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

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

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

Secondly, that the exercise of this con­sists in Excommunication.

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

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

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

Let us therefore know, that these Church censures are punishments upon scandalous persons (after a legall con­viction) whereby they are debarred from Christian society in generall (lest they leven others by their example) for els what is it to keep a prophane person [Page 32]from the Sacrament, but to gratifie him who never intended, at least never ca­red, to come thither? But now when men will take these keyes that were made to the great Church doore, ope­ning and shutting to all fellowship, and fit them only to the Chancell doore, as if they peculiarly belonged to this Or­dinance, they many times get them in so far, that being unable to work them out again, they never leave turning and locking till they have both shut out the Sacrament from the Church, and the Church from the Sacrament.

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

Let us therefore further know the ends of these Church censures, that they concern not those that are admitted to the Ordinance, but are used in reference only to Offenders, that there­by they may be kept in awe, and brought to Repentance. The only ends are [...] (as o­thers have it) for their reformation, [Page 33]satisfying the Congregation, and to warne others.

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

In duties there may be a double re­lation; a relation of Ingrediency, as Faith has to Prayer, without which be in it, it cannot be effectuall; or a rela­tion of Subserviency, as the Law has to the Gospell, in being preparatory to it; now there is no such relation at all, not only no ingrediency as a part of it, [Page 34]but even no essentiall subserviency, or dependance between Excommunication and the Sacrament. For what is the ex­clusion of another, to the communica­ting of the Receiver? what Physical or Morall antecedence, has the punish­ment of one at the Assize, to the worke in your shop, doing your trade? there is indeed a Key of instruction very re­quisite for our preparation, but as for these Keys of censures what can be more distant and impertinent, to those that are coming hither? So that I judge there is no more reason for one upon this ground to say, I will no go to the Communion, because there is not ex­communication, than for one to say, we have here no Iustices or Sessions, we have no Magistrate in this Town to look to people in their dealings, therefore (because it is better that we had) we will not live here but hold it altogether unlawfull to follow our ordinary voca­tions.

Rep. But is it not a heavy case we have no discipline established?

Answ. I say, true; but what then? [Page 35]therefore must we have no worship? Socrate ambulante fulguravit.

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

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

• 1, There is no duty a naturall man can perform rightly, so that most men [Page 36]are wholly uncapable to hear, to pray, or come to any Ordinances, where Gra­ces are to be acted and receive, as well as at this Sacrament, but I hope that will not exclude them therefore from all, and give them a writ of Ease to doe no­thing; I wonder grave men should beat the ayr thus with a Feather.
• 2. I say to every man, though he can­not doe what he should and ought to doe, he must still endeavour to doe what he can. The insufficiency of any debtor (incurr'd through his own fault) does not discharge his Bond, but he is to pay what he can; it is every mans doing less than he can, that shall condemn him at the last day, say Divines; so say I, Let every man do what he can still, and this is plain Divinity.
• 3. There may be a difference between a worthy Receiver, and a Receiving worthily; as a poor man (sayes Pemble) though but unworthy to sit there, may carry himself very worthily at the Kings Table. In this case therefore whosoe­ver thou art, doe thou labour thy best to prepare thy heart, and if after thy examination, thou judgest thy self but unworthy, let thy humbled soul come [Page 37]and say neverthelesse, Lord, if I am unworthy, whither shall I goe to make me worthy? Is it not to thee my kind Saviour, that has an invitation (come ye laden) for the poorest sinner? It is true, many count me but as a Dog, Lord I confess I am no better in my own ap­prehension, but let even this poor Dog eat of the crums of thy Table. If I neglect my duty, I certainly offend thee, If I come Lord, I doe but humbly ven­ture on thy mercy.

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

Answ. On the Receivers part when they find no benefit by it, they may judge so, and are find their fault, and repent of it; But not of the Admitters part, who are to doe their duty, and leave the success to God; Even as Christ Preached to the people in Para­bles, and gave only his Disciples the privilege to understand them: And as all were suffered to touch Christ, when but one only received vertue from him; so doe I humbly conceive are wee to [Page 38]suffer all to come unto him here, leaving it to his breast alone, to give out the effectuall benefit, to whom he plea­ses.

Objection 3. Holy things to holy men.

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

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

Answ. We doe, and must be one, with all that joyn in the same professi­on; that is, we are one, or one body, as Members of the same visible Church in its outward capacity, freely administring the Ordinances, whereof we are to par­take; but we are not one with them in their evill discourses, we disclame them wholly in the impiety of their conver­sation. So that we have communion herein only with Christ, and have no­thing to doe with Belial. For I would not have any so grosly think, that a joy­ning with a wicked mans person, is ha­ving a communion with Belial, but ac­companying him in his evill wayes (Communio malorum non maculat quem­quam participatione Sacramentorum (sayes Austine) Sed consentione facto­rum:) If the Corinthians were alive, and you joyned with them in going to their Idols, this were indeed a commu­nion [Page 40]with Belial, but if you only joyn'd with them in comming to the Lords Table, you should partake of Christ a­lone, as the Godly of them the did, and as we ought to doe. I will goe with the wickedst man alive to the Church, but I must leave him at the Ale-house; We may joyn with any to doe good, as to worship God in his Ordinance, to professe, and confederate in Christia­nity; but we cannot (that is we may not) joyn with any in the least evill; we can­not serve God and the Devil.

But you will say further, Doe we not professe the wicked, with whom we joyn, not only to be one of us, but one of Christ, and Partakers of his death? and how can we doe so? I answer very well. The visible Church is the Body of Christ, as Christ said, Every branch, in mee, that beareth not fruit. Io. 15.2. As Peter sayes, There are some that deny the Lord that bought them. 2. Pet. 2.1. As Paul sayes, There are some that are sanctified with the bloud of the Covenant, which they trample upon. Heb. 10.29. (with Heb. 2.9.2 Cor. 5.14.) So say I of all ungodly professors, They are such branches in Christ, redeemed and [Page 41]sanctified, in the same sense as the Scriptures mean in these places; that is, in regard of a visible esteem, where­by they externally partake of the Ordi­nances of Christ, and so are reckoned as Members of him.

