IN Mr. Stoddards Sermon on Exodus xii. 47, 48. lately Published, there are many Passages which have given Offence to the Churches in New­England, as being contrary to the Doctrine which they have learned from the Scriptures, and from those blessed Servants of the Lord, who were the Instruments in the hand of Christ in building Sanctuaries [Page 2] for His Name, in this part of the Earth. But there are Especially two Heterodox As­sertions therein; One is, That Sanctification is not a necessary qualification to Partaking in the Lords Supper. The other is, That the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance; Consequent­ly, That Persons who know themselves to be in an Unregenerate Estate, may & ought to approach unto the Holy Table of the Lord, whilest they remain in their Sins. For the right Stating of the controversy, we must remember that the Question is not (as some of Mr. S. his Arguings do insinuate) Whe­ther the Church must certainly know that those whom they admit to their Communi­on are Sincere in their Profession of Faith, and Repentance; for God only knows the hearts of all men. Nor is the Question, Whe­ther a Christian must have Assurance of his being in a good Estate before his Partaking; for that Ordinance is appointed for true tho' weak Believers, that so their Faith may be Strengthened. And there are many weak but true Believers, who have not Assurance, and for them with due Preparation to at­tend upon the Lord in this holy Institution, is the way to obtain Assurance. Nor is the Question, Whether Persons Orthodox in Judgment, and not Scandalous in their Con­versation, are not to be Esteemed as true Be­lievers: [Page 3] To Affirm that would not be an Error comparable to Mr. S. his Positions. I conceive more than that, or then a meer Negative Righteousness, is requisite as a suf­ficient ground for Rational Charity, to con­clude that there is a Work of Saving Grace wrought in the Soul: The Scripture acknow­ledgeth none to be Righteous, but such as Positively do Righteousness, 1 Job. 3. 7. And Mr. S. himself complains of those who judge men to be Converted because [...] carry them­selves Civilly & Religiously. But the Question is, Whether God requires Unsanctified Persons while such, to come to his Table; and Conse­quently, Whether the Church may admit into their Holy Communion in Special Ordinances, such as are not in the judgment of rational Charity, true Believers? This being the Question, I maintain the Negative.

My first Argument shall be that which being Cleared, may be Instar Omnium; it is this, Assertions which are contrary to many Scrip­tures, ought not to be received by the Churches. But the impleaded Assertions are contrary to many Scriptures. I begin with a Scrip­ture, which is like a flaming Sword to keep all Unregenerate Persons from daring to approach unto the Holy Table of the Lord: It is in, Mat. 22. 11, 12. And when the King came in to see the Guests, he saw there a man [Page 4] which had not on a Wedding Garment; and he faith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a Wedding Garment? And he was speechless. When it is said, How camest thou in hither? It is as much to say, Thou art a bold Intruder, thou oughtest not to be here. It is then Evident, that they who come to the Lords Table without a Wedding Gar­ment, are Guests more bold than welcome. The Church is the House where the Mar­riage Feast is [...]. 'Tis true, that the Ser­vants were [...] added to Invite all; but (as our Great Cotton ^(a) observes) they were not commanded, to bring all into the House; but such as in Obedience to the Invi­tation put on the Wedding Garment. O­therwise the Servants themselves would dis­please the Lord by bringing in such un­meet Guests to his Holy Table. As he was of­fended with the Guest that presumed to come without the Wedding Garment, so he must needs be offended with the Servants for af­fronting him with such a Guest, had not they who are not able to discern as their Lord can, thought him to be adorned with that Garment. Could the Guest have said, The Servants found me in my Rags, and commanded me in their Lords Name to [Page 5] come; if they had not also required him to put on the Wedding Garment in order to his coming to their Lords Table, he would not have been speechless. For he might have said, I was commanded to come; and therefore why am I taxed for coming? The scope of the Parable is (as Mr. Baxter ^(b) observes) to show, that he who Invited them to come, did intend that they should come with that Preparation as is suitable to the Nature, & for the Honour of the Master of the Feast: otherwise they would be ob­noxious to a greater Punishment than those that never came. Now by the Wedding Garment, Faith in the Righteousness of Christ, and Inherent Sanctification also, is doubtless intended. To Come in hither, is to come into the Church. It remains then, that the Lord will Condemn those men who come into his Church, and so to his Holy Table without true Faith and Holi­ness. Learned Mr. Gillespy ^(c) replies to Mr. Prin, who maintained (as Mr. S. does) that the Lords Supper is a Converting Or­dinance; that if it were so, the intruding Guest needed not to have stood speechless, when the King said to him, how camest [Page 6] thou in hither? Mr. Prin's Divinity (Mr. S. his Divinity say I) might have put the answer into his mouth, I thought it to be a Converting Ordinance, and that thou wouldest not have Condemned those that came without a Wedding Garment, since here at the Marriage Feast they may get one. Another Scripture, (and a terrible one it is) which is very contrary to Mr. S. his impleaded Assertions, is that, 1 Cor. II. 27, 29. Whosoever shall Eat this Bread, & Drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body & Blood of the Lord. He that Eats & Drinks unworthily, Eats & Drinks Damnation (or Judgment) to himself. The last mention­ed, Judicious and Learned Authors argues very rationally; that if the unworthiness of a particular Act in respect of the manner of doing it, may make a man Guilty, and ex­pose him to Judgment, how much more the unworthiness of his Person? He that in respect of his state is an unworthy person, will not eat & drink worthily, or with a due meetness & preparedness for such an Ordi­nance: But this is true of every Unrege­rate man. He that is yet in his Sins with­out true Repentance for them, and that has not an interest in Christ by Faith is unwor­thy, and therefore will Eat and Drink un­worthily at the Lords Table, if he shall pre­sume [Page 7] to come thither. A particular act of Ungodliness may render a man unworthy; that is to say, unmeet to partake at the Lords Table. A Church-Member falling into a scandalous Sin is justly kept from the Sacrament, until he has manifested sincere Repentance: Then surely they that are in a state of Ungodliness, and that never Re­pented of any Sin, are not worthy or meet Communicants. If impenitence for a par­ticular sin makes a man unfit for the Lords Supper, certainly impenitence under a state or course of sin does so much more. As long ago as the famous Council of Nice, it was given as a Rule, that they who are ad­mitted to the Communion, should as to their inward State be true Penitents, which therefore should be Enquired into. And it is an Ar­ticle in the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, that men who have not true Faith, do at the Lords Table Eat and Drink Con­demnation to themselves. The Words of the Twenty-ninth Article are these, The Wicked and such as are void of a lively Faith, altho' they do carnally and visibly press with their Teeth, (as S. Austin sayes) the Sacrament of the Body & Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their Condemna­tion do Eat and Drink, the Sign or Sacrament of so great a thing. In the Articles of Reli­gion [Page 8] in Ireland, Anno 1615, are the same words. And is it not strange, that when Protestants in England and in Ireland insert among the Articles of their Religion, that if men who have not a lively Faith partake of the Sacrament, they Eat and Drink Con­demnation to themselves, a Minister in New­England, shall say to those who have not a lively Faith, you need not fear any Con­demnation for your coming to the Sacra­ment in your state of Unbelief? Moreover, the Apostles Words, in 1 Cor. II. 28. are contrary to the New Doctrine of the Sacra­ments being a Converting Ordinance, and that Unsanctified Men, notwithstanding they know their Unregeneracy, should ven­ture to partake of it; Let a man Examine himself, and so let him Eat of that Bread, and Drink of that Cup. What must he Examine himself about? Is it not whether he has Grace in his Soul? And whether he is a person duely Qualified for so Sacred an Or­dinance? If then upon Examination he finds that he has not any Gracious Quali­fications, ought he to Eat of that Bread, & Drink of that Cup? Yea, (says Mr. S.) For 'tis not said, let him Examine whether he should eat or forbear; but the meaning is, That be should Examine what need he has of it. But does not the Apostle himself plainly enough tell [Page 9] us, what he means by this Self-Examination? 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your self whether you be in the Faith: Prove your own selves, know you not your own Selves: how that Christ is in you, except you be reprobates? That is to say, Per­sons not approved of. In the continuation of Mr. Pools Annotations, the Judicious Dr. Collings, (for I am well assured that he Wrote the Annotations on the Epistles to the Co­rinthians, as well as on a very great part of the New-Testament besides) has a solid In­terpretation of the Scripture now under con­sideration. His Words are these: ‘He is to Examine himself about his Knowledge, whether he rightly understands what Christ is, what the Nature of the Sacra­ment is, what he doth in that Sacred Action; about his Faith, Love, Repentance, New­Obedience, whether he be Such an One, as God hath Prepared that holy Table for, it is the Childrens bread, & not for Dogs, a Table Christ hath Spread for His Friends, not for His Enemies. And so let him eat, having so Examined himself, not other­wise. Whence it appears, that neither Children in Age, nor Understanding, nor Persons nor in the use of their Reason, nor Unbelievers, nor Persons under the guilt of Sins not repented of, have any Right to the Lords Supper accordingly [Page 10] was the Practice of all the Primitive Churches, and all Rightly Reformed Churches.’ This is sound Divinity, but not like Mr. S. his Sermon. The Name of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs (who when a Student in Immanuel Colledge, in the University of Cambridge, was our famous Mr. Hookers Pu­pil) is and ought to be Precious among the Churches in New-England. Because it is my design to endeavour the Establishment of the Churches in the Present Truth; I am willing to cause some Passages in an Excel­lent Book of that Gospel Preacher to be Transcribed. Thus he speaks: ^(d) ‘This Ordinance, it is the Ordinance of Spiri­tual Nourishment, of eating the Flesh of Christ, & drinking his Blood in a Spiritual way. Now it must needs Suppose that first there must be Life, before there can be any Nourishment received in. If it be appointed to nourish and increase Grace, then surely there must be Grace before; What nourishment can a dead Child take? The very first thing that is to be done is nourishment here: The Word hath power to convey Life, and then to nourish, but we Read of no such thing here, but that which is to be done here, is presently to [Page 11] feed, to Eat and to Drink, that is the End of the Sacrament; therefore it must be supposed, that thou must have Spiritual Life, there must come no Dead Soul to this Ordinance, but those who are quick­ned by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, they must come for nourishment. The act here required doth Note, That only those that are Holy & Godly can receive this Sacrament; we are required by the A­postle to Examine our Selves: To Examine our Selves of what? It must be of our Godliness, Examine what Work of God hath been upon the Soul, how God hath brought the Soul to Himself, and what Graces of the Spirit of God are there, & how we have been brought into Cove­nant with God. Now if only those can receive Worthily, and are to come that first Examine themselves, then certainly Such only as are Godly are to come, for they only can perform those acts that are required. It is a Sacrament of Communion with God, & Communion with the Saints, Now what Communion hath Light with Dark­ness? What fellowship hath Christ with Belial? If it be a Sacrament of Communion, of coming to the Table of God; will God have Enemies to come to his Table? You will invite no Enemies to your Tables, [Page 12] but your Children and Friends: So they must be the Children of God, and the Friends of God; those that are reconci­led to God in the Blood of his Son, and those that are his Children, that must sit at his Table: therefore they must be Ho­ly.’ Thus blessed Mr. Burroughs.

