That we may work regularly, it will be neceſſary in the Firſt place, to Enter it in due manner, i. e. begin with a right underſtanding of the Apoſtles proper Deſign, whereto every word is to be ſerviceable: For it is no ſmall help to a travailer to know which way his journies end lies, and to caſt the Country accordingly.

His General deſign we cannot miſtake: Nothing can be plainer than This, that it is to convince the Corinthians of their guilt in profaning the Lords Supper: but the Medium whereby he proſecutes this charge, is both Generally and Groſly miſtaken: and ſince this is the Mother error, whence all our Neglects on One hand, and all our Earneſtneſs on the Other, and all our Diſputes on All hands proceed, it cannot be too plainly expoſed: and thogh it be troubleſom, yet muſt we crave the Reader to undergo a labor ſo neceſſary, that without it he cannot underſtand what the Apoſtle meaneth throughout his diſcourſe.

We too haſtily believe, that he endeavoreth to prove no more but this, that our Lords Perſon was concerned in all the abuſes of his Supper; taking it for granted, that they knew how his Supper was concerned in Thoſe Meetings which he reproved: Whereas the more we conſider it, the plainer we ſhall find, that his Direct and Immediate endeavor, is to prove the Later, ſuppoſing the Former as ſelf-evident, upon the firſt notice of our Lords Inſtitution.

So the caſe of the Corinthians toward the Lords Supper, was much like the Apoſtles Own toward the High Prieſt, Acts 23.4, 5. They that ſtood by, ſaid, Revileſt thou Gods high priest? Then ſaid Paul, I wiſt not, brethren, that he was the high prieſt: For it is written, Thou ſhalt not ſpeak evil of the ruler of thy people: He reproveth the Corinthians, as the By-ſtanders reproved Him. Profane you the Lords Holy Supper? And ſuppoſing them likewiſe to excuſe themſelves in the ſame manner, by ſaying, We wiſt not that it was the Lords Holy Supper, for we cannot but know, That muſt be celebrated with reverence; he argueth in ſuch manner, as to convince them of what they ſeemed either not to Underſtand, or not to Own.

II. THE underſtanding of This will give us great light towards diſcovery of every ſtep; and that this is true, we may the better perceve if we proceed by theſe Enquiries.

1. Whether this might not be the Corinthians caſe?

2. What might become the Apoſtle to do in ſuch a caſe?

3. How doth the Apoſtles procedure ſuit with ſuch a Suppoſal?

1. This might very well be the Corinthians caſe. For

1. Poſſibly they might ſuppoſe that our Lord pointed at the Bread, as Paſchal, not as Feſtival, and conſequently preferred not Every Feſt, but only the Paſsover to this honor: and for This, there are appearances of reaſon not contemtibl. 1. He choſe the Paſsover for the Seaſon of his Inſtitution, and embraced it with ſuch expreſſions of Affection, as ſeemed Proper to That Particular ſolennity, ſaying, With a deſire have I deſired to eat (not this [Supper] but) this [Paſsover.] 2. This above All other Feſts, beſt Prefigured his death while Future, and was therefor moſt fit to Commemorate it, when Paſt. 3. The Jews ſaid of the Lamb, This is the BODY of the Paſsover; and our Lord ſeemeth to allude to it, ſaying: This is my BODY. 4. The Jews diſtributing the Paſchal Cake, ſaid, THIS IS the Bread of affliction, &c. and our Lord diſtributing the Bread, ſaid, THIS IS my Body, &c. And at That time, having newly filled their minds with phraſes proper to the Seaſon, it is very probable that they might receve our Lords words in ſuch a ſens.

2. And probably, ſuch an error might proceed from want of a proper form of Words, to accompany the celebration. One of the beſt Doctors our Church can boſt of, authoriſeth me to ſay, That ſuch a Form of words (however Uſeful) is not indiſpenſibly Neceſſary: Our Lord enjoined none, and we find not that his Apoſtles either Practiſed or Taught their Diſciples any: and it was prone for the Corinthians to ſlide into an error concerning That cup, which carried no Inſcription to declare its contents.

Certainly from hence came that which Tertullian complains of in his days, That Feſts of Charity were celebrated in the Church without the Lords Supper: and from hence came our loſs of the meaning (which is the Soul) of our Grace-cup. And on the contrary, the Jews, with the Mater, retene alſo the meaning of their Tradition, becauſe both the Bread and Cup are accompanied with ſuch a Form of words as will not ſuffer it to be loſt.

3. And poſſibly, they might look upon the Whole as a mere outward Performance: For knowing how litle fondneſs our Lord had toward Such exerciſes, they might thence infer, that he left it in Their choice to Perform or Omit it, as Themſelves ſhould judge convenient: and their Partiality to their beloved riot, might incline them, both to Entertene ſuch an opinion and Improve it. Our Lords Supper muſt ſtrike ſome Aw into their unwilling minds, Commanding not only Sobriety, but Devotion: And how unwelcom ſuch a check muſt be to the Corinthian humor, and conſequently how willing they muſt be to free themſelfs from it; if we know not already, we ſhall anon.

Thus far we have conſidered Probabilities, we come now to Certainty.

4. Whatever they Really believed, it is Certain they might Pretend, that they believed our Lords Supper unconcerned in Thoſe Feſts which the Apoſtle thus reproved: and the very Poſſibility of ſuch a Pretence, no leſs required a confutation, than a Real profeſſion of ſuch a Belief: which requireth us to conſider as our next ſtep.

III. VVHat might become the Apoſtle to do in ſuch a caſe?

If it were but Poſſibl for them to believ ſo, Himſelf hath taught us that he ought to ſuppoſe they Did: For-Charity thinketh no evil, but hopeth All things, believeth All things: Since therefor This was much better than Knowingly and Willingly to affront our Lord in his Repreſentative; This muſt in Charity be ſuppoſed.

And Prudence agreed with Charity, rather to ſeek out Excuſes for them, than to expoſe them to the Ʋttermoſt. He was to deal as Sweetly and Obligingly as poſſibl, ſo to endear Himſelf and the Goſpel to them, Praiſe them as much as poſſibly he might, Reprove them no more than Needs he muſt, and Excuſe them when he could not Juſtifie them.

And this as it ſweetened the Reproof in appearance; ſo did it more bitterly aggravate the Crime, if their own conſciences upbraided them, as uncapabl of ſuch an excuſe: Since the Guilt muſt needs be Great, which to the Reprover appeared Incredibl.

Nor could any Inconvenience on the Other ſide diſſuade ſuch a procedure. This way he might meet with them at All turns: If they wer Really miſtaken, he might Rectifie their Judgments; if they wer not, he might Baffl their Pretences, and Both waies Reprove their Miſdemeanors; reſcuing our Lords Supper from Profanation, if they intended to celebrate it, and his Commands from Neglect if they intended it not, and Himſelf from any appearance either of Severity towards Them, or Coldneſs towards our Lords Supper.

IV. 3. HOW doth his Procedure ſuit with ſuch Suppoſals? If we carefully obſerve we find that the former part agreeth very well with them, and the later part will agree with no other.

HOW unhappy our Lords Supper hath be'n in All the means he uſed to indear it, we have already noted. He choſe the Laſt night, becauſe the words of dying friends moſt forcibly affect the ſurvivors: and the horrors of the Tragical time daſhed it out of the Apoſtl's thoghts. He then made a contrary opportunity, and by a Supper purpoſely contrived, evidenced his care of This memorial of his Death, equal to that of evidencing his Reſurrection: And then, Joy and Wonder hindred them more from heeding This, than from believing That: Nor did Any other means prevail, till the Holy Ghoſt broght it to their underſtandings.

But their Diſciples had not the ſame meſur of This Spirit. The Corinthians either miſtook or ſoon forgot; and St. Paul found it highly neceſſary not only to Remind them of their duty, but further to Explain it.

And This very Explication ſuffers as much from the miſtakes of Interpreters, as did the Holy Supper it ſelf, from the profaneneſs of the Corinthians.

For St. Paul did no more intend to diſcorage our Obedience to our Lords Command, than did our Lord himſelf, to encourage Their profaneneſs in the Performance.

THAT in ſo doing I may eſcape both the Task of ſetting a tolerable countenance upon an opinion ſo generally receved, and the Suſpicion of repreſenting it diſadvantageoſly; I conceve it moſt Convenient, if not abſolutely Neceſſary, to exhibit it in the words of its Patrons — Patron I ſhould ſay: For among the Many that entertein it, I know but One that hath put himſelf to the charge of affording it any means of Subſiſtence, by cloathing it with any proper Rules, or nouriſhing it with any Proofs.

But it is Such an One as may paſs for a Multitude: One, that may not be named without Reverence; One, of the greateſt Ornaments and Pillars of our Church; One, who profeſſeth to fit every ſubject with its proper Rules and Meſures; and therefor One, whom we may believe to have ſaid the utmoſt in behalf of his Opinion.

This ſingular Perſon puts it to the queſtion, Whether our Lords words in This Inſtitution amount to a Command? And thogh his intereſt perſuaded him to have Affirmed it; yet the ſound of Theſe words, and inadvertency to the Cuſtom we ſuppoſe them to relate to, engaging him for the Negative, embarraſed him in difficulties inextricable; from which, becauſe he ſtruggles to free himſelf by help of the diſtinction between Suppoſitive and Abſolute; I ſhall firſt ſtate That diſtinction, and Then try what ſervice it can do in the preſent queſtion.

A Suppoſitive Command Obligeth, juſt ſo as a Suppoſitive Propoſition Declareth, viz. nothing elſe but a Connexion or Disjunction between the Parts.

An Abſolute Propoſition may be true, though its Subject have no Being: and ſo may an Hypothetical one, though its Antecedent have no Truth. And as a Hypothetical Syllogiſm, Abſolutely concludes Nothing without help of an Abſolute Aſſumtion; ſo doth not a Hypothetical Command oblige to any thing, without the help of ſom Poſitive addition: Hypothetical neceſſity is therefor conſiſtent with Abſolute liberty, becauſe the Obligation muſt derive half its power from the yet undetermined Poſition.

E. G. If my Father ſhould have laid upon me this Suppoſitive Command, [As often as you go to London, go by land] This would not oblige me either to the Journy, or the Manner. By ſtaying at home I ſhould have be'n as obedient, as by a hundred tedios Journies. But if my Inclinations or Biſineſs ſhould call me to the Journy; then, by vertu of the Command, joined with the Urgency of my Buſineſs, wer I obliged to go, not by Water but by Land.

Such a Command would by no means have amounted to [Get you a horſ, and away.] Nor can a Suppoſitive Command amount to ſuch an Abſolute Precept, as [Let a man examin himſelf, and ſo let him eat.] But the utmoſt that ſo civil a word could amount to, is this, [If you are pleaſed to eat, then is it neceſſary you examin your ſelf.]

This is the true ſtate of a Suppoſitive Obligation: It leaveth us at full liberty, thogh it expoſe us to be rob'd of it, by ſom Abſolute Propoſition following.

