The Covenant Sealed

SECT. I. Of the necessity of Sacraments.

THe next Observation that the words offer, is, That Sacraments are not arbitrary, but necessary; the Covenant-people of God, not only may, but must partake of them. As God appointed, so Abraham received this sign of circumcision: And as he received it, so all in confederation with him received it likewise, Gen. 17.23. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as God had said unto him. And the stated time for circumcision of those children who were born of parents in Covenant, being the eighth day, the text tells us, That Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God Commanded him, Gen. 21.4. And when Moses had a son born in his exile, and had neglected this duty; The Lord met him in his way from Midian to Egypt, and sought to kill him, Exrd. 4.24. he appeared in some formidable way of death to him, in that way (as many do conjecture) that he appeared to Balaam on his way, Numb. 22.23. Not that God really intended his death whom he now employed in that great work to deliver his people out of Egypt, but he appeared in this posture, to let him know what his sin deserved, and by these terrors to bring him and his wife to take the course after mentioned, for prevention of it. And though there have been some that have gone about to assign other causes of God's anger against hith, and this apparition in such terror, yet no other in the text appearing, and God departing from him, upon the child's circumcision; the neglect of that Command was undoubtedly the cause of it. Whatsoever reason moved Moses to this neglect, whether the fear of displeasing his father in law, or his wife, (which Rivet judges to be most probable) certain it is from the Lord's displeasure against him, that it was his sin. This was after given in charge by Moses to the people of God, Levite. 12.3. speaking of the birth of a man-child, he saith, The eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. This the Israelites (except the intermission of it in the wilderness) exactly followed; when the eighth day happened on the Sabbath, that work was yet observed, as Christ notes, Joh. 7.23. On the Sabbath day they received circumcision, that the Law of Moses might not be broken; John the Baptist therefore on the eighth day was circumcised, Luk. 1.59. and Christ himself on that day was circumcised, Luk. 2.21. as also Paul, Philip. 3.5. That of the Passover was appointed 400. years at the least, after circumcision. It had its first institution in Egypt, Exod. 12.3, 4. &c. to be observed as a feast to the Lord, throughout their generations, to be kept as an Ordinance forever, ver. 14. It was again commanded by Moses, and inserted into the body of the Law, Levite. 23.4. Numb. 28.16. This was carefully observed by the Israelites in their generations, though at sometimes when Idolatry prevailed, sinfully neglected. We read of many famous Passovers observed; viz. In Joshua's time, in Hezekiah's, in Josiah's days, also by Ezra upon the return of God's people out of the captivity of Babylon, Ezra 6.19. It is observed of the Lord Christ, that he kept four Passovers after the time that he publicly appeared as the Messiah. The last was the evening before his death, concerning which he said, With a desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I die, Luk. 22.15. With extreme earnest affection he was carried towards it, and then he put a period to it, and did institute his Supper in the place and room of it. That heavy menace, so frequently threatened in the Law, of being cut off from among their people, is given out against the neglect of both of these Sacraments, Gen 17.14. The uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Num. 9.13. The man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover; even the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin; which commination however we do interpret it, whether of the more immediate hand of God, as dying childless: The case of Jeconiah, Jer. 22.30. or being cut off by untimely death: The case of Er and Onan, Gen. 38.1.9. and of Nadab and Abihu, Levite. 10.2. or perishing everlastingly: The case of all presumptuous and inpenitent siners, 1 Cor. 6.9. or whether the execution be committed to man, and that either the temporal Magistrate, which was the case of Achan, Josh. 7. and of Shelomiths son, Levite. 24.14. or by Ecclesiastical censure, which was the case of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.13. As there be that appear for each of these, which way soever it is understood, it sufficiently proves a necessity of these Ordinances. For the Sacraments of the New Testament when John baptized, and the Pharisees did refuse to submit to his Baptism, the text saith, They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, Luk. 7.30. and the Commission given to the Apostles, to disciple all Nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28.19. implies a necessity of all discipled ones, to submit to Baptism, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Faith is of absolute necessity in all that hear the tender of the Gospel, and therefore it follows, He that believeth not shall be damned; and Baptism is the ordinary way set up of God, that leads to it. Peter counsels his converts, when he had them in an hopeful way, Repent and be Baptized, Act. 2.28. And Ananias counsels Paul, Arise, why tarriest thou? and be baptized, Act. 22.16. For the Lord Supper we find it under a precept, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Luk. 22.19. Do this in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, implies as a preparation for it; so also a necessity, that we eat and drink of it; so that every Sacrament hath its injunction upon it.

First, The institution of it is a sufficient proof of the necessity. God did never institute it to have it neglected; There is strength in that argument from the gift to the use, from the fruition of anything from the hand of God (as the servant the talent from his Master) to the improvement of it. These are instituted of God for his people, and therefore for the use of his people. That which the Apostle speaks respective to Gospel ordinances in general, may be applied to any one in particular; We beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6.1.

Secondly, Frequent explicit commands are added (as we have seen in the Scripture proofs) respective to either of the Sacraments; and though no other reason could be rendered, yet the Sovereignty of heaven must be obeyed. When the young Prophet that came from Judah, 1 Kings 13. did eat bread upon his return, expressly contrary to the command of God, we know the judgment that followed, when the like command is broke in refusal to eat, there is the like danger; God hath power in positives, as well as negatives, in commanding of eating, as he hath in forbidding.

Thirdly, As it is a duty, so also a privilege; we obey a command when we receive a Sacrament, and also take a gift. And the slighting of God's favors, equals the evil of disobedience to his commands. What sin suffers more then theirs, that upon call, refuse to come to the wedding supper? The gift is annexed to the duty. Take eat, this is my body; they that do not eat, have not the promise.

Fourthly, Our necessity calls us to it, we have proved the Supper to be an heart-breaking ordinance, and there is none that deny it to be a soul strengthening ordinance. Hunger will make haste to run to meat, guilt to pardon, and pain to ease, and sorrow to comfort; were we as sensible of our hunger, or guilt, we should make equal haste to Christ in each ordinance, in this ordinance. Those that are agreed about the necessity of Sacraments, are yet at difference about the degree, or kind of their necessity. That distinction of necessity by precept, or command of God, and necessity as a means whereby salvation is gained, is well known Bellarmine says, we yield to them the former, that there is the necessity of a divine command upon them, And they also yield to us that no other Sacraments of theirs are any otherwise necessary, except Baptism and repentance. And we further yield that repentance is of necessity in the most absolute sense; being understood of the change of the heart or conversion to God. But not under any notion of a Sacrament. As to their Sacramental repentance, standing in confession in the ears of a Priest, taking penance, and receiving absolution from him, we do not so much as acknowledge any command of God concerning them; All the dispute then is about Baptism, In which also we cannot grant, that there is a command given of God concerning it, but we must yield that it is necessary as a means whereby God in his ordinary way, carries us on by his grace to salvation; only we deny such an absolute necessity of it, as that no salvation can be obtained without it. They yet yield that desire of Baptism doth supply the want of it, and we yield that those of years, that neither have it nor desire it, cannot be excluded from contempt of it. This growing out of error, as in Socinians, and others, we say it is dangerous, but do not presently conclude it damnable. But the want of it, where there can be no desire of it, as in infants, they make damnable; in which we wholly are dissenters, and cannot yield a necessity of that height in it. We have our reasons.

First, Salvation was not tied to Sacraments in the Old Testament; not to circumcision, in room of which we have baptism, and is by the Apostle called by the name of Baptism, Col. 2.11. This is clear by the delay of it, according to God's command, to the eighth day. If those perished that died in the mean space, which was the case of David's child, their parents obedience of God's command brought them to perdition. And salvation being not tied to Sacraments, but attainable without them, in the days of the Old Testament, there is no cause to believe, that in the New Testament, there should be restraint. The promulgation of the Gospel did not straighten grace, or make the way less passeable to life and glory.

Secondly, They that are in Covenant with God, are upon that account in capacity of Salvation. This is plain; what advantage is gained by Covenant, if salvation be denied? But such are in Covenant, many such that never were baptized. This is as clear. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed; as soon as Abraham had a child, he had a child in Covenant, which howsoever Jesuits, and after them Anabaptists would understand of the spiritual seed, yet God (as we see through the Old Testament) owns them as his in a greater latitude. Those to whom he gave the land of Canaan, are his seed there mentioned: But he gave not the Land of Canaan to the spiritual seed only: Therefore they only are not the seed there mentioned. The New Testament holds it out, in as great latitude, as I have abundantly shown.