The Scriptures which have been already mentioned, are a sufficient Confirmation of the Truth, in opposition to Mr. S. As­sertions. In another Discourse of his, he supposeth (as did Mr. Johnson, the famous Separatist in Amsterdam) that we must fetch our Schemes of Church Discipline out of the Old Testament, and not out of the New only. By the way, if it be so, why does he in that other Discourse, maintain that there is no Scripture for a Church­Covenant, when the Old Testament speaks so much of it, as has rendred it needless to be expresly required in the New Testa­ment. But let us consider, whether there are not Scriptures in the Old Testament, which his Notions do not at all comport with. What else shall we say to that Scrip­ture, Cant. 4. 12. Where Christ compares his Church to a Garden inclosed, a Spring shut up, a fountain sealed? But Mr. S. his Doctrine has a tendency to break down the inclo­sure, and lay it open to the Wide World, [Page 13] for almost all comers to enter into it. Our Saviour Christ invites his Friends to Feast with him at his Table, Cant. 5. 7. Eat O Friends, Drink O Beloved. Unregenerate persons are not his Friends, nor does he take Complacency in them, so as to invite them to sit down with him at his Table. Christ would have the Gates of his Church set open that the Righteous Nation who keeps the Truth may enter in, Isa. 26. 2. How contrary is this to those that would open the Doors of the Church to a Nation of Unconverted men, and who invite those who they think have no Sincerity, or truth of Grace in their Hearts to enter in? There is another Scrip­ture in the Old Testament, which relates to New Testament times, tho' expressed in Old Testament Phrases. It is that, in Ezek. 44. 7, 9. You have brought into my Sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in Heart, and uncircumcised in Flesh, to be in my Sanctuary, to pollute it, even my House, when you offer my Bread, the Fat, and the Blood, and they have broken my Covenant;—Thus faith the Lord God, No stranger uncircumised in Heart, shall enter into my Sanctuary. The Jewish Masters inform us, that their Fathers were very strict in their admitting Proselytes: ^(e) they say they admitted no Proselytes in Davids time, [Page 14] left they should joyn themselves to his Peo­ple out of Fear: Nor in Solomons time, lest they should come because of the great Pros­perity which Israel then had. They say, He that comes for any of the Vanities of the World, is no Righteous Proselyte. It seems by the Prophet Ezekiel, the Jews were grown remiss in their admitting Proselytes, and for this the Lord was offended with them. If the Lord was displeased with those Ministers, who brought into his San­ctuary men uncircumcised in Flesh, & un­circumcised in Heart, most certainly, He is not pleased with those Ministers under the New Testament, who would admit either Unbaptised or Unregenerate persons to his Holy Table. The Church is Gods Sanctuary. Unregenerate persons are Un­circumcised in Heart: The Holy God is offended with those Ministers that would fill his Church and his Table with persons which they themselves think are Uncircum­cised in Heart. Moreover, We read in the Old Testament, That Porters were set at the Gates of the House of the Lord, that none who were Unclean in any thing should enter in, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Was not the Temple a Type of the Visible, as well as of the In­visible Church? Did not this signify, that Officers in the Churches should be careful [Page 15] that those who are Morally Unclean, either as to their Conversations, as Scandalous persons are, or as to their State, as Unregenerate men are, ought not to have the Church Doors set open to them? There are other Scrip­tures in the Old Testament inhibiting un­der severe Penalties, such as were Ceremo­nially Unclean from partaking of Holy Or­dinances, Lev. 7. 20. The Soul that eats of the Flesh of the Sacrifice of Peace Offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his Uncleanness upon him, that Soul shall be cut off from his Peo­ple. Have not all Unregenerate persons their Uncleanness upon them? Is not the Lords Supper a Commemoration of a Blessed Sacrifice? Then this awful Commination concerns them, if they shall presume to Eat of that Sacrifice! We read particularly that such as were un­clean might not Eat the Passover, Numb. 9. 6. Ezra 6. 21. Joh. 18. 28. Does not this Typifie that they who are Unclean either in course of Life or in State, should not come to the Lord's Supper? To this Mr. S. Answers, That the Ordinance, of the Old Testament, were not Types of the Ordinances of the New-Testament. Surely, He knows that all Divines who have Written on the Types affirm what he denies, he had need to bring some solid reason, for the Refutation [Page 16] of them all. But how does he prove his Tenet? By nothing but Pythagoras his Ipse dixit, his usual way of Demonstration is a meer Dogmatical Affirmation without any Proof at all. Fateor vetera Sacramento fuisse figuras non modo Christi sed et nostrarum Sacra­mentorum, saith the incomparable ^(f) Dr. Whitaker: He consesseth what Mr. S. denies. Dr. Goodwin ^(g) has evinced that the Or­dinances of the Church of Israel were Types of ours. And the Apostle Paul does expressly declare it, notwithstanding Mr. S. has made bold to contradict him. The Apostle sheweth that both the Ordinances and Providences which the Children of Is­rael were Subject unto were [...] Types, instructive to Christians under the Gospel, 1 Cor. 10. ver. 6. & 11. The definition of a Type belongs to the Ordinances of the old Testament, with respect to those of the New-Testament: A Type is an instituted resemblance of Gospel Truths & Mysteries. The Children of Israel had Types of all New-Testament dispensations. Our Spi­ritual Sacrifices were shadowed forth by theirs, 1 Pet. 2. 5. If the Ordinances of the Old Testament were not Types of Gos­ple [Page 17] Ordinances, then Circumcision was not a Type of Baptism, but it was, Col. 2. 11. 12. If he denies this, Anabaptists it may be will give him thanks. If the Ordinan­ces of the Old-Testament were not Types, then the Passover was not a Type of the Lords Supper: But it was so in many re­spects. The Israelites Eating the Paschal­Lamb, Typified our feeding upon Christ by Faith in the Lords Supper; they were to Eat it with bitter herbs, signifying that we should come to the Lords Supper peni­tently mourning bitterly for our Sins: The Jews might not have any Leaven in their Houses at the time of the Passover, signi­fying that those who eat the Lords Supper should come without the Leaven of Malice or Hypocrisy in their Hearts, 1 Cor. 5. 7. The Paschal-Lamb was to be Eaten by the whole Family, signifying the Spiritual Communion of the Church, as being one Body or Spiritual Family, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. ^(h) No Uncircumcised Person might Eat the Passover. Thus no Unbaptised Person, nor any who are Uncircumcised in Heart have a Right to the Lords Supper, nor may such as are apparently Unregenerate be [Page 18] received to that Holy Ordinance. It has by great Divines been thought a good Ar­gument, if the Jews were kept from Par­taking in the Sacrifices, and from entering into the Temple, and from Eating the Passover on the account of Ceremonial Impurities, then men now may be kept from the Sacrament in case of moral Im­purities. A good Argument this must needs be, since the Apostle himself does Argue after that manner, 1 Cor. 6. 16, 17. compared with Lev. 26. 11, 12. Mr. S. Pretends, That this appointment that unclean Persons might not come to the Passover, did signify that those who are Spiritually Unclean shall be Excluded out of Heaven. Thus did Erastus (the most cor­rupt Writer on the subject of Church Dis­cipline that ever appeared in the World) say long before him. Mr. Gillespy replies to him, that if the shutting one out of Heaven were the only thing signified thereby, there would not be a fit analogy between the Type and the thing Typified; for a Jew might be excluded out of the Temple and from holy Things, and yet be admitted a­gain: but we cannot say so of Exclusion out of Heaven. To Conclude this Argu­ment; the light of Nature dictates unto men, that unholy Persons should not meddle with Holy Things. Hence even the Gen­tiles [Page 19] would not suffer those whom they esteemed Unholy to be concerned in their Sacred Mysteries: They would say, Procul O Procul este Profani; the Eleusinian Mysteries (tho' most abominable) were by them ac­counted most sacred, and ⁽ⁱ⁾ one was ap­pointed to make Proclamation.

[...]

[...]

If any man be a Sinner let him be far from approaching hither. Now shall Hea­then Exclude Unholy Persons from their Sacrifices, and shall Christians admit them to their Sacraments!

IF there were but one Scripture in all the Bible, that did clearly Contradict the [Page 20] Strange Doctrine, the Confutation whereof I have (by the help of Christ) undertaken, that were sufficient, how much more when there are so many? Nevertheless, I hope some Readers will remember what they have received and heard, and be Confirmed in the Old Truths, if we proceed to some further Arguments, which are built on a Scripture Foundation.

