The Covenant Sealed

Additional Arguments, that a faith short of that which justifies, gives title to Baptism.

SEeing these Arguments have given Mr. Baxter so little satisfaction, I shall endeavor to make some addition, only premising this, That Baptism is our door of Entrance, or way of admission into the Church visible, which I shall take for granted, seeing Mr. T. pag. 54. of his Apology, as Mr. Baxter observes, hath yielded it; and Mr. Baxter to my hand, Treatise of Infant-Baptism, pag. 24. by Arguments hath proved it. If then I shall prove, that such are to be received into the Church, I shall take the Conclusion to be the same as if they said they were to be baptized; and proving their right to be taken into the Church, I prove their right to be baptized.

1. They that have right in the sight of God, to many and [Arg. 1] great Privileges of his gift, have right in his sight to the first and leading privilege; this I think cannot be denied: Having a right to those that follow, they have right to those that lead. If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passover, they had right to Circumcision; and if any now have right to the Lord's Supper, they have right to Baptism. But those of a faith that is short of that which justifies, have right to many and great privileges in the sight of God. This is clear from the Apostle, Rom. 3.1. The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting, had every way much profit and advantage, he had therefore right to Circumcision, and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.

2. Those that are a people by God's gracious dispensations, [Arg. 2] nigh unto God, comparative to others, have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear, Men have right to be admitted to their right. But those that come short of justifying faith, are a people by God's gracious dispensation nigh unto God comparative to others; this is plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jews, as appears, Deut. 4.7. Psal. 147.19, 20. & 148.14. Those therefore that are short of justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Admission to this nearer relation.

[Arg. 3] 3. Those that God ordinarily calls his People, and owns as his, openly avouching himself to be their God, have right in the sight of God to the Signs and Cognisance of his people, and are to have admission into the Society and fellowship of his people. This is plain, If God in Covenant will own Servants, then his stewards may open the door to them; if he will own sheep, his servants doubtless may mark them. But God owns all in visible Communion, though short of faith that is justifying, as his people, and openly avouches himself to be their God, as in abundant places of Scripture is evident: see Deut. 26.18. these have therefore right to the signs and Cognisances of his people, to admission into the society and fellowship of his people.

[Arg. 4] 4. Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision, they had right in God's sight to Circumcision; and those of like condition, have like right to Baptism. This I think is clear; The Spirit of God doth not misname, doth not nickname, nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names. But men short of justifying faith, are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof. Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision, Rom. 15.8. and he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Those then of a faith short of that which is justifying, have right in the sight of God to Baptism.

[Arg. 5] 5. Those that are the servants of God, whom God owns as his servants, have right in his sight to be received into his house, and to be entitled to the privileges of his Church. This we think should not be denied, and that God will take it ill, if any shall deny it. But men short of that faith which justifies, are owned of God as his servants, as is clear, Levite. 25.41, 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the children of Israel, and his children are called of God his servants, and that as Israelites; of which a great part were void of that faith which justifies. Therefore those that are short of faith which justifies, have right in the sight of God to be thus received. This argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter. when he had urged it for proof, that infants are servants, and ought to be baptized, he adds, pag. 18. Is not here then direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God, whether infants are his Disciples, and servants or no? Doth not God call them his servants himself? What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so? Men call for plain Scripture, and when they have it, they will not receive it: so hard it is to inform a forestalled mind. If God took such care upon that account, that they should not be held in bondage under any of his people; he takes like care that they should not be kept from the society of his people.

6. Those that bring forth children to God, have a right in [Arg. 6] the sight of God to be of his household, and to be taken into it; This is plain, especially to those that know the law of servants in families, that all their children in right were the Masters, and had their relation to him. But those that are short of justifying faith bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16.20, 21.

7. Children of the Kingdom of God, or those that are subjects [Arg. 7] of his Kingdom, have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom. This Proposition Mr. Br. hath proved, pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains. But those that are short of faith that justifies, are children or subjects of this Kingdom, Matth. 8.12. The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received.

8. The children of the Covenant have right in the sight of [Arg. 8] God to the seal of the Covenant: This is evident, the seal is an affix to the Covenant: where a Covenant is made, and a seal appointed, there it is not of right to be denied. But those that are short of faith that justifies are the children of the Covenant, Act. 3.25. The Apostle speaking to the people of the Jews, saith, Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers.

9. Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptism, [Arg. 9] as appears in Christ's Commission, Matth. 28.19. But many are Disciples of Christ, that are short of a faith that justifies. Therefore those that are short of faith that justifies, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. If all that I have said, pag. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant, to prove this assumption be too weak, as I think it is not, Mr. Brs. proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient; there he proves that infants are Disciples, because they are subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and what Kingdom he means, he there explains himself. I speak not here (saith he) of his Kingdom in the largest sense, as it containeth all the world; nor yet in the strictest, as it containeth only his Elect: But in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible, as it is most commonly used: And therefore by the way not aequivocally used. Those then of this middle posture non-Elect are Disciples.

[Arg. 10] 10. Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptism. This is Mr. Brs. proposition in the page before quoted, and in reason is plain, Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship. This is Mr. Baxter's likewise in the place quoted, he makes Disciples Christians, and subjects of Christ's visible Kingdom, to be one and the same. Therefore those that are short of justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. If he object that that particle in the sight of God is an addition, they have no such right being but aequivocal Christians: yet as is the Christian with him, so is the Church or Kingdom, as aequivocal Christians, they may have right to an aequivocal Church or Kingdom.

[Arg. 11] 11. All that ought to be admitted visible Church members, ought to be admitted in the right of God to Baptism. This none can question, unless they charge it as Tautological, and it is Mr. Brs. pag. 23. and the medium of that argument which he makes the chief of all he useth. But those that are short of justifying faith are members of the Church visible. Ergo those that are short of justifying faith, are to be admitted to Baptism. The assumption is his likewise, where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect, and no man can deny it that grants the distinction of a Church into visible and invisible.

[Arg. 12] 12. The children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to baptism; This is clear enough: But men short of justifying faith are children of God, even those that drew down judgments on the Old world, as, Gen. 6.2. The whole body of the children of Israel, Deut. 14.1. Those that most provoked God amongst them; Those that revolted from Christ, for whom Paul had so much heaviness in the flesh, Rom. 9.4. If the way of their adoption, or sonship be questioned; doubtless it • s such as hath with it an inheritance, for a child is not adopted, but to be provided for. And what inheritance can be conceived, but Church privileges? Greater will not be yielded, and lesser to one thus related cannot be assigned, and what privilege can be inherited if there be no door of admittance to it? Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptism.

13. Those whom God ingraffs by his power into the true [Arg. 13] Olive, and makes partakers of the fatness of the Olive, they have right in the sight of God to be admitted. This is plain, God engraffing right must not be denied: But he engraffs by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies; even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles, and we expect the like of the Church of the Jews, as appears from the Apostle, Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith, have right in the sight of God to Baptism. I had thought to have ended here, but let me add two more.

14. All of those that professedly embrace a Gospel tender, [Arg. 14] in which there is a conditional promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification, have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances, ordinarily necessary, and requisite to bring them up to these conditions; and to the fruition of these glorious privileges, and consequently to baptism the leading privilege. This none can deny, that know the readiness of Christ, in imparting saving Ordinances to a people. But those that are short of faith which is justifying, may embrace a Gospel-tender, in which there is a conditional promise of Justification, Adoption, Glorification. Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying, have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances, and consequently to Baptism.

15. If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptism, from gifts [Arg. 15] that are common to the justified and unjustified, then faith which is short of justifying, gives right in the sight of God to Baptism. This none can deny, unless they will call the Apostles Logic into question, and deny his consequence. But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptism; from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified; this is plain, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? The holy Ghost there, is the gift of the holy Ghost then poured out; the gift of tongues, as in the 45. and 46. verses is held forth: which is a gift not only inferior to charity, but such as may be severed from it, 1 Cor. 13.1. A gift of that kind, that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did, as in an instant confer. They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified. Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptism.

[Arg. 16] 16. If the promise be to others besides believers then so is the seal; for to whom God promiseth, to them he engageth himself to perform. But the promise is to others: Therefore the seal is to others. This will be evident, if it be once understood, that it is only the conditional Covenant which God sealeth by the Sacraments; for this promise is made to unbelievers, though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition.

[Arg. 17] 17. If God do no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applied to hypocrites, then he actually sealeth to hypocrites: But God doth no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly administered to hypocrites. The Minor is proved by the enumeration of the several acts. 1. God maketh a promise. 2. He commandeth Ministers to publish it. 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments, as mutually engaging signs or seals. 4. He commands Ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent and desire to enter or renew the Covenant. These two last I confess I have borrowed, and that from Mr. Br. pag. 223. of his Infant-Baptism, and whether they make for him or against him, to prove or disprove their right which he here calls hypocrites, and distinguishes from believers, I leave to the censure of the intelligent Reader.

Mr. Baxter's Arguments reviewed, and his Vindication examined. Argument 1.

MR. Baxter argues, When Christ saith, Make me Disciples of all Nations, baptizing them, he meant sincere disciples, though we cannot know them to be sincere. I have answered, that this discipleship which Christ here mentions is such, of which whole Nations are in a Capacity, which was made plain by the Commission, concluding. If whole Nations, yea, the whole universal visible Church (consisting of discipled Nations) were all believers, it were a great happiness, Christ on the contrary saith, Many are called, but few chosen. Mr. Baxter replies, If it be not sincere disciples that Christ means in that Text, Then no Apostle was bound by that Commission and great Precept, to endeavor the making of sincere Disciples; but only counterfeits, and half Christians: But the Antecedent is false: Therefore. I am sorry to hear the Constitution of visible Churches to suffer this brand of making counterfeit, and half Christians. It is well known whose Language it is, That all charging or urging of duty upon unregenerate persons, is only to bring them to hypocrisy. Do not all know that the means necessarily conducible must be used in order to the end proposed? In order to make men sincere disciples, they must be made visible professing disciples. They may be half Christians (if Mr. Baxter will have it so) in order to whole Christians. Dr. Ames (if I do not misremember) compares visible Churches to rough stones taken out of the quarry, and invisible Christians to stones hewed and polished; I am sure they must be taken out of the quarry to be put into the building. It is said, that Melanchthon used to wish, that there were more hypocrites in the world, then there were; not that he would have more dissembling among those that made profession of Christianity, but more brought in to make profession. Profession being a good step in the way to sincerity, which a man would think Mr. Baxter would not dislike, who so far speaks the mind of Christ towards men, that if they will come but only to a visible profession, he will not deny them admittance there, because they intend to go no further, but will let them come as near as they will. And what he says of Christ's readiness for admittance, I may say of Ministers endeavors, they must bring them thus far, in order to a greater work. Ministers are to be instrumental by the work of regeneration to make men babes in Christ, and by remiss heat resembling smoking flax, to bring them up to greater fervor; Shall we thence infer, that they are to make men luke-warm, which is a temper that Christ will not bear? We therefore distinguish of lukewarmness: 1. As a medium to further heat, so Ministers must bring men up to it. 2. As a terminus, or end in which men rest: So considered, a Ministers work is to bring men beyond it; the same we may say of a visible profession, as a medium, not as a terminus, it must be all Ministers endeavors. Mr. Baxter cannot be ignorant that Mr. Marshall, and others that are for Infant-Baptism, have proved, (and Mr. T • mb's hath yielded) That this enlarged Commission given here to the Apostles, is put in opposition to their limited Commission, Matth. 10.5, 6. They were first sent unto a Nation discipled to their hands; entering, as Christ tells them, into other men's labors, what that Nation was, they must by their endeavors work all to be. That was a Nation of professed, disciples, and hither they are by their Commission to bring all Nations. Mr. Baxter adds, For your Argument, I grant the Conclusion, and what would ye have more? I wish no more, so that you will stand to your word, and then visible disciples, of which whole Nations consist, according to Christ's Commission, have right to Baptism, and I think that is the thing in Question. He yet saith, I grant the Minor, taking the word disciples equivocally, as a Corps is called a man, and I confess it usual so to take the word, but otherwise I deny the Minor. But I abhor that acceptation. Honest-meaning men do not use to say so, much less the Holy Ghost, as though I should say, that I had kept twenty men in my house these twenty years, and then come off with a tale of twenty pictures. I assert a reality in that discipleship which you call aequivocal: As for that which follows, To be Christ's Disciple (as to the Aged) is to be one that hath unfeignedly taken Christ for his Master to teach him and rule him, renouncing the contrary guidance of the flesh, the devil, and the world, &c. This is true as to the Inheritance of heaven, but not as to Inheritance of Ordinances; in order to the further work of sincerity, that qualifies for heaven. The Jew outwardly was not thus qualified, and yet he had upon that account just title to Church-privileges, and in particular to Circumcision. There follows to your Confirmation, I deny the Minor, and I say that it is so new a doctrine to affirm, that whole Nations are not capable of being sound believers, that it deserved one word of proof: Much less should you have hid your Minor, and turned it into a Negatio Existentiae, when it should have been but a Negatio Capacitatis: Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of sound faith, because they have it not? or will not have it? and afterwards you say, If there be any Nation uncapable of faith, then God cannot make them believers. And so in conclusion you will have stones to be in this capacity, for God can make them disciples, as well as he can of them raise up Children to Abraham. But you might easily know that I intended a Capacity to be brought into this state in God's ordinary regular way by the Apostles Ministry. And, Chap. 27. pag. 194. I had before thus explained myself, That which a whole Nation in God's ordinary way of administration is in a Capacity to attain, and enter into, is only a Covenant professed, visibly entered upon, and doth not require any inward change or work upon the soul to the being of it. This is plain, it cannot be expected in God's ordinary way, that a Nation should be brought forth at once, all inwardly holy and sanctified, such a field without tares hath not been seen, such a floor without chaff, such a draw-Net without any fish that's bad; such a feast and none without a wedding Garment. So that this is a doctrine so clear, that proof needs not, where there never shall be any futuriety we may well and fairly speak of an incapacity. Capacity is vain when it is known and confessed, Existence shall never follow: But there must never be any such existence, as appears in Christ's and the Apostles Parables of mixtures in visible Churches, and hitherto all ages have had experience. Whereas you say, Do you think Preachers yet be not bound to endeavor the saving conversion of whole Nations? If you say, No; you take them off the work their Master hath set them on. If you say, Yea: Then you think they must endeavor to persuade men to that which they have not a Capacity of. I think they are to bring them if heathens to a visible profession, and as many as may be to thorough conversion. That is somewhat remarkable which follows, Vocation ineffectual is common to Pagans. Vocation thoroughly Effectual is of the same extent with justification, and I think Election. A Pagan called according to Scripture, is a Contradiction in adjecto. Calling in Scripture-phrase is not a bare tender, but accompanied with a professed answer. That speech of Christ, Many are called, but few chosen, is the close of two Parables, Matth. 20.16. & 22.14. the one of Laborers called into the vineyard, the other of Guests called to the wedding. And in both applied to them that answered to the Call, that came and labored in the vineyard, that came with other bidden ones to the Feast, and not to those that refused. According to this doctrine there is no Medium between a Pagan and a justified man, all Pagans and unjustified men are upon the same terms, the Jew outwardly (whatsoever St. Paul saith to the contrary) hath no profit or advantage above the heathen. When the Psalmist gives that Elogy to the children of Israel, a people near unto the Lord, Psal. 148.14. the same may be said of every Pagan that is an alien from the Common-Wealth of Israel, if once he hath manifested so much stubbornness as to refuse a Gospel-tender. Scripture makes visible Church-Members nigh, when others are afar off, Ephes. 2.13. and in visible Churches some according to Scriptures are more nigh then others, Mark 12.34. when yet both are in an unjustified Condition.

Argument 2. reviewed.

Mr. Baxter's second Argument to prove, that only justifying Faith gives title to Baptism is thus laid down, When he saith, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, here Faith goes before Baptism, and that not a common, but a saving faith; for here is but one faith spoken of, and that is before Baptism. I have answered, that this is the weakest of all Arguments, to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture, and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat. Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth, there may be an Hysteron Proteron: and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose, it rests upon him to prove that here is none. 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetoric came to be talked on, I think no such thing is here to be asserted. So I should say Baptism doth always lead, and Faith follow. I only said that all that can be collected hence, is, that in God's ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptism, though (as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists) there is not one and the same kind of necessity, which they confirm by the words that follow. If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order, then he must say that Faith always precedes, and never follows after Baptism, against the common observation, that sometimes it precedes, sometimes it accompanies, sometimes it follows, and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptized man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying; And then he may preach in England to build up Converts, but not to convert: or at least when he hath converted, he must baptize his convert; the seal is null that goes before a Covenant. I gave instance in that place of Peter, 1 Pet. 3.21. where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience follows upon Baptism, affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation, or at least a principal branch of it; and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede; but a necessity that it should follow; In which I did not imply that a man before Baptism may not believe, as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary, but that it tieth him to the faith, at least to follow after. Mr. Baxter saith, I gratefully accept your Concession, that justifying faith is that restipulation, which is your Minor, (that is, justifying faith professed) and thence I conclude, that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant, and so without it God is not in Covenant with men. It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good. Who knows not that ever read Civil Law, that there is no stipulation sine promissione, which you call, and so do other Divines, Restipulation. And that this Restipulation is an essential part of the Contract called stipulation, This being past doubt, it follows, that justifying faith being our Restipulation, is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismal Covenant. They only (it seems) that have read the Civil Law, can see a necessity of this Conclusion. I, and other Divines, call this promise Restipulation; and I (though other Divines do not) say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise. And so the Promise being essential, Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise. But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called, or that I so intended it? then this is a true Proposition, justifying faith is a Promise; can any think that I ever intended so egregious a piece of affected nonsense? Justifying faith with me is the thing promised, or that to which we restipulate. Who that hath read Rhetoric, or heard any man speak, doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised? and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way. If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere, that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione, that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant. Then you hit the nail on the head, and till that is done, you have done nothing.

Arg. 3. reviewed.

