THE Laws of disputation do require a fair & exact Sta­ting of the controversy, that nothing be made mat­ter of dispute, that is not plainly affirmed, or by genuine conse­quence deduced from the Assertions of the adversary: when men do otherwise, they are guilty of casting unjust imputations, on those whom they oppose, they labour in vain, abuse their Readers, and manifest an affectation of vain glory, from a victory, [Page 2]where there was no contest. Mr. Mather has greatly failed in this particular. He says, p. 3. The Question is whether God requires Unsanctified Persons, while such, to come to his Table, and consequently whether the Church may admit into their holy Communion in special Or­dinance such as are not in the judgment of ra­tional Charity true Believers.

The first of these Questions is not fair­ly laid down, my Position is, That Sancti­fying Grace is not necessary to the lawful attending the Ordinance of the Lords Supper. He says the Question is, Whether God requires Unsanctifyed Persons, while such, to come to his Table. Insinuating as if I did affirm, that God required all Unsanctify­ed Persons to come to his Table. We use to say in disputations, Adde Signum. He should have added the sign, and either said some unsanctifyed persons, which I own, or all unsanctifyed persons which (as he knows) I utterly deny.

He adds, that consequently, the Questi­on is, whether the Church may admit to their holy Communion in special Ordinances, such as are net in the judgment of rational Charity true Believers. But I have no controversy with him upon that account. My business was to answer a case of Conscience, and direct [Page 3]those that might have Scruples about Par­ticipation of the Lords-Supper, because they had not a work of Saving Conversion, not at all to direct the Churches, to ad­mit any that were not to rational Charity true Believers; so that he blots a great deal of Paper to no Purpose, beats the air, and fights against a shadow of his own making.

MR. Vine's first Argument. No Effects can be ascribed to this Sacrament of the Supper, that fall not under the signification of it: One thing is not signifyed and another wrought. But the Conversion of a Sinner is not signifyed by this Sacrament of the Supper.

I premise, that this Argument is as strong against the Passover, being a con­verting Ordinance, whereas we know that by institution that was to be attended by Unconverted men.

Ans. I deny the minor. Eating & Drink­ing at the Sacrament does signify feeding upon Christ; when men do act faith up­on Christ, they are said to feed upon the body & blood of Christ. Joh. 6.53, 54. Ex­cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, & drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eat­eth my flesh & drinketh my blood hath eternal life. And the first act of faith or feeding on Christ, which is actual Conversion is signifyed as well [...] after acts of Faith.

[Page 43] 2. Argument, That Sacrament that by the institution of it presupposeth those that reep the benefits of it to be Converts, is no Conventing Ordinance: But this Sacrament of the Supper presupposeth by the Institution, those that reap the benefits of it to be Converts.

Answ. I deny the minor. The Sacra­ment by the Institution of it supposes them to be such as the Church is bound to ad­mit. viz. Visible Saints. If God have ap­pointed his Church to admit visible Saints, whether they be real Saints or not; we cannot say that they are by Institution supposed to be real Saints: Men may sup­pose what they will, but by Institution they are supposed to be visible Saints.

3. Argument, The word is the only Instru­ment to beget Faith.

Answ. If he intends the Preaching of the Word, both parts will fall under con­demnation.

1. The Consequence is denyed. Be­cause there is the Preaching the word in the Lords Supper: there the Gospel is Published, that Christs blood is shed for the remission of Sins: there is an offer of Christ cruci­fyed: Christ may be Preached, though there is not a discourse of an hour upon a Text.

[Page 44] 2. The minor is denyed. Miracles are a means to beget faith. 1 Cor. 14.22. Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. Prayer is a means, Joh. 4. [...]0. Thou wouldest have asked him and he would have given thee liv­ing waters. So is Meditation, Psal. 45.10. Hearken O daughter, and consider, for sake thine own People, and thy Fathers house. So Cir­cumcision, the Passover and Baptism.

Mr. Baxter's Arguments follow.

1. Arg. If no man is commanded or war­ranted to receive the Sacrament without the Profession of true Faith, then not without faith it self: But no man is warranted to receive the Sacrament, without the Profession of true faith.

A. 1. If he means that no man is war­ranted to receive the Sacrament, unless he affirms that he has Saving Faith. I de­ny the minor: For then no man might come, but he that has Assurance. And a great many gracious men must be ex­cluded from the Sacrament.

2. If he means that no man is warran­ted to receive the Sacrament, unless he professes real faith. I deny the Conse­quence: He would prove his consequence, because no man is bound to make a false: Profes­sion. [...] Answer it is the duty of a man that is rationally convinced of the truth [Page 45]of the Gospel to affirm that he believes it, tho' he doth not believe it with a Saving faith. They were blamed for not doing of it: Joh. 12.42, 43. Among the chief Ru­lers many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God. When such profess faith, they make a true Profession, they profess that which they do indeed believe, though their profession be not graciously sincere, & men are bound to speak the truth, though they only do it with a moral, and not with a gracious sincerity.

2. Arg. If no Commandments that are pro­duced in the Scripture will warrant men to re­ceive the Sacrament without Saving faith, then no man may receive the Sacrament with­out Saving Faith: but none are produced in the Scripture.

Ans. The minor is denyed. He proves it two ways. 1. They were not Commanded to be circumcised, whether they did consent to the Covenant or not. Ans. That is a great mistake, Children were not capable to con­sent. 2. The Parent confessed an hearty con­sent to the Covenant, and an hearty consent to it, is Faith. Ans. If an hearty consent to [Page 46]the Covenant be saith, yet the profession of an hearty consent to it, is not faith.

In the next place he reherses a popular discourse of Mr. Charnocks; wherein there is such a loose way of arguing, that it is hardly worth the while to put Pen to Pa­per to answer the arguments.

Mr. Charnocks arguments are of two sorts; the first sort are to prove that Un­regenerate Persons may not come to the Lords Supper.

1. Arg. The Lords Supper is Childrens bread. Ans. If so then it does belong to the visible People of God, whether they be Regenerate or no. Deut. 14.1. Ye were the Children of the Lord your God. Isa. 1.2. I have brought up Children. Jer. 3.14. Turn O backsliding Children.

2. Arg. For Unregenerate Persons to come to the Lords Supper is a mocking of God. Ans. It is no more a mocking of God than for such Persons to pray; by this argument they may not Pray.

3. Arg. An Unregenerate man is not in Covenant with God, because he has no faith, which is the condition of the Covenant, therefore has no right to the Seal of the Covenant. Answ. [...]. By this argument Ishmael had no right to the Seal of the Covenant, nor many [Page 47]of those that God commanded to be cir­cumcised, Josn. 5.2. 2. That many Un­regenerate men are in external Covenant. Deut. 5.2 The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in [...] therefore they have a right to the [...] of the Covenant. 3. Ma­ny Unregenerate men have a right to the offer of the internal Covenant, and so they may have a right to the Seal of it, which does Seal the truth of the Covenant, and also Seals the Spiritual and Eternal bles­sings of the Covenant, not absolutely, but conditionally.

