An humble vindication of a free admission unto the Lords-Supper published for the ease, support, and satisfaction of tender consciences (otherwise remediles) in our mixt congregations / as it was delivered at two sermons upon the occasion of this solemnity in the weekely labours of John Humfrey.

An humble VINDICATION Of a Free ADMISSION Unto the Lords-Supper. Marke 14.23.

And they all Dranke of it.

I Have ſpoken of the Inſtitution, Nature, and Ends of the Sacrament; I come now to the Receivers, And they all dranke of it. In the 13. verſe of the Chapter, we find the twelve with Chriſt; They were his whole Congregation; in the 18th. v. They were all ſate at the Table, as they did eat (in the 22.) Jeſus took bread, and gave it them, and ſo likewiſe the Cup (v. 23) Saying, Drinke ye all of it (Mat. 26.27.) And they did ſo ſaith the Text; They all Dranke of it, all the twelve without exception; from whence I gather a free Admiſſion to this Ordinance.

My Brethren, this is a poynt we know troubles many, and I do humbly acknowledge my ſelf the weakeſt of a thouſand, to ſatisfie the difficulties of others; yet whereas the apprehenſions, many times, of a playn honeſt meaning Chriſtian, in its pure naturalls (I meane unconfounded with the judgments of others) may ſuite better with common underſtandings, than a more learned and elaborate diſquiſition; I ſhall Sincerely lay you downe my very heart and thoughts in this thing, being ready to lye down at the feet of any truly Godly Soule, that either out of tenderneſs of Conſcience, or ſtrength of Reaſon, dare not, or will not, ſubmit unto my judgement and practice in it.

For the managing the poynt, I ſhall breifly lay down my meaning, or ſtate of the queſtion, give my Proofs, Reaſons, and Anſwer Objections.

For my meaning it is honeſt, and very plaine, without reſervation. The Lord Jeſus has a Church in the World, wherein there is a viſible profeſſion of his name; In this Church, God has ſet up his Ordinances of the Word and Sacrament; Of theſe Ordinances, ſome are capable, and ſome uncapable; Thoſe that are uncapable, are ſo, either by Nature, as Infants, and Diſtracted perſons, or by the Churches cenſure of Excommunication, and no others. For thoſe that are capable, we muſt rightly conſider this capacity, in regard of the Church (or Miniſter) in Admiſſion of them to the Ordinance; or in regard of the Communicants themſelves in coming thither. Now I dare not yet poſitively ſay for the peoples part, that all are ſo capable that they may come as they liſt (though it be a duty none is excuſed from) becauſe there is a ſolemne preparation required, and many cannot ſeriouſly find in their hearts to enter, or renew their Covenant with Chriſt, whereof this is a pledge if it be not miſuſed. Yet I am humbly perſwaded for the Miniſter and Churches part, (who on Gods behalfe is to offer Chriſt freely, and ſo to tender the Convenant to all that will receive him) there is ſuch a univerſall capacity for all men indefinitely, that if any come in, as profeſſing themſelves ready to enter convenant with Chriſt, deſiring ſo to ſerve him in the worſhip of this Ordinance (the former only excepted) we are to encourage them, ſaying with the Bride, Revel. 22.17. Whoſoever is a Thirſt let him come, whoſoever will, let him come, and drinke freely of theſe waters of Life, or means of Salvation.

In a word, I do not believe that any, unleſſe firſt excommunicated (ipſo jure or de facto) ought to be refuſed the participation of this Sacrament. They all Dranke of it.

For my proofs; look into Ex. 12. we read of the Paſſover, which is the ſame in ſignification with the Sacrament, v. 3. Speak unto Iſrael, let every man take his Lambe, a Lambe for a houſe. v. 47. All the Congregation ſhall obſerve it. And v. 50. The whole people did ſo, as the Lord commanded them. Adde to this 2 Chron. 30.5. They Decreed to proclame through all Iſrael from Dan to Beerſheba that they ſhould come and keep the Paſſeover to the Lord. Here you ſee free Admiſſion without exception. Indeed in Num. 9.7. we find a legall pollution keeping ſome back for a month and no longer, as it appears in the 11 verſe, which nevertheleſſe was diſpenſable too at the prayer of Hezekiah, 2 Ch. 30.18. the reaſon being, becauſe ſuch uncleanneſs kept them from the Congregation (a plain type of the excōmunicated only) but as for any ſpirituall pollution whatſoever (which is to be waſhed away with a penitent heart) we read of none that might debarre them from that Ordinance. This is that we ſtand upon; As for their legall rights, who knowes not they are aboliſhed? Now the Elder Brother (the Paſſeover) being dead, wee ſhall find the yonger (our Sacrament) to have poſſeſſion of his Inheritance in this free Adminiſtration. Turne to the 1 Cor. 10.17. Wee being many are all partakers of one Bread. All; at Corinth there were many it ſeems, came over from Heatheniſme to the Church, and as many as came into them, All (this is the very truth) were admitted to their Communion.

But now I pray, what All were theſe? ſee ver. 14. Flee Idolatry, I ſpeak to you, as men of underſtanding, judge ye what I ſay, is not this Sacrament the Communion of Chriſt, how then can you communicate with I dolls? This is the ſenſe in brief of the whole Chapter; marke it: Theſe Corinths were ſuch luke-warm Chriſtians, that they were ſometimes ready to goe to their Idolls, and ſometimes to Church; like thoſe in the ſecond of Kings 17.41. and happily thought it not unlawfull. Now this Argument Paul uſes to reclame them; Doe we not All partake of one Bread? therefore joyn not with Idolls. As ſoon as you come into us we admit, and joyn with you in our Communion, and profeſſion of Chriſt, (who is God) And therefore how can you with ſhame now goe to the Table of Idolls (which are Devills?) This is very forceable and apparent, That theſe ☞ Corinths whilſt they are but willing to profeſs Chriſt, though yet given to Idolatry, are admitted with the reſt to the Sacrament, which very thing too, is urged as a means to reclame them from it: Compare this with 1 Cor. 11.18. And there are the ſame Corinthians mutinous and even drunken together at this Table; now this certainly was a great profanation, for which they are reproved and directed to examine, and carry themſelves better for the future; but as for their comming together, and generall participation, that was but their duty, and nothing is, or could be ſaid againſt it. Look back to 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. There wee have the whole body of the Iſraelites that paſſed through the Sea and Wilderneſſe, Baptized under the Cloud, and drinking of the ſame Rock, Jeſus Chriſt; that is, admitted freely to both our Sacraments. Take any Chriſtian, and he will be ready to ſay, give me but any place of Scripture, for example of a generall Admiſſion, and I will be convinced; Now here is one expreſſe, where all without exception, even thoſe very ſcandalous ones, with whom God was not well pleaſed, but deſtroyed in the Wilderneſſe (while there was no legall Rites, ſpirituall uncleanneſſe not forbidding any) do freely participate of the outward Signes one with another. Neither is it the ſaying this was a fleeting Ordinance, and neceſſary to preſerve their lives, that can abate the ſtrength of this place; For doe we but marke the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, and you ſhall ſee in this very point, and to this very purpoſe does he parallell theſe Types to our Sacraments. The ſcope is this, Theſe Corinths were given to Idolatry and many vices, but yet thought well enough of themſelves, being ready to glory of their outward profeſſion, that they were of the Church, baptized, and communicating with Chriſtians: Now the Apoſtle to beat them off from this vaine conceit, tells them plainly, I would not have you ignorant (ſayes he) that All the Iſraelites were partakers of both theſe Sacraments, as wel as you, & yet many of them were juſtly deſtroyed when they ran to I dolls, as you doe; and therefore take heed, and let them be a warning to you; As for theſe outward rites, they are things indeed. all that come to our Church, and profeſſe Chriſt are admitted to, and ſo are ye, but yet think not you ſhall eſcape Gods Iudgments, if you walk not anſwerable to your profeſſion. The true importance of thoſe words being well weighed, are ſufficient of themſelves to end this controverſie, the ſenſe of Scripture, and not barely the words being Scripture. Turn to the parable of the Feaſt, Matt. 22. with Luke 14 16.23. and though parables are not wholy Argumentative, yet in their main purpoſe they are as enforcing as any Texts beſides; Now if this generall Admiſſion is not a chief thing intended, nay the very ſcope of the parable, judge by theſe particulars,

1. Firſt, In Luke there is no other thing added, but the calling of all unto the Feaſt is the main buſineſs there ſet down only.

2. Secondly, In Matth. where the ſtory goes on to the Wedding garment, unto the Maſters command is added the Servants bringing in all, both Good and Bad. verſe the 10th.

☞ 3. Thirdly, The Lords very excluſion of him that came in to the Feaſt, manifeſts he muſt be needs firſt admitted, and brought in by the Servants, his Sinne conſiſting not in his comming thither; for that he was compelled to doe, (by which I conceive is meant his duty) but in his neglect of putting on his Wedding Garment; whereby it appears by his unpreparedneſſe, he had no minde to come at all, if he could have help'd it.

4. Fourthly, Our Saviour explains his owne parable, ſignifying hereby that many are called, that is the worke of the Miniſtery, we are freely to offer Chriſt in his Ordinances; but few are choſen, that is the work of God, which we leave onely to him. The Servants I ſay ſtill brought the man in, it was the Lord only took upon him to Judge and caſt him out. Now who is that faithfull Steward that gives the houſhold their portion of meat in due ſeaſon, Luke 12.42. but theſe that are thus doing? 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Acts 20.28. even as Iohn Baptizes All that came to him for his Baptiſme, Mar. 1.5. Matt. 3. to the 11 verſe, though at the ſame time ſome of them he calls vipers (Adultis eadem eſt ratio utriuſque Sacramenti, ſo that I take this a ſtrong proof) and as the Apoſtles themſelves, that when thouſands are converted at a Sermon, Acts 2.41.42. they immediately communicate with them, diſtributing freely not only the meat of the word, but bread too of the Sacrament.

See once more, Acts 10.28. A peculiar place I like for the expreſſion. Saint Peter here was very ſcrupulous of admitting Chriſtian Communion with any but the Iewes, It was a pollution under the Law to participate in any thing with the Gentiles, Io: 4: But being better inſtructed by a viſion from Heaven, God hath ſhewed me now, ſayes he, that I ſhould not call any man polluted and unclean; I thank the Lord I have learned this ſame Leſſon with a ſatisfyed Conſcience, to eſteem no man unclean, ☞ but all (unleſſe excommunicated) free in the uſe of Gods Ordinances. Adde to theſe proofs the conſideration of ſuch Texts as ſet forth Free grace, as Iſa. 55.1. Rev. 22.17. Mat. 11.28. 1 Tim. 2.4. Io. 6.37. with the like, & tell me when the Goſpel offers Chriſt, or when Chriſt offers himſelf & grace, which are the things ſignified, thus freely to poore ☞ Sinners, how can we have the Conſcience to turne them away from the Signes and meanes thereof in this Ordinance?

