[Sidenote: IV. _That _Water-baptism_ is no Badge of _Christians_, like
_Circumcision_ of the _Jews.] if Water-baptism, as our Adversaries
contend, be 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 those Converts into such _Jewish Observations_ and
_Baptisms_, however that Practice was indulged in and practised by
the other Apostles among their _Jewish Proselytes_; for which Cause
[115]_he thanks God that he had baptized so few_: Intimating that what
he did therein he did not by Virtue of his Apostolick Commission,
[Sidenote: Paul _was not sent to baptize._] but rather in Condescension
to their Weakness, even as at another Time he circumcised _Timothy_.

[115] 1 Cor. i. 14.

[Sidenote: Obj. 1.] Our Adversaries, to evade the Truth of this
Testimony, usually allege, _That by this is only to be understood, that
he was not sent principally to baptize, not that he was not sent at
all_.

[Sidenote: _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_.

[Sidenote: Confir.] As for what they urge, by Way of Confirmation, from
other Places of Scripture, where [_not_] is to be so taken, as where
it is said, [116]_I will have Mercy, and_ not _Sacrifice_, which is
to be understood that God requires principally _Mercy_, not excluding
_Sacrifice_:

[116] Matt. 9. 15. Hos. 6. 6.

[Sidenote: 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._ ii. 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?

[Sidenote: 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_;

[Sidenote: _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 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 4th, 5th,
6th, 7th, and 8th Verses of Chap. iii. may appear: [Sidenote: _That_
Preaching _is a standing Ordinance, and not to be forborne_.] And yet
to 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 forborne by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God:
Wherefore the Apostle accordingly, _Chap._ iii. 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
Condescension to the _Jews_, and by some Apostles to some _Gentiles_
also, therefore, 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 administered this
Ceremony to so few of them; and by telling them plainly that it was no
Part of his Commission, neither that which he was sent to administer.

[Sidenote: 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_?_

[Sidenote: _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. [Sidenote: _That which converts to _Christ_ is the
Baptism of the Spirit._] For since the Apostle _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 toward God, and to have put on Christ, and
be risen with him in Newness of Life_) are baptized with the Baptism of
the Spirit. But who will say that only those 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 principal 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 be spoken
to. [Sidenote: Part 2.] I come now to consider the Reasons alleged by
such as plead for _Water-baptism_, which are also the Objections used
against the Discontinuance of it.

§. VIII. [Sidenote: Obj. 1.] _First_, Some object, [117]_That Christ,
who had the Spirit above Measure, was notwithstanding baptized with
Water_. As _Nic. Arnoldus_ against this _Thesis_, Sect. 46. of his
_Theological Exercitation_.

[117] John 3. 34.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_, So was he also _circumcised_; it will
not follow from thence that _Circumcision_ is to continue: [Sidenote:
_Why _Christ_ was _baptized_ by _John.] For it behoved 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 keep the _Passover_. It will not thence follow that _Christians_
ought to do so now; and therefore Christ, _Matt._ iii. 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.

[Sidenote: Obj. 2.] _Secondly_, They object, _Matt._ xxviii. 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_.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] This is the great Objection, and upon which they
build the whole _Superstructure_; whereunto the first general and sound
_Answer_ is, by granting the whole; [Sidenote: _What Baptism _Christ_
doth mean in _Mat. 28.] 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 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 alleged by those that will have _Water_ to be here
understood.

[Sidenote: Arg. 1.] The _First_ is a Maxim 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.

[Sidenote: Arg. 2.] _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_.

[Sidenote: Arg. 3.] _Thirdly_, That Baptism which Christ commanded his
Apostles was such, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on
Christ:

But this is not true of _Water-baptism_:

Therefore, _&c._

[Sidenote: Arg. 4.] _Fourthly_, The Baptism commanded by Christ to his
Apostles was not _John_’s Baptism:

But Baptism with Water was _John_’s Baptism:

Therefore, _&c._

[Sidenote: Alleg. 1.] But _First_, They allege, _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.

I _answer_, In that _John_’s Baptism was unto Repentance, the
Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ’s also; yea, our
Adversaries will not deny but that _adult Persons_ that are to be
baptized ought, ere they are admitted to _Water-baptism_, to repent,
and confess their Sins: And that _Infants_ also, 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 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 says no such Thing, neither do I see how it can
be inferred from it. [Sidenote: _Of the Name of the Lord how taken in
Scripture._] For the Greek is [Greek: eis to onoma: εις το ονομα],
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 _Virtue_ and _Power_, as may appear from
_Psal._ liv. 3. _Cant._ i. 3. _Prov._ xviii. 10. and in many more.
[Sidenote: _The _Baptism_ into the _Name_, what it is._] Now that the
Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations _into this
Name_, _Virtue_, and _Power_, and that they did so, is evident by these
Testimonies of _Paul_ above-mentioned, where he saith, _That as many
of them as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ_; this must
have been a _Baptizing into the Name_, i. e. _Power_ and _Virtue_, and
not a mere 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 alleged 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 the Father,
Son, and Spirit_, hath no Warrant from _Matt._ xxviii. _&c._

[Sidenote: _Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of_ Baptism _in_ Matt.
28.] For which, besides the Reason taken from the Signification of
[_the Name_] as being the _Virtue_ and _Power_ above expressed, let
it be considered, that if it had been a _Form_ prescribed by Christ
to his Apostles, then surely they would have made use of that Form in
the administering of _Water-baptism_ to such as they baptized with
Water; but though particular Mention 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_ ii. 41. and
viii. 12, 13. 38. and ix. 18. and x. 48. and xvi. 15. and xviii. 8.
yet there is not a Word of this Form. And in two Places, _Acts_ viii.
16. and xix. 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, _Matt._ xxviii. did enjoin 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 administering _Water-baptism_,
they did not by Virtue of that Commission, else they would have so
used it; for our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a great _Heresy_
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.

[Sidenote: Alleg. 2.] _Secondly_, They say, _If this were not
understood of_ Water-baptism, _it would be a Tautology, and all one
with_ Teaching.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I say, _Nay: Baptizing with the Spirit_ is somewhat
further than teaching, or informing the Understanding; [Sidenote:
_How Teaching and Baptizing differ._] 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_.

[Sidenote: Alleg. 3.] _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 the Work of
Christ, and his Grace; not of Man_, &c.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] [Sidenote: _The Baptism with the _Spirit_ ascribed
to godly Men as Instruments._] 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 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._ i. 11. speaks of HIS
_imparting to them spiritual Gifts_; and he tells the _Corinthians_,
that HE had _begotten them through the Gospel_, 1 Cor. iv. 15. And
yet to beget People to 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 oftentimes 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, though 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_.

[Sidenote: Alleg. 4.] _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_.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism, 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.

§. IX. [Sidenote: Obj. 3.] _Thirdly_, They object _the constant
Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church, who_, they say,
_did always administer _Water-baptism_ to such as they converted to
the Faith of Christ; and hence also they further urge that of _Matt.
xxviii._ to have been meant of _Water_; or else the Apostles did not
understand it, because in _baptizing_ they used _Water_; or that in so
doing they walked without a Commission_.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] 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, who was not inferior to
the chiefest of the Apostles, and who declares he laboured as much as
they all, rejoiceth he was so little in. But further; the Conclusion
inferred from the Apostles Practice of _baptizing with Water_, to
evince that they understood _Matt._ xxviii. of Water-baptism, doth
not hold: [Sidenote: _How the _Apostles_ baptized._] For though they
baptized with Water, it will not follow that either they did it by
Virtue of that Commission, or that they mistook that Place; nor can
there be any _Medium_ brought, that will infer such a Conclusion.
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_.

[Sidenote: 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_, Matt. xxviii. _to authorize them to baptize with_ Water,
_and accordingly practised it_;

[Sidenote: _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_; [Sidenote: _The Apostles
did scruple the Teaching the _Gentiles.] yea, _Peter_ himself
scrupled 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, 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_, 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 Water-baptism is.

But further, They urge much _Peter_’s baptizing _Cornelius_; in which
they press two 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 x. 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. [Sidenote: _Whether _Peter_’s baptizing
some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church._] For
_First_, All that this will amount to, was, That _Peter_ at that Time
baptized these Men; but that he did it by Virtue of that Commission,
_Matt._ xxviii. remains yet to be proved. And how doth the Baptizing
with Water, after the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, prove the Case, more
than the Use of _Circumcision_, and other _legal Rites_, acknowledged
to have been performed by him afterwards? Also, it is no Wonder if
_Peter_, who 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
an 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 _Forerunner_
of Christ, seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel, than the
other _Jewish Ceremonies_ 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 Water-baptism 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 otherwise founded upon some positive Precept. Why doth _Peter_’s
commanding _Cornelius_ and his Houshold to be baptized at that Time
infer _Water-baptism_ to continue, more than his constraining (which is
more than commanding) the _Gentiles_ in General to be _circumcised_,
and observe the _Law_? We find at that Time, when _Peter_ baptized
_Cornelius_, it was not yet 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 needful at that Time that they should be baptized;
which had more Affinity with the Gospel, and was a Burthen less
grievous.