Thirdly, As Abraham the Father of the faithful came into a state of justification, and salvation, so others may attain to it in like sort; This is evident of itself: But Abraham was in a state of justification, without application of any Sacrament in his state of uncircumcision, and not of Circumcision, as the Apostle argues, by computing the time, when it was said of him, that he believed the Lord, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, Rom. 4.9, 10.

Fourthly, If Baptism be of this absolute necessity, that regeneration is affixt to it, and none can be saved without it, then it is in man's power to save; and destroy, as is said of Nebuchadnezzar, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, Dan. 5.19. which was the highest pitch of prerogative in regard of the outward man; so it may be said of man respective to eternity of bliss, or misery; according to them the meanest midwife may Baptize them ready to give up the Ghost, and save them, neglect them, and damn them. The Infant set out in type, Ezek. 16. And Moses in the flags, lay sadly at man's mercy for this fading life; but thousands of infants, are alike at mercy, according to this tenent, for eternity.

The great objection which is made on the contrary, and that only which is worthy of consideration, is drawn from Christ's words in conference with Nicodemus, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The water there, is meant of Baptism, that laver of regeneration, without this there is no entrance into heaven. When Paul said, Except these stay in the ship, ye cannot be saved, Acts 27.31. all will presently understand that their abode in the ship was of absolute necessity to safety; and so also baptism according to Christ's words for eternity.

Answ. Though it be not easy to determine, what is the right meaning, (and genuine interpretation of those words, yet it is of no great difficulty to vindicate them, from them that would fasten this sense upon them, and gather this consequence from them; And before I come to a full answer, I shall premise two things. 1. That it is a wonder that Nicodemus coming to our Savior in the night, and as yet knowing nothing in the Mystery of Christ, should hear that from him, that others in the open light, and far more knowing in Christianity, could never hear from his mouth. 2. Bellarmine himself (as Ames doth observe) confesses (and if I do not much mistake, Suarez somewhere) that at that time of Christ's conference with Nicodemus, there was no such absolute necessity of Baptism. He puts the question when baptism began to be necessary, and determines it in four propositions. The third is, That it was not necessary before the death of Christ, neither necessitate praecepti, or medii. The fourth is, that it was not necessary, necessitate me dii, & praecepti, before the day of Pentecost. And let any judge whether it be probable, instructing that novice in the faith, Christ would in the first place inform him, not what in present, but what afterwards would be of necessity, especially seeing that after that time by him set down, when the absolute necessity should commence, we hear of no such necessity of it. For more full satisfaction, I further answer,

First, That text which names not Baptism, and cannot be concluded by an argument infallibly cogent to speak of Baptism cannot enforce an absolute necessity of it; This is clear: But this text names not Baptism, neither is there any argument to conclude infallibly, that it speaks of baptism; probabilities are mentioned, but no necessary concluding argument is by any produced.

Secondly, A Scripture-text carrying like color, hath been urged for a like necessity for infants to receive the Lord's Supper, John 6.53. But this is agreed on all parties not to hold: This then how eagerly soever it is pressed, may fail likewise.

Thirdly, Either water there must be taken for Baptism of water, or else by way of Exegesis to hold out the same thing that was expressed before by the birth of the Spirit. If the latter will hold, as there are many parallel instances given, and multitudes of Divines so interpret it ( Gerrard in his common places reckons up many more then I have to consult) then this text comes to nothing in this particular. And that this should be the meaning, Chamier with fair probabilities argues, seeing in this sense, the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation. All being of a corrupt birth there is a necessity of a new birth, and that by the Spirit, there being no more births then that of the flesh (which is corrupt) and that of the Spirit, that comes to heal corruption. If the former stand, that water must of necessity hold out Baptism of water, as Papists and Lutherans generally contend, and many Protestants yield, then either the words must be taken in an absolute way, without any limit at all, or else with their just and due limitations; If limits must be put, then no absolute unlimited necessity can be concluded; and to understand it without any limit at all, our adversaries themselves see to be liable to dangerous absurdities.

Some therefore understand it of the Baptism of water, or some other that supplies the place and room of it; and it is on all hands granted, that Baptismus flaminis & sanguinis, the Spirit, or blood in Martyrdom, may supply the room of it for salvation. And this Chamier says, is the limit that Arboreus puts. Others understand it of Baptism of water, if it can be had, and it be not contemned and despised, and this Chamier says is the limit that Lombard, Bonaventure, Gorran, Carthusian, and Villagadus put to it. Others understand it of that regeneration, that is ordinarily by baptism of water, though by other means it may be wrought. And this limit Alexander of Hales puts to it, as Ames observes, either of actual Baptism, or else of the desire of it, and this Suarez says is the opinion of all Divines, and charges it for an heresy to hold, that none of years can be saved unless actually baptized, notwithstanding their earnest desire of it; and in his time, he says, one a Michael Baius a Divine of Lovain held it, But as (he says) Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. in their letters published did condemn it. And this text being subject to so many limitations, our adversaries being judges; I hope I may without any just exception add one, that it be understood of men of years, such as Nicodemus was, to whom it was spoken; seeing so many helps are provided for men of years in the want of Baptism, it is altogether unreasonable to leave Infants in such exigence, as to be irremedilesly under damnation for eternity, when it is not in their power to make provision of it, and so are holpen by Lombard, and those of that party: Any man may be their Compurgitor that they are not guilty of contempt of it. Besides this Text, there are many high speeches alleged out of some of the Ancient for the necessity of Baptism, and heavy doom of those that pass out of this world in the want of it. But these are not only under the dislike of Protestants, but of those that these lay claim to be of their own party. Bernard, Epist. 77. is large against them; and Vossius hath a full quotation out of Petrus Blessensis, who was Bernard's contemporary. The Spirit and water sufficeth; The Spirit and blood sufficeth, if instant necessity, and not contempt of Religion depriveth of Water. The Spirit alone may suffice, for his testimony hath weight in it. And whereas Austin of all other is most frequently quoted for this rigid sentence, as being in name most eminent, my author sets Augustine against Austin, having in his 5 ^th . Book against Donatists these words: Again, and again, considering I find, that not only suffering for the Name of Christ, may supply what is wanting in Baptism, but also faith, and conversion of the heart, if peradventure straits of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism. But to hold the Reader no longer in this controversy; in avoiding the Popish necessity of Sacraments, for a more distinct understanding of this necessity of Sacraments, I shall lay down some rules.

SECT. II. Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments.

