Question 1.

WHether Ministers or Presbyteries Jurisdictionall Suspention of scandalous Church-members from the Lords Supper onely who desire to receive it, without excluding them from all other publick Ordinances (as Prayer, Preaching, Reading, Fasting, Catechising, singing of Psalmes, Baptizing of Infants, &c.) he a divine In­stitution, vested in them by the Word of God, and the very will and appointment of Jesus Christ?

For my part, with submission to better judgements, I hold the negative, upon these ensuing Reasons.

My first Reason is, 1 because there is no direct precept or president in the Old or New Testament yet produced by those who assert the contrary, to warrant any such suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper onely, without a concurrent suspension of them from all other publick Ordinances, and that in case onely of obstinate impenitency.

If any such be to be found, I shall desire them to informe me thereof, (since I could never hitherto upon my exactest enquiry, find out any such) and then I shall either cleerly answer, on submit unto it.

My second Reason is, 2 Because all and every the Texts produced for pro­bate of the contrary opinion, & of Excommunication to be a divine Institu­tion, directly militate against it, arguing a totall suspension, exclusion from all publick holy Ordinances and Church-assemblies, for ceremoniall or morall uncleannesses, not from the Passover or Lords Supper onely: I shall give you a taste of some of the principle Texts whereon our See Master Rutherfords divine right of Church go­vernment, cap 3. to 15. Oppo­sites rely, that you may discerne how cleerly they make against them.

The first is, Levit. 13. 3, 4▪ 21, 26, 31, 46. & cap. 14. 3, 8, 9, 11. He that was in­fected with the plague of Leprosie among the Israelites, was to be See 2 Kings 7. 3, 4. cap. 15. 5. 2 Chro. 26. 20, 21, 23. shut up by the Priest, and during all the time of his Leprosie▪ and uncleannesse he was to dwell ALONE WITHOUT THE CAMPE, (for feare of Infecting others:) Upon which ground Miriam, when leprous, was shut out of the Campe seven dayes, and after that, received in againe, Numb. 12. 10. to 16. Ergo, he was secluded [Page 4] from all publick Ordinances and religious society, not from the Passeover or Lords Supper only, if putting out of the Camp imply so much.

The second is, Numb. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. And the Lord spake into Moses, saying; Command the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT THEY PUT OU [...] OF THE CAMPE every Leper, and every one that hath an Issue, and who soe­ver is defiled by the dead: both male and female shall be put out, without the CAMPE shall ye put them, that they defile not their Campe, in the midst whereof I dwell: And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the Campe. Ergo, they equal­ly secluded them from all publick Ordinances, Sacrifices, and their com­mon society, not from the Lords Supper or Passeover alone; if this put­ting out of the Campe were an Ecclesiasticall censure and exclusion from Gods Ordinances and society of the faithfull, as is pretended.

The third is, Levit. 16. 26, 27, 28. Numb. 19. 3, 7. cap. 31. 19. 24. Deut. 23. 10. to 15. where we read of others, who for other ceremoniall uncleannesses and no­cturnall pollutions, were to goe out of the Campe, and not to come within it till they had washed themselves, and then when they were cleansed, and the Sunne was downe they might come into the Campe againe. Ergo, during the time of their exclusion they were equally debarred from all publick Ordinances whatsoever, and not admitted unto any other Ordinance more then to the Passeover, Numb. 2. 6. to 13.

From these Texts, much Master Ru­therfords di­vine right of Church-go­vernment, cap. 5 and else­where. urged for proofe of an Ecclesiasticall Juris­diction, vested by divine institution and the will of Jesus Christ in Priests under the Law and Ministers and Presbyteries under the Gospel, to excom­municate and suspend from the Lords Supper scandalous and unclean per­sons; I shall onely propound four Questions to the Objectors of them, wherein I desire satisfaction.

First, Whether the Camp of the children of Israel was not rather a Type of their Religious Civill State and Republick, then of their Church? and the exclusion of Lepers, and those that had Issues, with others out of the Campe, for these naturall infirmities and ceremoniall uncleannesses, were not rather a temporary civill sequestration to prevent infection and diseases in the Camp, then an Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommu­nication orsuspention from the Tabernacle and publique Ordinances used in it, to prevent spirituall infections of the soule, or prophanation of the publick Ordinances of Gods worship? The reason why I propound this Quere is, because Exod. 37. 7. to 12. expresly resolves, that the Tabernacle of the Congregation, representing the Church of the Jewes, wherein God himselfe manifested his speciall presence in the Cloud and Pillar, where all publicke Sacrifices and duties of Gods worship were performed by the Priests and people, and where God met with Moses, and answered him and the people face to face, was not placed with­in the Camp of the Israelites, but a farre off without it, witnesse the ex­presse words of the Text; And Moses took the Tabernacle and pitched it WITH­OUT THE CAMPE A FARRE OFF FROM THE CAMPE, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation: And it came to passe, that EVERY [Page 5] ONE THAT SOUGHT THE LORD, went OUT unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, which WAS WITHOUT THE CAMPE, &c. Which is likewise fully seconded, confirmed by Numb. 11. 24, to 30. And Moses gathe­red the seventy men of the Elders of the people, and set them round about the Taberna­cle, and the Lord came downe in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy Elders: And it came to passe, that when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied and did not cease: But there remained two of the men in the Camp, and the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them, and they were of them that were written, but went not out ( to wit, of the Camp) unto the Tabernable, and they Prophes [...]ed in the Camp: And there ran a young man and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad doe prophesie in the Camp; and Joshua the Son of Nun▪ the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said: My Lord Moses forbid them: And Moses said unto him; Enviest thou for my sake? would God all the Lords people were Prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them: And Moses gat him into the Camp, he and the Elders of Israel. compared with Levit. 17. 3. to 7. By which it is most cleere, that the Tabernacle stood without the Camp, where they used both to sacrifice and prophesie, not within it: Hence it is, in regard the Tabernacle was placed, and all the Ceremoniall Sacrifices un­der the Law killed and sacrificed to God without the Camp, that Christ him­selfe, of whose passion they were Types, suffered without the gates of Jeru­salem (typified by the Camp) that his death might the more exactly answer to these Types; as the Author to the Hebrewes thus resolves, chap. 13. 10. to 15. We have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Taberna­cle; for the bodies of those Beasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the high Priest for sinne, ARE BURNT Numb. 19. 3 11. Exod. 23. 13, 14: Levit. 4. 11, 12, 21. c. 8 17. c. 16. 26, 27. WITHOUT THE CAMP; wherefore Jesus that he might sanctifie the people, SUFFERED WITHOUT THE GATE: Let us GOE FORTH THEREFORE TO HIM WITH­OUT THE CAMP, bearing his reproach: For we have here no continuing City, but we seek one to come. If then to be put out of the Camp, were to be secluded from the publick ordinances, and excommunicated from the society of the faithfull, as our Opposites most Mr. Ruther­furds Divine right, &c. p. 179. confid [...]ntly affirme▪ Then the Apostle by this exhortation, Let us goe forth therefore unto him WITHOUT THE CAMP, bearing his reproach; should excite Christians to excommunicate and suspend themselves from all publick Ordinances and Christian society with Gods people, which were a madnesse to affirme. Wherefore this Champion argument for proofe of the divine institution of excommunica­tion among the Jewes under the Law, and of suspention from the Lords Supper among Christians under the Gospell, must be quite casheered, thrust of our Opposites Camp as Leprous, and excommunicated out of all their Presbyteries for an Ienoramus. If then the Tabernacle of the Congre­gation, the place of Gods speciall presence and publick worship, whether all the Priests and people resorted to adore him, with their Oblations, sacri­fices, Prayers, was thus set up quite without the Israelites Camp, some good [...]stian [...]e [Page 6] from it; and no part thereof, nor placed within it; I may probably, if not infallibly conclude from thence, That their Camp was rather an Emblem of their Religious state and Republick, then of their Church; and the exclusion of these ceremonially uncleane persons from it, rather a temporary disfranchisement or banishment to prevent corporall infection and diseases, then any Ecclesiasticall censure of Excōmunication or Suspen­tion, to prevent spirituall infection, or punish morall pollution and pub­lick scandalous sinnes; The rather because Master The Divine Right of Church-Go­vernment, p. 241, 242. Rutherfurd and others affirme, that excommunication and suspention from holy Ordinan­ces is expressed in the Books of Moses by another phrase, to wit, by Levit. 19. 8. c. 18. 29. c. 22. 3. c. 23. 29. Numb. 9. 13. cutting off from Israel, or from the CONGREGATION of Israel (that is, from the Tabernacle of the Congregation, where the Israelites assembled to wor­ship God) as they interpret it, Exod. 12. 15. 19. Levit. 7. 20, 21, 25. chap. 12. 4. 9, 10, 14. a thing different from, and not the same with putting out of the Camp, which most▪ resolve to be a civill cutting off by death, not an Ecclesiasticall by excommunication, as is cleer by Gen. 17. 14. compared with Exod. 4. 24, 25. Levit. 20. 3, 5, 6, 17, 11. Numb. 4. 18, 19. However, let it be one or other, it intimates and proves a totall cutting off for the pre­sent from all pubblick Ordinances, and the society of the faithfull, not a bare suspention from the Passeover or Lords Supper onely.

Secondly, I shall demand, Whether the exclusion of these uncleane per­sons out of the Camp was executed either authoritatively or ministerially by the high P [...]iest, Priests, or Levites, who, for ought we read, had no ju­diciall or ministeriall authority in the Camp it selfe, but onely in and See Numb. c. 3. & 4. a­bout the Tabernacle; or not rather by the Field Officers or Marshals of the Camp, since the command of removing them out of the Camp is expresly given (not to the Priests and Levites, but) to the children of Israel; and the children of Israel did accordingly put them out of the Camp, Numb. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. And if so, then what shadow of argument can be hence deduced for any Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction vested in Priests or Presbyters by divine right, to excommunicate scandalous sinners, or suspend them from the Sacra­ment? True it is, that the Priest was to judge who was a Leper, and to shut him up in a house when removed out of the Camp, Levit. 13. 3, 4, 21, 26, 31, 36. but not to turne or put him out of the Camp, which our common Law writ, De Leproso am [...]vendo proves, it being directed to the Sheriffe, Mayor, and Tem­porall Officers, not to Ecclesiasticall persons. If then this putting of these uncleans persons out of the Campe proves any Ecclesiasticall Juris­diction vested by Divine Institution in any persons to Excommunicate or suspend scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, it is onely in the Chri­stian Magistate or people, not in Priests or Presbyters, as is pretended.

Thirdly, whether the thrusting of Lepers and other such like uncleane persons out of the Campe, be any infallible Argument, that they were thereby totally secluded from all accesse unto the Tabernacle of the Con­gregation, till they were readmitted into the campe? since the Taberna­cle [Page 7] where Gods publick worship was celebrated, stood not within, but without the Campe, as I have proved. If not, then it warrants no Excom­munication, nor suspention of uncleane for scandalous persons from any publique Ordinances, and so is most impertinently produced for proofe thereof. If yea, then it secluded them from all publique Sacrifices and du­ties of Gods worship alike, or from the Passeover onely, o [...] some other par­ticular Sacrifice? If from all alike, then it warrants my conclusion, that no scandalous person is to be suspended from the Lords Supper, but he that is likewise excommunicated or sequestred from al other publick Ordinances: If from the Passeover, or some other particular Ordinance onely, not from all in generall (which cannot be proved) then it is no proofe of an Excommunication from all publique Ordinances and the socity of Gods people, for which some now over-confidently alleage it.

Fourthly, Whether those who were thus shut out of the Camp for cere­moniall or corporall uncleannesse, were not admitted to wash and purifie themselves (in the Exod. 30. 18 19, &c. c. 38 8 c. 40. Laver, standing between the Tabernacle and the Altar, as is probable) and likewise to offer their Oblations, Trespasse and Sinne Offerings in the Tabernacle before their re-admission into the Camp? as is more then probable, if not infallible by Numb. 19. 1. to 11. Levit. 14. 1. to 33. Deut. 23. 10, 11. If so, then their exclusion out of the Camp was no excommunica­tion or suspention of them from the Tabernacle and all publick Ordinan­ces in it, as is pretended; Yea, then it necessarily followes, that ceremoni­all and corporall (much more then morall) uncleannesses, are to be expia­ted and purged away by admission to publick Church Ordinances, not se­clusion from them: True it is, that by Levit. 7. 20, 21. & chap. 22. 4. to 16. That person which had any ceremoniall uncleannesse on him, was prohibited to eat of the Sacrifice of the Peace Offerings, which pertaine unto the Lord, under paine of being cut off from his people; but yet he might bring a Sinne Offering, and a Trespasse Offering to the Lord, as is cleer Levit. c. 1. to c. 8. by other Texts. All which considered, these Texts much insisted on by Master Rutherfurd and others, will prove no power vested by divine authority in Priests or Presbyters, to excommunicate or suspend men from the Lords Supper.