And how impoſſibl it is to reconcile the Wiſdom of our Lords Inſtitution, with the Weakneſs of ſuch an Obligation cannot better be diſcovered, than by the ſucceſleſs attemts of ſo habile an Undertaker, whoſe words I com now to examin: wherein I beg the Readers juſt charity to believ (what I moſt ſerioſly proteſt) that it is not without great reluctancy, I engage in ſo unwelcom an office toward a perſon to whom I am ſo much obliged: and nothing but faithfulneſs to ſo great a Subject, ſhould compel me to expoſe the words of him whom all good men are obliged to honor.

His Rule is,

The Inſtitution of a Rite or Sacrament by our Bleſſed Savior, is a direct Law, and paſſes a proper obligation in its whole integrity.

This one would think is as plain as heart can wiſh, but the Gloſs quite mars the Text: for thus doth he endeavor to bend his Rule to his Conceptions, and Other Writings, concerning This Holy Sacrament.

THIS Rule can relate but to one inſtance, that of the Holy Sacrament of Chriſts body and blood; for although Chriſt did inſtitute two Sacraments, yet that of Baptiſm was under the form of an expreſs Commandment, and therefor for its obſervation needs not the auxiliaries of This Rule.

But in the other Sacrament, the Inſtitution was by Actions, and intimations of duty and relative precepts, and ſuppoſitions of action, as quoties feceritis, and the like. Now whether this do amount to a Commandment or no, is the enquiry; and though the queſtion about the half Communion be otherwiſe determinable, yet by no Inſtrument ſo certain and immediate as this.

2. In order therefor to the Rule of Conſcience in this inſtance I conſider, that an Inſtitution of a thing or ſtate of life by God, and by his Chriſt, is to be diſtinguiſhed from the manner of that thing ſo Inſtituted. When a thing is Inſtituted by God, it do's not equal an univerſal Commandment, but obtains the force of a Precept according to the ſubject matter, and to its appendant relations. Thus when God Inſtituted Marriage, he did not by that Inſtitution oblige every ſingle perſon to marry; for ſome were Eunuchs from their mothers wombs, and ſome were made Eunuchs by men, and ſome make themſelves Eunuchs for religious and ſevere ends, or advantages of a retirement and an untroubled life. But by this Inſtitution (ſay the Doctors of the Jews) every man was at firſt obliged, und ſo they are ſtill, if they have natural needs or natural tentations. But becauſe the Inſtitution was relative to the publik neceſſities of mankind, and the perſonal needs of a man, therefore it was not an univerſal or unlimited Commandmene, but only ſo far as it did miniſter to the neceſſary end, ſo far it was a neceſſary Commandment. It was not Inſtituted for Eunuchs; but for whom it was Inſtituted, to them it was a remedy againſt ſin, and the ſupport of the World, and the original of Families, and the ſeminary of the Church, and the endearment of Friendſhips, and the parent of Societies; and until the neceſſities of the World were abated, and the needs of ſingle perſons were diverted, or broken in pieces by the diſcipline of a new Inſtitution, it was eſteemed infamous, and it was puniſhable not to marry.

3. But then if we conſider the manner of this thing ſo Inſtituted, it is certainly a perfect, unalterable, and univerſal Commandment. For although every man in every circumſtance be not by vertue of the Inſtitution obliged to marry; yet if he do's marry, by the Inſtitution he is tyed up ſtrictly, that at no hand he muſt praevaricate the meſures and limits of the Inſtitution, He that marries, must marry by that Rule and no other. He muſt marry one woman only while ſhe is alive: he muſt leave father and mother and adhere to her; he muſt treat her with charity and honor; he muſt uſe her by the limits of Nature and Sobriety; he muſt make her the Mother of his Family; he muſt make her ſerve no deſire but what is Natural; and ſo in every thing is he limited to the firſt Inſtitution.

HAVEING thus ballanced the two pretenders, and found the One not only Serviceable but Neceſſary, and the Other not only Unſerviceable, but Prejudicial both to our Lords Inſtitution and the Apoſtl's Argument, I might with corage proceed on in the remains of my journy.

But ſenſibl how many prejudices he muſt encounter, who ſhall in ſo awful a ſubject oppoſe the ſtream, and unable to prophecy what might riſe in Other mens minds, I communicated what I have above written to two or three pious and learned Friends, requeſting them to favor me with their Cenſures and Objections, that I might either anſwer them or ſubmit to them. Two Objections I have by that means obtained, which I think requiſite to Anſwer.

1. THE FIRST OBJECTION ſaith, that The Custom referred to is in many particulars novel, and by which we cannot judge of the practice of the Jews in our Saviors days.

This ſtrikes at the very heart, and muſt be carefully warded: I ſhall therefor firſt examin what is to be found of the Jews Opinions in the caſe, and then conſider what judgment is thereupon to be made.

1. The Jews think the Practice ſo far from novel, that they think it as ancient as (it's occaſion) the disbanding of the Camp in Joſhua's days, and the conſequent impoſſibility of the whole Nations bringing their daily offering to the publik place of Sacrifice.

This we have found in Dr. Caſtel upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where he intimateth, that the people muſt tary for Samuel, 1 Sam. 9. becauſe he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this ſeemeth confirmed by Jonathan's Targum, which is elder than our Lords Inſtitution, and paraphraſeth the word which ſignifieth Bleſſing, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whence perhaps our Latin Pars) which ſignifieth Breaking.

But my learned Objector doth not impute novelty to the whole, but many particulars, and adviſeth me to conſult the Miſna in Berachoth: I have do'n ſo, and thereby find reaſon enogh to ſuſpect the Jews care or felicity in preſerving their Antiquities, but not enogh to ſuſpect mine own Hypotheſis. Indeed I find them treat the Bread and Wine much like the Apoſtle; They ſpeak much more of the Later than of the Former, and it is not for a running vieu to diſcover what difference they put between them. The 7th chap. of Berachoth beginneth thus, Three eating together are obliged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The word is proper to This exerciſe, and its derivatives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifie the meeting, which Elias thus deſcribeth, Three or more ſitting at Supper, among whom one as the father of the family, or ſom venerable Rabbi, if ſuch be preſent as a gueſt, is obliged to pray and bleſs the Table with an audible voice, as is ſaid, Pſal. 34.4. Magnificate Dominum meum. Magnificate, there are Two at leaſt; Mecum, there is the Third: if there be only Two, ether of them prayeth privately by himſelf. Here, and in moſt other of their Writeings, they ſpeak indifferently of the whole, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But if we com more diſtinctly to enquire, what intereſt the Wine hath above the Bread, we ſhall find nothing certain, but what Shulch: Aruch tells us, That they are divided into three Opinions. 1. Some ſay the Wine is ſo neceſſary to conſecrate a meal, that thogh a man eat ſingle, if he can get no Wine, he muſt rather faſt than eat without it; indeed he is not obliged to faſt more than one day. 2. A ſecond opinion is, That the Cup of Bleſſing is not at all neceſſary, be the number of guests never ſo many. 3. A third ſort ſay with our Leo Modena, that it muſt not be omitted if there be three.

And this laſt Opinion ſeemeth fairly intimated in the Berachoth it ſelf, if well interpreted. For in the eighth Chapter, reckoning up the differences between the houſes of Shammai and Hillel, they thus expreſs the laſt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Which words may be thus tranſlated; There cometh to them Wine for the Poſcaenium, and there is there no other but That very Cup; The houſe of Shammai ſay, he bleſſeth firſt for the Wine, and afterward he bleſſeth for the Meat: But the houſe of Hillel ſay, he bleſſeth for the Meat, and afterward he bleſſeth for the Wine. In which words is plain, that all agree that there is Wine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as we obſerved them to ſtile that After Supper.) 2. That there is but one cup for the whole company: and 3. That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bleſſeth for them All.

But Zohar in Exod. p. 280. ſpeaketh full to our purpoſe, and nameth the Cup by his proper name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cup of Bleſſing was not uſed unleſs when there were Three, becauſe of the myſtery of the Three fathers which bleſſed, and ſo there is no need of the Cup unleſs there be Three.

The Reaſon is moſt Rabbinical, i. e. moſt ridiculous, but the Authority is reputed great, becauſe moſt ancient, and the words are moſt pertinent and concluſive to our purpoſe, plainly expreſſing how much they ſtood upon the Cup of Bleſſing, and what number it required.

II. UPON This account of mater of Fact, it will not be hard to paſs judgement, which I ſhall come to by ſteps.

1. WHETHER in our Saviors days they put ſuch difference between Bread and Cup, is not neceſſary for us to determin; for the Apoſtl's Argument will go as ſtrongly (thogh perhaps not altogether as gracefully) without it, ſince his partiality to the Cup may otherwiſe be fairly accounted for.

1. Becauſe we have ſeen from other pens that the Greeks underſtood the uſe of the Grace-cup, but we meet no ſuch foot-ſteps of their Breaking of bread; and it was reaſon the Apoſtl ſhould rather bild his inferences upon a cuſtom which they knew, than upon One which they knew not.

2. Becauſe Bread was never diſtributed After any Other Supper but only the Paſchal, and was Then attended with a form of words ſounding much like that which our Lord uſed in his Inſtitution: Since hence appeared ſom danger, leſt the Corinthians ſhould miſtake our Lords meaning, it was fit the Apoſtl ſhould clear it; which he doth almoſt as plainly as if he had ſaid, You know the cuſtom of cloſeing a Feſt with a Cup of bleſſing, and you may know the cuſtom of the Jews diſtributing a Cake after the Paſsover; and probably you may think our Lord intended that his Supper ſhould be meſured, not by the Cup which was uſed after All Feſts, but by the Bread which was ſo uſed only after the Paſsover. But I tell you, I have receved from the Lord himſelf, that you muſt celebrate his Supper as often as you drink the Grace cup. Here is ground enogh for his Argument and all its turnings, and we may ſafely ſpare the trouble either of enquiring or contending for the equal or unequal frequency of the ordinary Bread.

2. WERE the Jewiſh Miſna or Talmūd directly againſt us in ſom material particulars, it were more reaſonable to reject their Authority, than ſo Neceſſary and ſo Exact a Key. That we may ſee the reaſonableneſs of This aſſertion, it will be fit to ballance them.

1. If the Jewiſh Doctrines in maters of their deareſt Law be apparently changed from what they were in our Saviors days, we oght to ſuſpect their care not to have be'n greater towards a Tradition: Let us then compare what our Lord ſaid, with what their Talmud now ſaith. The Goſpel informeth us, Luke 14.5. that our Lord ſpake to the Phariſees and Lawyers, ſaying, Which of you ſhall have an Ox or an Aſs falen into a pit, and will not ſtraightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not anſwer him to theſe things: Which yet they might have do'n, if their then Doctrines had be'n agreeable to thoſe of the Talmud, which forbiddeth to pull him out, but alloweth to carry meat to feed him; and if need be, ſtraw to ſupport him in the place.