4. Arg. An Unregenerate man is dead: what has a dead man to do with a feast? Ans. Those that are Spiritually dead are called upon to believe, which is a feeding upon Christ. So that they have to do with a Feast.

5. Arg. The Sacrament is an Ordinance of inward Communion with Christ. Ans. So was the Passover, yet Unregenerate men might partake of that; and Unregenerate men when they come to the Lords Supper are capable of believing, and so having com­munion with Christ.

6. Arg. Freemen only have a right to the Priviledges of the city: and true Christians to the Priviledges of the Church. Ans. The [Page 48]Church of Ephesus, and other Gentile Churches, Were fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Household of God, Eph. 2.19. When he saith fellow citizens with the Saints; he means fellow citizens with the Jaws: but neither all the professing Gen­tiles, nor all the Jews were Regenerate men.

The second sort of Arguments are to prove, that the Lords Supper is not a Con­verting Ordinance.

1. Arg. Baptism is not a Converting Ordi­nance, much less this of the Supper. Ans. Bap­tism is a Converting Ordinance two ways. 1. God gives Grace to the Children in this way. Some in their Infancy: thus we hope for some that dye in Childhood; some afterward. 2. The consideration of their being Baptised, is a means to help for­ward their Conversion, by convincing, a­wakning and incouraging of them. He would prove, that Baptism is not a Conver­ting Ordinance, because Circumcision was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of faith, which he had when he was Uncircumcised, Rom. 4.11. But tho' Abraham had faith before he was Circumcised, yet it don't follow that Ishmael had, that all his Male Servants had; and others in future times.

2. Arg. Bread & Wine are not to enloven [Page 49]a Dead man, but to nourish a living man, Christ is offered here as Spiritual food, and spiritual food supposeth a new birth. Ans. The con­sequence is to be denyed: for these three reasons. 1. Because this Argument lyes as strong against the Passover's being a Converting Ordinance as the Lords Sup­per. 2. Because Christ being offered as spiritual food, is a special incouragement unto the first act of faith, which is actual Conversion, if Christ offers to nourish us up to eternal life, that draws us to accept of him. 3. The Lords Supper represents Christ as the bread of Life, as he is; and then it is a Converting Ordinance. The reason is, because he is not only, a life supporting, strengthning, nourishing and increasing bread, but a life giving bread. Joh. 6.48.53. I am that bread of life, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. And life is given in Conversion.

3. Arg. Pre-examination implies that it is no Converting Ordinance. Ans. It implies no such thing, because this Examination is about discerning the nature of the Or­dinance: about discerning the Lords body, 1 Cor. 11.29.

4. Arg. The nature of Excommunication [Page 50]shews it to be no Converting Ordinance. If it were a Converting Ordinance, the Incestuous Corinthian, should rather have been kept in the Church then cast out. Ans. 1. Though it be a Converting Ordinance, yet only to orderly Members; the censures are for the Conversion of disorderly ones, in case they be Unconverted. 2. The Argu­ment is as strong against its being a streng­thing Ordinance. The Corinthian if he were a godly man, as Mr. Mather suppo­ses, had then need to be kept in the Church that his Grace might be strengthned.

1. ARgument. If Unsanctifyed Persons might lawfully come to the Passover, then they may lawfully partake of the Lords Supper: But they might lawfully come to the Passover.

[Page 51] This is evident, because the whole Con­gregation of Israel were to keep it, and such Strangers among them as did subject themselves to Circumcision, Exod. 12.47, 48. And God threatens such Persons as neglect it, except they were Unclean or in a Jour­ney. The man that is clean and not in a jour­ney, & forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same Soul shall be cut off from his People, Numb. 19.13. The want of Sanctification never was alledged by any man, as a reason for forbearing the Passover. Unsanctify­ed Jews did sin when they attended the Passover, because they did it not in a gra­cious manner: so they did when they at­tended any other duty of Worship, but the attending of this Ordinance was no Sin, nor ever charged on them as Sin in the Scripture: it would have been a great transgression if they had neglected it. There were many times, when there were very few godly men among them. Psal. 12.1. Help Lord for the godly man ceaseth, the faithful fail, from among the children of men. Isai 53.1. Who birth believed our report & to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed. Yet the Passover was to be attended by the whole Congregation of Israel: there was no restriction laid upon them in Hezekiah's [Page 52]time, or Josiah's time, and their practice is spoken of as matter of commendation.

The consequence is likewise good. If the want of Sanctification, did not make it unlawful for men to come to the Pass­over: Then it don't make it unlawful for men to come to the Lords Supper. The Passover is a Sacrament as well as the Lords Supper, therefore Christ is called our Passo­ver, 1 Cor. 5.7. Christ our Passover is Sacrifi­ced or us. In the Passover Christ is re­presented, and it is as well as Circumci­sion a Seal of the righteousness of faith. If it be unlawful for Unsanctifyed persons to partake of the Lords Supper, because that is a sign of Christ Crucifyed, it would on the same account have been unlawful to have partook of the Passover, for that likewise was a sign of Christ Crucifyed. If it were unlawful, because it is an holy Ordinance; then they might not have come to the Passover, for that was an holy Ordinance also. If it be unlawful because therein Saints have communion with Christ, it would upon the same account have been unlawful to have come to the Passover; for Saints therein had commu­nion with Christ. If it were unlawful, because the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per [Page 53]is a Sacrament of confirmation, then it would have been unlawful to have per­took of the Passover, on the same account: the Passover & the Lords Supper are like figures, one of Christ to come, the other of Christ already come: and when Christ abolished one, he instituted the other in the room thereof. It seems to me that many Persons do make an idol of the Lords Supper; crying it up above all Ordinances both of the Old & New Testament, as if it were as peculiar to Saints as heavenly glory, and to be attend­ed with more reverence than all other Or­dinances. It may be this is some of the relicks of Popish Idolatry, in making the Bread & Wine to be the natural Body & Blood of Christ. They do by the Lords Supper as some men do by the Name of Jesus, they bow to that, but not to the Name of Christ, or God, or the Holy Ghost. So these Persons have a greater reverence for this than any other holy Ordinance. It concerns them to see that there be no Superstition in it.

Mr. Mather makes three exceptions a­gainst this Argument.

1. Exception. That the Church of the Jews was National: & the Church now is Congre­gational: [Page 54]and he depends on Dr. Goodwin to make it good.

Ans. There is no opposition between the Churches being National & yet Congre­gational. The whole Nation may be a National Church, and the several Congre­gations may be Congregational Churches, as the several Synagogues of the Jews were.