The fourth Text produced, is 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Jehojadah set the Porters at the gates of the House of the Lord, that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in: If this Text (with that of the 2 Chron. 26. 19, 20. coupled to it) make ought for excommunication of ceremoniall uncleane persons from the Temple, and all publick Ordinances of Gods worship there solemni­zed, as some pretend, (though here is onely a keeping, not casting out of the Temple of such, by Jehojadah his appointment alone, not by any divine insti­tution that we read of, and that by the Porters only, who 1 Chron. 9. 17 18. c. 15. 18. c. 16 38, 42. c. 23. 5. c. 26. 1. 12. 2 Chron. 23. 4 c. 34 [...]3 c 35. 15 [...] 7 7. [...]. 7. [...] 45 c 1 [...] [...]9 [...] 4 [...]. 11. were not Priests but Levites; out of the house of the Lord it selfe, not out of the Court be­fore it, where we read of Oblations offered up to God on the Altar as well as in the Temple it selfe; 1 Kings 8. 64. 2 Chron. 7. 7. nor yet out of the Sinagogues, the places of Gods ordinary worship) yet certainly it makes point blank [Page 8] against any bare suspension onely from the Passeover or Lords Supper, (not here particularized) since here is a totall exclusion of uncleane per­sons from the Temple it selfe, and all publick Ordinances performed in it not from some alone, even in the Objectors opinion.

The fift is, Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. Thus saith the Lord God, no stranger or uncircum­cised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter into my Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. In respect of which command, the Jewes accused Paul, Acts 21. 28, 29. for bringing Greekes into the Temple, and pol­luting that holy place. Which Text, if it make any thing for excommu­nication (as some pretend, though others upon good reason deeme the contrary, it speaking onely of excluding uncircumcised Heathens, not any uncleane or scandalous circumcised Israelites out of the Temple at Je­rusalem, not the Jewish Sinagogues, nor of secluding or excommunicating any baptized Christians under the Gospel from the Church though uncir­cumcised either in the flesh or heart) yet certainly it proves nothing for a­ny sole suspention from the Passeover or Lords Supper, since such strangers were totally secluded both from the Temple and all Ordinances therein used, not suspended from one Ordinance alone, but admitted to all others.

The sixt Text is Matth. 18. 17. If he neglect to heare the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican: that is, as our Master Ru­therfurds Di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment, cap. 8. and Due right of Pres­byt [...]ries c. 4. sect. 5. p. 187. Opposites expound it; a person cut off and secluded from the visible Church and people of God, and all communion in holy Ordinances, as Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. Acts 21. 28, 29. Ephes. 2. 11, 12. insinuate. Which if objected for proofe of suspention from the Lords Supper onely, not from other Ordinances, then the meaning and sense of the place must be no more but this; Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican; that is, let him be suspended onely from communicating at the Lords Table, once a moneth, a quarter, a yeer, but let him constantly resort unto, and com­municate in all other Ordinances and duties of Gods worship every Lords day and Lecture day, without the least suspention or impediment, which Heathens never used to doe, and very few Publicans: A very pretty exposi­tion of this much controverted Text.

The seventh Scripture is, John 9. 22, 34, 35. chap. 12. 42. chap. 16. 2. Where we read, that those who professed Christ, were put, or cast out of the Syna­gogue by the Jewes: Ergo, they were debarred from preaching, reading of the Word, prayer and all other publjck Offices of Gods worship used in the Jewish Sinagogues, not from the Passeover or Lords Supper onely, ne­ver administred in any Sinagogue that we read of in Scripture: And to intepret putting out of the Sinagogue, to be nothing else but a bare suspention from the Lords Supper, without any exclusion from other Ordinances, is a meer Bull, and miserable perverting of these Texts, it being an unlawfull act done by the unbeleeving Jewes, not against scandalous offenders, but faithfull beleevers and professors of Jesus Christ.

The eighth is the 1 Cor. 5. where the Apostle writes to the Church at [Page 9] Corinth, To take away from among them the incestuous person; to deliver him to Satan: To purge out the old Leven that they might be a new lump; not to keep company with a Brother that is a fornicator, &c. with such a one no not to eat; and to put away from among themselves that wicked person: From which place our Master Ru­therfurds Di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment. c. 4. qu. 1. p. 238. to 240. Opposites in­struct us, That to deliver to Satan, is to cast out of the Church, and to declare such an offender to be of the number of the wicked world, of which Satan is Prince, and to be purged out of the Church, least he should infect the Sheep, and Christians are not to beare company with him, nor to eat with him; and he was judged to be cast out as a hea­then and Publican, and deprived of the comfortable communion of the Saints, and of the prayers of the Church, and meanes of Grace. Ergo, by their owne argumenta­tion, confession, exposition, this Text enjoynes a totall excommunicati­on from all publick Ordinances, meanes of grace and communion of the faithfull, not a naked suspention onely from the Lords Supper, with free admission to all other Ordinances: But if this Text be meant of a Suspen­tion onely from the Lords Supper, then the delivering of that incestuous per­son to Satan, the purging out of the old leaven, the not keeping company, the not eating with him, the taking and putting away of him from among them, must be all re­duced to this one negative act; not to admit him to the Lords Table once a moneth, a quarter, a yeere, yet to communicate with him in all other Ordinances every day and week in the yeer, without scruple or scandall: an interpretation as point blank against the very words and meaning of the Text as may be.

The ninth is Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you Brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine ye have received, and avoid them: To which I shall annex, Master Ru­therfurds Di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment, p. 249▪ 269, &c. 12. qu. 8. Mr. Walkers Modell of the Government of the Church. p. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed: And 2 John 10. If there come any unto you and bring not this Doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. Which if meant of publick commu­nion, conversation in Ordinances of Gods worship with Schismaticall, Hereticall, scandalous Christians, as well as in private; prohibit commu­nion with them in all other publick Ordinances, as well as in the Lords Supper; but if appropriated to a single suspention onely from the Lords Table, then they must run into this absurdity; that to avoid such persons, not to keep company with them, not to receive them into our houses, or bid them God speed, is onely not to eat the Lords Supper with them, and to suspend them from it alone; which neither the words nor meaning of these Texts will beare.

The tenth is Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick, after the first and second admonition, reject: That is, as our Mr. Ruther­furd and Mr. Walker, ibid. Opposites interpret it, excommunicate and cast him out of the Church: But if objected to prove a bare suspenti­on from the Eucharist, then reject must signifie, suspend him from the Lords Table onely, not from any other Ordinance, he may preach and broach his heresies still, to poyson and canker others: To which I shall subjoyne, Rev. 2. 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou [Page 10] sufferest that woman Jezabel to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed unto Idols: Which if it proves ought for excom­munication, yet certainly makes nothing for a sole suspention from the Sacrament, but against it.

The eleventh is the 3 John 9, 10. Neither doth Diotrephes himselfe receive the Brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church: that is, excommunicates them, as all accord. Which if objected for proof of suspention of scandalous persons from the Lords Table only, then not to receive the Brethren, and to cast them out of the Church, is meerly to debarre them from the Lords Supper onely; which the words will no wayes beare.

The twelfth is the 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha: Admit this Text to containe the highest de­gree of excommunication in the Church, as many Master Ru­therfords di­vine right of Church-go­vernment, p. 372. with o­thers. dogmatize, yet to in­terpret Anathema Maranatha, to be no more but let him he suspended from the Lords Table, is to contradict all Expositors, and to speak little better then pure nonsense.

These severall Texts of Scripture produced by our Antagonists for proof of Excommunication by divine institution, doe utterly subvert the maine thing they now contend for, to wit, a divine Authority vested in Ministers & Presbyteries not to excommunicate scandalous impenitent sinners from all Ordinances and Christian society, but barely to suspend those they re­pute scandalous, from the Lordr Supper onely, though they desire to re­ceive it, without sequestring them from any other publick Ordinances, to whom Doctor Drake in his sixteen Anti-queries, in the Preface and p. 6. some of them are likewise so indulgent, as to assert in print, that a scandalous person, yea Heathen may be present at the Lords Supper, and all the Sacramentall actions, and that with a great deale of profit, onely they must not actually receive the outward Elements: But when we de­mand a proofe from Scripture for justificarion of this new Paradox, they c [...]n produce none at all.

My third reason is, because it is directly contrary to the very end of Christs pretended giving excommunication to the Church, which in Divine right of church-go­vernment, cap 4. sect 4. qu. 5 p. 76. Ma­ster Rutherfurds owne words is thus expressed: The power of Excommunication is given by Christ to a Congregation, not upon a positive ground, because it is a visible institute Church, or as it is a Congregation; but this power is given to it upon this formall ground and reason; Because a Congregation is a number of sinfull men, who may be scandalized and infected with the company of a scandalous person; this is so cleere, that if a Congregation were a company of Angels, which cannot be infected, no such power should be given to them, even as there was no need that Christ, as a member of the Church, either of Jewes or Christians, should have a morrall power of avoiding the company of Publicans and sinners, because he might possibly convert them; but they could no wayes pervert or infect him with their scandals and wicked conversation; therefore is this power given to a Congregation, as they are men, who through frailty of n [...]re mey be levened with the bad conversation of the scandalous, who are to be ex­communicated, [Page 11] as is cleere, If a little bo­dy of a Con­gregation in a remote Isle have power from Christ to cut off a rotten member, least it infect the whole body, shal [...] we doubt but our wise Law-giver hath given the same power to a greater bo­dy of many vi­sible Congre­gations, which is under the danger of the same contagi­ous infection? 1 Cor. 5. 6. Your glorying is not good, know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Therefore are we to with­draw our selves from Drunkards, Fornicators, Exportioners, Idolaters, and are not to eat and drink with them, verse 10. and from those who walk inordinately and are disobedient, 2 Thes. 3. 12, 13, 14. And from Hereticks, after they be admonished, least we be infected with their company; just as nature hath given hands to a man to defend himselfe from injuries and violence, and hornes to Oxen, to hold off violence; so hath Christ given the power of Excommunication to his Church, as spirituall armour to ward off and defend the contagion of wicked fellowship: Now this reduplication of fraile men which may be levened, agreeth to all men of many consociated Congregations, who are in danger to be infected with the scandalous behaviour of one member of a single Congregation, and agreeth not to a Congregation as such: therefore this power of Ex­communication must be given to many consociated Congregations, for the Lord Jesus his Salve must be as large as the Wound, and his meane must be proportionable to his end.

Since then by M ^r Rutherfurds owne assertion, Master Wal­kers Modell, &c. p. 18. and others concurrent suf­frages who write in defence of Excommunication, the very ground and end of instituting Excommunication in the Church, is to prevent infection, contagion, by the company, bad conversation and wicked fellowship of scandalous persons, and to cut off a rotten member, least it infect the whole body: It must necessarily follow, that contagious scandalous Church-members continuing obstinate and impenitent in their sins, ought not to be suspended barely from the Lords Supper, but likewise from all other publick Ordinances and Christian so­ciety, as well as it; nay, rather from any other Ordinance then from the Lords Supper, upon these ensuing grounds.

First, because the Lords Supper is now more rare and infrequent then any other publick Ordinance, administred in few Churches above once a mo­neth, in many not once a quarter, nay scarce once in a yeer or two, in these late unhappy times, an [...] then but once in a day; whereas we have prayers, preaching, reading of the Word, Baptisme, singing of Psalmes, exposition of Scriptures, Catechizing in many Crurches every day of the week, at leastwise morning and evening in all or most of our Churches, every Lords day, if not on week dayes too; besides publick monethly Fasts and frequent Thanksgivings: Now there is farre greater danger of infection, contagion by scandalous sinners in conversing with them in these common publick Ordinances every week or day almost morning and evening, & in keeping company w ^th them in private (of which few or none make conscience) then there is in eating and drinking with them at the Lords Table once a month, a quarter, or happily scarce once a yeer, as com­mon reason will informe us; therefore we should rather exclude them, from those publick Ordinances wherein they daily or weekly at least con­verse with us, then from the Lords Supper, whereat we more rarely meet or communicate with them; it being a strange kind of madnesse or folly to shun the company of a Leper, or one infected with the pestilence▪ one half [Page 12] houre onely in a moneth or yeere, at a Supper, and yet to fit with him at, Breakfast and Dinner two or three hours every day or week.

Secondly, because few or no scandalous persons are so desperately wic­ked or cauterized (as experience informes us) but when they come to re­ceive the Lords Supper they will promise a great deale of repentance, of reformation, and behave themselves very piously, devoutly in outward shew, laying aside all their scandalous courses on the whole day at least whereon they receive it, and come with some preparation thereunto: In which regard, there is the lesse danger of deriving infection from them in and by this Ordinance of any other, whereas they come usually to all other Ordinances without any examination, preparation, promise of repen­tance or future reformation, making no such conscie [...]ce of abstaining from their sinfull courses on Lecture dayes or Lords dayes, as they doe on Sacrament dayes, comming unto them with, and in their scandalous fin [...]: therefore they ought rather to be suspended from all other Ordinances then from the Lords Supper onely, at which they are least contagious, and seeme to be most Penitent, most Reformed both in heart and Life.