I then in the second Place argue thus, They that are not duly Qualified to be Mem­bers of Particular Gospel Churches, are not fit to be admitted to the Lords Supper. This will be readily yielded, so that it is needless to spend time in the Proof of it. I will not deny but that persons may be admitted to Baptism on the account of their being of the Visible Church, which many are, tho' not in Fellowship with any Particular Church. This was the Judgment of our Famous Dr. Owen; as himself assured me, in Letters I had from him Forty Years ago, and I remember that in one of his Printed Books he affirms it. ‘And that he is so far from confining Baptism to a particular Church, as that he does believe that no Member of a particular Church was ever regularly Baptised, because Baptism pre­cedes Admission into a particular Church. Professing Believers and their Seed [Page 21] have right to Baptism, whether they are of any particular Church or no, on the account of their Relation to the Catho­lick Visible Church.’ Certain it is, that the Apostles Baptised many who were not joyned to any particular Church, as I have ^(k) else where many years ago more fully declared. But the Lords Supper may not be Administred to any, who are not Mem­bers of some particular Instituted Church: Nor indeed to them, except in a Church Assembly, 1 Cor. 11. 20. Papists allow the Dispensation of this Ordinance unlimited. They approve of Private Masses, supposing the Priest and one more to be enough for Administring the Eucharist. Episcopal Di­vines also allow of Private Communion. But Dr. Goodwin ^(l) has Solidly, and Learn­edly discovered the Error of that Practice. I proceed to Assume, Unsanctified Persons are not fit to be Admitted Members in Particular Churches. None but such as are (so far as men exercising a due Charity are able to judge) Sincere Converts, or True Believers on Christ, ought to be received into tho Churches. Rough Stones were not laid in Solomons Temple, but such as were hewen, [Page 22] and prepared, 1 King. 6. 7. Surely then Un­converted, Unprepared Sinners ought not to be laid in Christs Temple. Every par­ticular Evangelical Church is a Temple of Christ, 1 Cor. 6. 16, 17. The Church in Ephesus was the House of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. To admit Unholy Persons into his House, cannot but offend him, who has said, That Holiness becomes his House for E­ver, Psal. 93. 5. Unsanctified Persons are unbecoming his House, and unmeet to be there. Churches ought to receive into their Communion all and only such as they may reasonably hope that the Lord has received them, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3. It is said concerning the Primitive Christian Church at Jerusa­lem, that the Lord added to the Church such as should be Saved, Acts 2. 47. Ought not the Lords Stewards to be faithful in his House, and to do nothing therein but as they see the Lord going before them, re­ceiving whom He receiveth, and refusing whom He refuseth? But this they do not if they add to their Churches, such as they themselves Judge not to be in a State of Salvation. If (says that venerable man of God Mr. Cotton ^(m) we did find it affirmed in the Scripture, that the Lord added to his [Page 23] Church Ignorant, or Profane, or Unre­generate Men, we might venture to do so too. But there is no such Word in all the Bible: Altho' His Holy Providence per­mits many such to get into Churches, it is not with His good liking but the contrary. Were not the Servants guilty of a culpable and Sinful sleepiness, when Tares were manifestly appearing in the Lords Field: It pleaseth Christ to see good Seed in His Field, but it is pleasing to His Enemies to see Tares there, Mat. 13. 24, 25. They then that care not how many Tares spring up in the Lords Field offend him, and gratify his great Enemy who delights to see it so, and rejoyceth when he hears men pleading to have it so: Which truly is a sad Thought, and I wish men of such Principles would lay it to heart, and consi­der whom it is that such Unsanctifyed Prin­ciples Please, & who is displeased with them. But to go on: Were not those who were the Members constituent of Particular Churches in the Apostolical Times, in ap­pearance and in the judgment of rational Charity, Godly Converted Persons? An old Puritan Minister ⁽ⁿ⁾ who was a Conformist has zealously Testifyed to this Truth. When [Page 24] (says he) They unto whom the Gospel came Embraced the Word Sincerely, or else to see to, as far as Paul, and others could Judge then they were a true Church. There must be a Congrega­tion of People that do profess the Pure Religion and make it appear, at least in the Judgment of man, that they are Godly in Christ Jesus: This is an inseparable mark of a true Church as we see, 1 Cor. 14. 33. This was the Old Puri­tan Doctrine. The People of New-England are the Posterity of such Men: The Lord keep them true to the Holy Principles of their Predecessors. The Church in Rome is now degenerate, and become no Church of Christ, but an Habitation of Devils, Rev. 18. 2. But the Members of the first Church there, were such as the Apostle esteemed beloved of God, and called to be Saints, Rom. 1. 7. And such as had from their Hearts Obeyed the Gospel, Rom. 6. 17. The same is to be said of the Members in the Church at Co­rinth, They were Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to [...] Saints, 1 Cor. 1. 3. The Members of the Church in Colossi, Were Saints & Faith­ful Brethren in Christ, Col. 1. 2. Those in the Church at Ph [...]l [...]poi, Were Saints in Christ Jesus, & such as bad a good Work begun in them: Their Profession & Conversation was such, as that the Apostle judged that it was meet for him so to think of them, Phil. 1. 1, 6, 7. [Page 25] When there was a Particular Church first Gathered at Ephesus, the Members Consti­tuent of it, Were Saints and Faithful in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 1. 1. These things cannot be denied. But Mr. S. has the strangest No­tion that ever was heard of in the World. For (page 23.) his Assertion is, The Saints by calling are to be accepted of the Church, whe­ther they be Converted or no. But did you ever hear of Unconverted Saints by calling before? Had he said, Visible Saints, and Seemingly Called, but not Really and Inwardly such in the sight of God, may be accepted by the Church, he would have affirmed, that which no body will contradict; but as he express­eth it, his Notion is Contradictio in adjecto, ae notorious Contradiction of it self. Certain­ly, so far as men are Sanctified, they are Con­verted. If they are called to be Saints, they are called out of their Worldly, and so out of their Natural Unconverted Estate, Joh. 15. 19. It is true, that Hypocrites were ad­mitted into Churches in the Apostles days: But that was because they were not known to be such; for if they had they would not have received them. As soon as Simon Ma­gus discovered his Hypocrisy, the Apostle Peter Excomunicated him, Act. 8. 20, 21▪ When Hypocrites got into the Churches, 'tis said, They were brought in unawares, Gal. [Page 26] 2. 4. And that they crept in unawares, Jude 4. Hypocrisy is a simulation of Sanctity. The reason why Latent Hypocrites were ad­mitted into the Church, was because they Seemed to be Real Saints. When their Hy­pocrisy is discovered by any Fundamental Error in Judgment, or Scandal in Conver­sation, they ought to be cast out of the Church, Rev. 2. 2. And being out are not to be received, without a manifestation of Repentance. Known Hypocrites are not fit materials for a Church of Christ. Mr. Cotton, in his excellent Treatise of the Holi­ness of Church Members, argues thus; Such as are destructive to the state of the Church, are not fit Materials for the building of the Church: But this is true of Hypocrites. They are dead Members in the Body, like dead Branches in a vine, whom the Lord will cast off, and destroy the Church with them, when they grow numerous, Isa. 9. 17. He argues weightily, and in my apprehen­sion, irrefragably, when he thus reasoneth, Such Members and such only are we to admit in­to the Churches, as in charitable Discretion we judge suitable to the Pattern of the Members of Churches Planted by the Apostles. But the Members of Churches Planted by the A­postles were such as were in charitable Dis­cretion judged to be Saints by Calling, and [Page 27] faithful Brethren; therefore such Members and such only are we to admit into our Churches: Thus Mr. Cotton. Now if we may not admit any others into our Churches, than we may not administer the Sacrament unto them. When Unregenerate men de­sire to be of our Communion, if their Un­regenacy be manifest, we should say to them as the Lords Servants did to those Hypo­crites, who would have joyned with them in a Sacred Fellowship, Ezr. 4. 2, 3. They came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the Fa­thers, and said unto them, Let us build with you, for we seek your God, and we do Sacrifice unto Him,—But Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the rest of the chief of the Fathers in Israel said unto them, You have nothing to do with us, to build an House unto our God, but we of our selves toge­ther will build unto the Lord God of Israel.

WE have done with the Second Ar­gument, which refutes Mr. S. his [Page 28] Assertions, and proveth the contrary. We proceed to a third Argument, which is this;

If men meddle with that which they have no right unto, they have not a Divine allowance for their doing so. We cannot suppose that the Presumption of men in laying a claim unto that which they have no right unto, has a Divine Approbation. But Unsanctified per­sons have no true right to the Lords Supper. They that have a right to the outward Sign, have also a right to the inward Grace sig­nified thereby. The Lord has joyned the Exhibiting Sign, and the Grace Exhibited thereby, together. But Unregenerate per­sons have no right to the Grace signified in the Lords Supper. It does Seal to the wor­thy partaker, all the Blessings promised in the New Covenant, and in particular the Remission of Sins. When our Saviour in­stituted this Holy Supper, he said to his Disci­ples, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins, Mat. 26. 28. The Sacrament ought not to be Administred unto those, to whom we cannot in charitable Judgment say, You are in Covenant with God, and the Blood of Christ has obtained for you, the Remis­sion of your Sins. But an Unconverted per­son his no real interest in the Covenant, Ephes. 2. 12. As long as he's to be Conver­ted, [Page 29] he has nothing to do with Gods Cove­nant, Psal. 50. 16, 17. He has no right to any of the saving Blessings promised in the Covenant. It is Faith in Christ which gi­veth a right thereunto. They then who are in a state of Unbelief, have no right to the Salvation of the Covenant; and consequent­ly, no right to the Seal of that Salvation. The Question is not, (as in the stating of it has been declared) Whether some Un­regenerate men have not a visible right to the Sacrament Coram [...], so as that the Churches charitably judging them to be Sanctified persons, cannot refuse them; but whether they have a right Coram Deo; or whether God bids them come to his Table, before they have repented and turned from their Sins? The Old Protestant Doctrine, was, That it is only a Justifying Faith, that gives right to the Sacrament in the sight of God: It is the Visibility of that Faith, which giveth a right before men. The reason why some Unregenerate persons have a right to Sacraments before men, is because they seem to be Regenerate, & to have that Faith, which giveth them a right unto the Grace Exhibited therein. Men look on the Outward appearance, but cannot look on the Heart, as the Lord does, 1 Sam. 15. 7. To give the Sacrament to those who are not, [Page 30] so far as men can Judge, in a Regenerate Estate, is to set the Lords Seal to a Blank: It is to Seal a Pardon to those whom the Lord has not Pardoned, and whom we are not by any rule of Charity bound to believe that he has Pardoned.

JUdicious Divines have reasoned thus, If the Sacrament were a Converting Ordinance, and that therefore Unregenerate Persons should come to it in order to their being Converted, there would doubtless be some Promise, or some Example recorded in the Scripture of Person, so Converted, for the Encouragement of others. But this there is not: There are Promises that the Word of God shall be blessed for the Conversion of his Elect, Psal. 110. 2. Isa. 52. 15. & 55. 12. But there is no promise of Conversion an­nexed to the Sacrament, which supposeth [Page 31] Conversion. Another Ordinance is spoken of as the Ordinary means appointed for Conversion, viz. The Preaching of the Gospel, Rom. 10. 14. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. If Faith should come by partaking at the Lords Ta­ble, would rather come by Seeing then by Hearing, which the Scripture says not. Nor is there any example there, of Faith inge­nerated by the Sacrament. Mr. Prin con­fidently affirms that many have been Con­verted by the Sacrament, and that they had never been Converted, if for their scandalous Lives they had been debarred from that Ordinance. Mr. Gillespy ^(o) replies to him, that he does confidently deny it, and withal adds, that if any man should come to him, and affirm that his very receiving the Sacrament did effectually Convert him, he Durst not give Credit to him. But suppose There have been some Persons in the World, whose Conversion has been occasioned by their coming to the Sacrament; that does not at all prove that it was their Duty to come in their Unconverted Estate. A mans doing a Sinful Act may by the Providence & won­derful Mercy of God be an occasion of his Conversion. An Eminent Divine speaks judi­ciously [Page 32] in affirming that it is one thing to Prove that the Sacrament may be a means of Conversion, and that eventually it has so come to pass; and another thing to prove that it is Commanded to the Unconverted, or allowed them to be used for that end. Reverend Mr. Baxter ^(p) says that he never knew of any Converted by Receiving the Sacrament, but he knew some who having been instructed concerning the danger of coming to the Lords supper in an Uncon­verted estate (other kind of Doctrine then that taught by Mr. S.) were so awakened in their Preparations for the Sacrament, as that their Conversion was occasioned there­by. And some that by the serious Speeches and Prayers, of the Minister at the Ad­ministration have been Converted, but none that were so by receiving it self. Thus that great Man. It may further be added, that some who have come to the Sacrament in their Unregeneracy, the thought of their great sin and guilt contracted on their Souls thereby, has been such a Terror to them, as has occasioned their true Repentance & Conversion to God. But this does not Prove the Lords Supper to be a Converting Ordinance, but the contrary rather.

ANother Argument which is a clear Confutation of what Mr. S. affirms, is this, If the Lords Supper is a Converting Or­dinance, then Profane Persons ought to be admited to partake of it. For we may not withold from the Profanest Person in the World that which is appointed to be the means of his Conversion. Nay, the more Wicked any are, the greater reason there is that the means of Conversion should be applied un­to them. Therefore it is that the Gospel is to be Preached unto the worst of Sinners, yea, to Publicans the worst of men, and to Harlots the worst of Women, because that is an Ordinance appointed for Con­version, Mat. 21. 31. But such are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. Mr. S. [Page 34] himself confesseth that. But then how do's he Answer this Unanswerable Argument? He has Excogitated a new notion and an odd one; viz. That the Sacrment is a Con­verting Ordinance for Church Members only, & not for other men. P. 27, 28. I think the honour of this Invention belongs to him­self alone. For in my small reading, I have not met with it in any other Author. His alledging that it is an Ordinance appointed for the Conversion of Non-Scandalous Church Members and none others, is that which Logicians call Petitio Principij, or a begging of the Question. I should rather think as Learned Gillespy does, whose Words are these: If the Sacrament is a Con­verting Ordinance for known Impenitent Scanda­lous Profane Persons within the Church, (to make it a Converting Ordinance for Non-Scan­dalous Persons only, is a Phansy peculiar to Mr. S.) What reason is there imaginable why it is not also a Converting Ordinance for Heathen, Pagans, Turks, Jews, or have we the least hint in the Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the Profanest Un-excomunicated Person within the Church, cannot Convert both Heathen and Excommunicated Christians? What rational Reply Mr. S. can make to this I know not, unless he will Pretend that a Church-censure, and why not a Sacrament, [Page 35] is an Ordinance appointed for the Conver­sion of one within the Church; but not for any other: But then Disputat ex non concessis, he takes it for granted that the Person un­der censure is Unconverted; whenas that Ordinance is appointed for the Recovery of a fallen converted Brother, 2 Thes. 3. 15. It is charitably supposed, that the Subject of it has Spirit in him as well as Flesh, 1 Cor. 5. 5. That the Spirit may be saved. Pareus his Interpretation of that Scripture is, Ut mortificetur vetus, et vivificetur novus home, ut spiritus sit salvus, h. e. ut miser Peccator tan­dem fiat salvus spiritu, vel juxta spiritum, h. e. juxta novum et spiritualem bominum. He sup­poseth, that the Corinthian notwithstanding the scandalous & hainous Sin, he was fallen into, had a principle of Regenerating Grace in his Soul, which needed reviving, as well as the Old Man in him, to be further mor­tified. He giveth a solid Reason for his so Expounding the Apostles Words. Mr. Cot­ton faith concerning the Incestuous Corin­thian, ‘Tho' the Apostle commanded him to be cast out of the Church, yet neither his crime nor his censure does convince him to be an Hypocrite: he might be ne­vertheless a Saint by calling, and sincere in heart too, tho' in that act wicked & scan­dalous in Life. In the Second Epidle, when [Page 36] Paul Exhorts the Church to restore him to former communion, he does not speak of his censure as the means of his first Con­version to Christ; but only as the means of his Humiliation and Repentance. The Incest which Lot committed was as odious and foul a Sin as that of the Incestuous Corinthian, yet the Scripture does not brand him for an Hypocrite; but acknowledg­eth him for a Righteous Soul.’ Thus Mr. Cotten. It remains that the new devised Distinction, of the Lords Supper being ap­pointed to be a Converting Ordinance for Church-Members; but not a Converting Ordinance for Non-Members, is not Solid nor Scriptural.