The reason why we have no account of any National Church among the Gentiles, is because there was no Nation Converted to the Christian saith, during that time; which we have the History of, in the New Testament: there were a few in one City and a few in another that did receive the Christian faith: but the bulk of the several Nations lay in their heathenism.

At the Jews were a National Church of old, so when they return, they will be a National Church again, and as they will be a National Church, so Gentile Nations that profess the true Religion, are Natio­nal Churches. His objection that then there must be an High Priest is frivolous. If he had argued that then there must be a National Church Government, he had argued right; because Israel was a Natio­nal Church they had an Ecclesiastical Sane­ [...]rim, but they had an High-Priest on a­nother [Page 55]account, viz to typify Christ as the High-Priest of our Profession.

A Nation that is in Covenant with God is a National Church, a Nation that are in Covenant with God are the People of God, bound jointly and severally to keep Covenant with him. God is one party in the Covenant, and they are the other, and being bound together to keep Covenant, the whole must have power over the parts, to rectify all Mal-administrations, and to see the Covenant kept: it need not seem strange to any to hear of a National Church in the time of the New-Testament, consi­dering how it was foretold by Isaiah: Isai. 19.24, 25. In that day Israel shall be the third with Egypt, and with Assyria, whom the, Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, blessed be Egypt my People, Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance. And how it was fore­told by Christ: Matt. 13.33. The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of Meal till the whole was leavened. Though few entertain the Gospel at first, yet the whole Country in a while are brought to entertain it. What is a National Church but a Professing Na­tion jointly bound to keep Covenant with God.

[Page 56] 2. Exception. Though Gospel mysteries were typifyed by the Possover, yet it was insti­tuted in special, to be a commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and so the whole Na­tion were to partake of it.

Answ. If when he saith, it was in special to be a commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, he intends no more. 1. Then this, that beside its typifying Gospel myste­ries, it had a particular respect to the de­liverance out of Egypt; there is no force at all in the exception, if it had some res­pect to that, that hindred not the Sacred­ness of the Ordinance, neither could it be a reason why Unsanctifyed persons should come to that Ordinance, more than to any now in the time of the New-Testa­ment; the respect is had to the deliverance out of Egypt, does not destroy the respect it had to the Redemption by Christ: its being a Memorial of the deliverance from Egypt, don't hinder it from being a Seal of the righteousness of faith, nor make it fit to be attended by such as may not at­tend the Lords Supper. 2. If when he saith, it was in special to be a commemo­ration of the deliverance from Egypt, he means that it was especially, or principal­ly instituted for that end, to be a Memo­rial [Page 57]of that deliverance from Egypt; surely he did not Write those words in cold blood: the deliverance out of Egypt was a great Mercy, but small in compari­son of the deliverance by Christ: if the great thing was to be a Memorial of the deliverance from Egypt, why was there not such another Ordinance instituted, when they were delivered from Babylon; if that were the great thing why was it abo­lished after Christs suffering? can it enter into any mans heart, to think that the ty­pifying the Redemption by Christ was only a thing by the by in this institution? is that deliverance from Egpyt the prin­cipal thing intended in the preface to the ten Commandments? Exod. 20.2.

3. Exception. That Scandalous Persons might come to the Passover but not to the Lords Supper. He saith, Adulterers, Thieves, Liars, Slanderers, Perjured persons, might come to the Passover, and I must admit such Scandalous persons to the Lords Supper, or let go my argu­ment from the Passover.

And he teaches me what to answer, viz. That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church Members of the New Testament than the Old. But I dare not give that answer, because of the absurdity of it: [Page 58]for the persons, that he speaks of wanted the Negative fruits of Regeneration, and were not able to say, as the Pharisee: Luk. 18.11. God I thank thee I am not as other men are Extortioners, Unjust, Adulterers, or even as this Publican.

But this I answer, that he does greatly reproach the Church of Israel: he pre­tends to endeavour the purity of Gospel Churches, but obtrudes that upon us which is crude and indigested, as if all sorts of vile persons might according to divine Institu­tion, live in communion with the Jewish Church: as if the Church of Israel were like Babylon a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. I know there were great corruptions many times among them, but surely visible Saints were always de jure, the matter of Church Members: So Israel are often called: Deut. 33.3. All his Saints are in his hands: So David calls them: Psal. 111.1. I will praise thee in the Assembly of the Upright and in the Congregation. And he teaches us, That holiness becomes Gods House for ever, Psal. 93.5. And not only as Mr. Mather saith, in the time of the New Testament.

God appointed in the Church of Israel a way for the removal of Scandals. For,

[Page 59] 1. Men were required in case of Sin to offer up their Sacrifices: as is abundant­ly evident from the Law of Moses. Lev. 6.6, 7. He shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, and the Priest shall make attonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him. This offering of Sacrifice was to be attended with confession. Lev. 5.5. He shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, & he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin. Numb. 5.6, 7. When a man or wo­man commit any sin, that men commit, then they shall confess their sin that they have done. Hereby the Scandal was removed: there were to be visible signs of Repentance, as now are required among us.

2. In case of obstinacy they had their way to purge the Church: they had their Ecclesiastical censures, according to di­vine Institution. Which as Dr. Owen calls them, were an authoritative Exclusion of them, from the Society of the Church and the Members of it. The Jews do distin­guish these censures into three degree, the first they call Niddui, the second Cherem, the third Shammatha. The Jews in Christs time did agree, that if any confessed Christ, they would put him out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9.22. This was executed on the blind man, [Page 60] v 24. And it is very probable that when it is said in the Old Testament, that ob­stinate offenders shall be cut off from a­mong their People, that this is at least sometimes intended by it.

3. When Persons were under the second censure, which they call Cherem, they were not to eat the Passover, they did allow them that were under the first to come in­to the Temple, though at a distinct gate, which they called the gate of Mour­ners, but in the second they were exclu­ded: they agreed in Ezra's time, That those that did not assemble within three days, should be separated from the Congregation, Ezra 10.8. Then they were looked on as Heathens, according to that, Math. 18.17. If he neg­lect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican: which was no new rule appropriated to the Gospel Church, which was not in being, when Christ spake these words, but Christ did herein revive an old rule that had been always in force.

2. Argument. If no Unsanctifyed Person may come to the Lords Supper, than no man may come, but be that knows himself to be Sanctifyed: But persons may come, that do not know themselves to be Sanctifyed.

[Page 61] The minor is granted. Mr. M. grants that there is no necessity of Assurance: and that if Persons search and have a pro­bable hope that they are Converted, they may come. p. 84.

