. For the Flesh (I mean outward Flesh, even such as was that, wherein Christ lived and walked, when upon Earth; and not Flesh, when transposed by a Metaphor, to be understood Spiritu­ally) can only partake of Flesh, as Spirit of Spirit: As the Body cannot feed upon Spirit, neither can the Spirit feed upon Flesh. And that the Flesh here spoken of, is spiritually understood, appears further, in that, that which feedeth upon it, shall never dye: But the Bodies of all Men once dye, yea it behoved the Body of Christ himself to dye. That this Body and Spi­ritual Flesh and Blood of Christ is to be un­derstood of that Divine and Heavenly Seed before spoken of by us, appears both by the Nature and Fruits of it. First, It's said, It is that, which cometh down from Hea­ven, and giveth Life unto the World: Now, this answers to that Light and Seed, which [Page 65] is testified of, John 1. to be the Light of the World, and the Life of Men. For that Spiritual Light and Seed, as it receives The Spiri­tual Light and Seed is as Bread to the Hun­gry Soul. place in mens Hearts, and room to spring up there, is as Bread to the hungry and fainting Soul, that is (as it were) buried and dead in the lusts of the World, which receives Life again; and revives, as it ta­steth and partaketh of this heavenly Bread: And they that partake of it, are said to come to Christ; neither can any have it, but by coming to him, and believing in the appearance of his Light in their Hearts; by receiving which, and believing in it, the Participation of this Body and Bread is known. And that Christ understands the same thing here by his Body, Flesh and Blood, which is understood John 1. by the Light inlightening every Man, and the Life, &c. appears, for the Light and Life spoken of John 1. is said to be Christ; He is the true Light: and the Bread and Flesh, &c. spoken of in this 6th of John, is called Christ; I am the Bread of Life, saith he. Again, They that received that Light and Life, John 1. 12. Obtained Power to become the Sons of God, by believing in his Name: So also here, John 6. 35. He that cometh unto this Bread of Life shall not Hunger; and he that believes in him, who [Page 66] is this Bread shall never thirst. So then, as there was the outward visible Body and Christ's Outward and Spiri­tual Body distingui­shed. Temple of Jesus Christ, which took its Original from the Virgin Mary; so there is also the Spiritual Body of Christ, by and through which He, that was the Word in the beginning with God, and was and is GOD, did Reveal himself to the Sons of Men in all Ages, and whereby Men in all Ages come to be made partakers of Eter­nal Life, and to have Communion and Fellowship with God and Christ. Of which Body of Christ, and Flesh and Blood, if both Adam, and Seth, and E­noch, The Patri­archs did eat of the Body, and Flesh and Blood of Christ. and Abraham, and Moses, and Da­vid, and all the Prophets and Holy Men of God had not eaten, they had not had Life in them, nor could their inward Man have been nourished. Now, as the outward Body and Temple was called Christ, so was also this Spiritual Body no less pro­perly, and that long before that outward Body was in Being. Hence the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. That the Fathers did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all drink the same spiritual. Drink: (for they drank of that Spiritual Rock, that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.) This cannot be understood otherwise than of this Spiritual Body of Christ: Which Spi­ritual [Page 67] Body of Christ, though it was the saving Food of the Righteous both before the Law, and under the Law, yet under the Law it was vailed and shadowed, and covered under divers Types, Ceremonies and Observations; yea and not only so, but it was vailed and hid, in some respect, under the outward Temple and Body of Christ, or during the continuance of it; so that the Jews could not understand Christ's Preaching about it, while on Earth: And not the Jews only, but many of his Disciples judged it an hard saying, Joh. 6. 60. 66. murmured at it, and many from that time went back from him, and walked no more with him. I doubt not, but there are ma­ny also at this day professing to be Disci­ples of Christ, that do as little understand this matter, as those did, and are as apt to be offended and stumble at it, while they are gazing and following after the outward Body; and look not to that, by which the Saints are daily fed and nouri­shed. For as Jesus Christ, in obedience to the Will of the Father, did by the E­ternal Spirit offer up that Body for a Pro­pitiation for the Remission of Sins, and fi­nished his Testimony upon Earth thereby, in a most perfect Example of Patience, Re­signation and Holiness, that all might be [Page 68] made Partakers of the Fruit of that Sacri­crifice; so hath he likewise poured forth into the Hearts of all Men a measure of that Divine Light and Seed, wherewith The Di­vine Light of Christ doth make the Saints Partakers of his Bo­dy. he is Cloathed, that thereby reaching un­to the Consciences of all, he may Raise them up out of Death and Darkness by his Life and Light; and they thereby may be made Partakers of his Body, and there­through come to have Fellowship with the Father and with the Son.

Quest. § III. {If it be asked, How and after what manner Man comes to partake of it, and to be fed by it?