§. X. [Sidenote: Obj. 4.] _Fourthly_, They object _from the
Signification of the Word _[baptize]_ which is as much as to _dip_ and
_wash_ with _Water_; alleging thence that the very Word imports a being
baptized with_ Water.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] This Objection is very weak. [Sidenote: Baptizing
_signifies Dipping or Washing with Water._] For since _baptizing_ with
Water was a Rite among the _Jews_, as _Paulus Riccius_ sheweth, even
before the Coming of _John_; and that the Ceremony received that Name
from the Nature of the Practice, as used both by the _Jews_ and by
_John_; yet 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 signify 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 contra-distinguished
from that of _Water_, which was _John_’s, as is above shewn. 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,
_Destroy this Temple, and in three Days I will raise it up_; 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: [Sidenote: [Greek: Baptizô:
Βαπτιζω] _immergo_, _intingo_, to plunge and dip in.] For the Greek
[Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω] signifies _immergo_, that is, to _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 upon the Forehead, which doth not at all answer to the Word
[_Baptism._] [Sidenote: _Those that of old used _Water-baptism_ were
_dipped_ and _plunged_, and those that were only _sprinkled_, were
not admitted to any Office in the Church, _and why.] Yea, those of
old among Christians that used Water-baptism, thought this _Dipping_
or _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_, and
not _dipped_, should not be admitted to 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_.

[Sidenote: Obj. 5.] _Fifthly_, They object, _John_ iii. 5. _Except a
Man be born of _Water_, and of the _Spirit_, &c. hence inferring the
Necessity of _Water-baptism_, as well as of the Spirit_.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] But if this prove any Thing, it will prove
Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity; and therefore _Protestants_
rightly affirm, 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; [Sidenote: _The Water that regenerates,
is mystical and inward_.] but mystically, of an inward Cleansing and
Washing. Even as where Christ 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 _purify_ is a proper Effect of
Fire, as to _wash_ and _make clean_ is of Water; where it can as little
be so understood, as where we are said to be _saved by the Washing of
Regeneration_, Tit. iii. 5. Yea, _Peter_ saith expresly, in the Place
often cited, as _Calvin_ well observes, [118]_That the _Baptism_ which
saves, is not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh_. So that
since [_Water_] cannot be understood of outward Water, this can serve
nothing to prove Water-baptism.

[118] In the 4th Book of his _Instit._ C. 15.

[Sidenote: Object.] If it be said, That [_Water_] _imports here_
necessitatem præcepti, _though not_ medii;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_, That is first to take it for granted
that outward Water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have
already proved. [Sidenote: _Necessitas præcepti _and_ medii _urged.]
Next, _Water_ and the _Spirit_ are placed here together, [_Except a
Man be born of_ Water _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 deducible from it, That the _Necessity_
of _Water_ is here _præcepti_, but not _medii_, but the _Necessity_ of
the _Spirit_ is both _medii_ and _præcepti_, is indeed confidently to
affirm, but not to prove.

[Sidenote: Obj. 6.] _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.

[Sidenote: _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 for us to impose outward
_Ceremonies_ and _Rites_, and say, They will distinguish us from
_Infidels_. [Sidenote: _Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant._]
_Circumcision_ 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, [Sidenote: _Water-baptism falsely called a_ Badge
_of Christianity._] 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 alleged for it) is miserably to beg the
Question. [Sidenote: _Which is the _Badge_ of Christianity._] _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: [Sidenote: _What the _Fathers_
say of Water-baptism, and of the Sign of the Cross._] And may not the
Professing of _Faith in Christ_ signify that as well? I know there are
divers of those called the _Fathers_, that speak much of Water-baptism,
calling it _Characterem Christianitatis_: But so did they also of
the Sign of the _Cross_, and other such Things, justly rejected by
_Protestants_. [Sidenote: Heathenish _Ceremonies introduced into the
Christian Worship._] For the _Mystery of Iniquity_, which began to
work in the Apostles Days, soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of
the Christian Worship; insomuch that not only many _Jewish Rites_ were
retained, but many _Heathenish Customs_ and _Ceremonies_ introduced
into the Christian Worship; as particularly that Word [_Sacrament_.] So
that it is a great Folly, especially for _Protestants_, to plead any
Thing of this from _Tradition_ or _Antiquity_; For we find that neither
_Papists_ nor _Protestants_ use those 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 Externals, were very uncertain. For
most of them all, in the primitive Times, did wholly _plunge_ and _dip_
those they baptized, which neither _Papists_, nor most _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 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 in the Use of Baptism_: [Sidenote: _Exorcism or
Adjuration._] 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, that used it; [Sidenote: _The Sign of the Cross._] nor
yet, who using it, did not also use the _Sign of the Cross_, and other
Things with it, which they deny. [Sidenote: _Many in _former Ages_
testified against _Water-baptism.] 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 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. And _P. Pithœus_ mentions it in his _Fragments_ of
the _History_ of _Guienne_, which is also confirmed by one _Johannes
Floracensis_, a _Monk_, who was famous at that Time, in his Epistle to
_Oliva_, Abbot of the _Ausonian_ Church: “I will, saith he, give you
to understand concerning the Heresy that was in the City of _Orleans_
on _Childermas-day_; [Sidenote: _Ten Canonicks burnt at _Orleans_, and
why._] for it was true, if ye have heard any Thing, that King _Robert_
caused to be burnt alive near 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 stifly deny
the Grace of holy Baptism, and also the Consecration of the 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 Aureliæ publicè anno Incarnationis Domini 1022. Regni _Roberti_
Regis 28, Indictione 5. quando _Stephanus_ Hæresiarcha & Complices ejus
damnati sunt et exusti Aureliæ_.

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_, 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 Controversy is
brought back again to the Scriptures, according to which, I suppose, I
have already discussed it.

[Sidenote: _The _Baptism_ of _Infants_ an Human Tradition._] As for
the latter Part of the _Thesis_, denying 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 Water-baptism, 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 the_ Anabaptists, without
adding any further Proof.

PROPOSITION XIII.

Concerning the COMMUNION, or PARTICIPATION of the BODY and BLOOD of
CHRIST.

[119]_The _Communion_ of the Body and Blood of Christ is _inward_ and
    _spiritual_, which is the Participation of his Flesh and Blood, by
    which the _inward Man_ is daily nourished in the Hearts of those
    in whom Christ dwells. Of which Things the _Breaking of Bread_ by
    Christ with his Disciples was a _Figure_, which even they who had
    received the Substance used in the Church for a Time, for the Sake
    of the Weak; [120]even as _abstaining from Things strangled_, and
    _from Blood_, _the Washing one another’s Feet_, and the _Anointing
    of the Sick with Oil_: All which are commanded with no less
    Authority and Solemnity than the former; yet seeing they are but
    _Shadows_ of better Things, they cease in such as have obtained the
    _Substance.

[119] 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. John 6. 32. 33. 35. 1 Cor. 5. 8.

[120] Acts 15. 20. John 13. 14. James 5. 14.

§. I. The _Communion_ of the Body and Blood of Christ is a _Mystery_
hid from all natural Men, in their first fallen 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_ been much hid and sealed up from them,
while they have been contending, quarrelling and fighting one with
another about the mere Shadow, Outside, and Form, but Strangers to the
Substance, Life and Virtue.

§. II. [Sidenote: _The _Body_ and _Blood_ of Christ is spiritual._]
The _Body_ then of Christ, which Believers partake of, is _spiritual_,
and not _carnal_; and his _Blood_, which they drink of, is _pure_
and _heavenly_, and not _human_ or _elementary_, as _Augustine_ also
affirms of the _Body of Christ_, which is eaten, in his _Tractat._
Psal. xcviii. _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 which they shall spill,
who crucify me--I am the living Bread, who have descended from Heaven.
He calls himself the Bread, who descended from Heaven, exhorting that
we might believe in him_, &c.

[Sidenote: Object.] If it be asked then, _What that _Body_, what that
_Flesh_ and _Blood_ is?_