FIrst, that Sacraments both of the Old, and New Testament, are standing Ordinances, to be observed of the people of God, not barely in the generation in which they were set up, but in all successive generations; so that there is an abiding and lasting necessity in them. This is in that punctual way set down in Scriptures respective to each Sacrament, as though the Spirit of God would let us know, that he did foresee a generation ready to arise, to throw them off, and live above them, or else to vilify them, as unnecessary, indifferent and arbitrary. For circumcision, see Gen. 17.12, 13. He that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations: he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed, he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised, and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant. God lays there a necessity upon it, a lasting necessity in all succeeding generations of that people to be observed; and when Moses several generations afterwards did as we have heard omit it; upon what reason we have nothing but conjecture. We see, Exod. 4.24. how much God was displeased at it. And for the Passover, Exod. 12.13. we find a like lasting injunction, This day shall be unto you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast unto the Lord, throughout your generations: you shall keep it a feast by an Ordinance forever: repeated again, ver. 17. It was an Ordinance that no Jew in any generation might antiquate, or put a period unto. It must last as long as they remained a distinct generation unto God, even till Christ (in whose hands are times and seasons, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek) should be the end of it. As to New Testament-Sacraments the Scripture is as clear; when Christ gave commission for discipling Nations, and baptizing them, for their encouragement in the work, he promises his presence unto the end of the world: The work is to continue as long as Christ's presence in the work continues: But Christ's presence according to promise, is to continue with them in discipling of Nations, and baptizing them, being discipled, unto the end of the world. I am not ignorant of the Critical observation that is made of the phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saeculi, by reason of the various acceptation of it in Scriptures, endeavoring to have it to be understood of the end of that age, in which those lived to whom Christ spake. But neither the parallel use of the word by Matthew, nor the context will bear that evasion. For the parallel use of the phrase by Matthew four places may be instanced in, three in one Chapter, Matth. 13.39. The harvest is the end of the world, verse. 40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world, verse. 49. So shall it be at the end of the world, the Angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, Matth. 24.3. Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of the coming, and of the end of the world? In all places the phrase is the same, and the words can be understood in none of them with that limitation: And that the context will not bear it, enough may be gathered from that which I have said, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 117. For a more clear discovery of the words, we know that there is a double period of ages, or generations in Scripture: One at Christ's first, coming, when an end was put to Circumcision, and the Passover; of this the Apostle speaks, Heb. 9.26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: at the end of that world Christ died. The other is at his second coming, and this is the end of the world here mentioned; and upon this account Dr. Reynolds in this Sermons upon Hos. 14. interprets that of Christ concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, that it shall never be forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come, Matth. 12.32. of the age in which Christ lived, and now near to an end, and the age that should follow from his death till his second coming; neither under the Old, nor New Testament, or Covenant, can that sin find remission. Till Christ's second return, a Ministry, and Baptism must still remain. For the Lord's Supper, Scripture-testimony is as clear, 1 Cor. 11.26. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come. If we can believe a coming of Christ for a temporal Reign, before the time of his, coming to the general Judgment, I shall believe that may be called the consummation, end or finishing of this generation; and then a period may be put to these and other Ordinances. But howsoever that will answer, or fail men's expectations, certain it is, that it is the mind of Christ that they shall stand, till the time that he doth come; and then his mind will be further known. The practice of the Church hath hitherto answered these testimonies. All ages of the Church (as we know) held up Circumcision till Christ's time, and in Christ's time it was in use, as Christ testifies, Joh. 7.22. and he submits to it in his own person, Luk. 2. and so we may say of the Passover notwithstanding some disuse, the godly ever knew it to be in force, or else, as piety broke forth, they had not still reassumed it. And Christ dying (as we have heard) at the end of that world, the day that he was to die, he held a passover. In New Testament-times not only through the Apostles times, but to this time, Baptism and the Lord's Supper have continued. Reasons may also enforce this as to Sacraments in general, so to Baptism and the Lord's Supper in particular. 1. The Covenant is to be kept forever, there is no dispensation at any time for the breach of it; The seals then which by Divine institution are appointed as appendants to it, must be continued. As reason itself may speak enough for the validity of this consequence, so the Text of Scripture likewise confirms it, Gen. 17.7, 13. compared, I will establish my Covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an everlasting Covenant; to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my Covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting Covenant. 2. We have as much need as ever, this generation as any other generation, to have our weaknesses supported, our faith strengthened; there is not any benefit ever gained by a Sacrament, but as primitive times did, so we may reap spiritual advantage by it. For reasons for the perpetuity of Baptism, Mr. Baxter, pag. 341, 342. of his Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptism, hath furnished the Reader with plenty; of ten that he urges, I judge nine at least to be unquestionable; to which I shall add only one, and that is such a one, that with weakness enough hath been brought by some for warranty of the disuse of it. If the gift of the Spirit be lasting, and continuing in the Church, then the use of Baptism is lasting and continuing likewise: But the gift of the Spirit is lasting and continuing: Ergo. The assumption, that the Spirit is a lasting gift, I suppose none will question. The major Proposition is grounded on the Apostles words, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? When others do reason from the having of the Spirit, to the needlenesse of Baptism, the Apostle disputes in the direct opposite manner, where the Spirit is, there Baptism is not to be denied. For the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, we may likewise evince the constant standing necessity of it: 1. The death of Christ is to be shown forth constantly, and every way preached: This is a showing forth of the death of Christ, a means of declaring of him crucified, 1 Cor. 11.26. 2. The memorial of Christ is to be preserved, and endeared; This is for his memorial, done in remembrance of him, Matth 26. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. If the deliverance from Egypt must be kept as a memorial forever in that Ordinance of the Passover, then much more the remembrance of Christ in his Supper. 3. Every way of Communion with Christ is to be preserved, and upheld; This is a way of Communion with Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. 4. Union with the Members of Christ is to be studied; This is the way of our union with the Members of Christ, and therefore this is to be continued. I shall not enlarge much for refutation of Objections of those that in our times are contrarily minded, seeing I have read little of anything that they have to say; a noise is abroad of such (with whom I have had small converse) that cry down rebaptisme, by the denial of Baptism; as Lucian made it his business to confute Polytheism, by bringing in of Atheism; made himself merry with the Pagans rabble of gods, by believing no God; Opposition of error ordinarily leads men into opposite errors; but a better way may be found for the overthrow of a double Baptism, then by the nullifying of all baptism. One God asserted by the Apostle will overthrow Atheism and Polytheism, and one Baptism asserted by him in the same place will overthrow Anabaptism. But these are not the first founders of this opinion: Austin speaking of the Manichees, Heres. 46. saith, That they hold, that Baptism with water not at all useful for salvation, neither do they think it meet to baptize any that they deceive: and speaking of other Heretics, Heres. 49. Seleuciani, and Hermiani, he saith, They do not hold any baptism with water. And Philastrius (who as Bellarmine witnesses de Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis, pag. 93. wrote before Austin of Heresies, and is quoted by Austin ) saith, Seleucus, and Hermius the heretics hold, that the soul consists of fire, and the Spirit. These use not Baptism, by reason of John Baptists words, He shall baptize you with the Spirit, and fire. Socinus in this last age hath revived this opinion, and saith, That Baptism with water hath no command from Christ, or at least no perpetual, and universal command. The Reader if he please may see the Scriptures by him wrested, and Reasons by him brought, vindicated, and answered by Vossius de necessitate Baptismi, pag 381. to pag. 388.

[Rule. 2] Secondly, There appears a greater degree of necessity of the initiatory leading Sacrament, which serves for our first admission (whether in the days of the Old, or New Testament) into the Church of God, then of the other that succeeds for our further strength and growth. Both of them are necessary, neither of them are arbitrary; but in case we may enter comparison, the greater weight lies on the former, as may several ways appear unto us:

First, There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church, before any was ordained to follow after it. Circumcision was given in charge 400 years before the Passover; that of Circumcision was not long after Abraham's call, and the promise of the land of Canaan being before Isaac 's birth, which was only 25 years distant from his first removal out of Haran for Canaan, as appears, Gen. 12.4. & 21.5. compared. The Passover was given in charge upon Israel's departure out of Egypt, Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given, which was 430 years after the promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.17. All this time the seed of Abraham entered into the Church by Circumcision, and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly so called.

Secondly, God's displeasure never shown itself so high, upon the neglect of the Passover, as upon the neglect of Circumcision, though the penalty threatened is the same in both, Gen. 17.14. Numb. 9.13. God never appeared, that we read, for the death of any, upon that account, as he did for the death of Moses, upon the neglect of Circumcision. Reverend Mr. Cotton makes the like danger to be in the neglect of Infant-Baptism, as we may see in the Preface to his Book on that subject.

Thirdly, To be utterly out of the Church, must needs be of greater danger, then to want someone Ordinance in the Church. Out of the Church there is no salvation, is an old Rule, which Acts 2.47. Ephes. 2.12. Jer. 10.25. abundantly confirm, that is, without it, and all right of relation to it, and to be without right, and to live in the neglect and despisal of it, (being convinced of the necessity of it) are alike dangerous.

Fourthly, No such brand can lie on the want of the one, as the other; none equal to that of uncircumcision, can be fastened upon the want of any other privilege: But lest excusing à tanto, I should be though to excuse à toto, in comparing the danger, I should be though to deny any danger in the want of this later, I shall cease.

