Case 1.

But here coms a case of conscience to be resolved: Should all, good and bad be admitted to this holy Sacra­ment of the Supper.

Solution. I answer, No, if we can chuse; but when we cannot do what we would, Blake Cov. sealed page. 274.275. we must do what we can, as reverend M. Blake hath well determined, adding a little after; That the Churches edifi­cation is first to be considered; but the peace of the Church by no means neg­lected.

Case. 2.

But should not people be examined, (by the Minister at least) before they be admitted to the holy Supper; or should all that are baptized, and of years, come that will, without any more a do, as some do plead?

I answer, though there be no parti­cular precept for such examination, as there is for self-examination, 1 Cor. 11.28. yet I think that it is necessarily deducible, from that which is generally granted on all sides.

All take for granted, that Children, Fools, and Mad-men are to be prohi­bited this Sacrament of the Supper, and yet there is no syllable for this direct­ly in the Word of God, but onely by natural reason, to be deduced thence, because such are altogether unable to examine themselvs, and so to improve this Sacrament for their spiritual ad­vantage, &c. by reason of their invin­cible ignorance. Now there must be therefore of necessity some appointed to judge, who are fools and mad-men, and who are past children, and of years; which cannot be known with­out examination; and none so fit to e­xamine ordinarily as Ministers, who are, or should be, men approved for knowledge, judgment, and holinesse.

And hereupon I argue further thus, If invincible ignorance doth make children and fooles unfit to be admit­ted [Page 24]to this holy Supper, much more will affected ignorance, which makes them not onely incapable but unwor­thy of admittance, because by their negligence they are disabled from dis­cerning the Lord's body, and so must neede [...]at and drink unworthily 1 Cor. 11.29.

Add hereunto, that the Prelaticall party, who have been most backward in this businesse of examination, can­not deny but that confirmation was appointed by our first reformers, and that none should be confirmed by the Byshop, See the Rubrick a­bout con­firmation, and before the com­munion. but such as could say the Catechisme; and that none should be admitted to the Communion, untill such time as they could say the Cate­chisme, and be confirmed; and there­fore the Minister was appointed to Catechize such as were to be confir­med; and all Fathers, Mothers, Ma­sters and Dames, should cause their Children, Servants and Apprentices (which had not learned their Cate­chisme) to come to the Church, at the time appointed, and obediently to hear and be ordered by the Curate, [Page 25]until such time as they have learned all that was appointed for them to learn.

Now this being in many places neg­lected on all sides, Ministers not Cate­chizing, or very few of them, and like­wise Parents and Masters, &c. being backward to bring their Children and Servants to learn the Catechisme; and Bishops as carelesse as any t [...] see it done, and so in a great measure the cause of the neglect of the other, whom they had power by their Courts to compell, had they not wanted care and conscience; hence most sorts of people did still remain very ignorant of the grounds of Religion, being altogether uncatechised. Wherefore let any man judge, what need there is now of more then ordinary examination, or catechi­zing almost of all sorts, in regard of knowledge; so that a great many that mutter, and make much ado against e­xamination, as if it were so tyrannical, and much worse than Episcopal Go­vernment, do say they know not what. For though Episcopal Government, in regard of the execution of that office, [Page 26]fell short in this particular; yet in re­gard of the right constitution thereof; the Bishops should have caused as much to have been done, as is of late requi­red by moderate Presbyterians; and it was their sin and shame, that they did it not. See the Rubrick about confirmation, and before the Commu­nion.

Case: 3.

But shall the scandalous be admitted to this holy Communion? what shall be done with them?

Sol. 1 I think they should indeed be excom­municated from all publick Communi­on in holy Ordinances, those I mean, that are proved scandalous, and wil not be admonished, nor submit and ac­knowledge their crimes and hainous offences.

Secondly, seeing that in most con­gregations there wants sufficient pow­er for authoritative excommunicati­on; I think it very difficult, what to determine in this business; and that be­cause it is hard to judge what is scand­al, and also who are scandalous, learned men being much divided in this par­ticular: Therefore I conceive it too [Page 27]great a burden to be put upon the Mi­nister alone, unlesse he were more in­fallible than most can possibly be ima­gined; or unlesse there were publick Lawes to regulate and determine, what shall bee accounted a scandall, and who, and when scanda­lous.

Sol. 3 Thirdly I add, where no Govern­ment is set up, as in most places there neither is, nor well can be as yet (rebus sic stantibus) for want of fit Officers. If there be any so grossly scandalous, that there need no examination, or o­ther proof; as in case of Bastardy, Common-drunkennesse, or the like; if any such should offer to come to the holy Communion, he is to be admoni­shed; & if hee do openly confesse his sin, and professe his hearty sorrow for the same, & promise by the grace of God to indeavor amendment, I know no reason in all the Word of God, why he should be put by. But if he will not be admo­nished, but seek to justifie himself, or ex­cuse the matter, and remain obstinate, hee deserves to bee excommunicated, and cast out of the Congregation. [Page 28]But for want of Discipline whereby this might be legally done, I suppose the Minister (if there be any that will join with him, to testifie the scandal and obstinacie) may in such a case passe h [...]m by, 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes. 3.14. [...]. Vid. Pastor. Evangel. l. 3. c. 5. p. 188. 189. ad 195. Ezek. 3.4. and 9. charging him not to presume to partake at his own peril; warning also the rest of the Congregation to withdraw from familiar conversing with such an one, more then natural or necessary civil bonds do tie them, to the intent that he may be ashamed, as if he were juridically excommunicate.