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_, It is that _Heavenly Seed_, that
_divine, spiritual, celestial Substance_, of which we spake before in
the _fifth_ and _sixth Propositions_. [Sidenote: _What the _heavenly
Seed_ is, whereby formerly, and also now, _Life_ and _Salvation_ was
and is communicated._] This is that _spiritual Body of Christ_, whereby
and through which 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 than any other; and it is 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_, 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
(Verse 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 rectify that Mistake, and better inform them, affirmeth, _First_,
That _it is not Moses, but his _Father_, that 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_, The blessed Fruits and necessary
Effects of this Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Ver. 33.
_This _Bread_ giveth Life to the World._ Ver. 50. _He that eateth
thereof, dieth not._ Ver. 58. _He that eateth of this _Bread_, shall
live for ever._ Ver. 54. _Whoso eateth this Flesh, and drinketh this
Blood, shall live for ever._ Ver. 56. _And he dwelleth in Christ, and
Christ in him._ Ver. 57. _And shall live by Christ._ [Sidenote: _The
Origin, Nature and Effects of the Body, Flesh and Blood of Christ._]
From this large Description of the Origin, 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 it is said, 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._
[Sidenote: _Solid Reasons that it is his spiritual Body Christ speaks
of._] This is also founded upon most sound and solid Reason; because
it is the Soul, not the 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: [121]_He that 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 transformed 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 to be understood,
appears further, inasmuch as that which feedeth upon it shall never
die: But the Bodies of all Men once die; yea, it was necessary that
the Body of Christ himself should die. 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 is said, _It is that which cometh down
from Heaven, and giveth Life unto the World_: Now this answers to that
_Light_ and _Seed_, which is testified of, _John_ i. to be the _Light
of the World, and the Life of Men_. [Sidenote: _This spiritual Light
and Seed is as Bread to the hungry Soul._] For that _spiritual Light_
and _Seed_, as it receives Place in Men’s 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_ i. by the _Light enlightening every Man_, and
the _Life_, &c. appears; for the _Light_ and _Life_, spoken of _John_
i. is said to be _Christ_; _He is the true Light_: And the _Bread_
and _Flesh_, &c. spoken of in _John_ vi. is called _Christ_; I _am
the_ Bread _of Life_, saith he. Again, _They that received that Light
and Life_, John i. 12. _obtained Power to become the Sons of God, by
believing in his Name_: So also here, _John_ vi. 35. _He that cometh
unto this _Bread_ of Life shall not hunger; and he that believes in
him, who is this _Bread_, shall never thirst_. [Sidenote: _Christ’s
outward and spiritual Body distinguished._] So then, as there was the
outward visible Body and Temple of Jesus Christ, which took its Origin
from the Virgin _Mary_; 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.
[Sidenote: _The Patriarchs did eat of the Body of Christ_.] Of which
Body of Christ, and Flesh and Blood, if both _Adam_, and _Seth_, and
_Enoch_, and _Noah_, 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 his spiritual
Body, no less properly, and that long before that outward Body was in
Being. Hence the Apostle saith, 1 _Cor._ x. 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 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 veiled and shadowed, and
covered under divers Types, Ceremonies and Observations; yea, and not
only so, but it was veiled 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:
[122]And not the _Jews_ only, but many of his Disciples, judging it
an _hard Saying, murmured at it_; _and many from that Time went back
from him, and walked no more with him_. I doubt not but that there are
many also at this Day, professing to be the 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. [Sidenote: _The divine Light of Christ doth make the
Saints Partakers of his Body._] 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 made Partakers of the Fruit
of that Sacrifice; so hath he likewise poured forth _into the Hearts
of all Men_ a Measure of that _divine Light_ and _Seed_ wherewith he
is clothed; that thereby, reaching unto the Consciences of all, he may
raise them up out of _Death_ and _Darkness_ by his _Life_ and _Light_,
and thereby they may be made Partakers of his Body, and therethrough
come to have Fellowship with the Father and with the Son.

[121] 1 Cor. 6. 17.

[122] John 6. 60. 66.

§. III. [Sidenote: Quest.] If it be asked, _How and after what Manner
Man comes to partake of it, and to be fed by it?_

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_ in the plain and express Words of
Christ, I _am the _Bread_ of Life_, saith he; [123]_he that cometh to
me shall never hunger; 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 readest these
Lines, whether thou accountest thyself a Believer, or really feelest,
by a certain and sad Experience, that thou art yet in the Unbelief,
and findest 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
persuaded 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;
[Sidenote: _The _Lutherans_ and _Calvinists_ Opinions of the Flesh and
Blood of Christ in the _Supper_ so called._] or (being a _Lutheran_)
hast taken that Bread, in and with and under 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 who take it a real Participation
of the Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ, though they never knew how
nor what Way; I say, if for all this thou findest thy Soul yet barren,
yea, hungry, and ready to starve, for want of something thou longest
for; _know_ that that _Light_ which discovers thy Iniquity to thee,
which shews thee thy Barrenness, thy Nakedness, thy Emptiness, is
that _Body_ which thou must partake of, and feed upon: But that till
by forsaking Iniquity thou turnest to it, comest unto it, receivest
it, though thou mayest hunger after it, thou canst not be satisfied
with it; [124]for it hath no _Communion 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. x. 21. [Sidenote:
_How the inward Man is nourished._] But as thou sufferest that small
_Seed of Righteousness_ to arise in thee, and to be formed into a
Birth, that new substantial Birth, which is brought forth in the Soul,
supernaturally feeds upon and is nourished by this spiritual Body;
yea, as this outward Birth lives not but as it draws 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, unless it be fed 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, [125]_Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his
Blood, ye have no Life in you_. And as the outward Body, eating outward
Food, lives thereby, so Christ saith, [126]That _he 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. [127]_He that eateth
my Flesh, and drinketh my 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, so far
as all the Saints are Partakers of this _one Body_ and _one Blood_,
they come also to have a _joint Communion_. Hence the Apostle, 1 _Cor._
x. 17. in this Respect saith, That they [128]_being many, are one_
Bread, _and one_ Body; and to the Wise among the _Corinthians_ he saith,
[Sidenote: _The true spiritual Supper of the Lord._] _The _Bread_ which
we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ_. This is the _true_
and _spiritual Supper_ of 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 abovesaid, according to the plain
Words of the Scripture, _Rev._ iii. 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 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.

[123] John 6. 35. _and_ 55.

[124] 1 Cor. 6. 14.

[125] John 6. 53.

[126] John 6. 57.

[127] John 6. 56.

[128] 1 Cor. 10. Verse 16.

§. 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 Christ before his Death, of _breaking Bread_ and _drinking Wine_
with his Disciples. [Sidenote: _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._] And though they for the most Part
agree generally in this, yet how do they contend and debate one against
another! How strangely are they pinched, pained, and straitened to make
the spiritual Mystery agree to that Ceremony! And what monstrous and
wild Opinions and Conceptions 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; [Sidenote: _What makes the Christian Religion
hateful to the _Jews_, _Turks_, and _Heathens.] but also such
Absurdities, irrational and blasphemous 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.

[Sidenote: _The _Papists_ Faith of Christ’s Flesh._] The _First_ is of
those that say, _The Substance 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.

[Sidenote: _The _Lutherans_ Faith._] The _Second_ is of such who say,
_The Substance of the Bread remains, but that also that Body is in, and
with, and under the Bread_; so that _both the Substance of Bread, and
of the Body, Flesh, and Blood of _Christ_, is there also_.

[Sidenote: _The _Calvinists_ Faith._] The _Third_ is of those, that,
denying 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 is 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 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 Parties 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_,[129] after he
had 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.
[Sidenote: J. Calvin_’s faith of Christ’s Flesh and Blood uncertain._]
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 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 for me to comprehend in my Spirit, or explain in Words.” Here he
deals very ingenuously; and yet who would have thought that such a
Man would have been brought to this Streight in the Confirming of his
Opinion? considering that a little before, in the same Chapter, _Sect.
15._ he accuseth the School-men among the _Papists_, and I confess
truly, [Sidenote: _The like the _Papists.] _In that they neither
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 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 in their own Way; and so they did thereby but equivocate and
deceive one another. The Reason of all this Contention is, because
they had not a clear Understanding of the _Mystery_, and were doting
about _Shadows_ and _Externals_. For both the Ground and Matter of
their _Contest_ lies in Things extrinsick from, and unnecessary to,
the main Matter. [Sidenote: _Satan busies People in _outward Signs_,
_Shadows_, and _Forms_, whilst they neglect the _Substance.] And
this hath been often the Policy of _Satan_, to busy People, and amuse
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 ruins the Life of Christianity. For
there have been more Animosities and Heats about this one Particular,
and more Bloodshed and Contention, than about any other. [Sidenote:
_What hath been hurtful to the_ Reformation.] And surely they are
little acquainted with the State of _Protestant Affairs_, who know
not that their Contentions about this have been more hurtful to the
_Reformation_ than all the Opposition they met with from their common
Adversaries. [Sidenote: _Two _Errors_ the Ground of the Contention
about the _Supper.] Now all those uncertain and absurd Opinions,
and the Contentions therefrom arising, have 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 easy Way
made for _Reconciliation_, and we should all meet in one spiritual and
true Understanding of this _Mystery_: And as the Contentions, so would
also the Absurdities which follow from all the three fore-mentioned
Opinions, cease and fall to the Ground.

[129] Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 17.

The _First_ of these _Errors_ is, In making 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 that Bread which Christ in his Prayer teaches to call for,
terming it [Greek: ton arton ton epiousion: τον αρτον τον επιουσιον],
i. e. the _Super-substantial 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_,
[Sidenote: Believers Souls _do really feed upon the Flesh and Blood of_
Christ.] That the _Body, Flesh, and Blood of 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 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 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 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. [Sidenote: I.] _First_, It must be understood that I speak of a
necessary and peculiar Relation otherwise than in a general Respect:
For inasmuch 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; [Sidenote: _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._]
but a special and necessary Respect or Relation is such as where the
two Things are so 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 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 _Prayer_, 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 itself 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 _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 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. [Sidenote: _The Patriarchs and Prophets,
without this Ceremony’s Use, were true Partakers of Christ’s Flesh and
Blood._] 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 indispensably necessary to Salvation.
[Sidenote: _The Paschal _Lamb_ its End._] For as for the _Paschal
Lamb_, the whole End of it is signified particularly, _Exod._ xiii. 8,
9. to wit, _That the_ Jews _might thereby be kept in Remembrance of
their Deliverance out of_ Egypt.