Thirdly, As the Passover in Israel, both in the wilderness, and [Rule. 3] the Land of Canaan, was sometimes discontinued, and not in the time prescribed observed, by reason of the Churches disorder, and present unpreparedness of the people; so likewise it may haply sometimes fall out on like occasion, to be thought needful for a time to delay the Lord's Supper. For the disuse of the Passover by the children of Israel in the Wilderness more happily may be said, then for the time when they were settled in Canaan, seeing Circumcision at that time was also discontinued, whether by special command from God, or upon inevitable necessity by reason of their often removals, for which the knife of Circumcision would have disabled, or their sinful neglect, I will not determine; and yet more is said for ommission of it in that time, then perhaps can fairly be defended. A Reverend Divine saith, He wonders why omission of the Passover in the wildernesses is alleged; for after the first celebration thereof, all future celebrations were by express and plain command to be only in the Land of Canaan; quoting Exod. 13.4, 5. with an &c. Deut. 16. from ver. 1. us{que} ad 8. and confirming it at large with the authority of Rivet, inserting his words. But with due reverence to men of their eminencey, I may suggest also my wondrings, how it can be said, that by express and plain command all future celebrations of the Passe, after the first, were only to be in the Land of Canaan, seeing, Numb. 9.1. a famous Passover was observed in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the Land of Egypt. If it be said, that this Passover in the Wilderness was by especial command from God, and otherwise should not have been observed till they came into the Land of Canaan, as Ainsworth on Numb. 9.1. in favor of this opinion doth indeed say, The cause why God commanded them to keep the Passover in the Wilderness was, (saith he) for that by the first institution they were bound to keep it when they came into the Land of Canaan, and therefore without special warranty could not have kept it in the desert. I answer, That Circumcision when it was first taken up again in the Wilderness, was by especial command from God, Josh. 5.2. and in all probability the Passover that then was observed with it, ver. 10. was by like command; which doth not argue, but that by virtue of the primitive institution they might have kept it; neither is there any Text urged evincing any such limit to the Land of Canaan: for the place quoted, Deut. 16.2, 5, 6. verses, only looks that way, and the words are these, Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd in the place in which the Lord shall choose to place his Name there; thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his Name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at even, at the going down of the Sun, at the season that thou camest forth out • f Egypt: and there the place prohibited is not all places out of Canaan, but their own gates, though in Canaan. And the place prescribed is not Canaan, but the place wheresoever God should fix his Tabernacle; upon the same account no sacrifice could have been with warranty offered in the Wilderness, but only in Canaan, there is the like reason, and like Law for both, Deut. 12.5, 6, 7. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come, and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free-will offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks, and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God. Yet we find sacrifice offered in the Wilderness, and there they did eat before the Lord, as is plain, Levite. 10.1. ver. 16, to the end. As for Exod. 12.25. & 13.45. where the command for celebration of the Passover is given in charge to be observed, when they came into the Land of Canaan, They being to have Canaan by the gift of God for their habitation, mention is made of that place, where it was in all their generations to be observed (and no notice taken of any such halt, that they were to make in the way, which their sin did afterwards occasion): But it is no prohibition of it in the way thither, or warranty for omission, when the time was thus protracted for their arrival there; having the Tabernacle with them, they had their liberty for observation of it: which is clear to me, from Deut. 12.10, 11. When ye go over Jordan and dwell in the Land, which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety, then there shall be a place, which the Lord your God shall choose, to cause his Name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you. But before they passed Jordan, while Moses was with them, as you have heard, they had their offerings, which is further plain, Numb. 16.17, 18, 46.47. and so might have had their Passover likewise. As the Passover was discontinued in the Wilderness; so it was also oftentimes in the Land of Canaan, we read of no more Passovers then one, that was kept by Joshua. Josiah in the eighth year of his Reign, began to seek after the God of his Fathers; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah, and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved Images, and the molten Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Passover, Chap. 35.19. Hezekiah, as appears, hasted to keep a Passover, yet durst not be over-hasty, he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appointed. But upon advice put it off to the second month, because the Priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, 2 Chro. 30.3. Ezra kept a Passover upon the return out of the Captivity, Ezra 6.19. and the reason is given, verse. 20, 21. For the Priests and Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the Passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the Priests, and for themselves; and the children of Israel, which were come again out of Captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them, from the filthiness of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat. Had not the Priests and Levites been thus purified, and the people thus separated, the Passover it appears had been longer delayed. As these saw necessitating occasion for omission of this Ordinance, which yet is not charged as their sin; so may also the Ministers of Christ see like occasion for delay of administration of the Lord's Supper. And there is advantage on their part, seeing there was a prescript time in the Law for the observation of the one, but no limited time in the Gospel for the administration of the other. Sometimes a Minister by providence is cast upon such a people, that scarce three are able to discern what they have in hand, when they are about this duty, and therefore he sees no more reason to call them to it, then Christ saw to call his disciples newly chosen unto private fastings, or the Apostle to give meat to babes; edification is their great business, their whole business; they may stay the time that they may administer it to edification; sometimes it evidently appears that the rent is in a way to be made so great by their administration, through the observance of some working error upon the judgment in others, that are so principled, that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance, that they see danger in proceeding in it. And though I do not doubt, but that it is often forborne out of sinful neglect, and by truly conscientious Ministers, sometimes out of over-much indulgence of their brethren's weakness, and their own over-rigid principles: yet as I do believe that all conscientious Pastors, who for some space of time forbear, do judge that there is cause for such forbearance, so I do believe that upon some occasions pro hic & nunc, it may justly be forborne. And whatsoever exception is taken against Arguments drawn from Analogy, as not concluding, of which I need to say no more then I have already spoken, yet I shall conclude, that this which is drawn from the Passover (which is rather from example, then analogy) is cogent. If that of the London -Divines in their Divine Right of Church-Government, pag. 20, 21. (quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes, pag. 21. of his Treatise) be of weight, That whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture, upon such grounds as are of moral, perpetual, and common concernment to one person as well as to another, to one Church as well as to another, these actions are obligatory to all, and a rule to after-generations, then this Argument; grounded on the example of such actions, is not to be charged as not concluding; yea, though we had no such Example to lead us, (as perhaps they had none, to be a precedent to them) yet those reasons which led them, or those that are equivalent, may lead us likewise.

Fourthly, There is no definitive time in the Gospel for observation, nor any precise determinate prescript for the frequency of the Lord's Supper. But when and how often Christian prudence must order, yet being an holy exercise, the day which we are to keep holy calls for it, being the Lord's Supper, what time so meet as the Lord's day? The whole community of the faithful being interested in it, it is to be observed at the time of their public meetings, which occasionally may be at other times, but must be at that time. And in case breaking of bread, Act. 20.7. be meant of the Lord's Supper, (as most affirm, and I will not oppose) it is out of question. But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is always to be the work of every holy meeting, so the word should never be preached, nor prayer publicly made without a Sacrament; I believe there is somewhat extraordinary in a Sacrament, comparative to other duties, as there is in a Fast. And though the Law for the Passover, and day of Atonement, tie not us to annual observations only of Sacraments, and Fasts, as it tied the Jews; yet me thinks it speaks somewhat more then ordinary in them, and that Fasts and Sacraments are not to be done in that frequency, as daily addresses to God in prayer, and our hearing from God in his Word. And though I subscribe to Mr. Pemble and others, that the Apostles words, [As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup] implies that it should be often. A Christian should not seldom in his life partake of this Ordinance, yet I suppose it doth allow, if not imply longer intermission then is to be in other duties. The primitive times, perhaps in some places at least, made this Ordinance over-common, celebrating it (as is said) every day, in other places every Lord's day. Mr. Pemble who religiously pleads for the frequent celebration of it, says, It is true, that as in other, so in this Divine institution, Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt men's hearts in the observation of it. When the Sacrament was administered often, he brought it into contempt by the commonness of it: Now that it is administered seldom, through ignorance it is thought unnecessary. How truly his observation is verified, we see in two extremes into which different parties are run at this present time: One part breaking bread almost at all their meetings, and make no more of it then common bread, looking after no Minister set apart for that work, not so much as of their own making, any one whom they will call a gifted disciple (and such with them is every dipt disciple) is set up for it; They act it while some walk, some talk in their presence, with less reverence then befits grave persons at common meals. I fear there was never more rudeness in Corinth, then may be seen here in Sacramental observations. On the other hand, the Sacrament is almost forgotten, and looked upon as a Ceremony antiquated, and obsolete; Christian prudence should interpose, and discern a mean between both. To quicken and put us on against this last, of which the most had need, instead of a Book of Canons, or compulsory Laws. Let us, 1. Affect our souls with an ardent love of Christ, and then we shall not be so slack in celebration of this memorial of him: We will keep up the memory of an endeared friend, this way Christ hath commended to endear his memory to us. If love be such as it ought, we shall not desire that it be seldom, if it may be possibly often. Peter had it three times in charge from Christ, to feed his Lambs, to feed his sheep; how often he must preach Christ he is not told, that is left to his love; If thou lovest me, feed my sheep. Love would not let him be slothful. 2. Let us take into consideration our own necessities, of which here we may have supplies, first our want of humiliation, and heartbreaking, how slight and overly is all our feeling, and sense of sin? if let alone are we not in danger to grow past feeling? which was the case of the Heathen, when they had arrived at the greatest height of wickedness, Ephes. 4.19. Here is an hammer for that purpose, when once the Law hath discovered, by the light that is given, that we have sinned. No way to this for the aggravation of it. Here we see God's detestation of sin, that would not spare it in his only Son, as he spared not the Angels that sinned, but having no Mediator to bear it for them, they bore the punishment of it in their own persons; so he spared not his own Son, when he had taken upon him our sin. Here we see the desert of sin in all those torments which Christ bore for us. If we would know sin, and be sensible of wrath, study the Sacrament, the dead soul may be here awakened. Secondly, our spiritual weaknesses and wants, which I shall set out in Mr. Pembles words, Let them look inward, and see how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith, renovations of their repentance, of stirring up the graces of God in their souls, to add an edge, an eagerness to all spiritual affections after holiness, to get unto themselves the most powerful provocations unto obedience. Everyone that hath grace knows how frequently the power thereof is impaired by temptations, weakened by worldly distractions, even of our lawful employment, and over-mastered by the force of sinful lusts, so that they must needs discover a great deal of ignorance in their spiritual estate, that feel not in their own souls a proneness to astonishment, as well in their souls, as in their bodies, at least they bewray intolerable carelessness, that finding the emptiness and leanness of their souls, yet neglect to repair often to this holy Table, whereon is set forth the bread of life, whereof when they have eaten, their spirit may come again, 1 Sam. 31.12 their hearts may be strengthened, their souls may be replenished, as with marrow and fatness. These considerations may quicken our appetites after this spiritual food. And such a meal extraordinary, with the help of our ordinary refreshments, in hearing, prayer, and meditation, may carry us on more then 40 days, towards our heavenly Mansion. That we hasten not too fast on the other hand, Let us take into consideration our inabilities for a suitable preparation, and fitness for address to this Ordinance; we have fasted so long in course, that we have scarce known what humiliation of our souls in fasting is; yea; some would be every day at • t, as we can rise in our spirits to the extraordinary weight of it, and fit our souls with suitable preparations for it. These that I have named are the best gages, that I know, to regulate us in it, that in over-eager haste in duties extraordinary, we do not run ourselves out of breath; nor in over-much sloth, give ourselves over to faintness, and leanness.