Mr. Baxter's third Argument is, That faith to which the promise of remission, and justification is made, must also be sealed to (or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition, in foro dei, of the title to the seal): But it is only solid true faith which is the condition of the promise (of remission): Therefore it is that which gives right, in foro Dei, to the seal. To this I have answered, faith is not sealed to, but remission of sins, or Salvation upon condition of faith; and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments, I shall God willing make this more evident, that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our privileges, and not duties, and I refer the Reader thither. When I say a professor of faith may engage to a lively working faith, I am followed with this Dilemma. You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead, not working faith. If the first, it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith, and he only engageth so to believe hereafter. For if he profess to have it already, then he can engage only to the continuation, and not to the inception of it. If you mean the latter, then I shall show you anon, that a man professing a dead, not working faith, is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptism, to believe lively for the future, (inceptive) and to believe for the future with a working faith. I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature, and then answer. He that thus professeth to have a lively faith, either professeth it knowingly, so that he is assured that he speaks the truth, or with haesitations, doubts and fears, so that he questions the truth of all that himself says. The latter doubtless can give no title according to Mr. Baxter. For a man to profess, and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession, can give no such title as is required; if the former be intended, that every man professing must know the truth of his profession, then none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe, have any right to Baptism, and then you see how high we are gone. Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possess their places in the Ministry, much more of all that enter into Christianity. For a direct answer, I therefore say, It is not profession to say that we have this faith, but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it, with engagement to it that gives this title. There follows, You suppose then, such a professor as this coming to Baptism, saying, Lord, I believe that thou art God alone, and Christ the only Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people, and that the world, flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee: but at present there are lusts so dear to me, that I will not forsake them for thee. I will not take thee for my God, to rule me, or be my happiness; nor will I take Christ to govern me, and save me in his way; nor will I be guided, or sanctified by the Holy Ghost; but hereafter I will, and therefore I come to be baptized. If I say such have right to baptism, and you say we are bound to baptize them, how do you mend the matter? do not you conclude your forty sixth Section with these words? Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith, is larger then election, and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize. 2. I say and do profess of those that have those secret reservations wrapped up in their breasts, and not yet from under the power of lusts, yet convinced of their duty, and acknowledging the necessity, that it is the mind of God that they should be baptized, and have admission to ordinances, in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God. And this being the will of God, as you seem to yield when you say we are bound to baptize them; I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptism, and it were ill with the Church if those in Austin's case, that would pray, Da castitatem, da temperantiam Domine, sed non modo, should be denied all investiture in Church privileges. Where Mr. Baxter says, that faith which is the condition of the promise is the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal: And I say, that I judge the contrary to be undeniable; After many words which are needless to repeat, we have his reasons, with a complaint that I have given no reason of my denial. To which I say, That which in a parenthesis without reason is affirmed, may without rendering any reason be denied. But before I come to consider of his reasons, it is necessary that the terms be looked into, and the question rightly stated, that there may be no misunderstanding. When Mr Baxter speaks of the condition of the promise, I suppose he means the condition called for, in order to the attainment of the thing promised, the promise for the object of the promise, as it is taken, Heb. 11.13. Otherwise the promise itself properly taken hath no condition. There was no condition inducing God to make promise of Christ, nor to make tender of any such promise. But he promises glory by Christ on his own terms and propositions. Now for the reasons themselves to make good that; that which is the condition of the promise, is the condition of title to the seal. The first is, The seal is but an affix to the promise: therefore that which is the condition of the promise, is, the condition of the seal. The seal is no affix to the thing promised, but it is often separated from it. It is a means to convey, and a way to confirm it upon God's terms to those that have their Interest in the Covenant. 2. The use of the seal is to confirm the promise to him to whom it is sealed: Therefore the condition of the promise is the condition of the seal. When it is granted that the use of the seal is to confirm the thing promised, it will not therefore follow that there is the same condition required for interest in the seal as for interest in the thing in promise. If a man will engage under seal to give me one hundred pounds, provided that I will come to such a place and accept it, my professed willingness will Interest me in the seal, my actual acceptance in the Moneys. 3. If the promise and seal have two distinct conditions, then there are two distinct Covenants, (for from the conditions most commonly are contracts specified; and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians, call it the form of the contract, or stipulation, to be either pura, vel in diem, vel sub conditiene, and those subconditions are specified oft from their various conditions) But there is not two Covenants: Therefore. I know not well how to reach this. Is there not one thing needful to interest me in a bargain, or to make me a Covenanter, and another thing to obtain the benefit accruing by such conditional bargain or Covenant? 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of sealing that it should be in order before the promise or Covenant? And that men should first have right to that seal on one condition before they have right to the promise, and then have right to the promise after on another condition. But sure it is not against the nature of seals to be before the mercy covenanted for, and promised. And I beseech you take this into serious consideration, and do not slightly pass it. Justifying faith with you is the Covenant, and do not you preach to work men up to it? and I hope your labors are happily successful. Yet all of these to whom you preach (perhaps not a man excepted) hath this seal, and is baptized. Do you now in all your Ministerial labors go against the nature and common use of sealing? To keep a due order we must then forbear baptizing, not only till men profess to believe, but are actually in the faith, in a way that justifies. 5. If it be so undeniable that that faith which is the condition of the promise, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal, as you affirm, why then do ye build so much against Mr. Tombs, on that Argument from Acts 2. The promise is to you and your Children, arguing a right to the seal from an interest in the promise? I Argue not from an interest in the seal to an interest in the thing promised, but require something further. By this it appears that you take the promise properly, and not for the thing promised, and then I pray you reconcile this to your second reason; The use of a seal is not to confirm in this that I have a promise, but that I shall have interest in the good that is promised. 6. Where you say that an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seal; I reply then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge, and conscience, and will engage to own him sincerely for the future, have a title to Baptism. How comes I pray you that [future] in? you manifest much reading in the Law, and I have heard this as a Maxim, In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies, quovis die debetur, There is no day overtaken but the engagement is for present; though God in mercy except when for a long time the engagement hath been presumptuously neglected. But bring me a man that in his heart is convinced that Jesus is the Christ, with his mouth professes him, and engages for him, and in the mean space actually renounceth him, and I will do what you would have me with him; That is, a man that is falling headlong down a ladder, at the same instant he is climbing up it. When I bring this similitude for illustration of the point in hand, that a promised service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed, and to do service is of necessity to be rewarded, I am told that this runs upon the great mistake which I have been so often told of, and am further informed that the formal reason and denomination of a condition is from the donors constitution, or imposition, giving this benefit only on the terms by him assigned, and not upon our promise to perform them. If I have been told of it often, it is well if I can be convinced of it now. I utterly deny that the denomination of conditions of a Covenant in actual being, is from the one, and not from the other, that is, exclusively to the other. I well know the donour is to prescribe, and the receiver is to accept without putting in Exceptions. But if there be no acceptance of terms, there is no Covenant; and there being no Covenant, there can be no Covenant conditions, as is plain by the usual definition of Covenants; where the Gospel is preached, and no entertainment at all given, there is no Covenant people of God, they stand bound by Law precepts, but are under no obligations to Covenant conditions.

Argument 4. reviewed.

The next Argument in which I am concerned, and the last which in this thing is produced, is, That the Eunuch must first believe, and then be baptized; upon his desire of Baptism, Philip saith, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. This I have confessed carries more color then all the former; and indeed I never met with anything, either in Scripture, or reason produced, that carries with me so much as any color for it, this excepted. Yet this is not unanswerable. One difficult text does not use to take us off our hold of many plain ones. I answer, 1. Philip may call for that de been esse, when the Eunuch was to be admitted, which was not yet essential to his admittance. Those that preach preparatory Sermons for the Lord's Supper, call for allthat may give the highest comforts, and not barely for that which is the Minimum quod sic, to give admission. 2. As I have said, so I say still, that dogmatical faith is a true faith, and to prevent needless Criticisms, it is truly a divine faith, so that none can say that Jesus is the Christ (can believingly subscribe that Article) but by the holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12.3. And whosoever says with assent of judgment and understanding, that Jesus the Son of Mary is Christ, the Son of the living God, speaks more then flesh and blood can suggest, and is not attainable but by Divine revelation. And whereas it is objected, that it is a false faith, when it pretends to be that which Scripture calls faith in Christ, and denominateth believors; I answer, 1. I have shown before, that our profession qualifying for Baptism, is not a profession that we have such faith, (which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to assurance) but a profession of the necessity of it to salvation, and an engagement to it. 2. It denominates believers in the ordinary and common language of Scriptures, and wheresoever believer is put in opposition to unbeliever or infidel, faith of this nature is still understood. In that famous text, 1 Cor. 7.14. every man and woman is a believer, that was removed from heathenish Idolatry to the profession of Christianity, or (as Paulinus, whom Jerome so much magnifies, speaks) was a baptized person. Otherwise the case there put about the validity of marriage, and lawfulness of marriage society were not between an infidel and a professor of Christianity, but between a regenerate man whom this language only makes a believer, and one unregenerate, which in this language are infidels, which were a case never yet put to question. When mention is made through the History of the Acts of so many thousands that upon the Apostles preaching believed, it can denote no more then the embracing of the way of Christianity, in opposition to Judaism or Heathenism. If it imply a through Regeneration of the soul, there could be no unregenerate ones among them, which is wholly against the nature of visible Churches, and all experience, as hath been abundantly manifested. As for that distinction (which seems to be hinted) between believing Christ, and believing in Christ, Mr. Ball in his Treatise of Faith, pag. 5. hath sufficiently shown the groundlesnesse of it, pointing out Scriptures where a preposition is added to the word believe, when nothing but assent of mind is signified; And where it is put without a preposition, when trust and confidence is implied. Abraham believed God, Rom. 4.3. (where no preposition is added) and it was counted to him for righteousness. And on the contrary the Rulers believed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in or on Christ, and loved the praise of men more then the praise of God, Joh. 12.42, 43. It follows, I think if a man say, This is the Son, the Heir, Come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours, we will not have this man reign over us, that these are not true believers, nor have right to Baptism, though their belief that he was the heir be a dogmatical faith true in its kind. I am sorry that such things should be mentioned, where inquiry after truth is contended, and contention not studied. It is well known, that I speak to a faith of profession, which is theirs that take to that party which is for Christ, and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him, and are in a high rode (any such conviction of spirit supposed) of sin against the Holy Ghost. I know not why Dr. Ames should be brought in, telling us, that in those places where saving faith is spoke to, trust in the Messiah is ever included: seeing we are speaking of a faith that is short of saving, nor yet that I should be told that words of knowledge and assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent, unless that it be to let me know that it doth not generally hold; which in case I were in a strait, and at want for a present answer, would well help me out. And whereas I am demanded, whether I do not know how ordinarily saving faith itself is denominated from the Intellectual act alone? I answer, that I do know it, and if I were ignorant of it before, Mr. Burgess hath taught me the same thing, with the same reason of it in his Spiritual Refining, page 170, 171. Pos. 8. And I know also, that it hath its denomination often from the act of the will alone; But will it follow that the understanding is never fully persuaded for assent, but the will is also (not alone somewhat moved, but) thoroughly inclined for consent and acceptance. If the understanding at any time be brought to a real assent whilst the will is swayed by lusts and takes to other objects, that is to me sufficient. Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand, upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel, the whole of those choice observations? or can it be any way certainly collected, that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work? But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him, quoting those Texts, John 11.25, 26, 27. John 1.49, 50. 1 Joh. 4.15. he adds, Here is more then right to Baptism. Then a man may have right to Baptism that is short of those great privileges of dwelling in God, and being born of God; and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion. It further follows, If you think (as you seem by your answer to do) that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart, and yet be void of justifying faith, you do not lightly err. It follows not (I think) from anything that I have said, that I am in any such opinion. That Expression is in Philip's words, and I have told you he might require de been esse, that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptism. But in case I be in any so heavy an Error, I am thus holpen out of it. Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate, yet not with all his heart; Christ saith, Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him. It is then granted, that he may believe all truths, and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart, is not with me convincing. The Word had not root: not because they did not entirely from the heart assent to it; But because they received it not in the love of it. They received the light to inform their judgments, not any thorough heat for the warmth of their affections. There follows, Doubtless whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will, yet God doth not sanctify the understanding truly, and leave the will unsanctified: which must be said, if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man, be as strong as that of a true believer. Here is suggested that I say, that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer. I know not where I have said it, or anything that implies it. It may be a true assent, though not of that strength. But if I had said it will it thence follow, that God doth sanctify the understanding truly, and leave the will unsanctified? I trow not. Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified? is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified? Clearnesse of light commands assent to truths, when corruption of affections will not suffer that at least pro hic & nunc, that the goodness or bestnesse (if I may so say) should be believed. I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world. I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satan's Buffettings, I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world, to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself; he doubtless injects Scruples where himself is without scruple. I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in devils, notwithstanding James saith, The Devils believe and tremble. But certain it is, there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils, as we may see, Matth. 8.29. Mark 3.11. Luk. 4.41. Acts 19.15. and yet there is no sanctification wrought. And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding, it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified. I am further refer'd to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble, which is not in my hands, and whether my answer be equal to silence, as is in the close affirmed, I must leave to the Reader to determine.

Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter, touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin.

IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know, how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin, which wonderful change in him, may well be my admiration: All know that have looked into my Birth-privilege, that I delivered the same things there, as, in my Treatise of the Covenant, I have asserted against Mr. Firmin; and that past with Mr. Baxter (if reports have not deceived me) with good approbation. I communicated to him a considerable part of my defense of it, against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts, and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it. And besides what I have produced already out of him, I have a witness of reverend esteem; that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction, of the title of unregenerate men (or some phrase par • llell) to Sacraments. But in case upon change of judgment, he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular, and that merely (as he says) in love of the truth, least the reputation of man should cloud it; and in love to the Church, and the luster of the Christian name, lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better then the other Religions of the world. Further explaining himself, For I fear, this loose doctrine (so he is pleased to call it) of Baptism will do more to the pollution of the Church, then others loose doctrine of the Lord's Supper, or as much. If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it, I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him.

First, To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement, either in judgment or in practice; both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches, but Mr. Baxter's friend (for whom he is about to undertake) as to his judgment is yet in the lower form, when he is in the upper. Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member, but declares himself very largely against it; he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptism. It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge, and free from scandal, which he well knows to be the case of many in unregeneration. And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgment, yet he sits down far short of him in practice, and says that we are bound to baptize all those that make an outward profession, and consequently their children; when Mr. F. upon tender, conscientiously refuses many of them. Mr. F. and I are, as I suppose, upon nearer terms of accord, then Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter, both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title, and a faith that is short of justifying may give interest.

Secondly, To reconcile Mr. Firmin to himself, Mr. Baxter much honors him (as also many others) for his book against the separation, and he tells reverend Mr. Cawdrey (who hath wrote against him in this subject) that possibly he may make use of his book about the separation against him; and Mr. Cawdrey hath in readiness (as I am informed from his own mouth) not a few contradictions to charge upon him, and this I can tell both Mr. Baxter, and Mr. F. that the best friends that I ever met with of them both, confess, that he is a far other man in these writings then when he wrote against the separation.

Thirdly, To help him out of the principles of Anabaptism into which he is also observed by his friends to be fallen, in making the interest of the seed in Covenant-title, to be peculiar to the Jewish Nation.

Fourthly, to take further care to shut the door against a new flood of Anabaptism, which (as I have shown) himself hath set wide open; If unregenerate persons be void of all right to Baptism, then their Baptism is null, and upon regeneration are to be baptized.

Fifthly, To consider with himself how he will answer the breach he makes in the Church of Christ, having the whole face and practice (as Apollonius speaks) of reformed Churches against him. That Black ink which he casts, not only on me, and reverend Mr. Cawdrey, (who have appeared in this cause against Mr. Firmin ) but on the face of so many Churches so glorious, is unworthy of his pen; what man of name in all the reformed Churches that is not guilty of this fearful pollution as he is pleased to call it? Ames is a man not to be suspected here of partiality, (in some things departing from the way of discipline of those Churches where he lived,) yet he tells the world, That it is false that they require inward virtues to make a man a visible Church-member: in which he is Mr. Baxter's adversary: and what liberty he allows (which Mr. F. denies) for the Baptism of the Infants of wicked Parents, of Infants of illegitimate birth, of Infants of excommunicate persons, let him be consulted, Cases of Conscience, lib. 5. Cap. 27. Walaeus excluding from Baptism the Infants of such Parents that profess they will bring them up in impiety, heresy, and idolatry, But out of this case (saith he) we judge that Baptism belongs to all those Infants which are born of a Christian race, if they be tendered to baptism, according to the Churches custom, although their immediate Parents remain lewd in conversation, or lie under heresy, or the crime of idolatry against the second Commandment; for Idolatry against the first Commandment is rather apostasy: fortifying it with several arguments, the first of which is, The manifest practice of the Church of Israel in the administration of Circumcision. The Professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of more pure Divinity, are as far guilty of this supposed pollution as any, Dispute. 44. Sect. 50. Neither (say they) do we exclude those Infants from participation of this Sacrament, who are born of Parents of a Christian race, and baptized, although their parents by their wicked life, or impure faith, render the efficacy of the Covenant sealed in Baptism as utterly void to them, if they be offered by those parents or other kindred under whose power they are according to the order accustomed in our Churches, because under the New Covenant the son doth not bear the iniquity of the father, and God nevertheless remains the God of such children, as he himself witnesseth, Ezek. 16.20. where he calls the children of those wicked Israelites his sons, which they had brought forth unto God, although they had offered them to Moloch, whereupon he commanded the children of those Israelites whereof many of them died in their sin in the wilderness, as well as the children of the godly to be circumcised, Josh. 5.4, 6. which also the Church of Israel and the Christian Primitive Church never questioned. Mr. Baxter says he will consult Dr. Drake, to find who they be, that those of his judgment admit to the Lord's Supper, and I would have him withal at the same time to inquire whether he do not profess that it is their practice to baptize promiscuously? which is directly against Mr. Firmins way; and let him read Mr. Goodwin's Evangelical Communicant; and how high soever he goes to keep many from the Lord's Table, yet he is as large as either Mr. Cawdrey or myself, in admission to baptism; let him look upon the practice I may say almost universal in the Nation, and see what course they generally hold, and I have not heard that they have yet learnt to distinguish between the Infants right, and the Churches obligation; that the Infants of such or such Parents are without any right, and yet the Church stands bound to give them admission. Mr. Firmin doth sufficiently declare how sensible he is of his dissent from his brethren, let Mr. Baxter then undertaking for him, see how wide a breach he is like to make instead of union. If that complement therefore which is cast upon me by Mr. Baxter, Si pace tanti viri dixerim, had been tantorum virorum, and had spoken out who those be that he so heavily charges as before, to obscure the Church, and the luster of the Christian name, &c. and plainly told us that it is the generality of all that go under the name of Churches reformed, the speech does not now appear so modest, but then it would have been as arrogant.

Sixthly, That he make some provision for tender and scrupulous consciences that shall admit his principles, 1. In taking in of members into Church-fellowship, as it is called. A man without grace in a visible Church according to him is as a wooden leg in the body; how great a deformity this is, and how great a trouble to have such instead of those that are of flesh and bone, it is easy to judge, and yet how many of these necessarily will and must be received? 2. In baptism of Infants. To baptize an Infant is with him, not only to espouse, but to solemnize a full and actual marriage with Christ Jesus, and that in words not de futuro, but de praesenti, and what further glory then they may expect from his hand I scarce can tell. An illustrious Prince will have none but of noble and Royal blood, and Christ will have none to be thus, in marriage relation given to him but the seed of regenerate, and graciously qualified persons. How shall I get intelligence that this or that infant is descended of such a race? where shall I learn his or her pedigree, that I may thus give to Christ Jesus? And in case probabilities must lead us, we have need of further help then yet we see, to judge of such probability. Must we find those qualifications in the man, who himself is for Baptism or his child, that may move us to conclude that in all reason and possible apparance here is a child of God, or an Infant of a regenerate person? Or will it serve our turn, and satisfy our consciences, that we cannot certainly conclude the contrary? If the first be required, it will put all the Ministers of Christ hard to it, and prove such a snare that I know not how they will extricate themselves; If the latter be that which we must receive, here is then a loose rule for to lead in so high proceedings. For men will be so lax in their own marriage choice, as for to take any into that society, if they be not able to conclude her a strumpet or desperately wicked; we have hitherto believed that Jesus Christ is pleased to receive in a greater latitude into visible relation.

Seventhly, I desire Mr. Baxter to tell us how he hath mended the matter, and provided for the honor and luster of the Christian name, or made up at all that gap of which he speaks. He says the Church is bound to baptize as largely, as I say men have right to Baptism. I think here he will find little or no difference; and when he refuses none that I receive, and where I say they have right, he says, we are bound to baptize without right; how will this make Christianity to look with any better face? how much will Worcestershire Congregations, where this is received, exceed other Congregations, where unanimously it is denied? I would have him to reflect on his 18 ^th . Argument, and see whether the force of it be not evidently as much against hinself as it is against me, against whom it is brought. It is thus framed; That doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptism, for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform, is unsound. But such is Mr. Blake's: Ergo. And after much work to explain himself, it comes to this, that unregenerate men cannot resolve or sincerely promise to love, believe or obey, and therefore upon that account are without right to baptism. Let it be taken into consideration, that when I say these men that in their present state are thus unable to love, believe, and obey, have notwithstanding right to Baptism, and he says that this inability notwithstanding, they ought to be baptized, how is the matter mended? If my Doctrine upon this account be unsound, his doctrine and practice will be found unsound likewise. Mr. Baxter saith, Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of faith, is larger then election, and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize.

Eighthly, I shall desire some Scripture text or cogent reason to make it appear that we are bound to baptize those that in the sight of God have no right to Baptism, the command given will argue with me their right, unless I hear an injunction from heaven that notwithstanding their want of right we are to baptize them. Peter argues the right of those, Acts 10.47. for their admission to Baptism, which had been more then needed, in case without any such right the water in Baptism might have been applied unto them; and I marvel that Mr. Baxter should so tenaciously hold to Philip's speech to the Eunuch, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest; seeing he believes as well as I that faith short of this which he says these words necessarily imply, might have admitted him, and put a necessity on Philip to have baptized him, though it would not have given him right to Baptism. His actual admission, and not his right, is there put to the question. If these things be well considered, Mr. Baxter may see cause to begin with a confutation of Mr. F. before he undertakes a defense; and I suppose the Reader will see that he had small cause to censure my Arguments to be so dilute unless he himself had brought some of greater strength.