_Secondly_, It hath not 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_.[130] In the first two
there is only an Account of the Matter of Fact, to wit, _That _Christ_
brake Bread, and gave it to his Disciples to eat, saying, This is my
Body; and blessing the Cup, 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_ (but before the _Blessing_, or giving them the
_Wine_) he bids them _do it in Remembrance of him_. [Sidenote: _The
_Institution_ of the _Supper_, or Narration of _Christ’s Practice_
therein._] 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._ xi. 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 remembered, as none can 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 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.

[130] Matt. 26. 17. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19.

[Sidenote: 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_;

[Sidenote: _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. [Sidenote: _The Woman of_
Samaria, John 4. 14.] Hence from the Woman of _Samaria_ her drawing
_Water_, he took Occasion to tell her of that _living Water_, which
_whoso drinketh of shall never thirst_; which indeed is all one with
his _Blood_ here spoken of; [Sidenote: _The _Well_, the _Loaves_, the
_Bread_ and _Wine_, Christ takes Occasion from, to shew the _inward
Feeling.] yet it will not follow that _that Well_ or _Water_ had
any necessary 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 Disciples, takes Occasion, from the _Bread_ and _Wine_ which was
before them, to signify 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. x. 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; 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 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 of the
outward Bread and outward Wine. [Sidenote: _The wickedest may take the
outward Bread and Wine._] For there the Apostle calls the Bread _one_,
Ver. 17. and he saith, _We being many, are one Bread, and one Body; for
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 is 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 comprehendeth
both the _outward_ and _inward_, by Virtue of the _sacramental Union_;
[Sidenote: _The _sacramental Union_ pretended, a _Figment.] 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 Privilege 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.

[Sidenote: Object.] But that which they most of all _cry out_ for in
this Matter, and are always _urging_, is from 1 _Cor._ xi. where the
Apostle is particularly treating of this Matter, and therefore, from
some Words here, 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. 29. _Eat and drink
their own Damnation_; intimating hence, that this hath an immediate or
necessary Relation to the Body, Flesh, and Blood of Christ.

[Sidenote: _Answ._] Though this at first View may catch the Unwary
Reader, yet being well considered, it doth no Ways evince the Matter
in Controversy. 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 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._ iii. 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 as 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 [131]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 than this, That since the _Corinthians_ were in the Use of
this Ceremony, and so performed it as a religious Act, they ought to do
it worthily, or 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 the Apostle
saith, _Rom._ xiv. 6. _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
_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 which every religious
Act ought to be performed in, then, instead of truly remembering 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. [Sidenote: _The _Pharisees_ guilty of the Blood of the
_Prophets.] Thus the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_ of old, though in
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._ xiv.
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 from 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 persuaded it 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, 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 special Commemoration of the Death of
Christ._

[131] Or _Judgment_, as the Greek Word properly signifies.

§. VI. Having now sufficiently shewn what the true Communion of the
Body and Blood of Christ is, how it is partaken of, and how it has
no necessary Relation to that Ceremony of Bread and Wine used by
Christ with his Disciples; [Sidenote: II. _Whether this Ceremony be a
necessary Part of the New Covenant, and Obligatory._] it is fit now
to consider the _Nature_ and _Constitution_ of that _Ceremony_ (for
as to the _proper Use_ of it, we have had Occasion to speak before)
whether it be a _standing Ordinance_ in the Church of Christ obligatory
upon all, or indeed whether it be any necessary Part of the Worship of
the _New Covenant Dispensation_, or hath any better or more binding
Foundation than several other Ceremonies appointed and practised about
the same Time, which the most of our Opposers acknowledge to be ceased,
and now no Ways binding upon Christians. We find this Ceremony only
mentioned in Scripture in four Places, to wit, _Matthew_, _Mark_,
and _Luke_, and by _Paul_ to the _Corinthians_. If any would infer
any Thing from the Frequency of the mentioning of it, that will add
nothing; for it being a Matter of Fact, is therefore mentioned by
the Evangelists; and there are other Things less memorable as often,
yea, oftener mentioned. _Matthew_ and _Mark_ give only an Account of
the Matter of Fact, without any Precept to do so afterwards; simply
declaring, [132]That Jesus at that Time did desire them to _eat of the
Bread, and drink of the Cup_; to which _Luke_ adds these Words, _This
do in Remembrance of me_. If we consider this Action of Christ with his
Apostles, there will appear nothing singular in it, for a Foundation
to such a strange _Superstructure_, as many in their airy Imaginations
have sought to build upon it; for both _Matthew_ and _Mark_ express it
as an Act done by him as he was eating. [Sidenote: _The breaking of
Bread was no singular Thing, but a Custom among the Jews._] _Matthew_
saith, _And as they were eating_; and _Mark_, _And as they did eat,
Jesus took Bread_, &c. Now this Act was no singular Thing, neither
any solemn Institution of a _Gospel Ordinance_; because it was a
constant Custom among the _Jews_, [Sidenote: P. Riccius.] as _Paulus
Riccius_ observes at Length in his _Celestial Agriculture_, that when
they did eat the Passover, the Master of the Family did take Bread,
and bless it, and breaking it, gave of it to the rest; and likewise
taking Wine, did the same; so that there can nothing further appear
in this, than that Jesus Christ, _who fulfilled all Righteousness_,
and also observed the _Jewish Feasts and Customs_, used this also
among his Disciples only, that as in most other Things he laboured to
draw their Minds to a further Thing, so in the Use of this he takes
Occasion to put them in Mind of his Death and Sufferings, which were
shortly to be; which he did the oftener inculcate unto them, for that
they were averse from believing it. [Sidenote: What it is _to do this
in Remembrance of Christ._] And as for that Expression of _Luke_, _Do
this in Remembrance of me_, it will amount to no more than this, that
being the last Time that Christ did eat with his Disciples, he desired
them, that in their eating and drinking they might have Regard to him,
and by the Remembering of that Opportunity, be the more stirred up to
follow him diligently through Sufferings and Death, _&c._ But what Man
of Reason, laying aside the Prejudice of Education, and the Influence
of Tradition, will say, That this Account of the _Matter of Fact_
given by _Matthew_ and _Mark_, or this Expression of _Luke_, to _Do
that in Remembrance of him_, will amount to these Consequences, which
the Generality of Christians have sought to draw from it; as calling
it, _Augustissimum Eucharistiæ Sacramentum_; _venerabile Altaris
Sacramentum_; _the principal Seal of the Covenant of Grace, by which
all the Benefits of Christ’s Death are sealed to Believers_; and such
like Things? But to give a further Evidence, how these Consequences
have not any Bottom from the Practice of that Ceremony, nor from the
Words following, _Do this_, &c. let us consider another of the like
Nature, as it is at Length expressed by _John_, Chap. xiii. 3, 4.
8. 13, 14, 15. [Sidenote: _Christ’s washing of Feet, and its Manner
related._] _Jesus riseth from Supper, and laid aside his Garments, and
took a Towel, and girded himself: After that, he poureth Water into a
Bason, and began to wash the Disciples’ Feet; and to wipe them with the
Towel wherewith he was girded: _Peter_ said unto him, Thou shalt never
wash my Feet; _Jesus_ answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no
Part with me. So after he had washed their Feet,--he said, Know ye what
I have done to you? If I then your Lord and Master have washed your
Feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s Feet: For I have given you
an Example, that ye should do as I have done to you._ As to which, let
it be observed, that _John_ relates this Passage to have been done at
the same Time with the other of _breaking Bread_; [Sidenote: _Compared
with the _breaking_ of _Bread.] both being done the Night of the
_Passover_, after Supper. If we regard the Narration of this, and the
Circumstances attending it, it was done with far more Solemnity, and
prescribed far more punctually and particularly than the former. It
is said only, _As he was eating, he took Bread_; so that this would
seem to be but an _occasional Business_: But here _he rose up_, _he
laid by his Garments_, _he girded himself_, _he poured out the Water_,
_he washed their Feet_, _he wiped them with a Towel_: He did this to
all of them; which are Circumstances surely far more observable than
those noted in the other. The _former_ was a Practice common among the
_Jews_, used by all Masters of Families upon that Occasion; but _this_,
as to the Manner, and Person acting it, _to wit_, for the Master to
rise up, and wash the Feet of his Servants and Disciples, was more
singular and observable. In the breaking of _Bread_, and giving of
Wine, it is not pleaded by our Adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the
Text, that he particularly put them into the Hands of all; but breaking
it, and blessing it, gave it the nearest, and so they from Hand to
Hand: But here it is mentioned, that he washed not the Feet of one or
two, but of many. He saith not in the _former_, _That if they do not
eat of that Bread, and drink of that Wine, they shall be prejudiced by
it_; but here he saith expresly to _Peter_, That _if he wash him not,
he hath no Part with him_; which being spoken upon _Peter_’s refusing
to let him wash his Feet, would seem to import no less, than not the
Continuance only, but even the Necessity of this _Ceremony_. In the
former he saith, as it were passingly, _Do this in Remembrance of me_;
but here he sitteth down again, he desires them to consider what he
hath done, tells them positively, [Sidenote: _The washing one another’s
Feet was left as an Example._] _That as he hath done to them, so ought
they to do to one another_: And yet again, he redoubles that Precept,
by telling them, _He has given them an Example, that they should do
so likewise_. If we 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 signify an inward Purifying.
I would willingly propose this seriously to Men, who will be pleased
to make use of that Reason and Understanding that God hath given them,
and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the Custom or Tradition of
others; _Whether this Ceremony, if we respect either the Time that it
was appointed in, or the Circumstances wherewith it was performed, or
the Command enjoining the Use of it, hath not as much to recommend it
for a standing Ordinance of the Gospel, as either _Water-baptism_, or
_Bread_ and _Wine_, or any other of that Kind?_ I wonder then what
Reason the _Papists_ can give, Why they have not numbered it among
their _Sacraments_, except merely _Voluntas Ecclesiæ & Traditio Patrum_.