For my Reaſons. The firſt and chiefeſt I draw from the nature of the Sacraments. The Sacraments are Verbum viſibile, a viſible Goſpell; A declaring of Chriſt crucified; A Memoriall of the Covenant made by his death; that is ☞ The Sacraments ſet forth Chriſt to the eye, as the Goſpell does to the ear; the ſame matter is preſented in both, only to divers ſenſes, and therefore the ſame latitude muſt be granted to them both, in their adminiſtration. Upon this ground me thinks I ſtand as upon a Rock, againſt which all Objections, like waves, do but daſh themſelves in pieces. Look into the 1 Cor. 11. we find Chriſt in the words of Inſtitution, ver. 25. telling us, The bread is his Body, the Cup is the bloud of the New Teſtament, and the whole action, an ordinance in remembrance of him. Now the Apoſtle comments on this in the 26 verſe, For as oft as you doe it, you doe ſhew forth (ſayes he) the death of the Lord; whereby you ſee plainly what is his judgment of our Saviours Inſtitution, whatſoever you may thinke of it, and that is to be a declaration, ſhewing, or holding forth his death (or Covenant made by his death) unto the Receivers. This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this annunciation, or ſhewing forth, is taken from the Jews, Exo. 1 • .26, 27. who were to inſtruct and declare the matter to their children at the Paſſover; ſo Chriſt is here ſhewed forth, as the matter of the Sacrament ſet forth, I may ſay, of God, Rom. 3.25. as a reconciliation through Faith in his bloud, to declare his righteouſneſs for the remiſſion of ſins, alike in the Word and Sacrament. You have a place may fully expreſſe this for us: O ye Galathians, Gal: 3.2. before whom Chriſt hath bin ſet out as crucifyed among your. This expreſſion may be well applyed to the Sacraments, which doe ſo ſhew forth Chriſts death, that they deſcribe him crucifyed unto the ſight, and ſet him out unto the eye, that which the word declares him to the hearing. Now if there be any to whom the matter of the Goſpell may not be declared, if there be any to whom we may not, or cannot ſhew forth the death of Ieſus Chriſt, if there be any ſtand thus excluded from the Church, that (without her mitigation) we may not tender to them the Covenant, it is they, and they alone can be debarred from the Sacrament. To this end we know the Sacraments are counted Signes and Seales, (and Seal indeed as Signes) now wherein is this but as they ſignify or repreſent the new Covenant to us, ratified, in the bloud of Chriſt? Underſtand it thus; A man covenants with a Landlord about a purchaſe for his children at ſuch a price, the price being paid, the bargain is eſtabliſht; This done, he requires a writing, wherein the whole agreement is expreſly declared; unto this writing the Lord puts to his Seale, to witneſſe the confirmation, and ſo it is deliver'd for his poſterity. Ieſus Chriſt does thus make a purchaſe for us, his death is the price he layes down to God for it; for conveyance of this purchaſe, the writing that is drawne is the Goſpell, and the Séale put to this writing, is the Sacrament; both of which muſt goe, to make the publick Inſtrument firm, that is, to teſtifie the vatification of it, and ſo it is delivered for the uſe of the Church. More fully thus; A Prince (by interceſſion of a Favourite) ſends forth a Proclamation of Grace to Rebels, upon condition of laying downe their arms, and coming in to him, unto which he ſets his own Seal for their aſſurance. This Prociamation is the word of reconciliation preacht, which runs conditionally to all; The Seal annext, is the Sacrament; now can it be imagined there is any to whom the Proclamation belongs, without the Seale? Is not the Seal publick as the contents of it? And ſo will it not be plain, that as we offer the conditions thereof to any, ſo likewiſe may we, and muſt we the Seal (upon their deſire) to confirm them to come in, and ſubmit unto them? Thus we ſee the very nature of the Sacraments is as Seales to a Writing, to be but neceſſary appendices of the Goſpell.

To conclude this firſt reaſon, then let me adde force to it briefly in theſe foure conſiderations.

1. That we find that the Goſpell is to be preached to every creature, and a Baptizing them (which on the ſame ground includes this Sacrament with it) joyned as largely in the ſame Commiſſion. 2. That as the Goſpell is to All, ſo it offers Chriſt freely; Now can any avouch, that a poor Soule may take Chriſt freely without qualifications (which is true in regard of any precedent merit, ſo there be a preſent giving up himſelf to him ſincerely, as his ☞ Lord and Saviour) and yet let none but ſuch as are qualified to their mind; be Admitted to receive him at the Sacraments? Is Chriſt offered as a free gift in the Word, and muſt we not come without our price and money to this Ordinance? Why, this is even as they conceive of Iudas, who being about to ſell our Saviour, went out to make his bargaine, at the Supper. 3. That the Goſpell-way is the beſt way to bring in Soules unto Chriſt. Let a Man be fully convinced of the free grace of God in Chriſt, his heart can ſtand it out no longer againſt his converſion. Now when the word is preached, the Covenant opened, and the Seale too applyed, this Meſſage of reconciliation comes in its ful vertue for the working this conviction, and faith unto Salvation. 4. That the Goſpell is a peaceable Goſpell, an Embaſſy of Peace, now how ſhall this peace be kept, if where it comes, it goes to making ſeparations at this Ordinance? may a poor Soule ſay, O Lord Ieſus Chriſt, though I cannot lay claim unto thee as a Saint, Ican as a ſinner (I meane as a wounded ſinner), whom thou cameſt to ſave; and ſhall none but Saints apparent be: ſuffered to come unto him hither? In a word, is the Goſpell peaceable, converting, free, univerſall? What is the Goſpell but a declaring Chriſt Crucified? and what is the Sacrament in the Matter and Contents of it, but the very ſame? if Paul can tell us what it is 1 Cor. 11.26: therefore there ought to be a free admiſſion to it, as to the Goſpell.†

My ſecond Reaſon I draw from the nature of the viſible Church; The viſible Church is a number of ſuch as make profeſſion of Ieſus Chriſt, and ſo are Saints by calling, whatſoever they are in truth, the eſſentiall marks whereof (whereby it ſubſiſts as viſible) is the Preaching of the Word, and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments; now unleſſe Men will be ſo bold to diveſt our mixt Congregations (and ſo conſequently all England formerly) of the name of the viſible Church, they cannot take from us one of its eſſentiall notes, in the free uſe of this Ordinance. This Reaſon may have invincible ſupport from Chriſts owne doctrine and example. Firſt, His doctrine in thoſe parables of the little and great fiſhes in one net; The good and bad called to one feaſt, as before; The Chaffe and Wheat in one Barne; Eſpecially, the Tares and Corne in one field, Mat. 13. The Kingdom of Heaven is compared to that Field, and the Field (ſayes Chriſt) is the World, that is, the Kingdom of Heaven in the World, or the viſible Church cleerly in its Ordinances conſiſting of two ſorts of profeſſors, the Hypocrite, and the true beleever; which muſt grow together without ſeparation (even when the Servants diſcerning the Tares, come and tell their Lord of them) untill the day of Iudgment; now who dare go to anticipate that day, and enter upon the Throne of Chriſt? Lord is it thy mind we ſhould make the ſeparation between theſe Tares and Wheat at one of thine Ordinances? I can never beleeve then, thou wouldeſt have left this parable ſo undoubtedly ſet forth in the Goſpell. Secondly, His example, not only in the frequent converſe with Publicans and Sinners, but even in this very thing we find him at the Paſſeover, and his owne Supper with Iudas. The three firſt Evangeliſts bring him in expreſſe with the reſt at Table, and as for John, who wrote after the other, the truth is, (which many doe not, or will not know) he finding this Supper fully ſet forth by them already, as in other things, he ſays nothing of it. St Luke is moſt evident, 22. v. 21. where we read after the delivery, Chriſt ſays, Yet behold the hand ☜ of him that betrayeth me is at the Table. Yet, as if he ſhould ſay, Alas, though this Iudas partakes with us in this very Supper, yet will he go and betray me. So that at the ſame time, when he openly declares, what a reprobate or Devill he was (that this may not be poorly ſhifted off with his being a cloſe hypocrite) he not only waſht his feet with the reſt at a Supper a little before, which Iohn only mentions, but here communicates with him both of the Paſſeover and of this Supper. The evidence of which fact has ever appeared ſo fully to the Church, that this alone has been ground ſufficient, to deduce their right of free admiſſion; and what need more indeed be urged, but that men when they are willing not to ſee, will let any hand, put over their eyes, be enough to blind them?

My third Reaſon I take from the nature of Chriſtian Communion, and Church-fellowſhip, which ought to be in Charity, in humility, without judgeing every one, eſteeming others better than themſelves, with the like in many places; eſpecially in the Miniſter, who is to be gentle to all, ſuffering the evill ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to win them by this free way to Repentance, 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. And how impoſſible is this, if we muſt go to cenſuring of mens worthineſs & unworthineſs, preferring our ſelves, rejecting others? the ready way to nothing but heart-burnings, and diviſions, as we have too ſad experience already in moſt Congregations. To Give weight to this, remember three paſſages of our Saviours.

Firſt, That of the Phariſee and Publican, Luke 18. I need not relate it, only I beſeech you lay it to heart whether there be not ſomething (at leaſt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Theſſ. 5.22.) of the Phariſees, I thank God I am not like this Publican, in the turning away poor ſinners from this Ordinance. There is a proud Phariſaiſme, I will not accuſe any of this, the very latchets of whoſe holy deſires (erring after a likeneſſe here to the Church in Heaven) I may not be worthy; and there is a ſtrict Phariſaiſme, as the Iews that were ſo rigid in their Sabbath, Chriſt was faine to rebuke and moderate them in it; Of ſuch a rigidneſſe ☜ as this, I cannot but moſt ſorrowfully complayne in thoſe, that will not allow a free Communion. O my Saviour rebuke the humour of theſe times that is amiſſe, and moderate the zeale of all ſuch men, leſt by their placing a peculiar and ſuperſtitious holineſſe on this Ordinance, they quite invert the charitable uſe of it, and withhold the legacy thou haſt left thy people.

Secondly, That paſſage in Luke 6. When they murmured at him for eating with ſinners; The whole, ſayes he, need not the Phyſitian, but the ſick, I come not to call the righteous, but ſinners to repentance. O ſweet Ieſus, did'ſt thou alive offer thy ſelf and company to the veryeſt Publicans, and never caſtedſt out any that came to thee, and ſhall we take ſtomach that thou art now thus offered at this Sacrament!