SECT. III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine.

THen it will follow by way of necessary inference from this consideration of the necessity of Sacraments; that, When Sacraments are dispensed, Christians should see weighty reasons, such in which they may have confidence, that they will bear them out at the day of Judgment, for their omission of them. This duty is in the number of affirmative precepts, which always bind, A man is never from under the obligation of that Precept, Do this in remembrance of me; though it doth not bind to all times, A man is not to be ever in the doing of it, and he is never to be found in the neglect of it; Loco & tempore debitis, in due time, and place they must be done. A journey would have dispensed with a man for absence from the Passover, so it will (when necessity of a man's calling makes it necessary) from the Lord's Supper; so also will sicknesses, imprisonments, or like providences. But when the servant comes, and calls, and says, All things are made ready, then take thou heed how thou makest excuses. They that were called to the wedding Feast might have pleaded, that other businesses lay upon them, that they could not always attend weddings: But when the King sends, and says, All is ready, come, there is no time for other occasions td be looked after. It were an endless work, to find out the reasons that men frame for absenting themselves. Some see that it is a duty above them, neither their knowledge, nor their life doth answer to that which is required in a Communicant; and so despair of coming up to it, and therefore keep off, lest they should (as they fear) increase their judgment: In case these speak out of a serious consideration of the work, with a sad reflection on themselves, upon a diligent scrutiny into their hearts, and ways; and so take a day over for it, and in the mean time dignity for knowledge, as for hid treasures, and do strengthen their resolutions to withstand all temptations to sin, they are by all means to be encouraged, and holpen; every Christian of strength should commiserate these weak souls. But in case they clearly see all to be so, as we have said, and resolve to let all alone, as a man that sees himself near to a bankrupt, regards not whether end goes forward. This is then a sad and saddening reason; It lies upon these to take their state and condition into further consideration, that by the good hand of God it may be better with them. To provoke these to further care of their eternal state, I shall put to them these questions:

First, What is it that thou dost respective to other duties, the duty of Prayer? dost thou pray ever, or never? resolving to keep back from the Sacrament, dost thou resolve wholly to forbear to call on the Name of the Lord? If thou resolvest in this way, and perishest, thou hast upon thee the brand of the wicked, Psal. 14.4. They call not on the Name of the Lord; and the sentence of the wrath of God, Jer. 10.25. If thou canst pray with hopes to be heard, thou mayest then have hopes to receive the Sacrament, to be accepted; and if so qualified, as to be out of hopes in the one, then thou art altogether void of hopes in both. Paul speaks much of the danger of an unworthy Communicant, which should awaken all that intend to receive. And multitude of Scripture-Texts speak the same of men that pray in such a condition: What can be worse then for the Lord to say, when they pray, he will not hear, he will hide his eyes? Isa. 1.15. to reproach their praying, by the name of howling? Hos. 7.14. to account it an abomination? Prov. 28.9.

Secondly, If it be above thy hopes to sit down with acceptance at the Lord's Table, Is it not then as much above thy hopes to sit down in heavenly places with Christ Jesus? If thy state of ignorance, unbelief, and wickedness keep thee from participation with visible Church-members in this Ordinance in the way, how wilt thou be fit to join with the Church Triumphant in glory? Thou must be made meet for heaven, Col. 1.12. if thou come to heaven: and thou art meet to partake of this Supper, when thou art meet for heaven; unfit for this, unfit for salvation.

Thirdly, If the danger be great to come unworthily, is it any less not to come at all? It is hard to determine of the sins of despising, and profaning the worship of the Lord, whether is greater, or lesser; Judge whether are in better case, those mentioned, Matth. 22.7. or him that is mentioned, ver. 12, 13. and then thou wilt see that there remains nothing, but to endeavor to be such a one that may come, otherwise thou perishest in coming, and perishest in absenting.

Others profess their willingness, and readiness to come, in case they could have things to their minds when they come: But things being as they are, they are compelled to forbear. Now these keep off out of several principles, which in case they be well laid, they may justify their practice; but in case they are found erroneous, their way must needs be faulty. These are in two extremes.

Some would come in case the ancient Liturgy were held, and the Book of Common Prayer anciently in use in England might be observed; in the mean time till that be, they do forbear▪ To this I say, It is wonder how so much stress is laid on this as to invite to the worship of God in case they may enjoy it, and to persuade a total neglect, if they want it. Give me leave to desire of these (there being so many that harp upon this string) a few things for satisfaction, that so we may either prevail with them, to hold Communion with us, or else that we may forbear with them.

First, Is not this an honor far above all, that is due to any labor, or composure of man, to turn the scale in this manner, whether an instituted worship of God must stand or fall? An human work it is, this cannot be denied; we are to receive nothing as Divinely inspired, upon pain of adding to the Word of God, but that which is contained in the words of the Scripture. For this, so to steer my course, that when my liberty of use of it is granted, I will worship; and when denied, I will forbear; This I say is too high an honor, a work of man is thus made of the very essence and being of an Ordinancie of God. Hezekiah indeed put that honor upon the Altar at Jerusalem, that he would admit no sacrifice elsewhere, (as Rabshakeh could observe to his reproach, Isa. 37.7.) But he had a Word of God for it, Deut. 12.5, 6. To give the like honor to this book without a word from God, is to idolize it; These opinions of it, were that which outed it.

Secondly, Is it for the excellency of the work itself, that thou thus prizest it? or from the Sanction, that from higher powers hath been put upon it, the Law that did establish it? It must needs be one of these, that moves thee to put such an honor upon it. That no such incomparable transcendent excelleny, to cause so high a price to be put upon it, can be found in the work itself, may seem several ways to appear, if we consider, 1. The time of composure, immediately upon the first dawning of the Gospel light, and beginning of the knowledge of God in the midst of us. 2. The persons for whose use it was composed, such that for the generality had scarce stepped one foot out of Popish blindness. 3. The end at which the compilers aimed, to frame such a piece that might draw on a people wholly held in Mass Idolatry, to be content to accept somewhat in their own tongue, where prayers are directed to God in Christ, and not (as before they had been trained) to Saints, and Angels; So that they made not that use of their own gifts for such a work, as by the light received from God they might have framed, but such a one that they judged most meet for the Churches present infant condition, and so contented themselves, in a great part, with that which they found in the Breviaries, and Portuises of Rome. In so much that B. Davenant one of the gravest and most learned of Prelates, saith, Deter. 37. that some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our form of prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority. This is sufficient, if no more should be said, to make it appear that it did never come up to that excellency, that one might reach, that were composed in greater light, and for their use that were of further growth. But letting it pass without exception, and yielding (as must be granted) that thousands are in heaven that received the Sacraments no otherwise then according to the directory in it, yet doubtless, as must also be granted, that many more thousands are in heaven, that never knew it, Christ and his Apostles never used it. It was not in use in the primitive times; How many Liturgies may be read, as we may see if we go no further then Cassander? and this of ours is none of them. None of the reformed Churches in the world except England hath made use of it. Had it been of such a glory that men would deny themselves the benefit of the Sacrament, rather then want it, all should at the greatest cost have procured it. As our forefathers in England sent over into Germany for Bibles, at least New Testaments with hazard of their lives, so should they out of Germany have sent for ourt Liturgy Whereas some ignorantly say, that that was the Protestant Religion, Protestanisme lives and dies with it; This is damnably injurious to all Protestants in all the world, but ourselves; The want of this Liturgy strikes them out of our Communion; It on the other hand as much gratifies the Church of Rome, whose emissaries whisper this into ignorant ears; they use to charge us, that Henry the eighth brought in our Religion, but according to these we are not so old, Edward the sixth must be the father of it. It is not then from the excellency of the work that men can warrantably refuse this ordinance of God, upon the want of it the Sacrament may stand in its glory without it. But it is from the sanction that is put upon it, the law that hath established it, to which the people of England, though not others, must be subject. This many learned in the laws much questioned; while it was most in use with us upon grounds not easily answered; the act that imposed it under so strict penalties, refers to the book authorized by Parliament in the fifth, and sixth years of Edward the sixth, with two only alterations; now the alterations from time have been many more, and therefore the book is not the same. And whereas we should have recourse to the standard, the original draught among Parliament-records, that for many years hath not been found. 2. When we have suffered so great a change, as we see in our laws, divine providence so ordering, and yet keep silence, and in submission to divine will, conform to that which is in present; How is it that this should be as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which changeth not? When it is taken from us, we must not leave an ordinance of God, to keep hold of it.