[132] Matt. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23. _&c._

[Sidenote: Object.] But if they say, _That it is used among them, in
that the _Pope_, and some other Persons among them, used to do it once
a Year to some poor People_;

[Sidenote: _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. [Sidenote: _The _Protestants_ use not the
_washing of Feet.] And as to _Protestants_, who use not this Ceremony
at all, if they will but open their Eyes, they may see how that by
Custom and Tradition they are abused in this Matter, as were their
Fathers in divers _Popish_ Traditions. For if we look into the plain
Scripture, what can be thence inferred to urge the one, which may not
be likewise pleaded for the other; or for laying aside the one, which
may not be likewise said against the Continuance of the other? If
they say, _That the former, of washing the Feet, was only a Ceremony_;
what have they, whence they can shew, that this _breaking of Bread_
is more? If they say, _That the former was only a Sign of Humility
and Purifying_; what have they to prove that this was more? If they
say, _That one was only for a Time, and was no Evangelical Ordinance_;
what hath this to make it such, that the other wanted? Surely there
is no Way of Reason to evade this; neither can any Thing be alleged,
that the one should cease, and not the other; or the one continue,
and not the other; but the mere Opinion of the Affirmers, which by
Custom, Education and Tradition, hath begotten in the Hearts of People
a greater Reverence for, and Esteem of the one than the other; which
if it had fallen out to be as much recommended to us by Tradition,
would no Doubt have been as tenaciously pleaded for, as having no less
Foundation in Scripture. But since the former, to wit, _The washing
of one another’s Feet_, is justly laid aside, as not binding upon
_Christians_; so ought also the other for the same Reason.

§. VII. [Sidenote: _The _breaking_ of _Bread_ not used now in the
same Manner as Christ did._] But it is strange that those who are so
clamorous for this _Ceremony_, and stick so much to it, take Liberty to
dispense with the Manner or Method that Christ did it in; since none
that ever I could hear of, except some _Baptists_ who now do it, use it
in the same Way that he did: Christ did it at _Supper_, while they were
eating; but the Generality of _Protestants_ do it in the _Morning_ only
by itself. What Rule walk they by in this Change?

[Sidenote: 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_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] What if it should be said the Whole is but a
_Circumstance_, which fell out at that Time when Christ eat the
_Passover_? For if we have Regard to that which alone can be pleaded
for an Institution, _viz._ these Words, _Do this in Remembrance of me_;
it doth as properly relate to the Manner as Matter. For what may or can
they evince in Reason, that these Words, _Do this_, only signify _eat
Bread_, and _drink Wine_, but it is no Matter _when ye eat_, or _how
ye eat it_; and not as _ye have seen me eat it at Supper with you, who
take Bread, and break it, and give it you; and take the Cup, and bless
it, and give it you; so do ye likewise_? And seeing Christ makes no
Distinction in those Words, _Do this_, it cannot be judged in Reason
but to relate to the Whole; which if it do, all those that at present
use this Ceremony among _Christians_, have not yet obeyed this Precept,
nor fulfilled this Institution, for all their Clamours concerning it.

[Sidenote: 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_;

[Sidenote: _Answ_.] Besides that it may be answered, and easily proved,
_That the Whole was accidental_, as being the _Practice of a Jewish
Ceremony_, as is above observed; [Sidenote: _The_ breaking _of_ Bread
_was a Jewish Ceremony_.] may it not the same Way be urged, That the
_drinking of Wine is accidental_, as being the natural Product of that
Country; and so be pleaded, That in those Countries where Wine doth
not grow, as in our Nation of _Scotland_, we may make use of _Beer_
or _Ale_ in the Use of this Ceremony; or _Bread made of other Grain_
than that which Christ used? And yet would not our Adversaries judge
this an Abuse, and not right Performing of this _Sacrament_? Yea, have
not Scruples of this Kind occasioned no little Contention among the
Professors of _Christianity_? [Sidenote: _Contests between the _Greek_
and _Latin Churches_, concerning the _leavened_ and _unleavened Bread_
in the _Supper.] What great Contest and Strife hath been betwixt the
_Greek_ and _Latin_ Churches concerning the _Bread_? While the one
will have it _unleavened_, reckoning, because the _Jews_ made use of
_unleavened Bread_ in the _Passover_, that it was such Kind of _Bread_
that Christ did break to his Disciples; the other _leavened_: Therefore
the _Lutherans_ make use of _unleavened Bread_, the _Calvinists_
of _leavened_. [Sidenote: Farellus.] And this Contest was so hot,
when the Reformation was beginning at _Geneva_, that _Calvin_ and
_Farellus_ were forced to fly for it. But do not _Protestants_, by
these Uncertainties, open a Door to _Papists_ for their excluding the
People from the _Cup_? Will not [_Do this_] infer positively, That they
should do it _in the same Manner, and at the same Time_, as Christ did
it; as well as that they should use the _Cup_, and not the _Bread
only_? Or what Reason have they to dispense with the one, more than
the _Papists_ have to do with the other? Oh! What strange Absurdities
and Inconveniencies have _Christians_ brought upon themselves, by
superstitiously adhering to this Ceremony! Out of which Difficulties it
is impossible for them to extricate themselves, but by laying it aside,
as they have done others of the like Nature. [Sidenote: _The _Clergy_
taking Bread do bless, and give it: The _Laity_ must take and eat, not
bless it._] For besides what is above-mentioned, I would gladly know
how from the Words they can be certainly resolved that these Words [_Do
this_] must be understood to the Clergy, _Take, bless, and break this
Bread, and give it to others_; but to the Laity only, _Take and eat_,
but do not _bless_, &c.

[Sidenote: Object.] If it be said, _That the Clergy only were present_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] Then will not that open a Door for the _Popish
Argument_ against the _Administration of the Cup to the People_? Or
may not another from thence as easily infer, _That the Clergy only
ought to partake of this Ceremony_; because they were the Apostles only
then present, to whom it was said, _Do this_? But if this [_Do this_]
be extended to all, how comes it all have not Liberty to obey it, in
both _blessing_, _breaking_, and _distributing_, as well as _taking_
and _eating_? [Sidenote: _Hot Contests about the Manner of taking
it, and to whom to give it_.] Besides all these, even the _Calvinist
Protestants_ of _Great Britain_ could never yet accord among themselves
about the _Manner of taking it_, whether _sitting_, _standing_, or
_kneeling_; whether it should be given to the _Sick_, and those that
are _ready to die_, or not? Which Controversies, though they may be
esteemed of small Moment, yet have greatly contributed, with other
Things, to be the Occasion, not only of _much Contention_, but also
of _Bloodshed_ and _Devastation_; so that in this last Respect the
_Prelatick Calvinists_ have termed the _Presbyterians_ schismatical
and pertinacious; and they them again superstitious, idolatrous, and
papistical. Who then, that will open their Eyes, but may see that the
Devil hath flirted up this Contention and Zeal, to busy Men about
Things of _small Moment_, that _greater Matters_ may be neglected,
while he keeps them in such ado about this Ceremony; though they lay
aside others of the like Nature, as _positively commanded_, and as
_punctually practised_; and from the Observation of which half so many
Difficulties will not follow?