Lastly, I would have Mr. Baxter seriously consider, whether that which we have observed already out of him, and might yet further be gathered, may not make up a forcible Argument, and conclusive of this title to Baptism, in those who yet rise not up to the Faith that is justifying, when they are separate from Paganism into fellowship with the visible Church, as he asserts, Saints Rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 105. and with them their issue, as he hath concluded from 1 Cor. 7.14. when they attain to graces real, and true, as we have seen from him; I am sure the Apostle, as hath been said, Act. 10.47. argues from such qualifications, to an interest in Baptism; when they have their interest in the Covenant of grace, as a fruit of Christ's death, as he saith, doubtless reprobates have, Treatise of Infant-Baptism, pag. 224. when their Baptism hath all that is essential to God's sealing, as he asserts it hath pag. 222. All of this laid together, with more that may be taken up, will in all indifferent Readers eyes conclude a title: And further, whether he have not spoken as much in plain words, terminis terminantibus for the interest of unregenerate men, or men of a mere visible profession in Baptism, let his words be considered, Saints Rest, Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 104, 105. Where giving holy, and seasonable advice to beware the company of sensual, and ungodly men, he limits it with Cautions, least it should be thought, that he persuades, as he rightly stiles it, unto an ungodly separation, he adds, As I never found one word in Scripture, where either Christ or his Apostles denied admittance to any man that desired to be a member of the Church, though but only professing to repent and believe; so neither did I ever there find that any but convicted Heretics, or scandalous ones (and that for the most part after due admonition) were to be avoided, or debarred our fellowship. And whereas it is urged, that they are to prove their interest to the privileges that they lay claim to, and not we to desprove it; I answer, If that were granted, yet their mere sober professing to Repent and believe in Christ, is a sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership, and admittance thereto by Baptism (supposing them not admitted before:) and their being baptized persons, (if at age) or members of the universal visible Church, (into which it is that they are baptized) is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper, till they do by heresy, or scandal blot that evidence; which evidence if they do produce, yea, though they are yet weak in the faith of Christ, who is he that dare refuse to receive them? And, this after much doubting, dispute, and study of the Scriptures, I speak as confidently, as almost any truth of equal moment; so plain is the Scripture in this point, to a man that brings his understanding to the model of Scripture, and doth not bring a model in his brain, and reduce all he reads to that model. What have I spoke more then here is said? and did I ever speak with more and higher confidence? I say, that a faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptism; and he says, Such give sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership, and consequently admittance to Baptism; so that if my doctrine herein be loose, (as he chargeth it) the Reader will hardly find his to be fast; and it hears not well, to play fast and loose. The evasion of equivocal will not here serve, that will utterly spoil the whole strength of his Caution, and put men amain on this separation, as it will contradict his assertion, of their grace as real, and true: They will say, They will have no fellowship with a dead Corps, instead of a real man; for that is his expression of the difference between what is real, and what is equivocal. Neither can he here come off by the help of his distinction of forum Dei, and forum Ecclesiae. These gifts and graces from God, these privileges vouchsafed of God, and purchased by Christ, plainly enough speak a right in the sight of God. Neither is there (as we have heard) in this Controversy any such distinction to be admitted. I am therefore in this no further to blame, then he hath been; and if he see cause to recede from, yet I see all reason to persist in my opinion.

SECT. X. Proposition. 8.

FOr the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there cannot be that vast difference and disproportion between it and baptism, that the one should be a privilege of the Church visible, and the other peculiar and proper to the Church invisible: that all in the outward administration of the Covenant (as some speak) should be interested in the one, and only those that come up to the terms of the Covenant should have any interest in the other. Christ gave order that Disciples should be baptized, Matth. 28.19. and he delivered his Supper to Disciples, Matth. 26.26, 27. and it is more then strange that disciples should be taken in that aequivocall way, as to hold out all in outward profession, confoederation. and visible Church communion, in the one, (as is almost generally agreed upon between Paedobaptists and their adversaries) and to be restrained to those that answer to their profession in the other; so that in the administration of the one, the dispensers have a firm rule to lead them, viz. visibility of interest (as Mr. Cobbet hath largely shewn in his Vindication, pag. 52. Cou. 4.) and in the other can have nothing for their guide, but an invisible work, left to their charity to conjecture. Disciple therefore respective to either of the Sacraments (which are outward visible ordinances and visible Church privileges) can be no more then a man of visible interest. When Christ sat down to the Passover, it is said he sat down with the twelve, only they had right to eat of it in his company, Exod. 12.3. being of his family; And, as he was eating he gave the Supper, but then the phrase is changed, he gave it to his Disciples, only the twelve were occasionally there, but it was instituted in behalf of all Disciples, of which the number could not be small; considering how many John had made and baptized, and Christ had made and baptized more then he, though not in person, but by his Disciples, Joh. 4.1, 2. A reverend brother makes this practice of Christ at the first institution and administration of the Supper, to be a directory for future, to receive such only to it, as are the Disciples of Christ. To which I willingly condescend, provided that the word be aright understood. I know the word is sometimes taken in a restrained sense, for those that indeed do the duty of disciples, Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed; and, Luke 14.33. Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my Disciple. As the word Israelite is sometimes taken for those that do the duty of Israelites, and are such as Israelites ought to be, Joh. 1.47. Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile; when respective to fruition of Church ordinances (of what nature soever) all that were of Israel according to the flesh or visible Church-Members in Israel, are expressed by it. Disciple, or Israelite, is a man of outward Covenant interest. The latitude of it, according to Scripture expressions, I have shown, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 208. All that were Christ's family Disciples, did eat of the Passover with him, Matth. 26.18. even Judas, as is acknowledged, and scarce to be doubted of but he did eat of the Supper. It is more then strange, that as a Disciple he should be taken into the Passover, and a few hours after, as no Disciple should be put from the Supper. The Lord's Supper is for the building of those that Baptism takes in; But Baptism takes into the Church visible. Visible Church members have then interest in the Supper. When Sacraments are in their use distinguished, one for admittance into the Church, and the other for growth; one as the Sacrament of our birth, and the other our nourishment, most understand the first of admission into the Church visible (well knowing that regeneration is not tied to baptism,) but the growth many will have to be in the Church invisible, which inharmonious discord between Ordinances of the same kind cannot be suffered. To give notes of the Disciples of Christ, for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense, by their affections to him, and suffering of affliction for him, are of singular use: Christ himself hath gone before us in it. But upon the notation of the word, because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples, to make the subject of that Sacrament to be only those that reach these marks, is besides the holy Ghosts intention. All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri, and not only in facto, for the bringing of it on to Christ. I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made, or how in reason, and according to Scripture, it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members.

SECT. XI. Proposition. 9,

THe Sacrament of the Supper (no more then other Ordinances) is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit, that are actually regenerate, and in grace; others as they may be admitted without sin, so they are in a capacity and possbility, to receive benefit from it. This I am not ignorant that some will question: But let these consider before they censure.

First, That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said, [Arguments.] a privilege of the Church as visible, put into the hands of those for edification, that are not able to discern men of spiritual life, and invisible interest. And though there be characteristicall differnces, whereby a man in grace, and he that is short of it, may be distinguished; whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good: yet they are such, whereby a man is to make trial of himself, only they are Spirit-works; and none knows them in any man save the Spirit that is in him, and therefore no marks for any others cognizance. For a Minister of Christ to dispence by command the Sacrament to many, when he knows that it is of possible use and benefit to some few, unto these it is food and nourishment unto life; unto the others as Rats-bane, Poison, and only for death; is such a snare that may hold him in his administration, in all horror and amazement. A fad dilemma, either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ, and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty; or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruin and destruction of so many of them. I know no possible way that can be supposed, or so much as pretended for avoidance; but in the Name of Christ, to give warning to all, in whom this new life by the Spirit is not, to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate, on their peril to keep off. Let them say, some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered, and then if they come, their blood is on their own heads, and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul. But to this I have three things to say, 1. That it is, (as I suppose) without all Scripture-precedent, to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit, wholly to keep off from this, or any other Ordinance of Christ. I know we must warn men of their sin, and the judgment hanging over their heads for sin (in which let it be our prayer, that we may be more faithful) but that we should warn men upon this account, upon this very ground, to hold off from all address to Ordinances, I have not learnt. 2. I say, this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denied, unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance. How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith, and the saving work of repentance, to hold back, when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting? 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorn out of our own sides, and as much as in us lies, thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry, thirsty, and poor in spirit people? How many may we suppose are in grace, through a work happily begun on their souls? yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace, or reach to any discovery of it. Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts, being yet babes, or rather embryo's in grace. The first that appears upon light received, is an army of lusts and potent corruptions, as we know Paul sets it out. This clouds for present any other weak work, that as yet in present is wrought. In this time Satan is not wanting, he did not show so much artifice before to lessen their sin, but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it: and as he was industrious before to seduce, now he is as busy to accuse. He led the incestuous man to incontinency, 1 Cor. 7.4. And we know Paul fears, least upon continuance of the Church-censure, he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow, 2 Cor. 2.8, 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance, or their genuine fruits; much less are they able, by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls. Sometimes by reason of some sharp conflict of temptation, being under the shock and assault of it, and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore, or the favor of God, now it is under a cloud (which I believe was Paul's case, when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him, and a thorn in the flesh given him,) seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens, 2 Cor. 12.) and therefore had need of Ordinances for support. Sometimes on a soil received by temptation, of which his own heart, and not the Church is witness; and therefore is at a loss of the joy of his salvation, and stands in need of strength for recovery. Sometimes by over-much sloth, and rust contracted on his graces through negligence, which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging herself too much in carnal ease, Cant. 5.2. I have put off my coat, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them? Sometimes God out of prerogative, withdrawing the rays of his Spirit, and refusing to testify with our spirits, in which case the soul that is most upright with God, and sincere in his fear, walks in darkness and sees no light; in which there is need of all communications from God, and attendance upon him in Ordinances. When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth, thus warned to keep back, and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated, will not they put in their name, and say their souls are now spoke to? They must therefore absent themselves, and so the smoking flax is quenched, and the bruised reed broke. There, have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known, that have born the terror of the Lord, separate themselves for this reason. But it will be replied by those that give this warning, that they mean not these, they are not at all intended in their speech; these they would tender, and with all endeared affection of love encourage, as those that have most need, and are most fit to receive food, for their strength. But all of this helps not, when this Proposition is laid down, That no man in whom justifying faith, and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought, may dare, otherwise then on the peril of his soul, to draw nigh hither: will not such a soul, necessarily assume? A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul; I am conscious to myself that I am carnal: whatsoever endeavors I have used to believe, yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth? I find myself all over doubts and fears, and plunged in unbelief. And though I have made it my business to keep off from sin, yet how far am I from a true change by repentance? I find my heart hard, obdurate, even as an adamant; yea, the poor deserted soul will take to itself the state of Cain, the condition of Judas: If there be any other high in wickedness, they have matched, yea, they have exceeded them. They are to put it to the question, whether they are in grace or no? whether they have a new life wrought, or as yet are short of it? This they must either determine in the affirmative, that they are in grace, at least there are those hopeful signs in present, that they cannot but conclude it, and then they safely may come, upon sight of this they may with cheerfulness make their address; or else they must carry it in the negative, all that is yet wrought is not life, is not grace, is not faith in its power, is not repentance in truth, as they can do no other that walk in darkness, and see no light; that say, God hath forgotten to be gracious, and so they must keep off from the Ordinance, and debar themselves from those cordials, those apples, those flagons that are there tendered: and sick of love, yet dare not intermeddle with the Lord's tokens that are tendered to them: or in the third place suspend, and so sit down in doubtful fears, whether they have grace or no; and then that of the Apostle, Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, will soon come into their thoughts, and so all that are short of fullness of assurance, must in dreadful horror separate themselves.

Secondly, This Sacrament, in that it is a Sacrament, hath the name and nature of a seal, (as we see in the text, and God willing shall be shewn) a visible seal, entrusted in the hands of man; and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent, then that seal which God reserves in his own keeping, the seal of the Spirit, The Lord knows them that are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. But man is to seek who are the Lord's, God knows how to put to his seal to his own; man who hath not this knowledge must needs be here allowed a greater latitude; either men entrusted with it, must have the knowledge of God as to this particular, who they are in whom a new life is, and grace wrought; or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God, and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it: I know this argument is carried another way, and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account.

1. These seals of God (outward and inward) should answer each to other. Those that have the outward seal, they are to have the inward; those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impress of the Spirit on their souls. To which I answer, That the writing of the Word with Inke and Paper in the Bible, and the writing in the heart by the Spirit, should answer each the other: that is, every Christian should make it his business, to hide that Word in his heart, that by the Ministry sounds in his ears: and yet Christians are not warned, not to take a Bible into their hands, till the impress of that which is there is put on their hearts. The Word is delivered in a greater latitude, and so also must the Sacrament.

2. Some say, this Sacrament seals Gospel-promises, only they therefore that can claim the promise, and have their interest in it, can claim the seal, otherwise the seal is put to a blank; there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise. 1. I answer, this argument thus carried, speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments: they must see there is a Covenant-promise, or else they must not dare to put to a seal. To put any man's seal to a blank paper where nothing is written, is a vain use of that seal; It stands there as a cypher: Now to put God's seal to a blank where nothing is written, doubtless is as vain, and an high taking of God's Name in vain: according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters. (This inward work is that white stone with a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receives it ) Revel. 2.17. and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience (always at hap-hazard) must deliver them, anything written or not written, whether a blank or filled up, they cannot tells, but are all at uncertainties. 2. I answer, as is the seal, so is the Covenant, both of them external, and one must answer to the other: Now these in question (as hath been demonstrated at large) are in Covenant, An outward Covenant is by few questioned, and so the seal is put to no blank, but given to one interested in Covenant. It seals the grace of the Covenant, and mercy tendered in the promise on God's terms and propositions. So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit, and of the seal of the Sacrament, do conclude that men of no more then visible Church-interest may partake of it.

3. The Church de facto hath enjoyed it in this latitude, not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles, in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments, and the use of it in Austin's time, when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous, that they durst not deal with Church-censures; but look into the Scripture, though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice, (little mention being made of the administration after the institution) yet we know that this Sacrament was the privilege of visible members then in being, and it is clear enough, how far many, even then were short of sincerity. If that of 1 Cor. 11. be well weighed, we may well believe that the Primitive times were not acquainted with the rigor of some persons.

4. There is no reason that this Ordinance should stand alone, that in all other Ordinances there should be a greater latitude, (and men in an unregenerate state admitted, and not held out with limit to men, in whom a life of Sanctification through the Spirit is found) and this alone pent up in so narrow a compass. I know somewhat is said for the latitude of some Ordinances, that all are received to them, because they are Ordinances appointed for conversion of men unconverted. But this Plea in many will not serve; unregenerate men's admission to prayer, to thanksgiving, to fasts, hath been (that I know) questioned by few: And those that deny that the Lord's Supper hath any influence to conversion, have not asserted these to have any such efficacy or power: unregenerate men then must be admitted to the Supper, or else they must be denied to come to fasts, thanks-giving and prayer. Here some do distinguish between duties naturally Moral, and those that are of mere positive institution. Moral duties, as prayer, thanksgiving, &c. are confessed to belong in general unto all, but it is not so (as is objected) in duties of positive institution; they are given with limit to some, and are not of universal obligation. To which I answer, 1. By way of concession, positive Precepts bind not all, because they are not given to all: the Gentile Nations were not tied to the Law of Ceremonies given to the Jews, and mere Heathens are not now tied to our Sacraments. 2. For a positive answer I say, Positive Precepts were never given in charge with any such distinction as to bind the regenerate, and to exclude men in unregeneration. Men under sin, and in nature, are bound to the affirmative part of the second Commandment, to observe every way of worship that shall be instituted by God: all of which are only of positive right. All Israel were tied to sacrifice, as well as to hear, and pray; it was a sin not to sacrifice, as not to fear an oath, Eccles. 9.2. And all Christians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments, as they are to other duties. And as to the thing in hand, this distinction of Moral, and Positive duties (as I conceive) is of no use; for the positive Command being given, there is a Moral tie to yield obedience. Instance may be given in purely Ceremonial Precepts, that are seconded with this sanction, I am the Lord, Levite. 19.23, 24, 25. So that when a Precept merely Ceremonial was broke, immediately, yet the first Command was broken interpretatively, and by way of necessary consequence, the Law of nature tied Adam to abstain from the forbidden fruit, when God had given him a Precept not to eat of it; and the young man in the Gospel was also bound to sell all that he had, and give it to the poor, when Christ had manifested that it was his pleasure. There are texts indeed produced, seemingly taken of men under sin, from the performance of positive duties, as, Math. 5.23, 24. and as much may be said concerning those that are Moral, Ezek. 14.2, 3.20.2, 3. We read that the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination, Prov. 15.8. & 21.27. and as much is said of their prayers, Prov. 28.9. All which text • sufficiently imply God's dislike, when they are acted by such hands; but none of them imply man's disobligation.

Fifthly, This limit of the Lord's Supper to regenerate persons, as on the one hand it will take with the consciences of many sanctified Christians, to hold them back, as hath been said, even with all that stand short of assurance of grace; so on the other hand it will give encouragement to many unsanctified ones, to make address to it: Broken hearts under the body of sin having not yet attained to the light of God's smiling face, will be so severe in their own censure, as to hold themselves back. The generation of formal Professors pure in their own eyes, and not yet cleansed from their filthiness, Prov. 30.11. will flock to it. So that we must either find some other more sure rule, or else the hearts of many precious ones, whom God would not have made sad, will be saddened, and the hands of many in sin, upon their admission, will be strengthened.

I know there are Objections even without number multiplied, against this that I have here delivered, and such that have taken with very many, to carry them to determine the Point in hand in a contrary way: And in case I had not seen that the weakness of them is more and more discerned, and that by men of eminent parts and integrity, I should have been by the multitude as well of Objections, as Objectors, discouraged to appear against them. The duties of the Lord's Supper are such, (say some) that only the sincere servants of Christ, that are sanctified by Christ, are able to perform. The mercies of the Sacrament are such, as they only can receive; and therefore only these are the fit subjects of it. And these are driven on very far. The duties preparatory to the work, cannot be done by others, (as is objected) as self-examination, self-judging. The duties executory cannot be done, that accompany the work itself. How specious soever this argument appears, and I doubt not but it is with all sincerity of heart and integrity urged, yet I desire it may yet be further considered,

First, That this Argument, thus urged, doth disable all men not sanctified from all other duties by the command of God incumbent upon them, as well as from this duty; they must upon this account exclude themselves from every Ordinance enjoined of God as well as from this; put the argument into form, and this will easily appear. They that cannot do the duties charged upon those that are put upon a work, nor receive the mercies given in promise to it, are to be excluded from it: Now as these assume, An unsanctified man cannot discharge the duties, nor receive the comforts of a Communicant; so will I with equal reason assume, That an unsanctified man cannot perform the duties charged upon the hearers of the Word, upon him that calls upon the Name of God, or returns thanks to him; He cannot perform the duties that are charged puon him; that is, to sanctify the Sabbath, to meditate, to instruct his family, rebuke his brother, give alms, follow the duties of his calling. No unsanctified man does all that is required in the performance of any of these, neither is any fit to receive the mercies of these duties, that is unfit to receive the mercies of that duty; Therefore it follows that he must neither hear, pray, give thanks, sanctify the Sabbath, instruct or reprove any, give alms, labor in his Calling, or any other work. If any think to come off by way of distinction, That there is difference between this and other duties; Then the distinction should have been put into the Proposition, and it not delivered in that generality; and whensoever that distinction shall be put, I shall not doubt but an answer in the distinction will be suggested.

Secondly, Inabilities to perform duties, upon the bare account of natural corruption, in a right way, and in that acceptable manner, as to receive the comforts of them, do not discharge a man from obligation to the duty: In case indeed it could be proved, that God never gave the Sacrament in charge to an unsanctified man, but left this visible Ordinance, as a Legacy or charge to an invisible Society, whom none but themselves, can distinguish, and few of them able to distinguish themselves then the argument were of some force; but from the inability to reason against obligation to the duty, to take men off from it upon that account of weakness through natural corruption, will take all men off that are unregenerate from all duties.

Thirdly, Those that in this way disable all men in nature from these duties which are given in charge to a Communicant, upon that ground to keep them from the Sacraments, yet confess they may do this work in order at least to their own exclusion; they cannot examine themselves in order to receive, but they may and must examine themselves in order to hold themselves off from it. When the Apostle speaks to the whole visible Church of Corinth expressly, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. This few (say they) can reach; but to examine, and not to eat, is in the power of all the other.