ALtho' there may be, and often is a New Discovery of Old Truths, on [Page 37] which account every Doctrine which may to some seem New, is not to be rejected as Er­roneous. Nevertheless, such Notions as are really Novel, and Singular, should be Exa­mined before they be received. I proceed therefore to a sixth Argument, which shall be this;

That Opinion which is contrary to the Profes­sion & Practice of the Churches in the Primitive & Purest Times of Christianity; and to the Judg­ment of the most Eminent Reformers in these Lat­ter Ages, and which agrees with Papists, and a Looser sort of Protestants, ought not to be received among the Churches in New England. It would be an hainous Apostasy should it be so. But all this is true of Mr. S. his Opinion now impleaded. An Induction of Particulars will clear the Argument before us. We have already Evinced from the Scripture, that the Holy Apostles Admitted none into the Churches by them Gathered, but such as they in judgment of Charity supposed to be true Penitents & Believers on Christ. And very many of the Church-members in the Pri­mitive Christian Church, were real Con­verts. Altho' there were Three Thousand Members added to the Church in one day, such a character is given of them in gene­ral, as giveth sufficient ground to believe, that they were truely Converted and real [Page 38] Christians. For they were pricked at the Heart with a sense of their Sins, they recei­ved the Word gladly. They are commen­ded for their singleness of heart, Act. 2. 46. They willingly parted with their Estates to­wards the Propagation of the Gospel and of Christianity; they submitted to Baptism, and owned themselves to be Christians, when their doing so, brought not only their E­states, but their Lives into Peril. What greater Evidences of a real Conversion could there be desired? And it is wonderful that in so many Thousands in the first Christian Church at Jerusalem, not above two persons were discovered to be Hypocrites. How it was with Christians in the next Ages to the Apostles, the Holy Writings do not in­form us, the Apostle John having Written the Two last Books of the Sacred Canon. But from the Ancient Fathers (as they use to be called) we know, that there was a ve­ry strict Discipline Exercised in the Admission of Members into Church Fellowship, & to the Lords Supper. Justin Martyr who lived in the very next Age to the Apostles, and not Fifty years after John's Death, ^(r) testi­fieth that in those Days, such as were ad­mitted unto the Sacred Communion, were [Page 39] Examined whether they could or would in all things conform themselves, to the Word & Will of God? This is what none but Regenerate Persons, or real Converts do. The same Author speaking of the Lords Supper, has these Words, This Food is with us called the Eucharist, which is lawful for none others to partake of, but for him that believeth these things to be true, which are taught by us; and is washed in the La­ver for the Remission of Sins, and for Regenera­tion, and that Liveth as Christ has commanded. Now I ask, Were not such Christians real converts so far as men can judge? Origen who lived in the next century, says, That in those Days ^(s) ‘Christians did initiate none but Converted ones in their Mysteries, & that they did all that possibly they could do, that their Churches might consist of none but such as were Endued with Spi­ritual Wisdom, and that therefore they that joyned to them submitted to severe Examinations.’ It is evident from the Writings of Tertullian & Cyprian, that in their Time the Churches were exceeding care­ful not to admit Unregenerate Persons to the Sacrament: They would keep them as Com­petentes, & enquire into the sincerity of their Repentance, & this a long time before they [Page 40] would so much as receive them to Baptism. There was in the more Primitive Times of Christianity, when the Temple of God was measured, and the Altar and them that Wor­ship therein, were according to the Divine Rule; and before the outer Court was given to the Gentiles, [...] between four and five hundred years of the Christian AEra, a very great strictness in Admitting to Sacraments. Not only Protestants, but some Popish Authors have acknowledged this. That very Learned Bishop Gabriel Albaspineus (who dyed when he was but thirty years old, has ^(t) Elaborately cleared this. And Durandus ^(u) acknowledgeth, That there was wont to be a Proclamation in the Church when the Sacrament was to be Administred, the Proclamation was, Sancta Sanctis, Holy Mysteries are only for holy Persons: If any is not holy let him not come to the Table of the Lord. How does this agree with Mr. S. his Doctrine, that Sanctification is not a necessary Quali­fication to partaking in the Lords Supper? Debasing the matter of particular Churches, and Laxness in Admission to all special Or­dinances will unavoidably bring in great Corruption. Dr. Owen has evinced that [Page 41] the letting go this Principle, That particular Churches ought to consist of Regenerate Persons; brought in the great Apostacy of the Chris­tian Church, therefore let the Churches in New-England beware of it. There were in the midst of Antichrist's reign, when the Church and true Christianity all Europe o­ver was overwhelmed with Popish Darkness, holy Churches in Bohemia. A late ^(w) Ex­cellent Writer, who has made notable en­quiries and discoveries in Apocalyptical My­steries, supposeth that the Bohemian Churches are in special intended, by the Hundred Forty Four Thousand, who stood with the Lamb on Mount Sion, being the first Fruits unto God; a large harvest of Professors of the true Religion being to appear a Hun­dred Years after them. These Bohemian Churches made great Conscience not to ad­mit Persons into their Communion, except they were in the Judgment of rational chari­ty Godly Persons. Comenius, ^(x) who had reason to know it, giveth us an account how very strict they were in admissions to the Lords Supper, requiring not only a Pro­fession of Christianity, but Sincere repen­tance appearing in the Fruits of it. The [Page 42] Reformation which began in Germany by Luther, was at first very Imperfect: All forts of Persons were admitted to the Sacra­ment; Luther was at first much disaffected towards the strict Discipline of the Bohe­mian Churches: But afterward he changed his Judgment, and greatly admired the Gos­pel Order among them. This was a change for the better, tho' Popish Authors have suf­ficiently abused him for it. Many of the most Eminent Reformers were for a strict Discipline respecting Admissions to the Lords Table. Calvin began it in Geneva, ^(y) altho' he thereby made some of the greatest men in the City to become his E­nemies. Beza ^(z) laments the remissness of the Protestant Churches in this matter, and adviseth that the Persons admitted to the Lords Table should be Men with Con­verted Hearts. Bucer ^(a) finds fault with the English Congregations for their want of due care therein, and that Persons who had been Baptised, were admitted to the Lords Supper before they were duly quali­fied. He insists on it, that there should be manifest signs of Repentance in them before they Partake at the Lords Table. Chamior, [Page 43] Chemnitius, & Gerhard, commend the Strict­ness of the Primitive Times in the Proba­tion of their Communicants and wish it were restored, & revived in all the Churches of the Reformation. And shall it be Preach­ed down in New-England? The Good Lord pardon the Man that has done so! Mr. S. pretends to be a Presbyterian, I wish he were so, one like the Presbyterian, I wish he were so, one like the Presbyterians of the Union in London,& I should have no contest with him, as to the Question now before us. But sure I am, that his Notions are some of them as Contrary to the Presbyterian Prin­ciples as any thing can be. Nor are there any Men in the World who have Written more Strenuously against that Error of the Sacraments being a Converting Ordinance, then Presbyterians have done. Mr. Gillespy a Fa­mous Presbyterian in Scotland, has by twenty Arguments Proved that the Sacrament is not by Divine Institutions a Converting, but a Confirming Ordinance. Mr. S. has been heard saying that those Arguments were weak Childish things. A greater de­ference to so Learned and holy a Man would better have become him. Mr. Baxter (whom the World must acknowledge to be a Man of a great Acumen) was as able to Judge of the strength of an Argument as Mr. S. Yet he has defended Mr. Gillespies [Page 44] Twenty Arguments against Mr. Prins Ex­ceptions, Mr. Gataker a most Learned Pres­byterian has proved (and confirmed his Assertion by a Cloud of Witnesses among the Ancients) the Sacraments are not Con­verting Ordinances. Mr. Vines was also a Learned Presbyterian, who in his Treatise of the Lords Supper demonstrates, that it is not a Converting Ordinance. For thus he reasoneth.

1. ‘No effects can be ascribed to this Sa­crament which fall not under the signifi­cation of it, they do not Exhibit any grace, but what they signifie or figure out the sign and the Thing signified are not such Stran­gers, as that one thing be signified, and a­nother wrought: But the Conversion of a Sinner is not signified in the Sacrament, or Sealed. There is no outward Element that sets it forth to us. Bread, and Wine speak Nourishment, but not the giving Life. Does Bread and Wine give life to one that is Dead; Meat is not set before Dead Folks.’

2. ‘This Sacrament by the Institution of it, Presupposeth those that reap the be­nefits of it to be Converts, and in Grace, to have Faith in Christ, and to be living Members, And if this is presupposed by this Ordinance, then it is not first wrought [Page 45] by it. They are Children whose Bread this is: Living Members, and not Wooden Legs that are capable of this benefit.’

3. ‘The Word is the only Instrument to beget Faith. And therefore men without Faith may be invited to Hear the Word. If they come not With Faith, they may come Far Faith. If they come Unclean, they may yet come to be Cleansed: But the Lords Supper is not of that Nature. It supposeth some Foundation laid by the Word, that it may have Effect. The Converting Ordi­nance must go before the Confirming.’ Thus Mr. Vines. To that Objection, that a man may possibly be Converted at the Lords Supper, he answers; ‘That it is possible that a man may be Converted by some words uttered at the Ordination of a Mi­nister; but will any one thence infer, that Ordination is a Converting Ordinance.’