And accordingly Munſter furniſheth us with a pertinent ſtory out of the Saxon Annals. A Jew (ſaith he) fallen into a Jakes on the Sabbath, would not be draw'n out, but have meat brought him thither, which the Biſhop hearing of, required that the ſame honor ſhould be paid to the Chriſtian Sabbath; ſo the poor Jew ſuffered two days penance for the Talmud's ſwerving from ancient practice.

I pretend not to equal any evidence with the Goſpel: It is ſufficient that I hence infer, that we may not argu from their Preſent cuſtoms to their Ancient, ſo as to reject any probable light, eſpecially when ſo confirmed as we are by ſom of their own Rabbies.

III. 3. SEEING ſo great a party of them ſo ſtate their Tradition, as moſt exactly jointeth with the Apoſtl's diſcourſ, we have great reaſon to believe Them to be in the right.

This, not as an arbitrator between the diſſenting Rabbins, but in defence of my Hypotheſis from my worthy Friends Objection, I thus confirm from the exact agreement which I found between the Apoſtl's Argument and That Cuſtom ſo ſtated.

This Argument muſt proceed from Chance, from the Jews accommodating their Cuſtom to our Lords Inſtitution; or from our Lords accommodating his Inſtitution to the Jewiſh Cuſtom.

It was not from either of the Former.

Therefor it was from the Laſt.

That the Diviſion is adaequate needeth no proof: For Ether it muſt be by Chance, or it muſt Not, (ſince there can be no midl between the two ends of a Contradiction) If it were Not by chance, then ether That Cuſtom muſt conform to This Inſtitution, or This to That: (For they cannot meet unleſs Mahomet go to the Mountain, or the Mountain com to Mahomet.)

The Aſſumtion I thus prove by parts.

1. It cannot proceed from Chance: Such a concurſ, of ſo many and ſo crooked particls, can be no more imputed to undiſcerning chance, than can the meeting of the letters in the diſcurſ it ſelf. Chance may do one thing well, as a blind man may ſhoot a Hare, but he cannot ſhoot multitudes without miſſing one.

When a FINE is levied in Court, the Chirographer writeth two Copies at a competent diſtance in the ſame Parchment: In the ſpace between them he writes two or three letters; then he cutteth the Parchment in the middle indenturewiſe, ſo as to divide thoſe Letters, leaving either indenture ſom part, that upon any occaſion the conterparts compared together, may by ſo many agreements vouch either for the other.

There happened a queſtion between three parties, concerning the conditions of a Fine levied time out of mind: Two of the contenders produce for proof of their pretences common Parchments, atteſted only by their Fathers: The third produceth an Indenture of Fine, tranſmitted to him by his Father, with its counterpart, which (by I know not what means) he had obtained out of the Scriptoire of another Family: He applieth the One to the Other, ſheweth their exact agreement in every word of the Writing, every turning of the Indenture, and every ſtroke of the divided Letters; and proveth this could not be the effect of any colluſion, bicauſe there had ever be'n, and ſtill continued, a mortal feud between his own Family and That whence he had gotten the counterpart.

If this be our preſent Caſe, we are to conſider 2 things: Firſt, the agreement of the Counterparts; and 2ly, the impoſſibility of Colluſion.

1. The Agreement of the Apoſtl's Argument with the Thus ſtated Cuſtom, we have fully diſcovered.

1. In the Body of the diſcourſ in either Chapter. In the 10th chap. both Bread and Cup caled by their proper Jewiſh names, and under Thoſe very names urged to be Body and Blood of the Lord. In the 11th chap. the Argument no other way, Rational; This way, Unanſwerable; many words and Aſpects of words, no other way accountable; This way, Neceſſary: the Charge otherwiſe to be evaded; This way, Unavoidable: In the whole, not one word, or order of words, impertinent, deficient, or ſuperfluos.

2. In the Indenting, every reeling ſtep, exactly jointed with the anſwerably crooked proceſs of the Argument. No diſcourſ in the World ſo full of odd bizarreries; every one this way rendered, rational, clear, and convictive.

HITHERTO I have labored to ſerve the Learned and the Inquiſitive, the Able and the Willing, to ſearch both the ground of our Lords Inſtitution, and the Apoſtl's diſcourſe concerning it; which reciprocate ſuch light to one another, that I hope every ſuch Reader is fully ſatisfied, both in Conſcience and Curioſity. But there ar many other, who ether underſtand not ſuch work, or will not ſuffer the fatigue; whom I ſhall now endeavor to fit with leſs troublſom Diſcourſes.

It is much eaſier both to Underſtand and to Attend the the proceſs of an Hiſtory, than that of an Argument; and the ſens of Mater of Fact, as it is more Obvious, ſo is it generally more Potent than That of Mater of Right.

What therefor I have hitherto be'n proving to have be'n our Lord's and Apoſtl's mind, concerning our obligation to conſtancy, I ſhall now authoriſe by the ſuitable Practice of All the Apoſtl's and Primitive Churches. In This Chapter I ſhall ſearch the Scripture for the Former; and in the following I ſhall look into humane Writers for the Later.

In This Chapter let us vieu the Scripture, and ſee the ſtrange unhappineſs of This Subject! We might well hope to 'ſcape all diſputes concerning Mater of Fact: when the witneſs is infallibl, what can we need more but to hear him? Yes, we need underſtand him too; and as in the Apoſtl's argument we have found difficulty, bicauſe thoſe expreſſions which were familiar to His age, are worn out in Ours: So the ſame difficulty ſtill purſueth us in the very Hiſtory. We muſt not only vieu what is written, but we muſt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Search and Examin, and that carefully too, what is meant when report is made even of Mater of Fact.

But we have This comfort, that as the troubl will be now leſs, ſo will our diſcoveries be more various; and at every ſtep we ſhall meet ſomthing worth the no great labor of the inquiry.

Two things will be worth our obſervation.

1. How careful our Lord was to recommend his Inſtitution, and how backward the Apoſtls were in Apprehending his meaning.

2. How diligent the Apoſtl's were in Obeying his will, when well informed concerning it.

1. It is worth obſerving (be it but for our own juſtification) that notwithſtanding our Lords care to inſtruct them, the Apoſtl's themſelves were as hardly broght to underſtand his mind in his Inſtitution, as we ar now. And it is more particularly obſervable, that Thoſe endeavors which he uſed to recommend it to their affections, met the ſame ſucceſs, as we have ſeen follow thoſe very words of the Apoſtl, whereby he endeavored to prove the neceſſity of conſtancy.

Our Lord's care to recommend it appeareth eſpecially by two Actions. 1. His timeing the Inſtitution: Secondly, His care to mind them of it, while freſh in memory.

1. He choſe the fitteſt Time for the Inſtitution. The Apoſtl obſerved it, and we ſhall anon find another occaſion more fully to conſider how obſervable it is, that it was the Laſt night, and That wherein he was betrayed: and the Evangeliſt is careful to commemorate, with what affection he embraced That Paſsover, for This very reaſon, bicauſe it was the moſt proper for This Inſtitution.

But That diſmal night, however ſeaſonable to endear it to Future times, was leaſt ſo, for it's publication to the Preſent. It was natural, that the dreadful Tragedy then impending, ſhould ſo confound both their Apprehenſions and Memories, as utterly to rob them of all other conſideration, but of their Lord's and their Own dangers, leaving them no power to regard the at-ſuch-a-time-ſcarce-conſiderable action.

To cure This inconvenience, he applyeth a contrary remedy, and that ſpeedily.

II. HIS Reſurrection was matter of as great Joy, as his Paſſion was of Grief or Fear, and he makes That an opportunity to remedy the Other.

After his Death they met together, not to Feſt but Faſt, bicauſe the Bridegroom was taken from them: the news of his Reſurrection muſt give them the garments of gladneſs for the ſpirit of heavineſs, and invite them both to turn their Faſting to Feſting, and to cloſe their Feſts with his Supper, as he had both very Carefully and very Lately commanded.

He therefor contriveth a way whereby he may at once aſſure them of the truth of his Reſurrection, and the meaning of his Inſtitution. The ſtory we meet in Luke 24.13. which bicauſe we as litle heed now, as the Apoſtl's did then, will require ſom Animadverſion.

Finding Two Diſciples traveling together, to complete the neceſſary number, himſelf makes a Third. He joins himſelf to them, diſcourſes with them, gives them ſufficient opportunity and occaſion to obſerv his countenance, his voice, his meen, and whatever els he might be know'n by. But theſe (it ſeems) were Diſciples in extraordinary, not ſuch as ordinarily converſed with him; and they knew him not ſo perfectly, as to diſcover him in ſuch circumſtances.

He ſuppeth with them, and having by his diſcourſes manifeſted himſelf a Rabbin, takes the office of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Breaker, and performs it not in the Accuſtomed, but his Own New form; points not ſo much to the Bread as to his own Body, and thereby ſo manifeſted his Perſon, that immediatly they knew him.

This gives us an Hypotheſis ſuitable to all the Phaenomena of the ſtory, otherwiſe unaccountable; and if our eyes be withholden that we no more know his Meaning now, than the Diſciples did his Perſon by the way, let us look how we ſhall anſwer theſe queſtions.

How came their eyes to be opened, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in or by [the] breaking of [the] Bread, more than by all his other appearances? You ſay, he might diſcover himſelf When and How he pleaſed. True: but the queſtion concerneth not his Power, but his Will which governs that Power, and is it ſelf governed by his Wiſdom.

We therefor further demand, Why he that Could do it in what circumſtances he pleaſed, ſhould Chuſe to do it in Theſe, rather than any Other? This ſay you, is a ſaucy queſtion; we are not to call our Lord to account for his actions.

But may we not be bolder with his ſervants? his Diſciples and Evangeliſt? Let us then inquire concerning them. Why were the Diſciples ſo careful to report This very Circumſtance? Why the Evangeliſt ſo punctual to record, that they reported not only the Thing, but the Manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , How (or in what manner) he was knowen to them by [the] breaking of [the] Bread.

Here meet an unaccountabl Will of our Lord chooſing This very Manner of diſcovering himſelf, the no leſs unaccountabl Care of the Diſciples reporting This Manner, and of the Evangeliſt recording both the One and the Other: Muſt All this be imputed to a fortuit concurſ, without any deſign in ether of the Three, to honor the by Them Unregarded, and to Us Inſignificant Circumſtance?

Once more. We muſt never fly to a Miracle, where we find Nature: nor muſt we ſuppoſe our Lord to have exerciſed his miraculous Power without his Wiſdom. We have a fair ſmooth account one way, his action ſuitable to his Own laſt Inſtitution, in circumſtances exact, his form of words [This is my Body] in the moſt proper manner ſignifying both Who he was, and Why he did this, muſt needs by natural ſignificance open their eyes; thoſe of their Bodies to diſcover his Perſon, and thoſe of their Underſtandings, to diſcover his Inſtitution. On the other ſide, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a needleſs, fruitleſs Miracle, which we cannot believ, without Neglecting our Lords wiſdom, and Renouncing our Own.