The third place is in Jo. 8. When ſome ſevere Iews had brought a woman taken in Adultery, accuſing her by the law of Moſes, that ſhe ſhould be ſtoned, Ieſus ſaid unto them, Let him that is without ſin himſelf, caſt the firſt ſtone at her. My Brethren, ſo ſay I, let a man examine his own heart, and if he does not find himſelf conſcious of the ſame corruptions, let him have a cenſure to caſt out others; for my part I muſt profeſſe the ſerious acknowledgment of mine owne vileneſſe, makes me afraid at heart to turne away others, but I have learnt with Chriſt (Heb. 5.2.) to pity them (as a fellow ſinner) by my owne infirmity.

☞ My fourth Reaſon will ariſe from the vanity, formality, impoſſibility of ſelecting people to this Ordinance. Look up but to the heart of all theſe ſeparations they come to nothing; For put the caſe, you will have a gathered company, I pray who do you account indeed to be fit and worthy receivers? If not all that make profeſſion as we do mixtly, then, thoſe only that have an intereſt in Chriſt, and are true believers: Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitfull above all things, who can know it? And if we can hardly diſcover our owne hearts, how ſhall we ever diſcerne others? So that all will come but to thoſe that have the fayreſt ſhew, thoſe that ſeeme ſuch, and you cannot be ſecured, but there may and will be ſome hypocrites, and ſo this true partaking as all one body and one blood, in ſuch an unmixt Communion as you pretend, vaniſhes, and there can be no ſuch matter; But now if men ſtand here upon a formall purity, and will have the outward pureſt Church they can, they go to ſeparating againe, and never leave ſeparating and ſeparating (as we have dayly Teſtimony) till they are quite ſeparated one from another; Even as in the peeling of an Onion, where you may peele and peele, till you have brought all to nothing, unleſſe to a few tears perchance, with which the eyes of good men muſt needs runne over in the doing.

My fift Reaſon I gather from the uniformity of the Service of God; If all other worſhip lies in common, it is an intrenchment upon the common liberty to put an encloſure upon the Sacrament. Are all the commands of God univerſall, why not doe this alſo? if an unregenerate man cannot doe any thing that is acceptable to Chriſt, but it turnes to ſin (non per ſe, ſed per pravam diſpoſitionem ſubjecti) and ſo is Damnable, Pro. 28.9. and yet he is to doe his endeavour, and not to be excluded nevertheleſſe ftom any duty; why muſt there needs be an excluſion here upon feare of the like ſin and condemnation? Let our Independents anſwer, why doe you allow a Syntax in the whole ſervice of God beſides; and bring in a Quae genus of Anomalaes and Heteroclites, onely at this ☞ Ordinance? Let ſome of our Presbyterians anſwer, how can wee admit of Children as Members of the viſible Church, being born of Chriſtian parents, unto Baptiſme, and yet turne away the parents of thoſe Children from the Sacrament? Thoſe that have gone about to anſwer this, had better happly have ſaid nothing, for our free courſe of Baptiſme, and a deniall of this, is ſuch a Seame-rent, as will never be handſomly drawn up, though ſtitcht together; Nevertheleſſe in yielding the one, they have granted the other.

My ſixt Reaſon I lay down from my innocency in thus doing: 1. I doe but my duty: 2. I have no power to turn away any: 3. I hope the beſt, of all: 4. I know God can turne the worſt even at this ordinance if he pleaſe: 5. I endeavour my utmoſt de jure that all come prepared: 6. I humbly confeſſe all our ſins (as Hezekiah) deſiring true repentance, and a pardon for all our omiſſions; and ſo laſtly, I venture the iſſue all on God, knowing that his ordinances are a ſweet ſavour unto him, whether we are ſaved or periſh by them.

I might adde here more conſiderations very preſſing, from the command, and good of comming; from the evill of omitting this ordinance. For the good of comming; The Sacrament is a meanes, and a pledge; a means as well to receive grace, as a pledge to aſſure us thereof: Now ſuppoſe a poor ſoule wants grace, whether ſhall he come but to the means of receiving it? The ordinances are as the Baths, there are many come to the Bath, that are never the better for it, yet as they are means of health they are open and free for all, to come, and make experience of them. I conceive as much of the Sacrament, and though we may ſcruple how an unregenerate man can receive it as a pledge, yet as it is a means whereby grace is conveyed, there is no difficulty. For the evill of omiſſion; In the Law thoſe that neglected Circumciſion and the Paſſeover were to be cut off; and in the Goſpell Matt. 22. thoſe that came not into the Feaſt, were deſtroyed, the Lord giving a reaſon, ver. 8. becauſe they were not worthy. Alas! we make a ſcruple only of comming unworthily, whereas they are moſt unworthy of all, that come not in to the Supper; we doe not finde any of the Servants durſt refuſe to call in all: if they had left out any, they might have bin worſe ſerved. This one thing hath long ſtuck on my thoughts; how ſhall we neglect a certain duty of adminiſtring, or of comming to the Sacrament, for fear of accidentall ſcandall, or of committing an uncertain ſin, in the doing? Is not this a kind of doing evill, that good may come of it? whoſe damnation is juſt: Rom. 3.8. But I will ſay no more, thus much ſhall ſuffice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I will not give you my Reaſons by the heape, but by the weight; I humbly commit them to you, onely with this caution, that no man take occaſion from hence to preſume; for as the Iſraelites (that were deſtroyed, after they paſſed the Sea, and drank of the Rock) are ſet for a warning to the Corinthians, ſo are they both ſet for a warning to us, that wee daily examine our ſelves, and come with reverence, leſt we being freely admitted by Gods goodneſſe, periſh nevertheleſſe with them for our own unworthineſſe.

The Second SERMON.

NOw for anſwering Objections 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Two things I muſt premoniſh you. 1. Whereas common notions are like diſhes, where the ſame matter dreſs'd but in another way, or variegated in the expreſſion, receives a ſeverall reliſh and eſteem in the palats of ordinary judgements, you muſt pardon me the Liberty if at any time I be forced in the Cookery of the ſame ſence to ſerve you in more words than enough to any Objection. 2. Whereas many Godly in theſe times have a prejudicate opinion againſt this free Admiſſion, ſo that whatſoever may be ſaid, is not like to remove all ſcruples, which are ſo much faſtened on their Conſciences, thinking they have holyneſſe on their ſide; we are to goe unto the Throne of Grace, to pray the Lord to give us his Spirit of illumination to direct us in this truth, which is able alone to convince and ſatisfie us. And for me, if I deliver what is not conſonant to the holy Word, I deſire the Lord to blot out my Sermon, with my ſin, that none of his Little ones may be offended by it; but if it be the mouth of Truth too much kept in ſilence, delivering nothing but the very doctrine and practiſe of Chriſt himſelfe and his Apoſtles, (as one of his weakeſt ſervants does heartily beleeve) I hope the Lord will give a bleſſing on it, and ſend it out as a light into your hearts, to diſcover thoſe ſubtilties of Sathan, whereby he would obſtruct your comfort in the uſe of this Ordinance.

Objection 1. This Doctrine will take away the uſe of the Keyes, Excommunicate Excommunication, and leave us no Diſcipline in the Church.

Anſ. Unto this by way of Conceſſion, although it has been thought, theſe cenſures belonged but to the Church, untill they had a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, I grant,

Firſt, That there is a power of the Keys in the Church.

Secondly, that the exerciſe of this conſiſts in Excommunication.

And thirdly, That the want thereof in the right inſtitution is to be bewayled.

But by the way of ſatisfaction, I Anſwer, this Objection is grounded merely on falſe ſurmiſes about Excommunication, which being removed as the fewell from the fire, it will go out of it ſelf.

1 It ſurmiſes this Church-diſcipline to lye in a ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, as if Excommunication were but an Excommunion.

Let us therefore know, that theſe Church cenſures are puniſhments upon ſcandalous perſons (after a legall conviction) whereby they are debarred from Chriſtian ſociety in generall (leſt they leven others by their example) for els what is it to keep a prophane perſon from the Sacrament, but to gratifie him, who never intended, at leaſt never cared, to come thither? But now when men will take theſe keyes that were made to the great Church door, opening and ſhutting to all fellowſhip, and fit them only to the Chancell doore, as if they peculiarly belonged to this Ordinance, they many times get them in ſo far, that being unable to work them out againe, they never leave turning and locking till they have both ſhut out the Sacrament from the Church, and the Church from the Sacrament.

2 It ſurmiſeth the inſtitution of this power to be in reference onely to the Ordinances, to keepe them pure and holy, as if the Sacrament eſpecially would be defiled otherwiſe to the receivers.

Let us therefore further know the ends of theſe Church cenſures, that they concern not thoſe that are admitmitted to the Ordinance, but are uſed in reference only to Offenders, that thereby they may be kept in awe, and brought to Repentance. The only ends are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as others have it) for their reformation, ſatisfying the Congregation, and to warne others.

3 It ſurmiſes a moſt neer eſſentiall relation between this Excommunication and the Communion, as if it were a part of it, at leaſt ſome neceſſary Antecedence, as if the Sacrament could not be Adminiſtred without it. Let us therefore diſtinguiſh finally, between the exerciſe of the Keys as Acts of Diſcipline, and the uſe of the Ordinances as Acts of Worſhip; and though the Keys may have ſome diſpoſing power in regard of the outward order of our worſhip, yet is there no allyance in the nature of one another, one is in one Element, the other is in another; even as the Acts of the Aſſizes may have influence on, but they have no relation to the nature of your private occupations.

In duties there may be a double relation, a relation of ingrediency, as faith has to prayer, without which be in it, it cannot be effectuall; or a relation of ſubſerviency, as the Law has to the Goſpell, in being preparatory to it; now there is no ſuch relation at all, not only no ingrediency as a part of it, but even no eſſentiall ſubſerviency, or dependance betweene Excommunication and the Sacrament. For what is the excluſion of another, to the communicating of the Receiver? what phyſicall or morall antecedence, has the puniſhment of one at the Aſſize, to the worke in your ſhop, doing your trade? there is indeed a Key of inſtruction very requiſite for our preparation, but as for theſe Keys of cenſures what can be more diſtant and impertinent, to thoſe that are coming hither? So that I judge there is no more reaſon for one upon this ground to ſay, I will not go to the Communion, becauſe there is not excommunication, than for one to ſay, we have here no Iuſtices or Seſſions, we have no Magiſtrate in this Town to look to people in their dealings, therefore (becauſe it is better that we had) we will not live here, but hold it altogether unlawfull to follow our ordinary vocation. But is it not a heavy caſe we have no diſcipline eſtabliſhed? I ſay true; but what then? therefore muſt we have no worſhip? Secrate ambulante fulguravit.