Let such texts be laid a little more to heart, and when you have made the Orthodox interpretation the Question will be even done, and we shall be no longer afraid of a free Admission, when we must affirm, that there is an histo­ricall visible faith, that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements, as a true saving Faith, that gives interest to the effectual grace of the Sacraments; E­ven as the branches have some union with the root, that bring forth only Leaves, though they partake not of that vitall sap, that sends forth fruit also.

Object. 4. the Seal is set to a Blanck, if All be admitted.

Answ. Unto this, which hath trou­led many, I answer not presently by the distinction of an Outward and In­ward, an Absolute and Conditional sea­ling: [Page 42]But I desire a right understan­ding of this Notion, how the Sacrament is a Seal taken up upon the Churches trust. I have alwayes thought here lyes generally some mistake, men take it to be a Seale unto their Faith, and if there be no true faith, it is set (they think) unto a blank, and this breedes a miserable fear, to whom it is delivered. Let us know therefore (I propose it sub­missively) that the Sacraments are not properly Seales unto our Faith. How doe we conceive Faith, such a thing as must have Gods Seal put to it? God doth not attest our Faith, but the truth of his own promises, Heb. 6.17. but they are Seals properly of the Covenant: A Covenant is a thing must be sealed, and the maker is to attest it thereby.

Indeed they may be said to be Seals of our Faith (as Divines speak) consecu­tivè, by a consequence of speech, be­cause as Seales confirm a thing, so Faith is confirmed and strengthened by recei­ving; which is an effect thereof, Heb. 6.18. but they are not Formaliter, for­mally in a true proper sense, Seales unto any thing but the Covenant, or repre­sentations of the effectuall Seale, the [Page 43]bloud of Christ, by which it being rati­fied with God, the Lord declares it by the Gospell; unto the administration whereof, the Sacraments are set, to signifie the undoubted truth of it, as Seales (we say) and signes, shewing us, As the Bread and Wine is broken, pow­red out, & offer'd, with the other actions, so surely hath Christs Body been broken, his bloud shed, that all that believe in him according to this Covenant, should have grace and salvation by him.

And if it be to say more, God does hereby engage himself to make it good. The expression is borrowed from Rom. 4.11. where Circumcision is said a Seal, not simply of Abrahams Faith, but of the righteousnesse of his Faith (or, of righteousnesse, I take it, through Faith: Phil. 3.9.) that he should be the Father of them that believe, which thing sealed to, is the very tenor of the Cove­nant. Now let Circumcision be received on Isaac the Child of promise, or on Ishmael that must be cast out, it is the same Seal of Abrahams Covenant; Let the Sacrament be offer'd to the Godly, or to the Hypocrite, it is the same Seal of God declaring the truth of his Cove­nant, [Page 44]which stands most sure, and all the unbelief in the VVorld cannot make it of no effect. Even as a Proclamation of pardon (as we instanced before) unto Rebels, comes with the Broad Seal to those that refuse it, and yet it is no less a true Seal, and set to a true writing, than if they did all come in and em­brace it: so that if it want its due ef­fect on the Receiver, it may be said (if you will) to be set upon a blank (where Seales are set) but not to a blank, see­ing the Lord hath set it, to the truth of his Word, or grace of his Gospell.

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

Answ. I grant with sorrow, there are too many of us come absurdly, and but wickedly, when we forget to doe that we ought; the Lord forgive us: [Page 45]but though in the reciprocall action, as it is to be a seal (as is said) of mans part, the receiver failes in his solemn mutuall ingagements according to the Covenant (whereof he is to repent,) yet as for the Minister, or Church, who offer it as seal on Gods part, there is a true seal to a true Copy, and nothing out of Order.

The Sacraments therefore may be considered in their nature, and in their use: In their nature, I take them to be Gods seals only, as primarily signifying his grace, and shewing forth Christ, though in the use and effect they are to be mans too, as secondarily he is reciprocally to believe, and engage himself unto God: (Sacramenta nostra accipimus ex manu dei, & nobis sunt signae gratiae primò, secundariò obligati­onis & professionis nostrae. Paraeus in Loc. praedict.) In the notion they are mans seals, we may conceive the Sacraments Seals of Faith, for Faith is the conditi­on of the Covenant, and we seal to our Condition, so that as they are concei­ved thus indeed, they are seals of Faith, because seals of the Covenant, which I stand upon; But as they are Gods seals, [Page 46]for the same reason they cannot be seals of Faith (but consecutive, as I said before, in regard of the effect to the Godly, to yeeld what (remotely and expressive­ly) may be) because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Cove­nant which is Faith, but to his owne part, which is the Promise, and so I call them seals of the Covenant or promise formally and not of Faith.

Now I say cleerly, though an unrege­nerate man cannot receive the Sacra­ment, as a seal of his Faith, yet the Church can give it, as a seal of the Co­venant; and though it wants its due ef­fect on him, there is the right nature neverthelesse in the Administration, though not a right use of it in the re­ceiver; even as at the word, where there may be true preaching, and the nature of the Gospell, though the hear­ers apply it not as they ought by faith.