But now if none will join with the Minister in this case, but leav the bu­sinesse wholly upon him; I do not think it can be safe for him alone to put him away, onely he may charge him to abstain, till he have given some fatisfaction to the Congregation, and not to offer the consecrated elements unto him, and if he will take them of himself, he hath had sufficient warning, his blood shall be upon his own head, and shall not be required at the Mini­ster's hands.

And as for others that are onely suspected, the Minister may not meddle [Page 29]with them; no, nor a Presbytery; be­cause, De occultis non judicat Ecclesia, onely they may admonish such in pri­vate, to carry themselves so, as to take off all suspition.

Now though this may seem to some very strange, as favouring of loosnesse and remissnesse, yet let me tell you, that it is no more in effect, than what some of the chief and choice Independents allow, upon the like occasion. For M^r Thomas Hooker, a man very eminent while he was in Old, Ʋid. M. Cawdryes Review of M. Hookers Survey cap. 2. pag. 94. and afterwards in New-England, yet in his Survey of Dis­cipline yields as much. In declining times (saith he) a Church being cor­rupted, when diseases grow deadly, there is allowed, and a toleration of necessity must be so far granted,M. Blake on the Co­venant Ch. 47. page 437. See also M^r Gilla­spy's his Aarons Rod book 3. ch. 15. p. 541.until juridicè the evil be examined, the parties convinced, censures applied for reformation. See M. Cawdrey's Review, p. 94. M. Blake also quotes another passage to this pur­pose, out of the same M. Hooker. We see (saith he) how much reverend M. Hooker, speaking the opinion of his party, gives to the Churches conivence or indulgence. If the Church (saith he) either through [Page 30]connivence, negligence, or indulgence sha tolerate such evills, and evill persons in the state of Church-membership, they cannot then deny them the priviledge of members; thus far he. Now this is one speciall priviledge of Church-members, that are of years, to receive this Sacrament, or to be admitted to this holy Table, therefore he yields full as much, if not more than I have yielded.

Case. 4.

But whether may Ministers lawfully administer this Sacrament to those, in whom they can see no signes of sound and saving grace? I answer, yes un­doub [...]edly, and that for these follow­ing reasons.

Sol. First, because the Apostles in the purest primitives times, never required any more to admission than outward profession, refusing none that were willing to give their names unto Christ; never once questioning the sin­cerity of their affections, for ought we read, witness those three thousand soules admitted presently both to Bap­tisme, and the Lord's Supper, upon their willing assent. Act. 2.41. &c. and that breaking of bread. ver. 42. is [Page 31]ment of Sacramentall breaking, may appear more plainly, if we well observe, what learned Master Mede saith, con­cerning the words. They were saith he, [...], which the vulgar Latine turns, Erant autem perseveran­tes in doctrina Apostolorum, & commu­nicatione fractionis, panis & orationibus; but the Syriack, Perseverantes erant in doctrina Apostolorum, & Communicabant in precatione, & fractione Eucharistiae, hoc est, assidui erant in audiendis Apostolis, & Sacrificio Christiano celebrando, and withal he adds, who knows no that the Synaxis, of the ancient Christians con­sisted of these three parts, of hearing the Word of God, of prayers, and commemoration of Christ in the Eu­christ? And therefore he saith, our translation is not here so right, which refers [...] to [...] and trans­lates it the fellowship of the Apostles, whereas it is to be referred to [...] Vide Mede vol. 1. page, 493. 494.

And to proceed, we do not read of [Page 32]any admitted to baptisme, but were also admitted to the Lord's Supper. Hence Act. 20.7. It is said, that up­on the first day of the week the Disci­ples came together to break bread, and Paul preached unto them; Mark, he speaks of Disciples in generall, with­out any exception, that they came to­gether of purpose, to break bread; as a speciall Sabbath-duty, as wel as hear­ing the Word &c.

Reason 2 My second reason is, because all cir­cumcised were strictly in joined to eat the Passeover, Exod. 12.44. and 47. Every mans servant that is bought with money, when thou hast circumcised him shall eat thereof; all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it, amongst whom, without question there were many, if not most of them, uncircumcised in heart, and unregenerate, uncircumci­sion in heart, orunregeneracy; was ne­ver made a bar to exclude any from the outward Ordinance (though it may from the blessing of it) because no man can judge the heart.

As for these Numb. 9.6, 7. &c. that were forbidden to keep the Passeover, by reason of uncleanness, being defiled by [Page 33]a dead body of a man, it was such an uncleanness, as might befall the holyest man among them; besides it was such as kept them out of the Congregation, and so from other Ordinances as well as that. Numb. 5.2. Command the Children of Israel, that they put out of the Camp every Leper, and every one that hath an Issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead, both male and female, shall ye put out, without the Camp: That they defile not the Camp. ver. 3. Now out of the Camp, then out of the Congregation, but marke what followed. Numb. 9.13. The man that is clean, (to wit, legally) And is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passeover, even the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the Offering of the Lord, in his ap­pointed season, that man shall bear his sin: You see therefore there was great sin, in refusing to keep the Passeover, if le­gally cleane, though unregenerate; for that uncleannes there, cannot be ex­tended to inward uncleannesse, which man cannot possibly know.