Thirdly, those who are truly pious, or at least not scandalous, are lesse capable of receiving infection, contagion from scandalous sinners at the Lords Supper, then at other publick Ordinances; because as those scanda­lous persons are then least scandalous, and most reclaimed in their carri­age, so these holy Communicants, in regard of their solemne prepa­rations to the Sacrament, their previous examinations of their own hearts, lives, their serious Vowes, Covenants to watch and warre more against all sins, al occasion of sin for the future; and of those heavenly meditations which take up their thoughts, spirits, are lesse capable to be infected or polluted by them, then at other common Ordinances, to which they come not with such solemne preparations, watchfulnesse, seriousnesse and Anti­dotes against sins contagion, as to the Lords Supper.

Fourthly, scandalous persons converse with fewer Christians at the Lords Table, to which but few resort, and those well antidoted against their contagion, then they doe at any other Ordinances, to which all pro­miscuously rush without distinction or much solemn preparation; therfore there is more danger of contagion in admitting them to, and greater rea­son to sequester them from all other common Ordinances, then the Lords Supper onely.

Fiftly, it is every way as scandalous and contagious to others, as dan­gerous to scandalous sinners themselves, to admit them to other sacred or­dinances, as to the Lords Supper. First, because the same Texts which sus­pend them from one Ordinance, suspend thē equally from all others, as the premises. Psal. 50. 16, 17. Mat. 7. 6. chap. 15. 26, 37. evidence, therefore it is as scandalous, as unlawfull to admit them to any other, as to the Lords Sup­per. Secondly, because the same sins, scandals equally disable, unsit them [Page 13] for the holy performance of one Ordinance as another, Psal. 50. 16, 17. Psal. 66. 18. Prov. 1. 28. chap. 28. 9. chap: 15. 8. chap. 21. 17. Isa. 1. 10. to 21. chap. 58. 1. to 8. chap. 66. 3. Jer. 7. 7, 8, 9. chap. 14. 12. chap. 11. 11. Ezek. 8. 18. Micah 3. 4. Job 27. 9. John 9. 31. 1 Pet. 2. 1, 2. For example, drunkennesse, whore­dome, covetousnesse, murther, malice, pride, and the like, as much dis­able, unfit Christians to pray, read, heare, meditate, sing Psalmes, Fast, as to receive the Lords Supper; and such mens praying, hearing, fasting, is as unacceptable to God, as unprofitable, as sinfull, as dangerous, as damna­ble to themselves as their ūworthy receiving. Thirdly, because the defect or want of saving faith and Gods spirit makes all Ordinances alike ineffectu­all to us, and unacceptable to God; we can no more pray, sing, fast, heare or read the Word of God with profit or acceptance without faith and the assistance of the spirit, then we can receive the Lords Supper, as is cleer by James 1. 5, 6, 7. chap. 5. 15. Rom. 8. 26, 27. John. 6. 65. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Ephes. 6. 18. Heb. 4. 2. chap. 10. 38. chap. 11. 1. to 40. But especially by Heb. 11. 6. Without Faith it is impossible to please God; and Rom. 14. 13. He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of Faith, FOR WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SINNE. Fourthly, because all Gods Ordinances are holy, if not of equall holinesse; the Word, Prayer, Preaching, Fasting, &c. are all holy as well as the Sacraments, and to be kept from prophanation as well as they, Mat. 7. 6. Therefore impenitent, scandalous persons ought to be excluded from the one as much as from the other. Fiftly, because they have the selfe same right to one Ordinance of God as to another, and the selfe same command to communicate in, or abstaine from the one as from the other, as they are visible actuall members of the visible Church, to which all Christs Ordinances are bequeathed, and wherein they are to be dispenced to all that doe unfainedly desire them: He that commands us to Heb. 3 7, 12 13. c. 4. 2, 3. Luke 8. 18. hear, and to take heed how we hear; to James 1. 6, 7. c. 5. 15. pray, and to pray in faith, nothing doubt­ing; commands us likewise, Take, eat, this is my body, &c. Drink ye all of this &c. Doe this, as oft as ye doe it in remembrance of me, &c. But let a man examine him­selfe, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 23. to 34. therefore all visible members of the visible Church, indued with competent knowledge to examine themselves, must be admitted to all Or­dinances alike, or suspended from all alike, since the Scripture makes no difference herein, and allowes us no more liberty to abstaine from, or neglect one Ordinance then another, nor gives Ministers, Presbyters any more power to suspend men from one then from another, as is evident by the forecited Texts, compared with Psal. 119. 6. 1 Thes. 5. 21, 22. James 2. 10, 11.

From all which reasons I conclude, that a judiciall suspension of scan­dalous obstinate sinners from the Lords Supper onely, without excluding them from all other sacred Ordinances as well as it, is no divine censure nor institution sufficiently warranted by the Word of God, though our Divines now eagerly contend for it as a such; the execution whereof [Page 14] they plead to be vested by divine authority in Presbyters and Presbyte­ries, but by what Scripture charter, I am yet to seek.

The cheifest argument and reason I can meet with to justifie this sole sus­pention of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper onely, Objection 1. but not from other publick Ordinances, is this; Doct. Drakes sixteen Anti­quaeries, p. 6. Master Walker Master Pal­mer & others. Suspention from the Eucharist, is a step and degree to Excommunication, and they who have power to doe the greater may doe the lesse; he who hath power to hang, hath also power to mulct or scourge; and why should nor they have power to suspend from one Ordinance, that have power to cast out of the Church, and so to keep back from all Ordinances?

I answer, Answer 1. First, that the Scripture no where prescribes any such suspen­tion from the Lords Supper onely, much lesse doth it make it a step or prodromus to a totall Excommunication, as I have formerly evidenced; therefore Presbyters or Presbyteries have no divine authority to prescribe or make it such, if they will keep to their owne principles, See Master Rutherfurds divine right of Church go­vernment, sect 1, 2, 3, 4. cap. 1. qu. 1. &c. That the Scrip­ture ought to be the onely rule of all Church Discipline, for whatsoever is not of faith is sinne, Rom. 14. 13. Secondly, that where the Scripture commands a to­tall Excommunication from the Church and all publick Ordinances in it, there Ministers and Presbyters have no more authority to suspend from one alone, and give free admtitance to all the rest, then Sam. 15. 2. to 34. Saul had to spare Agage and the best of the Sheep and Cattle: or Josh. 7. i. to 16. Achan to save the Babilonish Wedge and Garment; Numb. 31. i. to 20. or the Israelites to spare the Moabitish women, when God comman­ded them to be all destroyed, for which sinfull partiallity they were severely checked, punished. Now the Scripture commands a totall excommunication of ob­stinate scandalous sinners from all publick Ordinances whatsoever (if from any) as the Texts forecited manifest, and our Opposites in their dis­courses concerning excommunication confesse; therefore they cannot without sin and contempt of Gods command, exclude them onely from the Lords Supper, and yet freely admit them to, and communicate with them in all others. Thirdly, to answer Master Doctors mistaken Law; Where a Judge by the Law (as in cases of Treason, Murder, Burglary, &c.) hath power, and is prescribed to hang the party offending, there he can­not exchange or extenuate the penance at his pleasure, by inflicting a mulct or whipping; w ^ch punishments must be inflicted only when and where the Law inflicts them, not for capitall offences, as all our common Law-books, Lawyers will informe him; our Judges being bound by Oath, to judge onely according to Law, not arbitrarily at their pleasure: If then Judges may not alter the penalties prescribed by the Lawes of men, much lesse may Mini­sters or Presbyteries change or mitigate the censures prescribed (as they now contend) by the Law of God himselfe. Fourthly, suspention from the Lords Supper onely, without sequestration from all other Ordinances together with it, is but a meer groundlesse Invention io justle out the cen­sure of excommunication so much contended for, and strip it naked of all its terror and Majesty: for if excommunicate persons may resort freely to heare the Word and to all other publick Ordinances but the Sacrament, yea [Page 15] be present at all the actions of the Sacrament it selfe, and be secluded one­ly from the actuall participation of the Elements, it will make Excom­munication nothing formidable, yea quite subvert the very end, use and substance thereof, to make scandalous persons ashamed.

Reply. But our Master Ru­therfurds Di­vine right of Presbyteries, p. 227, 273, 274, 280, 281 Antagonists reply; That an excommunicate person may freely bee admitted to heare the Word, and ought not to be excluded from it; Sixteen An­tiquaeries, p. 6. Where ( writes the Doctor) is it said that an excommunicate person, shall not have so much as the priviledge of one that is without? 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25. Might an Infidell heare the Word for his conversion, and shall an excommunicate person be denied the benefit of that Ordinance? I grant by excommunication he is as an heathen, but why he may not have the priviledge of one that is without, I desire Master Prynne to instruct me, and I shall thank him for it: We deny not but the meditation of Christs death, the words of institution, and the Sacramentall Elements and actions may doe much ( towards conversion) and let Master Prynne shew me in Scripture, why either an excommu­nicate person or an Infidell may not be present at all these, yet neither of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance, &c.

Rejoinder.To this I rejoyne, First, that Master Rutherfurd cites many Canonists and others in the same place to prove, That excommunicate persons ought not to be present at Prayers, Preaching, or any other publick Ordinance, the generall opi­nion of Antiquity and the Schooles; nay, he proves from Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. & Acts 21. 28, 29. That unconverted Heathens were prohibited to come into Gods Sanctuary, or enter into the Temple at Jerusalem; and that those who are thus ex­cōmunicated as Heathens, are in this sense persons quite excluded the Church and Common-weale of Israel, as Heathens were, Ephes. 2. 11, 12. else no excom­munication could be evinced from Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an hea­the; therefore Heathens, whiles such, were excluded from the preaching of the word de jure, in Christian Churches and Congregations, of which they were no members: True it is, the Apostles were commanded to preach the Gospell to all Nations and Infidels to convert them, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. But whether Ministers at this day have the like Commission, or are to ad­mit meere Infidels ordinarily to heare the Word in their Congregations, is not yet resolved, neithr will the 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25. evince it, which speaks of such Ministers onely, who were endued with the supernaturall gift of miracles and tongues for the conversion of Infidels, which are long since ceased. Secondly, admit that Heathens and Infidels, if they casually come into Christian Churches to heare the Word ought not to be excluded, but admitted to heare it, yet it followes not that excommunicate persons should therefore be admitted into the Church to heare the Word preached, whiles actually excommunicated for their obstinacy and incorrigibility in scandalous sins; First, because they are judicially, by way of publick censure and pu­nishment, actually cut off from, and excluded out of the visible Church, and sequestred from all publick Ordinances, all Christian society, for scandalous offences, till their repentance and readmission, as is cleere by the premised Texts, and most Canonists, Casuists, School men, who write [Page 16] of Excommunication, which meere Heathens who desire to heare the Word that they may be converted, are not: therefore during this censure and their impenitency, they ought not to be admitted entrance into the Church, or to be present at any other Ordinances in it till their readmissi­on, though Heathens may, who are not judicially excluded. To illustrate this by an instance of like nature; If a native English man be by lawfull sentence banished the Kingdome for any crime, or a Free-man of London expelled the lines of Cōmunication for his Delinquency till his conformi­ty, it is not lawfull for the one of them to return into the Kingdome, or the other to come within the City, till their sentences be revoked; yet Aliens and Forreigners may freely enter the one and other without restraint, be­cause there is no such sentence of banishment or exclusion passed against them: So a scandalous impenitent Christian cast out of the Church, ba­nished the society of Christians, and excluded all publick Ordinances by a legall sentence, ought not to be admitted till repentance, though a meere Heathen may. Secondly, because an impenitent, obstinate, scandalous Christian, by Paul's owne resolution, is more to be avoyded then a meere Heathen without the Church; witnesse 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12, 13. I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or with extortioners, or with Idola­ters, for then ye must goe out of the world: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a Rayler, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one NO NOT TO EATE (of which few make any conscience that presse this place so much:) for what have I to doe to judge them that are without, doe ye not judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth: Therefore put away from among you that wicked person. In which words the Apostle informes us, First, That scandalous Christians are Which Ma­ster Ruthe [...]furd affirmes, Di­vine right of Church Go­vernment, p. 357. worse then Heathens that are scandalous in the same kind: Secondly, That Christians in some cases may keep company Soe 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28. and eat with the one, but not so much as keep company or eat with the other: Thirdly, That they ought to judge, censure, put away from among themselves the scandalous Christian, but not the Heathen; which had the Doctor well observed, he would never have desired me to in­struct his ignorance in this kind: Fourthly, had the Doctor considered Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your Pearles before swine, least they trample them under their feet, and turne againe and rent you: spoken principally of the preaching of the Word, not of the Lords Supper, then not knowne nor instituted: Or Matth. 10. 14, 15. Mark 6. 11, 12. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or City, shake off the dust of your feet for a testimony against them: Verily I say unto you it shall be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of Judge­ment, then for that City: Or Acts 13. 45, 46, 50, 51. But when the Jewes saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things that were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming: Then Paul and Barnabas waxed s [...] [Page 17] bold and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing you put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life, loe, we turne to the Gentiles: But the Jewes stirred up devout and honourable women, and the chiefe men of the City, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts; but they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium: Or Luke 14, 16, 17, 24. A certaine man made a great Supper, and bade many, and sent his servants at Supper time, saying to them that were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready; but they all with one consent be­gan to make excuse, &c. So that servant came and shewed his Lord these things: Then the Master of the house being angry, said to his servant, Goe out into the lanes and streets of the City and bring in hither the poore and the maimed, and the halt and the blind, &c. and compell them to come in, that my house may be full; For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden, shall taste of my Supper: Or Luke 19. 41. And when he came neere the City, he wept over it, saying, if thou hadst knowne, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes; with sundry other Texts of this kind: He might have learned from them, That such Christians who contemne and neglect the Gospel and word of Grace when offered to them, may be justly deprived of and secluded from them, when as others, though Pagans, may be admitted to enjoy them, according to that expresse Text Mat. 21. 33. to 45. where the Lord of the Vineyard, when his servants were beaten and his son slaine by the husband-men from whom he required fruits; threatens he will miserably destroy those wick­ed men, and will let out his Vineyard to other husband-men, which shall render him their fruit in due season; Christ himselfe thus closing up the Parable, with re­ference to the obstinate Jewes; Therefore I say unto you, the Kingdome of God, shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; which you may read fully executed and ratified, Rom. 11. 7. to 26. 1 Thes. 2. 15, 16. Isa. 5. 1. to 8. This Objection therefore will no wayes fortifie our Oppo­sites weak Cause, but confirme my tenets.