Others would receive it, in case they might keep up their wonted gesture when they come to it. But seeing that that in many places is not born, therefore they keep from it. Answ. When some heretofore did forbear the Sacrament upon the account of kneeling, being so prejudiced against it (as no Scripture-posture) that they durst not use it, what clamours and invectives were raised against them, that they left (as was wont to be objected) a necessary duty for that which was arbitrary and indifferent, and upon so small an account made a breach of that unity, which ought to be among the people of God? Was it not an usual language in reproach of these, to say that they would receive it lying along; if it were possible standing on their heads, rather then want it? and when these made it their complaint, that they were accounted schismatic Puritans, and worse then Idolaters, for not kneeling at the Sacrament, Abridg. pag. 39. Bradsh. arg. 11. He that took most pains, and wrote most largely in defense of kneeling, answers, As for the imputations of Puritans and Schismatics, so far forth as the same be cast upon you for refusing to kneel, it is because you refuse and oppose the Church in a matter indifferent. For to strive against a National Church, and break the peace of it unjustly (as to break it about such mutable gestures in God's worship, as are truly indifferent both in nature and use, is to break them unjustly) was ever held for a Schismatical course. Paybody of kneeling, part 3. pag. 226. That which was then so blame-worthy, that men upon it were scarce judged fit to live in the Nation, is it now so innocent, and praise-worthy? will this be a good plea at the day of judgment, to speak to God in this language? Thou hast commanded the celebration of thy Supper, enjoining us to take, eat, and to drink of it. Thou didst annex a promise of the body and blood of Christ for the pardon of sin; now there is a gesture which I would take in, which thou commandest not; in case I may not have my will in the one, why shouldst thou have thy will in the other? Let thy great promise go, rather then I will take and eat it, in any other posture then that which I have used. When so many and great troubles were in the Church about this gesture, which are not yet forgotten, many pious men yielded to it, though they saw inconvenience in it (seeing they durst not make a schism in the Church, or be at the loss of a Sacrament) but were far from believing any necessity of it, or in it. The party that urged it had never more to say then the command of authority, to put an obediential, not an inherent necessity upon it, (as Dr. Sanderson distinguishes) and the indifferency of it in its own nature to warrant it; If a gesture (which some have judged sinful, and all have confessed to be unnecessary) now be waved, none should be so much offended.

Others yet would break through all of this, to come to this ordinance, neither want of Liturgy, nor change of gesture should keep them back. But there is a further bar in their way, that which Peter requires of every man, to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them, a reason of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3.15. is now called for, in case they will communicate. Here is their grievance, and therefore they will absent themselves, and here is a double exception. 1. The thing itself. 2. The manner of proceeding. As to the thing itself; It is objected, that the Apostle says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of his bread, and drink of this Cup, &c. Every man then is to be left to his own private examination, and not to subject himself to the examination of another. For answer to this grievance, I say,

First, In case that this examination, or account taken, did shoulder out that of self examination, the objection were then to purpose; if these can be proved opposite, and not subordinate, one of them must then be waved.

Secondly, Let us then agree in this, that self examination is necessary: and that it is to be done in order to the worthy receiving the Lord's Supper; and all that would communicate, to be ready to engage themselves for this self-examinrtion, and then I shall only demand these questions.

First, Whether they will examine themselves, or engage for examination, that cannot examine? Whether they will make a search, that have not eyes to see? Whether they will prove themselves, whether they be in the faith, that know not faith? Whether they will examine their humiliation under sin, and return from sin, that know not sin? If a Minister of Christ should call upon his people to examine, before they eat of this bread, or drink of this cup, he must upon that account take care that they be so far knowing as to do it. If he must administer it for edification, he should see (so far as he is able to discern) whether they be in a capacity to be edified by it. If this knowledge be wanting, then by their own confession they are unmeet, in case they be of knowledge, it is easily signified, and made known, especially fundamental necessary principles being alone demanded.

Secondly, Among other graces, wilt not thou in this self-examination look for that grace of humility? that of hungering after Christ Jesus evidenced in the love of his Ordinances? If thou art wholly wanting in the grace of humility, thou standest unfit for this Table, God resists the proud, The soul that is lift up is not right. If once this be obtained, then thou wilt, as to thy guidance in heaven-way, not be too high to obey those that are over thee in the Lord. Those speeches that we have heard of scorn and comparisons entered, never came from an humble heart. If thou wantest an hungering fervent affection after Christ Jesus, thou then art not meet for this Table, as being without a spiritual appetite; If thou hast attained to it, no such bars will be pleaded, or spoken of to hold thee from it. Hunger will break stone-walls, iron-bars: This is a hard weapon that will break through all obstacles.

For the manner, some say, If this were done by the Minister alone, they could easily bear, but others associated they do not like. Ruling Lay-Elders they suppose are not of God's institution. To this I say,

First, What do they say to all the Reformed Churches almost in the World, that have that way of Discipline; if thou wert a member of the Church there, wouldest thou upon this account separate and leave Church-Communion?

Secondly, What sayest thou of our Government in this Church, when Bishops were in power; who acted then in Government but Chancellors, and Officials, who were for the most part lay-persons? If such could rule over a whole County, perhaps three or four Counties; three or four may then with the Minister have inspection into one Parish. The 26 Canon required Ministers to keep back notorious offenders from the Sacrament; and Canon 27. provided that he should give his reason upon complaint to the Ordinary, and obey his direction. This Ordinary was for the most part a Lay-person, and he was set over both the Ministers and Communicants of many Congregations.

Thirdly, In case any judge that according to Gospel-order, no others should join with the Minister, but that he should act alone in admission; what prejudice is this to the Sacrament, when he that is confessedly called to the work, acts alone in the administration of it? And in case a Minister see it expedient to crave assistance in so weighty a business, especially where he is cast upon a large Congregation, for his further information, and advice; where then is the evil? When Ministers this way go alone, then it is auricular confession, shrift, and whatsoever profaneness can devise; then partiality is objected, that out of spleen they put men from this Ordinance; when to avoid these even by consent help is chosen, that on the other hand it is such a grievance, that it is thought a sufficient reason of men's absence.

These that we have hitherto seen are extremes on the one hand. There are those of an opposite party, that have their Objections likewise, and would come, as they say, to this Table, in case they could meet with suitable guests there, and those only that become such a Feast; such that are holy, and no other; but looking for others there whom God never called, they resolve upon that account to keep absent. I answer, 1. Let these take heed lest they take too much upon them, in passing sentence upon all that come to join in this duty, and think better upon it, whether that, or somewhat else, ought not to be there their business? 2. Whether they go not higher then the Word of God will bear them out in the principles that they lay for the qualification of such a one that is admittible to this Supper? and take heed that their great ambition be not to find out a Church in that purity and glory, that Christ hath altogether denied to be enjoyed on earth. 3. Where it is that they can have hopes to go to join, where all give evidences of regeneration, and no other are received? These betake themselves all their days to the Society of Seekers. As those under the famine of the Word threatened by the Prophet, shall wander from Sea to Sea, and from the North, even to the East, and shall run to and fro, seeking the Word of the Lord: So may these, seeking a Church of their own fancying, but shall find none. But for more full satisfaction, let these take these following Arguments into consideration.