Reas. 3 Thirdly, because the use of this Or­dinance doth much conduce to a [Page 34]through conversion. For here thou must take notice of a two-fold conversion, one is unto the Faith, another is to the Truth of the Gospell; the for­mer is onely outward, consisting in profession and outward practise onely; the other is inward, when the heart receiveth the love of the truth, and of this letter wee here speak, which is holpen by this holy Sacrament, reve­rently and devoutly administred, for we suppose all that can lay any claym to the Sacrament have the former.

Argument. 1 Now to prove that the use of this Ordinance doth much conduce to this conversion,to prove that the use of this Sacrament conduceth to conver­sion that is reall. my first Argument is this: Because it is a means to convince men of sinfullnesse, which is the first work of the spirit in true conversion, Joh 16.8 Now in this Sacrament Christ, is as it were, Crucifyed before our eyes, and that for the remission of sinnes, which could not otherwise be expiated, but by the shedding of his blood; likewise it serves to convince us of the hay­nousnesse, and hatefullnesse of our sin, which could not be done away by any other meanes, but by the Blood of [Page 35]the Son of God, as also to convince us of monstrous ingratitud, if we should presume to come to the Sacra­ment of Christ body and blood, and yet to follow flesh and blood, and not labour to be cleansed by the blood of that Lamb that takes away the sinnes of the World. Besides the very break­ing of the bread, understandingly looked upon, is a forcible argument to break our hearts, London Min. vindic of the Pres­byteriall Govern­ment, page, 104. (as the London Ministers have excellently and feeling­ly observed) Was Jesus Christ rent and torn for you, and shall it not break your hearts, that you should sin against him? Was he crucified for you, saith they, and will you crucifie him by your sinnes? And besides, say they, the breaking of the bread is not onely ordained to be a motive unto brokennes of heart for sin, but also in the right use to effect that which it moves unto. Argu. 2 Secondly the Sacrament is a compound Ordinance, consisting of the word, praier, and elements of bread and wine, and therefore must needs be more forcible then the single word, or both word and prayer without it, when ver­bum visible is joyned both with prayer, [Page 36]and verbum audibile, a three-fold cord is not soon broken.

And the aforesaid London Ministers call it, ubi Supra page 110. a Visible Sermon; that as Christ in the ministry of the Word preacheth to the ear, and by the ear conveyeth him­self into the heart: so in the Sacra­ment he preacheth to the eie, and by the eie conveieth himself into the heart. There­fore as the Apostle Peter tells us, 1 Pet. 3.1, 2 That the Wives good conversation may win the Husband, whom the Word will not win, to wit alone, because deeds are often more forcible then words: So I may say, that the Sacrament join­ed with the Word, validior est vox operis quam oris. may work that, which the Word alone will not ef­fect.

For though the word preached be of greatest weight for Conversion, The Sacra­ment is a sign and a seal; as a sign it vi­sibly tea­cheth, & as a seal it confirm­eth, both which help to beget faith w^ch is saving. yet the Sacrament being added as a seal to the Word, to confirme the same, must needs help to work sound and saving faith, and so turre the scale. For as the Apostle saith, Heb. 6.17, 18. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutabi­lity of his counsell confirmed it by an [Page 37]oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong confirma­tion: So I may well say, that these two immutable things, God's Word and Seale, must needs make stronger impression upon our hearts, to work faith, and consequently conversion.

Argu. 3 In the third place, doth not experi­ance tell us, that, since the administra­tion of this Sacrament hath been so much neglected, fewer by far have been converted, than in former times; be­cause this holy Sacrament kept men more in awe, partly by reason of the solemnesse of this Sacred Ordinance, for which men have been pressed to more serious preparation, &c. partly by reason of the Apostles pressing to examination, by expressing the hai­nousnesse of the sin, and greatnesse of the danger of unworthy receiving, that it makes them guilty of the body, and blood of Christ, and to eat and drink [Page 38]their owne damnation. 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29.

Argu. 4 Lastly another thing which I con­ceive of no small consequence, is this; In administring and partaking of this Ordinance there is a more particular application of the Elements by every one that receives, whereas the word preached, being delivered to all at once, is applyed but by a few, men being loath, if they can choose, to take that to themselves, which goes against the hair, as most duties do, especially Repentance, or true conversion. But now when the Sacrament of the Sup­per is administred, they must needs act that do receive, because they must eat and drink, whereby a nearer ingage­ment comes upon them, which makes them look better about them.

Hence many never begin to think seriously of Religion, and a religious, course, untill they are to come to the Sacrament, and then they begin to be­think themselues, and to turne over a new leafe, and so fall close to savour and relish Religion, which before they [Page 39]regarded not, Cov. se a­led, p. 216. &c. or at most very slightly considered. Expertus loquor, See more concerning this matter in M. Blakes Covenant sealed.