But it is secondly objected by our Antagouists, Objection 2. b M [...]ster Ru­the [...]f [...]rds Di­vine right of Presbyter [...]e [...], p. 361, 362, 524, 525. that the Word may and must be preached to meere Pagans and Infidels, to convert and instruct them; but the Lords Supper is not to be administred to such, as all ac­knowledge: Therefore there is a vast difference in this respect between the preaching of the Word, and receiving of the Lords Supper; and so by consequence, scandalous persons which are as Heathens, may and ought to be suspended from the one, though they be admitted to the other.

I answer, Answer. First, this Objection, if examined, is but a meere fallacy, and inconsequent, the controversie not being, Whether Infidels, Turks and Pagans ought to be admitted to the Lords Table before they publickly embrace and professe the Christian faith? But, Whether scandalous Christans externally embracing, professing the faith of Christ, endued with competent knowledge, professing, unfain [...]d repentance for their sinnes past, promising reformation for the future, and earnesily desiring to be admitted to the Lords Supper, may by any institu [...]io [...] or appointment of Jesus Christ be suspended from it; when not secluded from, but admitted free accesse to the Word, and all [Page 18] other pulick Ordinances? Therefore to argue thus, the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to Turkes and Infidels; Ergo, not to scandalous Christians, is a meere Nonsequitur, and departing from the point in issue. Secondly, the reason why the Lords Supper and Baptisme ought not to be administred to Turks and Pagans before their externall conversion to the Christian faith, though the Gospell may be preached to them, is not be­cause preaching of the Gospel is a converting Ordinance, and the admini­stration of the Sacraments onely a confirming, but not converting Ordi­nance; (as is pretended;) but because the Sacraments (as all Calvin, Peter Martyr, Areti­t [...], Jewel, Bea­con, Paraeus, Willet, others, and Master Rutherfurd himselfe, Di­vine right of Presbyteries, cap. 4. sect. 5. p. 212. Divines accord) are badges of our externall Christian profession; yea, solemne Covenants or Oaths to ob­lige us to yeeld all obedience and subjection unto Christ, and distinguishing signes to dif­ference Christians from all Infidels and Pagans in the world; therefore not to be administred to any but such who actually embrace and professe the faith of Christ, and are admitted members of his visible Church; whereas the bare externall hearing of the Word preached (wherein the hearers are on­ly passive, but no wayes active or stipulative, unlesse they embrace it) is no such badge or emblem of Christianity, nor such an externall Oath of Al­leagiance to tye us to the obedience of Christ, as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are, which belong to none but such who professe themselves Chri­stians and are members of the visible Church of Christ. Thirdly, It is ge­nerally agreed by all orthodox Divines, that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, given not simply and solely to the elect and invisible Church of Christ, (certainly knowne to God alone, not to any Ministers or Presbyteries upon earth) but to all the visible members of the visible Church, not cut off from it by a legall Excommunication, or hindred by some naturall dis­abilities, who have a true right to, and interest in them, though not actually regene­rated and endued with saving faith. Upon which grounds Master Due right of Presbyteries, cap. 4. sect. 6. throughout. Rutherfurd, and Master A defence of Infants Bap­tism [...], part 3. p. 106. to 130. Marshall expresly maintain, the lawfulnesse of baptizing the children of excommunicate persons, Hereticks, Schismaticks, and Christians unregenerate, even for the externall profession of the Christian faith by their ancesters, though their immediate Parents be Hereticks, or persons excommunicated from the visible Church: Which being granted, resolved as an undoubted truth in the Sacrament of Baptisme, must likewise thus farre hold in case of the Lords Supper, That a visible member of the visible Church endued with competent knowledge, and not actually excommunicated, ought not to be suspended from it for any pretended scandalous crime, in case he desire to receive it, since his very membership in the visible Church intitles him thereunto, as well as himselfe or his children to Baptisme, and gives him a right to receive it, Objection 3. yea makes him guilty of sinne, in case he neglect to participate thereof, when publickly invited to receive it, as our ow [...]e Homilies concerning the receiving the Lords Supper resolve: which fully answers this fallacious Objection.

Thirdly it is objected, Master Ru­therfurds di­v [...]ne r [...]ght of Church-Go­vernment c. 5. & Due right of Presby [...] ­ries c. 4. sect 5 That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a Seale of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace, as it is a Sacrament, which [Page 19] the preaching of the Word is not; therefore scandalous persons ought to be suspended from it, though they be admitted to the preaching of the Word and other publick Ordinances, else we should put a sezle unto a blank.

I answer, Answer. First, that the Lords Supper is by no Text in Scripture stiled a Seale, or Seale of Grace, or of the Covenant of Grace, though many Divines (without any Scripture authority) stile it so. Secondly, it is true, that Circumcision is once onely in the Now Testament, to wit, Rom. 4. 11. stiled, The SIGNE of Circum [...]ision, A SEALE of the righteousnesse of faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircumc [...]sed: Whence Calvin, Peter Martyr, Parae­us and Doctor Willet on Rom 4. Aretii Pro­blem. Locus, 77. Amesii Bellarminus Enerva us, Tom. 4. qu 4. and others. Divines inferre, That Baptisme and the Lords Supper are both Sacraments and Seales of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace: But that it should hence necessarily follow, that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, are Seales of Grace, and of the Co­venant of Grace (though never so called in Scripture, nor yet the Passeover) because Circumcision is called a Signe and a Seale of the righteousnesse of faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircum [...]ised, is expresly denied by Stapletoni Antld. p. 225. Pererius Dis­put. 4. num. [...] Bellarminus, l. 2. c. 10. De Sacram. Remonstr. in Apol. c. 23. E­piscopius Disp. 29. Thes. 8. Smalci. cont. Franzium Disp. 9. p. 199. Socin. de offic. Hom. Christ. c. 4 and others some, doubt­ed by others, and cannot infallibly be inferred thence, for ought appeares to me. Thirdly, admit the Lords Supper be a Seale of Grace, as Circum­csiion was of faith, yet in what sense, or in what respects it is or may be See Willets six-fold Co­mentary on Rom. 4. qu. 7. stiled a Seale, and what kind of Seale it is, is questioned by many, and very difficult to determine. Origen thinks Circumcision was called a Seale of the righteousnesse of faith, because in Circumcision was sealed and lay bid the righteousnesse of faith, which should afterward be revealed and unfolded in Christ, and a Seale to the unbeleeving Jewes, shutting them up in unbeliefe, untill they should be called in the end of the world: Chrysostome, Theodoret and others, expound it to be a Seale, that is, a testimony onely of faith received: Aquinas thinks it was called a Seale, be­cause it was an expresse Signe, having a similitude of the thing received: Others affirme it was tearmed a Seale, because it distinguished the Israelites from other people, as Seales distinguish one Merchants Goods and Letters from another: But Calvin, Paraeus, Fayus, Aretius, Peter Martyr, Marlorat, Willet, and the streame of moderne Divines tearme it a Seale, because it is a visible confirmation of Gods promises to his people, as Kings and other m [...]ns Seales confirme their Patents and Deeds, being added to them for better assurance: And in this last sense our Di­vines generally tearme Baptisme and the Lords Supper, SEALES, that is, externall visible confirmations of Gods promises: Indeed though I find not the Lords Supper or Baptisme called Seales in Scripture, yet I read therein of a six-fold use of Seales. The first is, to conceale and close up things from publick view, as Cant. 4. 12. Isa. 29. 11. Job 41. 15. Dan. 9. 24. chap. 12. 9. Revel. 10. 4. chap. 22. 10. chap. 5. 1. to 10. chap. 6. 1. In which sense the Greekes tearme Sacraments Mysteries or hidden things, the phrase used by Paul, Eph. 3. 9. chap. 5. 32. and Decana Dom. & Baptismo Se [...]m. Bernard, with others, stiles a Sacrament, Satrun secre­tum, a sacred [...]secret. The second, to preserve, shut up, and keep things safe, Deut. 32. 43. Dan. 6. 17. Job 34. 16. chap. 37. 7. Matth. 27. 66. Job 14. 17. The third, to distinguish one thing from another, 1 Tim. 2. 19. Revel. 7. 3. to 9. chap. [Page 20] 9. 10. The fourth, to appropriate things, and mark them for our owne, 2 Cor. 1, 22. 2 Tim. 2. 19. chap. 7. 2. to 8. Ephes. 1. 13. The fift to authorize and give commission, John 6. 26. The sixt, to confirme, ratifie, assure charters, Dee [...] Promises, Covenants, Nehem. 9. 38. Ester 8. 8, 10. chap. 3. 12. Cant. 8. 6. Jer. 32. 10, 15, 44. Dan. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephes. 4. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 19. 1 Cor. 9. 2. In some of these senses the Lords Supper may perchance im­properly be called a Seale by way of allusion, but yet not properly and di­rectly, since Master Rutherfurd himselfe puts many differences between it and a civill seale, Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212, to 218. and Christ himselfe ordained it not to be a Seale, but Remem­brance, memoriall, representation of his Death and Passion, as is cleer by Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25, 26. This is my Body which is given for you, Doethis IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME; This cup is the New Testament in my blood, this doe ye as often as ye drink it in REMEMBRANCE OF ME, For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, YE DOE SHEW THE LORDS DEATH TILL HE COME. Now being a Remem­brance and Representation of Christs Death by divine institution, which hath no Analogy with a Seale, which serves not to commemorate or re­present any thing, and being no where tearmed a Seale in Scripture; I con­ceive it farre more proper to stile the Lords Supper (as the Bishop Jew­ [...]ls Defence of the Apology, part 2. cap. 13 Divis. 1. p. 251 Fathers usu­ally doe) a Figure, Signe, Remembrance, Memory, or Representation of Christs Death, then a Seale; which phrase is the originall ground of mens bare suspention from it. Fourthly, It is admitted by all, that Baptisme is a Seale of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lords Supper; I would then gladly be informed by our opposite Brethen, by what autho­rity, will and appointment of Jesus Christ, those who are admitted to be partakers of one of the Seales of Grace, and whose children by their owne resolution ought to be admitted unto Baptisme, even for these their Pa­rents externall profession of Christianity and membership in a visible Church, should be thus suspended, excluded from the Lords Sxpper, the other Seale, not being totally secluded from all other Ordinances, having as good a title to the one Seale as the other, to the Lords Table as to Baptisme or the Word it selfe? If they reply, as usually they doe, that it is, because we must not put a Seale unto a blanke, nor give the Seale of grace to those that have no grace. I answer, First, that this reason is a meer whim­sey of their owne, warranted by no Scripture. Secondly, it is contrary to Scripture, their owne practice and confession; who Master Ru­therfurds Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4 sect. 5. Master Mar­shals De [...]f [...]ce of Infants Baptisme. grant; First, that the Sacrament and Seale of Baptisme may and ought to be given to the persons, yea Infants of those who externally professe the christian Religion, though they be not truly rege­nerate, yea to the infants of Ignorant and Scandalous Christians, though ex­communicate, even for these their Parents externall profession of Christi­anity. Secondly, that unregeherate persons who are not ignorant or no­toriously scandalous, cannot be suspended from the Lords Supper, but must be admitted to it, if they desire it. Thirdly, that in this case a Seale is not put put unto a blank, for if their very baptizing at first was no sea­ling [Page 21] of a Blank, then by the same reason, their receiving the Lords Supper cannot be so. Now that their baptizing was not so, I shall prove by Ma­ster A defence of Infant baptism London, 1646. (Dedicated to the Assembly of Divines) p. 117, 118. Marshals owne resolution, approved by the Assembly; You conclude (writes he against Master Tombes) that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants, in vaine are they baptized, and the Seale is put to a blank.

My meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory, and according to that direction I doe pray, ‘That God would make Baptisme to be a Seale to the In­fant of adoption, and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny your consequence, that unlesse there be absolute promises of sa­ving grace to infants, the scale is set to a blank; for give me leave but to put the same case; First, for the Infants of the Jewes, was the seale put to a blank with them, or had they all promises of saving graces? Secondly, let me put the same case in growne men, who make an externall visible profession, and thereupon are admitted to baptisme; can any man say, that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it, is promised to all visible professors? is it not abundantly knowne, that in all Ages, even in the best times, even in the Apostles time, multi­tudes were baptized, to whom God yet never gave saving graces, and therefore ne­ver promised them? for had he made a promise, he would have performed it: But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament, in what sense it is a Seale, and then you need stumble at this no longer; These three things are necessary to be distinguished: Note. First, the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament; and secondly, my interest in that thing; and thirdly, my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament: I say therefore, that in every Sa­crament, the truth of the Covenant in it selfe, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen; Jesus Cbrist became a Minister of the Circumcision, to confirme the Promises made unto the Fathers; and so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme, according to the Rule which God had given to his Church, to administer that Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and whosoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises: this is absolutely sealed in Baptisme; but as to the second, which is interesse meum, or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Cove­nant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally; in this particular, all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia, conditionall Seales, sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition, that he performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant; thus our Divines use to answer the Papists; thus Do­ctor Ames An [...]wers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine disputing against our Do­ctrine, that Sacraments are Seales, alleages, then they are falsly applyed oftentimes; he di [...] wers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditionall Seales, and therefo [...]e not seales to us but upon condition: Now for the third thing, the obligati­on which is put upon the receiver, a lo [...] or tye for him to perform, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament; this third, I say, is also absolute, all circumci­sed and baptized persons did, or doe stand absolutely engaged to performe the conditi­ons required on their part, and therefore all circumcised persons were by the cir­cumci [...]on obliged to keep the Law; that is, that legall and typicall admini­stration [Page 22] of the Covenant which was then in force, and Infants among the rest, were bound to this, though they had no understanding of the Covenant, or that administra­tion of the Covenant, when this Seale was administred to them: Now then, since in Baptisme there is such an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of Grace in it selfe, a conditionall Seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant, and an absolut [...] obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part;’ IS THERE ANY REASON YOU SHOULD SAY, THAT THE SEALE IS PUT TO A BLANK, WHERE THE SPIRITUALL PART OF SAVING GRACE IS NOT PARTAKED OF? This answer of Master Marshall to Master Tombes (approved by the Assembly of Divines, and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland, to whom it is Dedicated) in the case of Baptisme, gives a full answer to the self-same objection of our Antago­nists in case of the Lords supper, they being both Sacraments and Seales alike, and subverts the very maine foundation of Suspention onely from the Lords Table; for if the Lords Supper be in truth a Seale of Grace, as is allea­ged, yet seeing it is onely a conditionall Seale of the receivers interest in the Co­venant, but an absolute Seale to every worthy and unworthy receiver of the Covenant of Grace in it selfe, and an absolute obligation to make good the Co­venant on their parts, as Master Marshall determines, and Master Rutherfurd himselfe concludes against the Anabaptists, in his Due Right of Pres­byteries, cap. 8. sect. 5. p. 214, 215, 216. Nay more (which I shall adde) if it be a visible memoriall, Remembrance and Representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ to every receiver, a badge of distinction to difference Chri­stians from Turks, Pagans, Insidels, Jewes, and a strong incitation and engagement to them to many Christian vertues duties, as namely to Faith, Hope, Charity, Thankfulnesse, Mortification of their carnall lusts, Patience under the Crosse, unfained love to the Lord Jesus Christ and all his mem­bers, hatred of, and watchfulnesse against sinne, and universall obedience to Christ, (as Aretius, Cal­vin, the Har­mony of Con­fessions, and Master Ru­therfurd him­selfe, Due right of Pres­byteries c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212. Divines unanimously accord;) and if it be in truth but a meere visible Word, or Preaching of the Gospel and Christs passion to the eye, as all accord, no scandalous unexcommunicated person ought to be suspended from it, that is not actually suspended from hearing the Word and all other publick Ordinances; the rather, because Doc [...]or Drake in his sixteen Anti-queries, in the Preface and p. 6. Doctor Drake him­selfe asserts, That not onely a scandalous Christian, but a very Heathen may be pre­sent at the Lords Supper, and heare the prayers and exhortations, see the Elements consecrated, and all the Sacramentall actions, and that with a great deale of profit, if the Lord please to sanctifie these things to him, yet neither of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance it selfe, or outward Elements, though of all the con­comitants and actions of it; a prettty novell, Popish whimsey, contrary to Antiquity, and the practice of the purest times, who admitted none to be present at the Sacrament but such as did actually receive it, as Thomas Beacon proves at large in his Catechisme, vol. 1. f. 462. Finally, it is asserted by all our Master Ru­therfards Due right of Pres­byteries, c. 9. sect. 9. &c. 4. sect. 5. p. 186. Oppo­sites, That the true Saints of God endued with saving faith, may fall into scandalous▪ sinnes as well as unregenerate persons; for which they may be justly suspended from the [Page 23] Lords Supper, though admitted to other Ordinances: Now such cannot be sus­pended from the Lords Supper, if they desire to receive it, as it is a Seale of Grace, because they have a true interest in the Covenant of Grace, and by reason of their frailty and lapse into sinne, have more need of this confirming, sealing Ordinance to strengthen, encrease their graces, and fortifie them the more against all future relapses after their fals, then be­fore: Wherefore this Objection extends not unto such.

To close up my Answer to this grand Objection; admit the Sacraments to be such Seales of the Covenant of Grace, as Divines now make them, I would then be resolved by them; First, Whether the Covenant of Grace and promises of salvation, which God hath ratified Heb. 6. 1 [...], to 20. with an Oath, and by the death and passion of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 1. 19, 23. in whom all the promises of God are Yea, and in him Amen, to the praise and glory of God, be compleat, firme, valid in them­selves, without these Seales annexed to them; or meerly void and null in Law, as Kings, or mens Deeds and Charters are without a Seale to ratifie them? If firme, valid, compleat without them; then how are they seales and ratifications of the Covenant of Grace, as seales are of royall Char­ters? If incompleat, infirme, invalid; that were extreamly derogatory to the Covenant, promises themselves, to the Oath, the truth of God, the death of Christ, yea directly contrary to Gen. 17. 7, 8. Exod. 6. 4, 5. Levit. 26. 42. 1 Sam. 16. 15, 16, 17, 18. 2 Chron. 6. 14. Nehem. 1. 5. chap. 9. 32. Psal. 89. 28, 29, 34. Psal. 105. 10. Psal. 111. 5, 7, 8, 9. Isa. 54. 7. to 11. Isa. 55. 3. Isa. 61. 8. Jer. 31. 31. to 38. chap. 33. 20, 21. chap. 50. 5. Ezek. 37. 26, 27. Heb. 6. 17, 18. chap. 13. 20. Therefore they are not properly seales. Secondly, Whether these Seales are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of Grace in the Old or New Testament, as parts or parcels of them, as seales are annexed to Charter? If yea, then shew us to what Covenants and promises, and in, and by what Texts they are thus inseperably annexed; and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of Grace, who doe not actually receive these Seales of Grace; when as your selves, with all Harmony of Confessions, sect. 13. 14. orthodox Di­vines must grant; that many who were never baptized, and infinite who ne­ver received the Lords Supper, are and may be saved, and are made parta­kers of the Covenant, the promises of Grace, without receiving or enjoy­ing these Seales of Grace. If no, then how can these be tearmed, Seales of the Covenant and promises of Grace, which are not inseparably affixed to them, as seales are to Charters? since many receive the Covenant and pro­mises of Grace without these Seales, and others receive these Seales with­out the Covenant or promises, the benefit whereof they never enjoy. Thirdly, By what reason, or upon what solid grounds they can deny the Seales of the Covenant and promises to those very scandalous or ignorant Christians once a moneh, a quarter, a yeer, to whom they every day or week, without any scruple, preach, tender, hold forth the very Covenant and promises of Grace, to which they say these Seales are annexed? Can [Page 24] men have an interest in any Covenant, Deed, Charter made, tendred [...] them, and yet have no right nor interest in the Seals annexed to them? an interest in a Coporation Patent, or Charter of pardon, and yet no right nor interest in the seales thereto affixed? This certainly is a monster, a solecisme in Law, why not them in Divinity too, especially in this point, wherein Divines turne Lawyers, and allude to Law assurances? If then they will grant the Lords Supper to be a Seale of the Covenant and pro­mises of Grace, they must either deliver and give this Seale to all those vi­sible Church-members, to whom they daily preach and tender the Cove­nant and promises of Grace, which is the maine (the Seale being but the Accossorium s [...]quitor prin­cipale. A [...]cessary, which necessarily followes the principle, as Lawyers determine) or else deny to preach or tender the Covenant and promises to those to whom they deny the seal and so by consequence must exclude all ignorant, at lest­wise scandalous Christians from hearing the Word read or preached, as well as suspend them from the Lords Supper; which by their own asserti­tion is but a Seale, and appendant to the Covenant and Promises of Grace, and must not be divided from them.

Fourthly it is objected, Objection 4. Antiquaeries, Master Ru­therfords di­vine right of Church-go­vernment, p. 523, &c. Answer. That the Lords Supper is no converting Ordi­nance, to conferre and bege [...]grace where it is wanting, but onely to confirme it, where it is already wrought; therefore scandalous persons ought to be sus­pended from the Lords Supper, though admitted to the preaching of the Word.

I answer, First, that I have sufficiently re [...]ted this Objection See a Vindi­ [...]ation of four serious Que­stions, pag. 40. &c. elswhere, and proved the the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance to beget grace, as well as a confirming to encrease it, by reasons not yet answered; and (as I conceive) unanswerable, which I shall not here repeat; yet be­cause Sixteen An­tiquaeries, the Preface, p. 1. & 6. Doctor Drake and others (out of their ignorance or wilfulnesse) stile this A NEW PARADOX AND MISTAKE OF MASTER PRINNES, as if I were the first broacher of this truth; I shall onely adde something de novo for refutation of their mistake.