But to go on. The Reverend Mr Rich­ard Baxter, a Man Famous throughout both 'Englands, was an Eminent Presbyterian.' He declares his concurrence with Mr. Vines. And he further argues thus; ‘It is one and the same Covenant by which God bestows Christ, and right to the Sacrament, and on the same condition. But the Cove­nant bestows Christ only on the conditi­on of saving Faith; therefore it bestows [Page 46] right to Sacraments only on the condition of Saving Faith.’ Again, he Argues; ‘God giveth a right to Sacraments to none, but to those to whom, he giveth right to Remission of Sins. But he gives right to remission of sins, to none but true Believers, therefore he gi­veth a right to Sacraments to none others. He proceeds further to maintain this Pro­position; ^(c) God has not commanded or allow­ed any that have not Saving Faith to claim, receive the Sacrament in that condition, but has made it the necessary order of their Duty, first to repent and believe, and then to claim, and receive the Sacrament. Argu. 1. If no man is commanded or warrented to receive the Sacrament, without a Profession of true Faith, then not without that Faith it self. But the Antecedent is true, therefore the Consequent. The Consequence is plain, because no man is commanded or war­ranted to make a False Profession. But to Profess that Faith which they have not, is to Lye or make a False Profession. Argument 2. No Commandments are pro­duced in Scripture which will Warrant a man to receive the Sacrament, without a saving Faith. Object. Every Jew and his Children were commanded to be circum­cised, [Page 47] though they had not Faith? Answ. They were not commanded to be circum­cised, whether they consented to the Co­venant or not. For circumcision was a Token of the Covenant, and it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. The Parent professed an hearty consent to the Covenant: An hearty sincere consent to the Covenant, is Saving Faith. He that does really chuse the Lord to be his God, is a true Believer.’ Thus Mr. Baxter.

I have cited these Testimonies, to shew that Mr. S. his New Doctrine, is not only contrary to what Divines of the Congrega­tional Perswasion, (such as the Pastors of the Churches throughout New England have for­merly been) but also most opposite to what has been Taught by our Presbyterian Bre­thren. I shall from among them produce but one Witness more against him, viz. that super Eminent Preacher of the Gospel, Mr. Stephen Charnock. In his Excellent Dis­course of the Lords Supper, ^(d) he lays down this Proposition: Only Regenerate Men are fit to come to the Lords Supper. This Proposition he Demonstrates. ‘It is Evident, For, 1. A man in his Natural Estate retains his Enmity against God. This Bread belongs [Page 48] to Children: Unregenerate men are not in a state of Son-ship. 2. For such to ap­proach the Lords Table is a mocking of God. For to come to God and Seal the Remission of Sin, when they have no mind to come up to the condition on which the Pardon is proposed, is to mock him. 3. An Unregenerate man is not in Covenant with God; because he has no Faith, the condition of the Covenant, Eph. 2. 12. Therefore he has no right to the Seal of the Covenant. 4. An Unregenerate man is Dead, Eph. 2. 1. What has a Dead man to do with a Feast? The very end of the Sacrament is perverted, when the Richest viands are taken by a man spiritually Dead. 5. The Sacrament is an Ordinance of in­ward Communion with Christ. Christ must be let into the Heart, before he Sup in it, Rev. 3. 20. The Door must be open­ed by Conversion, before Christ will Feast with the Soul. 6. This Ordinance is to be received by true Christians only. But Renewed men only are such. Free men only have a right to the Priviledges of the City; and true Christians to the Priviledges of the Church. The Lords Supper is not a Converting Ordinance, neither in the Intention of God, nor the Ordination of Christ in the first In­stitution. No man can reasonably expect [Page 49] his Conversion, by coming in such a posture whereby contracting more than ordinary Guilt of the Blood of Christ, he incurs a greater Damnation. It is not likely to be a Converting Ordinance. For, 1. Baptism is not a Converting Ordinance, much less this of the Supper. That sup­poseth Faith, Rom. 4. 11. It is appropriated for the Covenant, it supposeth that con­dition in the Receiver which the Cove­nant requires. 2. This Ordinance is ap­pointed for Nourishment, and that suppo­seth Life. Bread and Wine are not to En­liven a Dead man, but to nourish & main­tain Life in a Living man. Christ in this Ordinance is offered as Spiritual Food; and Spiritual Food supposeth a New Birth. 3. Pre-examination implies it to be no Converting Ordinance. If it were so, what need this Bar, So let him come, not other­wise? He must Examine, whether he has true Repentance and Faith. That which is Pre-required in the Lords Supper, it is not properly instituted to Effect. 4. The nature of Excommunication speaks as much. Had it been a Converting Or­dinance, should not the Incestuous person rather have been kept in the Corinthian Church for his Reformation, than thrown out? Converting Ordinances may be dis­pensed [Page 50] to known Impenitent sinners. Christ Preached the Word to the Pharisees; but he Administred the Supper only to his Disciples. Christ Washed the Disciples feet before the Supper; thereby signifying that only Sanctified persons are meet Guests for his Holy Table.’ Thus Mr. Charnock.

These are Plain & Weighty Arguments. They may be Cavilled at, but not easily Answered. I omit to say that Mr. Doolittle, another Worthy Presbyterian Divine, in his Treatise of the Lords Supper; which has been lately Reprinted at Boston, holds forth a Doctrine before the Churches, very con­trary to Mr. S. his Sermon. The Churches in Scotland are Presbyterian: But they are wont to Examine their Communicants con­cerning their Interior Spiritual State, before they admit them to participate in the Lords Supper. Several of their Ministers in London, have assured me that they do so. The Au­thor of the Present State of Scotland, Printed the Last Year, speaking of the Kirk-Session, which is their lowest Ecclesiastical Court, informs us, that this Court is Judge of Ad­missions to the Lords Table, or Debarring from it, in their respective Parishes. ^(e) The [Page 51] Communicants are Examined by them as to their Knowledge and Conversation, and their Resolu­tion to Renew and Perform their Baptismal Co­venant. They that are really resolved to perform their Baptismal Covenar have a Work of Grace wrought in their hearts. For such a Resolution, if sincere, is Grace; and argues Regeneration. Let me further add, that several Pious Divines of the Church of England, have Taught their People sounder Doctrine than this in Mr. S. his Sermon. For ^(f) Dr. Kidder (a worthy Divine) has these words, He that is fit to receive the Sacra­ment, is fit to Dy; and he that is fit to Dy, is fit to receive the Sacrament.—We must put away our Sins by a true and hearty Repentance; unless we do this, we shall eat and drink Damnation to our selves. Another Conformist says, ^(g) We must Examine our selves, whether we be in the Number of the Faithful or not. For as our Bodies can receive no strengthning from the Food we receive, unless they have some Life in them before, so neither can our Souls, if they be void of the Life of Grace, receive any comfort by the spi­ritual Food in the Lords Supper; which does in­crease Life where it finds it, but works none where there is none before. To say no more, Mr. [Page 52] Baxter in his Disputations of Right to Sacra­ments, has produced above Three-score Pro­testant Divines, all who assert, that it is a Justifying Saving Faith which giveth right to Sacraments; and that therefore they who are judged not to have that Faith, may not be admitted unto that which they have no right to lay a claim unto. These things being so, the Godly & Learned Mr. Vines might well say, That the Opinion of the Sacraments being a Converting Ordinance, is a new up-start Opinion; & that he wondred any one will stand up for it, since there is among Orthodox Divines an Army to a Man against them. And as Mr. S. his No­tions are against the stream of the most E­minent, and Orthodox Divines, so they agree with those who are in other Points very Heterodox in their Judgments. Popish Wri­ters say as he does. They are mighty stick­lers for the Sacraments being Converting Ordinances. Bullinger ^(h) (that great Re­former) his account of them is this, Docuit vulgus Sacerdotum et Monachorum Sacramenta, non tantum esse signa Gratioe sed Gratioe causas, h. e. quoe habent virtutem Conferendi Gratiam: Their Priests teach that the Sacraments are not only Signs, but Causes of Grace. Which he [Page 53] confutes, by shewing that men ought first to have the thing Signified, before they have the Sign, Greg. de valentia. Estius & other Papists, mention this as one difference be­tween the Calvinists and them, that the Cal­vinists held that Sacraments are only a sign of Grace, and not a cause of it: Whenas Catholicks maintain, that the Sacraments work Grace in those that do not obicem po­nere, withstand their operation. Some Lu­therans also, who are a looser sort of Pro­testants, and in the Doctrine of the Sacra­ment come nearer to the Papists than the Reformed do, make the same complaint a­gainst the Calvinists. Brockmond (a bitter Lutheran) mentions it as a Calvinian Error, that Sacraments are not Instituted to be means of conferring Grace: he chargeth Zuinglius, Beza, Daneus, Musculus, and Pis­cator, as Guilty of this supposed Error. If some Prelatick Writers in our own Nation say as Mr. S. does, shall Christians in New-England conform to such Principles, when their Fathers came into this Land whilest it was a Wilderness, that so they might Enjoy a more Pure Discipline? And yet in the beginning of the English Reformation, there were Principles avowed by those Reformers contrary to Mr. S. his Doctrine. They would have a visible Church to be a Congregation of [Page 54] Faithful Men; whenas Mr. S. his Doctrine allows them to be a Congregation of Un­faithful or Unsanctifyed men. The English Liturgy requires the Minister to give Warning to the Congregation before the Sacrament is to be Ad­ministred, and that be should say to them, that it will be dangerous for them, if they presume to come unworthily. My Duty is to Exhort you to consi­der the Dignity of that holy Mystery, & the great Peril of Unwortby receiving; and so to search, and examine your own Consciences, and that not lightly, after the manner of Dissemblers with God, but so that you come holy, and clean to such an heavenly Feast, in the Marriage Garment requi­red by God in the holy Scripture, and be received as worthy Partakers of that holy Table: Other­wise the receiving of that holy Communion does nothing else but increase your Damnation. Re­pent you of your Sins, else come not to that holy Table, lest after the holy Supper the Devil enter into you, as he did into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquity, and bring you to Destruction both of Body & Soul. Verily, this is holy & excel­lent Doctrine which those Pious Reformers taught the Nation. Just such Doctrine as this used to be Preached in New-England by those blessed Souls, who are now among the Spirits of Just men made Perfect; nor did any man dare to Preach it down, except one of late. Did those Reformers in England [Page 55] teach, That men should not presume to come to the Lords Table without a Wed­ding Garment; and does a Minister in New­England teach, That they may come with­out that Garment, & that it is no Presump­tion in them to do so? Do the Reformers say, You that truly Repent of Sin take the Holy Sacrament; and is there a Minister ri­sen up in New-England, who says to his Con­gregation, yea, to all the Congregations throughout the Land, You that do not tru­ly Repent of your Sins, come take this Ho­ly Sacrament, you may lawfully do it, nay God commands you to do it, as much as he commanded the Children of Israel to Eat the Passover? Did the Reformers teach, That if Persons did come to the Sacrament with­out the Wedding Garment, they would in­crease their Damnation; and does a Mini­ster in New-England say, it will probably be their Conversion, and not their Damna­tion? Did the Reformers instruct those that came to the Lords Table, first to Examine their Consciences, and that not lightly after the manner of Dissemblers with God; and is there a Minister in New-England that has both Preached and Printed, that no man need to Examine himself whether he should eat or forbear, only Examine what need he has of the Sacrament? What will become [Page 56] of the Churches in New England, if such Doctrine should take with them?