Answ. I Answer in the plain and express words of Christ; I am the Bread of Life (saith he) he that cometh to me, shall never hun­geh; Joh. 6. 35. and 55. he that believeth in me, shall never thirst: And again; For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. So whosoever thou art, that askest this Que­stion, or read'st these Lines, whether thou account'st thy self a Believer, or really feelest by a certain and sad Experience, that thou art yet in the Unbelief, and find'st, that the outward Body and Flesh of Christ is so far from thee, that thou canst not reach it, nor feed-upon it: Yea, though thou hast often swallowed down and taken in that which the Papists have [Page 69] perswaded thee to be the Real Flesh and Blood of Christ, and hast believed it to be so; though all thy Senses told thee the Contrary: Or (being a Lutheran) hast taken that Bread, in and with, and under The Lu­therans and Calvi­nians Opi­nion of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Supper (so called) which the Lutherans have assured thee that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is: Or (being a Calvinist) hast partaken of that, which the Calvinists say (though a Figure only of the Body) gives them that take it, a Real Participation of the Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ, though they neither know how, nor what way; I say, if for all this, thou find'st thy Soul yet barren, yea hungry, and rea­dy to starve for want of something thou longest for; know, that that Light that discovers thy Iniquity to thee, that shews thee thy Barrenness, thy Nakedness, thy Emptiness, is that Body, that thou must partake of, and feed upon: But that till by forsaking Iniquity thou turn'st to it, com'st unto it, receiv'st it, though thou may'st hunger after it, thou canst not be Satisfied with it; for it hath no Commu­nion 2 Cor. 6. 14. with Darkness: Nor canst thou drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of De­vils, and be Partaker of the Lord's Table, and the Table of Devils, 1 Cor. 10. 21? But as thou suffer'st that small Seed of [Page 70] Righteousness to arise in thee, and to be How the Inward Man is nourisht. formed into a Birth, that New Substanti­al Birth, that's brought forth in the Soul, naturally feeds upon, and is nourished by this Spiritual Body: Yea, as this outward Birth lives not, but as it sucks in Breath by the Outward Elementary Air; so this New Birth lives not in the Soul, but as it draws in and breathes by that Spiritual Air or Vehicle: And as the Outward Birth cannot subsist without some Outward Bo­dy to feed upon, some Outward Flesh, and some outward Drink; so neither can this Inward Birth, without it be fed by this Inward Body, by this Inward Flesh and Blood of Christ, which answers to it after the same manner, by way of Analo­gy. And this is most agreeable to the Do­ctrine of Christ concerning this matter. For as without Outward Food the Natu­ral Body hath not Life; so also saith Christ, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and Joh. 6. 53. drink his blood, ye have no life in you: And as the Outward body eating Outward food, lives thereby; so Christ saith, That he Joh. 6. 57. that eateth him, shall live by him. So it is this Inward Participation of this Inward Man, of this Inward and Spiritual Body, by which Man is united to God, and has Fellowship and Communion with him. [Page 71] He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Joh. 6. 56. Blood (saith Christ) dwelleth in me, and I in him; this cannot be understood of Out­ward Eating of Outward Bread: And as by this the Soul must have Fellowship with God, so also in so far as all the Saints are Partakers of this One Body, and this One Blood, they come also to have a Joint-Communion. Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 17. in this respect saith, That they being many, are One Bread, and One Body: And to the Wise among the Corin­thians he saith, The Bread, which we break, Ver. 16. is the Communion of the Body of Christ. This is the True and Spiritual Supper of The True Spiritual Supper of the Lord. the Lord, which Men come to partake of by hearing the Voice of Christ, and open­ing the Door of their Hearts, and so let­ting him in, in the manner above-said, ac­cording to the plain words of the Scripture, Rev. 3. 20. Behold, I stand at the Door and Knock; if any Man hear my Voice, and open the Door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. So that the Supper of the Lord, and the Supping with the Lord, and partaking of his Flesh and Blood, is no ways limited to the Ceremo­ny of breaking Bread and drinking Wine at particular times; but is truly and really Enjoyed, as often as the Soul retires into [Page 72] the Light of the Lord, and feels and par­takes of that Heavenly Life, by which the Inward Man is nourished: Which may be, and is often witnessed by the Faithful at all times; though more particularly, when they are Assembled together to Wait upon the Lord.

§ IV. But what Confusion the Profes­sors of Christianity have run into concern­ing this matter, is more than obvious; who (as in most other things they have done) for want of a true Spiritual Under­standing, have sought to Tie this Supper of the Lord to that Ceremony (used by Man is not tied to the Ceremony of breaking Bread and drinking Wine, which Christ did use with his Disci­ples; This only was a Shadow. Christ before his Death) of breaking Bread and drinking Wine with his Disci­ples. And though they for the most part agree in this general, yet how do they Contend and Debate one against another? How strangely are they pinched, pained, and straitned to make this Spiritual My­stery agree to that Ceremony? And what monstrous and wild Opinions and Con­ceivings have they invented, to inclose or affix the Body of Christ to their Bread and Wine? From which Opinion not only the greatest, and fiercest, and most hurtful Contests, both among the Professors of Christianity in general, and among Prote­stants in particular, have arisen; but also [Page 73] such Absurdities, irrational and blasphe­mous What makes the Christian Religion hateful to Jews, Turks and Heathens? Consequences have ensued, as make the Christian Religion odious and hateful to Jews, Turks and Heathens. The Pro­fessors of Christianity do chiefly divide in this matter into three Opinions.

The first is of those that say, The Sub­stance The Pa­pists Faith of Christ his Flesh and Blood of the Bread is Transubstantiated into the very Substance of that same Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified by the Jews: So that after the Words of Consecration (as they call them) it is no more Bread, but the Bo­dy of Christ.

The second is of such as say; The Sub­stance The Lu­therans Faith. of the Bread remains; but that also that Body is in, and with, and under the Bread. So that both the Substance of the Bread, and the Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ, is there also.

The third is of those, that (denying The Cal­vinists Faith. both these) do affirm, That the Body of Christ is not there Corporally, or Substantial­ly; but yet that it is Really and Sacramental­ly received by the Faithful, in the use of Bread and Wine: But how, or what way it's there, they know not, nor can they tell; only we must believe it is there, yet so, that it is only properly in Heaven.