Fourthly, Though these reach not the highest duties, and so come not up to the ultimate end of the Sacrament, yet they perform in their measure several duties, and reach the intermediate and subordinate end of it. They see Christ there evidently set forth, and crucified before them: There they see the highest aggravation of sin, Christ wounded for sin, bruised for transgression, under the Fathers wrath for man's guilt, suffering for sin, the just for the unjust. They see him bearing the sins of many, and they cannot nor may not exclude themselves from the number. They see there a ransom paid for sin, a discharge made to the Fathers Justice. They see Christ tendered, and offered: They may further oblige themselves to all duties required, as well to the interesting grace, which is faith, as to the qualifications of obedience; They do believe, Acts 2.12, 13. Luke 8.13. Joh. 12.42, 43. 1 Tim. 1.19. This faith is true in its kind, they do not only yield assent, but reach to some measure of joy, and delight, Luke 8.13. They are in Christ, their way of inhesion or implantation I shall not determine; But in the latitude as he is an head, he hath members that are inherent in him, he is an head of a Church visible, and hath many members suitable, as the Reader may see in Cobbet of Infant-Baptism, Conclus. 5. pag. 56. Whilest those hearers mentioned, Luke 8.13. believed, I cannot think it was the seeds-man's office, who had sounded the Word in their ears, to have withheld the visible Word from their eyes, or advised them to have withdrawn themselves. And as they do duties incumbent on Communicants, so also they receive mercies, many intermediate mercies, though in that state they receive not the highest and choicest mercies. They partake of the fatness of the Olive, Rom. 11. even all that come into that state that the blinded Jews, and the worst part among them did relinquish.

SECT. XII. Proposition 10.

THe Lord's Supper (as all other Ordinances of Christ) must be so administered, that the Kingdom of Christ may be most advanced, and the Church in her members most edified. Let all be done to edification, is the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 14.26. Not as an Apostolical Canon, (as Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy hath observed; for then, if the Apostle had been silent, that injunction had not been obliging) but as a necessary result from all that they had in charge from Jesus Christ; Prophecy exceeds unknown tongues, because it edifies, 1 Cor. 14.4. And unknown tongues are without profit, and of no use, without interpretation to edify, ver. 5. Therefore we have the Apostles resolution for public prayers, ver. 14, 15, 16, 17. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful: what is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and with understanding also; I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest; for thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. And for the preaching of the Word, ver. 18, 19. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more then you all; yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Matters circumstantial, and of themselves indifferent, if they be not reduced to this end, prove inexpedient, and to the doer evil. All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not, 1 Cor. 10.23. The whole of the Ministerial work, and every appendant to it must be reduced hither; what have builders to do but to edify? And if they edify not, what do they do? In what other metaphor soever their work is set out, this is still their business, the perfecting of the Saints, the edifying of the body of Christ, Ephes. 4.12. When they have done this, and made it their whole business, they may with confidence speak to God in the words of Christ, I have glorified thee, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do, Joh. 17.5. This thread, which runs through the whole of the Ministerial work, is not to be excluded here. Those of whom there is hopes that they are willing to learn Christ, are to be taken into Christ's School by Baptism, and those are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper that knowingly will engage for continuance, and coming on in the ways of Christ. Baptism is the entry door into the Church visible; no man must be refused of whom there is reason of expectation that they will be professedly Christ's. And the Lord's Supper is the means of the growth of those that are thus visibly and in the face of the Church received; where this may conduce to their building up, it is not to be denied, so that the dispensers great enquiry must be, whom the Lord's Supper may benefit, where it may edify? which according to Scripture rules may be discerned and determined, otherwise the Apostle had not given this charge, Let all things be done to edification; and where it may edify, to give it; and where it serves not for edification, to forbear it; not whether regenerate or unregenerate (which is an undiscernable work), and accordingly to admit or refuse.

SECT. XIII. Proposition. 11.

THere is nothing hinders but that the Lord's Supper with the Word as an appendant to it, may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest, to the terms and propositions of the Covenant; may serve to work a man of profession of faith, unto faith saving and justifying: a man in name the Lord's, to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavor by Arguments to confirm.

First, Men of that interest, that baptism receives, as the intention of the work in order to salvation; these the Lord's Supper serves, to carry on by sanctification to salvation, as the end of the work likewise: But Baptism receives men of visible profession only, and visible interest, as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation: Therefore the Lord's Supper carries on these by sanctification, as the intention of the work to salvation. The Proposition cannot be denied, unless we will without reason, bring in that vast difference between these two outward v ••• ble Ordinances, both entrusted in the hands of man, as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest, and the other restrained to invisible members; The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation, the other shall be in capacity to nourish, and bring on very few. The Assumption cannot be denied, That Baptism receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation, and hath been abundantly proved: we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness, which is only a visible interest: men of years were baptized, (and by just warrant yet may, in case not baptized) upon a visible profession. The conclusion then follows, that the Lord's Supper carries on those as the intention of the work, that Baptism receives to salvation.

Secondly, If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lord's Table, then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith, and sanctification to salvation: But it is the mind of God in the Gospel revealed, that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification, should have admittance to the Lord's Supper: The Lord's Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation. The Proposition is clear, unless we will make men's admission (most men's admission) merely vain, having no power, nor any capacity to advance their happiness, but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgment. Whatsoever the secret will of God (to us unknown) is, that in the event it shall prove; yet the work itself must have a tendency and power, respective to those for whom it is appointed, for edification, not for destruction. The Assumption is evident (that those of visible interest, having not attained sanctification, according to the mind of God revealed in his Word, should have admittance) by the bars that are assigned for men's exclusion. The alone bars that are ordinarily assigned, to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lord's Table, are ignorance, Error, and Scandal: But many that cannot be charged with ignorance, error, or scandal, are yet short of sanctification: Many short of sanctification then have no bar to their admission. Either visible interest, with capacity to improve it, or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission: But saving interest in • he Covenant cannot; then (to use Mr Cobbets words, Vindication, pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin, or anomie, breach of rule; or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule, never to administer any Church ordinances, since they sometimes shall break that rule in administering it to hypocrites; and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones, yet not being able to know that secret infallibly, they observe not the rule in faith, but doubtingly, and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations. If any reply, that saving interest in the Covenant, is the rule, but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule, but as far as our charity can judge men to be in grace, we must admit them to this seal of grace; To this I have several things to reply. 1. God never puts men's charity to this work, (as respective to admission to ordinances) to judge, whether in grace or not, whether regenerate or in unregeneration. And indeed charity (which is assigned by some to that place) is most unfit to judge. A Judge, or Umpire in a business must be impartial, and have nothing to bias him on any hand. But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins, which is no blemish of the grace, but a demonstration that this is none of its office. If then man must judge, (as he is most unmeet) his reason, and not his love must take the chair for it, and go as high as conjecture can reach. 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake, then the rule is broke; which though these will say is not the admitters sin, seeing the thing is not so scibile, or of possibility to be known, (and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge) yet a seal is by this means put to a blank, which is no small profanation, and the ordinance administered solely and necessarily for the receivers judgment. 3. Though we infallibly know a man's unsanctified condition, and were able to charge it; yet whilst it is not open, and breaks not into scandal, we cannot upon this account (as is confessed) exclude him from the Sacrament. That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper most of the Ancient held, as Maldonado on Matth. 7.6. observes; we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way. The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind; Ravanellus as the last man, in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it, and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant, yet Judas was known to Christ, to be a thief, a Devil, and yet he receives him. Christ had doubtless power vested in him for his exclusion. The non-suspicion of the Apostles, nor the close carriage of his treachery, could not then have excus • d his receiving, in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest, though unsanctified, might be admitted. And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister, and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witness, though it be a truth, yet it serves not to take off the Argument. Had it not been the mind of God that men of his interest should be received, then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it, and given him admission to it. And what he did, according to the mind of God as a Minister, by a Minister may be done. And to pronounce him at that time, that he received it, such that had no right for admission, yet to admit him, were such a precedent as Christ would not have given. Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account, that the knew what was in them, Joh. 2.23, 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one, in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God, that men of that standing should partake of it. If it be objected, that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation, being a reprobate: I answer, respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed, he was in capacity of improvement. The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiors, and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to God's revealed will, and not to that which is in God's secret purpose. Let us sum up the argument briefly into this form, Ministers must give the Sacrament, so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction: But they must give it to some not yet thoroughly sanctified: Therefore some not thoroughly sanctified may receive it to edification, and not to destruction.

Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joint strength, applied in power to the understanding, may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms, conditions, and propositions of the Covenant: may work men of profession of faith, to faith saving, and justifying: may work a man that is only in name the Lord's, to be truly and savingly his. This none can deny, if Law and Gospel cannot do it, in the way of instruments, and ordinances appointed of God, there is no way on earth in which it can be done: But in the Lord's Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and sum, the strength and vigor of Law and Gospel, applied in power to the understanding: Therefore the conclusion follows, that the Lord's Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant, men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified. The Assumption is clear, that in the Lord's Supper there is Law and Gospel, the epitome and sum, the strength and vigor both of Law and Gospel. There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out, Christ made a curse, and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin, even all that which sin according to the Law did demerit. There are sins bruises, transgressions wounds. There we have the sum and substance of the Gospel held out, Christ's death for remission of sin laid open. There we have Christ a curse, which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression. There we have Christ a sacrifice, which is that which the Gospel doth promise; all brought home, and applied to the understanding of the communicant.

Fourthly, That which is high in the aggravating of sin to the conscience, and clear in holding out the pardon of sin, may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying. This is clear, which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sin, in its aggravations, and Gospel tenders for the removal of it? The Assumption, that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated, and the removal of it held out, is also clear, and may easily per partes be proved. 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart, and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced, Zach. 12.10. They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born; and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament; I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers, and Elders met in the Provincial Assembly of London in their Vindication, where speaking to those that join with them at the Lord's Table, pag. 104. You must so remember Christ, as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental, to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him. Christ is presented in the Sacrament, as a broken Christ, his body broken, and his blood poured out. And the very breaking of the bread, understandingly looked upon, is a forcible Argument to break your hearts. Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you, and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him? Was he crucified for you, and will you crucify him by your sins? And besides, the breaking of the bread is not only ordained to be a motive unto brokenness of heart for sin, but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto. And, pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramental, as to find power coming out of Christ, to subdue all your sins and iniquities, as the diseased woman felt virtue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue: so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament, to heal all the sinful issues of our souls; there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified. And, pag. 106. You must continue in remembering Christ in the Sacrament, till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world, and all worldly things. Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world: and when he was crucifying, the whole world was in darkness and obscurity: and he is propounded in the Sacrament, as a persecuted, broken crucified Christ, despising, and being despised of the World. And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death, you will find virtue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world, and all worldly things. And, pag. 107. Cease not remembering Christ, till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility. Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in, humility is one of the chiefest, Matth. 11.29. Learn of me, for I am humble. And Christ in the Sacrament is presented, as humbling himself to the death of the cross for our sakes. And what a shame is it to remember an humble. Christ with a proud heart? The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental, when sanctified, is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts. And, pag. 110. To endeavor that your eyes may affect your hearts, when you are at the Sacrament. For as Christ in the Ministry of his Word, preacheth to the ear, and by the ear conveyeth himself into the heart: so in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eye, and by the eye conveyeth himself into the heart. And therefore it is well called a visible Sermon. What can be more plain then this to set the out the power of the Sacrament to soul contrition, true humiliation, and mortification? Too many that profess Faith have their hearts lift up, and live not by faith. Here is a way to bring them down, when they see sin to be of such a provoking nature, that only the sufferings of the Son of God are able to satisfy, that their demerit doth put him upon a necessity of all these woes. These are certainly heart melting considerations. If it be yet objected, that the Provincial Assembly at London speak to their own communicants, whom they suppose to be in grace. To this I reply, that in case that should fail, and some at least should have their predominant lusts lurking, and treachery against the Covenant (as in Judas against Christ) harboured, it can be of no danger, to say that here is a means to work them on to humiliation, and brokenness of spirit. 2. If any yet say, that their thoughts are otherwise of this Sacrament: I answer, their words best speak their thoughts, and we see what they say. The very breaking of the bread (say they) understandingly looked upon, is a forcible Argument to break your hearts, and the breaking of the bread may be looked upon understandingly by an unsanctified man: if there be truth in their Propositions, as I doubt not but they are most true, then my Conclusion is true likewise. We may make up (if you please) this part of the Argument thus: A sin aggravating ordinance is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lord's supper is a sin aggravating ordinance: Therefore it is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance. For the other branch of the Assumption, that this ordinance is the holding out of the pardon of sin, needs no proof. This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sin, Matth. 26.

Fifthly, That which is annexed to the Word to second it, in that very thing, which works the soul unto conversion to good, may bring the person of Covenant interest, up to the terms of the Covenant; may work one of profession of faith only, unto faith saving, and justifying. This none can deny: being added to the Word, as it's second in such a work, it well may have an hand in the working of it: But the Sacrament is annexed to the Word, to second it in that very thing, which works the soul unto conversion to God. The Assumption is manifest: If we consider what the Word does for conversion, and the whole, in which the energy and power of it (as an Ordinance) is exercised, then we shall soon see, that this Sacrament is added, as a second in that work. The Word converts, in holding out sin in its defilements and danger; in the discovery of the loathsome nature of it, and the cursed effects that follow upon it; together with Christ in the promises to save from it. I know no other way that the Word hath to bring a soul in sin to God, but in setting forth the lost and undone condition of it, and so to bring to conviction, compunction, and enquiry what to do; and then to make tender of Christ. In this method, souls (as we find on record) have been brought home to God, of which there might be frequent instances. Now that this Sacrament is added to the Word, for further discovery of sin, in the defilement and danger: to hold out Christ in his death, taking away sin, need not to be proved. It is true that the first detection of sin is by the rule of the Law, and therefore the Apostle says, By the Law is the knowledge of sin. In case the question be put, whether this, or that act be sin? then neither the tender of Christ in the Gospel, nor yet the Sacrament can have any hand in the determination of it; but they both serve for the aggravation of sin, to lay it open in the dimensions and danger of it. Sin is nowhere so seen in its height, as in the sorrows and sufferings of Christ, as is by all affirmed, and these sufferings we know the Word holds out for conversion from sin. And the visible Word of the Sacrament seconds the Word in this very thing, to set out Christ's death, to lay before our eyes Christ broken for us, both for the aggravation of sin, and for the pardon of it. Thus if you please you may put the argument; If the Sacrament doth the same thing as the Word doth in conversion, then the Sacrament cannot be denied to have an hand in conversion: But the Sacrament (as we see) does the same thing as the Word; it serves to the heightening of sin, and the setting out of the pardon of sin: Therefore it follows that the Sacrament may have an hand in conversion.

Sixthly, That which by frequent experience we see the Sacrament works toward, and for ought we are able to judge works unto, that we may well conclude, it is designed and appointed of God to work. This cannot fairly be denied; yet if any think that this of itself is not of full strength, seeing our experience may deceive us, we may conceive what is not, Let these then join to it what hath been already said. This experience added to so much evidence of reason, I doubt not but will be found to have strength in it. And I put it for their sakes that say, Let any give instance of any man or woman that hath at any time been converted by the Sacrament. And that there are frequent experiences of the Sacraments working towards this thing is plain. How frequent is it with men to have affrightings, soul-shakings, tremblings, strong present resolutions against sin, upon their approach to this Ordinance? being convinced of it to be a duty, that they ought to go to it. How mightily are their spirits often affected in it? If we make that an argument of the power of the Word towards wicked men in the affrighting and astonishment of them, in the terrifying and amazement, stopping for present their full swinge in sin and wickedness, as we know it is ordinarily with those that set out the power of the Word: see Dr. Reynolds on Psal. 110. pag. 150. why then should we not make the same effects that we see ordinarily produced by the Sacrament, to be evidences of the like power in the Sacrament? And as we read of an Ahab, a Felix, a Zedekiah, an Herod thus startled by the Word: so we may see and know such as these alike startled and affected at the Sacrament. Superstition perhaps works it in some: But we find the work in others, in whom such superstition hath no place. It can be no other then the Majesty of the Ordinance, the high aggravation of sin, and the glory of Christ set out in it. All this I confess many times comes to nothing, it is a fit and so over; it hath not the strength to bear down men's lusts to a full change, and through mortification, and so it is with those also that hear the Word. They are many times Sermon-sick, and yet all soon falls and comes to nothing; yet in the nature of the work itself it hath a tendency towards a change. And that this sometimes works those of Covenant-interest unto a true change, and through work of sanctification (so far as we are able to judge,) there are not few experiments; I have known some bred only for jollity and outward delights, that making address to the Sacrament have had those soul-shakings and trembling amazements, that have put them upon a serious way of enquiry, and the spark so kindled by God's blessing, hath been nourished up into that burning heat, that their whole life hath been spent in zeal for God, and their name in life and death precious.

Seventhly, To these we add, the acknowledgement of eminent Divines of an opposite judgment, who will have all admitted, present at the consecration of the elements, to see the bread broke and divided. And to what purpose is their presence, if not for their profit? and what profit can an unconverted man find in anything in a spiritual way, that works not towards his conversion, that is no ways useful or improvable for it? What others may judge I know not; these arguments to which some other might be added, have taken with me to conclude the position before delivered.

SECT. XIV. Objections against the former Proposition answered.

I Know that objections here are multiplied. I have read many, which in case they had been with me of weight, this that I am now upon, had been stifled in the birth, and more doubtless hath been said then I have seen, and more yet happily will be raised. To go about to meet with all were to make no end of words: I shall speak first to some general charges, after to some particular arguments.

First, In case this holds, (say some) then all upon that bare account are to be admitted to the Supper, who will hinder the conversion of any? yea even Turks, Pagans, and the vilest varlots, may then come and join in this Ordinance. To these I answer,

First, Were it of power, as an instrument in the hand of God for conversion of all, yet all were not to be admitted, when the will and mind of God is known to be against it: The Gospel in the mouths of the twelve, when they had their first commission, might have been of power for the conversion of Samaritans and Gentiles, yet they are forbidden to make tender of it to them, Matth. 11.5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter not. The word in Paul's mouth might have been (respective to any operation in itself) the conversion of souls in Asia and Bithynia, as well as in Macedonia, yet the Spirit forbids them to go to the former, and sends them to preach to the other, Act. 16.6.7, 10. If the mighty works which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would hav repented in sackcloth and ashes; yet they were denied to those of Tyre and Sidon, Matth. 11.21. So that though the Sacraments had a generally converting power, yet in case they be appointed of God with limit to those of Covenant-interest, they may not in any greater latitude be dispensed, and so Jews, Turks, and Pagans are excluded.

Secondly, The Word itself (which is confessed to be the power of God to salvation, and of the most large efficacy of any Ordinance for conversion) is not yet tendered to all, in any expectation of conversion by it. Not to speak of those to whom God in his providence doth deny it, (who are out of the pale of the Church) but those, to whom the Church doth not make mention of it: Infants, Idiots, distracted ones, and deaf persons, no Minister applies himself to them, to make tender of it for conversion; so that there must be not only a commission to tender it, and a clear evidence, that men have (according to the mind of God) an interest, but there must be a present capacity in such for improvement. I am not ignorant that some (seeing it seems that this doth lie against them) have pleaded for a capacity in all these before mentioned, to receive benefit by the Word, demanding, 1. Why are Infants, and pari ration distracted persons uncapable of the Word? An answer me thinks is at hand, because they are necessarily in the condition of the high-way-ground, to hear and understand nothing. They profit no more then those, 1 Cor. 14. that hear words in an unknown tongue. And in case they be in capacity (as is affirmed) to receive benefit from the Word, the Minister occasionally is to make out a word of exhortation to them, giving them their portion as well as others; which how it would sound in the ears of those that are of growth, and have their senses and understanding, let any judge. These further demand, Where hath God said they shall be kept from it? No more hath he said that the swallow, or the sparrow should be kept from it; by providenee they have been present, when those that would have improved such an opportunity in a Spiritual way, have been denied it. Yea, places are produced to show that God hath commanded infants to be present at Ordinances. But where is it commanded that Idiots, distracted persons, &c. should be present? Reasons may be given of infants presence at entry of Covenants, at solemn fasts, denuntiations of blessings and curses, when yet they are in an incapacity to receive benefit by the Word. Demand is yet further made, Who knows how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? may not the Word be an occasion of conversion unto infants, which is an instrument of conversion to elder persons? Such queries will bring in the most ignorant and scandalous to the Lord's Supper; who knows but that which is an instrument of nourishment of men converted, may prove an occasion of conversion to men unconverted? So that this notwithstanding the position delivered will not bear this inference that is drawn from it. Though the Lord's Supper (as an appendant to the Word) may serve to bring up those of Covenant-interest to the terms and Propositions of the Covenant; may work a man of profession of faith, to faith saving and justifying, yet there must be somewhat more to give actual admission to it. Put in these two Cautions. 1. That the persons in question have their interest and first right in it. 2. That they be in a capacity to improve it for their benefit; with these cautions, and not else, I am for a general admission.