I shall conclude this Chapter, with the Testimony of an Eminent and now Blessed man of the Congregational Perswasion, Famous in these Churches. I mean Mr. Urian Oakes, my intimate and most dear Friend & Pre­decessor in the Presidentship of the Colledge in Cambridge. There has lately been com­municated to me a Sermon of his, on Eph. 1. 8. Preached August 2. 1674. wherein I find these words following, written with his own Hand; ‘Hereby you may judge a­right for your own meetness for Church­Fellowship and Full Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. Examination of the Application of Redemption will be of great use in this case. I make it out unto you thus: The Church (that is the Church Mystical) is, both the Subject and the Ef­fect of Application. Now none have a real right in the sight of God to Church­Fellowship and Ordinances, but such as are real Saints, real Members of the Church­Mystical, and so the real Subjects of the Application of Redemption. Indeed Churches have Right & Warrant to admit to Church Fellowship & Ordinances, such as are but Visible Saints, and have Redemp­tion applied to them in appearance only, [Page 57] because they are not Heart-searchers, have no judgment of Certainty concerning o­ther men; but must proceed by Rule ac­cording to the judgment of Charity. But such as are only Visible Saints, unto whom Redemption is applied in Appearance on­ly, have no real right in the sight of God to demand Church-Fellowship and Ordi­nances. A meer out-side Visible Saint, that has a goodly appearance of a work of Application and no more, sinneth in de­manding Church Fellowship and Ordi­nances, but the Church does not sin in granting his desire in that respect. There­fore before you demand Fellowship with this or that Church, Examine the work of Application; what Experience you have had thereof. And tho' you can not get ab­solute Assurance, yet endeavour to get some comfortable Perswasion, & grounded Hope of it; that Redemption is in part applied unto you: And then get within the Gates of Jerusalem, as soon as you can. It will be worse for your own Souls, than for the Church, if you rush upon Ordinances when you are unfit for them.’ Thus Mr. Oakes has Rightly and Judiciously stated the Con­troversy.

There has likewise been brought to me, several very Judicious Sermons on [...] [Page 58] 122. 2. Written by the same Hand, which I heartily wish the Publick had the benefit of them. That Excellent Preacher Wrote Largely, I think all that he delivered in the Pulpit, altho' being blessed with a strong Memory, he there made no use of his Notes. In one of those Sermons, I find these words Written with his own Hand; (they are in a Lecture Sermon, Preached Sept. 4. 1672.) ‘Be sure of your fitness in some measure for Church Fellowship; that you are compe­tently Qualified for the Communion of Saints in an instituted Church before you desire & sue for it. It is the Certain Du­ty indeed of all under the Gospel-Call, to joyn themselves to Churches, and get into Church-communion. But their first Duty is to get Gospel-qualifications, for such Fellowship. Oh I therefore make sure of this in the first place. Consider se­riously, and you will find it to be a clear Truth; that as it is commonly said, to be fit for a mercy is better than meerly to have and enjoy the mercy; so to be fit for this Priviledge of Church-communion, is in some respects, yea absolutely a greater mercy, and more desirable than to enjoy it. And let me deal faithfully with you, & tell you plainly, Unless you [...] duly Qua­lified, it's much better for the Church & for [Page 59] your selves too, that you forbear. Bet­ter for your selves in that case to be Out than In; for you would but aggravate your sin and misery by abusing Church-Privi­ledges, & profaning Gods Glorious Name, by a careless formal Use of Holy Ordinan­ces that you have no right unto; and God will certainly call to a sad Account for such things one Day. You go the next way to undo your selves, if you press into Church Fellowship when God and Con­science tell you, that you are unfit and un­worthy. And it is much better for the Church of God, that Un-qualified persons be kept out. For they are good for nothing, but to pester Churches and create Trou­ble, and be a burden and grief of Heart to the Godly in such Societies. Therefore it is promised to the Church of God as a singular mercy, in the Day of the best & most glorious Reformation & Condition of it in this World, that there shall be no Canaanite in the House of the Lord, Zec. 14. 21. You will say, What are the Qualifications which must be found in such as are Admit­ted into Churches duly Reformed? Answ. A man is duly Qualified for Church-com­munion, when he is Qualified in Gods Ac­count, & in the Churches Account. 1. In Gods Account: and that is when a man is [Page 60] Converted and Regenerated in Truth. He that has indeed an Interest in Christ, has Married the Son of God, has his Sins Par­doned, his Person Accepted, and Adopted, Sanctified, made a New Creature. Such an one as he is a Member of the Invisible Church, so he is inforo Dei, truly Qualified for Communion with any Church Visi­ble. I do not press the absolute necessity of full Assurance: But, Oh! get a com­fortable Perswasion of your fitness in this respect. What good would it do you, if all the Saints and Churches in the World should Admit and Embrace you as duly Qualified, and God himself should judge o­therwise? Make sure that you joyn to Christ, before you joyn to the Church: Get Faith in Christ, & then Footing in the Church. Room within the Gates of the City of Re­fuge the Lord Jesus, and then room with­in the Gates of Jerusalem. Right to Church­Ordinances in the sight of God, and then orderly. Admission to the Possession and Participation of them. 2. In the Churches Account. In foro Ecclefioe, such are Quali­fied for Admission, as are Visible Saints, or Saints in Appearance, or to the judgment of Charity. As true Faith & Grace Qua­lified a man for Member-ship in the Mysti­cal Body of Christ, or the Church Invisible; so an Appearance of Faith and Grace to [Page 61] the rational Charity of the Church Qua­lifies a man for Admission into a Visible Church. Here Idem este esse et apparere, to be a Saint, or appear to be a Saint is all one to the Church, that are required to pass a Judgment of Charity, and not of Certain­ty and Infallibility on those that tender themselves to their Communion. But what are those [...] or Evidences the Church must look at, and acquiesce in? Answ. 1. A competent Knowledge. There may be much Knowledge where there is no Grace, but there can be no Grace, where there is no Knowledge of those Truths that ly with­in the Foundation of Religion. Such a measure of Knowledge as may let Christ into the Soul, as Mr. Hooker speaks. 2. A credible Profession, or Assent to the sub­stance of the Doctrine of Religion. He that Embraces a Fundamental Error in Re­ligion, is an Heretick; and therefore to be rejected, Tit. 3. 10. 3. Some manifesta­tion of an Experimental Saving Work of Grace upon the Soul. Grace probably wrought in the Heart, or credible Expres­sions, Manifestations, Discoveries of a Work of Grace, qualifies for Acceptance with the Church. 4. A blameless Conversati­on. Not Living in the practice of any Known Sin; or Neglecting the practce of [Page 62] any Known Duty, at least Impenitently, and as to a Course.’

Thus did our Renowned President Preach to his Flock, and to all the Churches in these parts. And now by the Publication of these Fragments of his Sermons, being Dead be yet Speaks. How most contrary is this Doctrine, to that lately Published in another Sermon? These few words of his, do sufficiently re­fute the Sophistry in Mr. S. his Arguments. Mr. OAKES was a man of Rare Learning; another Drufius, and of Great Piety, & every way True to the Interest of Christ in these Churches. Happy was the Colledge, and all the Churches when he was the President; thus to Instruct and Principle the Young Scholars, in order to their being made Ser­viceable in Building up, and not Pulling down the Sanctuaries of God.

AN enlargement on the former Argu­ment, was necessary for clearing the [Page 63] Truth under Consideration. Before we proceed to Answer Mr. S. his Allegations, one Argument more against the Impleaded new Doctrine shall be briefly touched upon. It is this, If it is impossible for Unregenerate Per­sons whilest such to be worthy Communicants at the Lords Table, then they have no Command or allowance from God to be there whilest in their Sins. For God approves of worthy and not of unworthy Partakers at his Table, but it is impossible for Unregenerate Persons whilest in their Natural Unconverted Estate to be worthy Receivers. They that cannot Ex­ercise Grace cannot be worthy Communi­cants at the Lords Table. One reason why Children and Distracted Persons may not come to the Lords Table, is because; they are not capable of Exercising Grace: Altho' it may be there is the habit of saving Grace in their Hearts. Such Communicants as are acceptable to Christ, Exercise Grace when at his Table. The Spices in his Garden Flow out there. Cant. 4. 16. But this Unre­generate Persons are not capable of. How should they Exercise Grace who have none? The worthy Communicant does Exercise the Grace of Thankfulness to God, for His Infinite Mercy in sending his Son to be our Saviour, and for all the Benefits of Redemp­tion. The Lords Supper is therefore usual­ly [Page 64] called the Eucharist. The Graces of Faith, and Repentance, and of love to Christ, and to his Saints, and the Grace of an hearty forgiveness of Injuries (which Unregenerate Persons are Strangers unto) ought to be Exercised by those who approach to the Holy Table. And Christians should come from the Lords Table with confirmed re­solutions to walk with God, and to keep all his Commandments, and with holy longings for Heaven, and to be with Christ. These are things which Unregenerate Souls are Strangers unto, and therefore are not such Communicants at the Lords Table as Christ approves of, or that can receive with Profit and Spiritual advantage to their own Souls.