First, it is most apparent, that in the Primitive Church the Lords Sup­per was administred to Christians every day, at l [...]ast every Lords day, and that the Ministers and Fathers in those times pressed all their Auditors to a frequent parti­cipation of this heavenly Banquet; upon this very ground, that those who alwayes sinne, might alwayes receive the medicine of this heavenly Sacrament against their sins, and daily receive it, that they might be daily healed by it; and because nothing was more effectuall to an holy and unblamable life, then the frequent participation of it: This is irrefragably proved by Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephesianos; Tertullian, Apologia; Ambrose, de Sacramentis, l. 4. c. 6. l. 5. c. 4. Augustine, Epist. 108. ad Januarium Ep. de Ecclesiast. Dogm. c. 53. & in soan. 6. Tract. Hierom ad Lucinium Epist. Chrysostom Orat. de B. Philogonio & Hom. 6. ad Pop. Antioch. Cyprian de Caena Domini: Gratian de con­secrat. Dist. 2. Ivo Carnotensis Decret. pars 2. c. 24. to 35. Durandus Rat. Diu. Offic. l. 4. with Harmony of Confessions, sect. 14. sundry others, and largly manifested by Thomas Bea­con [Page 25] in his Cat [...]chisme, vol. 1. f. 463. When this pious custome began to be discontinued, we find divers Decrees & Canons made to enforce them to a frequent reception of this heavenly repast; Platina in vita ejus, and The Becons Catechisme, fol. 463. Anacletus Bishop of Rome de­creed, That Christians should receive the Eucharist every day, and that those who would not thus communicate, should be excommunicated: But some of his Succes­sors finding people more backwards to this holy Ordinance then former­ly, condiscending to their humours in some sort, enjoyned by their De­crees, That ALL persons should, if not more frequently, yet at leastwise thrice every yeer receive the Lords Supper; to wit, at Easter, Pentecost, the Nativity of Christ, and every Lords day in Lent; witnesse the Decrees of Pope Fabian & Silverius, recorded by De Consect. Dist. 2. Gratian, Decretalium pars 2. c 27, 29, Iv [...] Carnotensis; and Ivo Carno­tensis, Decret. pars 2 c 28. Lutheri Care­chismus major Saint Hilary decreed, That if a mans sinnes were not so great as that he were to be excommunicated, non debet a medicina corporis Domini seperari, he ought not to be sequestred from the medi­cine of the Lords Body; unde timendum est ne DIU abstractus a Christi corpore, alienus remaneat à salute; nam manifestum est vivere, qui corpu [...] attingunt Christi, &c. Besides these, the Surjus Con­cil. Tom. 1. p. 712. Gratian de Consecr. Dist. 2. Ivo Decret. pars 2. c 33. Councill of Agatha about the 440. yeer [...] after Christ, decreed, That secular men who rece [...]v [...]d not the Lords Supper in Christs Nativity, Easter and Pentecost, should not be reputed Catholicks, nor numbred among Catholicks; which is seconded by sundry other forraigne Councils, as Bochellus de­cret, Eccles. Gal. l. 2 Tit. 7. c 5. l 3. Tit. 1, c 20, 23, 24, 93, 95, 103, 104, 105, 106, 138. Synod. Turon, 3. sub. Kar. Magno. Concil. Burdig, 1582. Concil. Bitur, 1584. Aquens. 1585. Theodulphus Aurelian, Epist. An. 835. Synod. Carnot, 1526. Concil. Rhomense, 1583. & Synod. Paris 1557. Yea, our owne anci­ent British Councils, as Spelmanni Concil. Tom. 1. p 519, 548, 615, 616. Concil. Aenhamense Generale, An. 1009. the Ecclesi­a [...]icall Lawes of King Knute, An. 1032. with other ancient chapters, pre­s [...]ribe, that every Parishioner should receive the Sacrament at least thrice every yeer: and the Bubrick in the old Common-Prayer Book after the Communion, w ^th the 21 Canon, made Anno 1505▪ enjoin, That EVERY PARISHI­ONER shall receive the Lords Supper at lest three times every yeer, of which Laster to be one; And that in Cathedrall and Collegiall Churches, where be many Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SUN­DAY AT THE LEAST, except they have a reasonable cause to the con [...]rary: Yea, our learned In his Cate­chisme, vol. 1. f 461, 463. Beacon reckons up this as a great abuse, and POPISH INNOVATION; that whereas: the Lord Christ Jesus would have the holy com­munion of his blessed. Body and precious Blood to be oft times received of the: faithfull for a remembrance of his death and passion, and for the worthy, earnest, diligent considera­tion of this inestimable benefit which we have obtained of God the Father, through the Sonne his passion and death: the custome of the Popes Church is, that the people receive the Sacrament usually but once in the yeer, that is to say, at Easter; by See [...] p. 542. [...] 550. to like pur­pose. which meanes the commandement of Christ is broken, the Sacrament is neglected, the death of Christ not so earnestly remembred, the people become unthankefull, dissolution of life breaketh in, vice increaseth, vertue decreaseth; which he condemnes as contrary both the Scripture and Antiquity; informing us, That among the Greeks, even at this day, if any man absent himselfe from the Lords Table by the space of fourteen dayes (except be can render a reasonable cause of his absence) he is excommunicate, and put [Page 26] from the company of the faithfull; and that in all those mighty, large, populous King­domes under that most puissant King Prceious John, the holy communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord hath from the beginning been DAILY ADMINISTRED TO THE PEOPLE, and yet is at this present day, as Histories make mention: All which, as it justly refutes and censures the late unwarrantable, that I say not impious, popish, tyrannicall practice of sundry of our Ministers, who (I know not out of what new whimseys & pretended scruples of con­science) contrary to Antiquity, Scripture, Law, the constant practice of the Church in all Ages, refuse to administer the Sacrament to their Pa­rishoners for whole yeers together or more, denying this heavenly Ordi­nance of Christ, as well to the religious among them who desire it, as to the ignorant, scandalous, prophane; prostituting this Institution of Christ himselfe to their owne ambitious designes, to encroach a jurisdiction over it and their peoples consciences by this irreligious stratagem, no wayes justifiable before God or men; so it yeelds me an unanswerable argu­ment to prove these two conclusions, necessarily slowing from the pre­mises.

First, that the Lords Supper, by the judgement of Antiquity and the pra­ctice of the Church in all Ages, belongs to all visible members of the visi­ble Church, able to examine themselves, not actually excommunicated, though they be not truly regenerated; because all of them are thus equally enjoyned frequently to receive it, as well as to heare the Word.

Secondly, that the Lords Supper by the resolution of all these Fathers, Authors, and the Christian Church in all Ages, is a converting, regenerating, as well as a confirming or sealing Ordinance; for since every parishoner and member of each Congregation being of yeers of discretion, was thus exhorted, obliged to receive it at least three times every yeer, under paine of excom­munication and not being reputed a christian; the greatest part of whom, as the Scripture and experience informe us, were unregenerate persons, not in­wardly converted, and void of saving faith; the eating of this heavenly Banquet could not be prescribed unto such, as a bare sealing or confirm­ing Ordinance of saving grace already received, much lesse as a meanes of their condemnation or aggravation of their sinnes; but onely as an instru­ment of their inward conversion and regeneration, to beget saving faith and spirituall life within their soules, and unite them unto Christ.

Hence the Bochellus de cret [...] Eccles. Gal. l 3. Tit. 1. c 2. p 356. Synod of Lingon An. 1404. defines thus; Sacramentum Sanctae E [...] ­charistiae est excellentissimum Sacramentum, pro eo quod non solum IN EO GRA­TIA CONFERTUR & sanctificat, seu sanctitatem causat, sicut alia Sacra­menta; sed etiam quia continet in se actorem totius gratiae & sanctificationis, Domi­nuin nostrum Jesum Christum. Hence the Synod of Bochellus de eret. Eccles. Gal. l 2. Tit. 1. c 34 p 152, 153. Sennes, An. 1521. refu­ting such who deny the power of conferring grace to the Sacraments, not onely proves, Baptismi Sacramentum sua virtute conferre Gratiam, stiling it, Lava­crum regenerationis quo denuo nastimur; but likewise resolves thus of the Lords Supper; Quis autem VIVIFIC UM neget Eucharistiae Sacramentum, quod tam [Page 27] apertis Scripturae testimoniis comprobatur? Calix enim benedictionis cui benedicimus, nonne communio sanguinis Christi est? & panis quem frangimus, nonne participatio corpo­ris Domini est? &c. Quibus luce clarius constet, hoc sacrosanctam Eucharistiae Sacramen­tum non solnm GRATIAM CONFERRE, &c. Which thus interpreted and seconded by the Synod of Bochel­lus ibid. c. 32. p. 148 Paris, Anno 1557. may passe for orthodox truth; Sacramentum juxta nominis etymologiam, id significat QUO QUID SACRATUR. Sacramentum itaque ex more Catholicae Ecclesiae, dicitur sacrae rei signum externum & sensibile, efficaci significatione, insinuans internam & invisibilem gratiam Dei, aut effectum gratuitum ex divina institutione ad salutem mortalium destinatum: Sacramenta duabus potissimum de causis a Deo esse instituta videntur. Ʋna est, ut sint invisibilis sanctificatio­nis insignia & externa signa Christiani, ini, illius quae magnae Congregationis, quae est Ec­clesia, sigilla, ne Domini familia, aliarum gentium admixtione, fiat incerta: Altera cau­sa est, ut Sacramenta ipsa non tantum significent, sed etiam sanctificent & conferant invisibilem Dei Gratiam; non propria aliqua rerum externorum vi, aut merito mini­stri, sed Domini secretius operantis quod instituit. Itaque etsi decet bonum esse Sacramen­torum ministrum, tamen malus etiam potest utiliter dispensare. Quum dicimus Sacramen­tum causam esse justificationis nostrae, intellegimus non principalem sed instrumentalem, & sine qua res fieri non solet, quamvis sine ea fieni possit; nec enim virtus Domini & poten­tia alligata est Sacramentis. Ecclesiae Sacramenta, sunt a Christo in morborum animi re­medium & curationem instituta; quorum haec vis est, ut sacros sanctosque faciant, qui ea digne suscipitunt; quando non signa quidem solum sunt gratiae, sed ipsus causa; his non modo signando sed & efficiendo sanctitatem Christus nobis conferre voluit. Sacramen­ta igitur non tantummodo signa sunt quae infusam gratiam contegant & occultent, sed quae efficiant, & reipsa prestant & cujus notae sunt & signa; est autem Sacramentum di­vinae gratiae signum & [...]igura, acinstrumentalis causa, efficiens instrumētaliter quod sensibiliter figurat. Henc [...] Bochel­lus ibid. c. 5. p. 142. the Councill of Burdeaux Anno 1582. defines the like in these termes: Cum Ecclesia nihil habet preciosius, nihil ad aeternam salutem cons [...] ­quendam magis necessarium, quàm â Christo instituta Sacramenta, quibus omnis justitia vel INCIPIATUR, vel caepta augeatur, vel amissa reparatur, ac Domini Dei gratia, quam ipsa Sacramenta, seu vasa quaedam divina continent, eamque ritè suscipientibus CON­FERUNT, nobis abunde communicetur, pastores omni studio & diligentia commissum si­bi Christianum populum exhortare debent ad frequentem Augustissimi Eucharistiae Sacra­menti usum: And Concilium Bochel­lus ibid. c▪ [...]. p. 14 [...]. Bitur, Anno 1584. concludes thus; Cum per primum parentem violata est originalis justitia in qua creatus fuerat, & peccato suo omnes p [...]st [...]r [...]s infecit, &c. Providus Deus singulls morbis singula adhibuit remedia; Sacramenta scili­cet, quibus▪ peccata remittuntur; [...]ominis vita reg [...]vr, [...]ides augetur, & totius Ecclesiae politia continetur ac conservatur: NAM SPIRITUALEM HOMINI VITAM CONFERUNT BAPTISMUS, EUCHARISTIA, &c. By all which it is apparent that the Lords Supper and Baptisme are converting as well as confir­ming Ordinances, and were so reputed in most See Oc­cam, [...] 4. sent. qu. 1 & Aretius Problem. Theol. loc 76. former Ages till this present.

Secondly, it is undeniable that Justin Martyr, Dyonisius Arcopagita, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, Bernard and other Ancients from Gal. 3. 17. Rom. 6. 3. Eph. 5. 26. Tit. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 31. stile Baptisme, the Sacrament of divine Generation, the laver of Regeneration, A New Birth, the Regeneration of the soul, the Mother of our Adoption, &c. and call Baptizing, giving Gods Grace; denying it, [Page 28] denying Gods Grace, as Master Defence of Infant. Baptisme par. 1. & [...] Marshall proves at large, and many of them hold That those who dyed without Baptisme could not be saved; Yea, most In 4 sent Dist. 1. 4. & [...]n the [...] Treatises of baptism Papists hold, and many Protestants assert, that Baptisme is not onely a badge, but instrumentall meanes of our regeneration and first conversion unto God; and if this Sacra­ment be a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance, then the Lords Supper by like reason must be so too.

Thirdly, all Popish Schoolmen, Writers, Councils unanimously assert, That Sa­craments (especially Baptisme and the Lords Supper) not only confirm, but confer and beget grace, even the very first grace of conversion and justification, and that either in a physicall way ex opere operato (as most of them affirme) or as Master Ruther­ [...]urds Due right of Presbyte­ries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212. morall causes (as others teach) and that they are the vessels in and by which the merits of Christ are conveyed to, and conferred on us: Witnesse Pascatius Rathbertus, de Corpore & San­guine Domini, c. 3. Aquinas, Durandus, Occam, Bonaventura, Scotus, Media Villa, Brulifer, Egidus Romanus, Joan de Carthagena, Hadrianus Florentius, Dom. à Soto, Holcot, Gabriel Biel, Aliacensis, and other Schoolmen, in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 1. Alensis, Summa Theologiae, pars 4. qu. 5. mem. 3. Art. 5. Aquinas p. 3. q. 6. 2. & 63. Art. 6. Greg. de Valentia, in 3. part. Thomae Disp. 3. qu. 3. & de Offic. Sacr. c. 2. Vasquez. in 3. Thomae, Tom. 2. Disp. 132. c. 4. Tannerus in Thom. Tom. 4. Disp. 3. qu. 3. dub. 5. Gamachaeus in 3. part Thom. qu. 62. c. 5. Sum. Angelica. Tit. Sacram. Victor l. 6. De Sacramentis, parte 9. cap. 2. Henricus quod l. 4. qu. 37. Gabriel Biel Super Can. Missae, Lect. 85, 86. Petrus Binsfiel­dius, Enchirid. Theologiae pars 1. c. 2. 6. Joan de Lugo de Sacram. Disp. 4. sect. 4, 5. Bechanus Theolog. Scholast. pars 4. Tract de Sacram. qu. 7. Bellarmine De Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. to 6. & 11. the Councill of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 5, 6, 7, 8. de Sa­cramentis, with sundry others. Therefore this is no new opinion invented by me.