First, There is never an approved example in all the Scripture, of any one man that did separate, or withdraw himself from an Ordinance, which God hath enjoined upon the account of the impurity or defilement, either of him that did administer, or of those that were to join in it. It is true that it is said, 1 Sam. 2.17. as the aggravation of the sin of Hophni and Phinehas the sons of Eli, that men then (and as appears for their sakes) abhorred the offering of the Lord, and therefore in all probability absented themselves from it; but Elkanah and Hannah did not so, as appears, Chap. 1.3, 7. and Mr. Hildersham. Lect. 29 on John, pag. 129. observes from Chap. 2.24. that it was their sin that made any such separation.

Secondly, There are many approved Examples of the people of God to the contrary; how much do we read in the Prophets of the people's wickedness, and corruptions in the State Civil, and Ecclesiastical? yet which of them for that cause did make separation? We see what company did resort to the house of God in Jeremy 's time. Jer. 7.9, 10. and yet we see Jeremy ready, when he had liberty, to resort to it, Jer. 36.5. Much was out of frame, and little in due order in Christ's time; yet as he acknowledged, that even then salvation was of the Jews, Joh. 4.22. they had then saving Ordinances among them, so he held Communion with them, as he religiously observed other Feasts, so some have observed (as we have heard) that he kept four Passovers, after he appeared in public, for the work of man's Redemption.

Thirdly, One man's sin must not keep another from a necessary enjoined duty; if one man will make himself by his profane addresses guilty of Christ's death, another must not therefore forbear to show forth his death. This is such a duty, and the sin of another will by no means excuse neglect of it: this were to sin, because another sins; to despise an Ordinance, because another profanes it: when one came without a wedding garment, no invited guest for his sake did keep from the wedding.

Fourthly, No one Communicant is bound to examine what all are, that are his fellow-Communicants; there is neither express command for it, nor yet reason to evince it; each man is bound to see himself arrayed, as he ought, and not to find fault in others addresses, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; though he be to admonish as his brothers visible sin gives him occasion.

Fifthly, The penalty of him that comes unworthily, reaches his own self, that comes in his unworthiness, and extends no further. Legal uncleanness defiled the man, that was personally unclean, and not his neighbor: so it is here, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, &c.

Sixthly, If one man's sin this way do defile another, the sin of one Communicant doth defile all other Communicants; then it must be either from the nature of sin, thus to defile all in so near Communion, or from the nature of the Ordinance thus to be defiled to all, when one in defilement comes to it; or from some positive precept forbidding all to come, when any that is unclean is there. I doubt not but this is a sufficient enumeration. But, 1. It is not of the nature of sin, thus to defile all, in such communion, then it would everywhere thus defile, wheresoever any have society, or do accompany together. Then the chief Priests had done well, to keep out of the Judgment-Hall, that they might be clean, to keep the Passover, John 18.28. and the Pharisees to wash, when they came from Market. 2. It is not of the nature of the Ordinance to be thus defiled to all. It is not so in other Ordinances: Cain 's offering defiled not Abel's, nor did Hophni and Phinehas in their offerings defile Elkanah and Hannah when they offered. 3. Nor yet is there any positive precept, forbidding a cleansed soul, upon the account of the uncleanness of another, to come to this Table.

Seventhly, If one man's presence in this way defile another, then it is either his simple presence, such a ones being there in his infection, or else a willing and witting presence with such a one. If simple presence do defile, then there is no man that can be secure. The closest hypocrite that creeps in unawares would be the undoing of all; when Christ said, Ye are clean, but not all, Joh 13.10. according to this opinion it had been a contradiction, the uncleanness of one had been the defilement of all. Neither is it willing, or witting presence, that can in this way defile, then it must be in every single man's power to determine him to be such, and exclude him thence, or else of necessity exclude himself. When the Eldership hath judged and received according to the general way of Reformed Churches, or the plurality of votes of believers, as it is with men of the Congregational way, he must make an after-search, a further scrutiny; he that one judges fit, that most judge fit, some will judge unworthy, and upon that account must shut themselves out of Communion. Men of such principles must everlastingly avoid all Church-fellowship, or act against their principles; and we need not to speak it, it is too plainly visible what manner of persons men of such high pretences have in their Congregations. There are multitudes of Arguments heaped to nourish this scruple, but I shall not further trouble the Reader; there is nothing, I think, can be said, but that which here hath been spoke, will afford a sufficient answer.

SECT. I. Sacraments are seals.

HEre follows a second use and office of Sacraments; which being added to the former, makes up the whole for which they serve. As they are signs, so they are seals; from whence a double Observation follows.

Sacraments are seals.

All that the Sacraments work on the souls of receivers is by way of sign and seal.

First, Sacraments are seals.

Before this can be proved, by reason of the ambiguity of the word, it is to be distinguished; Seal is sometimes taken properly, and that is yet twofold: 1. A seal sealing, or making an impression, and so the instrument used for that purpose is called a seal, or signet; so, Gen. 38.18. Judah delivered to Tamar his signet, or seal; so, Dan. 6.17. 2. A seal sealed, or receiving an impression; so the Letters that we send have their seals upon them, when we yet keep our signet, or sealing seal, to make thousands of impressions: so in the vision, Revel. 5.1. there is a book with seven seals. Sometimes the word is used Metaphorically. And that is also twofold; 1. By way of allusion to the signet, or instrument sealing; and so those things that are of great esteem, and highly prized, are called by the name of seals, or signets, Jerem. 22.24. As I live, saith the Lord, Though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim the King of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. So, Hag. 2.23. 2. By way of allusion to the use and office of a signet, or seal, as making impression on things sealed, that is, as doing the office of such seals: Here it is taken metaphorically, not in a proper sense, but in allusion to the use of seals, not the signet itself. Now the use of seals is various.

First, For secrecy, to keep things close, so that while the seal is upon them none may look into them. To that end we use to put seals on our Letters, that they may not be read by any but those whom they concern; so the chief Priests sealed the stone, of Christ's Sepulcher, Matth. 27.66. To this use of a seal the Prophet alludes, Isai. 8.16. Bind up the testimony, seal the Law among the disciples; and John also in that vision, Revel. 5.1. I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the Throne a book written within, and on the back side sealed with seven seals.

Secondly, For warranty and authority in the discharge of any business. Haman had Ahasuerus his seal for the slaughter of the Jews, Esth. 3.12. And Jezebel had the seal of Ahab to bring Naboth into question, 1 King. 21.8. and to this use of a seal the Lord Christ alludes, where he vouches the authority of the Son of man to give life to the world, Him hath God the Father sealed, Joh. 6.27.

Thirdly, For distinction, or separation, to mark out things that are to be known, and distinguished from others. Commodities allowed to pass, have the public Officers stamp; and the Merchant puts his mark on the wares that he buys, as the Grazier on his beasts, the Shepherd on his flock, to distinguish them from those that belong to others. To this the Apostle alludes, 2 Tim. 2.19. Having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.

Fourthly, For security, to keep things inviolable, and free from harm. To that end Daniel's prison-door was sealed, Dan. 6.17. To this use of seals Solomon alludes, Cant. 4.12. A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Water was precious in those parts, therefore they shut up their Wells, and sealed them, that none might draw out water from them. The like allusion we see in that vision, Revel. 7.2, 3. And I saw another Angel ascending from the East, having the seal of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four Angels, to whom it was given, to hurt the earth, and the Sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the Sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in the foreheads.

Fifthly, For ratification, and confirmation; for further, and more firm assurance. In the grants and conveyances of men the seal is to make the title unquestionable, Jer. 32.10. I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it. The Corinthians conversion to Christ, did evidence the Apostles Call to work of an Apostle; and therefore he says, The seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. 9.2. We find a seal, and earnest given, Ephes. 1.13, 14. 2 Cor. 1.22. to be one and the same; and the use of earnests we know is for confirmation, to ratify a Covenant, or bargain: what the Apostle saith of an oath for confirmation, that among men it for end of all strife, Heb. 6.16. the same we may say of a seal, that puts an end to differences, and contentions. And what an oath is to a promise, a seal is likewise; and God's oath added to his promise, is of the same use as his seal, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we should have strong consolations, Heb, 6.18. yea, Abraham the leading man in Covenant had from God both oath and seal added for confirmation of his promise; The Apostle makes observation of his oath out of Scripture-history, Heb. 6.13, 14. When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And here he makes like observation of his seal, God having entered Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, adds this for ratification, Genes. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, Every manchild among you shall be circumcised; which the Apostle here interprets to be both a sign, and a seal. He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness, &c. And in this respect Sacraments are called seals, to ratify and confirm all that the Covenant doth hold out, and promise. That which doth the office of a seal, or earnest between man and man, that is fitly called a seal between God and his people: But Sacraments do the same Offices between God and his people, as seals and earnests do between man and man; seals and earnests ratify man's Covenant, Sacraments ratify and confirm the Covenant of God; and therefore Sacraments are fitly called seals.