Object. 1 But here it will be Objected, that should we admit those that are unrege­nerate, being dead in trespasses and sinns, it would do them no good at all; but a great deal of hurt, yea prove very poison to them, because they will eat and drink damnation to themselves; for they cannot but eat and drink un­worthily, taking God's name in vain. I answer, Answer. by the same reason you must keep them from every Ordinance, be­because, while unregenerate, they take Gods name in vain, and hurt them­selves as well as in this. Besides, none eat and drink damnation, but those that are in a damnable estate al­ready; For he that believs not, is con­demned already, Joh. 3.18. As for poi­soning them by this, how can a dead man be poisoned? And besides, Vid. Blake Cov. sea­led, ch. 17. sect. 11. pag. 190. I hold it a dangerous errour to think, that this Sacrament will prove poison to all that partake of it, being unregenerate; for had it been so, surely the Lord [Page 40]would not have appointed the same meat and drink to have been both Sa­cramental and necessary food, without which the Israelites had been starved in the wildernesse; and with which most of them, being unregenerate, must have been poisoned, if that position were true, for they all ate the same spi­ritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. whence I argue thus; Seeing the Lord appoint­ed the ordinary food of the Israelites to be sacramental, and the very same spiritual meat and drink with ours; and seeing they were all bound to eat, or else they had been self-murtherers; Therefore there can be no such danger of soul-murthering to all unregenerate, that eat in obedience to God's Com­mandement, which must of necessity follow, if the Sacrament should be poi­son to all such as were unconver­ted.

I deny not but there was something extraordinary in that sacramental meat and drink, in regard that the mixt multitude did both eat and drink of the same; yet still the argument [Page 41]holds good, in regard of the sacramen­tality of it, (as I may say) and that we may rather conclude thence, that those that are no members of the Church may eat at the Sacrament, than exclude those from it that are visible members, though unregenerate. Doubtlesse the unregenerate sin no otherwise in this, than they do in other commanded du­ties, which they cannot possibly perform aright in that condition, and which notwithstanding they cannot neglect without greater sin; Bowles his Past. E­vang. lib. 3. pag. 193. Minorem contra­hit reatum (saith reverend Bowles) qui in officio, quod praecipitur, deficit in modo praestandi, quàm qui prorsus negligit. Pec­cat ille ex accidenti, scil. ex defectu fu­perveniente; hic verò in substantiam prae­cepti, que jubemur Domini mortem us (que) dum advenerit annunciare. Peccat ille in unum duntaxat praeceptum; hic in duo, quae prudens sciens (que) omittit. And after this manner we were wont to comfort wounded consciences, who were afraid to performe holy duties, because they found such failings and faithlesse di­stractions in the performance of them, that they thought they sinned more in [Page 42]doing them, than in leaving them un­done; For this we told them, that there was lesse sin in the willing per­formance, though with much weak­nesse, than in the wilful neglect of them.

Object. But here some think to evade, by distinguishing between duties natural­ly moral, and those of meer positive institution. Moral duties, as praier, thanksgiving, &c. are confest to belong in general unto all; but it is not so in duties of positive institution; they are given with limit to some, and are not of universal obligation.

Answ. To this Mr. Blake hath sufficiently answered; M. Blak Cov. sealed c 7. sect. 11. p. 195. 1. By way of Concession: Positive precepts bind not at all, because they are not given to all; the Gentil nati­ons were not tied to the Law of Ceremo­nies given to the Jews, and meer Hea­thens are not now tied to our Sacraments. 2. For a positive answer he saith; Positive precepts were never given in charge with any such distinction, as to bind the regene­rate, and to exclude men in unregenerati­on, Men under sin, and in nature, are bound to the affirmative part of the second [Page 43]Commandement, to observe every way of worship that shall be instituted by God, all of which are onely of positive right. All Is­rael were tied to sacrifice, as well as to hear, and pray; and all Christians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments, as they are to other du­ties. And a little after he adds; There are texts indeed produced, seemingly ta­king off men under sin, from the perfor­mance of positive duties, as Mat. 5.23.24. and as much may be said concerning those that are moral, Ezek. 14.2, 3. & 20.23. thus far Mr. Blake.

Object. If here it should be objected concer­ning the former Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. &c. that presently after, God was said not to be well pleased with many of them that are that spiritual meat, &c. Answ. but overthrew them in the wildernesse, ver. 5. I answer; 'tis true, and this makes much against them, that rest in the deed done, and think Sacra­ments will save by the bare outward act, sine bono motu utentis; but this makes nothing against what I have said; for the Apostle saith not, that God was displeased with them for eat­ing [Page 45]that Spirituall meat, &c. but for lusting after evill thinges, as appeares ver. 6, 7. &c. In all which, and that which followes in the next Chap. where he speakes of the Lord's Supper, he saith not one word, against their coming to the Sacrament, which was their duty, but onely against their misbehaviour at it, which was very grosse; whereby it may appear, that many of them were unregenerate, for some of them were drunke, either at or presently after that Ordinance, which is little better, they came to it, not as a sacred, but as a civil, or rather uncivil feast; hence those judgments seized upon them, to wit weaknesse, sicknesse, & death ver. 30. & yet not a word of excluding the parties, but only condemning their miscarriages.