It is not my Design to enter into a Refu­tation [Page 74] of these several Opinions, for each of their Authors and Assertors have suffi­ciently Refuted one another; and are all of them no less strong both from Scripture and Reason, in Refuting each their con­trary Party's Opinion, than they are Weak in Establishing their own. For I often have seriously observed in reading their respective Writings (and so it may be have others) that all of them do notably, in so far as they Refute the contrary Opini­ons; but that they are mightily pained, when they come to Confirm and Plead for their own: Hence I necessarily must conclude, That none of them had attained to the Truth and Substance of this Myste­ry. Let us see, if Calvin, after he hath Inst. lib. 4. cap 17. Refuted the two former Opinions, be more successful, in what he affirms and asserts for the Truth of his Opinion; who, after he hath much laboured in overturn­ing and Refuting the two former Opini­ons, plainly confesseth, that he knows not, what to affirm instead of them. For after he has spoken much, and at last Concluded, That the Body of Christ is there, and that the Saints must needs partake thereof; at last he J. Calvin's Faith of Christ his Flesh and Blood Un­certain. lands in these Words. (Sect. 32.) But if it be asked me, how it is? I shall not be a­shamed to confess, That it is a Secret, too high [Page 75] for me to comprehend in my Spirit, or explain in Words. Here he deals very ingenious­ly; and yet who would have thought, that such a Man would have been brought to this Strait in the Confirming of his Opi­nion? Considering but a little before, in the same Chapter (Sect. 15.) he accu­seth the Schoolmen among the Papists, (and I Confess truly) In that they neither The like the Pa­pists. Understand, nor Explain to others, how Christ is in the Eucharist; which shortly after he Confesseth himself, he cannot do. If then the School-men among the Papists do neither Understand, nor yet can Ex­plain to others their Doctrine in this mat­ter, nor Calvin can comprehend it in his Spirit, (which I judge is as much, as not to understand it) nor Express it in Words (and then surely he cannot Explain it to others) then no certainty is to be had from either of them. There have been great Endeavours used for Reconcilement in this matter, both betwixt Papists and Luthe­rans, Lutherans and Calvinists, yea, and Calvinists and Papists, but all to no pur­pose: and many Forms and Manners of Expressions drawn up, to which all might yield; which in the end proved in vain, seeing every one understood them, and interpreted them, their own way: and so [Page 76] they did thereby but Equivocate and De­ceive one another. The Reason of all this Contention is, because they all wanted a clear Understanding of the Mystery, and were doting about the Shadow and the Externals. For both the Ground and Matter of their Contest lies in things ex­trinsick from, and unnecessary to the main Matter; and this hath been often the Po­licy of Satan to busie People, and amuse Satan bu­sies peo­ple in out­ward Sign, Shadows and Forms, whilst they neg­lect the Substance. them with outward Signs, Shadows and Forms, making them Contend about that; while in the mean time the Substance is neglected. Yea, and in Contending for these Shadows, he stirs them up to the practice of Malice, Heat, Revenge and o­ther Vices, by which he establisheth his Kingdom of Darkness among them, and ruines the Life of Christianity: For there has been more Animosity and Heat about this one Particular, and more Blood-shed and Contention, than about any other. And surely, they are little acquainted with the State of Protestants Affairs, who know not, that their Contentions about this What hath been hurt­ful to the Reformati­on. have been more hurtful to the Reformati­on, than all the Opposition they met with from their common Adversaries. Now all these uncertain and absurd Opinions, and the Contentions therefrom arising, have [Page 77] proceeded from their all agreeing in Two General Errors concerning this thing: Which being denied and receded from, as they are by us, there would be an Easie Way made for Reconciliation, and we should all meet in the one Spiritual and true Understanding of this Mystery; and as the Contentions, so would also the Ab­surdities, which follow from all the Three forementioned Opinions, Cease and fall to the ground.

The First of these Errors is, in making Two Er­rors the ground of the Con­tentions a­bout the Supper. the Communion or Participation of the Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ to relate to that outward Body, Vessel or Temple, that was born of the Virgin Mary, and walked and suffered in Judea; where­as it should relate to the Spiritual Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ, even that Hea­venly and Celestial Light and Life, which was the Food and Nourishment of the Regenerate in all Ages, as we have alrea­dy proved.

The Second Error is, In tying this Par­ticipation of the Body and Blood of Christ to that Ceremony, used by him with his Disciples in the breaking of bread, &c. as if it had only a Relation thereto, or, were only enjoyed in the use of that Ceremony; which it neither hath, nor is. For this is [Page 78] that Bread, which Christ in his Prayer teaches to call for, terming it [...], i. e. the supersubstantial Bread, as the Greek hath it; and which the Soul partakes of, without any relation or ne­cessary respect to this Ceremony, as shall be hereafter proved more at length.

These Two Errors being thus laid aside, and the Contentions arising therefrom bu­ried, all are agreed in the main Positions, viz. First, That the body, flesh and blood of Believers Souls do really feed upon the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Christ is necessary for the nourishing of the Soul: Secondly, That the Souls of Believ­ers do really and truly partake and feed upon the body, flesh and blood of Christ. But while Men are not content with the Spiri­tuality of this Mystery, going in their own Wills, and according to their own Inventions, to strain and wrest the Scrip­tures, for to tie this Spiritual Communi­on of the flesh and blood of Christ, to out­ward Bread and Wine, and such like Car­nal Ordinances, no wonder, if by their carnal Apprehensions they run into Heaps and Confusion. But because it hath been generally supposed, that the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ had some special relation to the Ceremony of break­ing Bread, I shall first Refute that Opini­on, and then proceed to consider the Na­ture [Page 79] and Use of that Ceremony, and whe­ther it be now necessary to Continue; an­swering the Reasons and Objections of such as plead its Continuance, as a necessary and standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ.