Fourthly, though See Har­mony of Confessi­ons, sect. 12, 13, 14 Calvin, Instit. l. 4. c. 13, 14, 15. Peter Martyr in Rom. 4. Aretius Problem. Theol. [...]o cus 76, 77 Willets Synopsis Pa­smipi cent 2. Err. 97. 98. Amesi­us, Bellar. Enerva [...]s Tom. 3. c. 5. Protestant Writers unanimously and justly oppose the Papists in this, That the Sacraments by a phisicall vertue, or ex opere operato, confer grace, yet they generally grant, that they are the meanes, Organs, or instrumentall causes of conferring, confirming grace, through the concurrence of Gods Spirit working in and by them, as well as by the Word, where they are worthily received by faith; but that they originally beget saving grace, faith and spirituall life in such in whom they were formerly wanting, is denied by some of them, yet affirmed by others: Indeed the Author of the Confession of Harmo­ny of con­fessions, sect. 12. p. 279, 280, 281. l. 4. c. [...]4. Bohemia, Decad. 5. Serm. 7 Calvin, Tract▪ Theol▪ p. 350, 357. Bullinger, Ʋrsinus, seem to deny the Sacraments to be converting Ordinances, but confirming onely: Yet others (especially the Lutherans) hold the contrary. Peter Martyr in his Com­mentary on Rom. 4. writes, That one chiefe end of the Sacraments is, Ʋt accendant in nobis fidem, Dei; and that they doe CONFERRE GRATIAM in that sense as Paul cals the Gospell, the power of God unto salvation; quod sanè nihil aliud est▪ quàm vim & potentiam Dei qua peccata remittit, GRATIAM LARGITUR, & denique servat his instrumentis & mediis uti ad salutem nostram: Ad quod efficien­dum quemadmodum utitur verbo Evangelii, & praedicatione Sacrarum Literarum, ita etiam adhibet Sacramenta: Per utraque enim praedicatur nobis liberalis Dei prom [...]sio. Therefore in his opinion the Word and Sacraments are both alike converting Ordinances.

[Page 29] Martin Luther in his In concordia Lutherana [...] p. 378. lesser Catechisme demanding this question. What doth it profit us to eat and drink the Lords Supper? returnes this answer; Id indicant no­bis [...]c verba, pro vobis dat [...]r [...] effunditur in remissionem peccutorum: Nem­pe, qu [...]d nobis per verba illa in Sacramento, REMISSIO PECCATORUM VITA, JUSTITIA ET SALVS DONENTUR, Ʋbi enim remissio peccatorum est, ibi est & vita & salus: Therefore he So doe his followers; see Brochman, lyst. Theol. To n. 3. de Sa­cram. c. 21. qu [...] 1. & 6. deemed it a regenerating and converting, as well as a confirming Ordinance: A [...]etius, Pro­blem. Theolog. Locus 77. Sect. 7. determines thus; Deo permittend [...] est libe­ra agendi facultas; aliàs regenerat an [...]è, aliàs post, aliàs Plane nemo dubita [...]e debet quod in alvo Baptismi, pri­usquam In­fans a fonte surgat, spiritu [...] sanctus in ani­mam renas­centis in fun­ditur, &c. Pas­catius Rathher­tus de corporo & sanguine Domini, c. 3. IN BAPTISMO; sio aliàs antè Coenam, aliàs post, aliàs IN ILLA CONVERTIT AD VERAM P [...]NITENTIAM; sed quotquot regenerat & convertit ad veram paenitentiam illa bona in eis obsignat usu Sacramentorum: Hence Augustine in Psal. 73. torms them, Sacramenta DANTIA SALUTEM: And Hilary l. 8. de Trinitate, writes thus of the Sacramentall Elements, thus accompanied with the spi­rit; Haec accepta atque exhausta EFFICIUNT, Ʋs nos in Christo & Christus in nobis sit: Therefore by their resolutions the Lords Supper and Baptisme are converting as well as confirming or Sealing Ordinances: Yea, Victor An­tiochenus in cap. 14. Marci, together with Chrysostome and Summa The­olog. pars 4. qu. 11. Artic. 1. sect. 3. Alensis, affirme, That Christ admitted Judas to his Supper for this very reason, That he might leave no meanes unattempted to reclaime, convert and reduce him to a sound [...]nind; which cleerly proves it to be a converting Ordinance in their judgments.

The opinion of Augustine is notorious, that the Sacraments both of Bap­tisme and the Lords Supper are so necessary, that none could be saved without them, and therefore [...]e and the Church of Carthage maintained, That not only Bap­tisme, but the Epist. 23. contra Pelagi­anos Hypog­nost▪ l. 5. cont. duas Epist. Pe­lagii ad Bone­facium, lib. 1. c. 22. & l. 4▪ c. 4. contr. Juli­anum Pelag. l. 1. & 2. Tit. 3. 1 Pet. 3. Lords Supper also ought to be given unto Infants, else they could not be saved: I shall quote but one place of his instead of many: De peccatorum Meritis & Remissione, & de Baptismo parvulorum, l. 1. c. 24. Optimè Punici Christi­ani Baptismum ipsum nihil aliud QUAM SALUTEM, & Sacramentum cor­poris Christi, nihil aliud QUAM VITAM VOCANT; Ʋnde, nisi ex anti qua, ut existimo, & Apostolica traditione, qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent, praeter Baptismum & participationem Dominicae mensae, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed nec AD SALUTEM ET VITAM AETERNAM posse quenquam hominum per [...]enire? Hoc enim & Scriptura testatur, secundum ea quae supra dixi­mus: Nam quid aliud tenent, qui Baptismum nomine salutis appellant, nisi quod di­ctum est; Salvos nos fecit per lavachrum regenerationis; Et quod Petrus ait, sic & vos simili forma Baptismus salvos fecit: [...]oan. 6. Q [...]id aliud etiam qui Sacra­mentum mensae Dominicae VITAM vocant, nisi quod dictum est; Ego sum panis vitae qui de Coelo descendi; & panis quem ego dedero, caro mea est pro se­culi vita: Et, Si non manducaveritis carnem filii hominis & sanguinem bi­beritis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: si ergo ut tot & tanta divina testimonia con­tinunt, NEC SALUS, NEC VITA AETERNA sine Baptismo & cortore & sanguine Domini cuiquam [...]peranda est, frustra sine his promittitur parvulis. After which he concludes; Proindè parvuli si PER SACRAMEN­TUM QUOD AD HOC DIVINITUS INSTITU­TUM [Page 30] TUM EST, IN CREDENTIUM NUMERUM NON TRANSEANT, profectò in his tenetris (peccatorum) rema [...]bant: There­fore by his and the Church of [...]arthage resolution, yea the See Capit. Karol. & Lu­dovici, l. 1. c. 161. Churches judg­ment from the Apostles dayes (it being an Apostolicall tradition embraced by the Church, as he avers) these Sacraments are the originall primary meanes both of conversion, spirituall life, and salvation, and so converting as well as confirming Ordinances. Cypriam de Coena Domini, writes, That the Lords Supper, Ad totius hominis vitam salutem qu [...] profic [...], simul medica [...]mentum & holocau [...]ium ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas miquitates existens▪ There­fore a converting Ordinance as well as a confirming. Cyrill of Alexandria, De Justificatione in Christo, lib. 3. affirmes, That Death fed upon men on earth untill the institution of the Lords Supper, wherein we eat the living Bread from Hea­ven; from which time death hath ceased, and the inhabitants of the holy City, the Church, are perfected unto sanctification by that living bread: Therefore in his opi­nion, it is a means of our spirituall life and sanctification, and so a conver­ting Ordinance: The sayings of the Fathers to this purpose are almost infinite; I shall therefore pretermit them, challenging my Opposites to pro­duce any solid Antiquity to the contrary, to prove them not converting as well as corroborating institutions.

Neither is this Doctrine a stranger in our owne Church; for Bishop Jewell in his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, part 3. ch. 15. Divis. 2. p. 349. determines thus: But TO BREED AND ENCREASE FAITH IN US, there are more wayes then can be reckoned: Some men are moved onely by the hearing of Gods Word; some others by the beholding and weighing of Gods Miracles: Justinus the Martyr was first allured to the faith by the cruelty of the Tyrants, and by the constancy and patience of the Saints, &c. Among OTHER CAUSES, THE SACRAMENTS SERVE SPECIALLY TO DIRECT AND TO AYD OUR FAITH; For they are, as Saint Augustine calleth them, Verba visibilia, visible words and Seales, and testimonies of the Gospell, &c. Our learned Thomas Beacon in his Catechisme, f. 425, 426. thus defines a Sacrament; A Sacrament is an holy Action and exercise of Christs Church IN which the redempti­on and partaking of our Lord Jesus Christ IS GIVEN TO US through the Word, and the Signes INSTITUTED FOR THIS PUR­POSE OF GOD.

After which he propounds this pertinent Question: What need have we of Sacraments, seeing we have the holy Ghost and the sacred Scriptures of God to lead us unto all necessary truth, which can abundantly informe us of the grace, favour, mercy and good will of God towards us? Which he answers thus:

Christ the wisdome of the Father, knowing our grossenesse and dulnesse in understand­ing matters that belong unto our salvation, wishing our health and commodity, and minding to remedy and help this our great infirmity, and to bring us unto some know­ledge of Gods mysteries, that we may be saved, hath not onely given us his holy spirit to informe, instruct and teach our inward man, but to make us perfect both in body and [Page 31] soule; he hath also given his Word to instruct our eares, and his Sacraments to serve our eyes: For whatsoever the holy Ghost saith inwardly unto us, the very same doth the Word of God unto our eares▪ and the Sacraments to serve our eyes, preach, declare and set forth outwardly, Note. that we may be taught both corporally and spiritually. Againe▪ who knoweth not that things seen with eyes are more surely fixed in the minds of men, then those things which are onely heard? And therefore a Sacrament may right well be called a visible word: For whatsoever the word is to the eare, the very same thing is the Sacrament to the eye: The Word of God saith to mine care, the Body of Christ was broken for thee; the very same thing doth the Sacrament preach to mine eye, while in the holy action of the Lords Supper, I see the bread broken and the wine shed: There­fore Christ the Lord to informe and instruct our outward senses, ordained these outward signes and Sacraments, that by the consideration and beholding of them, the thing might the more easily slide into our minds, which hath been inculked and beaten in­to our ears through the voice of the Preaher: If we had been without bodies, Christ would have given unto us those spirituall gifts nakedly and simply, which are given to the faithfull in the deliverance of the Sacraments; but forasmuch as we have bodies joyned to our soules, therefore in sensible things he doth communicate unto us the gifts of grace; and this hath been the property of God not onely in the New, but also in the old Testament.

If then the Sacraments be but visible words, which preach the self-same things (yet in a more lively and sensible manner) to our eyes, as the Word preached doth unto our eares, as this Author, with all Calvin, Me­lanchton, Peter Martyr, Zer­chius, Aretius, and others. Orthodox Divines, and Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 121. Master Rutherfurd himselfe, unanimously accord; it must needs fol­low, that the Sacraments (especially the Lords Supper) most lively repre­senting Christs passion to us, must be a converting Ordinance, as well as the Word read or preached: Upon which grou [...]d, the Ancient Catholick Fa­thers (as our owne Concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 189 190. Homilies resolve) stiled the Lords Supper; A comfortable medicine of the soule, the salve of immortality, and soveraigne preservation against death, the Pledge of eternall Health, the defence of faith, the food of immortality, the be [...]lthfull grace, and the conservatory to everlasting life; therefore they deemed it a converting as well as con [...]irming Ordinance. Master Richard Ward in his Commentary upon Matthew, pag. 399. in the written Copy, writes, Sacraments doe not conferre Grace upon all, nor by a physicall power give grace unto any; but sometimes GOD IN AND BY THE SACRAMENTS CONVEYES GRACE INTO HIS ELECT CHIL­DREN, and sometimes by the Sacraments confirmes grace which he hath formerly conferred.