Yet are the Apoſtl's eyes holden: This Seaſon upon a contrary diſorder blinding their apprehenſions, as the Paſſion-night had do'n. For thogh He appeared to them whiles This very action was in relating, diſcourſed with them, ſhewed them his hands and his feet, yet at firſt they believed not for Joy and Wondering. Which Paſſions, thogh they blew from a contrary point, broght violence enogh to ruffle their minds into ſuch confuſion, that they could not diſcover his very Perſon, much leſs his Mind.

No leſs than forty days did their eyes continu thus holden, nor were they opened, 'till the miraculous illumination of the Spirit of Truth, broght all our Lords ſayings (with their explications) to mind.

The ſame St. Luke which records theſe appearances, cloſeth the Goſpel with this ſhort account of their Devotions: They were continually in the Temple praiſing and bleſſing God. And with the ſame character doth he deſcribe it in the beginning of their Acts 1.14. They all continued with one accord in prayer and ſupplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jeſus, and with his brethren. Not a ſyllabl of [the breaking of the Bread] here or any where els, during the whole forty days.

But immediatly upon the coming of That Spirit of Truth, which according to our Lords promiſe, led them into all Truth, and brought all things to their remembrance that ever he had ſaid unto them, and not only to their Remembrance, but to their Underſtanding; Then did they both Remember and Underſtand, All that our Lord ſaid, did, and meant, concerning his Supper.

III. AND now we are com'n to the ſecond Obſervable, viz: How diligent they were in performing this duty when they knew it. For immediatly we find This added to their other Devotions, Acts 2.42. They continued in the Apoſtl's doctrine and communion, and in [breaking of bread] and in prayer; and in verſ. 46. They continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from houſe to houſe, did participate the food, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with gladneſs and freedom of heart.

FROM Scripture, I am now to deſcend to Humane Writers, to examin whether by Them we find the Practice of the Primitive Churches agreeable to That of the Apoſtls.

I. AND now I feel ſomthing like a Tentation, to imploy my Servitor to collect what the Fathers (the Eldeſt eſpecially) have writen on This ſubject; and then ſtifling my Reader with a multitude of Quotations, purchaſe my ſelf at Both their coſts, the name of Well read in the Fathers and Councils, &c.

But corage, Reader! I have no more ſuch a Deſign, than my Subject ſuch Need: Where none contradicts, One competent witneſs of Each kind, may very well claim the belief of any indifferent perſon: and with More I will not troubl you. I ſhall therefor produce but One ancient Canon, One Father, One Hiſtorian, and One Enemy, of each party.

1. Of CANONS, I account Thoſe moſt Ancient, which have uſurped the title of Apoſtolical, thogh many of them bewray themſelves unworthy of it. We have reaſons more than enough to decline their Authority, but None to except againſt Their Teſtimony concerning Mater of Fact, ſuch as is the Publik practice of the Viſibl Church, at the Time of their Date; which is Therefor certainly Ancient, bicauſe not certainly known, ſince having no Councel to father them, they muſt needs be elder than Any. Of Thoſe Canons, the 9th thus briefly and plainly delivereth the opinion we ar pleading for. All the faithful which enter the Church, and hear the Scriptures, but do not ſtay out the Prayers, nor receve the Holy Communion, ought to be excommunicate, as disturbers of the Church.

To This ſo clear evidence I know nothing capabl of being oppoſed, unleſs (perhaps) the word [faithful] be ſuppoſed to exclude All, but ſuch as deſerv the higheſt ſens of That title.

But it is ſufficiently know'n, that That comprehenſive word conteineth All but Catechumens and Penitens: All others as viſibl Members of Chriſts Body, being in Thoſe days honored with That ſtile.

And that it ſignifies no otherwiſe Here, the words themſelvs ſufficiently evince: For This title is allowed to Thoſe very Perſons, who at the ſame time ar cenſured as worthy of Excommunication.

Nor can the Laſt clauſe be taken ſo copulatively, as if Thoſe paſſed uncenſured who ſtayed out Prayers, thogh they receved not the Holy Communion: For This was lookt upon as the greater crime of the Two. The Councils of Antioch and Bracara, required that ſuch ſhould be driven out of the Church: and St. Chryſoſtom bitterly chides them, ſaying, If thou ſtand by and doſt not Communicate, thou art wicked, thou art ſhameleſs, thou art impudent: And we ſhall preſently ſee, that none could ſtay out the Prayers, but they muſt be at leaſt by-ſtanders at the Communion.

Or if any thoght to avoid them Both, they were not thereby excuſed, as appears in the caſe of the Alexandrians: for when many of them after reading of the Goſpel went away, John, ſurnamed the Alms-giver, then Patriarch, followed them out of the Church, ſharply reproving them, telling them, He came to adminiſter the Eucharist to them, and never giving over his importunity, till he brought them back to the Holy Table.

Even thoſe who were go'n out of the Church as reſolved not to Communicate, and therefor certainly both Unprepared and Unworthy, did he promiſcuouſly even compel.

And This zele of ſo Eminent a Prelate, might I vouch as my ſecond Topik, ſince he cannot be denied the title of a Father of the Church.

But I urge not This (however Venerable) Authority, further than as Expoſitor of the true meaning of the now mentioned Canon; ſince by the ſhifts the People made to avoid the Letter, by not [ſtaying out Prayers] and the importunity the good Prelate uſed, to recal them both to Prayers and Communion; we may beſt Avoid any Evaſions, that our Modern Teachers may uſe, who in Reverence to the Sacrament fright the vulgar from it, and Juſtify my ſelf in my profeſſed endeavor to compel them to it.

And from the firſt Teſtimony thus cleared, I com to

II. 2. ANcient FATHERS, among whom Juſtin Martyr ſhineth with great luſtre. He floriſhed in the midl of the Second Century, and is ſo Clear and ſo Particular, that his words may ſerv as well to Deſcribe, as to Prove the Practice of Thoſe days, conſonant to the Apoſtls.

This excellent Father having before deſcribed the other Sacrament, and to its Deſcription added (what the Church conſtantly did to its Celebration) That of the Lords Supper: proceeding afterward to giv a Several account of This, he thus reporteth its Conſtant Revolution.

And That day which is caled [Sunday] there is a meeting of all that dwell in Town and Country, and the Reader having do'n his office, the Preſident makes an Oration, wherein he exhorteth the people to imitate ſuch goodly things. Then we all riſe and pray, and (as I have ſaid) at the end of prayers, Bread, Wine and Water are brought forth, and the Prefect again poureth out with all his might Prayers and Praiſes, and the people anſwereth aloud, Amen. And there is a diſtribution and communication made of thoſe things, over which thanks have be'n given, to every one that is preſent, but to the abſent it is ſent by the Deacons. But thoſe that are wealthy and willing, contribute what they ſee good, &c.

Theſe words do ſo exactly ſuit the Practice of the Church to her above-recited Cenſure, that I know not what Light can be Added, or what Evaſion Pretended, if we conſider how expreſly they declare,

1. That this was Every Sundays exerciſe. And that it was not confined to the Sunday, appeareth by what he had ſaid before in the deſcription of the Other Sacrament, whereof he made This a certain attendant, without declaring that it was do'n only upon Sundays.

2. Every Chriſtian was thoght obliged to Communicate [every Sunday at leaſt] bicauſe the Church-officers were appointed to cary the Holy Supper even to the Abſent.

3. They mingled Water with the Wine; This we may very reaſonably believ to have be'n do'n in Conformity to the Jewiſh Tradition; which forbiddeth the Cup of bleſſing to be otherwiſe celebrated.

HAVING thus do'n right to our Church, I now com to do it to the Queſtion: which is not the ſame in Our days as in St. Auguſtin's. It is nor, whether we ought to receve every Day? but, Whether we ought to do it upon every opportunity?

How frequent thoſe Opportunities ought to be, it is not the Peopl's buſineſs to enquire, nor mine to determin. It muſt needs be as neceſſary for the Officers, as for the Conſtitutions of the Church, to yield to the invincibl hardneſs of the peopl's hearts.

In ſo corrupt an age, we may not ſtand upon our Lords [In the beginning it was not ſo] but yield to his [Suffer it to be ſo now.]

I therefor urge no more but this, That it is the duty of every Miniſter, to labor with his people to com conſtantly, and to offer the Holy Communion as often as he can prevail with them to receve it.

Againſt this ſo complaiſant Aſſertion, bicauſe St. Auguſtin's out-running followers, have not only oppoſed his [Let every one do what he thinks beſt] but preferred the Centurions aw, before Zacheus's reception; therefor muſt this doubl Error be encounter'd with a doubl Queſtion.

1. Whether our Lords [Do this] take not away our liberty to forbear it?

2. Suppoſing we had liberty to do what we believe beſt; whether it were not better to do it frequently than ſeldom?

1. Our firſt Queſtion muſt be, Whether our Lords [Do this] leave us any liberty to forbear when we think it better? In this Enquiry we muſt diſtinguiſh between Laws, Moral and Poſitive.

II MOral Laws ar written in the fleſhly tables of the heart, whoſe yielding nature may take impreſſion from the various occurrences of life. Thoſe Laws, as they ar Dictated by Reaſon, ſo muſt they be Interpreted by it, and bend to the ſeveral requires of the ſubject matter.

For the Philoſopher cannot ſo fix the bounds of Vertu, but that (in many caſes) the Determination of a Prudent man is neceſſaty to diſtinguiſh it from Vice.

But God wrote his Poſitive Laws in Tables of Stone, whoſe rigor was uncapabl of yielding. Of ſuch Laws, the Will of the Law-giver was the Only Reaſon, and muſt be the Only Meſure. We muſt do Juſt ſo, no leſs, nor no more, nor no otherwiſe. Reaſon hath here nothing to do, but to deny it ſelf to have the leaſt power to Diſpenſ, or Derogate, or Commute, or any way Decline from the expreſs voice of the Law.

Uzzah could not then plead the appearance of neceſſity, or the evidence of his good meaning; when the danger of the Law was greater one way, than that of the Ark was the other way.

To this ſurpoſe ler us reflect upon what we have already obſerved; that our Apoſtl vouched our Lord's authority, that ſo he might aſſert both the Truth and Importance of what he delivered: For we cannot now deny the Truth, without affronting the Apoſtl's veracity, nor the Importance, without diſparaging our Lord's wiſdom; for the One muſt be ſaid to take great care for a ſubject of no valu, or the Other report a falſhood.

We have ſeen ſom danger that our Lord's mind might be miſtaken, as if he either intended to conſecrate none but the Paſchal Supper, or valued the whole office at no higher rate, than he uſed to do outward performances.

We need no other evidence, that the Corinthians might probably believ This; than the commonneſs of This belief now, notwithſtanding the Apoſtl's indeavor to confute it in both its members, by This declaration, which plainly diſcovereth, how much our Lord valued this office, how often we muſt perform it, and how litl power we have to abate any thing of it.