Look back to that only place Ro. 4. where it is said Circumcision is a seal, Abraham is said to receive it as a seal, which receiving includes Gods giving, so that we must look upon the Sacra­ments in the nature of them, as Gods [Page 47]seals from the very institution; who else durst appoint such things to signifie such spirituall matters? and as they are Gods seals they are set to his own word, & so can never be to a blank while there is truth in the promise, and writing in the Gospell. Now then the Sacraments being Gods seals certainly, in the insti­tution and nature of them, if I should deny them to be mans seals at all, there being not for it one tittle of Scripture, I should quite remove the scruple from the hearts of men; but whereas (that I may not remove their care and duty too) I grant though in the nature of seals, they Gods Seals, Gods own Seals, seals of the Cove­nant only, yet in the use of seals and effect, they are to be mans seals also, seals to the Condition of our part, seals of Faith, and so I cannot, I may not ac­quit the receivers wholy, but that they come absurdly, set a seal to a blank, and take the Sacrament in vain (as it is to be their seal) if they come without Faith, and those solemn engagements as God requires of us: though I can fully acquit the Church herein, in her delivery of the signs on Gods part (as [Page 48]we are his Embassadors;) because the Covenant by him stands sealed to all whomsoever, and there can be no doubt of sealing to a blank I affirm, so long as the Promise or the Gospel it self holds in force, the tenour whereof this Sacrament seals absolutely to us. The te­nour of it I say, mark me, not our in­terest in it; for that it seals not abso­lutely. Assurance being concluded by way of discourse, and whatsoever is com­mon to the Hypocrite with the beleever cannot conclude it. The Sacrament is the externall seal (the internall only of the Spirit (as witnessing with our spi­rits, Ro. 8.16.) can absolutely give this interest to any) this outward seal, is set to Gods outward Copy of the Cove­nant, that is the word; now look what the word affirms, the Sacrament seals, and confirms according to the tenour thereof, and no otherwise. Now the word speaks not particularly of any mans single interest, but generally it declares to all a common interest upon condition they beleeve; now as this inte­rest is exprest conditionally, so the Sa­crament cannot seal to it but condition­ally, according to that tenor is exprest; [Page 49]or rather let me say the Sacrament seals generally (so I will expresse it) the truth of the Covenant freely to all, engage­ing them unto it, and the interest or be­nefits of the Covenant, to every single person, upon the terms, conditions, or tenor only of the Gospell.

I must professe this in the Embrion has layn a long time in my apprehensions, and I cannot but be glad to find of late a pierc­cing godly and excellent man (I take him) whom the right conceiving of this alone (he sayes) converted his opinion and satisfied him.

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

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

Answ. The Covenant is sometimes taken in Scripture for those absolute promises of Gods putting his Laws in our hearts, keeping us by his power to salvation, and to the like purpose, Heb. 8. which are proper only to his Elect, and belonging to his secret will: Or the Covenant is taken as it is for the te­nour of the Gospell in Gods revealed will, and so it runs on these terms, who­soever beleeves shall be saved, and whe­ther this belongs to all, is no question. It is true for our comfort; whosoever comes under these conditions, may have an assured trust, that the absolute pro­mises also belong to him; but never­thelesse it is the conditionall Covenant, or the Covenant in its conditionall ca­pacity, that is tender'd to us in the word, and sealed to, in the Sacrament: So that the Covenant is indeed of the same extent with the Gospell, and the very tenour shews it universally belonging to whomsoever.

Now then, As when I have a businesse [Page 51]to propose in generall to my Parish, I read the Contents, which when they like, I propose certain Articles, and say, who­soever will agree to this, let them come and set their hands unto it. In like manner here, when I have held forth the glad tydings of the Gospell, I shew them the conditions of the Covenant: Jesus Christ offers life to all upon these terms of Faith; If you will resolve to accept him as your Lord and Saviour, to forsake sin, and serve him; come, put your hands and seals thereunto, in this Sacrament, & loe here is the seal of God, on his part if you do, (to witnesse the certainty of salvation promised to you) obliging him to his word. So that to speak sincerely, if wee should pro­pose two men, one that is not in Cove­nant with Christ, and one that is, this Sacrament doth more ingenuously be­long unto the first, who hereby comes to do it solemnly at this time; suppo­sing, now he resolves to enter Covenant with him. You will say, the Cove­nant doth not belong to him; What? Doth it lye upon his everlasting dam­nation or salvation, and not belong to him? The benefit of the Covenant, you [Page 52]may truly say, belongs not yet to him, un­till he is in Covenant, but the Covenant it self is of Epidemicall concernment, and so far belongs to all, that it is to be ten­dered freely, and offer'd to them, that whosoever doth receive it, may have the benefit of it.

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

Answ. As the Sacrament is a shew­ing forth of Christ, with a tender of the Covenant in his bood, there is an open, free, generall right to it, for all that will come in to Christ. Let me beseech you, mark this distinction; There is a dou­ble right here observable. A right of Obligation, and a right of Privilege: For the right of Obligation, in the Mi­nisters offer of Christ freely, and the peoples receiving him in his own terms, I doe avouch a universall right, to eve­ry Ordinance, Isa. 66.23 they being dutyes of worship, which is of universall command (and this often, primitively once a week) though for the right of Privilege in any, to enjoy the sweetnes, comfort, efficacy, life, and benefit of [Page 53]them, I acknowledge is it a perogative, belonging only to the Saints, and Elect of God.

Now put case, a poor soul should stand in doubt of his right to this Ordinance, that yet fain would come to Iesus Christ. Let him say, Lord, My heart is humbly afraid of my unworthinesse, yet seeing I come resolving to give up my Soul to thee, and it is our duty to come in, at this Supper; This Right of Obligation shall be my warrant to bring me in, and then Lord I hope thou wilt let me find the Right of Privilege too, in thy due season O my God.

Put case again, A godly heart should rise at the conceit of a wicked person re­ceiving with him, Let him think present­ly thus, though there is a neerer Right unto my soul, blessed be the meer free grace of God, yet there is a Right of Ob­ligation to every one, I ought not to be offended with any, the Lord sanctifie it to them for their conversion. The knowledge of this plain distinction (with­out the inveaglement here, of Adrem & In re) may doe very much to allay the trou­bles of many Iudgments, and more Con­sciences in this controversie.

Object. 6. The Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance, we preach to all to convert them, but wee may Administer only to the regenerate, to confirm them.