§ V. I First, It must be understood, that I speak of a Necessary and Peculiar Relati­on, That the Communi­on of the Body and Blood of Christ has no special Relation to the Cere­mony of breaking Bread, nei­ther by Nature, nor Pre­cept. otherwise than in a general Respect: For, forasmuch as our Communion with Christ is, and ought to be, our greatest and chiefest Work, we ought to do all other things with a Respect to God, and our Fel­lowship with him; but a special and neces­sary Respect or Relation is such, as where the two things are tied and united toge­ther, either of their own Nature, or by the Command of God, that the one cannot be enjoyed, or at least is not (except ve­ry extraordinarily) without the other. Thus Salvation hath a necessary respect to Holiness, because without Holiness no Man shall see God: And the Eating of the flesh and blood of Christ hath a necessary respect to our having Life, because if we eat not his flesh, and drink not his blood, we can­not have Life: And our Feeling of God's Presence hath a necessary respect to our be­ing found Meeting in his Name, by Di­vine Precept, because he has promised, Where two or three are Met together in his [Page 80] Name, he will be in the midst of them: In like manner our receiving benefits and bles­sings from God, has a necessary respect to our Praying, because if we Ask, he hath promised we shall Receive. Now the Com­munion or Participation of the flesh and blood of Christ hath no such necessary rela­tion to the breaking of Bread and drinking of Wine; for if it had any such necessary relation, it would either be from the Na­ture of the Thing, or from some Divine Precept: But we shall shew, it is from nei­ther; Therefore, &c. First, It is not from the Nature of it, because to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ is a Spiritual Exercise; and all confess, that it is by the Soul and Spirit, that we become real Par­takers of it, as it is the Soul, and not the Body, that is nourished by it: but to eat Bread and drink Wine, is a natural Act, which in it self adds nothing to the Soul, neither has any thing, that is Spiritual, in it; because the most carnal Man that is, can as fully, as perfectly and as wholly eat Bread and drink Wine, as the most Spiritu­al. Secondly, Their relation is not by Na­ture, else they would infer one another: but all acknowledge, that many eat of the Bread, and drink of the Wine, even that which, they say, is Consecrate and [Page 81] Transubstantiate into the very Body of Christ, who notwithstanding have not Life Eter­nal, have not Christ dwelling in them, nor do live by him, as all do, who truly par­take The Patri­archs and Prophets without this Cere­mony's Use were true Partakers of Christ's Flesh and Blood. of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, without the Use of this Ceremony; as all the Patriarchs and Prophets did, before this Ordinance (as they account it) was In­stituted. Neither was there any thing under the Law, that had any direct or necessary Relation hereunto; though to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in all Ages was indispensibly necessary to Salvation. For as for the Paschal Lamb, The Pa­schal Lamb its End. the whole End of it is signified particular­ly Exod. 13. 8, 9. to wit, that the Jews might thereby be kept in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt. Secondly, It has no relation by Divine Precept; for if it had, it would be mentioned in that, which our Adversaries account the Insti­tution of it, or else in the Practice of it by the Saints recorded in Scripture: But so it is not. For as to the Institution, or rather Narration of Christ's Practice in this matter, we have it recorded by the Evan­gelists Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the first two there is only an Account of the matter of Fact, to wit, That Christ brake Matth. 26. 20. Bread, and gave it his Disciples to eat, say­ing, [Page 82] This is my Body; and blessing the Cup, Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. he gave it them to drink, saying, This is my Blood; but nothing of any desire to them to do it. In the last, after the Bread The Insti­tution of the Supper, or Narra­tion of Christ's Practice therein. (but before the Blessing or giving them the Wine) he bids them do it in Remem­brance of him: What we are to think of this Practice of Christ, shall be spoken of hereafter. But what necessary Relation hath all this to the Believers partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ? The End of this, for which they were to do it (if at all) is to Remember Christ; which the Apostle yet more particularly expresses, 1 Cor. 11. 26. To shew forth the Lord's Death: But to Remember the Lord, or De­clare his Death, which are the special and particular Ends annexed to the Use of this Ceremony, is not at all to partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, neither have they any more necessary Relation to it, than any other two different Spiritual Du­ties. For though they, that partake of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, cannot but Remember him; yet the Lord and his Death may be Remembred (as none Gan deny) where his Flesh and Blood is not truly par­taken of. So that, since the very parti­cular and express End of this Ceremony may be witnessed (to wit, the Remem­brance [Page 83] of the Lord's Death) and yet the Flesh and Blood of Christ not partaken of, it cannot have had any necessary Relation to it, else the partaking thereof would have been the End of it, and could not have been attained without this Partici­pation. But on the contrary we may well infer hence, that since the positive End of this Ceremony is not the partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and that who­ever partakes of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, cannot but Remember him; that therefore such need not this Ceremony to put them in Remembrance of him.

Object. But if it be said, That Jesus Christ calls the Bread here his Body, and the Wine his Blood; therefore he seems to have had a spe­cial relation to his Disciples partaking of his Flesh and Blood in the use of this thing.