The consequence is plain: because up­on that supposition, That Sanctifyed per­sons only must come; he that don't know his Sanctification, doth not know that he hath any right to come: and so he can­not eat in faith, and therefore Sins in com­ing. Thus the Apostle determines the case about eating of flesh: that those that doubted whether God allowed them to do it and yet did it, were guilty: Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth is damned if he eat: be­cause he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. He that doth not know that he is Sanctifyed, doth not by that doctrine know that he hath any right to come: he is ignorant that he hath any warrant to come: if he comes, he comes upon his peril of eating and drinking damnation to himself: if he comes he takes a liberty to do that, that he doth not know, that God gives him a liberty to do: it is horrible presumption for him to come; if all un­sanctifyed persons are forbidden, then he doth not know but that it is forbidden [Page 62]fruit to him, and that he rebels in coming: he that doth that, which he doth not know he may lawfully do, will not be ac­cepted in it: Conscience may say to him, What right have you to it, Who gave you leave, What Warrant have you to do it? If Churches are to censure only Scanda­lous persons, then they must know they are Scandalous before they do censure them; it is not enough for them to say they don't know but that they are, or they think that they are. If a man has a liberty to Sell only his own Horse, and not another mans, then he must know it to be his own and not another mans; and it is not enough for him to say, He did not know but it was his own, or he thought it was his own. If a Minister has a liber­ty to Preach nothing but the truth, then he must know it to be the truth before he Preaches it; it is not enough for him to say, he did not know but it was, or that he hoped it was. Thus it is in this case. If only Sanctification gives him a real right to the Lords Supper, then nothing short of the knowledge of Sanctification can give him a known right to it: until he knows his Sanctification he is ignorant of his right: if Sanctification only gives him a [Page 63]right, then if he doth not know his San­ctification, he doth not know, that he hath a right. Probable hopes wont Warrant him to come: for they don't give him a right, it is only Sanctification doth that, neither do they evidence that he hath a right.

But though the truth of this Argument be as evident as the light of the Sun at Noon day, yet it would be strange if Mr. Mather should have no answer to give. He tells us if after serious Examination, be can­not but hope there is a good work begun in his Soul, be ought to come, though his hopes be not Assurance.

But I say, he ought not to come unless he has a right to come; ought he to come if he have this hope, whether he be Re­generate or not? he may have these hopes, and yet be unsanctifyed, then it is not San­ctification that gives him the right but the hopes of it: he ought to come, Mr. M. saith: yet he ought to stay away because he is unsanctifyed: he is charged to come because of his hopes, and condemned for coming because he is unsanctifyed.

But Mr. Mather labours to give relief to Wounded Consciences by a comparison, he tells, If a Jew after he had searched for [Page 64]leaven in the house, found none, be was to eat the Passover; so if Christians after self Exa­mination, cannot find that they are in a state of Hypocrisy, which is leaven, they ought to come to the Lords Table. Here is a shadow with­out substance, a comparison without a similitude. The Jew searches for leaven, he finds bread and is at a loss whether it be leavened or no; may he eat the Passo­ver without removing that bread; so the Christian searches his heart, and finds a great deal of hypocrisy, but is at a loss whether it be reigning hypocrisy or no: ought he in this case to run the venture and come to the Lords Table?

The case with these men that don't know their Saint-ship, is like the case of the Priests that could not find their Re­gister, Ezra 2.62, 63. They were put from the Priest-bood as Polluted, that they should not eat of the holy things, till there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim. So these that cannot find their Saint-ship must forbear eating at the Lords Table, till they can make it out, if it be Sanctification that gives a right to the Lords Supper.

There is a strange inconsistency in his doctrine, sometimes he teaches that Re­generation gives the right to come, and [Page 65]that unsanctifyed persons may not come; sometimes that if they hope after Exami­nation that they are godly, then they may come. But if it be grace only that gives them a right, then preponderating hopes of Grace will not give them a right; be­sides if an hope that they are godly gives them a right, then that which is very sin­ful will give them a right: for such are the hopes of many men, founded in Pride and Ignorance: There is a Generation that are pure in their own eyes, yet are not cleansed from their filthiness, Prov. 30.12. Again, if a probable hope gives men a right, then when ever they have a preponderating fear that they are not godly, they must forbear, and so neglect the means of their consolation. Again, if a preponderating hope gives them a right: then some have a right to the Lords Supper, that are worse than some that know themselves to be Unconverted: some conceited senceless men nourish such an hope: and some that are very near to the Kingdom of God, be­ing humbled and prepared for Christ know themselves to the Unconverted.

3. Argument. Those that are Members of the Church and neither ignorant nor scandalous may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, but some [Page 66]Unsanctifred persons are Members of the Church and neither ignorant nor scandalous.

The major doth appear, from the in­stitution of Christ, this is his command to his Church. When Christ instituted the Supper, he appointed it to be an Ordi­nance for Disciples to the end of the World, when he said, This do in remembrance of me, Luk. 22.19. It doth not only in­tend the duty of the Apostles at that time, but that they and their successours should attend that Service in all Generations. Therefore this command is inforced on the Church of Corinth by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. This is one special way wherein the Church doth give a testimony unto Christ, celebrate the Memory of his death, and shew it forth: As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shew forth the Lords death till he come.

This is also evident from the practice of the Apostles, and primitive Church, those that were added to the Church continu­ed in this practice. Acts 2.42. So the Disciples came together on the Lords day to break bread, Acts 20.7. This was the man­ner also of the Church of Corinth: there were not a Number of them that neglected, because unsanctifyed, but they all partook. [Page 67]1 Cor. 10 17. We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread: 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The minor is also evident. That some Unsanctifyed men are Members of the Church. The foolish Virgins did belong unto the Kingdom of God, as well as the wise, Mat. 25.1, 2. The Kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten Virgins which took their Lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom, and five of them were wise, and five were fool­ish. Multitudes that are in fellowship with Churches are destitute of Saving Grace. Among the many that are called sew are chosen, Math. 20.16. Our Reve­rend Author does acknowledge this, but he faith, They are not duly qualifyed to be Members of Churches. But this is utterly in­consistent with what he faith in other pla­ces. For he doth again & again acknow­ledge that the Churches ought to admit those that are Saints to rational Charity, though they be Unregenerate; and like­wise he doth acknowledge, that if after [...] Examination, a person cannot but [...] that there is a good Work begun in [Page 68]his Soul, he ought to come. And by these two rules many that are destitute of Grace ought to be admitted into Churches, God does appoint them to come and God does appoint Churches to accept of them; so that according to divine institution they are Members of Churches, and qualifyed according to Gods Ordinance for it.

For the further clearing that some Un­sanctifyed persons are Members of the Church. Let it be considered, that many of these persons were born in the Church, and therefore Baptized in their Infancy, and have been all their days bred up in the Church, and never gave any just occasi­on to be cast out of the Church: so that they have their standing there, and are regular Members of the Church.

I foresee that Mr. Mather will object a­gainst this, from his digression, p. 20, 21. viz. That these persons do belong to the visi­ble Catholick, but not to any particular instituted Church, and he has Dr. Owen for his voucher.