Answ. Unto this Objection because it is so much urged, give me leave to use some words. I doe acknowledge Di­vines do usually distinguish, of a Sacra­ment of Initiation, and Confirmation, ingenuously attributing our new birth first to Baptism, and then our nourish­ment and encrease unto the Supper, and so they make a converting Ordinance of the Word, and Baptism (the la­ver and means of regeneration) and a confirming one only, of this Sacrament; although I take a grant of the one, to be a sufficient medium to prove the o­ther.

But under favour, unlesse this distinction be taken onely in regard of the outward visible Church (into which, tis true Baptism alone does initiate, enter, or first incorporate us, and this supper con­firm, or continue us as members there­of) we must understand it, not after a [Page 55]rigid form of speech, and Idiome of truth, but after a more solute and inge­nuous conception; that is, it is such a notion as holds full enough to be hand­somely spoken, but holds not so strictly as to build arguments on it, otherwise the ingenuity thereof will trip up their judgment.

It is a rule therefore worthy here of our knowledge, that in divinity, we often give an indefinite denomination to things as they are most eminently in­clined; As for instance, in indifferent things (which are indifferentia ad u­num) when they incline more to evill in the use than to good (as many harm­lesse recreations) we condemn them indefinitely as evill, though in some cases they are warrantable. Ec. 3.4 And I may happily with right circumstances lawfully use them. So whereas this Sa­crament doth more eminently incline to be, and is [...] most usually confirming, and more seldome conver­ting, they do à parte eminentiori deno­minate it indefinitely a confirming or­dinance onely. And indeed this is true when it is taken in respect of the same persons, whom we supposing to [Page 56]have been converted by the Word and Baptism (suo modo) already, the Supper is, and can be only a confirming Ordi­nance unto them without question. But as for others, who we conceive, not yet converted, and so humbly coming hither as wayting in the wayes of God for con­version, I doubt not, as there is no Scrip­ture to the contrary, so there is no rea­son, but as the Word and Baptism doe confirm, as well as convert; (the Spirit is not tyed to one meanes, Iohn. 3.8.) so may this Sacrament convert as confirm, according as God gives forth his grace to the Condition of the Recei­vers.

There is therefore an error (to an­swer directly) in this Objection about the nature of the Sacrament (which be­ing as we have shewn) a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the light, is converting, as the Gospell doing the same to the hearing; for if the Centurion believed only by seeing Christ corporally on the Crosse; if the contemplation of the Creatures, sacrifi­ces, sight of miracles, have been means, to some of their religion and conversi­on; wee cannot doubt, but the eyes [Page 57]may much more splritually instruct us here in the melting objects of Christs passion, redemption and tender mer­cies outwardly represented, seeing we hope the working of the Spirit too, by virtue of an ordinance. As at the word, Christ comes into the heart by the sense of hearing, so at the supper by the sense of seeing, touching and tast­ing

Let the World Answer Pauls argu­ment, To shew forth the death of Christ is the means of Conversion. The Sacra­ment is the shewing forth his death. 1. Cor. 11.26. Therefore as it does so, it is undoubtedly converting, Hence I obser­ved in the words of institution, there was a Take and an Eat, two words, a Take for such as have not Christ (a word of grace) to convert those: and an Eat, for such as have already recei­ved him, to nourish and confirm them. For, put case, a morall man, taken for a good man, yet unregenerate, is, and cannot be refused to be, admitted hither: The man does his beast to pre­pare himself, and so comes; doe wee think now, to such a man the Ordi­nance is necessarily fruitlesse, and can [Page 58]have no work on him? then God help us. Shall not his examination, con­fession, prayers, meditation, with all the Ministers exhortations, be more solemnly conducing now, to work grace in his heart, and to convert him (this being the way of the spirits moti­ons) than the bare preaching of a ser­mon? Especially seeing the word doth not only precede, but accompany, and is a very part too, of the Sacrament. Accedat verbum ad elementum & fit Sa­cramentum.

But, put case further, a poor Soul much humbled in the sight of his sinnes that cannot yet be able to believe and close with Christ, comes hither, hoping to meet with this favour here; well the word of reconciliation is freely ope­ned, the free mercies of Christ set forth, and all this while it hath not happily this effect upon his heart, yet when he comes to see the truth of all this sealed with Gods own seal, Christ freely offered, and peculiarly received of him in the Sacrament, his Soul by all these heavenly wires is catcht, taken, drawn, and even enforced to a saving Faith; the Spirit using such most powerfull [Page 59]methods, for the work of his grace, which he infuseth in us, by a sweet at­temperation to the will, not by compul­sion, habitus infusi, being wrought per modum acquisitorum. And this we have lively represented in the two Disciples of Emmaus whose hearts did burne within them at the hearing of Christ, but at the breaking of bread their eyes were fully opened to know and to believe him, Luke 24.30, 31.

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

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

But that I may wholly root out this subtility, which I think the spirit of error has insinnuated in the hearts of many Godly men; I have three things more to say, which by Gods blessing will fully do it. Provided, if the thing serves our turn you will not be grating on the expression.

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

2. Consider what is Conversion. There is an outward conversion from Heathenisme, to the profession of Christ; wee doe not stand to say the Sacrament is such a converting Ordi­nance, as if Christ should bid us goe [Page 61]forth with this Sacrament, and convert the Nations, let this be imagined only of the word. But there is an inward effe­ctuall conversion of such as outwardly professe Christ, to the truth of grace in their hearts. Now how is the worke of grace (or true conversion) wrought through the word it self? Not from a­ny active power it has per se, upon the Soul; but per modum objecti we say, and instrumentally: the object is proposed or revealed, that is all the word does, and then it is the Spirit that by illumina­ting the mind, and the touch upon the will, brings the heart to embrace the ob­ject, whereby it is converted. Now is it not just thus likewise in the Sacra­ment? This Sacrament shews forth Christ Crucified according to the Co­venant, who is the true object of Faith and Life, upon this the Spirit of God draws the heart (by illumination and conviction) to embrace him upon those terms he here is offered, insomuch that experience can witnesse that some are, and have been hereby converted. What difference is there imaginable between this conversion, and at the Word? what a shift is it to say it is only At, and not [Page 62]By the Sacrament, when it is instrumen­tall (morally we mean, not physically) per medum objecti, as the Word? where I may say the same too as truly, that it is more properly At, than By, the Word it self, there being no active vertue but of the Spirit, in the one, or the other.