For theſe reaſons he doth not plead here, as before in another caſe of outward decency, Doth not appeal to Their Judgments, nor offer his Own: ſaith not, as cap. 10. [I ſpeak as to wiſe men, judge you what I ſay] nor as chap. 7. [I give my judgment] This ſay I, not the Lord;] but quite contrary [This ſay not I, but the Lord] and the conſequence is, Neither I nor an Angel from heaven muſt be believed againſt the Revelation; Neither I nor an Angel from heaven (much leſs a mans own humor) can any way relax the Obligation.

Grant therefore now that the Obſervation be as Tru, as the Subject is Unhappy: ſuppoſe Frequence bring danger of Cheapneſs: muſt we therefor preſume to make it Scarce? No doubtleſs! If we will needs hear Reaſon, it will tell us, that our Lord knew this as well as We: It was ſo Before, and In, and Ever Since His days, as it is in Ours.

How then dare any one judge That a ſufficient reaſon to hinder him from Doing this, which our Lord judged not ſo, to hinder him from Commanding it. Doth not ſuch an one declare himſelf both Superior and Wiſer? If thou judg the Law (ſaith S. James) thou art not a Doer of the law, but a Judge. I may add, Thou art not only a Judge, but an Unjuſt one; if thy ſentence rob the law of it's due: & ſo much more ſo, by how much greater care our Lord took to have it duly paid.

III. HE therefor that breaketh This, which is not the Leaſt of our Lords Commandments, and teacheth men ſo, muſt be weighed in others ſcales, than thoſe of St. Auguſtine: Not compared with the modeſt Centurion, or forward Zacheus, but with the moſt Diſobedient Rebel, and the moſt Unworthy Communicant: and even ſo will be found more inexcuſable than the worſt.

For he that Doth This, however unworthily, payeth Somthing of obedience, owneth our Lords Authority, & is eaſily Convinced of his Crime: But he that ſaith he needs not do it, doth not only deny the Law, to have power over himſelf; but aſſumeth to himſelf power over the Law; and renounceth all Need, (and therefor all Benefit) of Repentance.

He that Diſobeyeth the Kings Law, may be a Felon; but he that ſetteth up an Oppoſit Authority, is a Rebel; and declaring himſelf (as all Rebels do) a moſt Faithful Subject, is thereby the more Unpardonabl. He that [doth this] unworthily, is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord, he diſhonoreth his Perſon, and that in his Humanity; but he that Renounceth any Obligation to do it, is guilty of his Crown and Dignity; Depoſeth him from his Throne, and affronteth the Majeſty of his Divinity: and his pretence of Reaſon for diſobedience, whether it be Reverence, or his Teachers Authority, or what ever els it be; it is a Rival to obedience, and it's plauſibl Pretences make it ſo much the more properly Rebellious.

This perhaps may ſeem too Severe; I grant it, nor do I believ our Lord judgeth according to ſuch Rigid meſures, but Rigid as they ar, they ar Juſt, and may be urged againſt the Doctrines, thogh not againſt the Perſons. For if the Preformance be bound upon us by a Poſitive Law of Chriſt; and Forbearance, only by my Own or my Teachers Reaſon; If I prefer This abve That, and Juſtifie my doing ſo; what is this but to ſay, I will not have That, but This to reign over me?

We may not therefor without manifeſt Depoſing our Lord, pretend any thing Equal to his Authority; but if we will decline our obedience to This Command, we muſt fetch our Warrant from That alone, as diſpenſing with us in ſuch caſes as we oppoſe to our obligation.

IV. AND this Warrant muſt be as Expreſs as his Command; and it muſt be either a Countermand or a Diſpenſation.

1. A Countermand may be either Expreſs or Implicit.

If it be not poſſibl to do this without breaking ſome Other (no leſs evident) Law; This will amount to an Implicit Countermand: For then will This Law loſe all its weight, by the equal Counterweight of That Other; bicauſ the Same Lord who ſaid [Do This] will have ſaid alſo [Do Not That;] and when ſuch a Counter-Law is Pleaded and Proved, we muſt acquieſce.

But Where? Where in the name of Chriſt is ſuch a Counter-Law? In what Book, whar Chapter, what Verſ, do we find him ſay, [Do Not This?] Pretences we find in abundance; but where do we find them Authoriſed? Where is it written, Do not this, if there be a Judas in the company! Do it not, if you may not do it without diminution of your liberty in things indifferent? Do it not, if you may not do it in ſuch Manner, ſuch Forms, ſuch a Place, ſuch Company, ſuch Geſture, &c. as your ſelves like Beſt. Do it not, if the Form of Adminiſtration have any Mixture of humane Ordinances, or the Aſſembly any mixture of Profane or Suſpicios Perſons? Or (which is the ſame Kind, thogh not the ſame Color) Do it not as Often as you have Opportunity, if you believ your Often doing it, will occaſion your doing it Leſs Reverently.

Our Gratios Lord juſtified Moſes for compliance with the hardneſs of the peopl's hearts in a caſe which in the beginning was not ſo. The Pios Fathers in former ages, had caſt Feſting out of the Church, thogh This Supper wer by our Lords Inſtitution appendant to it; and they had removed the Seaſon from Evening to Morning, thogh the very title of Supper contradicted: And why ſhould not ſuch apparent Advantages on one ſide, yoked with ſuch Security from any Damage, on the other; make it reaſonabl, to preſs Preparation in ſuch manner, that thoſe who wer not prevailed on with Other reaſons, might be awakened by the approach of the Sacrament, to betake themſelvs to That work, which otherwiſe they would delay, till the approach of death.

When therefor we read what was written twenty or more years ſince; when the Church had not yet loſt her Power, nor the Peopl their Shame; when neither Atheiſm nor Schiſm had taught it needleſs to Obey our Lords laſt command; when that neglect was thoght Incredibl which we now find incurabl; let us conſider as well the Reaſons, as the Words of thoſe pios Authors; and we ſhall not think any thing more probabl than This, that wer they now aliv, they would change their Stile with the ſo changed ſtate of the Queſtion; and Correct or Confute whatever they have ſaid in abatement of the Obligation to Conſtancy in the performance.

For proof hereof I give you the words of the excellent Perſon, whom I have ſo often created as an adverſary.— To ſuch perſons as theſe (he ſpeaks of Neuters in Religion, not ſo bad as to deſerv Excommunication, nor ſo pios as to be diſcernably in the ſtate of grace) I can give no other advice, but that every one take his meſures of frequency by the Laws of his Church; and add what he pleaſe to his numbers by the advice of a Spiritual guide; who may conſider, whether his penitent by his conjugation of preparatory actions, and heaps of holy duties, at that time uſually conjoined, do or is likely to receve any Spiritual progreſs.

THE Former is ſet forth in verſ. 27. He that eateth This Bread, and drinketh This Cup UNWORTHILY, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And again, verſ. 29. He that eateth [unworthily] eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelf. In the 27. is declared the Guilt, in the 29. the Puniſhment: And Both of them incurred by doing this UNWORTHILY.

Our main buſineſs therefor muſt be to meſur the import of the word [Unworthy]

And firſt we muſt view it, in it's Singl Interpretation, and then in its Aſpect.

1. It's Singl import may be conſidered in Grammar and in Logik.

1. In Grammar we ar to conſider, the Root and the Termination.

1. The Root is [Worthy] which Rigidly importeth an Equality of worth; but in a Milder ſens, is ſatisfied with ſom Proportion, thogh ſhort of Full value.

The Chancery of the Goſpel abateth much of what Strict Law requireth; Is ſatisfied with Suitablneſs, for Worthineſs. This Allowance doth it perpetually give All ſuch words as import Righteouſneſs: And with This Latitude, doth our Apoſtl frequently uſe This very word. E. G. Eph. 4.1. Col. 1.10. Theſ. 2.12. &c.

For if any one think he can in a Proper ſens, Walk Worthy of the Goſpel, Worthy of the Lord, or Worthy of God; That very thoght will make him Unworthy, of the mercy offered by That Lord, in That Goſpel.

2. The Termination ſpeaketh it an Adverb, qualifying the Manner of the Action; Not an Adjective, ſubjected in the Agent: It is not He that eateth and drinketh, being [Unworthy] but he that doth it [Unworthily] however his Perſon be qualified.

The Difference between Theſe two, is ſo Wide, ſo Evident, and (in This place) ſo Important; that it could never eſcape ſuch acute eys, as ſom of our adverſaries enjoy, were they not muffled with that Proverbial partiality, which maketh None ſo blind, as him that will not ſee. For the firſt ſight of it will expoſe the impertinence (as to This performance) of all thoſe Schemes and Directories for Self-Examination, which are ſo carefully ſet forth; as if it wer the ſame thing, to do this in a Manner worthy of the Office, and to make one's Self Worthy to be the Officer: This can never be too carefully obſerved.

I again inſiſt upon it, that This Difference between UNWORTHY and UNWORTHILY duely conſidered, will let in ſuch light, as will abundantly diſcover, the many and great flaws in That hypotheſis, to which ſo many good and wiſe men have ſo enſlaved themſelvs, that they ar ſomtimes (as we ſhall anon ſee a pitiful exampl) forced to offer violence to their ingenuity.

2. In Logik, it is a Relative; wherein beſide the now conſidered Relation and Subject, is alſo conſiderabl, the Correlate, which is the Party concerned in the Worthineſs or Unworthineſs of the Action. And this is Generally, Groſsly, and Unhappily miſtaken for our Lords Perſon; whereas we have ſufficiently proved it to be [This Bread, and This Cup.]

Bicauſe ſo much depends upon it, I again deſire is may be conſidered, that the Apoſtl reproveth the Corinthians; juſt as a ſober perſon would a rude Bully, if he ſhould ſee him abuſe a Juſtice of Peace, in execution of his Office.

Sir (might he ſay) Take heed what you do; you ſeem to take this Gentleman for your Equal, or (perhaps) your Inferior; but then are you miſtaken; for This Gentleman, This plain Gentlman, what ever you think of him, repreſents the Kings perſon; And therefor the Abuſes you offer Him, ar not private incivilities to an Ordinary Perſon, but Publik Miſdemeanors, &c.

In ſuch an Admonition, Nothing is intended to be urged, but what needs it; viz. The Character of the Officer; which once known, the Nature of the Crime, and the Kings concern immediately appears.

II. THE Nature of the Crime; but it's Degree is not ſo plain: The Apoſtl in This place, by a moſt unuſual ſtile, leaveth it to our Own Reaſons to judge. He is guilty (ſaith he) of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but whether of Trampling it under foot, or only of Contemning it, or in what degree of Affronting it; the ſtrange Ellipſis hath left uncertain.

This is very Certain, and no leſs Conſiderabl; That the affront which paſſeth through the Officers perſon, loſeth much of it's force There; and cannot ſtrike ſo ſtrong upon the Kings, as if it were Directly and Immediately aimed at him.