§. VIII. How then? Have we not Reason, not finding the Nature of this
Practice, to be obligatory upon us, more than those others which our
Adversaries have laid aside, to avoid this Confusion; since those that
use it can never agree, neither concerning the _Nature_, _Efficacy_,
nor _Manner of doing it_? And this proceeds, because they take it not
plainly, as it lies in the Scripture; but have so much intermixed their
own Inventions. For would they take it as it lies, it would import
no more, than that _Jesus Christ at that Time did thereby signify
unto them, that his Body and Blood was to be offered for them_; and
desired them, That _whensoever they did eat or drink, they might do
it in Remembrance of him, or with a Regard to him, whose Blood was
shed for them_. Now that the _Primitive Church_, gathered immediately
after his Ascension, did so understand it, doth appear from their
Use and Practice, if we admit those Places of the _Acts_, where
_breaking of Bread_ is spoken of, to have Relation hereto; [Sidenote:
_By _breaking of Bread_ they had all Things in common, remembering
the Lord._] which as our Adversaries do, so we shall willingly agree
to: As _First_, _Acts_ ii. 42. _And they continued stedfastly in the
Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread_, &c. This
cannot be understood of any other than of their ordinary eating;
for as nothing else appears from the Text, so the Context makes it
plain; for they had all Things in common: And therefore it is said,
Ver. 46. _And they continuing daily with one Accord in the Temple,
and breaking Bread from House to House, did eat their Meat with
Gladness and Singleness of Heart._ Those who will not wilfully close
their Eyes, may see here, that the _breaking_ being joined with their
_eating_, shews, that nothing else is here expressed, but that having
all Things in common, and so continuing together, they also did break
their Bread, and eat their Meat together: In doing whereof, I cannot
doubt but they remembered the Lord; to follow whom they had, with
so much Zeal and Resignation, betaken themselves. This is further
manifest from _Acts_ vi. 2. for the _Apostles_, having the Care and
Distribution of that Money, which the Believers, having sold their
Possessions, gave unto them, and finding themselves overcharged with
that Burthen, appointed _Deacons_ for that Business, that they might
give themselves continually to _Prayer_, and to the _Ministry of the
Word_; not leaving that, to serve Tables. [Sidenote: Deacons _appointed
for serving Tables._] This cannot be meant of any _sacramental Eating_,
or _religious Acts of Worship_; seeing our Adversaries make the
Distributing of that the proper Act of _Ministers_, not of _Deacons_:
And yet there can be no Reason alleged, That that _breaking of Bread_,
which they are said to have _continued in_, and to have done from
_House to House_, was other than those _Tables_ which the Apostles
served; but here gave over, as finding themselves overcharged with it.
Now as the Increase of the Disciples did incapacitate the Apostles
any more to manage this; so it would seem their further Increase, and
dispersing in divers Places, hindered the Continuance of that Practice
of _having Things in common_: But notwithstanding, so far at least to
remember or continue that _ancient Community_, they did at certain
Times come together, and break Bread together. [Sidenote: _At_ Troas
_the Supper deferred till Midnight_.] Hence it is said, _Acts_ xx. 7.
on _Paul_’s coming to _Troas_, That _upon the fist Day of the Week,
when the Disciples came together to break Bread, _Paul_ preached unto
them, ready to depart on the Morrow, and continued his Speech until
Midnight_. Here is no Mention made of any _sacramental Eating_; but
only that _Paul_ took Occasion from their being together to preach unto
them. And it seems it was a _Supper_ they intended (not a _Morning-bit_
of _Bread_, and _Sup_ of _Wine_) else it is not very probable that
_Paul_ would from the _Morning_ have preached until _Midnight_. But
the 11th Verse puts the Matter out of Dispute, which is thus: _When
he therefore was come up again, and had broken Bread, and eaten, and
talked a long While, even till Break of Day, so he departed_. This
shews, That the _breaking of Bread_ was deferred till that Time; for
these Words [_and when he had broken Bread, and eaten_] do shew, That
it had a Relation to the _breaking of Bread_ before-mentioned, and that
that was the Time he did it. _Secondly_, These Words joined together
[_and when he had broken Bread, and eaten, and talked_] shew, it was
no religious Act of Worship, but only an Eating for bodily Refreshment,
[Sidenote: _They only did eat for refreshing the Body._] for which the
_Christians_ used to meet together some Time; and doing it in _God’s
Fear_, and _Singleness of Heart_, doth notwithstanding difference it
from the Eating or Feasting of _profane Persons_. [Sidenote: _By some
called a_ Love-feast.] And this by some is called a _Love-feast_,
or a being together, not merely to feed their Bellies, or for outward
Ends; but to take thence Occasion to eat and drink together, in the
Dread and Presence of the Lord, as his People; which _Custom_ we shall
not condemn. But let it be observed, That in all the _Acts_ there is
no other nor further Mention of this Matter. But if that _Ceremony_
had been some _solemn Sacrifice_, as some will have it, or such a
_special Sacrament_ as others plead it to be; it is strange that that
_History_, which in many less Things gives a particular Account of the
_Christians_ Behaviour, should have been so silent in the Matter: Only
we find, That they used sometimes to meet together to break Bread, and
eat. [Sidenote: _The _Christians_ began by Degrees to depart from the
Primitive Purity._] Now as the _early Christians_ began by Degrees to
depart from that primitive Purity and Simplicity, so did they also
to accumulate superstitious Traditions, and vitiate the innocent
Practices of their Predecessors, by the Intermixing either of _Jewish_
or _Heathenish Rites_; and likewise in the Use of this, Abuses began
very early to creep in among Christians, so that it was needful for
the Apostle _Paul_ to reform them, and reprove them for it, as he doth
at large, 1 _Cor._ xi. from Ver. 17. to the End: [Sidenote: 1 Cor. 11.
17.] Which Place we shall particularly examine, because our Adversaries
lay the chief Stress of their Matter upon it; [Sidenote: _Concerning
the _Supper_ of the _Lord_ (so called) explained_.] and we shall see
whether it will infer any more than we have above granted. _First_,
Because they were apt to use that Practice in a superstitious Mind
beyond the true Use of it, so as to make of it some _mystical Supper
of the Lord_, he tells them, Ver. 20. That their _coming together
into one Place, is not to eat the Lord’s Supper_; he saith not, _This
is not the _right Manner_ to eat_; but, _This is_ NOT _to eat the
Lord’s Supper_; because the _Supper of the Lord is spiritual_, and
a _Mystery_. _Secondly_, He blames them, in that they came together
for the _Worse_, and not for the _Better_; the Reason he gives of
this is, Ver. 21. _For in Eating every one hath taken before his own
Supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken._ [Sidenote: _Why
the Custom of _Supping in common_ was used among Christians._] Here it
is plain that the Apostle condemns them in that (because this Custom
of _Supping_ in General was used among Christians to increase their
Love, and as a Memorial of Christ’s Supping with the Disciples) they
had so vitiated it, as to eat it apart, and to come full, who had
Abundance; and hungry, who had little at Home; whereby the very Use and
End of this _Practice_ was lost and perverted: And therefore he blames
them, that they did not either eat this in Common at Home, or reserve
their Eating till they came all together to the publick Assembly. This
appears plainly by the following Ver. 22. _Have ye not Houses to eat
and drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have
not?_ Where he blames them for their irregular Practice herein, in that
they despised to eat orderly, or reserve their Eating to the publick
Assembly; and so shaming such, as not having Houses, nor Fulness at
Home, came to partake of the common Table; who, being hungry, thereby
were shamed, when they observed others come thither full and drunken.
Those that without Prejudice will look to the Place, will see this must
have been the Case among the _Corinthians_: For supposing the Use of
this to have been then, as now used either by _Papists_, _Lutherans_,
or _Calvinists_, it is hard making Sense of the Apostle’s Words, or
indeed to conceive what was the Abuse the _Corinthians_ committed
in this Thing. Having thus observed what the Apostle said above,
[Sidenote: _The Rise of that Custom._] because this Custom of _Eating
and Drinking together some Time_ had its Rise from Christ’s Act with
the Apostles the Night he was betrayed; therefore the Apostle proceeds,
Ver. 23. to give them an Account of that: _For I have received of
the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus,
the same Night in which he was betrayed, took Bread_, &c. Those that
understand the Difference betwixt a _Narration_ of a Thing, and a
_Command_, cannot but see, if they will, That there is no Command in
this Place, but only an Account of _Matter of Fact_; he saith not, _I
received of the Lord, that as he took Bread, so I should command it to
you to do so likewise_; there is nothing like this in the Place: Yea,
on the contrary, Ver. 25. where he repeats Christ’s imperative Words
to his Apostles, he placeth them so as they import no Command; _This
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in Remembrance of me_: And then he adds,
_For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the
Lord’s Death till he come_: [Sidenote: _That _[As often]_ imports no
Command of this Supper._] But these Words [_As often_] import no more
a _Command_, than to say, _As often as thou goest to _Rome_, see the
Capitol_, will infer a _Command_ to me to go thither.

[Sidenote: Object.] But whereas they urge the last Words, _Ye shew
forth the Lord’s Death till he come_; insinuating, That _this imports a
necessary Continuance of that _Ceremony_, until Christ come at the End
of the World to Judgment_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_, They take two of the chief Parts of
the Controversy here for granted, without Proof. _First_, That [_as
often_] imports a _Command_; the contrary whereof is shewn; neither
will they ever be able to prove it. [Sidenote: _Christ’s outward and
inward Coming._] _Secondly_, That this _Coming_ is to be understood
of _Christ’s last outward Coming_, and not of his _inward_ and
_spiritual_, that remains to be proved: Whereas the Apostle might well
understand it of his _inward Coming_ and _Appearance_, which perhaps
some of those carnal _Corinthians_, that used to come drunken together,
had not yet known; and others, being weak among them, and inclinable
to dote upon Externals, this might have been indulged to them for a
Season, and even used by them who knew Christ’s Appearance in Spirit
(as other Things were, of which we shall speak hereafter) especially by
the Apostle, who became _weak_ to the _Weak_, and _all_ to _All_, that
he might _save some_. [Sidenote: _To remember Christ’s Death till he
come to arise in the Heart_.] Now those weak and carnal _Corinthians_
might be permitted the Use of this, to shew forth, or remember Christ’s
Death, till he came to arise in them; for though such need those
outward Things to put them in Mind of _Christ’s Death_, yet those who
are _dead with Christ_, and not only _dead with Christ_, but _buried_,
and also _arisen_ with him, need not such _Signs_ to remember him: And
to such therefore the Apostle saith, _Col._ iii. 1. _If ye then be
risen with Christ, seek those Things which are above, where Christ
sitteth on the right Hand of God_: But _Bread_ and _Wine_ are not those
Things that are above, but are Things of the Earth. But that this whole
Matter was a mere Act of Indulgence and Condescension of the Apostle
_Paul_ to the weak and carnal _Corinthians_, appears yet more by the
_Syriack_[133] Copy, which Ver. 17. in his entering upon this Matter,
hath it thus; _In that concerning which I am about to command you (_or_
instruct you) I commend you not, because ye have not gone forward,
but are descended unto that which is less, _or_ of less Consequence_:
Clearly importing, That the Apostle was grieved that such was their
Condition, that he was forced to give them Instructions concerning
those outward Things; and doting upon which, they shewed they were not
gone forward in the _Life of Christianity_, but rather sticking in
_beggarly Elements_. And therefore Ver. 20. the same _Version_ hath
it thus, _When then ye meet together, ye do not do it, as it is just
ye should do in the Day of the Lord, ye eat and drink it_: Therefore
shewing to them, That to meet together to eat and drink _outward Bread
and Wine_, was not the Labour and Work of that _Day of the Lord_. But
since our Adversaries are so zealous for this _Ceremony_, because used
by the Church of _Corinth_ (though with how little Ground is already
shewn) how come they to pass over far more positive Commands of the
Apostles, as Matters of no Moment? As _First_, _Acts_ xv. 29. where the
Apostles peremptorily command the _Gentiles_, [Sidenote: _To abstain
from Things strangled._] as that which was the Mind of the Holy Ghost,
_To abstain from Things strangled, and from Blood_: And _James_ v. 14.
[Sidenote: _The Anointing with Oil._] where it is expresly commanded,
_That the Sick be anointed with Oil in the Name of the Lord_.