Answ. I Answer; His calling the Bread his Bo­dy, and the Wine his Blood, would yet infer no such thing: Though it is not de­nied, but that Jesus Christ in all things he did, yea and from the use of all Na­tural things, took occasion to raise the Minds of his Disciples and Hearers to Spiri­tuals. Hence from the Woman of Sama­ria The Wo­man of Sa­maria. Joh. 4. 14. her drawing Water, he took occasion to tell her of that Living Water, which whoso drinketh thereof, shall never thirst; [Page 84] which indeed is all one with his Blood here spoken of: Yet it will not follow, that that Well, or Water, had any necessa­ry The Well, the Loaves the Bread and Wine, Christ takes occa­sion from, to shew the Inward Feeding. relation to the Living Water, or the Living Water to it, &c. So Christ takes occasion from the Jews following him for the Loaves, to tell them of this Spiritual Bread and Flesh of his Body, which was more necessary for them to feed upon; it will not therefore follow, that their fol­lowing him for the Loaves had any neces­sary relation thereunto. So also Christ here being at Supper with his Disoiples, takes occasion from the Bread and Wine, which was before them, to signifie unto them, that as That Bread, which he brake unto them, and That Wine, which he blessed and gave unto them, did contribute to the preserving and nourishing of their Bodies; so was he also to give his Body, and shed his Blood for the Salvation of their Souls: And therefore the very End proposed in this Ceremony, to those that observe it, is to be a Memorial of his Death.

But if it be said, that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 16. Calls the Bread which he brake, the Communion of the Body of Christ, and the Cup, the Communion of his Blood.

I do most willingly subscribe unto it; [Page 85] but do deny, that this is understood of the outward Bread, neither can it be e­vinced, but the Contrary is manifest from the Context: For the Apostle in this Chap­ter speaks not one Word of that Ceremony. For having in the beginning of it shewn them, how the Jews of Old were made partakers of the Spiritual Food and Wa­ter, which was Christ, and how several of them, through Disobedience and Idola­try fell from that good Condition, he ex­horts them by the Example of those Jews, whom God destroyed of Old, to flee those Evils; shewing them, that they (to wit, the Corinthians) are likewise parta­kers of the body and blood of Christ, of which Communion they would rob them­selves, if they did Evil, because they could not drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils, and partake of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils, ver. 21. Which shews, that he understands not here the using of outward Bread and Wine; because those, that do Drink the Cup of Devils, and Eat of the Table of Devils, (yea, the Wickedest of Men) may par­take The Wic­kedest may take the outward Bread and Wine. of the outward Bread and outward Wine. For there the Apostle calls the bread One, ver. 17. and he saith, We be­ing many, are One bread and one body; for [Page 86] we are all partakers of that One bread: Now if the bread be One, it cannot be the Outward, or the Inward would be exclu­ded; whereas it cannot be denied, but that it's the partaking of the Inward bread, and not the Outward, that makes the Saints truly One body and One bread. And whereas they say, that the One bread here The Sacra­mental Uni­on preten­ded, is a Figment. comprehendeth both the Outward and In­ward by vertue of the Sacramental Union; that indeed is to affirm, but not to prove. As for that Figment of a Sacramental Uni­on, I find not such a thing in all the Scrip­ture, especially in the New Testament: Nor is there any thing can give a rise for such a thing in this Chapter, where the Apostle, as is above observed, is not at all treating of that Ceremony; but only from the Excellency of that Priviledge, which the Corinthians had, as believing Christians, To partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, dehorts them from Idolatry, and partaking of the Sacrifices offered to Idols, so as thereby to offend or hurt their weak Brethren.

Object. But that, which they most of all Cry out for in this matter, and are always Noising, is from 1 Cor. 11. where the A­postle is particularly treating of this mat­ter; and therefore from some Words here [Page 87] they have the greatest Appearance of Truth for their Assertion: As ver. 27. where he calls the Cup, the Cup of the Lord, and saith; That they who eat of it, and drink it unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and ver. 26. Eat and drink their own Damnation: intimating hence, that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body, flesh and blood of Christ.

Answ. Though this at first View may catch the Unwary Reader; yet being well consi­dered, it doth no ways Evince the mat­ter in Controversie. As for the Corinthi­ans being in the Use of this Ceremony, why they were so, and how that obliges not Christians now to the same, shall be spo­ken of hereafter: it suffices at this time to consider, that they were in the Use of it. Secondly, That in the Use of it they were guilty of, and committed di­vers Abuses. Thirdly: That the Apo­stle here is giving them Directions, how they may do it aright, in shewing them the right and proper Use and End of it.