HAving Proved the Negative, (notwith­standing, Affirmanti in cumbit probatio) in [Page 65] the Question before us, it remains that we take into consideration what Mr. S. does alledge for his new Tenet, he confesseth that Scandalous Unregenerates ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper, which is a good confession so far as it goeth. Yet most of his objections against the Doctrine com­monly received in the Churches, do as much enforce the admission of Scandalous as of Non-Scandalous Unregenerates to the Sacred Table, as in the Sequel of our Discourse will appear. He pretends ( page 10) that it is not to be imagined that all Baptised by John were Regenerate, or judged by him to be so. But with what reason does he confirm his Assertion? With none at all. Why might not John judge all the Persons by him Baptised as Re­generate? I doubt not but John had more Charity for his Disciples then Mr. S. seems to have, considering that those Baptised by him confessed their Sins, and Professed Re­pentance, and brought forth fruits meet for Repentance: He would have been unchari­table in not judging them to be Regenerate, Mat. 3. 6, 8. There is a difference between judging a Multitude to be Regenerate as considered Collectively, & as considered Distri­butively. A Minister that has a great Flock may fear that there are some Hypocrites a­mong them, nevertheless if he should be en­quired [Page 66] of concerning any particular person among them, do you not judge that person to be a true Believer? His charity would make him say, I do so. But Mr. S. adds further, If Unregenerate Persons might not be Baptised, the Pharisees would not have been bla­med for Neglecting Baptism. But in this I take him to be under a Mistake: For the thing that the Pharisees are blamed for, is, Their rejecting the Counsel of God, viz, the Coun­sel which God gave them in Johns Mini­stry to repent & bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, but they are not blamed because they did not offer themselves to Baptism, notwithstanding their rejecting the Counsel of God, Luk. 7. 30. What Mr. S. sayes im­plies that John would have Baptised them, but that they refused to be Baptised by him, when as the truth is otherwise; that they would have been Baptised, but John refused to Baptise them. Thus say the Centuriators, Pareus, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Gillespy, and among our New-England Divines, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Cotton, ⁽ⁱ⁾ His Words are these: ‘Either John Baptist Excluded the Scribes and Pharisees and profane People from his Baptism, or else he made himself more unfaithful in Gods house then the [Page 67] Scribes & Pharisees. For this was a great part of their Temple Pollution, that they made the House of God a Den of Thieves, Mat. 11. 17. But if John Baptist received them to his Baptism, he then made the Church (or house of God) not only a Den of Thieves, but which is worse, a Ge­neration of Vipers. The Scribes & Pha­risees were Hereticks in Doctrine, Supersti­tious in Worship, Notorious Hypocrites in Profession, and Covetous Worldlings in their Conversation.’ Thus Mr. Cotton. It is not at all probable, or to be believed that John would call them a Generation of Vipers, & Baptise them in the same Breath. But Mr. S. further objects, That the Children of Gods Peo­ple should be Baptised, who are generally at that Time in a natural condition. The Answer to which, is, That we are to judge as charita­bly of the Child as we do of the Parent: we Baptise them as being Disciples, and Believers, and visibly belonging to the King­dom of Heaven. Dr. Goodwin says that the Infants of Believers are Purissima pars Ecclesioe the purest part of the Church. ^(k) Mr. Baxter has these Words: ‘It is unrevealed whether God giveth Infants usually any Inherent Special Grace or not, but if he [Page 68] does, it is far more likely that He does it before Baptism, by vertue of the Covenant, which says, the seed of the Righteous is blessed and Holy, than that Baptism should be in­stituted to confer it, which is instituted to other ends to all others:’ I suppose Mr. S. does not concur with Dr. Burgess, Dr. Ward, Mr. Bedford, & other Writers Epispocally in­clined, who maintain Baptismal Regeneration, as a ground for Infant Baptism. If that were a true notion, then (as ^(l) Dr. Whitaker ob­serves) Children ought to be Baptised tho' against the consent of their Parents, which some of the Popish School men, because they believe Baptism to be a Regenerating Ordinance, are so absurd as to affirm. But to proceed: Mr. S. (p. 13) asserts, That a Minister who knows himself Unregenerate may nevertheless lawfully Administer Baptism & the Lords Supper. Men who are destitute of saving Grace may Preach the Gospel, & therefore Administer and so partake of the Lords Supper. I am mistaken if in this Logick there is not Sophistry. And I am afraid that this passage in Mr. S. his Sermon, will encourage ungodly Men to usurp the Sacred Calling of the Ministry; & to con­tinue in their usurpation. That an Unre­generate man supposed to be Regenerate [Page 69] may Preach the Word is not denied. An Hypocrite may have great Gifts, which Talents he ought to improve to the Glory of God, and the Good of Men. One that is himself Unconverted may be instrumen­tal in Converting of others. I once had the happiness of a Singular accquaintance with a very ^(†) Eminent Minister in England, whose Effectual Conversion was brought a­bout by means of a Sermon, which himself Preached. But the Argument from Natural to Instituted Worship will not hold, Nor can I Easily be of Mr. S. his Opinion, That a man who knows himself to be Unregenerate may lawfully, or without offending God, admini­ster the Lords Supper. It is true that he ought to attend the duties of his Office, but it is no less true, that he ought to be qualified for his Office, before he undertakes it, which he is not, if he knows himself destitute of Saving Grace. He cannot have a Divine approbation to meddle with that which he is not qualified for; the Lord says to the Pastor of a Church, seed the Flock with the Word, & with Sacraments, but he says with­al, do it in Sincerity and not in Hypocrisy. As for Judas, he was a man not only mira­culously gifted, but by all good men thought [Page 70] to be a true Believer. Only Christ knew him to be a Devil, Job. 6, 70 Considered as such an one, the Lord [...] new it could not approve of his meddling with Holy Things, nor did he please God [...] it, Heb. 11. 6. His immediate Duty [...] himself sincerely to believe on the Name of Christ, & then to Baptise others into His Name. A Pol­luted Jew was Commanded to Eat the Pass­over, but not in his Pollution. His imme­diate Duty was to cleanse himself from his present Impurities and so to Eat. The like is to be said as to a Christians Eating, or a Ministers Administring the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 28. It is fearful Impiety and Atheism for a Man that liveth in Secret Wickedness to Administer the Sacrament. Guilt and hor­ror of Conscience will at last be the Fruit of it. There was an amazing instance of it in a Bishop in Ireland, ^(m) who indulged himself in secret unnatural uncleaness, which was after some time strangely Discovered, and he was Tried, Condemned, & Execu­ted: He Died very Penitently, but complain­ed bitterly of the horrors his Conscience was in, at the remembrance of his having [Page 71] not only Partaked, but Administred the Sa­crament, when he knew himself to be Wick­ed. Should the Churches in New-England consist generally of Unconverted Members, and be under the Guidance of an Unconverted Ministry, what may we suppose will be the dire Effects of it! The Lord will then say to us, as Jer. 2. 21. I had planted thee a no­ble Vine wholly a right Seed, how then art thou turned into the degenerate Plant of a Strange vine unto me? But not to Divert from the Subject before us. It has been objected by some, (and I expected that Mr. S. would have in­sisted on it, which he does not, only menti­on his Baptising) that Judas did receive the Sacrament, and that therefore Unregenerate Persons may claim an admission to it. But it was never yet proved that Judas did Par­take in that Ordinance. The contrary seems evident from, Joh. 13. 30. Nor is it credible that Christ would say to Judas, My Body is broken, and my Blood shed for the Remission of thy Sins. It is the Judgment both of ⁽ⁿ⁾ Ancient & Modern Divines, that our Lord Jesus Christ in saying to Judas, What thou doest do quickly, Excommunicated him before he Admini­stred the Lords Supper. But if it should be granted, (which is datum sed non Concessum) [Page 72] that Judas was admitted to Partake: That proveth not that unregenerate persons should come to the Lords Table. It does not at all follow that since Christ chose Judas to be an Apostle, when he knew him to be a De­vil; that a Church may chuse one whom they know to be a Devil, to be their Pastor. Christ knew Judas to be a Traitor, and a Devil, by his Divine Knowledge as he is God, and so knows the hearts of all men, Job. 2. 25. Rev. 2. 23. We may not thence infer, that this act of Christ is to be Presidential to those who have only an Humane Know­ledge. Some of the School-men have argued Rationally & Orthodoxly about this mat­ter. ^(o) They say, It is not Lawful for us to follow the Example of him who is the Su­pream Lord, in giving Holy things to them who are before him unworthy. God permits Sin when he has power to hinder it; but it does not therefore follow, that we may per­mit Sin to be committed, when we are able to prevent it. To that objection, how could Christ give the Sacrament to Judas, when he himself had commanded, Not to give Holy things to Dogs? Their Answer is, That this Prohibition does indeedly upon Dispensers of the Sacraments, but binds not the Law-maker.

THE Cardinal Argument which Mr. S. his Discourse mainly turns upon, is taken from the Law of the Passover. Such Persons, (he says) as might Lawfully come to the Pass­over, may also if they have Knowledge to Dis­cern the Lords body: (he intends no more than a doctrinal discerning, or he says no­thing) come to the Lords Supper. But Unre­generate Persons might come to the Pass­over, therefore to the Lords Supper. Answ. Negatur Major omnino. The first Proposition is denied. The Passover was appointed for the National Church of Israel. A Learned ^(p) Doctor in Subjects of this Nature, has [Page 74] Evinced, That the Church under the Gos­pel is Congregational, and not National. When there was a National Church, there was a Worship for the whole Nation, as a Nation to come unto. If a National Church is of Divine Institution under the New-Testa­ment, then there must be National Officers. This will bring us to an High Priest. A late ^(q) Apostate Independent Anabaptist, who is turned a Zealous Conformist, & become Osor sui Ordinis, as Apostates use to be, thinks that the Christian Church should for Orders sake be under an High Priest. This will infal­libly bring us to the Pontiff at Rome. So then this Argument from the Passover, which was Proper to the Israelitish Nation, does not demonstrate what it has been produced for. Altho' Gospel Mysteries were Typifyed by the Passover, Nevertheless, it was Instituted in Special to be a Commemoration of a wonderful Deliverance to that Nation, on which account the whole Nation were to observe it. But to reason from thence, that there­fore all who are called Christians, should come to the Lords Supper, is inconsequent Argumentation. But if Mr. S. had reaso­ned thus, the whole Nation of Israel being [Page 75] the Subjects of a Redemption out of Egypt, they and they only might eat the Passover, which was Instituted as a Commemoration of that Redemption. In like manner, the holy Nation of true Believers, being the Pe­culiar People, who are the Subjects of the Redemption of Christ, all & only they have a right to Partake of the Lords Supper, which was Instituted to be a Commemoration of that blessed Redemption; his Argument would have been Sound & Solid, and Gos­pel Truth: But what does his arguing Prove, as by him Propounded! If it Proves any thing, it Proves that Scandalous, as well as Non-Scandalous Unregenerates, should be admitted to the Lords Table, which he is not arrived to that Latitude, as to main­tain it. I do not believe, that he is of that extensive Charity, as to think, that none of the Males belonging to the Jewish Nation, were Scandalous Persons. It is past doubt, that very many of them were Adulterers, Thieves, Liars, Slanderers, and Perjured Persons: Jer. 7. 9, 10. Now if a man should argue thus, All the Males of the Jewish Na­tion were to come to the Passover, Deut. 16. 16. But many of those Males were of very Scandalous Lives, therefore men of very Scandalous Lives ought to come to the Lords Supper. How would Mr. S. answer him? [Page 76] If he will say (as Mr. Cotton, and from him our famous Mr. ^(r) Mitchel does) That more Positive fruits of Regeneration, are required in the Church Members of the New-Testament, than of the Old: He giveth up the cause, & answers his own strongest Argument, and this he must say or admit very Scandalous Persons, to the holy Table of the Lord. Why does not Mr. S. argue, That all Children of thir­teen years old should come to the Lords Supper, for the Jewish Writers tell us they did to the Passover. But Mr. S. goes on, ( P. 11, 12.) in Saying, It is Lawful for an Unregenerate man to Celebrate the Memorial of Christs Death, and to give a Testimony to the Death of Christ; and that which God Teacheth us in this Ordinance is very needful for Unregene­rate men to Learn; that which we Profess in this Ordinance is very needful for Unregenerate men to Profess, Namely, their need of Christ, and the Saving Vertue of His Blood. Therefore Unregenerate men have right to come to the Lords Supper. Now is not all this weak arguing? Can a Superstructure of Truth stand upon such Feeble reasoning? It is answer enough to say, That these things may be applyed unto very Scandalous Per­sons, yet they have no right to the Lords [Page 77] Supper, by Mr. S. his own confession. But he Proceeds, If it is Lawful for all the Adult Members of the Church to Partake of the Lords Supper, then it is lawful for some Unregenerate men to do it. But Ergo: But he should re­member that, Qui bene distinguit bene docet. There is a fallacy in the Argument for want of a Distinction often mentioned, between a right to Sacraments in the sight of God, and a right before men, or as to the Churches Approbation. If this is not remembred, the true State of the Question is forgotten: The Argument ought to be formed thus, All the Adult Members in the Church have in the sight of God, a right to the Sacrament: But some Adult Members in the Church are Unregenerates and Hypocrites, therefore some Unregenerate men, and Hypocrites have in the sight of God, a right un­to the Sacrament. Now the Proposition, or Major of his Syllogism is denyed. Nor has Mr. S. in all his Sermon said any thing to Prove it: His confounding a right to Sa­craments, in foro Poli, as Divines express it, in the sight of Heaven, with a right in foro Solt, in the sight of men, has led him into Mistakes. Hence he argues, It is Lawful for Unregenerate men to keep Covenant with God. Who can deny that? But they must really be in Covenant with God, before they can Keep His Covenant. If men come to the [Page 78] Lords Supper in their Sins, they will not thereby keep Gods Covenant, but Profane and Pollute it. Men may be visible Saints, and Pollute it. Men may be visible Saints, and externally in Covenant with God, and often renew their Covenant by coming to His Table, and yet God not approve of their medling with his holy Institutions, but says of them, That they have nothing to do, to take His Covenant into their Mouths, because they hate Conversion & Godliness, in the Power of it. Let not this seem strange, ^(s) for it is Plain clear Scripture, Psal. 50. 5, 16, 17. When Mr. S. argues, That it is the Churches duty to receive Unregenerate men, Nay, to require them to come to the Lords Table, and it would be very strange (he thinks) that it should be the Duty of the Church to require them to come, and yet their Duty to stay away be­cause Unconverted. ( p. 12, 24.) But let it not seem a Paradox, to say, it may be the duty of the Church to receive those, who ne­vertheless ought not to come to the Lords Supper, because, De occultis non judicat Ec­clesia. Some men know that by themselves which if the Church knew of them, they would never receive them. Who ought to come, and Who are to be received, are two distinct Questions; as ^(t) Ursin & Pareus have [Page 79] rightly determined. Another great Divine ^(u) distinguisheth these two things, Who ought to come to the Sacrament, and who ought to be ad­mitted. None ought to come, except those who truly Believe and Repent; none ought to be ad­mitted, except such as are supposed to be Believers and Penitent. Mr. Vines also in his Treatise of the Lords Supper, distinguisheth between Christs Guests, and the Churches Guests: Visi­ble Saints are the Churches Guests: Real Saints are Christs Guests. The reason why Churches admit Visible Saints to the Lords Table, is, because they suppose that Christ has done it, else they would not do it. God does not approve of the Hypocrites act in coming to the Lords Table, Matt. 22. 12. Yet he approves of the Churches act in ad­mitting him, because they took him to be a Sincere Believer, and were by the rule of Charity bound to think so of him. Why then should Mr. S. think it strange, that it should be the Churches Duty to receive some Unregenerate Persons, and yet their Duty to stay away; there is no strangeness in it, since the Persons have a right before men, altho' not in the sight of God. Sup­pose a Church-Member in esteem for his ap­pearing [Page 80] Saint-ship, yet Living in Secret Theft, Adultery, Beastiality; such horrid Instan­ces there have been in some Churches, not only as to Members, but as to Officers in them, as long as their Sins were Secret, it was the Churches Duty to admit them to the Lords Table, yea to admonish them of their neglect, in case they did not come: Yet nevertheless, these vile Hypocrites did very wickedly in coming, and made themselves thereby the more Guilty before the Lord, Jer. 7—9, 10.