[133] And likewise the other _Oriental Versions_, as the _Arabick_ and
_Æthiopick_, have it the same Way.

[Sidenote: Object.] If they say, _Those were only temporary Things, but
not to continue_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] What have they more to shew for this; there being
no express Repeal of them?

[Sidenote: Object.] If they say, _The Repeal is implied, because the
Apostle saith, We ought not to be judged in Meats and Drinks_;

[Sidenote: _Answ._] I admit the _Answer_: But how can it be prevented
from militating the same Way against the other Practice? Surely not at
all: Nor can there be any Thing urged for the one more than for the
other, but Custom and Tradition.

[Sidenote: Object.] As for that of _James_, they say, _There followed a
Miracle upon it_, to wit, _The Recovery of the Sick_; _but this being
ceased, so should the Ceremony_.

[Sidenote: _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; [Sidenote: _A
Ceremony ought to cease, its Virtue failing_.] only methinks, since our
Adversaries, and that rightly, think a _Ceremony_ ought to cease where
the Virtue fails, they ought by the same Rule to forbear the _laying on
of Hands_, [Sidenote: _Thus laying on of Hands._] in Imitation of the
Apostles, since the Gift of the _Holy Ghost_ doth not follow upon it.

§. IX. But since we find that several Testimonies of Scripture do
sufficiently shew, That such _external Rites are no necessary Part of
the New Covenant Dispensation, therefore not needful now to continue_,
however they were for a Season practised of old, I shall instance some
few of them, whereby from the Nature of the Thing, as well as those
Testimonies, it may appear, That the Ceremony of _Bread and Wine_ is
ceased, as well as those other Things confessed by our Adversaries
to be so. [Sidenote: _The Ceremony of _Bread_ and _Wine_ is ceased._]
The first is _Rom._ xiv. 17. _For the Kingdom of God is not Meat and
Drink, but Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost_: Here
the Apostle evidently shews, That the _Kingdom of God_, or _Gospel
of Christ_, stands not in _Meats and Drinks_, and such like Things,
but in _Righteousness_, &c. as by the Context doth appear, where he
is speaking of the _Guilt_ and _Hazard_ of judging one another about
_Meats and Drinks_. So then, if the _Kingdom of God_ stand not in them,
nor the _Gospel_, nor _Work of Christ_, then the eating of outward
_Bread and Wine_ can be no necessary Part of the _Gospel-worship_, nor
any _perpetual Ordinance_ of it. Another of the same Apostle is yet
more plain, _Col._ ii. 16. the Apostle throughout this whole _second
Chapter_ doth clearly plead for us, and against the _Formality_ and
_Superstition_ of our Opposers: For in the Beginning he holds forth
the great _Privileges_ which Christians have by Christ, who are indeed
come to the _Life of Christianity_; and therefore he desires them, Ver.
6. _As they have received Christ, so to walk in him; and to beware,
lest they be spoiled through Philosophy and vain Deceit, after the
Rudiments or Elements of the World; because that in Christ, whom they
have received, is all Fulness: And that they are circumcised with the
Circumcision made without Hands (_which he calls the_ Circumcision of
Christ) and being buried with him by Baptism, are also arisen with him
through the Faith of the Operation of God._ Here also they did partake
of the _true Baptism of Christ_; and being such as are _arisen_ with
him, let us see whether he thinks it needful they should make use of
such _Meat and Drink_ as _Bread and Wine_, _to put them in Remembrance
of Christ’s Death_; or whether they ought to be judged, that they did
it not; Ver. 16. _Let no Man therefore judge you in Meat and Drink_: Is
not _Bread_ and _Wine_ _Meat_ and _Drink_? But why? _Which are a Shadow
of Things to come: But the Body is of Christ._ [Sidenote: _’Tis but a
_Sign_ and _Shadow_ they confess._] Then since our Adversaries confess,
That their _Bread_ and _Wine_ is a _Sign_ or _Shadow_; therefore,
according to the Apostle’s Doctrine, we ought not to be _judged_ in
the Non-observation of it. But is it not fit for those that are _dead
with Christ_ to be subject to such Ordinances? [Sidenote: _And which
do perish with the Using._] See what he saith, Ver. 20. _Wherefore
if ye be dead with _Christ_ from the Rudiments of the World, why, as
though living in the World, are ye subject to Ordinances? (Touch not,
taste not, handle not: Which all are to perish with the Using) after
the Commandments and Doctrines of Men._ What can be more plain? If this
serve not to take away the absolute Necessity of the Use of _Bread_
and _Wine_, what can it serve to take away? Sure I am, the Reason here
given is applicable to them, _which all do perish with the Using_;
since _Bread_ and _Wine_ perish with the Using, as much as other
Things. But further, If the Use of _Water_, and _Bread_ and _Wine_,
were that wherein the very _Seals_ of the _New Covenant_ stood, and
did pertain to the chief _Sacraments_ of the _Gospel_ and _Evangelical
Ordinances_ (so called) then would not the _Gospel_ differ from the
_Law_, or be preferable to it. [Sidenote: _The Law was Meats and
Drinks; not so the Gospel._] Whereas the Apostle shews the Difference,
_Heb._ ix. 10. in that such Kind of Observations of the _Jews_ were as
a Sign of the _Gospel_, for that they _stood only in Meats and Drinks,
and divers Washings_. But if the _Gospel-worship_ and _Service_ stand
in the same, where is the Difference?

[Sidenote: Object.] If it be said, _These under the _Gospel_ have a
spiritual Signification_;

[Sidenote: _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_? [Sidenote: _The Law has_ Shadows, _the Gospel brings
the Substance_.] Whereas the Apostle, in that of the _Colossians_
above-mentioned, argues against the Use of these Things, as needful to
those that are _dead_ and _arisen_ with Christ, because they are but
_Shadows_. And since, through the whole _Epistle_ to the _Hebrews_, he
argues with the _Jews_, to _wean_ them from their _old Worship_, for
this Reason, because it was _typical_ and _figurative_; is it agreeable
to right Reason to bring them to another of the same Nature? What
Ground from _Scripture_ or _Reason_ can our Adversaries bring us, to
evince that one _Shadow_ or _Figure_ should point to another _Shadow_
or _Figure_, and not to the _Substance_? And yet they make the Figure
of _Circumcision_ to point to _Water-baptism_, and the _Paschal Lamb_
to _Bread and Wine_. But was it ever known that one Figure was the
_Anti-type_ of the other, especially seeing _Protestants_ make not
these their _Anti-types_ to have any more Virtue and Efficacy than
the _Type_ had? [Sidenote: _Their _Sacraments_ confer not Grace._]
For since, as they say, and that truly, _That their Sacraments confer
not Grace, but that it is conferred according to the Faith of the
Receiver_, it will not be denied but the Faithful among the _Jews_
received also Grace in the Use of their _Figurative Worship_. And
though _Papists_ boast that their Sacraments confer Grace _ex opere
operato_, yet Experience abundantly proveth the contrary.