3. As for this scruple of the Sacra­ment being occasionally, not intentio­nally converting; There may be a prin­cipall intention and subordinate; more primary, or secondary ends in an Ordi­nance: Though the word be the prin­cipal converting Ordinance, we cannot deny but others may be subordinately also converting, as Prayer; why els doth the Church pray, Turn thou us, and we shall be turned, Convert thou us, and we shall be converted? Now as Prayer and other means of Grace are conver­ting, and that intentionally in being used to this end; So I affirm of the Sa­crament, unlesse you can find in your heart to keep this pitifull shift still, and say, rather than this shall be, you will distinguish between a converting ordi­nance and means of Conversion, other ordinances are means of Conversion, but yet the word, you persist, is the only [Page 63]intentionally (that is intended) conver­ting ordinance: Well; goe too, what then I pray? To the purpose. Then you wil say the word shall be held forth to all as intended to convert them, but the Sacrament shall not, being not so intended in the Institution: Be it so: It followes then, there must be no Ordi­nance administred to those that are not converted, but only that which is thus an intended converting Ordinance: Is this as you would have it? This is the very ground on which you stand: But hark ye, my Friend, I pray then what shall become of publick prayer & other Ordinances in the Church, when the Word is the onely principally intended converting Ordinance out of question? By this doctrine at one dash you take away all other duties in our mixt con­gregations: In what a case are you here brought? what can you invent? On necessity you must recant and confesse indeed, that Prayer and the like duties, though not principally, yet in a subor­dinate way are converting Ordinances, or means and helps of conversion; and upon that account you admit all to them: Now if you will doe so, then is [Page 64]the door as full open in this subordinate way too, for the Sacrament: If you will not, I beleeve the Sacrament will be contended to be shut out with such good company, and desires to fare no better than her fellow-ordinances.

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

Answ. As for the sense of this, it is answered already, as for the words and Fancy, I return accordingly. If wee could conceive any bread to be such, as would fetch life in a man, wee should give it him when he is dead; but now see Io. 6.33. I am the bread of life, sayes Christ, not only (I hope) to con­firm, but give life; Now Christ being offered in this Sacrament, this bread, is the bread of Life, this cup, the cup of Life, able by Gods grace as well to be­get Life, as increase it. If we give A­qua vitae to dying men, we may give [Page 65] Calix vitae to dead Christians, to quicken and convert the unregenerate, as to com­fort and establish others.

Object. 7. Judas received not the Supper, for in Mat. 26.23.26. he is said to dip his hand in the dish before the administration, & in Io. 13.30. as soon as he recei­ved the Sop he immediately went out. Besides some learned men conceive the Sauce he dipped in, was the Sauce of bitter herbs in the Passeover (cal­led Cheroseth) and that was therefore before the Sacrament.

Answ. Here is a manifest mistake in the ground of the objection. It is sup­posed St. John speaks of the Passeover Supper, as the other Evangelists, but see the first verse of John 13. with verse 29. and it is exprest, Before the feast of the Passeover, Supper being ended; as if he should say, As for the Sacrament Supper at Passeover, the other Evange­lists have fully spoken, but there was a Supper a little before, where there was remarkeable these passages they have o­mitted, and so he relates a washing the [Page 66]Disciples feet, and other things that were not to be done at the solemnity of the Passeover, for the feet were to be shod then, & the like gestures quite contrary: Ex. 12.11. But if (as some say) those passages which noted their haste out of Egypt, were not obligatory when they came to the Land of Rest, yet so large a circumstance as is here mention'd of Iohn, to be introduc'd of Christ at that time is not probable.

See Io. 12.1. There Christ came to Be­thanie six dayes before the Passeover, where abouts he stayed that time (going sometimes to the City to preach, Mar. 11.17.19. and back again) it being neer the Mount of Olives, which he did then frequent. Luke 22.39. In this space he rode to Jerusalem on an Asse, and came back at night. Mar. 11.11. Now this night happily, or thereabouts, was this Supper John mentions, where Judas having received the Sop, went from thence, to agree with the Priests, the Devill then putting it into his heart. Luke 22.1, 2, 3, 4, When the Passeover drew neer, mark it, Then entred Sathan into Judas, & he went & communed how he might betray him. Then when it drew neer, that is about a night before, or just [Page 67]two nights, comparing this with Matt. 26.2.14. Mar. 14.1-12. So that it could not be at the time supposed, that is ma­nifest.

Now on the morrow, or two dayes after this, Christ went from this Betha­ny, again to Ierusalem, (which was some 2 miles thither) it being the day of the Passeover. [Whether Christ kept it the same night with the Jewes, I need not controvert, seeing he kept it certainly the first day of the Feast, Matt. 26.17. Exod. 12.16. and the time when the Passeover was to be kill'd Lu. 22.7. Mar. 14.12.] There according to the Law, he eat that Supper with the Twelve, and instituted his own. Mat. 26.26. Now here was Iudas amongst the rest, sitting together with them at the Table till all as done. Luke 22.21. And when they were risen, Christ with his Disciples going again to the Mount of Olives, Iudas stole away (happily in the dark) to fetch the Officers according to his agreement, and betrayed him. So that Christ forewarned his Disciples twice of Iudas Treason, the night or two before, by giving him a Sop, with which the Devill entred his heart at first, to set him upon his bargain; if you [Page 68]consider well Io. 13, 27, 28, 29, 30. with Luke. 22.3, 4. and here at the time of his own Supper with a like Item again, by dipping his hand with him in the dish; A like I say, not the same; for St. Iohns giving him the Sop is not the same thing, as not at the same time, with Saint Mat­thew and Marke's dipping in the same dish. That I say being before the bargain (while it was to do, that thou doest do quickly ibid. 13.27) this at the very time of accomplishing it; (being already a­greed, and so in effect done, verily the Son of man is betrayed, Mat. 26.24. with Luk. 22.22.) Neither may the Disciples second enquiry It is I, Scruple us herein, if you but ponder what Iohn addes uppon this, ver. 28. and Luke 18.34.