These things being premised, let it be observed, that the very express and parti­cular Use of it, according to the Apostle is, To shew forth the Lord's Death, &c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death, and [Page 88] partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, are different things: He saith not, As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye partake of the Body and Blood of Christ; but, Ye shew forth the Lord's Death. So I acknowledge, that this Ceremony, by those that practise it, hath an Immediate Relation to the outward Body and Death of Christ upon the Cross, as being pro­perly a Memorial of it; but it doth not thence follow, that it hath any inward or immediate Relation to Believers communi­cating or partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, or that Spiritual Sup­per spoken of Rev. 3. 20. For though in a general way, as every Religious Acti­on in some respect hath a common rela­tion to the Spiritual Communion of the Saints with God; so we shall not deny, but this hath a relation to others. Now for his calling the Cup, the Cup of the Lord, and saying, They are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and eat their own Damnation, in not discerning the Lord's Body, &c. I answer, that this infers no more Necessary Relation, than any other Religious Act; and amounts to no more Christ's Act of Bread and Wine is not o [...]liging o­thers. than this, that since the Corinthians were in the Use of this Ceremony; and so per­formed it as a Religious Act, they ought [Page 89] to do it Worthily, else they should bring Condemnation upon themselves. Now, this will not more infer the thing so pra­ctised by them, to be a necessary, Religi­ous Act, obligatory upon others, than when Rom. 14. 6. the Apostle saith, He that regardeth the Day, regardeth it unto the Lord, it can be thence inferred, that the Days that some esteemed and observed, did lay an obligation upon others to do the same. But yet, as he that Esteem­ed a Day, and placed Conscience in keep­ing it, was to regard it to the Lord, and so it was to him, in so far as he dedica­ted it unto the Lord, the Lord's Day, he was to do it Worthily; and if he did it Unworthily, he would be guilty of the Lord's Day, and so keep it to his own Damnation: So also such as observe this Ceremony of Bread and Wine, it is to them the Bread of the Lord, and the Cup of the Lord, because they Use it as a Religious Act: And forasmuch as their End therein is, To shew forth the Lord's Death, and to Remember his Body, that was Crucified for them, and his Blood, that was shed for them; If notwithstanding they believe it is their Duty to do it, and make it a mat­ter of Conscience to forbear, if they do it without that due Preparation and Exami­nation, [Page 90] which every Religious Act ought to be performed in, then instead of truly Remembring the Lord's Death, and his Body and his Blood, they render themselves Guilty of it, as being in one Spirit with those, that Crucified him, and shed his Blood, though pretending with Thanks­giving and Joy to Remember it. Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of Old, though in The Pha­risees guilt of the Blood of the Pro­phets. Memory of the Prophets they garnished their Sepulchres, yet are said by Christ to be Guilty of their Blood. And that no more can be hence inferred, appears from another saying of the same Apostle, Rom. 14. 23. He that doubteth, is damned, if he eat, &c. where he, speaking of those that judged it unlawful to Eat flesh, &c. saith, If they eat doubting, they eat their own Dam­nation. Now it is manifest for all this, that either the doing or forbearing of this, was to another, that placed no Conscience in it, of no moment; so I say, he that Eateth that, which in his Conscience he is perswaded is not lawful for him to Eat, doth Eat his own Damnation: So he also, that placeth Conscience in Eating bread and wine, as a Religious Act, if he do it Unpre­pared, and without that due respect, where­in such Acts should be gone about, he Eateth and Drinketh his own Damnation, [Page 91] not discerning the Lord's Body, i. e. not minding what he doth, to wit, with a special Respect to the Lord, and by way of a special Commemoration of the Death of Christ.

§ VI. I 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; it is sit 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) II Whether it be a standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, obligatory upon all; or Whether this Cere­mony be a necessary Part of the New Co­venant, and Obligatory? 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 [Page 91] therefore mentioned by the Evangelists: And there are other things less Memorable as often, yea oftner mentioned. Matthew Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23. and Mark give only an Account of the Matter of Fact, without any Precept to do so afterwards; simply declaring, 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 fought to build upon it; for both Mat­thew and Mark press it as an Act done by him, as he was Eating: 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 The break­ing of Bread was no singular thing, but a Custom to Jews. P. Riccius. any solemn Institution of a Gospel Or­dinance, because it was a Constant Custom among the Jews (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 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, [Page 93] 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 oftner Inculcate unto them, for that they were Averse from believing it. And as for that Expression of Luke, Do this in What it is, To do this in Remem­brance of Christ. Remembrance of me; it will amount to no more, than 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 Remembring 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 Eucharistiae Sacramentum, Venerabile Altaris Sacramen­tum, The Principal Seal of the Covenant of [Page 94] 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, c. 13. v. 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15. Jesus riseth from Supper, and laid aside his Gar­ments, and took a Towel, and girded him­self: After that he poured Water into a Ba­son, and began to Wash the Disciples Feet, and to wipe them with the Towel, wherewith he was girded. Peter saith 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 Christ's Washing of Feet, and its Manner related. 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 anothers 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, both being done the Night of the Pass-over, after Supper. If we re­gard the Narration of this, and the Cir­cumstances attending it, it was done with [Page 95] far more Solemnity, and prescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It is said only, As he was Eat­ing, Compar'd with the Breaking of Bread. 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 the 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 [Page 96] not him, 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, that as he hath done The Wash­ing one a­nothers Feet was left, as an Example. 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 respect 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 signifie an in­ward purifying. I would willingly pro­pose this seriously to Men that 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 [Page 97] 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 numbred it among their Sacraments, except meerly Voluntas Ecclesiae & Traditio Patrum.

Object. But if they say, That it is used among them, in that the Pope and some other Per­sons among them, use 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. And as to Protestants, who use not The Pro­testants use not Wash­ing of Feet. this Ceremony at all, if they will but open their eyes, they may see how that by Cu­stom [Page 98] 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, The 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 evite this, neither can any thing be alledged that the one should Cease, and not the other; or the one Conti­nue, and not the other, but the meer 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 fall'n 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 the [Page 99] Scripture. But since the former, to wit, the Washing of one anothers Feet, is justly laid aside, as not binding upon Christians, so ought also the other, for the same Rea­son.