But this will not bear Examination; it is as if he should say, That the Children of the Town, were Members of Mankind, and Members of the Common Wealth, but not Members of the Town where they [Page 69]dwell: Is it agreable to reason to think that the Church stands in relation to them, and is bound to see to their Education, and that they stand in no relation to the Church? How unreasonable is it to think, that a Multitude of men should be reckoned of the Common Wealth of Isra­el, and have some Priviledges for them­selves and Children, and yet be under no Ecclesiastical Government? is not this quite contrary to the practice of these Churches, who have been wont to call many to account for their Misdemenours, who were the Children of the Church?

What do these men want to make them Members of particular Churches? he will say, They want to be in Covenant with parti­cular Churches; but there is neither Pre­cept nor PRecedent for it in the Scripture. He faith in another Book, That I call the Church a body corporate; but there is no forming of a body corporate without a Covenant; but therein he lies under a great mistake; bodies corporate may be made by Law, and they may be made by Charter.

There is a covenant indeed between God and every professing Nation. God brought his people of old into a Church [Page 70]Estate by making a covenant with them, which covenant was several times renew­ed, Deut. 29.10-13. And all Proselytes a­mong the Jews were to take hold of this covenant: Isai. 56.4. But there is no necessity of any covenant between the Members of a particular Congregation among themselves, though God makes Promises to a National Church, it does not follow, that the Members of a Congre­gation must make Promises among them­selves. There was a covenant between God and the Church of Israel: but the Members of each Synagogue did not make a covenant between themselves: Parti­cular Churches may be bounded either by civil Authority, or Ecclesiastical, or by Argument: and it is ordinarily the duty of every one that is a Member of the Ca­tholick Church, to carry on the Worship of God in conjunction with the particular Church where he dwells: and he is bound by his profession of Religion so to do, and the Church likewise doth stand bound to accept of him, if he carries well.

4. Argument If the Lords Supper be in­stituted for Conversion of Sinners as well as for the Edification of Saints, then Sanctifying Grace is not necessary to mens attending of it: But it as Instituted for the Conversion of Sinners: not [Page 71]for the Conversion of Heathens to the Christian Religion, but for the Saving Conversion of Professing men.

The minor which is only in question, may be confirmed by these considerations.

1. This Ordinance has a proper ten­dency to promote mens Conversion. Con­version taken largly, as it comprehends preparatory Work, consists of three parts, & this Ordinance is serviceable to them all.

1. Conviction. Men must be convinced of the anger of God because of their Sins, and the necessity of being at Peace with him: and this Ordinance is a means to settle this conviction on the heart: for here is a discovery of the terrible anger of God for sin, by the inflicting of the curse upon Christ, when sin was but imputed unto him; a man may well reason thus, If this be done to the green tree, what shall be done to the dry?

2. Humiliation. Or the bringing of the Sinner off from his own Righteousness: for in this Ordinance God teaches men, the necessity of Christs righteousness, that their own is but husks, and will not nou­rish them up unto eternal Life.

3. Faith. Christ is here offered to men, and the call makes way for the answer of [Page 72]the Soul; here is an affecting represen­tation of the dying love of Christ, which serves to remove many discouragements, and of the accursed death of Christ, where­in the Sinner may see Satisfaction made for sin. In this Ordinance the truth of the covenant is Sealed, which is a great means to beget in the Soul a perswasion of the cruth of it. And if the man be but convinced of these things he is gained: those that understand any thing of the working of Gods Spirit on the heart, must be sensible that it hath a great tendency to advance Conversion; & why has God given it such a tendency to promote Conversion, if it were not appointed for that end.

2. Some that are Unsanctifyed ought to offer themselves to communion in the Lords Supper, and that on a double account; 1st. Because they are in cove­nant with God, and therefore being nei­ther ignorant nor of bad conversation, the Seal of the covenant doth belong to them. Many of them were born in covenant and have actually renewed the covenant, and therefore ought to tender themselves to communion, they ought to receive Gods confirmation of his covenant, and to use [Page 73]the means to stir them up to keep cove­nant. 2ly. Because it is a scandal if they do not, and the Church may call them to an account for their neglect. It is a visible contempt cast upon the Ordinance, it is a denyal of the Gospel, and a refusal to shew forth the death of Christ.

3. The Church by the Ordinance of God is bound to admit many Unconverted persons to the Lords-Supper, they are Ecclesiastically qualifyed having know­ledge and a good conversation; they are Saints to a judgment of Charity, walking orderly; and therefore the Church is to accept them into their communion; the Church is to act upon what is visible, so that according to the Ordinance of God they are to be received to communion.

4. The Lords Supper is for the Spiritual good of all that are regularly to be admit­ted thereunto. All Ordinances attended according to institution, are for that end, that the Spirit may be Saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, and so this Ordinance. This is the Work of the Ministry in all their administrations, by all means to save some. This Ordinance may have a contrary ef­fect, & be an occasion of the ruin of softie: but the direct end of it is Salvation, and [Page 74]so the direct end of it is Conversion, when the Subject that it is administred unto stands in need of Conversion: there is no reason to confine the benefit of it unto Saints.

Mr. Mather argues, That Faith comes by Hearing, Rom. 14. Why does he not argue that the Subsequent acts of faith come by hearing as well as the first, and that there­fore the Lords Supper is not for the strengthning of Faith. Put indeed there is Hearing, as well as Seeing, and Touch­ing and Smelling and Tasting, in the Sa­crament of the Supper, there is a gracious offer of Christ, and all his benefits, which has a proper tendency to beget faith.

5. Argument. If the Lords Supper be only for Converted men, then God would have given some certain rule in the attending of which it might be restrained to Converted men: but he hath given no such rule in attending of which it may be restrained to Converted men.

The major is evident, because if it be appointed only for Converted men, and no rule given whereby it may be restrain­ed to them, then his Law would be im­practicable. The law would be a meer snare, and men would be under a necessi­ty to prophane his Ordinance: it is a re­flection [Page 75]on the Wisdom and Holiness of God to impute such a thing to him. God don't bind his Church to impossibilities, if he had made any such Ordinance, he would give gifts to his Church to distinguish Sincere men from Hypocrites, whereby the Ordinance might have been attended.

The minor is also evident: He has given no such rule to his Church, where­by it may be restrained to converted Men. This appears because by the rule, that they are to go by, they are allowed to give the Lords Supper to many Unconverted men: for all visible Signs are common to men converted and unconverted. If they go by profession of the truth, that is com­mon to both; if by a good Conversation, that is common to both; if by zeal in Re­ligion, that is common to both; if by suf­fering in the cause of God, that is common to both; if by knowledge, that is common to both; if by a relation of Experiences, that is common to both.

Obj There is a certain rule given whereby godly men may knew their godliness, & that they are Warranted to come to the Lords Supper.

