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 grounded upon some positive precept. Why doth Peter's commanding Cornelius and his household 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.

Fourthly, they object from the signification of the word (baptize) which is as much to dip and wash with water; alleging thence, that the very word imports a being baptized with water.

This objection is very weak. 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 in 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 up; and many more that might be instanced.

it

CONCERNING THE COMMUNION, OR PARTICIPATION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

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; 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.

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, quarelling and fighting one with another about the mere shadow, outside, and form, but strangers to the substance, life and virtue.

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood," saith Christ, "dwelleth in me, and I in him," John vi. 56. 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 this one blood, they come also to have a joint communion. Hence the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 17. in this respect saith, that they "being many, are one bread, and one body;" and to the wise among the Corinthians he saith, "The bread which we break 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, 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 wise 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.

All are agreed in the main positions, viz. First, 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 or dinances, 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 for its continuance as a necessary and standing ordinance of Jesus Christ.

It must be understood that I speak of a necessary and peculiar relation otherwise than in a

I