Object. 2. The moſt of men are wholly unfit, and not capable of this Ordinance. This is enlarged, Here are things to be done; Preparatory, a ſerious examination; Executory, an exerciſe of Faith, Love, &c. And here are things to be received, Remiſſion, Increaſe of Grace, Aſſurance, which all cannot obtaine neither. Therefore no free Admiſſion hither.

Anſw. There is a manifeſt weakneſs in this arguing from mens unability, to our duty. For as to the Churches part, in admiſſion of all (as I at firſt diſtinguiſht) who can but look upon an outward capacity; here is nothing to them, no more than Iudas unworthineſſe and inward incapacity was to Chriſt. Let every receiver think what he has to doe. But as to the peoples part, I anſwer 3. things.

☞ 1. There is no duty a naturall man can perform rightly, ſo that moſt men are wholly uncapable to hear, to pray, or come to any Ordinances, where Graces are to be acted and received, as well as at this Sacrament, but I hope that will not exclude them therefore from all, and give them a writ of Eaſe to doe nothing; I wonder grave men ſhould beat the ayre thus with a Feather. 2. I ſay to every man, though he cannot doe what he ſhould and ought to doe, he muſt ſtill endeavour to doe what he can. The infufficiency of any debtor (incurr'd through his owne fault) does not diſcharge his Bond, but he is to pay what he can; it is every mans doing leſſe than he can, that ſhall condemne him at the laſt day, ſay Divines; ſo ſay I, Let every man doe what he can ſtill, and this is plain Divinity. 3. There may be a difference between a worthy Receiver, and a Receiving worthily; As a poor man (ſayes Pemble) though but unworthy to ſit there, may carry himſelf very worthily at the Kings Table. In this caſe therefore whoſoever thou art, doe thou labour thy beſt to prepare thy heart, and if after thy examination, thou judgeſt thy ſelfe but unworthy, let thy humbled ſoule come and ſay nevertheleſſe, Lord, if I am unworthy, whither ſhall I goe to make me worthy? Is it not to thee my kinde Saviour, that has an invitation (Come ye laden) for the pooreſt ſinner? It is true, many count me but as a Dog, Lord I confeſſe I am no better in my own apprehenſion; But let even this poor Dog eat of the crummes of thy Table. If I neglect my duty, I certainly offend thee, if I come Lord, I doe but humbly venture on thy mercy.

Rep. But is not the Ordinance hereby taken in vain againſt the third Commandement?

Anſw. On the Receivers part when they finde no benefit by it, they may judge ſo, and are to finde their fault, and repent of it; But not of the Admitters part, who are to doe their duty, and leave the ſucceſſe to God; Even as Chriſt preached to the people in Parables, and gave only his Diſciples the privilege to underſtand them: And as all were ſuffered to touch Chriſt, when but one onely received vertue from him; ſo doe I humbly conceive are we to ſuffer all to come unto him here, leaving it to his breaſt alone, to give out the effectuall benefit, to whom he pleaſes.

Objection. 3. Holy things to holy men.

Anſw. There is a double holineſſe, an Inward, and Outward holineſſe; And this both in Things and Perſons: In Perſons, An outward holineſſe conſiſts in their bare profeſſion, and name of Chriſtian, and ſo are Saints by calling; An Inward holyneſſe conſiſis in the worke of Grace upon their hearts, and ſo are Saints by election. In Things likewiſe, The Ordinances are all holy, There is an Outward holyneſſe in the Outward communication of them; There is an Inward holineſſe in the Inward Communion, vertue, power or ☞ efficacy of them. Now Outward holy things to Outward holy men, and Inward holy rhings to Inward holy men, a viſible Ordinance to the viſible Church, and the inviſible Grace, to the inviſible Members that have a ſaving intereſt in them by Faith,

Rep. But doe We not hereby make our ſelves one with the wicked with whom we joyne, and can we have Communion with Chriſt and Beliall?

Anſw. We doe, and muſt be one, with all that joyn in the ſame profeſſion; that is we are one, or one body, as Members of the ſame viſible Church in its outward capacity, freely adminiſtring the Ordinances, whereof we are to partake; but we are not one with them in their evill courſes, wee diſclame them wholly in the impiety of their converſation. So that wee have communion herein onely with Chriſt, and have noting to doe with Beliall. For I would not have any ſo groſly think, that a joyning with a wicked mans perſon, is having communion with Beliall, but accompanying him in his evill wayes (Communio malorum non maculat Quē quam participatione Sacramentorum (ſayes Auſtine) ſed conſentione factorum:) If the Corinthians were alive, and you joyned with them in going to their Idols, this were indeed a communion with Beliall; but if you only joyn'd with them in comming to the Lords Table, you ſhould partake of Chriſt alone, as the Godly of them then did, and as we ought to doe. I will go with the wickedſt man alive to the Church, but I muſt leave him at the Ale-houſe; We may joyn with any to doe good, as to worſhip God in his Ordinance, but we cannot (that is we may not) joyne with any in the leaſt evill; we cannot ſerve God and the Devill. But you will ſay further, Doe wee not profeſſe the wicked, with whom we joyne, not onely to be one of us, but one of Chriſt, and partakers of his death? and how can we doe ſo? I anſwer, very well. The viſible Church is the Body of Chriſt; As Chriſt ſaid, Every branch, in me, that beareth not fruit. Io. 15.2. As Peter ſayes, There are ſome that deny the Lord that bought them. 2. Pet. 2.1. As Paul ſayes, There are ſome that are ſanctified with the bloud of the Covenant, which they trample upon. Heb. 10.29. (with Heb. 2.9. 2 Cor. 5.14.) So ſay I of all ungodly profeſſors, They are ſuch branches in Chriſt, redeemed and ſanctified, in the ſame ſenſe as the Scriptures mean in theſe places; that is, in regard of a viſible eſteem, whereby they externally partake of the Ordinances of Chriſt, and ſo are reckoned as Members of him: Let ſuch places be laid it little more to heart, and when you have made the Orthodox interpretation, the Queſtion will be even done, and we ſhall be no longer afraid of a free Admiſſion, when we muſt affirme, that there is an hiſtoricall viſible faith, that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements, as a true ſaving Faith, that gives intereſt to the effectual grace of the Sacraments; Even as the branches have ſome union with the root, that bring forth only Leaves, though they partake not of that vitall Sap, that ſends forth fruit alſo.

Object. 4. The ſeale is ſet to a Blanck, if All be admitted.

Anſw. Unto this, which hath troubled many, I anſwer not preſently by the diſtinction of an Outward and Inward, an Abſolute and Conditional ſealing: But I deſire a right underſtanding of this Notion, how the Sacrament is a Seale. I have alwayes thought, here lyes generally peoples miſtake, they take it to be a Seale unto their Faith, and if there be no true faith, it is ſet (they think) unto a blank, and this breedes a miſerable fear, to whom it is deliver'd. Let us know therefore, that the Sacraments are not properly Seales unto our Faith; how do we conceive Faith, ſuch a thing as muſt have Gods Seale put to it? God doth not atteſt our Faith, but the truth of his own promiſes; But they are Seals properly of the Covenant: A Covenant is a thing muſt be ſealed, and the maker is to atteſt it thereby. Indeed they may be ſaid to be Seales of our Faith (as Divines ſpeak) conſecutivè, by a conſequence of ſpeech, becauſe as Seals confirme a thing, ſo Faith is confirmed and ſtrengthened by receiving; but they are not Formaliter, formally in a true proper ſenſe, Seales unto any thing but the Covenant, or repreſentations of the effectuall Seal, the blood of Chriſt, by which it being ratified with God, the Lord declares it by the Goſpell; unto the adminiſtration whereof, the Sacaments are ſet, to ſignifie the undoubted truth of it, as Seales (we ſay) and Signes, ſhewing us, As the bread and wine is broken, powred out, and offer'd, with the other actions, ſo ſurely hath Chriſts body bin broken, his bloud ſhed, that all that believe in him according to this Covenant, ſhould have grace and ſalvation by him. The expreſſion is borrowed from Row. 4.11. where Circumciſion is ſaid a Seale, not ſimply of Abrahams Faith, but of the righteouſneſſe of his Faith (or of righteouſneſſe, I take it, through Faith: Phil 3.9.) that he ſhould be the Father of them that believe, which thing ſealed to, is the very tenor of the Covenant. Now let Circumciſion be received on Iſaac the Child of promiſe, or on Iſhmael that muſt be caſt out, it is the ſame Seal of Abrahams Covenant; Let the Sacrament be offer'd to the Godly, or to the Hypocrite, it is the ſame Seale of God, declaring the truth of his Covenant, which ſtands moſt ſure, and all the unbelief in the World cannot make it of no effect. Even as a Proclamation of pardon (as we inſtanced before) unto Rebels, comes with the Broad Seale to thoſe that refuſe it, and yet it is no leſſe a true Seale, and ſet to a true writing, than if they did all come in and embrace it: ſo that if it want its due effect on the Receiver, it may be ſaid (if you will) to be ſet upon a Blank (where Seales are ſet) but not to a Blank, ſeeing the Lord hath ſet it, to the truth of his Word, or grace of his Goſpell.

Rep. But were it not abſurd for a man to ſet his ſeal, when there hath been no agreement and tranſactions before? So do unregenerate men, who come to the Sacrament without that ſolemne giving up the Soule to God, as be ought, who enters Covenant with him.