Answ. Mr. Mather will not stand by that rule: for he saith, That if after serious self Examination, a man cannot but hope that [Page 76]he is a godly man, he may come though be hath not Assurance: And if he goes by Mr. Ma­ther's rule, that will not restrain the Sa­crament to converted men. Mr. Mather pretends to give a solution of this argu­ment, by propounding another Objection for me to answer. He saith, That I main­tain that only Orthodox Christians may come to the Lords Supper; and then there must be a certain rule to know the inward Sen­timents of mens hearts: but he mistakes the matter very much; I only hold that men must be Orthodox in their Profession. Churches are to judge concerning visible Saint-ship, when they go higher they go beyond their Sphere.

He saith, why should we not believe that men that give us an account of their Con­version, and whose Conversations are outwardly blameless and holy, are really according as they seem to be. I will give him a reason, and that is because it may be false; Ma­ny persons that have given a fair account and carried well in the eye of the World for several years, have not proved well at last: and God obliges no man to believe that which may be false.

[Page 77] 6. Argument. If Unsanctifyed men may attend all other Ordinances or Duties of Wor­ship, then they may lawfully attend the Lords Supper: But they may attend all other Ordi­nances or Duties of Worship.

The minor will be generally acknow­ledged: And indeed there was not any duty of Worship required since the foun­dation of the World, that they might not attend. But Mr. Mather doth object: he grants that an Unconverted man may Preach: for he may have great gifts which he may and ought to improve to the glory of God, and the good of men. But he thinks he may not administer the Lords Supper; he saith, The argument from Natural to Instituted Worship will not hold. But he strangly forgets himself; might not the Priests of old though unregenerate attend other duties of their Office as well as Preach the word; Sacrificing was In­stituted Worship as well as administring the Lords Supper, so was offering of In­cense: but where were they forbidden to do those Services, in case they were Unrege­nerate? the blessing of administrations in the house of God doth not depend upon the Piety of the Minister. The Officia­ting [Page 78]as Priests of old did depend upon Na­tural Generation, and not upon Regene­ration: Unregeneracy did not give them a discharge from the work of their Office.

The consequence may be made evi­dent from hence, because there can be no reason assigned, why Unsanctifyed persons may attend all other duties of Worship and not the Lords Supper. If there be the like reason for them to for­bear other duties of Worship as to forbear this, and the like reason to attend this act of Worship as others, then the lawful­ness of attending them, shews the lawful­ness of attending this: if it were made out to be Gods pleasure that it should be so that is reason enough: but there is no reason can be assigned for such a dis­ference.

Particularly: It can be no reason for Unregenerate men to forbear the Lords Supper because it is an holy Ordinance: For all the Ordinances of God are holy. Circumcision was so, and the Passover, so is Baptism: these Ordinances were ap­pointed for the advancing of Holiness, there was Religion in them, they were to be attended in an holy manner, and it was great Wickedness to use them in a [Page 79]prophane way; they were designed for the honour of God, yet that was no suffi­cient reason for Unregenerate men to forbear attending of them: and therefore that can be no sufficient reason to forbear attending the Lords Supper.

2. The Lords Supper being a Sacra­ment or Seal of the Covenant can be no reason. Two of Mr. Gillespy's arguments are built upon that foundation; but if that arguing were good, Unregenerate persons must be forbidden all Sacraments. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. Yet God command­ed Joshua at Gilgal to Circumcise all the Males who were born in the Wilderness: who were several hundred thousands, Josh. 5.2.

3. Its being a Sacrament of confirma­tion can be no sufficient reason. For the Passover was so as well as the Lords Sup­per; Circumcision was the initiating Sa­crament to the Jews, and the Passover the Sacrament of confirmation: but Unrege­nerate men might lawfully celebrate the Passover, when God first appointed it, multitudes of them were Unregenerate, as appears by their carriage in the Wilder­ness. As this Sacrament does represent [Page 80]Christ as food for the Soul, so did the Pass­over: As in this Ordinance, Saints have communion with Christ, so they had in the Passover.

4. It is no sufficient reason, because the Minister is to say at the administration of the Lords Supper, That this is Christs body which is given for you, and this is his blood which is shed for you: according to the Pattern: Luke 22.19,20. For these words may be spoken to Unregenerate men. As Ministers often do in their Sermons, when they call on Sinners to come to Christ, and when they reprove for sin, and urge them to duties of Obedience: those expressions do not intend that Christ did dye designedly for them, but that his death and satisfaction is offered to them, and shall be made over to them if they accept of Him.

5. Gods not allowing Scandalous per­sons to come to this Ordinance is no rea­son. Some Scandalous persons indeed may be far better than Unregenerate per­sons, yet there may be great reason for the former to be prohibited and not the latter: Scandalous persons are forbidden, partly to bring them in that way to a sight of their evil practices, partly for the [Page 81]Vindication of Gods Name, which has been dishonoured by them.

6. The Apostles commanding men to Examine themselves as a preparation for coming to the Lords Supper, can be no rea­son. If he had said, Let men Examine them­selves & so let them fast, we should not have thought that to be a sufficient reason for Unregenerate men to abstain from fast­ing. And if he had said, That he that Prays unworthily, and Hears the word un­worthily, exposes himself to Damnation or Judgment, we should not have looked upon that a sufficient reason for Unrege­nerate men to refrain from Praying, and Hearing of the Word.

Were I a Papist, and did I believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the Bread and Wine were the natural body and blood of Christ, I might think that to be a sufficient reason for Unregenerate mens not coming to the Lords Supper, & though I do not imagine any such ap­prehensions in those Brethren that differ from me, yet I doubt that opinion has laid the foundation of their doctrine, and likewise of recieving the Sacrament knee­ling.

[Page 82] 7. Argument. They that are in external Covenant with God, and neither Ignerant nor Scandalous may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, but some Unsanctifyed persons are in external Covenant with God.

The minor cannot be denyed. God made a Covenant with the whole People of Israel: Deut. 5.2. They and their Posterity after them were the Covenant People of God: God stood in relation to them as their God, they stood in relation to him as his People. And so the Profes­sing People of God now are in Covenant with him, and so are their Children, and therefore they are baptized.

The consequence is evident from hence. Because it is lawful for them to keep the external Covenant: as they have a natu­ral so they have a legal power to keep the external Covenant. The attending of the Lords Supper is one of the external duties of the Covenant: Circumcision is said to be the Covenant: Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every man Child among you, shall be circumcised. And v. 14. The neglect of this is called, A break­ing of the Covenant. So the Lords Supper [Page 83]is part of the Covenant, and a token of the Covenant: and if any Professing People do neglect it, be it under what notion it will, it will be a grievous breach of Covenant.

If God does command them to attend Covenant duties, then he don't forbid them; God does not require and prohi­bit the same thing, there is a consistency in Gods commands: He does not lay a tye upon mens Consciences to come, and lay a tye upon their Consciences to for­bear; God makes them promise to keep his Covenant; and will he make it criminal to attend those duties of the Covenant, which he has made them promise to keep? they cannot keep the Covenant if they don't come to the Lords Supper, therefore it must be lawful for them to come.