As for many learned mens thoughts about the Sop and the Supper, whether there was one two, or three, this night, I leave only as conjectures, wherein they may erre as they have likely done in this, and so not to be built upon; and forasmuch as Iudas was at Table, by the testimony of 3 Evangelists, me thinks their witnesse should be suf­ficient for his receiving; but when it shall be considered too, that the fourth is so far from saying any thing against it, that he sayes nothing of this Supper [Page 69]at all, they having sufficiently done it already, I hope this objection will trou­ble Folkes no more.

As Christ offers himself to those that re­fused him, You will not come unto me, that you may have life. I would have gathered you, and you would not. As Christ con­verses with those that could not profit, You understand not, Io. 8.43. because you cannot hear my words. And as Christ when he preaches to all freely, sayes, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear; So does he administer this Sacrament to Iudas amongst the rest, and so do I ad­minister it to all, saying, He that can re­ceive, Let him receive it.

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

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

1. For the Churches part, I mean the Admitters (if the term takes place with us) and Ioyners; I do verily beleeve, let men urge what they will, this can never [Page 70]be made any way to concern thē. There is a generall command. Doe this, every one is to examine himself and to come worthily, if they doe not, they receive their own damnation ( [...] 1 Cor. 11.29.) they receive not ours, who do our duty as we are bound, and leave others unto God.

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

I answer, (besides that we have no Quum possit) it is a wonder to me any religious man should compare this Sa­crament to a Cup of Poyson, seeing it is in its own nature a Cup of Blessing, and if it prove death to any (as Sin may take occasion from the Commande­ment and slay us) through their own impiety; it is more than we can know, or ought to judge, seeing God is able to make it (as it is) a Cup of Salvation, even to the worst. Let us act with chari­table thoughts, and leave the successe to God. Even as Paul in his preaching, [Page 71]who in 2 Cor. 2: tells us, It was the sa­vour of death unto some, ver.16. yet must he preach it in every place, ver.14. be­cause it was neverthelesse a sweet savour unto Christ, in those that perish'd, as in those that were saved, ver. 15. So say I of this Sacrament, we must doe our duty and administer freely, knowing God will make all his ordinances a sweet sa­vour to himself, whether it be of life un­to life, or death unto death to any of us.

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

The first, whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation, that is, (to free some weak minds from fearfull thoughts) whether it be such a sinne, as makes a man guilty (without repentance and Gods mercy) of Condemnation? And I conceive we must distinguish between the very receiving, which is good; and the unworthinesse, which makes the sin only. This unworthinesse is in the Person, or in the Act: In the Person it consists in his evill conscience, which will condemn him whether he comes, or abstaines from comming. Put case one receives not, and is unworthy, the guilt of his unworthinesse lyes never­thelesse upon him for that, it may be, more; for in this very refusing, his own Conscience condemns him, and God is greater than his Conscience, whereas if he comes, it happily may excuse him something in not neglecting the out­ward performance, not aggravate his condition; for though he failes in the inward, and that failing is sin, yet that Act he does makes him not more sinfull for the doing, but he would have sin­ned more to have failed in that too, and not have done it. Unworthinesse in the [Page 73]act, consists in the obliquity, deficiency, or failing in the right manner of receiving, though the outward work it self be not amisse. There is the matter of a duty, and manner; As for the matter, every one can doe, in a Christian deportment at the Table, but in the manner, to re­ceive in Faith, Love, and other graces as we ought, this a naturall man cannot doe, and so he sinnes in his duty. His very Act is not sinne, so far as he does doe in the matter it is good (not only sub genere entis, but good in tanto, sub ge­nere morum) but this failing and swer­ving in the manner, is the evill, which as it cleaves unto, we may conceive, defiles the Act, and makes it lyable unto judg­ment.

Now then my second Quaere is, Whe­ther receiving the Sacrament unworthi­ly, is otherwise damnable, then pray­ing and hearing unworthily; (whereof Christ sayes as much, Go and preach, he that bele [...]eth not is damned, Mar. 16. Iohn 3.18. ipso facto as much as here) And if it be not, why upon the same ac­count, as men goe to prayer, to the word, and other dutyes, though they cannot pray and hear worthily, they may not as well goe to the Sacrament? my thoughts [Page 74]are thus; It is a sad Dilemma unregene­rate men are in; If they pray, hear, re­ceive, they sinne (not in what they doe, I conceive, but in what they not doe) by failing in the manner, their persons being not acceptable; If they doe not pray, hear and receive, they sin worse and are impious. Now what must be done here? If there be a necessity of sinning, of two evils the least must be chosen: its a lesse evill to doe what we can, though the outward matter on­ly be done, than to fail in matter and manner too, wholly casting off the care of God. But if that axiom be true, Ne­mo angustiatur ad peccandum, there is no case wherein a man is necessitated to sin, (and so that saying Of two Evills, must be taken alwayes de malo poenae, not culpae, Rom. 3.8.) then it is most clear, Every man must come and do the best he can, which if he doth happily he shall not sin at least so far he does not) and God may blesse his endeavours, Ha­benti dabitur, whereas if he neglects, he sinneth without question, this being ma­lum perse, the other per accidens onely. I will be bold therefore to distinguish: there may be a profane, presumptuous coming to an Ordinance, or a Christi­an [Page 75]coming in conformity to Gods wor­ship; though it is better not to come, than to come in a profane way, this be­ing rebellion and sin in the fact; yet I say clearly, it is better to come in a Chri­stian way, though but in an outward cō ­formity to Gods service, than altogether to neglect it; which being granted and practised of all in other duties, I think it but a begging the question, to deny it in this Sacrament.