Anſw. I grant with ſorrow, there are too many of us come abſurdly, and but wickedly, when wee forget to doe that we ought, The Lord forgive us; but though in the reciprocall action, as it is to be a ſeal (as is ſaid) of mans part, the receiver fails in his ſolemne mutuall engagements according to the Covenant (whereof he is to repent;) yet as for the Miniſter, or Church, who offer it as a ſeal on Gods part, there is a true ſeale to a true Copy, and nothing out of Order. The Sacraments therefore may be conſidered in their nature, and in their uſe: In their nature, I take them to be Gods ſeals only, as primarily ſignifying his grace, and ſhewing forth Chriſt, though in the uſe and effect they are to be mans too, as ſecondarily he is reciprocally to believe, and engage himſelf unto God: (Sacramenta noſtra accipimus ex manu dei, & nobis ſunc ſigna gratiae primo, ſecundarie obligationis & profeſſionis noſtrae: Paraus in Locpraedict) In the notion they are mans ſeals, we may conceive the Sacraments Seals of Faith, for Faith is the Condition of the Covenant, and we ſeal to our Condition, ſo that as they are conceived thus indeed; they are ſeals of Faith, becauſe ſeals of the Covenant, which I ſtand upon: But as they are Gods ſeals, for the ſame reaſon they cannot be ſeals of Faith (but conſecutivè, as I ſaid before, in the effect to the Godly, to yeeld what may be expreſſively only) becauſe God ſeals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is Faith, but to his owne part, which is the promiſe, and ſo I call them ſeals of the Covenant or promiſe formally, and not of faith. Now I ſay cleerly, though an unregenerate ☞ man cannot receive the Sacrament, as a ſeale of his Faith, yet the Church can give it, as a ſeale of the Covenant; and though it wants its due effect on him, there is the right nature nevertheleſſe in the Adminiſtration, though not a right uſe of it in the receiver; even as at the word, where there may be true preaching, and the nature of the Goſpell, though the hearers apply it not as they ought, by faith. Look back to that only place Ra. 4. where it is ſaid Circumciſion is a ſeale, Abraham is ſaid to receive it as a ſeale, which receiving includes Gods giving; ſo that we muſt look upon the Sacraments in the nature of them, as Gods ſeals from the very inſtitution; who elſe durſt appoint ſuch things to ſignifie ſuch ſpirituall matters? & as they are Gods ſeals they are ſet to his own word, and ſo can never be to a blanck while there is truth in the promiſe, and writing in the Goſpell. Now then the Sacraments being Gods ſeals certainly, in the inſtitution & nature of them, if I ſhould deny them to be mans ſeals at all, there being not for it one tittle of Scripture, I ſhould quite remove the ſcruple from the hearts of men; but whereas (that I may not remove their care and duty too) I grant though in the nature of ſeals, they are Gods Seals, Gods own ſeals, ſeals of the Covenant only, yet in the uſe of ſeals and effect, they are to be mans ſeals alſo, ſeals to the Condition of our part, ſeals of faith, and ſo I cannot, I may not acquit the receivers wholly, but that they come abſurdly, ſet a ſeale to a blanke, and take the Sacrament in vaine (as it is to be their ſeale) if they come without Faith, and thoſe ſolemne engagements as God Requires of us; though I can fully acquit the Church herein, in her delivery of the ſigns on Gods part (as we are his Embaſſadors;) becauſe the Covenant by him ſtands ſealed to all whomſoever, and there can be no doubt of ſealing to a blanke I affirme, ſo long as the Promiſe or the Goſpell it ſelfe holds in force, the tenour whereof this Sacrament ſeals abſolutely to us. The tenour of it I ſay, marke me, not our intereſt in it; for that it ſeals not abſolutely. The Sacrament is the externall ſeale (the internall only of the Spirit can abſolutely give this intereſt to any) this outward ſeale, is ſet to Gods outward copy of the Covenant, that is the word; now look what the word affirms, the Sacrament ſeals, and confirms according to the tenor thereof, and no otherwiſe. Now the word ſpeaks not particularly of any mans ſingle intereſt, but generally it declares to all a common intereſt upon condition they beleeve; now as this intereſt is expreſt conditionally, ſo the Sacrament cannot ſeale to it but conditionally, according to that tenor is expreſt; or rather let me ſay the Sacrament ſeals generally (ſo I will expreſſe it) the truth of the Covenant freely to all, engageing them unto it, and the intereſt or benefits of the Covenant, to every ſingle perſon, upon the terms, conditions, or tenor only of the Goſpell.

I muſt profeſſe this in the Embrion has layn a long time in my apprehenſions, and I cannot but be glad to find a piercing and godly man (I take him) whom the right conceiving of. this alone (he ſays) converted hi •… and ſatisfied him.

The Covenant runs thus, He that believes ſhall be ſaved, adde I believe, Ergo I ſhall be ſaved; from which ſyllogiſme we gather our aſſurance. Now to which of thoſe propoſitions (ſayes he) does the Sacrament ſeal? not to the minor as it is ſurmiſed, for no Scripture ſayes of any particular man he beleeves, and God ſeals to his own word not ours. Nor to the concluſion for the ſame reaſon. But to the major, which it abſolutely ſeales, as true to us, according to the tenour of the Goſpell.

Object. 5. The Covenant belongs not to All, therefore the Seals neither.

Anſw. The Covenant is ſometimes taken in Scripture for thoſe abſolute promiſes of Gods putting his Laws in our hearts, keeping us by his power to ſalvation, and to the like purpoſe, Heb. 8. which are proper only to his Elect, and belonging to his ſecret will: Or the Covenant is taken as it is for the tenour of the Goſpell in Gods revealed will, and ſo it runs on theſe terms: Whoſoever beleeves ſhall be ſaved, and whether this belongs to all, is no queſtion. It is true for our comfort; whoſoever comes under theſe conditions, may have an aſſured truſt, that the abſolute promiſes alſo belong to him; but nevertheleſſe it is the conditionall Covenant, or the Covenant in its conditionall capacity, that is tender'd to us the word, and ſealed to, in the Sacrament: So that the Covenant is indeed of the ſame extent with the Goſpell, and the very tenour ſhews it univerſally belonging to whomſoever. Now then, As when I have a buſineſſe to propoſe in generall to my Pariſh, I read the Contents, which when they like, I propoſe certain Articles, and ſay, whoſoever will agree to this, let them come and ſet their hands unto it. In like manner here, when I have held forth the glad tydings of the Goſpell, I ſhew them the conditions of the Covenant: Jeſus Chriſt offers life to all upon theſe termes of Faith; If you wil reſolve to accept him as your Lord and Saviour, to forſake ſin, and ſerve him; come, put your hands and ſeals thereunto, in this Sacrament, and loe, here is the ſeal of God, on his part if you doe, to witneſſe the certainty of ſalvation promiſed to you. So that to ſpeak ſincerely, if wee ſhould propoſe two men; one that is not in Covenant with Chriſt, and one that is, this Sacrament doth more ingenuouſly belong unto the firſt, who hereby comes to do it ſolemnly at this time; ſuppoſing, now he reſolves to enter covenant with him. You will ſay, the Covenant doth not belong to him; What? Doth it lye upon his everlaſting damnation or ſalvation, and not belong to him? The benefit of the Covenant, you may truly ſay, belongs not yet to him, untill he is in Covenant, but the Covenant it ſelf is of Epidemicall concernment, and ſo far belongs to all, that it is to be tender'd freely, and offer'd to them, that whoſoever doth receive it, may have the benefit of it.

Rep. But what right doth this give him to the Covenant?

Anſw. As the Sacrament is a ſhewing forth of Chriſt, with a tender of the Covenant in his bloud, there is an open, free, generall right to it, for all that will come in to Chriſt. Let me beſeech you, mark this diſtinction; There is a double right here obſervable. A right of Obligation, and A right of privilege. For the right of Obligation, in the Miniſters offer of Chriſt freely, and the peoples receiving him in his own terms, I doe avouch a univerſall right, to every Ordinance, Iſa. 66.23. they being dutyes of worſhip, which is of univerſall command (and this often, primitively once a week) though for the right of privilege in any, to enjoy the ſweetnes, comfort, efficacy, life, and benefit of them, I acknowledge it a prerogative, belonging onely to the Saints, and Elect of God. Now put caſe, a poor ſoule ſhould ſtand in doubt of his right to this Ordinance, that yet fain would come to Jeſus Chriſt. Let him ſay, Lord my heart is humbly afraid of my unworthineſſe, yet ſeeing I come reſolving to give up my Soule to thee, and it is our duty to come in, at this Supper; This Right of Obligation ſhall be my warrant to bring me in, and then Lord I hope thou wilt let me find the Right of Privilege too, in thy due ſeaſon O my God; Put caſe again, A godly heart ſhould riſe at the conceit of a wicked perſon receiving with him, Let him think preſently thus, though there is a neerer Right unto my ſoule, bleſſed be the mere free grace of God, yet there is a right of obligation to every one, I ought not to be offended with any, the Lord ſanctifie it to them for their converſion, the knowledge of this diſtinction may do very much to allay the troubles of many judgments, and more Conſciences in this controverſy.

Object. 6. The Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance, we preach to all to convert them, but w • e may Adminiſter onely to the regenerate, to confirme them.

Anſw. Unto this Objection, becauſe it is ſo much urged, give me leave to uſe ſome words. I doe acknowledge Divines doe uſually diſtinguiſh, of a Sacrament of Initiation, and Confirmation, ingeniouſly attributing our new birth firſt to Baptiſme, and then our nouriſhment and encreaſe unto the Supper, and ſo they make a converting Ordinance of the Word, and Baptiſme (the laver and meanes of regeneration) a confirming one only, of this Sacrament; although I take a grant of the one, to be a ſufficient medium to prove the other. But under favour, unleſſe we take this only in regard of the viſible Church, into which, 'tis true, Baptiſme alone does incorporate us; we muſt underſtand it not after a rigid form of ſpeech, and Idiome of truth, but after a more ſolute and ingenuous conception; that is, it is ſuch a notion as holds full enough to be handſomely ſpoken, but holds not ſo ſtrictly as to build arguments on it, otherwiſe the ingenuity thereof, will trip up their judgement. It is a rule therefore worthy here of our knowledge, that in divinity, we often give an indefinite denomination to things as they are moſt eminently inclined; as for inſtance, in indifferent things (which are indifferentia ad unum) when they incline more to evill in the uſe than to good (as many harmleſſe recreations) we condemne them indefinitely as evill, though in ſome caſes they are warrantable: Ec. 3.4. And I may happily with right circumſtances lawfully uſe them. So whereas this Sacrament doth more emminently incline to be, and is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 moſt uſually confirming and more ſeldome converting, they do aparte eminentiori denominate it indefinitely a confirming ordinance onely. And indeed this is true when it is taken in reſpect of the ſame perſons, whom we ſuppoſing to have been converted by the Word and Baptiſme already, the Supper is, and can be only a confirming Ordinance unto them without queſtion. But as for others, who we conceive, not yet converted, and ſo humbly coming hither for converſion, I doubt not, as there is no Scripture to the contrary; ſo there is no reaſon, but as the Word and Baptiſme do confirme, as well as convert; ſo may this Sacrament convert, as confirme, according as God gives forth his grace to the Condition of the Receivers.