Obj. It is a Covenant duty but it must not be attended by Unqualifyed Persons; though it be a Covenant duty, yet not for Ignorant Per­sons, nor Scandalous Persons, nor Unsanctifyed Persons: if Persons be not duly qualified it is no immediate duty for them; the Ignorant must get knowledge, Scandalous persons must repent of their transgressions, and Natural men must get into a Converted condition, and so come to the Lords Supper.

[Page 84] Answ. It is very reasonable to say that God requires Ignorant persons to come, and yet for bids them to come before they have knowledge; and that he requires Scandalous persons to come, and yet for­bids their coming until they have made Satisfaction: because they are able to qualify themselves, they may truly be said to have liberty and legal power to come, because they have a natural power to qualify themselves; it is their duty to amend their fauls and so to come.

But it is unreasonable to say that natu­ral men are commanded to come, and yet that they are forbidden to come till they are Sanctifyed: for their Sanctifica­tion is a thing out of their power: the vi­sible people of God are able to keep the external Covenant: It cannot be said to be lawful for them to keep the external Covenant, if it doth depend upon their Conversion which is indeed out of their power. But indeed there is no part of the external Covenant, that is beyond mens natural power, or their legal power.

8. Argument. Either some Unsanctifyed Persons may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, or it is not lawful for them to carry themselves [Page 85]as Saints: But it is not unlawful for them to carry themselves as Soints.

The minor doth appear: Because Pro­fessors are commanded to carry as be­cometh Saints: Phil. 1.27. Let your con­versation be as becometh the Gospel of Christ. 2 Tim. 2.19. Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Such as make a Profession of the Gospel, ought not to carry so as to give men occasion to sear that they are not Saints: they may not live in such a way as is unlawful for Saints to live in, in such a way as is contra­ry to the Spirits of Saints: it is unlawful for them to bring a reproach upon their Profession; to live in such a way as is in­consistent with the living exercise of Grace.

The truth of the disjunction doth ap­pear; because when Professors do neg­lect the Lords Supper, they do not carry themselves as Saints; for they do neglect that Ordinance that Saints are bound to attend; and they neglect that Ordinance that the Souls of Saints do crave, they do visibly deny the Gospel, they withold their Testimony from Jesus Christ, and do not shew forth the Lords death. This neglect of theirs is an unholy carriage, not [Page 86]according to their Profession; they carry like visible Unbelievers they are called visible Saints & challenge Baptism for their Children as visible Saints, and yet in this particular they carry themselves as Unbe­lieves, and not as visible Saints.

9. Argument. If Sanctifying Grace be necessary unto the lawful attending of the Lords Supper, then none but those that have a Saving work of Conversion, may attend it: but that is not true doctrine.

The minor is evident from hence: That doctrine that has a direct tendency to discourage many godly Men from doing their duty, and the means of their com­fort, and to make their attending of their duty to be a torment to them, is not ac­cording to the Scripture. For one great design in the Scripture is to encourage godly men to do their duty: but this doctrine has quite another tendency.

There be many godly men, that are not assured of their Conversion: but are exercised with many fears about their Sincerity: though Grace be visible, yet several Persons that have it do not cer­tainly know it. Grace may be so coun­terfeited, and false hearts may go so far [Page 87]in Religion, that many godly men are held down with great Suspicions that they are not godly, especially at times. Hence godly men are advised to give all diligence to make their Calling & Election sure, 2 Pet. 1.10. And this doctrine has two bad effects upon them.

1. It makes them neglect the Lords Supper. It is their duty to attend it: it is one of the holy appointments of Jesus Christ; and we owe this Service to Christ to shew forth his Death, and give our testi­mony before the world, to the vertue of his blood, which is an honour and glory to him; and this Service is of great con­sequence to our selves to draw forth the actings of faith, to strengthen our com­fort and to quicken us in a way of Obe­dience: but several as choice Persons for godliness as any, so far as men can judge, have been so discouraged by this doctrine, that they have neglected the Lords Sup­per; and continued at least for some time in the Omission of this Ordinance.

2. It makes some of them to attend it with guilt and torment. They have been urged to attend it by a fear least they should of­fend God, and by the perswasions of men, and by considering that it would be an [Page 88]occasion of reproach: and an offence to the Church, if they should not do it. Yet because of this doctrine, they have been far from Satisfaction in what they have been doing: Conscience has forbid­den them, threatned them and condemn­ed them for doing of it; they have set upon thorns, and had a great deal of fear and disquietment of Spirit: hereby they have been hindred from attending of it in an holy manner; Conscience has for­bidden them to meddle with it, their thoughts has been taken up at the time, not about the virtue of Christs Death, but about their own dreadful venture in com­ing thither: the fears of their hypocrisy have been increased by their daring to participate; that that should have been a means to comfort them, has proved an occasion of torment to them.

If these persons be told that this Ordi­nance be only for Converted persons, yet if they after Serious Examination have hopes that they are Converted, they may and ought to come; That will not satis­fy their tender Consciences: they will say, We may have such hopes and yet not be Converted: the hopes of Multitudes of men are delusions, and if our hopes should be such, [Page 89] they will not warrant us to come, we don't find in the Scriptures, that God gives allow­ance to men because they have hopes; we can't find that God saith we should come, if we have such hopes: the men say: We don't know but that we eat and drink Damnation to our selves: the thing that is required is Conversion, not hopes of Conversion. If God should demand of us, What makes us so bold to come, He will not accept of that for an answer, That we hoped we were Converted, if we be not indeed so, we prophane Gods Or­dinance, and eat forbidden fruit. Fears that they are not Converted is a stronger ar­gument to make them stay away, than hopes that they are Converted is to make them come: Tender Consciences will not be bafled with such answers.

10. Argument. They who do convey to their Children a right to the Sacrament of Baptism, have a right themselves to the Lords Supper, provided they carry inoffensively: But some Unsanctifyed persons do convey unto their Children a right to the Sacrament of Baptism.

The minor is evident from these two things.

1. That the Children of some Unsanctifyed [Page 90]persons have a right to Baptism. For the Children of all visible Believers have a right to Baptism, and among them, there be several Unsanctifyed Persons: and it has been determined by a Synod in New­England, That the Children of those who are born in the Church, and understand the Prin­ciples of Religion, and own the Covenant, are to be Baptized. And the generality of the Churches in New-England do prac­tice accordingly.

2. That the Parents though Unsanctifyed, do convey this right unto their Children. The Children have a right to Baptism, because they are the Children of visible Believers: the Children are Ecclesiastically holy be­cause one at least of their Parents are vi­sible Believers: 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbe­lieving Husband is Sanctifyed by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctifyed by the Hus­band, else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.