Secondly, It is objected, That this makes the Lord's Supper to be a converting Ordinance as well as the Word, and how great an odium lies upon that opinion, what those be that maintain it, and what interest they drive, is very well known. To this I answer: The expression of a Converting Ordinance may be taken two ways: First, As having power of itself, as a single instrument in the hand of God, in his ordinary way to work a change in the heart or life. In this sense the converting power of it is to be denied. Secondly, As having some influence for that work as seconding and working with the Word, so I doubt not but that it may safely be owned, and easily justified. I shall lay down my whole thoughts of it in some Propositions.

First, In the Affirmative.

First, This Sacrament carries the soul on towards conversion, in doing the same thing as the Word does for conversion, in holding forth Christ crucified, in holding him out as our sin, and as our Savior, made a curse for us, and delivering us from the curse.

Secondly, In further engaging the soul, or the soul upon receiving the Sacrament engaging itself to that which the Word requires and calls for. If Covenants in Israel, entered by reforming Princes, were judged to be of that force for obligation of the soul to a change in their ways, putting stronger tyes on their slippery hearts, much more may we believe that the Sacraments in a due order received, may have this efficacious power. They serve (saith Mr. Hooker) as bonds of obedience to God, strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity, provocations to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of the principal benefits of Christ.

Thirdly, The Sacrament doth this in an ordinary way according to the revealed will of God in his Word, as the proper intention of the work, and not as anything extraordinary.

Fourthly, The Sacrament itself doth it, in that relation in which it stands to the Word, in its being and operation; and not the Sacramentals only, (as they have been called) as the Word preached, and prayer, which yet have a mighty influence on the Sacraments for this work.

Fifthly, It works as a second to the Word for habitual conversion, as well as actual; In the way that the Word doth work, for the infusion of the first grace, and not barely for the exciting and stirring up of grace in the soul. Their way of working I shall God willing in due place further inquire into.

Secondly, In the Negative.

First, The Sacrament converts none by the bare work done. There is no such power by receiving, to change the soul, as Papists believe there is by consecration to change the elements. There is neither reason for it, nor promise of it. I cannot believe (for I see no proof of it) any regenerating power in the water in Infants Baptism, much less can I have reason to believe such a converting power of grown persons in the Lord's Supper. He shall be alone for me that will appear in such Paradoxes.

Secondly, The command given, to take and eat of the bread, to drink of the cup, hath no such power to convert. None can see the reason of the change of their ways in any such injunction; Conversion were an easy work in case this could do it.

Thirdly, The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper must by no means be paralleled with the Word, in the work of conversion; but the Word many ways must have the preeminence: 1. The Word may work to conversion without the Lord's Supper; There are many in saving grace, that did never partake of this Ordinance. God's engagement by word and oath holds up the faith, and is the ground of strong consolation to those that never enjoyed this seal. But the Sacrament cannot convert or do anything towards it, without the Word. A Covenant may convey an interest without a seal, when a seal can never do it without a Covenant. 2. The Sacrament does nothing of its own strength, but by virtue from the Word; It hath its dependence on the Word for being, as a seal on a Covenant, and also for the operation. The Word may go alone in the work of conversion, yet may have assistance from the Sacrament; the Sacrament can never work alone without the Word, but as an assistant to it. 3. The Word must qualify the soul for the Sacrament, in laying open the nature and use of it; and the soul must attend what the Sacrament holds out, otherwise there can be no improvement of it for any spiritual benefit: And these things being premised, I wonder how any that seem to appear most on the contrary part can justly be offended, that I affirm, (and as I think, with so good reason prove) that the Lord's Supper may be assistant towards conversion in some, and may work with the Word, to carry the soul professing Christ up to it, especially when it shall appear that I would have the door of admission to stand at least little more wide then they themselves: And perhaps not so wide, as according to the practice of many of their judgment it stands already. Most of these acknowledge, that knowing persons, free from gross errors and scandals, may be admitted; others say, none but they, that in the judgment of charity appear to be indeed in Christ, may be received; in which they yet confess that men may be easily deceived: Either of these confess, that many unconverted partake with them, even when rules of admission (according to their own mind) are most tenaciously held. And in case it appear that these may receive benefit by the Sacrament, and their conversion possibly holpen on, especially if well followed on by the Word, why should they be troubled? I confess it is to me no small trouble, to see godly Ministers of the opposite way, so much ensnared in their own principles, and necessitated to let in such (where most of order is held, and discipline exercised) that of necessity further their damnation, and are in impossibility (according to their tenets) to improve it towards salvation.

Thirdly, It is yet further objected, That in this doctrine we oppose the unanimous judgment of Protestant Divines, who generally teach, that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church, as sealing Ordinances, not to give, but to testify what is given; not to make, but confirm Saints; simply denying the instrumentality of Sacraments, that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not. And that we concur with Papists, who hold that the Sacraments are instruments, to confer, give, or work, grace, ex opere operato. But how unjust this charge is, in both the parts of it, might easily be made manifest.

First, For that charge of joining with the Papists, let any judge, who comes nearest to their doctrine of the efficacy of this Sacrament. Not to mention the opus operatum, which is alike detested of both, (whatsoever is charged) but inquire further what they deliver of the efficacy of it. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. quaest. 73. art. 3. putting differences between Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, assigns this for one; Baptism is the beginning of spiritual life, and the entrance of the Sacraments. The Eucharist is the consummation of spiritual life, and the end of all Sacraments. And further, The receiving of Baptism is necessary to begin spiritual life; The receiving of the Eucharist is necessary for the consummation of it. The Council of Florence, quoted by Suarez, dispute. 7. Quaest. 62. saith, By Baptism we are spiritually born again, and are nourished by the Divine Alimony of the Eucharist. Suarez, dispute. 63. Quaest. 79. lays down this conclusion. This Sacrament is not instituted, per se to confer the first grace; and confirms it by multiplicity of Authors, and the Churches custom, who never used to give the Sacrament unless it be to those whom she believes to be cleansed from sin by Baptism or penance. And thus argues it by reason. The Sacrament (saith he) doth not suppose the effect that it serves to work, but this Sacrament doth suppose the man to be just that receives it. 2. Meat (saith he) is not ordained of itself to quicken or raise the dead, but to nourish or strengthen a man already alive. But this Sacrament is instituted, as meat and drink. And though he after affirms that this Sacrament sometimes, and as by accident confers the first grace, (which according to his principles he hath much a do to make out) yet he acknowledges that many and grave Divines held the contrary, quoting, Gabriel, Alensis, Bonaventure, and Major. And their distinction is well enough known. That as a Sacrifice offered, it takes away sin; but as a Sacrament received, it only nourishes, and increases spiritual life. By all which it appears how far those of that part are from assent to this position; and no marvel, when they will hold their communicants in that ignorance, as to look after no more then consecration, to inquire nothing into the institution. The way of the Sacraments work, as a visible Word, as a demonstrative sign in the aggravation of sin, and tender of pardon, is to them a mystery.

As for the other part of the charge, which is the opposition of the unanimous judgment of Protestant Authors; I know many are produced speaking of the Sacraments, as no causes of spiritual life, or vessels to convey it; but as seals and testimonies of God's good will towards us. To which I fully subscribe, as after shall (God willing) appear. But how far most of them come short when they are thoroughly examined, of that position which is laid down as their opinion, That they are appointed to seal unto a man that saving interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace that he hath already, may easily be demonstrated. First, That position hath that confusion in it, that many of them will not own, and is inconsistent almost with all their principles. This makes interest in the Covenant of grace, and interest in Christ (which is understood of interest as a lively member) the same, when it is well known that they make Covenant-interest far more large then interest in Christ; see Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, pag. 48. quoting not alone Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Austin, among the Ancient; but also Ames, Chamier, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Melanchthon, Mr. Philpot, for this latitude of the Covenant. Pareus, (who is not looked upon as any dissenting man from the rest of his brethren) speaks fully. When it was objected that all Israel was not in Covenant with God, nor all the infants of Christians, because some among them were, and are reprobates, he answers, To be in Covenant, or to have interest in it, is taken two ways, either according to the right of Covenant, or the benefit of it. He is in Covenant that either obtains the benefits of the Covenant, which are pardon of sin, Adoption, regeneration, salvation, or which hath only the right or outward symbol of the Covenant. He applies his distinction that, that proposition, That no reprobate is in Covenant with God, is only true of the benefits of the Covenant, which heretofore were, and still are peculiar to the Elect; but being understood of the right, and outward symbol of the Covenant it is to be denied; for that indifferently belongs to all that are born in the Church, among which many are reprobates, as the event doth demonstrate; neither is it lawful for the Church to exclude any, that by their own impiety do not exclude themselves (which Israelites in times past did, and Apostatizing Christians now do, to their greater damnation) whether they be of those that by a true faith receive the benefits of the Covenant, or whether they be those that remain hypocrites. All of his practice must necessarily be of his judgment, unless we believe that their practice militates against their principles. And that this is the practice of the reformed Churches in general, needs not to be shewn.

Secondly, They cannot then baptize any upon the account of Covenant-holiness, but only holiness of regeneration. This is plain. If the right be theirs alone that have their interest as in Covenant, so also in Christ, only these must be baptized, or else we must baptize without right. And that they do not only baptize, but dispute for Baptism upon a bare Covenant-interest without any further title is manifest.

Thirdly. This stands not with that which they hold concerning the way of the Sacraments sealing, which according to them can be no evidence that he does believe, as some assert, evidences of faith must be in the soul, and not in the Sacrament; neither doth it absolutely make up to the soul the benefit of the Covenant, then no man without infallible revelation (such as it seems Ananias had concerning Paul ) could administer it. It seals the benefits of the Covenant upon God's terms and propositions, which when the soul makes good, there is God's seal for performance. That this is the judgment of Protestant Divines, I have elsewhere declared, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 35, 36. so that their Doctrine of the Sacraments doth not oppose the position delivered.

Hitherto I have considered some general charges against this position; now I must look into some Arguments in form produced against it.

First, Sacraments, (say some) are signs, as appears in their definition, and not causes of what they signify; signs declaring and showing that we have Faith in Christ, remission of sin by him and union with him.

To let that slip pass, making them no causes, because they are signs, as though no sign were a cause of the thing signified: This to me is as strange as new, that Sacramental signs declare, and show that we have faith and remission of sins. The Sacrament now in question, is a sign of the body and blood of Christ, in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know; but that it is a sign either that we do believe, or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing, (to which this engages, but not presupposes) I know not. Simon Magus had not Baptism, to signify that all his sins were forgiven; but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven. Mr. Cobbet says well, Vindication, pag. 54. The initiatory seal, which holds true of the other seal, is not primarily and properly the seal of man's faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of God's Covenant rather; the seal is to the Covenant: even Abraham's Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abraham's faith of righteousness, but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant; yea, to the Crvenant itself or promise, which had believed unto righteousness: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. I confess it is a symbol of our profession of faith, but this is not the faith spoken to, neither is remission of sins annexed unto it.

Secondly, That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith, doth not work conversion and faith: But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper supposeth conversion and faith. The Minor is proved, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.36, 37. ver. 41. Act. 10.4.7. All which texts are spoken of Baptism, and not of the Lord's Supper. To that text, Mar. 16.16. I have spoken fully, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 243. To that, Act. 8.36, 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38. I have spoken, pag. 396. and there is no need that I should repeat what I have said. For Act. 2.41. They that gladly received his Word, were baptized, It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel; and whether this necessarily implies saving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Matth. 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be consulted. For, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title, such gifts gave Judas a title not only to baptism, but Apostleship; such a faith may be had, and sanctification wanting.

Thirdly, That which gives us new food, supposeth that we have the new birth, and Spiritul life; and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins: But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper gives us new food: Ergo.

Ans. 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogisms.

2. A difference may be put between ordinary food, and living and quickening food: It may be true of the former, but not of the latter.

3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food, 1. Pet. 2.2. and yet presupposeth not new life. If any reply, that the Word is more then food; it is seed as well as food, and it gives not new life as food, but as seed. I answer that the Sacrament is more then food. There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating, which some say may be done to edification and profit, by those that are not admitted to be partakers; where they divide I may distinguish, and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin: to carry on the work of contrition and compunction.

Fourthly, That Ordinance which is instituted only for believers and justified persons, is no converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But this Sacrament is instituted only for believers and justified persons. The Minor is proved, Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.17. much more then Baptism; and if Baptism, much more the Lord's Supper.

Ans. Upon this account it must needs follow, that as Abraham was a justified man, so Ishmael was justified also, who according to the mind of God, and in obedience to his commands was circumcised, Gen. 17.23. yea, every Proselyte that joined himself to Israel, and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified. 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person, yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification, but a distinct text of Scripture, Gen. 15.16. quoted by the Apostle, ver. 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith, and not by works, the Apostles words only show that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant, not of works, but of faith; so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument, are a full answer here.

Fifthly, The Apostle argues, that Abraham the Father of the faithful, and whose justification is a pattern of ours, was not justified by Circumcision. Circumcision was not the cause, but the sign of his justification. Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication.

Ans. Though animadversions might be made on these words, yet if any will put them into form, I shall grant the conclusion, when I say the Sacrament, as an Appendix to the Word, may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith, I am far from saying it is any cause of justification; I look on faith no otherwise, then as an instrument in the work, and the Sacrament as an help, and not the principal to the work of faith.

Sixthly, There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer.

Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance: But the Supper of the Lord, the marriage feast of the Kings Son, is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument.

Ans. 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tenderness. But in this Argument here is much boldness, to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast. 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it, that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom, as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper, Luk. 14.15. And when one of them that sat at meat with him, heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Now those that pretend a forwardness towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it, (according to the scope of the Parable) shall be cast out from it. This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances, and yet remain in their sins, shall come to heaven; But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance, then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word; The Word may lay as fair a claim to this wedding feast, as the Lord's Supper.

Eighthly, That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not appointed to work faith; Ergo. The Assumption is proved, Rom. 10.14. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God; then not by seeing; if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament.

Ans. If faith comes by hearing, will it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from, but must exclude seeing? Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apostles, yet nothing towards faith by their search of the Scriptures? Act. 17.11.12. or did they not make use of their eyes in the search that they made? When Christ had Preached to the Jews not yet in the faith, and commended to them the search of the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. can we think that this search could be no step in their way of believing? Why were miracles wrought, if they were of no use to the work of faith f What comment shall we make on those words, Joh. 2.23. Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles that were done? If the Word do work faith, it will by no means follow, but that it may take in assistance by miracles, and Sacraments, by signs extraordinary and ordinary. That consequence, if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament, will never hold, till the Word and Sacrament are proved to be opposite, and not subordinate.

Ninthly, That Ordinance, which hath neither the promise of the grace of conversion annexed unto it, or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper hath no such promise of the grace of conversion, neither is there such an example: Ergo.

Answ. For Examples, though we could give instances of men being converted by receiving of the Lord's Supper, yet it would still be denied to have any possible influence towards conversion; as the last Argument is an evident witness. We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by seeing, and yet it is still denied that fight can be any help towards it. And though we could bring a promise of such grace annexed, yet we should have little hopes to be heard or heeded, seeing we can bring a Promise of blessedness to reading, which is by sight, as to hearing, Rev. 3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy. 2. We have as many examples of men's conversion by the Sacrament, as we have of their receiving strength and nourishment: If one may be asserted without an example, then then other likewise. 3. We have no particular precedents by name (except at first institution) of any that were Communicants, and therefore we cannot expect examples of conversion, or receiving of strength by communicating. 4. The examples of conversion by the Word perhaps well examined, would prove short of such conversion as here is intended. The conversion in Gospel narratives is to a Christian profession. A man may evince calling thence, but not elctdion, and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament, seeing it must precede the receiving of the Sacrament.

As to that of no promise made to it, 1. When the adversary shall bring a promise made to the Sacrament for Spiritual strength, it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life. 2. Though we have no promise explicit, and express; yet we have promises implicit and virtual. Every promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament; The Sacrament being not opposite, but subordinate to it, an appendant that receives strength from it.

Tenthly, That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake, is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake: Ergo. The Minor is proved, 1 Cor. 11.27.

Answ. This Argument well followed will take off every Ordinance from that honor of conversion, as well as this of the Lord's Supper: seeing many Texts may be produced, equally calling for qualifications for them as for this, equally showing the danger of unworthy addresses. As to this for hearing the Word, see 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new-burn babes desire the sincere milk, of the Word, that ye may grow thereby. Jam. 1.21. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engraffed Word, which is able to save your souls. Is not the Word a favor of death unto death to such? 2 Cor. 2.14, 15, 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them? Matth. 11.24. For prayer to God, see James 1.6, 7. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea, driven with the wind, and tossed; for let not that man think:; he shall receive anything of the Lord, 1 Tim. 2.8. I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting: Good will never be had by such men's prayers. Isaiah 1.15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, your hands are full of blood. Zach. 7.13. Therefore it is come to pass, that he cried, and they would not hear: so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of Hosts. Shall we now say, that neither Word, nor prayer is a converting Ordinance? But perhaps it will be said, Men unworthy must hear, must pray to be made worthy, must come in unconversion to be converted. But they must bring worthiness hither, or else this can have no hand in making worthy they must bring conversion, or else this cannot convert. This is a begging of the question. And as to prayer, there is no more ground, or color to make it a converting Ordinance, then the Supper; we must pray in faith, before we can pray, with acceptance of our persons, and so must the Word be mixed with faith when we hear it, Heb. 4.2.

Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is eucharistical and consolatory, supposeth such that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given, and are such as are fit to be comforted: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance eucharistical and consolatory: Ergo.

Answ. And might not the Assumption. as well have been, That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances eucharistical, and consolatory? I hope none will deny the Gospel (our good tidings) to be eucharistical, and consolatory; nor yet thanksgiving which is a branch of prayer. And then in case the Proposition be of universal truth, both Word, Prayer, and Lord's Supper, are excluded from any power of conversion; The Proposition then must be understood with limit, and restriction; That Ordinance, which in whole and in part is eucharistical and consolatory, can have no hand in conversion, and then (though perhaps exception might be taken at it) it had color in it: But then the Assumption, That this Ordinance is in whole and in part eucharistical and consolatory, must be denied. It is for humbling, heart-breaking, as it is comforting: There we show forth Christ's death, and see him broken for sin; and it is no matter of consolation, but humiliation and horror to see our souls under that guilt that brought upon Christ a necessity to suffer; Though it is a matter of consolation, that guilt by suffering is removed, and an atonement made, in which there is either present assurance, or at least a possibility of future actual interest.

Twelfthly, That Ordiinance, unto which Christ calleth none but such that have spiritual gracious qualifications, is not a converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications; Ergo. The Assumption is proved, Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37. Isa. 55.1. Matth. 22.12. 1 Cor. 11.28. Cant. 5.1.

Answ. Only one of these speaks of the Lord's Supper, the rest have immediate relation to Christ, not to this Ordinance, of the Supper and positive spiritual qualifications, as preceding all coming, is not required in any of them; upon sense of want, we may come to Christ for spiritual qualifications; (as wen may come with them) though without positive spiritual qualifications there is no assurance of interest in him. 2. As to that worthiness which is spoken to, in that Text of the Corinthians, there is an usual distinction of worthiness of merit, and worthiness suitable to the work in hand; It is the latter only, that, as is confessed, is called for. There is yet a double suitableness to the work: One is complete, answering to all that the work can call for, which comprises grace, not only in the habit, but in the act; an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it; and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing, praying, &c. as in this Orainance of communicating. The other is a worthiness, respecting the person that doth communicate: such a worthiness of suitableness and conveniency, whereby according to the measure of grace vouchsafed (whether common; or saving) he addresseth himself to it. Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his person, as he only hears and prays with such acceptance: yet a man in unregeneration may be so far suitably worthy for this work, that he may know himself called untp it, and that it would be his sin to hold back from it: and he may hopeuMlly expect blessing in it: and such a worthiness was in Christ's and John Baptists hearers, so many of them as have their commendations in the Gospel for such ready and forward hearing; and such a worthiness, as I take it, is mentioned, Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Consider, whether either the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , indign, or the context in that place will necessarily take in every unregenerate man, or rather the irreverend prOphanation of that duty; and whether arguments drawn from want of saving faith, and sincere repentance in performance of this work, do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in fasting, praying, thanksgiving, hearing, Sabbath-keeping, and every other duty of worship whatsoever.

Thirteently, That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints, is intended only for such as are Saints, and not for unconverted sinners: But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints, and those that are members of the same body of Christ. The assumption proved, 1 Cor. 1016, 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2.

Answ. Saint, is either such that are so by calling and separation for God, or else by qualifications and regeneration from God. In the former sense, unconverted sinners, prosessing the Gospel, are Saints: as of old they were of the people of God, and called by his Name: Saint is a New Testament-word, taking in all of a Christian profession, and outward Covenant-interest, and then the Proposition is to be denied; Saint being taken in the latter sense, the assumption is false. This Lord's Supper is a privilege of the Church as visible, dispensed by visible officers, not as invisible, as those very Texts quoted do manifest.