There is therefore an error (to anſwer directly) in this Objection about the nature of the Sacrament (which being as we have ſhewne) a viſible word holding forth Chriſt and the Covenant to the ſight, is converting, as the Goſpell doing the ſame to the hearing; for if the Centurion believed only by ſeeing Chriſt corporally on the Croſſe; if the contemplation of the Creature ſacrifices, ſight of miracles have been means, to ſome of their religion and converſion, we cannot doubt, but the eyes may much more ſpiritually inſtruct us here in the melting objects of Chriſts paſſion, redemption and tender mercies outwardly repreſented, ſeeing we hope the working of the ſpirit too, by virtue of an ordinance.

☞ Let the World Anſwer Pauls argument, To ſhew forth the death of Chriſt 〈◊〉 the means of Converſion. The Sacrament is the ſhewing forth his death, 1 Cor. 11.26, Therefore as it does ſo, it is undoubtedly converting. Hence I obſerved in the words of inſtitution, there was a Take and an Eate, two words, a Take for ſuch as have not Chriſt (a word of grace) to convert thoſe: and an Eat, for ſuch as have already received him, to nouriſh and confirme them. For, put caſe, a morall man, taken for a good man, yet unregenerate, is, and cannot be refuſed to be, admitted hither: The man does his beſt to prepare himſelf, and ſo comes; do wee thinke now, to ſuch a man the Ordinance is neceſſarily fruitleſſe, and can have no worke on him? then God help us. Shall not his examination, confeſſion, prayers, meditation, with all the Miniſters exhortations, be more ſolemnly conducing now, to worke grace in his heart, and to convert him (this being the way of the ſpirits motions) then the bare preaching of a ſermon? Eſpecially ſeeing the word doth not only precede, but accompany, and is a very part too, of the Sacrament. Accedat verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum.

But, put caſe further, a poore ſoule much humbled in the ſight of his ſinnes that cannot yet be able to believe and cloſe with Chriſt, comes hither; hoping to meet with this favour here; well, the word of reconciliation is freely opened, the free mercies of Chriſt ſet forth, and all this while it hath not happily this effect upon his heart, yet when he comes to ſee the truth of all this ſealed with Gods owne ſeale, Chriſt freely offered, and peculiarly received of him in the Sacrament, his ſoule by all theſe heavenly wires is catcht, taken, drawn, and even enforced to a ſaving Faith; the ſpirit uſing ſuch moſt powerfull methods, for the work of his grace, which he infuſeth in us, by a ſweet attemperation to the will, not by compulſion, habitus infuſi, being wrought per modum acquiſitorum. And this we have lively repreſented in the two Diſciples of Emmaus whoſe hearts did burne within them at the hearing of Chriſt, but at the breaking of bread their eyes were fully opened to know and to believe him. Luke. 24.30, 31.

Rep. Although a Man may be converted At, it is not By the Sacrament, it is occaſionally, but not intentionally a converting Ordinance.

Anſ. This being undeniably granted of our oppoſites, the matter is upon the point yeelded; for conſider ſincerely this: It may be, Peradventure a man may be converted by it, and no text expreſly forbids any coming to it; is not this enough? And it may be granted, lay it well to heart, no place to the contrary alleadged, who doubts not but all It may bee's, all occaſions muſt be taken for our ſalvation?

But that I may wholly root out this ſubtility, which I think the ſpirit of error has inſinuated in the hearts of many Godly men; I have three things more to ſay, which by Gods bleſſing will fully do it.

1. Let us cleerly know, that the Sacraments, and all Ordinances, are primarily and properly means of grace; It of converſion, or confirmation. For this grace we receive in the uſe of them, is that which converts ſome, and ſtrengthens others. Now then we come to this Sacrament, as the meanes to receive Gods grace, and this grace, which he diſtributes as a moſt wiſe God, works in every one, as his ſtate and need requires; in the cōverted for their ſtrength and eſtabliſhment, and in the unregenerate for their converſion.

2. Conſider what is converſion. There is an outward converſion from Heatheniſme, to the profeſſion of Chriſt; we doe not ſtand to ſay the the Sacrament is ſuch a converting Ordinance, as if Chriſt ſhould bid us go forth with this Sacrament, and convert the Nations, let this be imagined only of the word. But there is an inward effectuall converſion of ſuch as outwardly profeſſe Chriſt, to the truth of grace in their hearts. Now how is the worke of grace (or true converſion) wrought through the word it ſelfe? Not from any active power it has per ſe, upon the Soule; but per modum objecti we ſay, and inſtrumentally; the object is propoſed or revealed, that is all the word does, and then it is the ſpirit that by illuminating the mind, and a touch upon the will, brings the heart to embrace the object, whereby it is converted. Now is it not juſt thus likewiſe in the Sacrament? This Sacrament ſhews forth Chriſt Crucified according to the Covenant, who is the true object of Faith and Life, upon this the ſpirit of God draws the heart (by illumination and conviction) to embrace him upon thoſe terms he here is offered, inſomuch that experience can witneſſe that ſome are, and have been hereby converted. What difference is there imaginable betweene this converſion and at the Word? What a ſhift is it to ſay it is only At, and not By the Sacrament, when it is inſtrumentall per modum objecti, as the Word? where I may ſay the ſame too as truly, that it is more properly At, than By, the Word it ſelf, there being no active vertue but of the ſpirit, in the one, or the other.

3. As for this device of the Sacrament being occaſionally, not intentionally converting; There may be a principall intention and ſubordinate; more primary, or ſecondary ends in an Ordinance: Though the word be the principall converting Ordinance, we cannot deny but others may be ſubordinately alſo converting, as Prayer; why els doth the Church pray, Turne thou u • , and we ſhall be turned, Convert thou us, and we ſhall be converted? Now as Prayer and other means of Grace are converting, and that intentionally in being uſed to this end; So I affirm of the Sacrament, unleſſe you can finde in your heart to keep this pitifull ſhift ſtill, and ſay, rather than this ſhall be, you will diſtinguiſh between a converting ordinance and means of Converſion, other ordinances are means of Converſion, but yet the word, you perſiſt, is the only intentionally (that is intended) converting ordinance: Well; goe too, what then I pray? To the purpoſe. Then you will ſay the word ſhall be held forth to all as intended to convert them, but the Sacrament ſhall not, being not ſo intended in the Inſtitution: Be it ſo: It followes then, there muſt be no Ordinance adminiſtred to thoſe that are not converted, but only that which is thus an intended converting Ordinance: Is this as you would have it? This is the very ground on which you ſtand: But harke ye, my Friend, I pray then what ſhall become of publick prayer & other Ordinances in the Church, when the Word is the onely principally intended converting Ordinance out of queſtion? By this doctrine at one daſh you take away all other dutyes in our mixt congregations: In what a caſe are you here brought? what can you invent? On neceſſity you muſt recant and confeſſe indeed, that Prayer and the like duties, though not principally, yet in a ſubordinate way are converting Ordinances, or means and helps of converſion; and upon that account you admit all to them: Now if you will doe ſo, then is the door as full open in this ſubordinate way too, for the Sacrament: If you will not, I beleeve the Sacrament will be contented to be ſhut out with ſuch good company, and deſires to fare no better, than her fellow-ordinances.

Rep. But unregenerate men (you will ſay) are dead in their ſins, and ſhall wee give bread to the dead? men muſt firſt be living, new born, and converted Chriſtians, before they can feed at the Sacrament?

Anſw. As for the ſenſe of this, it is anſwered already, as for the words and Fancy, I returne accordingly. If wee could conceive any bread to be ſuch, as would fetch life in a man, wee ſhould give it him when he is dead; but now 〈◊〉 ſee Jo. 6.33. I am the bread of life, ſayes Chriſt, not only (I hope) to confirm, but give life; Now Chriſt being offered in this Sacrament, this bread, is the bread of Life, this cup, the cup of Life, able by Gods grace as well to beget Life, as encreaſe it. If we give Aqua vitae to dying men, we may give Calix vitae to dead Chriſtians, to quicken and convert the unregenerate, as to comfort and eſtabliſh others.

Object. 7. Judas received not the Supper, for in Mat. 26.23.26. he is ſaid to dip his hand in the diſh before the adminiſtration, and in 10.13.30. as ſoon as he received the Sop he immediately went out. Beſides ſome learned men conceive the Sauce he dipped in, was the Sauce of bitter herbs in the Paſſeover (called Cheroſeth) and that was therfore before the Sacrament.

Anſw. Here is a manifeſt miſtake in the ground of the objection. It is ſuppoſed St. John ſpeaks of the Paſſeover Supper, as the other Evangeliſts, but ſee the firſt verſe of Iohn 13. with verſe 29. and it is expreſt, Before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, Supper being ended; as if he ſhould ſay, As for the Sacrament Supper at Paſſeover, the other Evangeliſts have fully ſpoken, but there was a Supper a little before, where there was remarkeable theſe paſſages they have omitted, and ſo he relates a waſhing the Diſciples feet, and other things that were not to be done at the ſolemnity of the Paſſeover, but the feet were to be ſhod then & the like geſtures quite contrary. Ex. 12.11. But if (as ſome ſay) thoſe paſſages which noted their haſt out of Egypt, were not obligatory when they came to the Land of Reſt, yet ſo large a circumſtance as is here mention'd of Ioh. to be introduc'd of Chriſt at that time is not probable. See Io. 12.1. There Chriſt came to Bethanie ſix days before the Paſſeover, whereabouts he ſtayed that time (going ſometimes to the City to preach. Mar. 11.17.19. and back again) it being neer the Mount of Olives, which he did then frequent. Luke 22.39. In this ſpace he rode to Jeruſalem on an Aſſe, and came back at night. Mar. 11.11. Now this night happily, or thereabouts, was this Supper John mentions, where Iudas having received the Sop, went from thence, to agree with the Prieſts, the Devill then putting it into his heart. Luke 22.1-4. When the Paſſeover drew neer, mark it, Then entred Sathan into Iudas, and he went and communed how he might betray him. Then, when it drew neer, that is about a night before, or juſt two nights, comparing this with Mat. 26. 2.14. Mark 14.1-12. So that it could not be at the time ſuppoſed, that is manifeſt. Now on the morrow, or two dayes after this, Chriſt went from this Bethany, again to Ieruſalem, (which was ſome 2 myles thither) it being the day of the Paſſeover. [Whether Chriſt kept it the ſame night with the Iewes, I need not controvert, ſeeing he kept it certainly the firſt day of the Feaſt, Mat. 26.17. Exod. 12.16. and the time when the Paſſeover was to be kill'd Lu. 22.7. Mar. 14.12.] • here according to the Law, he eat that Supper with the Twelve, and inſtituted his own. Mat. 26.26. Now here was Iudas amongſt the reſt, ſitting together with them at the Table till all was done. Luke 22.21. And when they were riſen, Chriſt with his Diſciples going again to the Mount of Olives, Iudas ſtole away (happily in the dark) to fetch the-Officers according to his agreement and betrayed him. So that Chriſt forewarned his Diſciples twice of Iudas Treaſon, the night or two before, by giving him a Sop, with which the Devlll entred his heart at firſt, to ſet him upon his bargaine, and here at the time of his own Supper with a like Item again, by dipping his hand with him in the diſh, A like I ſay, not the ſame; for St. Iohns giving him the Sop is not the ſame thing, as not at the ſame time, with Saint Matthew and Marke's dipping in the ſame diſh. That I ſay being before the bargain (while it was to doe. Io. 13.27.) this at the very time of accompliſhing it; (being already agreed and ſo in effect done, Mat. 26.24.) As for many learned mens thoughts about the Sop, and the Supper, whether there was one, two, or three, this night, I leave onely as conjectures, wherein they may erre, as they have done in this, and ſo not to be built upon; and foraſmuch as Iudas was at. Table, by the teſtimony of 3 Evangeliſts, me-thinks their witneſſe ſhould be ſufficient for his receiving, but when it ſhall be conſidered too, that the fourth is ſo far from ſaying any thing againſt it, that he ſayes nothing of this ſupper at all, they having ſufficiently done it already. I hope this objection will trouble Folkes no more. As Chriſt offers himſelfe to thoſe that refuſed him, You will not come unto me, that you may have life. I would have gathered you, and you would not. As Chriſt converſes with thoſe that could not profit, you underſtand not, 10.8.43. becauſe you cannot hear my words. And as Chriſt when he preaches to all freely, ſayes, He that hath ears to bear, let him hear; So does he adminiſter this Sacrament to Iudas amongſt the reſt, and ſo doe I adminiſter it to all, ſaying, He that can receive, Let him receive it.