The Character doth indeed dignify the Otherwiſe inconſiderabl Perſon; But the Perſon hath it's Reaction upon the Character. We make great allowances for the Meanneſs of the One, even when we pay our Honor to the Other. For we think not the ſame Aw due to the Juſtice's Worſhip, as to the King's Majeſty; nor do we judge the Crime Equally great, in the affront offered him.

As the Corinthians Crime had be'n much aggravated, ſo had the Apoſtl's own Argument be'n much ſtrengthened; if he had not made This Bread This Cup, but our Lords body and bloud the proper object of the abuſe.

Had therefor This Bread be'n the Proper Body, and this Cup the Proper Bloud of our Lord; he was now obliged both to Declare and Urge it. In a caſe ſo urgent, an Omiſſion is equivalent to a Negative.

It was his buſineſs ſo to ſet forth the Dignity of This abuſed Bread and Cup; that by Proportion with it, their Guilt may be Aggravated. Would Truth have Conſented, his Deſign would have Required him, to have raiſed his voice Higher.

He muſt have ſaid, he that Eateth this Bread, and Drinketh this Cup, eateth the body, and drinketh the bloud of the Lord; and not have com'n off with a Cold, Indefinite Ellipſis; which not expreſſing in What Meaſure, maketh nothing plain but this, that it is in a meaſure much Inferior, and conſequently his own argument much Weaker, than if he had declared them guilty of contemt to the body and bloud of Chriſt immediatly, by Uſing Them in ſuch manner, as they did This Bread and This Cup.

Thoſe indeed who ſtill believ This Bread and This Cup, not to be our Lord's Repreſentatives but Himſelf; may juſtly fear the Unworthineſs, not only of their Perſons, however carefully Prepared, but of their Worſhip too, however carefully Performed.

But we, who believ them no other than what the Apoſtl ſtileth them, even Then, when he moſt Studioſly▪ Recommendeth them to our Reverence; when upon due Self-examination we find, how unworthy We ar to Receve our Lords body and bloud; may check our fears, by conſidering, how Vnworthy This Bread and This Cup ar to Repreſent them; not doubting but the ſame goodneſs, which beſtowed ſuch honor upon the unworthy elements; will pardon and accept of Us, if we receve them in a Manner ſuitable to their Office, tho not in a Degree worthy of his own Perſon.

Let me not be miſtaken. I deny not the Reality of Chriſts preſence in the Sacrament. When I call This Bread and Cup Repreſentatives, I mean not, that our Lords body and bloud, ar thereby no otherwiſe Repreſented, than the Kings Perſon is by his Picture; which ar the proper goods of the Poſſeſſor, and may be treated according to his pleaſure; or than a King is by a Stage-player, which only Imitateth, but Shareth not his power: But as the King is by his Officer, who ſo Repreſenteth his Perſon, as to Execute his Authority; with whom he is (tho not Perſonally, yet) Politikly preſent; Ratifying whatever he doth in his Name and ſtead.

This kind of Real preſence our Lord himſelf promiſed, not to Affright but Incorage us. When two or three (ſaid he) ar gathered together in my name, there am I in the mids of them, He meant doubtleſs no leſs than a Real preſence; which muſt needs be moſt Eminent in Such aſſemblies as ar gathered together, not only in his Name, but upon his Invitation; And to make ſuch a Promiſ, an argument to fright men away, is a ſtrange way of honoring the Author.

From this diſſection of the very words, we find, them fall very ſhort of the force aſcribed to them. They no way barr any man from Obedience, for want of Worthineſs; Require not a Legal Worthineſs in the Perſon coming; Make not the Perſon of Chriſt, the Object of the Worthineſs required in the Performance. And upon the whole, make not the guilt of the Unworthy Performance equal to that of Diſobedience; ſince This Directly affronteth our Lords Perſon, in his Command; That, only Indirectly, in his Repreſentative.

III. VVE have ſaid that the Anatomiſt is not only to vieu the Intrinſic Texture of the part diſſected, but it's Serviceablneſs to the Life: to what therefor we have ſeen of the proper ſens of the word, we ſhall add it's aſpect upon the Apoſtls deſign, which will be a Further Evidence that he meant not ſo much as is generally believed, bicauſe ſuch ſuppoſal of Perſonal worthineſs would have be'n, 1. very diſhonorabl to our Lord, 2. very Deferent from that Meſure, himſelf ſtateth it by; and 3. very Unfaithful to the Corinthians, he requireth it of.

1. It wer a great DISHONOR to our Lord, to ſuppoſe it poſſibl, that any one can be Worthy; yea, or com within any Neerer diſtance than Infinite Unworthineſs. For Worthineſs is Relative; ſignifieth, if not Full Equality, yet ſom Proportion; between the Merit, and the Reward; the Feſt, and the Gueſt: And, take which of the Correlates you pleaſe, you find a Saint reproving the concept.

To thoſe that fear their Own Unworthineſs, thus ſpeaketh St. Chriſoſtom, Thou ſayest thou art not worthy to Do this; neither art thou worthy to Pray, &c. We may go on, neither art thou worthy to Hear; So far art thou from being Worthy to take our Lords Body, that thou art not Worthy to take His Name into thy mouth; ſo far from Worthy to injoy his Bloud, that thou art not ſo, to injoy the light of the Sun, the fruits of the Earth, or any of thoſe ſenſual delights, which Beaſts may Injoy, but not Abuſe as much as Thou.

On the other ſide, to thoſe who fear the Greatneſs of the Sacrament, thus ſpeaketh another Saint, Thou abſtaineſt from the Bleſſed Sacrament bicauſe it is a thing ſo ſacred and formidabl, that thou not thinkeſt thy ſelf worthy of it: well, ſuppoſe That: But I pray', who is worthy? Is an angel worthy enogh? No certainly, if we conſider the greatneſs of the Myſtery.

Let us well conſider theſe two Sayings, and their Reaſonablneſs, and then judge of thoſe ſo frequent phraſes, A Worthy Communicant, A Worthy Gueſt, &c. whereby many unwary perſons, ar more Scared, than with any thing derived from the word of God; which never taught us either to think ſo Slightly of our Lords Bloud, or ſo Highly of our Selvs, as to believ it poſſibl by any endeavors to becom Worthy of it.

2. The vulgar ſens is very different from that Meſure, the Apostl ſtateth the reproved Unworthineſs by. He expreſly caleth it a [not diſcerning the Lords body] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , putting no difference between This, which our Lord declared his Own Body, and Common bread.

Our Learned Mede very well confirmeth the Jewiſh definition of Holineſs, that it ſignifieth Separation; We Sanctify what we honor with Diſcrimination; and on the contrary we Profane, what we uſe as Common.

The heavenly viſion confirmeth this, warning St. Peter from an Error in opinion, analogos to this Crime.

What God hath ſanctified, that call not thou Common; To call Common, and Unclean, was all one in St. Peters ſens; and not to diſcern the Lords body from Common bread, is all one as to Deſecrate it, in St. Pauls.

And this he ſo preſſeth upon the Corinthians, as dubly to convince them. What (ſaith he) Have ye not houſes to eat and to drink in, or deſpiſe ye the Church of God and ſhame them that have not? Poſſibly he might urge this, not as Another Crime, but as an Evidence of their unexcuſablneſs in the Former.

They might (perhaps) plead Ignorance in That; but in This they could not: For thogh (poſſibly) they might not underſtand that they were obliged to Diſcern This Bread as the Lords body; yet muſt they needs know, they oght to Diſcern the Church as his Houſ. If they knew it not to be Sacrilege, to make the Lords Cup an inſtrument of drunkenneſs; they could not but know it ſo, to make his Houſ a Tavern.

With what partiality do ſom (for ſom others do not) treat theſe two parts of the Apoſtls reproof? With what Coloſsik ſtrides do they reach both ſides of Superſtition? On one ſide they dread the Lords Supper, for want of worthineſs in Themſelvs; on the other ſide, they fear to own any reverence toward Gods Houſ, for want of worthineſs in It? How do they rob Peter and cloath Paul? make the Lords Houſ Common, that they may dubly Sanctify his Tabl? And all the while the Apostl makes This the Corinthians crime, that they diſcriminated not the Lords Body from Common Bread; and This, either another Inſtance, or an Evidence of their Profaneneſs, that they diſcriminated not his Church, from their Own houſes.

But I may not now inſiſt upon Any other error, than That of the Corinthians, which the Apoſtl ſaith conſiſted in This, That they So uſed our Lords Body and his Houſ, as if they had Both be'n Common.

He chargeth them not Here (thogh elſwhere he do) with any Other crime, but ſuch as Directly and Immediately, deſecrate the One and the Other, and that in This very exerciſe: Taketh no notice of their Other habitual vices, confineth his charge to This performance, in This place: Forbiddeth not to approach either the Lords Table or his Houſ, bicauſ they ar intemperate at their Own.

Yea, he So expreſſeth himſelf as if he would even Compound with them, indulge them their Domeſtik debaucheries, provided they would forbear them Here.

Not that indeed he Juſtifyeth what he elſwhere plainly enogh Condemneth; but to aggravate This incomparably Greater wickedneſs; whereof the Sacrilege ſo Exceedeth, as even to Hide the Immorality.

The Glutton is guilty of the Fleſh of his Beaſt, and the Drunkard of the Bloud of the Grape; but the Unworthy Communicant, of the Body and Bloud of the Lord.

To be drunk with Common Wine in a Common Houſ, is to abuſe both Gods Benefits, and ones Own Body; but to Deſecrate the Lords Houſ into a Tavern, and his Bloud into a Cup of Drunkenneſs; to make That the Inſtrument, and This the Scene of Leudneſs; is a wickedneſs not only above Drunkenneſs, but even above Sacrilege it ſelf: As it hath no Match, ſo it hath no Name.

If therefor you will not divorce your beloved debaucheries, if you will needs be eating and drinking intemperately; yet know your Place; do not heap Sacrilege upon Luſt, make not the Lords Houſ, yea his very Body and Bloud, Servants to the leudneſs they would Check.

This is the Utmoſt reach of the Apoſtls reproof. It comprehendeth (indeed) not only the Lords Table, but his whole Houſ Yet breaketh not open any Private one: Judgeth no Other unworthineſs but of This Performance; Requireth a Difference, not between one Communicant and another; but between This, and other Places, and Suppers: and Conſequently Forbiddeth not Any Perſon to Do This, which we have found All indifferently obliged to Do: but forbiddeth Every one to Do It in ſuch a Manner, as ſhall make That Common, which our Lord hath Sanctified.

IV. 3. THE Apoſtl muſt be mortally unfaithful to his Corinthians, if upon ſo urgent an Occaſion he did not warn them in Terms as Plain, as the Crime (if any) muſt be Great.

I ſay [upon ſo Urgent an Occaſion] for a moſt Urgent one it is, Whether we look upon the 1. Lords Supper, which he profeſſedly endeavoreth to reſcu from Profanation, 2. the Argument whereby he laboreth to do it; or 3. the Perſons to whom he addreſſeth all.