§. X. [Sidenote: _Opposers claim a Power to give their Sacraments; from
whence do they derive it?_] But supposing the Use of _Water-baptism_
and _Bread and Wine_ to have been in the Primitive Church, as was
also that of _abstaining from Things strangled_, _and from Blood_,
_the Use of Legal Purification_, Acts xxi. 23, 24, 25. and _anointing
of the Sick with Oil_, for the Reasons and Grounds before mentioned;
yet it remains for our Adversaries to shew us how they come by Power
or Authority to administer them. It cannot be from the Letter of the
Scripture, else they ought also to do those other Things, which the
Letter declares also they did, and which in the Letter have as much
Foundation. Then their Power must be _derived from the Apostles_,
either _mediately_ or _immediately_; but we have shewn before, in the
_tenth Proposition_, that they have no _mediate Power_, because of the
Interruption made by the _Apostasy_; and for an _immediate Power_ or
_Command_ by the Spirit of God to administer these Things, none of our
Adversaries pretend to it. We know that in this, as in other Things,
they make a Noise of the _constant Consent of the Church, and of
Christians in all Ages_; [Sidenote: _Tradition no sufficient Ground for
_Faith.] but as _Tradition_ is not a sufficient Ground for _Faith_,
so in this Matter especially it ought to have but small Weight; for
that in this Point of _Ceremonies_ and _superstitious Observations_ the
Apostasy began very early, as may appear in the _Epistle_ of _Paul_
to the _Galatians_ and _Colossians_; and we have no Ground to imitate
them in those Things, whose Entrance the Apostle so much _withstood_,
so heavily _regretted_, and so sharply _reproved_. But if we look to
_Antiquity_, we find that in such Kind of Observances and Traditions
they were very uncertain and changeable; so that neither _Protestants_
nor _Papists_ do observe this Ceremony as they did, both in that they
gave it to _young Boys_, and to _little Children_: [Sidenote: _The
_Supper_ they gave to young Boys and Children._] And for aught can
be learned, the Use of this and _Infant-baptism_ are of a like Age,
though the one be laid aside both by _Papists_ and _Protestants_, and
the other, to wit, _Baptism of Infants_, be stuck to. And we have so
much the less Reason to lay Weight upon _Antiquity_, for that if we
consider their Profession of Religion, especially as to Worship, and
the ceremonial Part of it, we shall not find any Church now, whether
_Popish_ or _Protestant_, who differ not widely from them in many
Things, [Sidenote: Dallæus.] as _Dallæus_, in his Treatise concerning
the _Use of the Fathers_, well observeth and demonstrateth. And why
they should obtrude this upon us because of the _Ancients Practice_,
which they themselves follow not, or why we may not reject this,
as well as they do other Things no less zealously practised by the
_Ancients_, no sufficient Reason can be assigned.

Nevertheless I doubt not but many, whose Understandings have been
clouded with these _Ceremonies_, have notwithstanding, by the Mercy
of God, had some secret Sense of the _Mystery_, which they could
not clearly understand, because it was sealed from them by their
sticking to such outward Things; and that through that secret Sense
diving in their Comprehensions they ran themselves into these carnal
Apprehensions, as imagining the _Substance_ of the _Bread_ was changed,
or that if the _Substance_ was not changed, yet the _Body_ was there,
_&c._ [Sidenote: _Calvin’s ingenuous Confession commended._] And
indeed I am inclinable very favourably to judge of _Calvin_ in this
Particular, in that he deals so ingenuously to confess he _neither
comprehends it, nor can express it in Words_; _but yet by a feeling
Experience can say, The Lord is spiritually present_. Now as I doubt
not but _Calvin_ sometimes had a Sense of his _Presence_ without
the Use of this Ceremony, so as the Understanding given him of God
made him justly reject the false Notions of _Transubstantiation_ and
_Consubstantiation_, though he knew not what to establish instead of
them, if he had fully waited in the [134]_Light that makes all Things
manifest_, and had not laboured in his own Comprehension to settle upon
that external Ceremony, by affixing the _spiritual Presence_ as chiefly
or principally, though not only, as he well knew by Experience, there,
or especially to relate to it, he might have further reached unto the
Knowledge of this _Mystery_ than many that went before him.

[134] Ephes. 5. 13.

§. XI. [Sidenote: _In Tenderness of Conscience, God winketh at our
_Ignorance.] _Lastly_, If any now at this Day, from a true Tenderness
of Spirit, and with real Conscience towards God, did practise this
_Ceremony_ in the same Way, Method, and Manner as did the _Primitive
Christians_ recorded in Scripture, 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_ from them, or that they do not pertinaciously
adhere to them. [Sidenote: _The Day is dawned wherein God is risen,
and worshipped in Spirit_.] For we certainly know that the _Day_ 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 Sepulchre, to _seek the Living
among the Dead_: For we know that he is _risen_, 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._

PROPOSITION XIV.

Concerning the POWER of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE in Matters purely
    RELIGIOUS, and pertaining to the CONSCIENCE.

[135]_Since God hath assumed to himself the Power and Dominion of
    the _Conscience_, who alone can rightly instruct and govern it,
    therefore it is not lawful for any whosoever, by Virtue of any
    Authority or Principality they bear in the Government of this
    World, to force the _Consciences_ of others; and therefore all
    Killing, Banishing, Fining, Imprisoning, and other such Things
    which are inflicted upon Men for the alone Exercise of their
    _Conscience_, or Difference in _Worship_ or _Opinion_, proceedeth
    from the Spirit of _Cain_ the Murderer, and is contrary to the
    Truth; providing always, that no Man, under the Pretence of
    _Conscience_, prejudice his _Neighbour_ in his Life or Estate, or
    do any Thing destructive to, or inconsistent with, _Human Society_;
    in which Case the Law is for the Transgressor, and _Justice_ is to
    be administered upon all, without Respect of Persons._

[135] Luke 9. 55, 56. Matt. 7. 12, 13. 29. Tit. 3. 10.

§. I. Liberty of _Conscience_ from the Power of the Civil Magistrate
hath been of late Years so largely and learnedly handled, that I shall
need to be but brief in it; yet it is to be lamented that few have
walked answerably to this Principle, each pleading it for themselves,
but scarce allowing it to others, as hereafter I shall have Occasion
more at length to observe.

It will be fit in the first Place, for clearing of Mistakes, to say
something of the _State_ of the _Controversy_, that what follows may be
the more clearly understood.

[Sidenote: _What Conscience is._] By _Conscience_ then, as in the
Explanation of the _fifth_ and _sixth Propositions_ I have observed,
is to be understood, _That Persuasion of the Mind which arises from
the Understanding’s being possessed with the Belief of the Truth or
Falsity of any Thing_; which though it may be false or evil upon the
Matter, yet if a Man should go against his Persuasion or Conscience,
he would commit a Sin; because what a Man doth contrary to his Faith,
though his Faith be wrong, is no Ways acceptable to God. Hence the
Apostle saith, [136]_Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin_; _and he that
doubteth is damned if he eat_; though the Thing might have been lawful
to another; and that this Doubting to eat some Kind of _Meats_ (since
all the Creatures of God are good, and for the Use of Man, _if received
with Thanksgiving_) might be a Superstition, or at least a Weakness,
which were better removed. Hence _Ames. de Cas. Cons._ saith, _The
Conscience, although erring, doth evermore bind, so as that he sinneth
who doth contrary to his Conscience,[137] because he doth contrary to
the Will of God, although not materially and truly, yet formally and
interpretatively_.

[136] Rom. 14. 23.

[137] _i. e._ As he supposeth.

So the Question is _First_, _Whether the Civil Magistrate hath Power
to force Men in Things religious to do contrary to their Conscience;
and if they will not, to punish them in their Goods, Liberties, and
Lives?_ This we hold in the Negative. But _Secondly_, As we would
have the _Magistrate_ to avoid this Extreme of incroaching upon Men’s
Consciences, so on the other Hand we are far from joining with or
strengthening such _Libertines_ as would stretch the Liberty of their
Consciences to the Prejudice of their _Neighbours_, or to the Ruin of
_Human Society_. We understand therefore by _Matters of Conscience_
such as _immediately_ relate betwixt _God_ and _Man_, or _Men_ and
_Men_, that are under the same _Persuasion_, as to meet together and
worship God in that Way which they judge is most acceptable unto him,
and not to incroach upon, or seek to force their Neighbours, otherwise
than by Reason, or such other Means as Christ and his Apostles used,
_viz._ Preaching and instructing such as will hear and receive it; but
not at all for Men, under the Notion of Conscience, to do any Thing
contrary to the moral and perpetual Statutes generally acknowledged by
all _Christians_; in which Case the _Magistrate_ may very lawfully use
his Authority; as on those, who, under a Pretence of _Conscience_,
make it a Principle to kill and destroy all the Wicked, _id est_, all
that differ from them, that they, to wit, the _Saints_, may rule,
and who therefore seek to make all Things _common_, and would force
their Neighbours to share their Estates with them, and many such wild
Notions, as is reported of the _Anabaptists_ of _Munster_; which
evidently appears to proceed from Pride and Covetousness, and not
from Purity or Conscience; and therefore I have sufficiently guarded
against that in the latter Part of the _Proposition_. But the _Liberty_
we lay claim to is such as the _Primitive Church_ justly fought under
the _Heathen Emperors_, to wit, for Men of Sobriety, Honesty, and a
peaceable Conversation, to enjoy the Liberty and Exercise of their
_Conscience_ towards God and among themselves, and to admit among them
such as by their Persuasion and Influence come to be convinced of the
same _Truth_ with them, without being therefore molested by the Civil
Magistrate. _Thirdly_, Though we would not have Men hurt in their
Temporals, nor robbed of their Privileges as Men and Members of the
_Commonwealth_, because of their inward Persuasion; yet we are far
from judging that in the _Church of God_ there should not be Censures
exercised against such as fall into Error, as well as such as commit
open Evils; and therefore we believe it may be very lawful for a