Object. 8. Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Chriſts blood, and eat their Damnation, therefore wee must not allow a free Admiſſion.

Anſw. Unto this I ſhall ſpeak Firſt on the Churches part, and Secondly, on the Receivers.

1. For the Churches part, I mean the Admitters (if the term takes place with us) and Joyners; I do verily beleeve, let men urge what they will, this can never be made any way to concern them. There is a generall command, Doe this, every one is to examine himſelf and to come worthily, if they doe not, they receive their own damnation ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I Cor. 11. 29) they receive not ours, who doe our duty as we are bound, and leave others unto God.

Rep. But you will ſay; If another ſhould be taking a cup of poyſon ſhall not we be partakers of his bloud, if we doe not hinder and and forbid him? Qui non vetat, &c.

I anſwer, (beſides that we have no Quum poſſit) it is a wonder to me any religious man ſhould compare this Sacrament to a Cup of Poyſon, ſeeing it is in its own nature a Cup of Bleſſing, and if it prove death to any (as Sin may take occaſion from the Commandement and ſlay us) through their owne impiety; it is more than we can know, or ought to judge, ſeeing God is able to make it (as it is) a Cup of Salvation, even to the worſt. Let us act with charitable thoughts, and leave the ſucceſſe to God. Even as Paul in his preaching, who in 2 Cor. 2. tells us, It was the ſavour of death unto ſome, ver. 16. yet muſt he preach it in every place, ver. 14. becauſe it was nevertheleſſe a ſweet ſavour unto Chriſt, in thoſe that periſh'd, as in thoſe that were ſaved, ver. 15. So ſay I of this Sacrament, we muſt doe our duty and adminiſter freely, knowing God will make all his ordinances a ſweet ſavour to himſelf, whether it be of life unto life, or death unto death to any of us.

2. For the Receivers part, there is a double duty; A principall, Doe this: And an acceſſory, Let a man examine himſelfe. We are bound to come, and to come worthily; If a man failes in the one, and is not ſufficiently prepared; I dare not ſay, that muſt keep (I am ſure it will not excuſe) him from the other. This is certain; thoſe dreadfull expreſſions of being guilty of Chriſts bloud, and drinking damnation, are to make men take heed that they prepare themſelves and come worthily, but I cannot think they are to affright any man from the Sacrament. There are 3 Quaere's therefore, I will ſubmit here to further conſideration.

☞ The firſt, Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation, that is, (to free ſome weake mindes from fearfull thoughts) whether it be ſuch a ſinne, as makes a man guilty without repentance and Gods mercy, of Condemnation? And I conceive we muſt diſtingniſh between the very receiving, which is good; and the unworthineſſe, which makes the ſin onely. This unworthineſſe is in the Perſon, or in the Act: In the Perſon it conſiſts in his evill conſcience, which will condemn him whether he comes, or abſtaines from comming. Put caſe one receives not, and is unworthy, the guilt of his unworthineſſe lyes nevertheleſſe upon him for that, it may be, more; for in this very refuſing, his own Conſcience condemns him, and God is greater than his Conſcience; whereas if he comes, it happily may excuſe him ſomething in not neglecting the outward performance, not aggravate his condition; for though he failes in the inward, and that failing is ſin, yet that Act he does, makes him not more ſinfull for the doing, but he would have ſinned more, to have failed in that too, and not have done it, Unworthineſſe in the act, conſiſts in obliquity, deficiency, or failing in the right manner of receiving, though the outward work it ſelf be not amiſſe. There is the matter of a duty and manner; As for the matter, every one can doe, in a Chriſtian deportment at the Table, but in the manner, to receive in Faith, Love, and other graces as we ought, this a naturall man cannot doe, and ſo he ſinnes in his duty. His very Act is not ſin, ſo far as he does doe in the matter it is good (not only ſub genere entis, but good in tanto ſub genere morum) but this failing and ſwerving in the manner, is the evill, which as it cleaves unto, we may conceive, defiles the Act, and makes it lyable unto judgment.

Now then my ſecond Quaere is, whether receiving the Sacrament unworthily, is otherwiſe damnable, then praying and hearing unworthily; (whereof Chriſt ſays as much, Go and preach, he that beleeveth not, is damned, Mar. 16. I ohn 3.18. ipſo facto as much as heere) And if it be not, why upon the ſame account, as men go to prayer, to the word and other dutyes, though they cannot pray and hear worthily, they may not as well goe to the Sacrament? my thoughts are thus; It is a ſad Dilemma unregenerate men are in; If they pray, hear, receive, they ſinne (not in what they doe, I conceive, but in what they not doe) by failing in the manner, their perſons being not acceptable: If they doe not pray, hear and receive, they ſin worſe and are impious. Now what muſt be done here? If there be a neceſſity of ſinning, of two evills the leaſt muſt be choſen: it is a leſſe evill to doe what we can, though the outward matter only 〈◊〉 be done, than to fail in matter and manner too, wholly caſting off the care of God. But if that axiome be true, Nomo anguſtiatur ad peccandum, there is no caſe wherein a man is neceſſitated to ſin, (and ſo that ſaying Of two Evills, muſt be taken alwayes de malo poenae not culpoe, Rom. 3.8.) then it is more clear, Every man muſt come and do the beſt he can, which if he doth, happily he ſhall not ſin (at leaſt ſo far, he does not) and God may bleſſe his endeavours, Habenti dabitur, whereas if he neglects, he ſinneth without queſtion, this being maſum per ſe, the other per accidens onely. I will be hold therefore to diſtinguiſh: There may be a profane, preſumptuous comming to an Ordinance, or a Chriſtian comming in conformity to Gods Worſhip; though it is better not to come, than to come in a prophane way, this being rebellion and ſin in the fact; yet I ſay clearly, it is better to come in a Chriſtian way, though but in an outward conformity to Gods ſervice, then altogether to neglect it; which being granted and practiſed of all in other duties, I think it but a begging the queſtion, to deny it in this Sacrament.

My third Quaere is, Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himſelfe not worthy, muſt never come to the Sacrament, for fear of eating his damnation. And herein my thoughts are apt to run comparatively on the word; The word ſets forth Chriſt on the termes of Faith and new obedience, that is the Goſpell rightly adminiſtred, whatſoever effect it hath on the hearers; Now it is their part indeed to receive and apply it by Faith, if they doe not, it pronounceth them damned; Thus the Sacrament likewiſe ſhews forth Chriſt unto the ſight; and for the Churches part ſhe is to declare and offer him to all, however he is received: Now the Receivers, 'tis true, in the like manner again are to receive in Faith, as they ought to doe: If they receive unworthily as the word denounceth, this ſeal 〈◊〉 their damnation. Now a man will ſay, if the word pronounceth my damnation, ſo long as I am an unworthy hearer, I will not goe thither, I ſhall but heare my damnation; but I ſay you muſt goe thither, you lye in a damned ſtate already, and it is neceſſary this damnation ſhould be pronounced upon you, to awake you out of your ſecurity in it, that by the terrours of Conſcience you may be driven to repent and be converted; ſo the word is good in it ſelf, and the ſavour of life even while it damns a man, if he uſefully receive it: So ſay I of the Sacrament, it is good in its nature, it is appointed for our good, and ſo we are to come unto it, as a means of grace; but if it accidentally ſeals to any man his damnation, it is through his own unworthineſs, and he is then to make the ſame uſe of it, as of the damning word, that laying to heart the horror of his ſinne, in being guilty of the bloud of Chriſt, he may be provoked thereby to flie to Ieſus Chriſt, for a merit of his bloud to waſh away his guilt of it; and having received ſo many ſeals of his damnation, he may be forced to the Lamb who alone is able to open all thoſe ſeals, by pardoning his ſins, and ſo to turne the ſavour of death unto life, and to make even damnation it ſelf (ſuch is the power of his grace) ſubſervient to his converſion and ſalvation. I ſumme up this. If comming unworthily makes a man guilty of Chriſts blood, by powring it out in vaine, what ſhall an open refuſing deſerve, that even tramples upon it in the deſpiſing this ordinance?

Object. 9: The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted.