§. VII. But I strange that those that are The brea­king of Bread not used now in the same manner as Christ did. 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, who now do it, use it in the same way that he did it: Christ did it at Supper, while they were eating; but they do it in the Morn­ing only by it self: 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 did 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 how may or can they evince in Reason, that these Words, Do this, only signifie, Eat Bread, and drink Wine, but it is no matter when ye eat, nor [Page 100] how ye eat it; and not, as ye have seen me eat 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, notwithstanding 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 The brea­king of Bread was a Jewish Ceremony. is above observed; May it not the same way be urged, that the Drinking of Wine was 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 peforming of [Page 101] this Sacrament? Yea, have not Scruples of this kind occasioned no little Contention among the Professors of Christianity? What Contests between the Greek and Latine Churches, concern­ing the Leaven'd and Unlea­ven'd Bread in the Supper. 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: And this Contest was so hot, when the Reformation was beginning at Geneva, that Calvin and Farellus were for­ced Farellus. to flee 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 in the same Manner, and at the same Time, which 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? O 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, [Page 102] but by laying it aside, as they have done others of the like Nature. For besides what is above-mentioned, I would gladly The Cler­gy Taking Bread, do bless and give it; the Laity must Take and Eat, not Bless it. 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 was only 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 only the Clergy ought to partake of this Ceremony, because they were only those present to whom it was said Do this? But if this [Do this] be extended to all, how comes it that all have not liberty to obey it, in both blessing, breaking and distributing, as well as taking and eating? Besides all these, even the Cal­vinian 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 Hot Con­tests about the Man­ner of Taking it, and to whom to Give it. given to the Sick, and those that are ready to Die, or not: Which Controversies, tho' they may be esteemed of small moment, yet have greatly contributed, with other [Page 103] things, to be the occasion not only of much Contention, but also of Blood-shed and De­vastation; so that in this last respect the Prelatick Calvinists have termed the Presby­terians Schismatical and Pertinacious, and and they them again Superstitious, Idola­trous and Papistical. Who then that will open their Eyes, but may see that the De­vil hath stirred up this Contention and Zeal, to busie men about things of small Moment, that greater Matters may be neglected, while he keeps them in such a do about this Ceremony; while 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 other our Adversaries have laid aside, to avoid all 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 [Page 104] so much mixed in 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 signifie 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 in the Acts, where breaking of Bread is spoken of, to have relation hereto; which as our Adversaries do, so we shall willingly agree to. As first, Acts 2. 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 By Break­ing of Bread they had all things in comman; Remem­bring the Lord. had all things in common; and therefore it is said, Ver. 26. And they continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and Breaking of Bread from House to House, did eat their [Page 105] Meat with gladness, and singleness of heart. Who will not wilfully close their Eyes, may see here, that their Breaking being joyned 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 shall not doubt but they Re­membred the Lord, to follow whom they had with so great Zeal and Resignation be­taken themselves. This is further mani­fest from Acts 6. 26. For the Apostles ha­ving the Care and Distribution of that Money, which the Believers having sold their Possessions gave unto them, finding themselves over-charged with that Bur­then, appointed Deacons for that business, that they might give themselves continu­ally to Prayer, and to the Ministry of the Deacons appointed for serving at Tables. Word; not leaving that, to serve Tables. This cannot be meant of any Sacramental Eating, or Religious Act 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 alledged, that that Breaking of Bread which they are said to have Conti­nued in, and to have done from House to [Page 106] House, was other, than those Tables that the Apostles served, but here gave over, as finding themselves over-charged 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 Antient Community, they did at certain times come together, and break Bread together. Hence it is said, Acts 20. 7. that Paul At Troas the Supper till Mid­night de­ferred. coming to Troas, And upon the first 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 its not very probable, that Paul would from the Morning have preached until Midnight. But the Eleventh Verse puts the mat­ter [Page 107] 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 those words [and when he had broken Bread, and eaten] do shew, that it had a relation to the Breaking of Bread afore­mentioned, 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 They on­ly did Eat for refresh­ing the Bo­dy. for bodily Refreshment, 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 prophane Persons. And this by some is called a By some called a Love-Feast. Love-Feast, or a being together not meerly 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 [Page 108] Solemn Sacrifice, as some will have it, or such a Special Sacrament, as others plead it to be, it is strange, that that History, that in many lesser 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. Now as the Primitive Christians began by de­grees to depart from that Primitive Pu­rity The Chri­stians be­gan by de­grees to depart from the Primitive Purity. and Simplicity, so as to accumulate Superstitious Traditions, and vitiate the In­nocent Practices of their Predecessors, by the intermixing either of Jewish or Heathe­nish Rites; so also in the Use of this, very early Abuses began to creep in among Christians, so that it was needful for the Apostle Paul to Reform them, and Reprove them therefore, as he doth at large, 1 Cor. 11. 1 Cor. 11. 17. Concern­ing the Supper (of the Lord, so called) Explained. from ver. 17. to the End: Which place we shall particularly Examine, be­cause our Adversaries lay the chief Stress of their matter upon it; 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, as to make of it some Mystical Supper of the Lord, he tells them, v. 20. That their [Page 109] 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 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 come 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: Here it Why the Custom of Supping in Common was used among Christians? is plain, that the Apostle Condemns them for that, because this Custom of Supping in general was used among Christians for to increase their Love, and as a Memorial of Christ's Supping with the Disciples, that they should have so vitiated it, 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 is lost and perverted: And there­fore he blames them, that they do not ei­ther Eat this in Common at home, or re­serve their Eating, till they come all to­gether to the Publick Assembly. This ap­pears plainly by the following verse 22. Have ye not Houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them, that have not? Where he blames [Page 110] 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 ashamed, 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, because this Custom of Eating and The Rise of that Cu­stom. 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, [Page 111] 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 also; 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 That (as often) im­ports no Command of this Sup­per. 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: But these words [as often] imports 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 Lords 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 Controversie here for granted, without proof. First, That [as often] imports a Command, the contrary whereof [Page 112] is shewn; neither will they ever be able to prove it. Secondly, That this Coming Christ's Outward and In­ward Com­ing. is 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 Outwards, this might have been Indulged to them for a season, and even used by those, 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. Now those Weak and Carnal Co­rinthians To Re­member Christ't Death till he come. To Arise in the Heart. might be permitted the Use of this, to Shew forth or Remember Christ's Death, till he come to Arise in them; for though such need those outward things to put them in mind of Christ's Death, yet such, as 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. 3. 1. If ye [Page 113] 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 these things, that are above; but are things of the Earth. But that this whole matter was a meer Act of Indul­gence and Condescendence of the Apostle Paul to the Weak and Carnal Corinthi­ans, appears yet more by the Syriack And like­wise the other Ori­ental Ver­sions, as the Arabick and Aethio­pick, have it the same way. Copy, which ver. 17. in his entring 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 forc'd to give them Instructions concerning those Outward things; and doting upon which they shew, 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: Thèreby shewing to them, that To Meet together to eat and drink Outward Bread [Page 114] 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, To abstain from things strangled. is already shewn) how come they to pass over far more positive Commands of the Apostles, as matters of no moment? As First, Acts 15. 26. where the Apo­stles peremptorily Command even the Gentiles, as that, which was the Mind of the Holy Ghost, To abstain from things strangled, and from Blood? And Jam. 5. 14. where it is expresly Command­ed, The A­nointing with Oil. That the Sick be Anointed with Oil in the Name of the Lord.

