Vindication of a Free Admission Unto the Lords Supper, Sermon 2

Vindication of a Free Admission Unto the Lords Supper · Sermon 2

p. 29The Second SERMON.

NOw for anſwering Objections foreign, Two things I muſt premoniſh you▪ 1. Whereas common notions are like diſhes, where the ſame matter dreſs'd but in another way, or variegated in the expreſsion, receives a ſeverall reliſh and eſteem in the palats of ordinary judgements, you muſt pardon me the Liberty if at any time I be forced in the Cookery of the ſame ſenſe to ſerve you in more words than enough to any Objection. 2. Whereas many Godly in theſe times have a prejudicate opinion againſt this free Admiſsion, ſo that whatſoever p. 30may be ſaid, is not like to remove all ſcruples, which are ſo much faſtened on their Conſciences, thinking they have holyneſſe on their ſide; we are to goe unto the Throne of Grace, to pray the Lord to give us his Spirit of illumination to direct us in this truth, which is able alone to convince and ſatisfie us. And as for me, if I deliver what is not conſonant to the holy Word, I deſire the Lord to blot out my Sermon, with my ſin, that none of his Little ones may be offended by it; but if it be the mouth of Truth too much kept in ſilence, delivering nothing but the very doctrine and practice of Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles, (as one of his weakeſt ſervants does heartily beleeve) I hope the Lord will give a bleſſing on it, and ſend it out as a light into your hearts, to diſcover thoſe ſubtilities of Sathan, whereby he would obſtruct your comfort in the uſe of this Ordinance.

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

p. 31Anſ. VntoUnto this by way of conceſſion, although it has been thought theſe cenſures belonged but to the Church, untill they had a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, I grant,

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

Secondly, that the exerciſe of this conſiſts in Excommunication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1, There is no duty a naturall man can perform rightly, ſo that moſt men p. 36are wholly uncapable to hear, to pray, or come to any Ordinances, where Graces are to be acted and receive, as well as at this Sacrament, but I hope that will not exclude them therefore from all, and give them a writ of Eaſe to doe nothing; I wonder grave men ſhould beat the ayr thus with a Feather.

2. I ſay to every man, though he cannot doe what he ſhould and ought to doe, he muſt ſtill endeavour to doe what he can. The inſufficiency of any debtor (incurr'd through his own fault) does not diſcharge his Bond, but he is to pay what he can; it is every mans doing leſs than he can, that ſhall condemn him at the laſt day, ſay Divines; ſo ſay I, Let every man do what he can ſtill, and this is plain Divinity.

3. There may be a difference between a worthy Receiver, and a Receiving worthily; as a poor man (ſayes Pemble) though but unworthy to ſit there, may carry himſelf very worthily at the Kings Table. In this caſe therefore whoſoever thou art, doe thou labour thy beſt to prepare thy heart, and if after thy examination, thou judgeſt thy ſelf but unworthy, let thy humbled ſoul come p. 37and ſay nevertheleſſe, Lord, if I am unworthy, whither ſhall I goe to make me worthy? Is it not to thee my kind Saviour, that has an invitation (come ye laden) for the pooreſt ſinner? It is true, many count me but as a Dog, Lord I confeſs I am no better in my own apprehenſion, but let even this poor Dog eat of the crums of thy Table. If I neglect my duty, I certainly offend thee, If I come Lord, I doe but humbly venture on thy mercy.

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

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

Objection 3. Holy things to holy men.