1. He profeſſeth to reſcu the Lords Tabl from Profanation, and to That End, to Cloſe it with ſuch a Rail, as ſhall Fence it from abuſe: If therefor he leaves that rail ſo wide, as to Admit Such perſons, as he oght to have kept out; he muſt be dubly and inexcuſably unfaithful; both to the Lords tabl, which he ſhall ſo have expoſed to diſhonor; and to All thoſe ſouls, which finding no contrary warning, may com to it, with as great Sincerity as Danger.

If I find this the Purlieus of the Corinthians guilt, that they Diſtinguiſhed not the Lords Body; then may I be ſecure of One of thoſe Two; Either he who diſtinguiſheth the Lords Body, is free from This, how full ſoever he may be of Other Crimes; Or the Apoſtl muſt be More guilty than the moſt Unworthy Communicant; ſince, profeſſing to ſhew the True Extent of the Danger, he warned them, not to diſtinguiſh between Perſons, Worthy and Unworthy; but between This and Common Bread.

Were his words Ambiguos, yet muſt they here cary a ſens uſual; in a caſe ſo Important, he oght to have Explained, how much they muſt Now ſignify, above what at All other Times, and by All Perſons, is aſcribed to them, and which can Intend No more but This: That every one is obliged, So to Diſtinguiſh between the Lords Supper and his Own; as to ſhun Thoſe indecencies, which ar ordinary in Private Houſes.

2. He muſt be no leſs unfaithful to his Own Argument: bicauſ contrary to all Reaſon, he muſt have neglected to ſtrengthen it with the moſt Conſiderabl and Obvios Corroboration.

For if the excluſion of Unworthy Perſons, wer as agreeabl to our Lords Inſtitution; as the Conſequence would have be'n ſerviceabl to his Own Purpoſe; he Might, and therefor Oght, to have urged it, and ſo put the holy Sacrament at the Greateſt and Safeſt diſtance from profanation.

HAVING thus, upon full examination, found that the Crime lieth not in the Unworthineſs of the Perſon, but of the Manner of his Performance; the Conſtancy we plead for, ſeemeth already free, as well from the Second as the Firſt pretended Prohibition.

For if in That the Apoſtl did not warn the Corinthians from Doing This by reaſon of the Unworthineſs of their Perſons; but only from doing it in a Manner Ʋnworthy of the Lords Supper; Then, in This, wherein Self-examination is preſcribed as a Remedy, he doth not Therefor require us to Examin our ſelvs, that we may Forbear if we find our Selvs Ʋnworthy: But Therefor, that duly weighing within our conſiderations the dignity of This Bread and This Cup; which at That Time did, and at All Times oght to attend upon All Church Meetings; we may Therein behave our Selfs with Reverence ſuitabl.

So that ſtrictly ſpeaking, our Self-examination is not to work Backward upon what we have do'n, that ſo we may know whether we be worthy or no; but Forward upon what we ar now to do.

Yet bicauſe the Gramatical ſens of the word [Examining a mans ſelf] ſeemeth to import More; and it's Utmoſt importance is bound upon us with all poſſibl Rigor; That we may leav Nothing unanſwered, let us hear how This is urged, as an implicit Prohibition from the Duty who's Dignity it is to ſecure.

And here according to my wont, I ſhall give you the very words of the moſt Excellent adverſary.

To what purpoſe is it, but in caſe he find himſelf unfit, to abstain and forbear to com. For if he comes UNWORTHY, he dies for it: and therefor to examin, muſt ſignify, Let a man examin himſelf ſo, that he be approved, &c.

It's worth both our Obſervation and Pity, how hard this worthy perſon is put to it, to bend the Apoſtl's Words to a compliance with his Own Opinion, and at laſt to Break a ſtubborn one, that will not be Flexibl.

[UNWORTHILY] is turned to [UNWORTHY] The Former was utterly Unſerviceabl, it muſt therefor neceſſarily be changed, that with it the ſtate of the Danger, and it's Remedy, i. e. the whole affair, may be Changed alſo.

This Sole conſideration is enogh to ruine the whole ſuperſtructure; ſo that we might well ſuperſede any further enquiry. But we will leav nothing unanſwered, and therefor proceed to examin, whether the Bilding be better than the Foundation.

I will not fence with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let it (for me) ſignify as it is tranſlated, and the Moſt too, that ſo it can import. But what then? To what purpoſe (asks our author) ſhould a man examin himſelf?

I anſwer, that whether we look Far or Neer, we cannot miſs of Purpoſes ſufficient. If we look far off, to the days of old, Both Philoſophers among the Heathen, and Fathers among Chriſtians, recommend This exerciſe, as moſt uſeful to Excellent, thogh Other purpoſes. But we need not go ſo Far, nor any Farther than the Same book which asks the queſtion.

The end (ſaith it) of Examination is, that 1. We griev for all our ſins. 2. That we reſolv to amend all. 3. That we actually watch and pray againſt all.

And further, to recommend Frequency in this exerciſe, he reckoneth ſeveral fruits of it, The oftener (ſaith he) we recollect our ſelvs, 1. The more weakneſſes we ſhall obſerv, and 2. more faults correct, and 3. watch the better, and 4. Repent more perfectly, and 5. offend leſs, and 6. be more prepared for death, and 7. be more humbl, and 8. with eaſe prevent the contracting of evil habits, and 9. interrupt the union of litl ſins into a chain of death, and 10. more readily prevail upon our paſſions, 11. better underſtand our ſelvs, and 12. more frequently converſ with God, and 13. oftener pray, and 14. have a more heavenly converſation, and in fine 15. be more fitted for a frequent and holy Communion. By This time one would think the Queſtion abundantly anſwered by the Proponent Himſelf: Yet may we go on, for 16. we ſhall ſtand in aw of our ſelvs and not ſin in private, Pſ. 4. and 17. we ſhall rejoice in our ſelvs and not in others, Gal. 6.4. and 18. ſearching our ways turn to God, Lam. 3.40. and 19. by ſeeing our progreſs already made, take corage to go on, and 20. Praiſe God for grace already receved, &c.

Now I hope we may take breath. It is not to Every queſtion that we can give anſwers by the Score. But This is ſo fruitful, that none can better Furniſh or Deſerv a volum. And it might better be propoſed negatively, if the anſwer be to be difficult; To that good purpoſe doth it Not ſerv?

All Wiſe men agree, that it is the proper exerciſe of Wiſdom: all Pios men, that it is the greateſt promoter of Piety. It Weedeth out all wickedneſs, Planteth and Watereth all graces: Were there no other reaſon but it's excellent Uſefulneſs, had not our Lord injoined, nor the Apoſtl preſſed Conſtancy, in a performance to which ſo serviceabl an exerciſe is annexed; The very regard of the many Purpoſes to which it ſerveth, would have ſufficiently recommended it.

II. BUT the true queſtion at This time is, not Concerning it's Abſolute Uſefulneſs at Any time, But it's Pertinence to This particular office.

To what purpoſe Now? Now above Other times? Before This, rather then Other exerciſes?

My ſwer ſhall be dubl.

1. NEGATIVELY, I anſwer, that to examin a mans ſelf before he do Such or Such an action, doth not import a Forbearance of That action, if upon ſuch Examination he do not approve himſelf: And in the place now under ey, there is not the leaſt Intimation in the Words, nor the leaſt Reaſon in the Context, to make it probabl, that the Apoſtl So intended, but much to the Contrary.

And here I take our worthy Author at his word. It is a Relative duty and nothing of it's ſelf; for no man is the better for being examined if there follow nothing after it. True, but we have found it attended with ſo Large and Noble a train of good conſequences, that we cannot ſay Nothing follows it, tho Forbearance from this duty make not One in the number: Sure it is, the Apoſtl hath here no ſervice for This Forbearance, but rather excludes it.

When Pythagoras again and again importuneth his diſciples, that before they ſuffer their eyes to ſleep, they thrice examin themſelvs concerning the paſt days actions; he was never thoght to forbid them to ſleep, unleſs upon ſuch repeted examination, they approved themſelvs Do you now ask to what purpoſe it is So to examin? he ſwears by the higheſt, that it is the way to a divine life.

When Seneca giveth account of his own conſtancy in this exerciſe, he expreſly declareth the effect was to warn himſelf; ſaying, take heed, do ſo no more, for this time I pardon thee. Do you now ask to what purpoſe? You ſee, not to Condemn, but to Pardon and Admoniſh ones ſelf.

What? Is there no other fruit of Self-examination, but Self-excommunication? Doth Religion, Doth the pardoning Goſpel, more diſable us from Pardoning our ſelvs, than Reaſon did Seneca?

But what need we look ſo far? The Apoſtl is of age, let him anſwer himſelf. Doth he ſay [Let a man examin himſelf whether he be Worthy or no? and accordingly Com or Fearbear?] Yea, doth he ſpeak in Pythagoras's ſtile? Doth he ſay [Let not any man eat this bread, till he have examined and approved himſelf.] This would ſound ſo Like a Prohibition, that He might be excuſabl, who ſhould ſo underſtand it:

And wer we ſo to have be'n forbidden, it had be'n neceſſary (as we have already pleaded) that the Prohibition ſhould have be'n as expreſs as our Lords Command; and not ſo Ambiguos that an honeſt heart might miſs it. But here is nothing of ſuch an aſpect. Yea

He is equally poſitive for Both Performances, [Let a man Eat] is no leſs Imperative, than [Let a man examin himſelf.] He Equally injoineth Both, and therefor Both ar Equally Neceſſary; and any man may as lawfully forbear the One as the Other; and Both, as Either.

What therefor he hath ſo Joined together, no man may Put Aſunder; yea, what he hath made Subordinate, no man may make Oppoſite.

For it is further conſiderabl, that Thoſe two duties ar not Yoked together as Equals (which (yet) had be'n ſufficient to forbid the One to draw contrary to the Other) but ar Subordinate, as Lord and Servant.

Examination, however excellent a duty, hath Here no other Place or Buſineſs, but to ſerv This favorite exerciſe; and we may now take up our Saviors argument; Eating was not made for Examination, but Examination for Eating; wherefor Eating is Lord alſo of Examination: And that the Servant ſhould drive the Lord out of his Own doors and eſtate; is not more againſt Juſtice; than it is againſt the Apoſtl's intention, that Examination ſhould barr a man from Eating.

If therefor any one perſiſt in examining Examination it ſelf, urging [To what purpoſe?] This may well be the firſt clauſ of the anſwer, That it muſt Not be to ſo unreaſonable a purpoſe, as to Forbid the Performance it oght to ſerv: and we may proceed to

III. 2. OUR Poſitive anſwer to clear the Apoſtl's meaning His Purpoſe is to ſerv his main Deſign; to prevent the Sin, he Pleadeth againſt, and the Error, he Diſputeth againſt.

If they knew not, that thogh Lords Supper was concerned in Thoſe their meetings; he warns them of the danger of omitting the indiſpenſibl duty, by [So let him Eat.] If they knew it, and yet feared not to Profane it; he warns them of that That danger, by [Let a man examin himſelf.]