But exceptions are here taken by those that do deny that Sacraments have any such office as to be for seals.

First, This is the alone place where any Sacrament is called in Scripture by the name of seal; This Sacrament is only once, and no other Sacrament anywhere ever so called: And therefore it will not hence follow that Sacraments are seals.

Answ. 1. This will conclude them to be no signs, as well as it will conclude that they are no seals; Circumcision is here called a sign, and no other Sacrament is in any Scripture-Text called a sign; yet all confess that they are all signs. They may therefore notwithstanding this objection be seals as well as signs. 2. The calling of it a seal, doth not make it one, but only declare it to be such: Before ever the Apostle had given it these names, it was both a sign and seal, as well as after: other Sacraments are likewise seals, where there are like Sacramental expressions, notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture. And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision, and Abraham's acceptation of it, that Circumcision was a seal, so may we infer in like manner, that other Sacraments are signs and seals. Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abraham's Circumcision, with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34, 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptism; Abraham believed, and was justified upon believing, and then received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being uncircumcised. And the Eunuch did believe on Philip's preaching, and afterwards received Baptism. May we not well then say, He received the sign of Baptism, a seal of the righteousness that he had being yet unbaptized? so we may say of Paul's Baptism, and the Jaylours, upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptism for the same reason.

Secondly, It is demanded, whether the Covenant of grace, and promises of salvation be complete, valid, and firm in themselves, [Object.] without these things annexed to them? or whether they be merely void, and null in Law, as Kings, and men's Deeds, and Charters, without a seal to confirm them? If incomplete, infirm, and invalid, this is extremely derogatory to the Covenant, and therefore they are not properly seals.

Answ. 1. [Sol.] If there be some dissimilitude between civil seals used by men in Charters, and conveyances, and seals of God put to his Covenant, will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals? There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes, and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions, are Ministers then no Ambassadors? There is difference between servants of men, and servants of God, are Christians then no servants? Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor, because they do the office that seals do among men, and if they do not per omnia quadrare, as no metaphors do, yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed, it is sufficient. Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors; being sent of God to treat from him with a people, as Ambassadors are sent of Princes, notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadors come, may treat, or not treat at pleasure; may give in Propositions, as well as receive them; when they to whom God's Ministers are sent, must give audience, must take the Propositions delivered, and not stand to Capitulate. If Sacraments ratify to us the promises of the Covenant; That is enough to denominate them seals, though wit could devise twenty differences. And yet I read some differences assigned, which I confess) I do not understand to be any differences at all. 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law, that men's grants are void altogether, without a seal; I have heard of Leases: parol, and Wills nuncupative, which I am sure have no seal. And seals sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke, and lost; and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand. 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments, as seals, may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word. That will admit the dilemma; Either his Word of Promise was true, and firm without it, or else (which I am loath to speak) subject to change. The application is easy. The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty, and seven years famine, by a double sign; If there was truth in one, we may argue the second needs not; if untrue, neither have cause to be heeded, or regarded. If we will undertake such kind of reasonings, we should make no end. 4. The Covenant is complete, full, firm, and valid, in case we should never more then once hear it, or never have any seal put to it, nor any oath for confirmation; yet our unbelief, and distrust is such, that we need ingeminations, inculcations, oaths, seals, and all from God to uphold us.

[Object.] Thirdly, It is yet demanded, whether these seals are inseparably annexed to the Covenant, and promises of grace in the Old, or New Testament, as parts, or parcels of them, as seals are annexed To the Charter? If yea, then show us to what Covenants, and Promises, and in, and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed, and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant, and promises of grace, who do not actually receive these seals of grace? when as yourselves with all Orthodox Divines must grant, that many who were never baptized, and infinite who never received the Lord's Supper, are and may be saved, and are made partakers of the Covenant, and promises of grace, without receiving, or enjoying these seals of grace. If no, then how can these be termed seals of the Covenant, and promises of grace, which are not inseparably affixed to them, as seals are to Charters since many receive the Covenant, and promises of grace, without these seals; and other receive these seals, without the Covenant, or promises, the benefit whereof they never enjoy.

Answ. They are inseparably joined respectu praecepti, [Sol.] as being enjoined of God (and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary, but necessary; may be brought in to witness) though not so respectu medii, The Covenant may have its effect without them, The Covenant is entire in itself without them. They are not inseparable quoad esse, yet they have their necessity (though not simple, and absolute) quoad operari, for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts. God saw them necessary, helpful, and useful, and therefore gave them in charge, as many Scriptures witness, and we of necessity must submit to them, in order to obtain the end to which they serve; and for which they are designed, and appointed.

SECT. II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seals.

FIrst, These are outward, visible seals; and privileges of visible Churches, and Church-membership, committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense, and apply to their people. And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned, the seal of the Spirit which is internal, invisible, proper only to the elect, regenerate, reserved in the hand of God, according to prerogative to give. That these are external, and visible, needs no more then our eyes; and that they are the privilege of visible Churches, and Church-members, sufficient hath been spoken. And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal, both are for ratification, and confirmation of the truth of God's promises, yet in a different way, and different latitude; They have the former, that never reached the latter; and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter.

Secondly, They are seals not to confirm any truth of God in itself, or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions, But as general truths are brought home by particular application, so they seal men's particular interest in the Covenant. He that hath the Son hath life; He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. These are Scripture-Propositions, and he that is to seek here hath no cure in the Sacraments; They can give no direct remedy. These signs and seals take this for granted, and cannot make proof of it. But when this is assented to in the general, He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that feeds upon him, shall live forever; Here souls are confirmed in their particular interests, that the Son is theirs, and that they feed upon him for life eternal.

Thirdly, we must distinguish the outward sign in the Sacrament together with that which is done about them, or any of them, and the Communicants act in the bare beholding of them, from our act of receiving of them. In the former sense they are no more then signs. The Lord's Supper thus considered is no more then a remembrance, memorial, or representation of Christ's death and passion. In the latter it is a seal, pledge or earnest. And therefore to say that Christ ordained it to be a remembrance, memorial, and representation of his death is a truth. But to say that therefore he did not ordain it to be a seal, is a manifest error. If Christ had taken bread, and broken it; taken the cup, and poured out wine, and had said, This is my body, this is my blood, here had been a sign, a memorial, a representation, and no more: But when he says, Take, eat, this is my body; This is my blood in the New Testament, drink ye all of this; it is, as Circumcision was, both a sign and seal: As a sign, remembrance or representation; the beholding is sufficient, as the Israelites did the brazen Serpent, and as Papists look on their Images, for which if they had an institution, as they have a prohibition, they might be defended; and if we were to do no more, it would be no more then a sign, memorial, and representation; But being to receive it, It is a seal, and pledge of that which it represents, and brings to our minds.

Fourthly, They are not absolute seals, but conditional; They do not make it good to all, that Christ is theirs; but upon God's terms, which is expressed by St. Peter to be the answer of a good conscience towards God; Of this I spake largely, Treatise of the Covenant, pag. 34, 35, &c. which by Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been examined, Sect. 60, to Sect. 82. which here must briefly be taken into consideration.

SECT. II. Corollaries from the former doctrine.

LEt us here see the goodness of God, the singular tender care of Christ, thus to condescend to our weakness, as to vouchsafe these visible, sensible pledges, and confirmations of our faith in the promises. All that can be thought upon to ratify, and make good whatsoever, from any hand we have in expectation, Christ hath been pleased in his condescension to vouchsafe unto us. In such a case we desire, 1. A promise, that he from whom we expect it, would engage himself by his word for it. This Christ hath done in the Gospel-promises, we have his promise frequently repeated, still inculcated, Gen. 32.12. And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the Sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude, 1 Tim. 4.8. Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, Joh. 11.25. I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet he shall live. 2. When we have a word, we yet desire an oath, that the person by that sacred tie, may be obliged not to recede, or go back from that which he hath spoke; This God hath vouchsafed. when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before us. 3. When we have both word, and oath, yet we desire his hand, that it may be subscribed, that we may have somewhat to produce and show for that which we expect; This God hath vouchsafed, Joh. 20.31. These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name,