Fourteenthly, If Baptism itself (at least when administered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far less is the Lord's Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance: But Baptism itself (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance: Ergo.

Answ. This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of regeneration or conversion, by the very work done in Baptism, and the Lord's Supper; which seeing I do not own, but in either of both disclaim, I need to give no further answer.

Fifteenthly, If the Baptism even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lord's Supper, then the Lord's Supper is not a converting, but a sealing Ordinance: But Baptism even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lord's Supper: Ergo.

Answ. I see no necessity of this consequence, unless I should believe that all that are baptized, are ipso facto regenerate; and that not with an initial regeneration (of which some speak) that may be lost, but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides forever; But being not (as I am not) of that faith, I suppose a baptized man may be (to use Pareus his phrase) Christianus non regeneratus, sed regenerandus, a Christian not regenerate, but to be regenerate: and so regeneration may, as ordinarily it doth, not precede, but follow Baptism.

Sixteenthly, There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal, There is a robe ring, and shoes put upon him, and a fatted calf killed for him, but this when he comes to himself, and says, Father, I have sinned, &c. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper more especially, and manifestly then in any other Ordinace: Ergo.

Answ. All Ordinances (as I take it) are to bring a prodigal unto such a returning posture, in the discovery of the hatefulness of sin against such a Father, and the riches that are in his Fathers family. There are some Arguments of this nature follow, which may seasonably be spoke to in the close of these Propositions. I shall only here by the way, hint so much to the Reader, that in case these Arguments had been framed against the power of this Sacrament, for conversion the sense as generally the opposers of it understand it, that it works, as a medicine to heal, and hath an opus operatum in it: I should not at all have undertaken them, how inconcluding soever I had judged them: But seeing a tendency in them, to interest alone, men already in grace in this Ordinance, and denying all hope of benefit by it, to the majority of those that men, of all interests ordinarily admit to it, to the necessary ensnaring of all that are concerned in the administration of it, I could not be silent; let the Reader impartially weigh and determine.

SECT. XV. Proposition. 12.

THose that are in a present inaptitude, and incapacity to improve this Sacrament to any spiritual advantage, but are under an inevitable necessity, either to receive no good, or much danger, and damage (whatsoever interest they may claim, or on their behalf be claimed) are justly debarred from it, and in present denied admission to it. And on the contrary, All that are in a present aptitude, and capacity to improve it for spiritual advantages are regularly to be received and by no means to be denied. This is plain, it must be administered to the Churches advantage, and edification, unto every members possible advantage; They that are in an utter incapacity to receive benefit, are in all reason to be denied it, and those of capacity to be received to it. Some would have those debarred (or at least to debar themselves) that hopefully may profit; and we may not plead for their admission, that are, in the judgment of all reason, in an incapacity of profiting. Those that stand in this present incapacity, are of two sorts; 1. Such that through inabilities cannot make any improvement of it. 2. Such that resolvedly, and obstinately will not.

Those that through inability cannot, are of four sorts.

First, Those that by reason of minority and non-age are not yet ripe for the use of reason, as Infants, and younglings.

Secondly, Those that by providence are denied it, as natural idiots.

Thirdly, Those that are berest of it, as distracted persons, aged persons grown children.

Fourthly, Those that by their gross neglect in spiritual things, never made improvement of it.

First, Infants, These the Church, as well Popish, as reformed by an universal received custom denies to admit; As the Disciples sometimes rebuked those that brought infants to Christ to receive a blessing: so the Church now provides, that none shall bring them to partake of this Sacrament. And though the Disciples suffered a check from our Savior's mouth in the one. Infants having title to, and being in a capacity to receive benefit by that Church-privilege, as being Church-member: yet we believe the Church is free from reproof in the other, upon the ground laid down before, viz. their incapacity to improve it to their spiritual benefit. It is true that the practice in the Church for at least some Churches) anciently was otherwise: as those know, that are verst in antiquity; several quotations out of Dionysius Areo pagita, Cyprian, Austin, the Council of Tolet, may be seen in Suarez, dispute. 62. quaest. 79. Art. 8. sect. 4. Though according to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius his words make not for it, as may be seen, part. 3. quaest. 80. Art. 9. This custom Maldonado in Joh. 6.53. saith continued in the Church, 600. years, but he only saith it; and Suarez in the place before quoted says, it was never received of the whole Church, and perhaps (saith he) the practice was not Common, seeing there is no more mention of it among the Ancient; and quotes the opinion of some, that day, The Fathers never observed this custom, but only tolerated it, because they could not resist the multitude. And one that speaks enough in favor of it, finds the practice of it in Africa, and Europe, but can bring no testimony out of Asia for it; only he says, that he does not read, that the custom was contrary in any part of Asia. The Schools have disputed infants capacity of it; Thomas Aquinas, in the place quoted, is against it, together with many others, whose names Suarez mentions. Suarez himself is for the affirmative, that infants are in capacity of it, as that which (he saith) is far the more probable, and hath most reason and authority for it. And in the conclusion hath much ado to excuse the Church of Rome for the neglect of it, as Jansen hath for their Communion only in one kind, Harmon. Evang. cap. 131. when the practice of all antiquity he confesses was otherwise; and Bellarmine for their eating on fast days before the evenning against all Scripture precedent, Bellar, de bon. oper. lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Church of Rome herself hath reformed this, and hath not put our Reformers to the trouble of it, though a man might wonder what moved them to it, giving so much to this Sacrament as they do, to confer grace by the work done, and to fortify the foul against Satan. But it is plain, that the high reverence they gave to their transubstantiated elements, moved them to it, lest anything unworthy of them should befall them; upon the same account that they deny their cup to their laity, they deny the bread to those that are in minority, see Jansen ut supra: an eminent Writer of the Protestants appears much in favor of this practice, not upon the reasons that moved those Fathers, (which was a supposed necessity of it grounded on those words of Christ, Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, understanding it of Sacramental eating at the Lord's Table) but on other grounds, 1. Those that are partakers of the thing signified, are not to be denied the sign. 2. Infants are of the Church, they serve to make up that body, and Christ the Savior of the body. 3. Christ himself saith. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of heaven. And from each of these he draws up formal Arguments for infants admittance. And he supposeth that that text which is brought as a bar to hold them back, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, may be easily answered, that it is to be understood of those only that are in danger to eat and drink unworthily, and so to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, of which (saith he) there is no fear of infants. These Arguments undoubtedly are of strength to conclude their fundamental right and title, as to baptism, so to the Lord's Supper, but they are two weak, to give them actual admission; They conclude their jus ad rem, but not their jus in re; They have upon these grounds a first right, but they must wait a further growth till they have a second. Baptism gives right in the face of the Church to all Christian privileges, and this is a Christian privilege; so also the hearing of the Mysteries of Faith, the highest of Mysteries, to be taken into debate of doubts, of the highest nature are Christian-privileges, yet as every baptized person hath not forthwith these high Mysteries communicated to him, nor yet is admitted to such high debates, as Christ was at the age of 12. years which is recorded as a miracle: so neither are they therefore to be actually admitted to the Lord's Table. And if that text of preexamination may be avoided, yet sufficient may be said for a bar to their admission. They cannot do that which is outwardly to be done at this Table, they cannot take and eat; see Whitaker, pag. 373. And in case the bread be put into their mouths, it is more like to be cast out then eaten. They cannot answer the end of the Sacrament, to do it in remembrance of Christ, or to show forth the Lord's death in that ordinance; And so no possible benefit can be conceived in reason to come to them by it. In baptism it is otherwise, there is nothing required to be done by him that is baptized. It is sufficient to be passive, there is advantage by it, the person (whether infant or of age) is enrolled into the society of the people of God, is a member of the body of Christ, visible, mystical: and upon that account interested in the prayers and blessings of the Church: is enrighted, and upon that account, as growth makes fit, to be admitted to other privileges, and as soon as of any discretion to discern, they know to what society they do belong, and accordingly to apply themselves; And therefore infants have a bare fundamental right to the Lord's Table, but actual admission to Baptism. And where as it is objected, that infants had not only right to the Passover, but were also actually admitted to it, they had not only their jus ad rem, but their jus in re, and consequently infants have like right to the Lord's Supper: To this I answer, 1. That infants properly so called, did not eat of the Passover, being by reason of infancy in an incapacitie, for such solid meats, as Rivet observes. 2. It nowhere appears, that infants did partake otherwise then as they were involved in the household. There is no Ordinance requiring infants to repair to the place that God chose for it; It is for those males (saith Ainsworth) which were free-men perfect, males in health, able to go up to the place of public worship: quoting withal the Rabbies Authority, That all men are bound, except the deaf and the dumb, and the fool, and the little child, and the blind, and the lame, and the uncircumcised, and the old men, and the sick and the tender, and the weak that were not able to go on their feet. When we read of the pains that they took to go up to Jerusalem on these occasions, through the valley of Baca, Psal. 84.6. we hear nothing of their pains to carry along their infants, which must have been their care if by Divine appointment the Paschal Lamb as a Sacrament had been ordained for infants. 3. The Passover as Manna, and the Rock is considered two ways. 1. As common food, and means of present livelihood and subsistence. 2. As visible pledges of God's abode among them, and protect • on of them. As common food, and means of present livelihood, infants did eat of the Manna, and drink of the water of the Rock, and so also did their cattle, Num. 20.8. and young ones (as soon as able to digest it) of the Passover, when they were present with the rest, of the household: But as visible pledges of God's abode among them, and protection of them, or remembrance of their present deliverances; only professed believers, and neither infants, nor brute creatures could make use of it, and in this sense only it was a Sacarment: so that we see infants title, and also their bar to this Ordinance.

For those that by Providence are denied the use of reason, as natural Idiots, their case is the same with infants, as also those that are best of it, as distracted persons, and those that by age, or disease are grown as Children: Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted distinguishes of distracted persons, some wholly want the use of reason, and some have only a weak use of it; as some see not at all, and some have a weak sight. The latter in some case being restored in part to the use of reason, he would not have to be denied; In this case prudence must judge, in case before this stroke, by the hand of God upon them, they were judged meet for this Ordinance, as they were for other civil employments, and now upon recovery or upon their intervals (as many times it happens) are able in some good measure to manage their business; as way is given to them in one, so it is not to be denied them in the other.

For those that never made improvement of their reason in spirituals, but being men of years, are still children in knowledge, they have their title or fundamental right, (as I said before of infants) but they are no more meet for this Ordinance then infants; such I mean, that for the time might be teachers, and yet have need to be taught which be the first principles of the Oracles of God. If I should demand, why boys and girls as soon as they can eat of the Bread, and drink of the Cup, be not received to this Supper; but all in non-age by general consent exempted, and therefore none offer themselves? No reason (to me imaginable) can be given, but their inability of improvement of it to their Spiritual advantage; years of discretion are expected, and then they are to be admitted: and this is generally acknowledged to stand with reason, And what reason is there that without any discretion they should be admitted at the usual year of discretion? At one and twenty years men arrive at the age to enter upon their possessions: yet when it may appear that at these years they have not abilities to manage it for their benefit, the Law hath provided that they shall not be entrusted with it. The ignorance before mentioned in the several kinds was ignorantia purae negationis, They understand not, because God hath denied them understanding: It is their defect or affliction, but it is not their sin; this that we now mention, is ignorantia pravae dispositionis, a withstanding of the light that is tendered and offered. All of these are in an equal incapacitie of benefit by the Sacrament: but these last in a sinful incapacitie. And when the former, whose ignorance is not their sin, are confessed to be uncapable, I do not see how sin can put the latter into a better capacity of it. When a Covenant was entered in Israel, Nehem. 9.10. all sorts and sexes having knowledge and understanding entered, Nehem. 10.28. If any had sworn to the articles, and had not at all understood them, such an oath would have done no service; therefore it was provided, that only they that understood, subscribed, and sealed. They that receive this seal, and consequently put to their seal, when they know not the articles of it, or any use of these Sacramental signs, they see not themselves at all obliged, when the Covenant of Israel was to be sealed understandingly, the Covenant of the Gospel is not to be sealed ignorantly: A book in the hand of the unlearned that cannot read, is of as much use as this Sacrament to him that doth not understand. It is to these, as the painted frontispices that we see in many books, without any key to open them; they be full of mysteries, but the ignorant beholder sees nothing but an outside. He may gaze an hour together, and be as wise as before. Such an one sees bread and wine, but what they mean, he knows nothing, nor any proportion between sign and thing signified, or what the Ministers tender, or his own receiving speaks to him. These may (perhaps) have some blind devotion towards this Sacrament (which Popish Schoolmen judge sufficient, if not obstructed with mortal sin) by reason of the Churches custom to receive it, and some high opinion of some hidden and unknown virtue in it, but it is not the least account that they can give of any necessity of it, as a reason of their devotion towards it, being scarce able to produce any command for it, not knowing either the author, time, or end of the institution of it; much less are they able to understand any need their souls have of it. When the Corinthians came unworthily to the Lord's Table, all is laid upon this, that they discerned not the Lord's body: I do not think that this is alone the ignorant man's sin: All are in their measure guilty that do not considerately observe the glory of that Ordinance, and of Christ in it. A man of rude behavior, in a great Personages presence, is told that he knows not where he is, or to whom he speaks, when he well enough knows, and needs no information; but doth not consider his distance: but I say there is a necessity of that guilt in all that are ignorant. All do not consider as they ought, that know; but none that does not know, can consider. This is to be done in remembrance of Christ, which contains in it a calling into our thoughts all the work of his sacrificing himself for sin, which is never done by the man that knows not sin, that knows not the Law, which is transgressed by sin; that neither knows the nature of sin, nor the guilt of attending it; that hath not any possible experimental sense of the danger of it, and that remains ignorant of Christ that redeems from it; being able to give no account why the blood of Christ, rather then the blood of any other should take away sin; or how this death hath any such satisfying temitting virtue, as to answer the Justice of God, or merit his Grace; neither knowing the Person of Christ in his humanity, or Deity, nor able to give account which Person in the Trinity took our nature, and gave himself a ransom: perhaps they will say that Christ was God, and Man; and as ready to say that the Father, the Holy Ghost, were God and man in like sort: knowing as little or less of his offices, what he does as a King, or what he does as a Priest, or what he does as a Prophet, for his Church. If you look on the Sacrament as a spiritual medicine, they never knew their souls sickness, nor ever understood any healing virtue in it. If you look upon it as spiritual food, for the strengthening of graces, they never knew what hunger was, or any strengthening virtue that here can be found: look upon it as a spiritual cordial, and they never had sense of sin to any swooning fit, nor yet knew any restaurative virtue to be found in it: look upon it as an heart-breaking, soul-melting Ordinance, as the Law never discovered to them the danger of sin, so they see nothing here held out for the aggravation of sin. They see what in course the Minister does, and what the Communicants do; But any end, or reason why he, or they do it, they know nothing. If the Word which is added to the element to make up a Sacrament, were a bare Word of consecration, to be muttered over the elements for their change, so that the bare participation would serve turn, (as Physic works without any regard of the Patients knowledge or ignorance) it were somewhat. But the Sacrament (as hath been said) is a seal appendant to the Covenant of God, and there is no improvement of it, other wise then as the Covenant and the Promise is improved, (which must be known before it can be believed and applied) ignorance is a necessary bar to all benefit by it. Though I account it the weakest thing in the world, to make ignorance of this nature in the parent, any just ground of non-admission of the Infant to Baptism. There is no necessity to conclude, that the child (who is born, and to be bred, in a valley of visions, and interested in Ordinances able to save the soul,) should unavoidably be ever held with Parents in blindness; yet I can Judge no otherwise, but that it is a just bar to the parents, when it is enough for the Infant to be passive, in his first admission, the parent must act and make use of his light, for further growth and confirmation. Some (I know) have said, Who can tell but the person deemed to be ignorant, and heretofore such indeed, yet making address to the Lord's Table, and there hearing that mystery laid open, and the use of those elements unfolded, and cleared, may in that very time receive competent instruction, and be put into a capacity for this Ordinance knowingly to partake of it. Whether or no there be any absolute possibility in this, I will not determine. I am sure there is little moral probability, or possibility, that a man that hath lived under Ordinances 20, 30, 40, 50, perhaps more years, and all of this time hath been confessedly ignorant; and upon that account, in an incapacity of this Sacrament for his profit: that now at this time, in a few minutes he should grow such a proficient as to fit himself for it; And in case any such thing, if not by miracle, yet, to wonder and amazement, should happen, it will be little loss for such a one, to delay his actual participation for once, that he may give an account of his profiting, and upon a further progress in knowledge have admittance the next time with greater satisfaction. If any do desire to know the minimum quod sic, where is the lowest pitch of knowledge, that will put a man into a capacity of improvement of this Ordinance to his advantage? this of necessity must be lest to ministerial Christian prudence, in which there must be much of care and tenderness, not to make blear-eyednesse, blindness, nor a dim-light midnight darkness, where the wretchedness of sin is known, and Christ (who is our remedy) so understood, that account can be given of his person, and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, and the Sacrament so understood, as that Christ crucified is there held but under those elements, and tendered to believers: I durst not pass a vote to have such a one excluded let this be got out of them, in language of any kind, such that we may discern that they know it, though they can scarce express it: in which also many circumstances should be prudently weighed, as the natural ingeny of the party, if ripe in other things, it is an evidence of affected ignorance, to be havy and dull here: The means that they have enjoyed for help in their knowledge, the longer at School, the better the Master, the more inexcusable the truant: The growth of years that he had upon him, when he first manifested a care to know, age is unteachable in comparison, of youth, a low measure of light sometimes draws on more strength of affections; But where sin is not seen, nor Christ known, and consequently the soul is so in the dark, that no use can be made of this ordinance, for spiritual advantage, the person may justly be judged to be in a present incapacity. In which for the most part, it will be more safe to delay, then deny to persuade the party to forbear a little time: and in the mean while to commend means of further growth, by all means to endeavor his help, that he may be fairly drawn on, and not driven back from this Supper.

In the next place, those that resolvedly will not make improvement of this Supper, but willfully put a bar to their benefiting by it, are to be taken into consideration. And his is done,

1. By error entertained in their judgments, by a taint in the faith that they profess.

2. By viciousness of life, or a profligate course.

Now, either of both these (to speak a few words of them jointly) are either such that are so in private and secret, or else openly and professedly. Those that are indeed such, though in way most secret, in the present posture as they stand, are in an equal incapacitie to make inprovement of this ordinance, with him that most openly proclaims it; Judas was unfit when he did communicate, as well as Barabbas, if he had communicated. But of these the dispensers of this ordinance can take no cognizance, they cannot follow men into their chambers, and closets much less can they make a scrutiny into their hearts. Here may be a just bar, when yet none may justly debar them. Here there is almost an universal agreement; those that pretend to the the greatest care in their admissions, not dissenting, though it give no small check to that glorious homogeneity of which they speak in the Churches of Christ, and utterly overthrows the definition given by many of the Church visible. He that pleases may read Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae; dispute. 67. Sect. 4. putting this to the question, whether it be lawful to deny the Sacrament to a secret sinner desiring it publicly, and by many reasons determining it in the negative, as also in the following Section, resolving the question: who is to be accounted a public, and who a private offender? And what is spoken by him of sin, may be applied to error.

Those that are openly such, by sufficient detection of their error or crime, are either such that are under the Churches censure, and stand excommunicate, or else they are such that the Church doth tolerate, whether because that censure is not in use in the place, or otherwise. Those that are under the Churches censure upon account of that sentence, must be deemed in an incapacity, when the sentence, whether for error or for scandal, hath had its due work for reformation (as upon the incestuous Corinthian ) it must be supposed that the Church will again restore them to their freedom: in the mean space, whether the Church hath proceeded right or wrong, be over rigid or just in her censure, it is not in any one single Minister to determine. There is a famous story related by Mr. Hooker. in His Ecclesiastical Policy, of one Bertelius, that was excommunicated by the sentence of the Eldership of Geneva, and had procured from the Senate of the place, by common consent, under their seal, a relaxation, further decreeing (with strange absurdity, as the Author censures it) that it should belong to the same Senate, to give final judgment in matter of excommunication, and to absolve whom it pleased them. Calvin hearing the report of it, said, Before this decree shall take place, either my blood or banishment shall sign it. And two days before the Sacrament, kill me if ever this hand shall reach forth that which is holy, to them whom the Church hath judged despisers. Men under public sentence must be deemed to be such, as by sentence they are adjudged. But for others that stand free from censure, their present aptitude for this ordinance is to be considered.