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

p. 39Rep. But doe we not hereby make our ſelves one with the wicked with whom we joyn, and can we have Communion with Chriſt and Belial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 50Object. 5. The Covenant belongs not to All, therefore the Seals neither.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 54Object. 6. The Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance, we preach to all to convert them, but wee may Administer only to the regenerate, to confirm them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 60But that I may wholly root out this ſubtility, which I think the ſpirit of error has inſinnuated in the hearts of many Godly men; I have three things more to ſay, which by Gods bleſſing will fully do it. Provided, if the thing ſerves our turn you will not be grating on the expreſſion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 72The firſt, whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation, that is, (to free ſome weak minds from fearfull thoughts) whether it be ſuch a ſinne, as makes a man guilty (without repentance and Gods mercy) of Condemnation? And I conceive we muſt diſtinguiſh between the very receiving, which is good; and the unworthineſſe, which makes the ſin only. This unworthineſſe is in the Perſon, or in the Act: In the Perſon it conſiſts in his evill conſcience, which will condemn him whether he comes, or abſtaines from comming. Put caſe one receives not, and is unworthy, the guilt of his unworthineſſe lyes nevertheleſſe upon him for that, it may be, more; for in this very refuſing, his own Conſcience condemns him, and God is greater than his Conſcience, whereas if he comes, it happily may excuſe him ſomething in not neglecting the outward performance, not aggravate his condition; for though he failes in the inward, and that failing is ſin, yet that Act he does makes him not more ſinfull for the doing, but he would have ſinned more to have failed in that too, and not have done it. Unworthineſſe in the p. 73act, conſiſts in the obliquity, deficiency, or failing in the right manner of receiving, though the outward work it ſelf be not amiſſe. There is the matter of a duty, and manner; As for the matter, every one can doe, in a Chriſtian deportment at the Table, but in the manner, to receive in Faith, Love, and other graces as we ought, this a naturall man cannot doe, and ſo he ſinnes in his duty. His very Act is not ſinne, ſo far as he does doe in the matter it is good (not only ſub genere entis, but good in tanto, ſub genere morum) but this failing and ſwerving in the manner, is the evill, which as it cleaves unto, we may conceive, defiles the Act, and makes it lyable unto judgment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 80Rep. But are we not faulty and partake of other mens Sins, if we do not our best to have the Leaven purged out, and therefore we may not ſay, Am I my Brothers keeper, look they to it?

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

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

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

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

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

p. 82Thirdly, the keeping of any cannot be pretended to, without power in our uneldred Congregations, it being confeſſed a power not of order, but of juriſdiction.

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

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

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

p. 84Obj. 10. The laſt Objection is from thoſe ſeverall Texts that are alleged for a ſeparation from wicked perſons.

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

Firſt, from all wicked men in their ſins and evill courſes, this is out of queſtion.

Secondly, we grant that we muſt ſeparate alſo from them in common familiarity; taking heed of intimacy and keeping them company, leſt we be partakers of their ſin, by infection or connivance with them.

But Thirdly, I affirme there is no Scripture commands our ſeparation from them in the Sacrament, or any of Gods publick Ordinances, unleſs in caſe of Excommunication; which alone can debar any from Church-communion.

p. 85In the firſt ſenſe you muſt take theſe Scriptures, Eph. 5.11 1 Cor 10.20.21. Theſe Corinths did well to come to the Lords Table, their ſin was only in partaking with Idols. ſo 2 Cor. 6.14. to the end, where they are rebuk'd for joyning in the ſame ſin of Idolatry. If you underſtand this, Be not unequally yokt, of Marriage, compare it with 1 Cor. 7.13.14. There the beleeving wife muſt in no wiſe ſeperate from her Infidell husband, here ſhe muſt come out & be ſeperate, how can this be reconciled but that ſhe may have communion with the Perſon in what is Lawfull, and yet be ſeperate from him in his ways, that are evill? You may adde happily in this firſt ſenſe. Ier. 15.19.2. Theſ. 3.6.11. Rev. 2.6. All which texts are hereby anſwered, that though indeed they doe command a ſeparation from the wicked; it is from them in their ſinnes, not from joyning with them in doing our duty.

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

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

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

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

I will conclude with 4 Wiſhes:

1. I Wiſh wee had a Government eſtabliſht in the Church, the neereſt in Chriſtian prudence that may be, to the word of God:

p. 882. I Wiſh the duty of Fraternall correption, a watching over, and admoniſhing one another in love were better known and practiſed amongſt us.

3. I Wiſh that men would look more into their own conſciences, and leave the judging of others ſpirits, hearts, and reines alone, to the judgment ſeat of Chriſt.

4. I Wiſh, though there may be ſome judging by the fruits, that wiſe religious men would be more cautious of countenancing theſe ſeparations in the viſible Church, ſeeing upon the ſame ground that you goe to gather a Church out of my mixt Congregation, another will gather a ſeparation our of your Church; and ſo continue (as I have intimated frō our ſad experience) an endleſſe ſeparating, untill this firſt ſeparation ſhall in a few years be able to take up the ſaying of that Greateſt Grandmother, unto thoſe many ſchiſms ſhe ſhall ſee iſſuing, as her naturall offſpring, out of her own bowels, Riſe up Daughter, goe to thy Daughter, for thy Daughters Daughter has a Daughter; for this ſeparations ſeparation has a ſeparation.

Deo Gloria, mihi Condonatio;

J. H.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Humfrey, Vindication of a Free Admission Unto the Lords Supper (1651)