Case. 5.

But is not administring the Sacra­ment to such as be unregenerate, Mat. 7.6. a giving holy things to Dogs, &c. Con­trary to Christ's flat command? Sol. No [...] at all in our Saviours sence; This place I know is much urged, and that by many learned and godly men, and I know it is sufficiently answer'd, by many no lesse learned and godly, espe­cially [Page 44]by M. Jeanes, and also by M. Blake: yet give me leave to fay some­thing in this particular, because it works much with a great many. I confesse I cannot chuse but wonder to see this place so wrested by wise and worthy men, as if it afforded Argumentum palmarium, not consider­ing either the absurdity, or inconse­quence of their arguing.

First, the absurdity is evident, be­cause taking it for a general propositi­on, as they do, and so including the holy things of the Sacrament among the rest, it makes full as much, if not more, a­gainst preaching to such as they call Doggs, and Swine, and whom they would exclude, eo nomine, from the Sa­crament, when notwithstanding they preach the holy things of the Gospel to the self-same Doggs, yea and cast those pearls before those same Swine; espe­cially when they contend for excom­municate persons, not to be excluded the Congregation. Therefore the Pro­position cannot bee general, in their sense of Doggs, but so as to make flat against themselves. The truth is, prea­ching, [Page 46]reproving and admonishing are mostly meant by those holy things and pearls, which our Saviour speaks of; as M. Perkins and many others give the sense of the place.

But now, if you take Doggs and Swine in Christ's own sense (who must needs be the best expositor of his own meaning) for such as will rent you, and trample upon those pearls which you give them; see then the inconse­quence of their inference: Those whom they would exclude from these holy things and precious pearls in this Sa­crament, never offer to rent or tear those that administer them; but the contrary, they are ready to rent those that refuse administring to them, though not with their teeth, yet with their tongues, as many can testifie. And as for trampling these pearls under their feet, they are so far from it, as that they prize this above most other Ordi­nances, and have used to come more re­verently to it, than to any Ordinance whatsoever; carrying themselvs worse by far towards the Word preached, which as yet they are allowed to enjoy.

Moreover, let them take Doggs for whomsoever they will, provided they have this quality here mentioned by our Saviour, to be ready to rent those that would give them this holy Supper, and there need be no controversie in this case; for if they should but offer such an affront for administring these things unto them, we would not offer to give them; indeed we should not need to trouble our selvs about them in this respect, because they would not come to this Ordinance at all, as many now sinfully refuse, who hold us and our Ministrie Antichristian, and surely we are not so Popishly affected, as to carry it to their houses, or carry it a­bout, and call upon them to adore it; as the Papists do their Host, or Breaden god, which they call the Sacrament of the Altar.

Object. But some will say, Is not this Chil­drens bread, and therefore not to be given to Doggs, according to the saying of our Saviour, Mat. 15.26.

Answ. 'Tis most true, it is indeed Childrens bread, and therefore not to be given unto Doggs: But who are Children in [Page 48]that speech of our Saviour? Even all those that are of the Visible Church, in opposition to those that were not; for this Woman of whom he spake was a Gentile, and not a Proselite; and the Jews in those daies were onely of the Church, and so Children, how wicked soever; which is likewise manifest by Christ's foregoing words, ver. 24. I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: mark, even the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as well as those that were already found, are rec­koned there to be the same with the Children: And consequently Doggs, according to Christs meaning, must needs signifie there, such as were not of the Visible Church, or uncircumcised; and so likewise those are children a­mong us, who are received into the Vi­sible Church, and Baptized, and have right unto Childrens bread, and can­not be counted Doggs in our Saviours sense there, but onely Infidels and un­baptized are to be accounted such, and not to receive this Sacrament in statu quo.

Case. 6.

But will not this largenesse in Ad­mission [Page 49]give offence to many of God's people, and cause them to separate from us, and speak evil of us, as if we were no true Churches.

Sol. I answer; It is too common, even for holy ones, to take offence where none is given; and therefore we need to be as cautelous as we can, that we may give none occasion in this censo­rious age; and I am confident if the cause be well examined, they that take offence at mixt Communions, as they call them, & so separate, have given far greater offence by the rents & divisions that they have made in our Churches, and yet count it their glory; though it be to the great grief of many godly ones, as well as ungodly; hindering their conversion; and opening the mouths both of Popish and prophane adversaries; causing them to blaspheme profession, and Religion it self.

And as for the truth of our Churches, I verily believe most of them are as pure and free from corruptions, as most of those Churches of Asia, to whom our Saviour sent several Epistles, and called them all golden Candlesticks, Rev. 1.20.

The Church of Sardis, Rev. 3.1. had a name to live, and was dead; and the Church of Laodicea was neither cold, nor hot, but luke-warm, the worst tem­per that could be in a Church, which made Christ so sick of them, that hee was ready to spue them out of his mouth, Rev. 3.15, 16. There was nothing it seems commendable in them, else sure­ly our Saviour would have taken no­tice of it, as he did in that of Sardis, saying, That they had a few names, that had not defiled their garments, Rev. 3.4. But it seems there were none among the Laodiceans, for if there had, why should not Christ have incouraged them, as well as others? seeing he pas­sed an impartial censure, doubtlesse, up­on them all.