First, As to them that are in error of judgment some (otherwise sufficiently austere) would have all indulgence shown, and men of all judgments admitted, enlarging liberty of conscience so far, that it should exempt men (respective to their judgments) from any sentence secular, or Ecclesiastical; not considering that as we find one ordered tO be sentenced for lewdness, 1 Cor. 5. so also others under the same sentence for errors, 1 1 Tim. 1.20. 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. And concealing (if it may be) that the same words that are produced by them, for cleansing the Churches of wicked persons, 1. Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, is by the Apostle applied in so many words, to set out the danger of error, Gal. 6.9. upon which account, doubtesse it is that some that profess so much zeal against looseness of life and plead for so much indulgence, in difference in judgment, ever quote those words out of Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, concealing that text to the Galatians, that it may not appear that there is a like danger in either; But whilst some are over indulgent, others must not be too severe, but carry an equal hand in regard both of errors in judgment and in practice.

As for errors in judgment, they may be either immediately against these Sacramental ordinances or against Christ the sum and substance of them, and all Gospel promises in Christ. Errors of the first kind are, 1. Theirs that are above ordinances, either upon pretence of the Spirits immediate work, without any agent or instrument on earth, so that there needs not, either Word, prayer, or Sacraments, the opinion of Swenkfeldius; or else because all is grown corrupt, since the Apostles times, that a company cannot be found with whom they may communicate, as Musculus speaks of one in his Common places, that had not received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper of twelve ears, because he could find no pure Church in which to observe it. I fear shortly we shall have many such; But we need not here trouble ourselves with these, seeing of their own accord, they keep at a distance from us. 2. Theirs that look upon the Sacraments as matters either antiquate and obsolete, as belonging to the Churches infancy, in which it was indulged, those carnal observances, too low (as they think) for grown Christians; or else as things of mere indifferency, which may be used or neglected; such are unmeet to be received. If any such be detected, seeing though the substance of religion be not in the Sacrament so much as in the Covenant, yet a man of so low an opinion of this ordinance, of necessity debarres himself of any benefit of it. a diffident opinion of a medicine, or conceit against it, is said to hinder the working; I am sure it will obstruct the working of the Sacraments, which have no innate physical virtue, nor any other efficacy further then our understanding, and faith makes improvement. For errors against Christ, the sum and substance of the Sacraments, as every error is some way against him who is the foundation and carries on the whole work of our salvation) that which I have delivered, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 232. (where I made it my business, to give rules concerning separation, when we are to stay with a Church, and when to leave it) may here be taken into consideration, weighing both the kind and degree of these errors, and the place that they have got in the affections and resolutions. Those errors that necessitate us to leave a Church, when it is in the whole face of it tainted and polluted; may justly give occasion to deny a member access, in case he tender himself to this ordinance. These (as hath been said) are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Savior, or such that are inconsistent in whole or in part with his Mediatorship; of the former kind are those that are against his person. 1. Those that impugn the Godhead of Christ, such that though they give him the glory to be above Angels, yet will have him to be no more then a creature, a God in title and place, as are Magistrates, not in nature or power; an opinion that involves the Apostolic Church, and all Churches in succession, in Idolatry; giving the honor of God, the worship due to God, unto him who by nature is no God; a doctrine that will make Christ an impotent, and not an omnipotent head, too weak for his work, to govern the world, to bring under his enemies. 2. Those that deny his manhood, as having not taken our flesh, and so no suitable head, but a phantastique, or seeming body. Those that are against his Mediatorship, are either such that obscure, or some way eclipse it, (as every error doth that is any way considerable) or such that rase, if not utterly overthrow it, in some of the necessary parts of it, his Kingdom, Priesthood or Prophetical office. These are overthrown either directly, in terms of full opposition, or else by consequence; and this either is immediate and evident, (the truth being confessed, they cannot be denied) or else the consequence more remote, and not so easily discerned. These things being premised, we must bring it home to our purpose. 1. Where fundamental truths are not only questioned, doubted, and disputed; but abjured and denied, errors directly, or by immediate clear consequence introduced, so that the fundamental truth cannot be known, but the error must be seen; Here is such a flaw in the Covenant, that no improvement can be made of the seal, to allude to that of the Psalmist, Foundations are destroyed and what can the stewards of the mysteries of God do? Such a soul hath framed to itself, such a Christ as the Gospel never held out for his salvation: These are such (of whom the Apostle speaks, Col. 2.19.) that hold not the head, from which all the body by joints and hands, having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God: and how can they then find any spiritual nourishment? When they thus withdraw from Christ, they are justly denied to sit at his Table. But when the error is of an inferior nature, as neither rendering Christ in an incapacity to be a Savior, nor yet wholly inconsistent with the work of his Mediatorship; or at least, not such directly, but only by way of consequence; and that not immediate and evident, but more obscure, and remote: so that it may justly be hoped, that in case the consequence were seen, the conclusion that they draw would be best, rather then the principle of truth denied, the case is then otherwise. As we might live in such a Church, in case doctrine of that kind were received and taught; so we may not refuse such a member, making his farther conviction, our business; where ignorance may stand with grace, there error is not wholly inconsistent with it: And where there is any fair possibility that Christ may be, there this Ordinance is not to be denied. And in case the opinion entertained, and contended for, be yet more soul, so that we have just cause, as the Apostle of the Galatians, to say, that their doctrine is inconsistent with grace; yet being not (as we can discern) fixedly settled, and resolutely received, and concluded upon; but with hesitancy and wavering, their faith rather staggered then destroyed; these should not hastily be refused; But as the Apostle gives counsel respective (as I take it) to private converse, After once or twice admonition reject: so let it be here, make essay to regain a brother rather then lose him. It cannot be conceived that the Apostle when he wrote his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia, would upon the account of their error how dangerous soever, have discontinued this ordinance as long as he saw any hopes of their reestablishment; though they were in eminent danger to be dischurched, yet he would continue Church-ordinances.

As for those that put a bar to their benefiting by the Sacrament by their vicious life or profligate course, most men's verdict is soonest of all other against them, with the Poets Peribomius, Morbum gressu incessuque fatentur, they have their faults written in their foreheads. And certain it is, that those men that are in their sin, and resolved for sin, in present can receive no benefit by the Sacrament.

First, They that look upon Christ to receive benefit in the Sacrament look upon him pierced by their sins, and that withal sorrow and grief of spirit: The greatest grief in Family or Common-Wealth is borrowed to express it, Zach. 12.10, 11. They shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that in bitterness for his first-born: In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Had adrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. Which was the mourning upon occasion of Josiah's slaughter, 2 Chron. 35.24. But these now look upon him suffering for sins with all pleasurable delights and content in sin: they see him under all this burden for our transgression; and in the mean time, take delight to add to the weight of it, and so stand at the greatest distance from acceptance.

Secondly, They that worthily show forth his dearh, and acceptably keep a memorial of it, will not without horror and trembling, have a thought of drawing upon themselves the guilt of it; we would hot bear the guilt of the blood of the meanest peasant in the world, not of such a one that Job would not set with the dogs of his flock, Job 30.1. Such may with David, Deliver me from blood guiltiness: How much less would we bear the guilt of the Prince of life? To have this in our thoughts, that he must be our Judge, we have been his murderers, may indeed set pricks in the heart, as it did in Peters hearers, Act. 2.37. These men of sin that come to the Sacrament in sin, willfully, furiously draw this guilt upon themselves, and become accessory to it: He that slightly passeth over the death of an innocent person, making a small matter of it, either he makes the innocent, to be indeed nocent, one that hath justly deserved to be slain, who being slain deserves so little regard; or at least he makes himself nocent, breeding ajust suspicion that he was, or would have been consenting to that man's death, saith M. Pemble, pag. 33. These in the sleighest way pass it over, not with the least evidence of zeal or indignation against it.

Thirdly, They that judge Christ fit to be numbered with malefactors and transgressors, discern not his body, do not judge of him according to his glory and excellency, and so cannot with comfort come to the Lord's Table: But these judge him fit to be numbered with transgressors, when in their foulest sins they dare join themselves to him, and have communion with him: This is their case that come in sin to the Lord's Table.

Here some may object, that according to the principles laid down, the Ordinance may be an hopeful means to take such off from their ways of sin; having previous light to see what they do hear they may see high aggravation of their wickedness; An heart-breaking, a soul-melting Ordinance being set before them, there may be all hopes that it may be efficacious unto soul-melting and heart-breaking; here they may see what their ugly sins have done, and who it is that their sins have pierced and crucified, whereof a Publican or Harlot may easilier be convinced then a Pharisee or justiciary. And Christ being here set out both bearing sin, and a sacrifice for sin, the sight of their just demerit in his suffering, and hopes of freedom from guile by his blood-shed; there may be expectation of conviction, and contrition, and consequently somewhat at least done towards conversion: and upon this account some would have the worst of men admitted to the view, though not to participation in this Ordinance; Others taking advantage of this admission of them to the view of it, and knowing it to be a novel thing, that any should gaze, and not partake, they conclude they are to be admitted unto both. The further improvement of it by them seems at least some way hopeful, when to the ignorant and erroneous it is impossible.

That I may speak my whole thoughts to this thing, somewhat is necessary to be premised, both by way of concession and assertion. By way of concession it must be yielded,

1. That there is more weight in this objection then personally hath been acknowledged, which I see upon conference with many godly learned is more and more discerned. It is not so easy to evince all hopelessness of good in a bad man's receiving the Sacrament, as in a man that is grossly ignorant; no text so fully and clearly to any grounds to put a bar to men in sin, as to those that are in ignorance; neither doth the nature of the Sacrament so clearly evince it. 2. Arguments usually brought to conclude against their admission to this Ordinance that are in ways of sin, and under no sentence of excommunication, seem to me scarce concluding. It were too long to name the Arguments, and point out the exceptions: Some of them also perilously ensnaring, and upon several accounts, 1. Their Arguments conclude equally against such men's, hearing, praying, and attendance upon any other Ordinance, as they do against their participation of the Lord's Supper; the same Medium wherewith they conclude against one, concludes against all, as hath been shewn. 2. These Arguments intended: only against the scandalous to conclude a necessity of their exclusion equally, conclude against all that are not actually in grace, when yet the disputants themselves will not yield, that either actual grace or positive signs of such grace should be any rule in such proceedings, as to instance; some say that Ministers in holding out the Sacrament to wicked persons whom they have excommunicated in the Word, showing that no unrighteous person shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, they absolve them in the Sacrament; and if this have any force in it, it must conclude in this manner; None may be admitted but these that may be actually absolved, and while they assume that the wicked may not be actually absolved, others will alike assume, that no unregenerate man, how knowing civil and unblameable soever, may be absolved. And the same guilt that these in their reasonings conclude that Church-officers bring upon themselves in admission of the scandalous, they contract that admit of any ungenerate ones.

By way of assertion it must be delivered, 1. That the fundamental proper right unto, or interest in, this Ordinance is not questioned, Church members lay a just claim to Church Ordinances, visible members to visible Ordinances; If this be once denied we are in inextricable snares. 2. Here can be no such profaneness in promiscuous administration of this Ordinance, as the putting of God's seal to blank paper: There is no blank, but a name legibly written where there is a Covenant entered; and that there is a Covenant entered with such, as it cannot be denied by any that will confess that the Scripture should be umpeir; so it is yielded by all of those that baptize the infants of such persons. The first right of parents that are such is taken for granted, when their children are thus received. 3. It is then an orderly edifying and prudential wa in administration that is here inquired after, and this admits of a greater latitude then Covenant, and no Covenant regenerate or, non-regenerate in which if an hairs breadth should miss there were a transgression; as we discern the person to whom it is meet to give only milk, and to whom to give strong meat, so we judgeof those that we admit only to the Word and Prayer, and those that we admit to the Lord's Table. And though I see not concluding strength in several Arguments produced, but suppose they are grounded on mistakes (which also apt to lead into danger, otherwise I had been silent) yet I cannot recede from that ancient received opinion of Fathers, Schoolmen, Protestants, whether of the Episcapal, Presbyterial, or Congragational judgment; that scandalous person is are justly dibarred from this Ordinance, seeing any possible hopes of gaining good is very low if any which yet is all that can be pretended tor the expediency; and Arguments on the other hand for the inconvenience and danger, are many and weighty. These Sacramental signs are not barely teaching, but engaging signs; and not barely signs, but seals, in which by acception of these seals, we engage to God to make good his terms and propositions. The Minister of Christ therefore hath little encouragement, and slender hope: to tender it to such, or to admit such to it, that are in a continual way of Covenant-breaking, and proclaim to all their resolutions in it. A continued dissolute course of life speaks no better then a full purpose, and settled resolution for sin; it can then little avail such a one to take anew these symbols and badges of a Christian profession upon him, and put himself on an hypocritical profession of tht service of Christ, making discovery of such resolusion, it doth appear to be in vain to give this way and freedom to him. Knights of the post, that have often forsworn themselves, are not by any prudent Judge permitted to swear; and those that have so often desperately broken Covenant, and willfully gone against all former engagements, and still palpably appearing that way, are as unfit to engagae; And the more clearly any that is produced as deponent appears to be such, with more full resolution any prudential Judge will except against it.

And whereas it may be objected, that such upon the grounds here laid may as well be admitted to the Lord's Table, as to hear Sermons, join in Prayers, observe Fasts: They are engaging Ordinances whilst they are done by persons in Covenant, as is receiving of this Sacrament.

Answ. First, They are not certainly so highly and explicitly engaging; The very name Christian is an engaging tie indeed to Christian duties and ways; To enjoy any further Christian privilege is more; But to take these pledges on the terms proposed, hath ever heen accounted the highest.

Secondly, Though the Sacrament serve as hath been said for aggravation of sin, yet as the Word is the alone means in the discovery of sin, so it hath infinitely the advantage in the aggravation of it. The Sacrament doth nothing at all in this work without the Word, and the Word does exceedingly much more then the Sacrament; and when it is clear, that the Word for so long hath wrought nothing for conviction, there is little hopes that the Sacrament will work anything to aggravation.

Thirdly, As the hope of good is either low or none at all, so the danger on the other hand is high and full of terror, as we see it by the Apostle aggravated, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. The unworthy receiving of the Word is indeed of danger, and a savor of death to death; But the hopes are fair by hearing to be brought to worthiness. The danger of unworthy Communicants is far greater, and the hopes little, if any at all.

Fourthly, The scandal here taken is exceeding great, and though happily sometimes weak ones take more offense then is given, and are offended above reason, yet when there is so little of good to be hoped in that in which they are so scandalized, and so much danger in the offense, it is by no means to be neglected.

Fifthly, There is more fair hopes of good to be done them upon their denial then upon admittance to this Ordinance; when they see their own unworthiness observed, and those proceedings upon it, they may more seriously reflect upon their unworthiness. When a Physician shall forbid some meats upon observation of a patients disease, it is a way to make him more sensible that he is in danger; so when the Minister of Christ upon observation of men's ways, shall deny this Ordinance, there may be hopes of an answerable work to bring the person to some more sad and serious reflections upon his own state and condition. If any think that these arguments singly considered, not to be of that strength to evince a non-admission of men of openly sinful courses to this Ordinance, I shall answer in the words of the Assembly of Divines, unto the reasons of the Dsslenting brethren against the instance of many Congragations in the Church of Ephesus: Arguments of necessity are to be answerable to the things they prove, which as well holds int hsi of expediency or inexpediency, to which I speak, as it doth in matter of fact, of which they speak; and so say they, Though the several particulars of this proof should be singly but probabilities, yet being joined together make a sufficient proof, as many concurring likelihoods in Courts amount to a good evidence, and many lesser stars make up a Galaxia. They are with me at least so far prevailing, That I believe that such are worthily excluded; and as they do not come without scandal, so they cannot come to their advantage. In case after a former way in sin, or sad fall to the scandal of the Church, upon admonition there appear, convictions, and serious promises, the case is otherwise; there is all cause then to take in such a one to this Ordinance, in which his sin appears in the highest aggravation, and a tender and offer is made, and the way held forth of pardon and forgiveness. Many of the Ancients were hasty enough to give the Sacrament to men at the instant of their death, as a Viaticum to heaven, when it was all too late to make any right improvement of it: But we are in the mean space too slow, and over-rigid, in admission of professed penitents to it, as appears in many examples. That of Serapion is notable mentioned by Eusebius, who had lived a great while in the Church, without blame, but at last fell in time of persocution; And often desiring to be received again by the Church, no man hearkened to him, till at last being sick, and ready to die, he sent a boy suddenly to fetch a Priest, who was found sick by the messenger, that he could not come to him: But he gave the boy a little of the Sacrament, and bid him put it into the man's mouth; who when he had tasted of it, presently died. That was expected here from the Sacrament, which it wanted, viz. some hidden power to carry up the soul for heaven and glory; and in the mean space that was not seen for which it was instituted, A provocation to repentance, and corroboration, and strengthening of the soul in ways of holiness; when there was hopes of good, to accrue by it, it was denied; and when all hopes were past, it was indulged. After-ages appeared more facile, but then profession of repentance was turned into a form of auricular confession; they might confess and take penance, and be fit for the Sacrament; and sin as soon as it was over, and go again to confession; That formality of confession put the Sacrament as they thought into a posture of working, which sin unconfest did hinder. To deny penitents, where there is any fair and possible hopes, by reason of conviction wrought, is their sad discouragement; we see them lame, and weak, and we deny them a Crutch that is provided for them. And to receive obstinate ones, that without remorse carry it on in wickedness, seems dangerously to strengthen them in their ways; and not at all to help them out of their ungodly courses. From this that hath been spoken, a fair answer therefore may be given to the arguments before past by, concerning any power in this Ordinance for conversion. And first, for that from the, Directory where the ignorant, scandalous, and profane that live in any sin, or offense against their conscience, are warned not to presume, to come nigh that holy Table, it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin, and doubtless that purpose standing, here is no comfort to be put into their hands. It is no other then that counsel of our Savior, Matth. 5.23, 24. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first he reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand, where malice is seated in the heart, and implacably continued; but it follows not but that where the soul is startled, and such resolutions for sin do not appear, this maybe a means further to awake; and provoke to a resolution against it. As to that of Communicating to Heathens, Pagans, enough hath been said before, It can neither be done with allowance, nor any possible benefit. And for Excommunicate persons, they are supposed to be in an obstinate way of wickedness. The last is only worthy of consideration. That Ordinance that is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but only as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner, &c. Ergo. Here I might justly except against that opposition that is still put between converting, and sealing Ordinances; as though it must be taken for granted; that no sealing Ordinance could have any hand in, or towards conversion. God's seal added to his promise, may by the blessing of God be serviceable here, as well as his oath, added for confirmation; but this is grounded upon the mistake of the way of the Sacraments sealing, in which I have sufficiently expressed myself. For answer to the Argument itself, The major Proposition is not true, unless it be understood with just limitation; Reproof is an Ordinance that may well be reckoned among those that work to conversion, being the way of life, Prov. 6.23. and called the reproof of life, Prov. 13.31. an excellent oil, Psal. 141.5. and upon that account to be used towards a brother in sin, Levite. 19.17. And yet prudence must be used in the application of it. Every man is not a meet subject to get good by it. There is no such wariness explicitly required in the dispensing of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as there is in the application of reproofs; nor yet any so punctually pointed out not to communicate, as there is not to be reproved. The Wisemans observation is, that He that reproveth a scorner, getteth to himself shame; and he that rebuketh a wicked man, getteth to himself a blot: Therefore he gives advice upon it, ver. 8. Reprove, not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Every Ordinance therefore that is for conversion, is not meet to be applied to every man in an unconverted condition: Rebukes set out the danger of sin, and the Lord's Supper is for the aggravation of it, in holding forth the sad effects of it, yet neither of both meet to be applied to all in sin. That charge of our Savior is deliveted in an universal way, Cast not holy things to dogs, nor pearls before swine. The Proposition there included is general. Nothing that is holy, nothing that is of the honor of a pearly, is to be cast to any dog or swine; whence we may assume; But there is no converting Ordinance, but it is of the number of holy things: Ergo. No converting Ordinances are to be given to any that are dogs and swine, which way soever any think to extricate themselves, by putting limits to any term in the Proposition, they must necessarily be brought to yield, that all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applied to all in sin; But choice must be made unto whom they may with profit be delivered. And thus I have spoke my full thoughts of the subjects of this Ordinance, concluding without the least hesitancy or scruple, That all in Covenant have a fundamental, or first right to it, a jus ad rem, and making it my business to find out who they be that may be admitted, in expectation of benefit by it, and who are justly detained from it; In which I trust I have given just offense on no hand, either in giving way to the admission of any that according to any Scripture-rule, or just deduction thence should be held back, and so hardening them in any way of ignorance or sin, in giving them any encouragement. I have a witness in heaven, that I intended nothing in this but to find out the mind of Jesus Christ, and to have this Ordinance so administered, that the edification of the visible Members of Jesus Christ might be most prompted, and godliness encouraged. And in case that this which I have done, may not be serviceable this way, I desire that it may prove an abortive. I know there is a distinction used by some, and applied to admission both of Infants to Baptism, and men of growth to the Lord's Table; that there is a twofold title, one in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven, and here only the Infants of the elect regenerate have title (as they say) to Baptism, and the elect regenerate themselves to the Lord's Supper. The other in foro Ecclesiastico, in the Court of the Church, and here all tiie Infants of professed believers have right in Baptism, and the knowing and not scandalous, though unregenerate, to the Lord's Supper. By the favor of which; distinction, those of that judgment and I may be well enough agreed; and as I think there is small difference about the persons to be admitted to this Supper, yet for the distinction, I confess I do not understand it; Both the Sacraments being Church-Ordinances, I suppose God keeps no other Court about them, save the Court of his Church. If they have this right in foro Ecclesiastico, then it is the mind of God that the Church should admit them, and so they have right in foro Dei likewise. And I marvel how those that bring this within the power of jurisdiction, can here apply this distinction, seeing it overthrows that which they apply hither, Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Many that are admitted ma want acceptance in heaven; but having their right, and putting in no visible bar, their confessed Ecclesiastical right concludes, that their admission is with acceptance of heaven; and my great business hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance, that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted, And here I might take into consideration the opinion of those that would have a promiscuous admittance, and indeed I had it in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to Mr. Humphrey's Scriptures, and Reasons, so much by some applauded, and so strongly bottomed, Because all Communicants must drink of the Cup, therefore all must communicate, with some limits, which being yielded, as I have proved they must, will draw the limit necessarily, yet somewhat more narrow. But this is by one hand already done, and I have lately had the happiness to see a second learned Piece fitted for the Press; dealing largely in it, which I doubt not may both satisfy the Adversary and the Reader, so that my pains may well be spared; only I cannot but take notice of his fourth Reason for a promiscuous admission, which he faith will arise from the vanity, formality, impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance: Look to the heart of all these separations, they come to nothing: For put the case you will have a gathered company, I pray who do you account indeed to be fit and worthy receivers? If not all that make profession, as we do mixedly, then those only that have an interest in Christ, and are true believers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitful above all things; who can know it? And if we can hardly discover our own hearts, how shall we discern others? so that all will come, but to these that have the fairest show, those that seem such, and you cannot be secured, but there may, and will be some hypocrites; and so this true partaking as all one body, and one blood, in such an unmixed communion, as you pretend vanishes, and there can be no such matter: But now if men stand here upon a formal purity, and will have the outward purest Church they can, they go to separating again, and never leave separating and separating, (as we have daily testimony) till they are quite separated one from another; Even as in the peeling of an Onion, where you may peel, and peel, till you have brought all to nothing, unless to a few tears perchance, with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing. To this I answer, If the rule to take in this gathered company, be interest in Christ, to take in those of a saving interest, and refuse all others, if regenerate, then he shall be admitted; in case unregenerate, then he shall be refused; then I shall yield his conclusion, I shall leave that distinction to him, that knows what is in man. I should fear many a man of non-interest might be let in, and many a man of true interest refused; a glozing tongue may here carry it, further then an upright heart. And for his next of a formal purity, to get the Church as pure as we can; though this ought to be our endeavor, to get the Church as pure, not formally, but really, as possible; yet I make it no rule: But following the Apostles rule, to do, as all things else, so this, to edification; though it be a matter of much care and prudence, yet not vain and impossible in a good measure, to determine it; upon this rule I pitch, till I hear something that may take me off it.