My third Quaere is, Whether an un­regenerate man conceiving himself not worthy, must never come to the Sacra­ment, for fear of eating his damnation. And herein my thoughts are apt to run comparatively on the word; The word sets forth Christ on the termes of Faith and new obedience, that is the Gospell rightly administred, whatsoever effect it hath on the hearers; Now it is their part indeed to receive and apply it by Faith, if they doe not, it pronounceth them damned; Thus the Sacrament like­wise shews forth Christ unto the sight; and for the Churches part she is to de­clare and offer him to all, however he is received: Now the receivers, 'tis true, in the like manner again are to receive in Faith as they ought to doe: If they [Page 76]receive unworthily, as the word de­nounceth, this seals to their damnation. Now a man will say, if the word pro­nounceth may damnation, so long as I am an unworthy hearer, I will not goe thither, I shall but hear my damnation; but I say you must goe thither, you lye in a damned state already, and it is ne­cessary this damnation should be pro­nounced upon you, to awake you out of your security in it, that by the terrours of Conscience you may be driven to re­pent and be converted; so the word is good in it self, and the savour of life e­ven while it damns a man, if he usefully receive it: so say I of the Sacrament, it is good in its nature, it is appointed for our good, and so wee are to come unto it, as a means of grace; but if it acciden­tally seals to any man his damnation, it is through his own unworthynesse, and he is then to make the same use of it, as of the damning word, that laying to heart the horror of his sinne, in being guilty of the bloud of Christ, he may be provoked thereby to fly to Iesus Christ, for a merit of his bloud to wash away his guilt of it; and having receive so many seales of his damnation, he may be forced to the Lamb who alone is able to [Page 77]open all those seals, by pardoning his sins, and so to turn the savor of death unto life, and to make even damnation it self (such is the power of his grace) subservient to his conversion and salva­tion. I summe up this: If comming unworthily makes a man guilty of Christs blood, by powring it out in vain, what shall an open refusing deserve, that even tramples upon it in the despising this or­dinance?

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

Answ. Unto the unworthy receivers, it may be said defiled, in that sence, as all things else are to the unbeleevers, whose conscience is defiled, that is I con­ceive in sinning in all that he does Tis. 1.15. But unto the admitters (unless they be convicted) and joyners (who (as the Schools say well) concurre in their Actu physico, not morali, to their act of receiving, not unworthiness) their minds being pure, All things (even the worst) are pure, and there is no more reason to be afraid of comming for that unwor­thinesse of another, than for a man to scruple likewise, because the cloath is [Page 78]not clean enough upon the Table.

Indeed in the Law we read of a distin­guishing the clean from the unclean, Le­vit. 10.10. & 11.47. which otherwise would defile their Sacrifices. Hag. 8.14. and their very Temple. Ez. 23.38, 39. Such an outward holinesse had their le­gall Rites, that it could be touched, but the holynesse God now requires is more inward certainly, and to be laid up clo­ser in the heart, than that the externall holynesse of another should come at, or reach it: We must conceive under the Gospell, all this legall holinesse, in pla­ces, persons, things is abrogated, so that there is nothing unclean now unto us. Rom. 14.14. which thing was shewed Peter in a vision; it is pity men had need of another to mind them of it. But that all scruple may be removed, Christ has left it in plain words, Nothing with­out the man, defiles the man, Mar. 7.15. and nothing that enters into the mouth; as if he would meet with this in particu­lar, Matt. 15.11. If the heathen hus­band be sanctified to the beleeving wife, which is the neerest communion that can be, 1 Corinth. 7.14. so that she must not separate from him in the duties of Marriage, as it is Gods Ordinance, I [Page 79]may resolutely say, it is not the unwor­thinesse of another, shall make the true beleever separate from the Sacrament, but even the vilest that comes there, are sanctified to him ( [...]) that is, are clean in respect of his communica­ting with them, so that their wickedness, being an externall thing to him, cannot defile his duty. This is the privelege (I take it) of the Gospell many think not of, that now we are to have Free Ordi­nances, and to account no man unclean in the use of them.

My Brethren, there are some touches of the Law and Superstition on you; you know what a sacred thing was made of the Communion Table when the Rail was about it: now I pray think how you refine and spirituallize your old Superstition, by putting a spirituall rayl about the Sacrament, when you debarre poor sinners from comming hither; Let us take heed, there will be something of the Pharisee in these spirituall proud hearts of men, there will be setting a rail still about the Communion Ta­ble.

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

I Answer. There are severall dutyes of a Christian he is to do: He is to pray, receive; He is to love his neigh­bour: Among the rest there is a duty (much neglected) of brotherly Admonition, whereby we are to Re­buke the faulty, and to tell the Church of them, supposing it in a capacity to hear us, if we neglect our duty we are guilty in some measure, partakers of their sin, and defiled by it; well, let this be granted; what ther? why we must labour a Church establishment, and so to amend this great neglect among us, but I hope it will not follow, that in the mean while we must not receive the Sacrament, pray, nor per­form those other several duties we have to doe, it is a plain fallacy (à dicto sim­pliciter ad dictum secundùm quid I take it) to think our comming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is sin it self, or makes it the sin, or us more guilty of the sin, be­cause [Page 81]we ought to have admonished them, and laboured their excommuni­cation: no, this neglect of ours is the sin by it self, and the comming is our duty: God forbid that I should think, if I do sin in omiting one thing, that I must not therefore go to do my duty in another. Because go to do my duty in another. Because the leven is not purged out must there be no lumpe? this was, I may hum­bly say, a too overly surprise of godly Mr. Burroughs.

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

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, men may be Dogs and Swine, either in the course of their lives, or in the publick esteem of the Church; now in our Ministeriall ad­mission, we are to look on men as they are in the Churches esteem; and may not account or deal with them as Dogs (as wee cannot execute an arrant thief) untill they are juridically censured to be such, by lawfull authority. And though they have no right here in foro poli, Det, yet they have in foro soli, Ecclesiae.