And withall let it be observed, that Christ himselfe doth not there make so much adoabout polluting of the sacra­ment of the Lords Supper, more than about other Ordinances, which is now so much insisted on, and was then no doubt, as much defiled, if not more than among us, considering what grosse corruptions some of them had, and [Page 51]Christ set himselfe of purpose to cor­rect whatsoever was most amiss among them, and therein set us a perfect copy, how to reforme deformed Churches, commending the good, and condem­ing the bad; But we hear never a word, that they should make a separation, be­cause of the bad; but rather to rebuke, and so to reforme them.

Rev. 2.14. He condemneth the Church of Pergamos, because she had them that held the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balaack to cast a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, and to eat things sacrificed to Idols, and commit for­nication, and the like, and thereupon bids them Repent, or else he will fight against them, with the sword of his mouth, But never commands the good to separate, although such foul evils were tolerated amongst them.

He also sharply reproves the Church of Thyatyra, for suffering the Woman Jeza­bell, who called her selfe a prophetesse, to teach and seduce his servants, to commit fornication, &c. threatning her heavily. Rev. 2.20, 21, 22, 23. Yet not a word, [Page 52]to the well affected of separation, or any such thing.

Lastly we see plainly, that two many have fallen off to separation, even where none have been admitted at all, & that partly for fear, least some should take offence, and so separate.

And as for those that have separated, because they could not injoy such pure and unmix't Communions among us, as they supposed, how fearesully have some of them fallen from one degree of separation to another, till at last they have separated not onely from all Churches, but from all Ordinances, and consequently from all Religion also: Such is the giddinesse of this age, by reason of the subtilty of some seducers, especially Priests, and Jesuites, that go under the name of gift­ed brethren, and teach them to blast all our Ministers, and Ministry, as usu­ally they do; That being the first thing they commonly teach!

Now when they have once begun to separate from our Churches, and cen­sure us and our Ministry, as Antichristi­an, [Page 53]some of them grow so selfe-con­ceited, and censorious, that no Church will hold them; but they soar alost a­bove all Ordinances, as carnall and low thinges: Yea the Scripture it selfe is counted but a dead letter, whereby some of them at last become worse, than the worst of those they have so rashly separated from.

My very heart doth sometimes bleed, to confider, how our fair hopes, which we had of many, have been by this meanes blasted, and poor soules utterly undon, who (I am perswaded) were well-meaning men and women: and with good intent entered upon that way of separation, But we may see how dangerous it is, to be wise above that which is written, and more strict then God's Word will warrant us, which I wish were well considered of all well-minded Christians, least they rush upon the same Rock.

For the Divell is never more dange­rous, Mark this. 2 Cor. 11. than when he transformes him­self [Page 54]into an Angell of light, as he hath usually done in our dayes, and hath gotten great advantage against us by over-doing, as well as formerly by un­der-doing, as learned and zealous M. Baxter hath well observed.

This is as cleer as the Sun to those that do not willfully wink, and shut their eyes. For when Satan saw, that the grosse Superstition and Idolatry in Altar-worship, and the like, brought in by some of the Bishops, was quite quash't, and become odious, by the late Parliament, about the begining, and that a reformation was intended, and indeavoured, he than cuningly turned hands, and would turne Reformer al­so; But with full intent to deforme and overturne all, for whatsoever the Parliament began to do, he would be sure to over-doe, that so he might undo whatsoever they had done.

1. As for example, when the Parlia­ment went about to reforme our Churches, and repair the breacher, he'l have them utterly raced down to the ground, as Antichristian; and rebuilt [Page 55]from the bottom, as if they were no true Churches at all.

2. And when they sought to reform the Ministry, and cast out those that were corrudted, being either ignorant or scandalous, he goes higher, and will have all pull'd down, Root & Branch. Not onely Archbyshops and Byshops, but all Ministers made by them whom­sover. And when the Parlament pro­posed, to mend the Ministers mainte­nance, least scandalous means should make scandalous Ministers; he would have them preach gratis, as the Apostls did, and stand to the peoples curtesie, and worke for their living, as the Ap­ostle Paul and some others had done, and for this purpose raised up Preach­ers, of his own inspiring end Ordain­ing; just as Jerobeam did, of the lowest of the people, which were not of the suns of Levi. 1 Kings. 12.31. Who­soever would he consecrated hlm, and he became one of the Priests of the high places. 1 Kings. 13.33. so he resused no Methanicks, but incouraged them, and cryed them up, and not onely cryed down all other Preachers, but to this [Page 56]end cryed down Tithes also, as Anti­christian, and unjust. Though in the Scriptures the godliest men did first give them, to wit Abraham the Father of the faithfull, and Jacob, of whom came the twelve Tribes of Israel, Abraham gave Melchize­deck tithes of all, Gen. 14.20. even of the spoiles, Heb. 7 2. & 4. how unlike are those Souldiers unto Abraham that would spoyle us of our Tithes, God al­lowed them not onely Tithes; but Offerings, and some of the sacrifices, be­side 48 Cities, with their Suburbs. and God himselfe did afterwards in his wisdom settle them, as his own portion upon his own tribe of Levi, which he chose instead of the first-born, to do his speciall service.