Anſw. Unto the unworthy receivers, it may be ſaid defiled, in that ſence, as all things elſe are to the unbeleevers, whoſe conſcience is defiled, that is I conceive in ſinning in all that he does. Tit. 1.15. But unto the admitters (unleſs they be convicted) and joyners (who (as the Schools ſay well) concurre in their Actu phyſico, not morali, to their act of receiving, not unworthineſs) their minds being pure, All things (even the worſt) are pure, and there is no more reaſon to be afraid of comming for that unworthineſſe of another, then for a man to ſcruple likewiſe, becauſe the cloath is not clean enough upon the Table. Indeed in the Law we read of a diſtinguiſhing the clean from the unclearn, Levit. 10.10. & 11.47. which otherwiſe would defile their Sacrifices. Hag. 2.14. and their very Temple. Ezech. 23.38.39. Such an outward holyneſſe had their legall Rites, that it could be touched, but the holyneſſe God now requires is more inward certainly, and to be layd up cloſer in the heart, then that the externall holyneſſe of another ſhould come at, or reach it: We muſt conceive under the Goſpell all this legall holyneſſe, in places, perſons, things, is abrogated; ſo that there is nothing unclean now unto us. Rom. 14, 14. which thing was ſhewed Peter in a viſion; it is pity men had need of another to mind them of it. But that all ſcruple may be removed, Chriſt has left it in plain words, Nothing without the man, defiles the man, Mar. 7.15. and nothing that enters into the mouth; as if he would meet with this in particular, Mat. 15.11. If the heathen husband be ſanctified to the beleeving wife, which is the neereſt communion that can be, 1 Cor. 7.14. ſo that that ſhe muſt not ſeperate from him in the duties of Marriage, as it is Gods Ordinance; I may reſolutely ſay, it is not the unworthineſſe of another, ſhall make the true beleever ſeparate from the Sacrament, but even the vileſt that comes there, are ſanctified to him ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) that is, are clean in reſpect of his communicating with them, ſo that their wickedneſs, being an externall thing to him, cannot ☞ defile his duty. This is the privilege (I take it) of the Goſpell many think not of, that now we are to have Free Ordinances, and to account no man unclean in the uſe of them. My Brethren there are ſome touches of the Law and Superſtition on you; you know what a ſacred thing was made of the Communion Table when the Rayle was about it; now I pray think how you refine and ſpirituallize your old Superſtition, by putting a ſpirituall rayle about the Sacrament, when you debarre poore ſinners from comming hither? Let us take heed, there will be ſomething of the Phariſee in theſe ſpirituall proud hearts of men, there will be ſetting a raile ſtill about the Communion Table.

Rep. But are we not faulty and partake of other mens Sins, if we do not our beſt to have the Leven purgedout, and therefore we may not ſay, Am I my Brothers keeper, look they to it?

I Anſwer. There are ſeverall dutyes of a Chriſtian he is to doe: He is to pray, receive. He is to love his neighbour: Among the reſt there is a duty much neglected of brotherly Admonition, whereby wee are to Rebuke the faulty, and to tell the Church of them, ſuppoſing it in a capacity to hear us, if we neglect our duty we are guilty in ſome meaſure, partakers of their ſin; and defiled by it; well, let this be granted; what then? why me muſt labour a Church eſtabliſhment, and ſo to amend this great neglect among us, but I hope it will not follow, that in the mean while we muſt not receive the Sacrament, pray, nor performe thoſe other ſeverall duties we have to doe, it is a plaine fallacy (a dicto ſimpliciter ad dictum ſecundum quid I take it) to think our coming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is ſin it ſelf, or makes it the ſin, or us more guilty of the ſin, becauſe we ought to have admoniſhed them, and laboured their excommunication: no, this neglect of ours is the ſin by it ſelf, and the coming is our duty: God forbid that I ſhould think, if I do ſin in omitting one thing, that I muſt not therefore goe to do my duty in another. Becauſe the leaven is not purged out muſt there be no lumpe? this was, I may humbly ſay, a too overly ſurpriſe of godly Mr. Burroughs.

Rep. But you will ſay more obviouſly, Are not all ignorant and ſcandalous perſons Swine and Dogs, to be rejected and kept from the Pearls and holy things of the Sacrament?

I anſwer, I dare not ſay ſo; though I ſee what intereſt lies at ſtake, which may ſoon fancy a Chriſtian conveniency, into a Divine neceſſity,

For Firſt, This is Petitio principii and if you ſpeak indefinitely, my proofs aſſure the contrary.

Secondly, I place a great diſtance between an unfitnes to come unto the Sacrament as in other duties (Let a Man examine himſelf) and being excluded.

Thirdly, The keeping of any cannot be pretended to, without power in our unelderd Congregations, it being confeſſed a power not of order but of juriſdiction.

Fourthly, Men may be Dogs and Swine, either in the courſe of their lives, or in the publick eſteem of the Church; now in our Miniſteriall admiſſion, we are to look on men as they are in the Churches eſteem; and may not account or deal with them as Dogs, (as we cannot execute an arrant thiefe) untill they are juridically cenſured to be ſuch, by lawfull authority.

Fifthly, To ſpeak particularly: Concerning the ignorant, I dare not judge ſo rigorouſly; The 5 Hev. 2. comes neer my heart; there are many ſorts of ignorance, the caſe whereof may need inſtruction moſtly, not cenſure. For the ſcandalous we know there muſt be admonition firſt, twice or thrice, Mat. 18.15.16. And then if they continue obſtinate (not elſe) and are notorious, an Excommunication is granted. verſe 17. 1 Cor. 5.13. yet I cannot finde any where (unleſſe I look without the book) that this is merely in reference to the Sacrament, but from Chriſtian Communion in generall; at leaſt in the primary nature thereof, though I will yield much by way of indulgence, unto the Churches wiſedome, according to the ancient practiſe of the Jews and Greeke Chriſtians; the ſeverall ſpecies or rather degrees whereof I muſt leave unto more learned Rabbies; And as to this preſent writ of ſuſpenſion in hand, which men would have a middle thing between Admonition and Excommunication, I muſt make my returne truly, Non eſt inventa, in baliva noſtra. I ſpeak it with reverence to wiſer judgements, who may allow as prudent, in the way of Diſcipline, what they will not enforce upon the Conſcience, as neceſſary, in our worſhip.

10. The laſt Objection is from thoſe ſeverall Texts that are alleged for a ſeparation from Wicked perſons.

Vnto all which I anſwer briefly, and (I conceive with ſubmiſſion) fully; Separation from wicked men is either in regard of their ſinnes, or their perſons; In regard of their ſinnes, it conſiſts in departing from their evill courſes; In regard of their perſons, it is either in caſe of common familiarity, or in caſe of Excommunication. Now it is certaine we muſt ſeparate,

Firſt, from all wicked men in their ſins and evill courſes, this is out of queſtion.

Secondly, we grant that we muſt ſeparate alſo from them in common familiarity, taking heed of intimacy and keeping them company, leſt we be partakers of their ſin, by infection or connivance with them.

☞ But Thirdly, I affirme there is no Scripture commands our ſeparation from them in the Sacrament, or any of Gods publick Ordinances, unleſs in caſe of Excommunication; which alone can debarre any from Church-communion.

In the firſt ſenſe you muſt take theſe Scriptures, Eph. 5.11. 1 Cor. 10.20.21. Theſe Corinths did well to come to the Lords Table, their ſin was only in partaking with Idolls. ſoe 2 Cor. 6.14. to the end, where they are rebuk'd for joyning in the ſame ſin of Idolatry. If you underſtand this, Be not unequally yokt, of Marriage, compare it with 1 Cor. 7.13.14. There the beleeving wife muſt in no wiſe ſeparate from her Inſidell husband, here ſhe muſt come out & be ſeperate, how can this be recōciled but that ſhe may have communion with the perſon in what is Lawfull, and yet be ſeparate from him in his wayes, that are evill? You may adde happily in this firſt ſenſe. Ier. 15.19. 2 Theſ. 3.6.11. Rev. 2.6. All which texts are hereby anſwered, that though indeed they doe command a ſeparation from the wicked; it is from them in their ſins, not from joyning with them in doing our duty.

In the ſecond ſenſe, you may take 1 Cor. 5.9. to the 12. 2 Theſſ. 3.14. Rom: 16 17. 2 Tim. 3.5. 2 Io. 10.11. Pro. 22.24.25. and it may be 2 Theſſ. 3.6. Tit. 3 10 and ſo theſe Scriptures are likewiſe anſwer'd which do further forbid us the wickeds familiarity as their ſins, not a bare accompanying with any in Gods Ordinances.

Rep. But you will ſay, If I muſt decline a wicked man, ſo as not to eat with him, (which I interpret by our ordinary converſation) how much more muſt I decline him at this Sacrament?

I Anſwer, this is clear fallacy, I am ſorry to ſee many graveld in their minds at it; as if there were any force in this, I muſt not be ſuch a mans common companion, therefore I muſt not goe to Church with him: Wee muſt know, Arguments from the leſſe to the greater, muſt be in things of the ſame kind and nature; Now it is one thing to eat at home, an indifferent action, where I am left to my own arbitration and muſt not chuſe evill, and another to eat at the Sacrament, which I am bound unto as a piece of the ſervice of God.

In the third ſenſe I take Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.1. to the 9. where the whole Communion or Life of Chriſtians, is compared to an unleavened Feaſt (from which that perſon was to be excluded in generall) without peculiar mention (as ſome would have it) of the Sacrament you may reckon hither many places Io. 9.22. 1 Tim. 1.20. &c. In which caſe only when excommunicated, the matter is granted. And thus I am apt to think, 1 Cor. 5.9.10.11. 2 Theſ. 3.6.14: 2 Io. 10. &c. quoted in the ſecond ſenſe before, if ſtrictly taken, ſtands in full force onely. As for Mat. 7.6. which properly concerns Admonition, Ier. 15.19. 1 Tim. 5.22. which, (with ſome ceremonious precepts of the Law) In the words, are much applyed for the ſcaring of many conſciences, I muſt appeale to other judgements when they are well weighed, whether in their proper ſenſe and importance they are not many leagues off this peculiar buſineſſe of the Sacrament.

I will conclude with 4 Wiſhes:

1. I Wiſh we had a Government eſtabliſht in the Church, the neereſt in Chriſtian prudence that may be, to the word of God: 2. I Wiſh the duty of Fraternall correption, a watching over, and admoniſhing one another in love were better known and practiſed amongſt us. 3. I Wiſh that men would look more into their own conſciences, and leave the judging of others ſpirits, hearts, and reines alone, to the judgement ſeat of Chriſt. 4. ☞ I Wiſh, though there may be ſome judging by the fruits, that wiſe religious men would be more cautious of countenancing theſe ſeparations in the viſible Church, ſeeing upon the ſame ground that you goe to gather a Church out of my mixt congregation another will gather a ſeparation out of your Church; and ſo continue (as I have intimated from our ſad experience) an endleſſe ſeperating, untill this firſt ſeparation ſhall in a few years be able to take up the ſaying of that Greateſt Grandmother, unto thoſe many ſchiſms ſhe ſhall ſee iſſuing, as her naturall offſpring, out of her own bowels, Riſe up Daughter, goe to thy Daughter, for thy Daughters Daughter has a Daughter; for this ſeparations ſeparation has a ſeparation.

Deo Gloria, Mihi Condonatio; J. H. FINIS.