Object. If they say, These 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 [Page 115] be evited to militate 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. And 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 Vertue failing. only me thinks, since our Adversaries (and that rightly) think, a Ceremony ought to Cease, where the Vertue fails; they ought by the same Rule, to sor­bear the laying on of Hands, in Imitati­on Thus Lay­ing on of hands. 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, [Page 116] 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 The Cere­mony of Bread and Wine is Ceas'd. and Wine is Ceased, as well as those o­ther things, confessed by our Adversaries to be so. The first is Rom. 14. 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; as by the Context doth ap­pear, where he is speaking of the Guilt and Hazzard 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 is yet more plain of the same Apostle, Col. 2. 16. The Apostle throughout this whole Second Chapter doth clearly plead for us, Col. 2. and against the Formality and Superstition of our Opposers: For in the beginning he [Page 117] holds forth the great Priviledges Christi­ans have by Christ, who are come indeed 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 or 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. Then since our Adversaries Con­fess, 'Tis but a Sign and Shadow, they con­fess. that their Bread and Wine is a Sign or Shadow, therefore, according to the A­postle's [Page 118] Doctrine, we ought not to be Judged in the Observation of it. But is it not fit for those, that are Dead with Christ, to be subject to such Ordinances? 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 And which do perish with the Using. 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 peri­sheth 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 preferrable to it? Whereas the Apostle shews the difference, The Law was Meats and Drinks not so the Gospel. Heb. 9. 10. in that such kind of Observa­tions of the Jews were as a Sign of the Gospel, for that this stood only in Meats [Page 119] and Drinks, and divers Washings. And now, 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; 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 The Law has Shadow the Gospel brings the Substance. to the Hebrews, he argues with the Jews to Wean them from their 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 [Page 120] 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 Antitype of the other, especially, seeing Protestants make not these their Anti­types to have any more Vertue or Ef­ficacy, than the Type had? For since, as they say, and that truly, That their Their Sa­craments confer not Grace. Sacraments confer not Grace, but that 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. But supposing the Use of Water-Baptism, and Bread and Wine, to have been in the Primitive Church, as was also Opposers claim a Power to give their Sacraments from whence do they de­rive it? that of Abstaining from things strangled, and from Blood; the use of Legal Purifica­tions, Acts 21. 23, 24, 25. and Anointing of the Sick with Oyl, for the Reasons and [Page 121] 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 be­hoved 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 Apostacy: 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: But as Tradition is not a Tradition no suffici­ent ground for Faith. 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 Apostacy began very arly; as may appear in the Epistles of Paul to the [Page 122] 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 ought 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 Ceremorial Part of it, we shall not find any Church now, whether Popish or Protestant, who differ nor widely from them in many things; as Daleus in his Treatise concerning the use of the Fa­thers, Daleus. [Page 123] well Observeth and Demonstra­teth.

And why they should Obtrude this upon us, because of the Ancient's 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, there is no sufficient Reason can be as­signed.

I shall not nevertheless doubt, but that 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 Vailed from them, by their sticking unto 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 if the Substance was not changed, yet the Body was there, &c.

And indeed, I am inclinable very fa­vourably [Page 124] to judge of Calvin in this par­ticular, Calvin's ingenuous Confession commended in that he deals so ingenuously to confess, he neither Comprehends, nor can express it in Words; but yet by a feeling Experience can say, The Lord is spiritually present.

Now as I do not doubt, but Calvin sometimes had a Sense of this 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 that Light that makes all Things Manifest, and had not laboured in his Eph. 5. 15. 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 reached further unto the Knowledge of this Mystery, than many that went before him.

§ XI. Lastly, If any now at this Day, In tender­ness of Conscience at Igno­rance God winketh. from a true Tenderness of Spirit, and with real Conscience towards God, did pra­ctise this Ceremony in the same Way, [Page 125] Method and Manner, as did the Primi­tive Christians recorded in Scripture, (which yet none, that I know, now do) I should not doubt to affirm, but they might be indulged in it; and the Lord might regard them, and for a season Ap­pear to them in the Use of these things; as many of us have known him to do to us, in the time of our Ignorance: Provided always, they did not seek to Obtrude them upon others, nor Judge such as found themselves Delivered, or that they do not pertinaciously adhere to them.

For we certainly know that the Day The Day is Dawn'd that God is Risen, and Wor­shipped in Spirit. is Dawned, in which God hath Arisen, and hath Dismissed all those Ceremonies and Rites, and is only to be Worshipped in Spirit; and that he Appears to them who Wait upon him: And that to Seek God in these things is, with Mary at the Se­pulcher, To seek the Living among the Dead: For we know that he is Arisen, and Revealed in Spirit, leading his Chil­dren out of these Rudiments; that they may Walk with Him in his Light: To whom be Glory for ever!

Amen.