I ask not now [to what purpoſe] but Upon what Subject muſt we examin our ſelvs?

It is [we ar told] a Relative duty; Whereto then muſt it Relate? Relata muſt be aequalia; and for That reaſon we muſt Meſure the One by the Other.

If a Murderer be brought to examination, and the officer examin him concerning Adultery, or concerning ſom School-probleme, &c. we might perhaps commend his Diligence, but (ſure) not his Wiſdom.

That therefor we may duly perform This exerciſe, we muſt firſt examin the Deſign; and then Our Selvs, in order Thereto.

The Deſign is apparently the Prevention of That ſin whereof the Corinthians wer guilty. That Sin was their [not diſcerning the Lords body] nor treating it with ſuch Diſtance, as oght to have be'n put between That and Common bread: but abuſing his Fleſh and Bloud in his Church, with the ſame rudeneſs, as they did That of their Cattel and their Grape in theit Own Houſes.

This was the Sore, and to This muſt the Plaſter be fitted. Why muſt the Plaſter be ſo much larger than the Sore? Why muſt we examin our ſelvs concerning ſuch Actions, or Worthineſs; whoſe knowledge hath no Aſpect upon this Performance, but only Oppoſit and Malignant? Such an Examination as ſhall excommunicat, if not the Whole, certainly the Greateſt part of mankind?

He that ſhall moſt carefully perform his examination; firſt in That manner, which the Apoſtl preſcribeth, by Diſcerning the infinite Diſtance of dignity, between the Lords table and his Own: and then in That Manner that our Worthy Author preſcribeth, between our Lords Body, and his Own Soul; tho he be the Beſt of his age, yea, the beſt (our Lord only excepted) that ever was, will moſt clearly diſcover, not only that he is Now Unworthy; but that he muſt deſpere Ever to be Otherwiſe.

Since then the Beſt Examination, of the Beſt Perſon, will carry him, not only Beyond, but Contrary to the Apoſtl's Deſign; Since it will put ſuch an Inconſiſtency between the Two Precepts, that [Let a man examin himſelf] will inferr [Let him Not Eat] and ſince the Apoſtl doth not in any kind Intimate, that our Worthineſs, but plainly Declare that our Differencing This from Common bread and wine, is to be ſubject of our Examination;

IV. HIS Meaning in the words now under vieu, can be no More, nor Other than This, Let a man examin himſelf, whether he well Underſtand, and Conſider, what he is about to Do? Whether he put the due Eſtimate upon what he is about to Receve? Whether he put as great Difference between the Lords ſupper and a Common feſt; as there is between the vertues of a litl Common Bread and Wine, and thoſe of the Body and Bloud of Chriſt? Whether he go to gratify his ſenſual appetite, with Eating and Drinking? or to comply with his governors or neighbors, in communicating with them? or to feſt his ſoul with Thankfulneſs and Love toward his crucified Savior, with Joy and Delight in Communion with him, and ſuch other acts of devotion as ſo Holy an office requireth?

Let a man well examin himſelf concerning this, and So let him Eat, with appetites ſuitabl.

This I ſay is all that the Apoſtl's Deſign can Permit, or his Words Declare him to mean, by [Let a man examin himſelf] He requireth us to look Forward, not Backward; upon what we ar Going to do, in the Church, not upon what we Have already do'n there, or elſwhere; upon the Difference, between This and Other Bread; not upon That, between Our Own and Other mens ſouls.

Yet to prevent miſconſtructions I add this Proviſo: That I neither pretend to diſparage the moſt Severe ſelf-examination, as it takes account of our Paſt actions, and Preſent ſtate of ſoul; (For I dare ſwear with Pythagoras, that it is the high-way to divine life): Nor to deny that our approch to This holy ſupper, is the Moſt Proper ſeaſon, for This moſt Excellent exerciſe (For he that beſt performeth the One, will undoubtedly beſt perform the Other.)

All that I deny is this, That the Apoſtl, in This place, ſetteth up Examining our ſelvs, againſt Obeying our Lord; ſo as to Forbid any one to Eat, if upon examination he find himſelf Unworthy.

And I further add (thohg I have no ſuch need) that if it wer Doubtful, yea if it wer highly Probabl; If he had ſo worded his precept, that in a Plauſibl appearance, it might ſignify ſom ſuch intention; yet is not a Probabl Sound of any One expreſſion, worthy to be ballanced, againſt ſo Expreſs a command of our Lord, and ſo induſtrious an Endeavor of the ſame Apoſtl to urge it, as we have found in the Context. For it is Good Law, and Good Reaſon, that no Law can be repeled but by Expreſs terms; and therefor I ſtill inſiſt upon my demand; Where is that Expreſs [DO NOT] which may Countermand our Lords [DO THIS.]

We therefor moſt willingly grant what ever the Allegory demands, viz. That by Doing This, we new Seal the Covenant made in Baptiſm. Repete all our Vows, New tye all our Obligations, which our Corruptions or Infirmities, may have ſlackened ſince the laſt Sacrament.

But to ſay, that bicauſ This is the Seal of the Covenant, therefor none may receve it, who hath not already performed all it's Articls; is to ſay, that no man may ſeal an Indenture, who hath not already do'n what thereby he Covenanteth to do. i. e. It is not Lawful, 'till it be Needleſs.

LET the otherwiſe minded be requeſted to conſider. Ar not all the congregations promiſcuos, obliged to make pubik profeſſion of their Faith? And doth not Faith import Holineſs? Where then is the Difference, what the Reaſon, why he who is not in Covenant in the ſtricteſt ſens, may not as well Communicate in the Lords Supper; as he who hath not Faith in the ſtricteſt ſens, may Profeſs his belief. I can ſhew a reaſon why he may Better do it; but can imagin none, why he may not do it as Well.

He that publikly maketh Profeſſion of his Faith, declareth himſelf to Have Faith: and if he have it not, he is a Lyar, a notorios Lyar, a ſolen Lyar, in the face of God and his Angels. But he that Receveth the Sacrament, maketh no ſuch boſt: Vaunteth not as the Young man in the Goſpel, All theſe have I kept from my youth up. Saith not I have Paid, but I am a Debtor to the whole Goſpel; and thankfully embrace it's gratios offers, made by my Lord, and purchaſed with his Bloud.

This is plain Sens, and This is conſtant Practice. If therefor it be a kind of Forgery, to ſet this Seal to a Blank; it is no leſs Criminal, to Tear it off from our Lords Charter, which giveth every Viſibl Chriſtian a Right to it.

III. AT OTHER times we ar told, we ar not to partake our Lords Body, if we be not his Members; and his Members we ar not, if we have not his Spirit.

WHATEVER we have hitherto ſeen, either of Scripture or Reaſon thereupon bilt, hath be'n ſo ſhort of worthy to be ballanced againſt our Lords Command, his Apoſtl's Explication, or his Churches Tradition; that I cannot think it credibl, any one hath thereby be'n induced to entertene a thoght prejudicial to them. But rather, that Pios perſons finding the Sacrament to have loſt much of it's honor, and it's power, by ſo Conſtant exerciſe; conceving it might be both more Serviceabl to Godlineſs, and more Eſteemed it Self, if it had more Aw with leſs Frequence; and encoraged by the exampl of Former Ages, who for the like reaſons had made great alterations: took Thoſe Examples for their Guides, and Thoſe good Intentions for their Meſures; and wer more induſtrios to interpret the Scriptures by ſuch good Ends; than to conform their Doctrines to the Scriptures; now grown obſcure, and hardly intelligibl, by loſs of That Key which alone was capable to unlock them.

It is therefor now made a point of Diſcretion, and that I may pay our Lord the Honor due to his Wiſdom, as well as the Obedience due to his Command; I muſt from the undeniabl authority of Scripture proceed to conſider what Reaſon will determin.

I muſt therefor now ſuppoſe (what I have all this while be'n diſproving) that the Indulged ſens of the diſputed words, is the True one; that they give an ampl Commiſſion to govern our (Obedience I was wont to ſay, I now ſay) Performance, by our Diſcretion. I muſt further grant (what I wiſh I could deny) that we cannot be ſure to preſerv our Reverence to the Inſtitution, without quitting, not only rigid Conſtancy, but Tolerabl Frequency; and upon Theſe diſadvantages com to this humbl queſtion:

Whether the caſe ſtanding as now it doth, it will more conduce to the Service of the Sacrament and it's Author; to receve it ſeldom, if at all; than Conſtantly or Frequently?

I ſay [the caſe standing as now it doth] For I think I can never too often profeſs, that I exalt not my ſelf againſt thoſe Venerable perſons, whether of the laſt or former ages; who wer they now living, would (doubtleſs) change their anſwer to the queſtion, with the changed ſtate of the Subject.

II. AND FIRST I take it for very conſiderabl, that the difference between the State of the queſtion Now, and Heretofore, is the ſame as Caeſar declared between the battail of Munda and Other battails; In Others, he fought for Honor; in That, for Life. And queſtionleſs, Thoſe who thinking it Secure from total Deſertion, thoght fit to Hazard ſomewhar of Frequency; would not have Expoſed the very Being of ſo great a Duty, if they had imagined it in danger.

It is the ſingular unhappineſs of This onely Office; that it is laid aſide upon pretence it cannot defend it ſelf. There is the ſame danger in Hearing or Praying, as in Receiving Unworthily. That is by the Apoſtl declared a Savor of death unto death; and This by the Wiſe man is ſtiled an Abomination: Yet is That ſtill preached, and This ſtill practiſed. Be they never ſo ill uſed by their Enemies, they ar not therefor deſerted by their Friends, bicauſ unproſperos.

If it be pleaded, that the Sacrament is not Laid aſide as Ʋſeleſs, but Lock't up as Precios: I anſwer, that I very well remember, when to Secure a perſon ſignified to Impriſon him; and in This caſe, whatever the Intention be, the Effect is the ſame. Action is the very Being of the Sacrament, from which if it be lock't up, it is loſt, both to it's ſelf, and all other purpoſes; which By it, and not Without it, it is Appointed and Fit to promote.

Our Lord ſtamped it with his own Image and ſuperſcription; not that it might be lock't up as a Medal, but Uſed as Money; whoſe Office and Honor it is, ſo to repreſent the King, as to anſwer all the needs and conveniences of the Poſſeſſor. He therefor moſt honoreth ir, who ſo employeth it, as may beſt anſwer our Lords good Ends; not he that locketh it up as the Miſer doth his Gold.

We muſt therefor conſider, there is an Extreme on That ſide alſo: if Prodigality be a vice; So, and perhaps more than So, is Covetoſneſs. Suppoſe there be Danger, that the more we Ʋſe, the more we Spend it; there is another, that the more we forbear, the leſs we enjoy it. And in This, the Prodigal is juſtified above the Covetos, that thogh he ſpend his money, he doth not deſtroy it, but transferreth it to other hands: whereas the Covetos robbeth not Himſelf only, but the whole Peopl of his Money, and the Money it ſelf of it's Uſe.