The consequence is evident, because this shews that they are in Covanant with God. If they were not in Covenant with God, their Children would not be in Covenant, neither would they have any right to Baptism; but they are in Covenant, God has made Promises to [Page 91]them, and they are under Covenant in­gagements to him; and because they are in Covenant, and inoffensive in their Conversation, the Seal of the Covenant does belong to them.

11. Argument. If the Invisible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Sub­ject of the Seal of the Covenant, then some Unsanctifyed persons may lawfully partake of the Lords-Supper: But the Invisible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Subject, of the Seals of the Covenant.

The minor is laid down as a conclusi­on by Mr. Thomas Hooker, in his Survey: p. 41. which he proves by several argu­ments against Mr. Ruterford.

Particularly he argues, Such as were graceless and without any interest in Christ, and so none of his invisible Mem­bers, have Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant them, to receive the Seals; as Ishmael, Esau, and all the Males were injoyned to be Circumcised. All the Families of the Jews were command­ed to eat the Passover, many whereof were without all question, not invisible and believing Members of Christ. He [Page 92]adds, That the visible Church is the Olive spoken of, Rom. 11.17. The Seals are part of that fulness that appertains there­unto: and therefore the visible Church is the prime subject of them. And he brings in Mr. Ruterford confessing that if any after they are received, shall be found Unregenerate, they are not to be cast out for that. And saith upon it. Then I suppose you will not deny them the Seals. p. 43.

I mention this Testimony of Mr. Hook­ers, to shew how injuriously Mr. Mather deals with me, when he calls my Opinion, a new, upstart and singular Opinion; and the vanity of his admiration, That a Minister of New-England, should Publish such doctrine; whereas its no other than what has been Printed by one of the Pillars of the Churches of New-England, Sixty years before.

Had Mr. Hooker spoken half so much in the Vindication of Mr. Mather's Opi­nion, in probability he would have spent good part of a Page in an Encomium of him, and in urging the irrefragableness of his discourse.

[Page 93] Before I conclude, I shall take notice of two failings further in Mr. Mather's Book; one is, That he recites some sen­tences of mine, where I Paraphrase on and illustrate my Position about the Lords­Supper: as if they were the arguments that I brought to prove my Opinion; and then saith, Is not all this weak ar­guing. p. 76. He has now my arguments, and his liberty to shew the weakness of them.

The other is, That he saith, My doctrine hath been condemned by an whole Synod of Elders and Messengers of Churches: who met in Boston in the year 1679.

The words of the Synod are these, It is requisite that Persons be not admitted un­to Communion in the Lords Supper, without making a Personal and Publick Profession of their Faith and Repentance, either Orally or in some other way, to the just Satisfaction of the Church, and that therefore both Elders and Churches be duely watchful and circum­spect in this matter.

I shall give the World an Account how the matter was acted. Some of the Elders in the Synod had drawn up a Con­clusion, [Page 94]That persons should make a Re­lation of the work of Gods Spirit upon their hearts, in order to coming into full Communion. Some others of the Elders objected against it, and after some dis­course it was agreed to have a dispute on that question, Whether those Professors of Religion as are of good Conversation, are not to be admitted to full Communi­on, provided that they are able to Exa­mine themselves, and discern the Lords body. Mr. Mather held the Negative; I laboured to make good the Affirmative: The result was, That they blotted out that clause of Making a Relation of the work of Gods Spirit, and put in the room of it, The Making a Profession of their Faith and Repentance; and so I Voted with the Rest, and am of the same judgment still; yet this Vote is mentioned as condem­ning my Opinion.

What can we suppose to be the reason, that Divines in reckoning up those bene­fits that flow from Effectual Calling, take no notice of a right to the Lords Supper, they reckon Justification, Adoption, San­ctification, Peace of Conscience, Joy in the Holy Ghost, Assurance of Gods Love, &c. [Page 95]But I meet with none that reckon a right to the Lords-Supper among those bene­fits: I can give no other reason than this, That it is not accounted of by them a peculiar Priviledge of those that are Ef­fectually Called; but the Priviledge of visible Believers: neither would Pastors of Churches satisfy their Consciences, to forbear warning of such as were convin­ced that they were in a Natural Estate, to refrain coming to the Lords Supper, if they did judge it to be a Sinful and Dan­gerous thing for them to come.

If these things which I have Written be impartially considered, it will appear that Mr. Mather has not proved any mistake in the Sermon, that he has shew­ed so much zeal against; indeed Mr. Mather has in a manner given the case. (1.) By owning that the Church ought to receive Unregenerate men, provided they are Godly to rational Charity. (2.) That it is the duty of persons to come to the Lords-Supper, if after Exa­mination they cannot but hope, that there is a good work begun in them.

[Page 96] I will conclude this defence, of my Self, and my Sermon against which Mr. Mather has Written, with my assurance of my Brethren in the Ministry, and all good Men, That I differ from none of them in a strict Opinion of the Straight­ness of the Gate, and Narrowness of the Way that leads to Life; nor of the Ne­cessity of Sincere Repentance, true Faith and Obedience, to all the Command­ments of the Gospel, in all such as Expect Salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, of which the Participation in the Sacraments of the New-Testament of themselves, give no Assurance, as is evident from our Saviours answer at the Great Day to such as challenge, to have Eaten and Drank in his Presence; yet am well assured, they are the Ordinances and path of Life, in which every Christian ought to walk; and I dare not my self, as one of the Stewards in Gods House, refuse his Bread to such as regularly demand it, upon the Tearms mentioned in this small Tract, in which I am well confirmed by the Practice of so many Protestant Churches; nor am I at all Startled by [Page 97]any mans Opinion to the contrary. All Protestants agree that there is no Infa­libility at Rome; and I know no body pretends to any else since the Apostles days; nor do I fear the Athenian accusa­tion of Novelty any more than the great Apostle, and because we must all answer for our selves to our Great Master, I am contented, and hope I live dayly in a Preparation for that Account. In the mean time, I will carry it as I ought to all good men of another Opinion, least I be found beginning to beat my Fellow-Servant, when my Lord shall come; being well assured, That if a strict discipline be maintained in the Churches of Christ, all Unworthy Com­municants will be far more easily con­vinced and reformed, than if I should re­fuse them what is their just due, and thereby Scandalize them, to their Offence, and it may be to their Ruin.

The first Reformers of the Church from Popery proceeded well, but we stayed not with Luther, since which the Protestant Churches have gone further; and I hope New-England, has done something more [Page 98]than most: but I should be very vain to think there must be nothing left for us of this Generation, and am very fearful least the Neglect of a good Government of all Gods People, born within the Pale of the Church, should bring these Churches to a great defection; the means to prevent which, is not to deny them their right at the Lords Table, but to give them that, and a good and strict Watch over their Lives and Manners, together with it; which I Pray to God may be never wanting in New-England.