IT is reasonable that all Mr. S. reasons for his new Tenent, should be weighed in [Page 81] the ballance of the Sanctuary. He objects, That there is no certain Knowledge who has San­ctifying Grace; and that if only Godly men were to be admitted to Communion, there is not Know­ledge enough on the Earth in order to the Practice of it. If the Church were only to receive those that are Converted, God would have given a cer­tain Rule, whereby Converted Men might be dis­covered from those that are Unconverted: To this purpose he speaks, p. 14, 15, 23. A Solution to this Objection may be given, [...] by Proposing another Ob­jection for himself to answer. He main­tains, That none but such as have a Dogma­tical and Historical Faith, may come to the Sacrament. Heterodox or Heretical Per­sons erring in any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, may not come: Then according to his Notion, there must be a certain Rule whereby it may be dis­cerned what mens inward Sentiments, and the belief of their Hearts is, Whether they do not speak falsely, when they say, That they believe such Articles of the Christian Faith, as they pretend to believe. Julian before his open Apostasy Professed, that he believed all the Doctrines of Christianity, because he thought he should not obtain the Empire without such a Profession. But afterwards he declared, That he never be­lieved [Page 82] any of them. Arius Pretended, and by an Oath made others think, that he be­lieved the Deity of our Saviour, that so he might have Communion with the Churches. And yet all was a deceit, he believed it not. If then only Orthodox Christians must be admitted to the Lords Supper, There is not (as Mr. S. Speaks) Knowledge enough on Earth to order our Practice in this matter. Let him answer this, and he will answer his own Objection concerning our Ignorance, of the Spiritual Estate of men, whether they have true Saving Grace or no. No doubt he will say, If men are Knowing, and Profess they believe the Principles of true Religion, and do not Profess any Error that is incon­sistent therewith; the Rule requires that Churches who cannot Know the hearts, and inward Perswasions of men, should accept of their outward Profession. And why then should we not believe, That men that give us an account of their Conversion, & whose Conversations are outwardly blameless and holy, are really according to what they seem to be? If Mr. S. Argument is put into form, it will run thus, If it is true that None but Re­generate Persons have in the fight of God a right to the Sacrament, then it is necessary that the Church before they admit them into their Communion, should infallibly know that they are Regenerate: [Page 83] But it is not necessary that the Church should before they admit them into their Communion, infallibly know that they are Regenerate; therefore it is not true, That none but Regenerate Persons have in the sight of God a right unto the Sacrament. Now the consequence is denyed. The Church may and ought to admit those into Communion, of whom they have no in­fallible knowledge, of their being in a Re­generate Estate. Because, as we have shew­ed they may have right before the Church, and yet not before God. The Hypocrisy of a mans Profession, is a sufficient bar in the sight of God, but it is not so in the sight of Men, if there is no evidence of it, Deut. 29. 29. Mr. S. has another objection, page 21. viz. That they who maintain that only Con­verted Persons, should come to the Sacrament, by that Doctrine harden Men in their Natural Estate, and hinder their Conversion, by making them be­lieve that they are Converted already. When­as this Doctrine has no such tendency, but rather the contrary, that men should en­deavour to make sure of their Conversion, that so they may Eat and Drink Salvation, and not Damnation to themselves, when they approach to the Holy Table. But the other Doctrine does rather tend to harden [Page 84] Unregenerate men in their Sins, by not on­ly promising but Sealing Life unto them, and thereby hindring them from turning from their Evil way, Ezek. 13. 22. In the next Page he objects, That if only Saints are allowed to come to the Sacrament, then a man must know himself to be a Saint, before he can know that he is allowed to come. Answ. Altho' it is true that if a man does know that he is not a Saint, but in a State of Sin, he ought not to come; it does not follow that a real Saint should neglect coming, because, he wants Assurance. There is a difference be­tween a mans knowing that he is Unconver­ted, and having some doubts about it. If af­ter serious Self-Examination, he cannot but hope that there is a Good Work begun in his Soul, he ought to come altho' his Hopes are not Assurance. The Jews if after they had searched for Leaven within their Hou­ses, could find none, they were to Eat the Passover. So if Christians upon Self-Exa­mination, cannot find that they are in a State of Hypocrisy, which is Leaven, 1 Cor. 5. 8. they ought to come to the Lords Ta­ble. Every man ought to judge of himself according to what he is really. If he is Re­generate he ought to judge so of himself: If he judgeth otherwise, he sins & wrongs him­self. This will not Justifie his forbearing the [Page 85] Sacrament: ^(w) For one sin will not excuse another. One Thing more in Mr. S. Ser­mon I cannot but take notice of: In plead­ing for the Admission of Unsanctified men to the holy Table of the Lord; he argues, That the Worship of God must be carried on, & that there is a great Scarcity of Godly men, it may be there may be but two or three, sometimes in a Parish, & that no Country does neglect this Ordi­nance as we in New-England do, that in our own Nation at home, so in Scotland, Holland, Den­mark, Sweedland, Germany, France, they do generally Celebrate the memoral of Christs Death. Thus he Writes, Page 15, 16, 26. But would he bring the Churches in New-England back to the Imperfect Reformation in other Lands, and so deprive us of our Glory for ever? As for Scotland, it was before shewed, that they use great Strictness in Examining their Communicants, before they are admitted to the Lords Table: In the account of the Ec­clesiastical Government there, Printed in the Year 1696. We are told, that Persons admitted to the Lords Supper, are interrogated whether they have seriously considered the ingagements which are upon them by their Baptism: And whether they Worship God in Secret as well as in their [Page 86] Families, &c. As for the Protestants in Frances altho' their Practice has been as large as what Mr. S. pleads for, nevertheless, the Doctrine of their Eminent Divines has been otherwise. Beza, ^(x) has taught them, that none should be admitted to the Lords Table except they give such an account of their Faith, as that their Pastor may probably ga­ther, that they are real Christians. The like is to be said concerning the Divines in Holland, as is to be seen in the Writings of Voetius, & Zepperus, and Dr. Hornbeck, ^(y) who main­tains, that Church Members ought to be ho­ly Believers, and Decries Bellarmines Asser­tion, that nothing internal is requisite for a Church Member: And he commends Mr. Cottons Arguments, whereby he proves that Particular Churches ought to consist of those who are in Judgment of charitable discretion, Rege­rate Persons, and declares his concurrence with what Mr. Norton has on that subject Written, in his Answer to Domine Appollony. There is lately Published by a Dutch Mini­ster in Leyden, with the approbation of a Clas­sis, a Catechism, in which is this Questi­on, For whom is the Lords Supper Instituted? Ans. For them only who are truly Penitent. And [Page 87] this Question, Who should keep themselves away from the Table of the Lord? Ans. Hyopocrites, and they that do not truly Repent. Thus does the Catechism of the Reformed Churches, instruct their People in Principles directly contrary to Mr. S. his Sermon. But as for the Lutheran Churches in Denmark, Sweedland, and in Ger­many, they are horribly guilty of profaning the Sacrament. That learned, and Holy Man Dr. Pareus, told them, that he did not Wonder at the Judgments of God, which were upon them, when he considered how the Lords Table was profaned by unworthy Communicants. And must such Churches as these be mentioned to upbraid the Churches in New-England, for their strictness in Ad­mission to the Lords Table? Must the practice of the Church of England be likewise pro­duced, when our Fathers left a pleasant land, and came into a Vast & Wast Wilder­ness, for no other reason, but that so they might have a purer Discipline & Churches, then what in their Native Land they had then (altho' through the Favour of God, their Successors have now) Liberty to enjoy. Where will the degeneracy end? If there are but two or three Godly men in a Parish, (as Mr. S. speaks) must we have Churches ga­thered, and the Body of the People admitted [Page 88] to the Lords Table, when there are but two or three among them fit to be there? If it should come to be generally so, the Holy Lord will go far off from his Sanctuaries, and remove these once Golden Candlesticks out of their places, which the Mercy of Heaven avert. Mr. S. concludes with telling us, that Wendeline acknowledgeth, that Sacra­ments may be Instrumental in beginning Faith: 'Tis well if he has one Calvinian Di­vine on his side. It is true that the Learn­ed Man by him mentioned, does in several of his Exercitations against the Lutherans own, that Sacraments may be the Organs of Grace, but then he adds that they are, not Physical, only Moral Organs of it. But since Mr. S. has appealed to Wendeline, to Wendeline he shall go, who in his Christian Theology, ^(z) says expressly, ‘That the Apostles admitted none to the Sacrament, but such as were Believers, at least in the Judgment of Charity, taken to be true Believers, and that therefore the Sacrament was not the Instrument by which Faith and Regene­ration was began, and therefore (sayeth he) neither is it now such an Instrument.’

[Page 89]It is a sad Consideration that any of those who should set themselves to Promote a Re­formation, in the Collapsed Churches in New­England, by reducing them to their Primitive Purity, endeavour the contrary. I shall con­clude with the Testimony of a whole Synod, the last General Synod that was in this Colo­ny, and according to all appearing Proba­bility, the last that ever will be. This Synod consisting of the Elders and Messengers of Churches, met in Boston in the year 1679. To consider of two Questions. 1. What are the Evils which have Provoked the Lord to bring his Judgments on New-England? 2. What is to be done that so these Evils may be Re­formed? In Answer to the latter Question, there are these two Paragraphs. 1. Inas­much as the Present standing Generation (both as to Leaders and People) is for the greater Part another Generation, than what was in New­England Forty years ago, for us to declare out adherence to the Faith, and Order of the Gospel, according to what is from the Scripture expressed in the Platform of Church Discipline, may be a good means to recover those who have erred from the Truth, and to prevent Apostacy for the future. 2. It is requisite, that Persons be not admitted unto Communion in the Lords Supper, without [Page 90] making a Personal and Publick Profession of their Faith, & Repentance, either orally, or in some other way, so as shall be to the Just Satisfaction of the Church, & that therefore both Elders, & Churches, be duely Watchful, & Circumspect in this matter, 1 Cor. II. 28, 29. Act. 2. 41, 42. Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. Thus has Mr. Stoddards Doctrine been Condemned, by a whole Synod of Elders, and Messengers of the Churches.