By these meanes the Divell hath done more mischief, then most can imagine; for he very wel knows, that take away main­tenance, and you take away Ministery. No man (saith the Apostle) goeth to warfare any time at his owne charges. 1 Cor. 9.7. Speaking of maintenance for Ministers; Hence our gracious Lord and Master, gave his own Tribe of Levi very liberall allowance, even under the Law, for that administration, which was farre inferiour to ours under the Gospell.

Again the Divel further knows, that take away Ministers, and you ruine the Churches; as you do an Army by ta­king away their Commanders: because Ministers are the Churches [...], Guides or rulers, Captains or Leaders, Heb. 13.7. & 17. the Watchmen and Shepherds that must feed and defend the flock of Christ from Wolvs, which the Apostle fore-told would enter a­mong them, Act. 20.28, 29, 30, 31. And if we have neither Churches, nor Ministers, we shall have in a while no Ordinances; and hence many came to be above Ordinances, (a most trans­cendent evil!) when once they had rejected our Ministry, and our Chur­ches. For I conceive, that if Satan's young Chaplains could have preached and praied as well as other Ministers, they would not for shame have left off Ordinances, which they kept up for a time, usurping the office of the Ministry, but at length left that, when they saw their own inabilities that way, and fell to ascribe all to inward Revelations, and took those Revela­tions, (which were doubtlesse from [Page 58]the Divel) to be divine dictates from the Holy Ghost, and as good, or ra­ther better than the holy Scriptures, which they found did not make for them, but rather flat against them; though sometimes they would pretend Scripture to deceive silly souls.

4. Again, when the Parlament would reform somthing about the Sa­crament of Baptisme, Satan would still go beyond them, and taught by his E­missaries, that all must be re-baptized that were baptized in their Infancie; neither should that be administred to any, till they should renounce our Churches and Ministry, and give a rea­son of their faith. By this means con­cluding our poor Infants to be in a far worse condition, than the Infants of the Israelites, who were received into the Church by Circumcision, and ours must be left without for lack of Bap­tisme. And yet he stopped not here neither; but went yet higher with some, that they should decry all water­baptisme, that was but a carnal Ordi­nance; he will have them have none but spiritual-baptisme, rejecting wa­ter-baptisme [Page 59]as need lesse for them that had the Holy Ghost, when as the Apo­stle Peter, after he saw that the Gen­tiles had received the Holy Ghost, did thereupon baptize them, Acts 10.47. Can any man (saith he) forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Do not they then absurdly forbid water-Baptisme?

5, Lastly, when the Parlament in­tended to reform somthing in the Ad­ministration of the Lord's Supper, and to keep back the grosly ignorant and scandalous, that either could not, or would not improve that holy Sacra­ment to their spiritual advantage, he laboured to go still beyond them, hee will have none admitted, but those that may be judged truly gracious; and herein he seemed something modest, and therefore he goes a little further, and would not admit of some, unlesse they were first dip't, or rather duck'c over head and ears, as if it had been possible for John Bartist thus to have dealt with Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, [Page 60]who came to his Baptisme, Mat. 3.5, 6. which had been more then an Hercule­an labour.

Case. 7.

But will not this gratifie the wicked, who are so much for this liberty, to come to the Sacrament of the Sup­per?

Sol. It will not gratifie them at all in their wicked waies, but in a comman­ded duty, which is incumbent upon them, as well as any other duty; for the sinfulnesse of man doth not dis-ob­lige him from any duty, especially be­ing part of God's worship, as this is. And by receiving them to the Sacra­ment, we more oblige and ingage them to other duties also; as to mortifie sin, pressing them to renew their repen­tance, because by receiving this Sacra­ment, a Seal of the Covenant, we are to renew our Covenant with God, as [Page 66]we desire he should renew it with us, by renewing his grace and blessings upon us; otherwise we tell them this Sacra­ment will but aggravate their sins, and also their judgments, 1 Cor. 11.30. And therefore as those whom John Bap­tist called, generation of vipers, Luk. 3.7. he notwitstanding badtized them unto repentance, Mat. 3.11. i.e. to in­gage them more thereunto; for hee told them withall, That then the ax was laid to the root of the trees, to hew down every tree that brought not forth good fruit, and cast it into the fire, ver. 10. so may wee administer the Lord's Supper to men unto repentance, to perswade them to bring forth fruit accordingly.

Hence I suppose, that those Ministers who neglect to administer this Sacra­ment, deprive themselves of a very for­cible argument, whereby they might perswade men and women to sound repentance; least going on in their sin after this Sacrament, they should cru­cifie Christ afresh, and put him to an open shame, as those, Heb. 6.6.

In the next place I shall humbly de­sire [Page 67]my godly & reverend Breathren of the Ministry, who have a long time desisted from celebrating this holy Supper, sadly to consider how unjustifiable their pra­ctiseis in this particular, especially if they should still persist in such a course. Many have hinted much in this particu­lar already, especially learned & labori­ous M. Blake, whose bookes of the Co­venant, and also of the Covenant seal'd, are of singular use for most Ministers, that are at a losse in this regard, and the latter book especially, being as a word spoken on the wheels to such, as ju­dicious M. Vines hath it, in his Epistle before that book.