SECT. XVI. An enquiry into the power authorized to judge of men's meetness for the Lord's Supper.

THe adequate subject of Sacraments being found out, and some discovery made of those, that according to Scripture principles stand in a present aptitude for actual admission; A great question yet remains. Who must judge of this fitness, so as to approve of men as such, and Authoritarively to refuse, or pass by others; in which we may seem to be much in the dark, finding no one expressly set up for that work, nor any Scripture-precedent of any that have taken upon themselves such power. And herein men have been very different in their thoughts; The Church of England heretofore hath vested the Minister in sole power, as appears in Canon 26. which provides. That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy communion, of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin, notorious without repentance nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbors, untiil they shall be reconciled. As also the Rubric to the same purpose. It is true that those that made it their business to screw up Episcopal power to that height that it could not bear, did interpret this of such notorious offenders, that by the Ordinary had been so adjudged, and under present censure, expressly contrary to the very words of Canon 27. requiring every Minister so repelling any such upon complaint or being required by the Ordinary to signify the cause unto him and therein obey his direction; In case of such a preceding censure upon the person thus refused, he had beforehand his direction, and complaint is then supposed to be made only for his obedience, in refusing those that according to command given, were to be denied. The Schoolmen generally go this way, putting the sole power into the hands of a Minister, not so much disputing it, (so far as I have read) as taking it for granted. Suarez putting it to the question, Whether the Ministers of this Sacrament are bound not to give it to a man in mortal sin? answers, That they are simply and absolutely under such an obligation, mentioning none that are over them, or assistent to them in it. And in his first reason he saith, That this obligation doth arise from natural and divine Law an institution of the Sacrament being supposed, and such commission given to the Ministers; so that he doth no more question the Ministers authority in this thing, then he doth the institution of the Sacrament itself, Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae, quaest. 89. dispute. 67. sect. 1. And Thomas puts the question whether a Priest ought to give the body of Christ to a sinner seeking it? part. tertia, quaest. 80. Art. 6 without mention of any other in power for it. The Fathers were also of the same judgment, we need not quote testimonies from them, of exclusion of men from the Sacraments, he that will be furnished. let him read Mr. Gillespie Aaron's rod, lib. 3. cap. 17. And we read of no other joined with the Minister for that work. Dionysius Areo pagita, who is reckoned amongst ancient Writers, though not of that standing to be Paul's Scholar, Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. pag. 3 having spoken of those that were possessed with Devils and tormented, called Energumeni, and of flagitious persons, saith, Let these therefore first, and much rather then the other, be separated by the voice and office of the Minister. It was then accounted to be his office, to see to that work. That of Chrysostom frequently quoted for exclusion of scandalous persons from this Supper speaks fully to the power of dispensers for it, Homil. 83. in Matth. Let no cruel one, no unmerciful one, none any way impure, come unto it. I speak these things to you that do receive, and also to you that do administer, even to you this is necessary to be told, that with great care and heedfulness you distribute these gifts: there doth no small punishment abide you, if you permit any to partake of this Table, whose wickedness you know, for his blood shall be required at your hands. Other reformed Churches place, for the greater part, this power in the Eldership, preaching and ruling Elders joined together in Consistory. Those of the independent Congregational way, judge it meet, that the whole Church, even all the body of the faithful, should have their vote in it. The best way for the discovery of truth, is to hear what each part have to say for themselves, and then to examine proofs brought, together with inconveniencies that may be objected, and are like to follow from any one of these, by whom power is claimed: and lastly, to pitch upon that which we judge to be most suitable to Scripture, and to answer the inconveniences charged upon it. For that party that can speak most of reason according to Scripture-rule, and whose way is followed with fewest inconveniences, may in all reason lay the fairest claim to it. But to do this thoroughly, were an endless labor, in which we might take in the whole dispute about Church Government, which would be an outlet, far bigger then this whole work. Those that vest the Pastor in this power, say,

1. He is the steward of the Mysteries of God, 2 Cor. 4.1. And as stewards in great families, have the care of ordering the food of the whole household: so they being called to this honor, are to have the like power in the Church of God.

2. They alone are to dispense this ordinance, as upon a manifold account may be made good, and in due place (God willing) shall be spoken to.

3. The administration of Sacraments belongs to the power of order, wherewith Ministers are solely vested, and not to jurisdiction, as is granted; and therefore his prudence must guide him in discerning the parties that are to partake of it. A faithful and wise steward, discerns the season when to give portions of meat to the household, Luk. 12.42. as also the persons to whom he is to impart it. This learned Mr. Jeans saith, is the opinion of the Schoolmen, though he is pleased to say, They are extremely out in it, in denying the debarring from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to notorious offenders, to be an act of jurisdiction; and and so they (saith he) put it into the hands and power of a Minister to deny it those that he judgeth to be gosse and scandalous sinners. pag. 46. quoting a full and pertinent passage out of Suarez. in tertiam partem Thomae. tom. 3. dispute. 67. Sect. 3. This dispensation, or denial of the Sacrament, is no judicial act, or imposition of a penalty; but only a prudent and faithful administration of it, and therefore doth not depend on witnesses or proofs, but only on such a knowledge and understanding of the thing; which by a prudential estimate according to emergent circumstances may be judged sufficient that without any inconvenience the Sacrament may be denied.

4. If this power be denied to aM inister, many times it so falls out, that of necessity, either the administration of the Sacrament must be wholly suspended, (which some of reverend worth have largely shown to be of dangerous consequence) or else the Minister must be necessitated to dispense it to those that are most unfit to partake of it. In abundance of places no such power of jurisdiction is set up, nor can be expected, and food is necessary when we want a rod.

Those that contend for the Elderships power in it, affirming that it belong to them and no other; First, distinguish of the administration of the Sacrament, and admission to it; confessing that administration belongs to the power of order; but admission, as they say, belongs to jurisdiction. Now jurisdiction is in Elders, together with the Pastor, not so narrow, as to be seated solely in the Pastor; nor so large, as to take in all the people. Secondly, They dispute largely from the inconveniences that will follow, in case it be left solely in the hands of the Minister, or put promiscuously into the hands of the people; and therefore to avoid both of these extremes, they vest the whole Eldership, and only the Eldership in power with it.

Those that plead for the power of the people, say; First, that they must in duty avoid such in their converse, that are thus under censure; and therefore are to have a hand in, and to be called to counsel about it. Secondly, That in excommunication the people are to have a hand, (we find the Apostles direction for it, 1 Cor. 5.4.) and consequently insuspension, and so they conclude, that the power is in all the faithful. I must freely profess, that the first of these (which hath been longest in use) takes most with my judgment, as that which hath most strength of reason for it, and attended (for ought I can yet see) with least inconveniences. In which (I suppose) I should yet have concealed myself, had not the present juncture of time, and state of things, put some necessity upon me (treating of these things) to speak my thoughts. Were Elderships in Congragations settled in their desired power, and that order set up, and accordingly followed, I should so have prized the peace of the Church, as not to have cast any bone of contention in a business of this nature so disputable; and where an error of that hand is, of no so great danger. As I have without scruple acted in that way, so I am not willing to cast scruples into the thoughts of any; my reasons will afterwards sufficiently appear; But things being in that posture as now they are, and for ought is seen, like enough to continue; Sacraments must be wholly discontinued, or anabsolute promiscuous liberty granted to any man, woman, or child, to receive it; unless it may appear that the Pastor according to prudence may manage it. I shall therefore endeavor, 1. To satisfy the claims that are made on the contrary for other interests. 2. I shall give answer to the objections brought against a Ministers sole and single power. 3. I shalt limit this Doctrine with some needful cautions to avoid mistake. First, I must speak to them that say, power is committed of Jesus non uni, sed unitati; not to any single preaching Elder or Pastor, but to an Eldership; preaching and ruling Elders joined together, for which (excepting the arguments drawn from the inconveniencies of placing it only in one) this is the sum of all that I find spoken; That the power of Discipline is given by Christ, not to one Elder, but to the united company of Elders; and for one Minister to assume this power to himself, is to make himself the Church, it is to make himself a Congregational Pope: It is a bringing in of a power into the Church, that would have some resemblance (as is objected) to auricular confession. This argument takes that for granted which is most in question, (and that which Mr. Jeans saith, the Schoolmen do deny, that this is an act of jurisdiction,) and belongs to the power of Discipline; and this being barely affirmed, or rather only supposed, it may be as easily denied. But I would give some reasons of my denial of it, and then the whole of the argument falls.

First, This power of jurisdiction supposed to be in the whole Eldership, is either respective to the whole business of the Sacrament, or else solely to the admission or refusal of men for participation of it. If it respect the whole work, then those that are not commissioned to preach Gospel-promises, may yet apply Covenant-seals. They that have no call to open and show forth the Mystery, have authority to dispense the Elements, [Reason 1] which is against the judgment of the Learned of this opinion: If it barely respect admission, and not administration, then (unless we had expressly the mind of Christ to the contrary) it will appear to be the greatest of soloecisms, to give a man commission for a work, and then to leave him to the courtesy of others, not otherwise interested in it, for the exercise of it. There did a complaint lie against Bishops, giving commission in Ordination large enough to preach the Gospel; yet afterwards would not suffer it, without a license from their Courts to be put into action. This at the first sight looks much like it; when Ministers shall receive power of order, which comprises Word and Sacrament: the Gospel with the seal; yet may not act in it, without an Eldership to oversee it, who as to administration are wholly Heterogeneous.

Secondly, If no other Ministerial act, is to be preregulated [Reason 2] (as I may say) by any power of Discipline, or the exercise of it to be suspended, till they know the pleasure of men in juridick place and power, then there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it. This proposition hath all reason in it; But there is no other Ministerial act that is to be thus preregulated, or the exercise of it thus suspended; Ergo there is no reason singly and singularly to subject this of Sacramental administration to it.

Thirdly, If the dispensation of the promises be committed [Reason 3] to the Ministerial prudence of the dispensers, without any jurisdiction put upon them, or any other in a way of jurisdiction associated with them, then there is no reason to be given but that they may according to Christian prudence, in like manner dispense the seals, without any such jurisdiction or association. This I see not how any can deny, seeing the promises are delivered upon the same terms as the seals: But the dispensation of the promises is committed to their Ministerial prudence, and no other associated in jurisdiction with them; This cannot be denied. It follows then, that according to Christian prudence, they may dispense the seals, without any associated in any jurisdiction with them. If any should object, that it will follow from hence, that the Sacraments are to be delivered unto all, to whom the promises are tendered; This I shall grant with these three limits. 1. That those to whom they are tendered, professedly accept them, otherwise the Sacraments may be delivered to Heathens. 2. That there be some competency of understanding of them, otherwise the most ignorant of the Catechumen were not only to come to Baptism, but to the Lord's Supper. 3. That they do not openly and resolvedly in their course of life go against their engagements in them. In such case the promise may be tendered to Heathens, to grossly ignorant and flagitious ones, and yet the seal for present upon these grounds withheld.

Fourthly, Where power for any work is committed to one, [Reason 4] and no other named to be employed with him, there the work is left to the sole care and prudence of him to whom it is committed, and not by power of jurisdiction vested in many: But the work of administration of Sacraments is committed to one, and no other named to whom it is committed. The Proposition cannot be denied, and I know not how the Assumption can be answered. The conclusion then follows.

Fifthly, If Ministers have not only been vested with power [Reason 5] for administration, but actually also have administered with approbation, without any jurisdiction, then it is no act of jurisdiction. This cannot be denied, seeing that if it were the mind of Christ that a jurisdiction should be set up for administration, then the dispensers must have stayed for it (as Saul ought to have done for Samuel ) before administration: But Ministers have not only been in power for administration of Sacraments, but have actually administered with approbation without any jurisdiction: They have done it in unofficed Churches, where no jurisdiction had place; this is evident. To say nothing of Johns Baptism, instance might be given in the baptism administered by Christ's Disciples we find the Eunuch, the Jailor, and others baptized, and no Eldership consulted. Christ delivered the Lord's Supper where no Eldership was set up; and in case, Act. 2.42. be understood of the Lord's Supper, (as is generally conceived) there can be no contradiction; seeing that it is not imaginable that as yet that order was established with them.

If any shall object, [Object.] that a command lay upon them to administer the Sacraments, which must in this case of necessity be obeyed, and the duty not neglected, though an Eldership for a more orderly and regular carriage be wanting.

To this I answer, [Sol.] Omissions seem better to me then a prohibited, or a disorderly proceeding, expressly against a Command, or Ordinance of Jesus Christ; The Ark had better stayed where it was, then a new Cart should have carried it in that disorder to the place appointed for it; Better that Saul and Uzziah had let sacrifice alone, then any to whom it did not appertain, should have undertaken it. This therefore with me is not cogent, unless it be confessed, that there is no precept respective to such jurisdiction, when there is a command for administration. I never saw sufficient reason given, that a man should break an express rule given in Command from God, rather then omit a duty of mere positive institution: Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice then that Dan or Bethel should be the place for it: And in case such necessity may dspense with irregularities, why may we not on the other hand be irregular? and in such necessary want of a full and complete order, the Minister who is one, and the first in the number of such an Eldership, to take upon him the whole work, rather then on the one hand the administration should wholly cease, or on the other hand promiscuously dispensed, where there can be no possible benefit received. To this I confess, I was for some time much inclined, till that upon further examination and debate, reason enforced me to conclude, that the Minister by Divine appointment is authoritatively himself vested in power for admission or denial. And if I be driven out of this, and all these arguments here laid down fully satisfied, I shall rather believe that the Minister who is one party in the power pleaded for, as before, may rather act alone in such necessity, then either the authority itself be wholly laid aside, or Sacraments totally discontinued.

[Object.] If any shall further object, That Christ and his Apostles had virtually all offices in them, so that if that order could not so soon be established among them; the defect in this impossible case was sufficiently supplied by the Apostolical Office.

[Sol.] I answer. What power soever was vested in them, yet it appears not, that at once they exercised the power of all of them, but acted orderly in an association when it was required. Paul Ordained Timothy by laying on of hands, but not alone, but as associated in a Presbytery, his hands were laid upon him, 2 Tim. 1.6. and the hands of the Presbytery were laid upon him, 1 Tim. 4.4. He ordered the incestuous Corinthians excommunication; but this he did not alone, but with the Church-Officers, 1 Cor. 5. And if the Apostles Office had virtually all in it, yet it may be questioned whether it were so with Philip, unless we can make it good (which is by few believed) that he was Philip the Apostle.

Sixthly, That which hath neither any law in Scripture for it, [Reason 6] nor any set up for execution of it, is no Church-censure to be proceeded in, by virtue of jurisdiction; This is plain: But in Scripture there is no Law enacted for proceeding in such a censure, nor men set up for to proceed in such a juridick way; Therefore it follows that this is no Church-Censure. If any say. The Keys imply this power, and those that receive the keys, are set up in power; I answer, That Sacraments are within the power of order, which is distinct from jurisdiction, and contains no censure; and Keys in jurisdiction imply a letting in, and shutting out: now this is a Censure of those that remain within, and neither serves for letting in, nor exclusion.

7 ^th lie, If those must be kept back from the Sacrament in a prudential [Reason 7] way, on whom no sentence in way of jurisdiction ought to pass, then this rather belongs to prudence then to jurisdiction; This is plain: But those are to be kept back on whom no sentence in a way of jurisdiction ought to pass; This is also plain, Jurisdiction for censure is not, but in case of crime, & many are detained upon defect in judgment, no criminal charge being laid against them: Ergo.

Eighthly, The detaining of that from, or denial of it to any, [Reason 8] which they cannot improve for their benefit, but visibly tends to their danger, is no juridick act of penalty, but a prudential care for his advantage from whom it is thus detained, and to whom it is thus denied; This is clear. To deny drink to an Hydropick person, or flesh-meats to one in a Feaver, garlic or onions to a wounded person, or full of ulcerous sores, is not to inflict a penalty, but to exercise a prudential care: But this denial of the Sacrament to, or detaining it from the ignorant, &c. is only to withhold that which visibly tends to danger, and cannot be improved for any advantage; Therefore it is no juridick penalty, but a business of prudential care. And here an Objection which carries most color of all that can be said, is prevented, and already answered. To debar a man upon the grounds of ignorance, error or scandal from that which otherwise were his right, and proper interest, belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a censure: But in this a man for ignorance, error or scandal, is debarred of that which otherwise is his right, and therefore it belongs to the power of jurisdiction; and is a Church-Censure. To this upon the grounds before laid down, is answered, To debar a man of his right to his sensible prejudice, and to hold from him that which would be his present livelihood and comfort; is indeed a penalty or juridick censure; as to sequester a man from his house and Lands, to disfranchise a man of his Trade, &c. But for a Parent, a Nurse or Physician, to order diet as most for health, and to withdraw some food when digestion will not bear it, and it evidently appears to be of danger, is an act of prudence, and no censure; and so a Minister is considered in the, administration of Word and Sacraments.