Fifthly, To speak particularly: Con­cerning the ignorant, I dare not judge so rigorously; The 5 Heb. 2. comes neer me heart; there are many sorts of ignorance, the case whereof may need instruction mostly, not censure; Now that, the very solemnity, with all our Preaching, Catechisme, and exhortati­ons, doth (I conceive) afford, to all of capacity, (who only come) fully infor­ming them of the difference between this Sacred Table and common bread; which is discerning the Lords body, 1 [Page 83] Cor. 11.29. Sufficient happily to our ad­mission though not to their Salvation. For the scandalous we know there must be admonition first, twice or thrice, Mat. 18.15.16. And then if they continue obstinate (not else) and are notorious, an Excommunication is granted. verse 17.1 Cor. 5.13. yet I cannot find any where (unless I look without the book) that this is meerly in reference to the Sacrament, but from Christian Commu­nion in generall; at least in the primary nature thereof, though I will yield much by way of indulgence, unto the Church­es wisedome, according to the ancient practise of the Iews and Greek Christi­ans; the severall species or rather de­grees whereof I must leave unto more Learned Rabbies, And as to this pre­sent writ of suspension in hand, which men would have a middle thing be­tween Admonition and Excommunica­tion, I must make my return truly, Non est inventa, in baliva nostra.

I speak it with reverence to wiser judgments, who may allow as prudent, in the way of Discipline, what they will not enforce upon the Conscience, as ne­cessary, in our worship.

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

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

• First, from all wicked men in their sins and evill courses, this is out of que­stion.
• Secondly, we grant that we must se­parate also from them in common fa­miliarity; taking heed of intimacy and keeping them company, lest we be par­takers of their sin, by infection or con­nivance with them.
• But Thirdly, I affirme there is no Scripture commands our separation from them in the Sacrament, or any of Gods publick Ordinances, unless in case of Excommunication; which alone can debar any from Church-communion.

In the first sense you must take these Scriptures, Eph. 5.11 1 Cor 10.20.21. These Corinths did well to come to the Lords Table, their sin was only in partaking with Idols. so 2 Cor. 6.14. to the end, where they are rebuk'd for joyning in the same sin of Idolatry. If you understand this, Be not unequally yokt, of Marriage, compare it with 1 Cor. 7.13.14. There the beleeving wife must in no wise seperate from her Infi­dell husband, here she must come out & be seperate, how can this be reconci­led but that she may have communion with the Person in what is Lawfull, and yet be seperate from him in his ways, that are evill? You may adde happily in this first sense. Ier. 15.19.2. Thes. 3.6.11. Rev. 2.6. All which texts are hereby an­swered, that though indeed they doe command a separation from the wicked; it is from them in their sinnes, not from joyning with them in doing our duty.

In the second sense, you may take 1 Cor. 5.9. to the 12.2 Thess. 3.14. Rom. 16.17.2 Tim. 3.5.2 Io. 10.11. Pro. 22.24.25. and it may be 2 Thes. 3.6. Tit. 3 10 and so these Scriptures are like­wise answered, which doe further for­bid us the wickeds familiarity, as their [Page 86]sins; not a bare accompanying with any in Gods Ordinances.

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

I answer, this is a clear fallacy, I am sorry to see many graveld in their minds at it; as if there were any force in this, I must not be such a mans com­mon companion, therefore I must not goe to Church with him: wee must know, Arguments from the lesse to the greater, must be in things of the same kind and nature; Now it is one thing to eat at home, an indifferent action where I am left to my own arbitration and must not chuse evill, I mean in pre­ferring bad society: and another to eat at the Sacrament, which I am bound unto as a piece of the service of God, & cannot omit at my pleasure, without of­fending his command. Let me adde (to explain, and avoid scruple) I may sin in admitting one into my friendship, whom neverthelesse I may lawfully be [Page 87]withall I doubt not, (and at Table too) on my occasions.

In the third sense I take Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.1. to the 9. where the whole Communion or Life of Christians, is compared to an unleavened Feast (from which that Person was to be excluded in generall) without peculiar mention (as some would have it) of the Sacrament; you may reckon hither many places Io. 9.22. 1. Tim. 1.20, &c. In which case only when excommunicated, the matter is granted. And thus I am apt to think, 1 Cor. 5.9.10.11. 2 Thes. 3.6.14. 2 Io. 10. &c. quoted in the second sense before, if strictly taken, stands in full force only. As for Mat. 7.6. which properly concerns Admonition. Ier. 15, 19.1 Tim. 5.22. which, (with some cere­monious precepts of the Law as 2 Chron▪ 23.19.) In the words, are much applyed for the scaring of many Consciences, I must appeal to other Iudgments when they are well weighed, whether in their proper sense and importance they are not many leagues off this peculiar busi­ness of the Sacrament.

I will conclude with 4 Wishes:

• 1. I Wish wee had a Government e­stablisht in the Church, the neerest in Christian prudence that may be, to the word of God:
• [Page 88]2. I Wish the duty of Fraternall correption, a watching over, and admo­nishing one another in love were better known and practised amongst us.
• 3. I Wish that men would look more into their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, hearts, and reines alone, to the judgment seat of Christ.
• 4. I Wish, though there may be some judging by the fruits, that wise religious men would be more cautious of counte­nancing these separations in the visible Church, seeing upon the same ground that you goe to gather a Church out of my mixt Congregation, another will ga­ther a separation our of your Church; and so continue (as I have intimated frō our sad experience) an endlesse sepa­rating, untill this first separation shall in a few years be able to take up the say­ing of that Greatest Grandmother, unto those many schisms she shall see issuing, as her naturall offspring, out of her own bowels, Rise up Daughter, goe to thy Daughter, for thy Daughters Daughter has a Daughter; for this separations se­paration has a separation.

Deo Gloria, mihi Condonatio;