I wish withall, they would consider, how unlike they are unto the Primi­tive practise, which celebrated this Supper every week, and for some time every day in the week, being so in love with the Lord Jesus, whom they knew in the flesh, and who had lately laid down his life for them; and because they conceived that this would be, not onely profitable to themselves; but pleasing unto God, to keep such an holy memoriall of Christ's death, and [Page 68]passion, certainly they were not so scrupulous as many are in these days, about admission.

And if you consult learned and laborious M. Mede. M. Mede vol. 1. pag 495. &c. as also p. 500. &c. he will assure you, that the ancient Churches in their publick meet­ings, did so commemorate the sacrifice of Christ in celebrating this Supper, as that they thought it an especiall means to make all other services accepted; and to that purpose alledgeth divers testimonies, of Tertullian, and others, and among the rest Origen. Hom. 3. on Levit. where treating of the shew-bread, which was con­tinually set before the LORD with in­cense, for a memoriall; that is to put GOD in mind of them, he makes it in this respect to have been a lively figure of the Christi­ans Eucharist, for saith he, Ista est com­memoratio sola, quae propitium facit Deum hominibus. Thus far, and much more to this purpose, saith M. Mede. Sit fides penes Authorem.

If this be true, as his Authors seem to prove, then judge you what we our selves, and our Churches have lost, for lack of this Ordinance; and you may well conceive, that it is no marvail, if [Page 69]God forget to do us so much good for Christ's sake, as otherwise he would do, and hath formerly done, when we for­get, or neglect to put him in mind of that propitiatory sacrifice of his dear Son, by celebrating his sacred Supper, Ordained for this very end to be a speciall memoriall of his meritorious death, that he himselfe might be mindfull of us, and mercifull unto us.

Case. 8

But will not this harden them in their sinnes, to receive so many to this Sacrament; as som imagine?

Sol. 1 I judge it rather a meanes to make them consider their waies, and con­vince them of their sins, and so con­vert them, and bring them home unto God, as I have formerly proved.

Sol. 2 Secondly, I suppose this will no more harden them in sin, than their admission to all other Ordinances, un­lesse it be because some erroneously conceive, that this Sacrament belongs onely to those that have true grace, which fancy hath been fully con­futed.

Sol. 3 Thirdly, we see too palpably, that men are more hardened in sin, since this Sacrament hath been so sequestred, (as I may say) than formerly, when they were more generally admitted. And I verely believe, that the generall exclusi­on of so many from this holy Supper, doth, and will, much more harden their hearts, than generall admission of all Church-members, in the greatest latitude.

Sol. 4 Lastly, Add hereunto, that we see by experience, in the Countrey, that those who are kept from this Sacrament wax wild; and grow more carelesse of all [Page 73]Religion; and on the other side, those few that are by som admitted, when o­thers are excluded, wax wanton, & som of them so swel with self-conceit, that they presume to teach their Teachers, and lead their leaders: Thinking themselves too good, to be under any Officers, and so have forsaken their own, and all other Churches, and their Teachers, and turned Mountebanks: and set up themselves above all others whatso­ever, which is two apparent, both in Old and New England; Witnesse the Seekers, Quakers, Ranters, and other Rebells against God and man.

Case 9.

But is not this Sacrament (as some say) a priviledg that belongs not to Babes, but to strong men, that are able to digest strong meat, such as this Sacrament is.

It is indeed a priviledg of the Church, and belongs only to Church-members, no unbaptised may eat there­of, as no uncirumcised might eat of the Passeover. Exod. 12.48. It is also a duty as well as a priviledg, which all of yeares are bound to performe, that [Page 74]are baptized, as M. Perkins saith in his Cases of Conscience.

And that it is not strong meat, Perk. Ca­ses of Con­science lib. 2. page 95. fol. but even milk for Babes in Religion, I shall easily evince. My reason is, because it is one of the most sensible Ordinances which Christians have, as Baptisme is the other; because, (as all Authen­tick Authors grant) in these outward visible Ceremonies, God is said more to stoup to our capacityes, and to help our infirmityes; seeing hereby he teacheth us, not onely by the ear, but by other senses; as by seeing, and Tast­ing; Senses that farr more affect the ignorant, than hearing.

Case. 6.

In the last place let it be well weigh­ed, how those Ministers can answer it [Page 75]to God and their owne Consciences, for neglecting such an especiall part of their Ministeriall Office, as the admi­nistration of the Eucharist is, Object. and was ever held to be. If they shall still reply, It is because they fear they shal do more hurt than good to many soules, offend­ing tender consciences, and the like;

Answ. I answer, if that which I have said cannot give satisfaction, yet let me per­swade them, to be restlesse, till they be more fully resolved; I am very sensible of your sad condition, as having been in the same perplexity my selfe, but I have now by God's gracious assistance arrived to such a plerophory in most of these things, that I find abundance of satisfaction in mine own Spirit; and therefore I do the more pity my bre­then, that want satisfaction in this par­ticular, which is one of the main rea­sons, that hath moved me to take this matter in hand.