Not to multiply Authorities in so cleer a case, the very Directory it selfe (composed by the Assembly, and ratified by both Houses of Parliament) pag. 25. enumerates the Word and Sacraments among the speciall meanes of Grace and salvation in these words; To give thanks to God for all his benefits, and especially for▪ ALL MEANES OF GRACE, THE WORD AND SACRAMENTS▪ And for this Sacrament in particular, by which Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us; making them both [Page 32] equally in the selfe same manner meanes of grace, and coupling them both together in the selfe same predication; therefore if the Word be a meanes of begetting grace where it was wanting, and of obtaining salvation, the Sacraments must be so too. In fine, Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 217. Master Rutherfurd himselfe writes thus: You say, Sacraments doe not make a thing that was not, but con­firme a thing that was before; while you would seem to refute Papists, who vainly [...]each, that Sacraments ex opere operato doe conferre grace, yet doe you make the Sacrament but a naked signe, and take part with Arminians and So [...]nians, whose very Arguments in expresse words you use; for if a Sacrament make not a thing which was before, and if God give not, and really produce, conferre, exhibit grace, and a stronger measure of faith and assurance of remission of sinnes, at the due and right use of the Sacrament, the Sacrament is a naked signe, and not an exhibitive Seale; but if Christ give, and in the present exhibit as surely remission of sinnes as the Infant is washed with water, as our Divines and the Palatinate Catechisme teacheth, and the Confession thereof and the Synod of Dort teacheth, then by the Sa­crament of Baptisme (and so by consequent of the Lords Supper) a thing [...]s made that which it was not before; therefore by consequence it is a regenera­ting and converting Ordinance. This he more plainly expresseth in Master Ru­therfurds di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment, p. 523, 524. ano­ther discourse in those tearmes: Master Prynne might have spared his paines That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, because it applies Christ to us; WE GRANT IT TO BE A CONVERTING, QUICK­NING AND LIVELY APPLICATORY ORDI­NANCE: But how? He may know, that whatever Ordinance addeth a new de­gree of Faith, OF CONVERSION, of living Application of Christ and the Promises, MUST BE A CONVERTING ORDI­NANCE; but it is so converting, that it is a confirming Ordinance, and neces­sarily it presupposeth faith and conversion already wrought by the Word; it is not a first converting Ordinance, so as is the Word, &c. I say not this as if the Church could give the Supper of the Lord to none but such as are inwardly and really regenerated, but to shew that the Church taketh such as are externally called, to be internally called, whence they dispence the Supper to them.

In which words, we have a most cleer confession, That the Lords Supper is both a converting and quickning Ordinance: But yet this must be con­trolled with a distinction not found Scripture or Antiquity: It is so a con­verting Ordinance, that it is a confirming Ordinance: I grant it: So is the read­ing and preaching of the Word▪ it converts, yet so as it confirmes and edifi­eth us too in our most holy faith, yet it is a converting Ordinance.

Yea, but it is not the first [...]erting Ordinance; it is not the meanes of our first [...]nversion from formall profession to inward embracing the Gospell: For the Word must goe before; and not simply the externall Letter of the Word, but the Word first beleeved and received by the efficatio [...]s working of the holy Ghost, &c. This is onely affirm­ed, but not substantially proved by this learned Divine, who takes upon [...] to limit God and his Spirit, so as to deprive them of their absolute [...] to work and beget grace by the Sacraments when and where they [Page 33] please, as well as by the Word; and confines the Spirits first inward con­version of men onely to the Word, John 3. 7▪ [...] Who breatheth where and in what Ordi­nance [...]e listeth, the breath of spirituall life into our soules. True it is, the Word preached i [...] the first ordinary and most usuall meanes both of externall and internall conversion, but yet the Sacraments as well as the Word are very frequently made the instruments, though not of externall conversion of m [...]n from Paganisme to Chrstianity (not here in question,) yet of carnall Christians See Ta [...] in Thomam, Tom. 4. Disp. 3. qu. 3. Du. 50 first inward and reall conversion from sin & satan unto Christ, and a m [...]st effectuall means both of begetting, encreasing grace and spirituall life in their soules, as I have elswhere largely evidenced.

Hence Loci Com­munes prin­ted 153 [...]. Lo [...] de Sacramen­tis. Phillip Melanchton (in a Book Dedicated to our King Henry the VIII) though he deny, that the Sacraments ex opere operato conferre grace and justification; yet he expresly resolves, that they were principally instituted to be signes of Gods good will towards us, incurring into our eyes, that they may admo­nish us TO BELEEVE the promise proposed in the Gospell: Thus we conjoyne the Sacrament and promise; now as the promise is to be received by faith, so also in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added, which may assure us, that those true things shall happen which are propounded in the promise: Augustine aptly compares the Word with the Sacrament, when be saith, The Sacrament is a visible Word; that is, As the Word is a certaine note which is received with the eares, so the Sacra­ment is a spectacle or Picture which runs into the eyes: As therefore the Word is a note signifying something of the will of God, and as God is laid hold on in the Word up­on our beliefe, so likewise is he apprehended in the Sacrament when we beleeve: Where­fore as the Word is an instrument by which the holy Ghost is effectuall, as Paul saith, The Gospell is the power of God to every one that beleeveth: Also, Faith is by hearing, &c. So BY THE SACRAMENTS the holy Ghost IS EF­FECTUALL; namely, when they are received by faith; FOR THEY AD­MONISH AND MOVE US TO BELEEVE AS THE WORD DOTH: Therefore by his resolution the Sacraments are converting Or­dinances, and meanes of begetting grace as well, and in like manner as the Word, and not confirming Ordinances onely of grace begun. Yea, he Ibid▪ loc. de Sacramento­rum numero. positively affirmes, (and so did our English Apostle Dialogorum l. 4. c. 1. f. 101. [...]imiliter prae­dicatio verbi▪ Apostolici; Videtur esse Sacramentum [...]o quod est▪ [...]ignum sancti­tatis auditorii, & ita signifi­canter in [...]ide Scripturae in jung [...] exerc [...]ium al­te [...]ius Sacra­ments, &c▪ John Wickliffe long before him) That the very preaching of the Word is a Sacrament instituted in the G [...]spell▪ Maximè autem placet mihi Ordinem, ut vocant, inter Sacramenta numerari, mod [...] ut intelligatur ipsum ministerium Evangelii, & voca [...]io ad hoe ministerium do­cendi Evangelium & administrandi Sacramenta, &c▪ Hoc modo numerare Ondinem inter Sacr [...]menta [...] fuerit utilissimum, scilicet, ad illustrandam dignitatem ministeri [...] verbi [...]: And he addes, That Prayer likewise may be called a Sacrament, because it hath great promises anne [...]ed to it. If then Sacraments doe onely confirme grace where it is begun before, not confirme and beget grace where it is wanting, then by this new Divinity, neither the Ministry of the Word nor Prayer shall be converting and regenerating, but onely confirming Ordinances▪ Since in Melanchtons and Wickliffes opinions (to omit [...] others) they are and may be called Sacraments as well as the Lords Supper or Baptisme; which [Page 34] Wickliffe Dialogorum l. 4. [...]. 1. termes, primum Sacramentum CONFERENS GRATIA▪ PRIMAM SPIRITUALITER GENERANTEM: Asserting like­wise in the same Chapter, Etsi diffinitio Sacramenti sit, sacrae rei signum, vi­det [...]r quod omne signabile sit e [...]iam Sacramentum: Quià omnis creatura signat suam creationem, & etiam creatorem, & sic rem sacram signat, & Deus multas sa­cras creaturas signat & seipsum: Quod si Sacramentum sit invisibilis gratiae vi­sibilis forma, ut fimilitudinem gerat, & causa existat: Cum visibilis forma in proposito signat quamcunque formam, vel quidditatem sensibilem; videtur, quod quaeli­bet sensibilis creatura SIT ETIAM SACRAMENTUM, quia est visibili [...] sorma invisibilis gratiae creatoris, & geret similitudinem Idaearum, & causa existit si­militudinis suae, & intelligentiae creaturis: Quomodo sunt ergo solum septem Sacra­menta distincta specivocè? Which I wish my Opposites to consider, who ad­vance the Sacraments so much above the Word w ^ch makes them Sacramēts, and appropriate the tilet of a Sacrament onely to Baptisme and the Lords Supper, from w ^ch they exclude and suspend all scandalous persons (& their children too from Apology of the Churches in New-Eng­land against the exceptions of Richard Ber­nard, ch. 8. See Mr. Ruther­furds due right of Presbyteries c. 4. sect. 5 p. 221, &c. Baptisme in New-England) upon pretence they are one­ly confirming Ordinances, Sacraments and Seales of grace; upon which pretext, they may as well suspend them from the Ministry of the Word and prayer, and from the use of any of Gods Creatures, which may be termed Sacraments as well as these, if these two eminent Divines mistake not.

I shall close up this point with the resolution of the whole Church of England, both in the Articles of Religion, compiled and published in King Edward the VI▪ his Reigne, Anno 1553. Artic. 26. refined and confir­med by Act of Parliament, Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeths Reigne, Art. 25. of Sacraments; which determines thus: Sacraments ordained of Christ are not onely badges and tokens of Christian mens profession, but rather, they be certaine sure witnesses and EFFECTUALL SIGNES of Grace and Gods good will towards us, by the which he doth WORKE INVISIBLY IN US, and doth NOT ^f ONELY QUICKEN, The holy Spirit doth seale Christi­ans, Eph. 1. 13 c. 4. 30. Rom. 8 10, 11. Yet it regenerats and converts them tos, John 3. 6. to 9. Rom. 8. 10, 11. 2 Cor. 3. 18. So doe the Sacra­ments by its concurrence with them. but ALSO STRENGTHEN AND CONFIRME OUR FAITH IN HIM: Therefore by our own Churches resolution, which all our Ministers have actually subscribed to; the Sacrament of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper too, is both a converting and regenerating Ordinance to quicken and beget, as well as a confirming Ordinance to strengthen and confirme grace; and so it is no New Paradox of mine, but an ancient resolved truth, yea the very received Doctrine of our Church, and of the Churches of Christ in former Ages; and the contrary opinion a meere upstart errour, maintained purposely by some Di­vines (against their owne subscriptions, if not their consciences too,) to justifie and support the sole suspention of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, as a Divine institution by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ; which else would necessarily fall unto the ground, if this maine pillar of it be subverted.

As for Master Rutherfurds, Objection 5. Doctor Drak [...]s▪ and others maine reason to [Page 35] the contrary, That no man can receive the Lords Supper worthily, unlesse he come unto it with a true lively faith, and sincere repentance; which graces he cannot enjoy without he be first really converted, else he eats and drinks dam [...]ation, not con­version to himselfe: Ergo, This Sacrament is no first converting, but onely a confirming Ordinance.

I answer, Answer. First, that the argument is but a meere fallacy, which will ei­ther nullifie all Ordinances, or prove no Ordinance (no not the preach­ing of the Word or Prayer) to be converting, but meerly confirming; for the very preaching of the Word will neither profit, nor externally nor re­ally convert any that heare it, unlesse they heare it with faith, as is resol­ved by Heb. 4. 2. But the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it, & Rom. 1. 16, 17. Heb. 11 4. 6. Mar. 16. 15, 16. 1 Pet. 2. 1, to 9. So Prayer without Faith is vain, ineffectuall, & receiveth nothing from the Lord, Jam. 1. 5, 6. ch. 5. 15. Ergo, by this reason (if allowed) a man must have saith and spirituall life wrought in him before he can either heare or pray with profit as he ought, and so must be first converted ere he can heare the Word or Pray: What then shall we conclude hence, that men neither may nor ought to pray, heare or receive the Lords Supper untill they be actually re­generated and inspired with saving faith? God forbid; for then Godshall have no worship, and men no publick Ordinances: we must therefor know, that God hath appointed both the Word, Sacraments and Prayer, as the ordinary meanes or instruments whereby he begets true spirituall life, faith and grace within us, by the effectuall concurrence of the spirit in and with them; whereupon he frequently Isa. 55. 1, 2, 3. Pro. 8 32, 33, 34. c. 9. 3, 4, 5. c. 7. 1, 2, 3 James 1. 56, 7. 19, 18, 19, 21. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. commands us, to resort unto the Ordinances with care and conscience, to the end we may be convert [...]d, and quickened by them when we want grace, as well as strengthned or confirmed when we have grace begun within us: Hence is that speech of our Saviour, John 5. 21, 24, 25, 26. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickneth them, even so the Sonne quickneth whom he will: He that heareth my Word, and beleeveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: Verily, ve­rily I say uno you, the hou [...]e is comming and now is, THAT THE DEAD (in sinne and naturall corruption) SHALL HEARE THE VOYCE OF THE SONNE OF GOD, AND THEY THAT HEARE IT SHALL LIVE. Which is thus seconded, Eph. 2. 1. to 8. And you hath he quickned (to wit, by the Word and other Ordi­nances accompanied with the Spirit) WHO WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND SINNES; But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, EVEN WHEN WEE WERE DEAD IN SINNES HATH QUICKNED US together with Christ, and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, &c. For by grace ye are saved through Faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God, &c. a pregnant Text: As Christs speech to Lazarus lying dead and buried in his grave, to wit, Lazarus come forth; was the instrumentall meanes both of his raising from the dead, and comming [Page 36] forth of the grave accordingly, John 11. 43, 44. And as his words to the dead Rulers Daughter, Mark 5. 4 [...], 42. Damosell arise; and Peters speech to dead Tabitha, Acts 9. 40, 41. Tabitha arise, were the instrumentall meanes and cause both of their raising and reviving; and as Gods command in the very first creation, Let there be light, &c. was the instrumentall cause of creating light and all other creatures before they had a being: Genesis 1. So the Word, Sacraments and Prayer are Gods ordinary instruments whereby he quickens those who are dead in sinnes, and begets saving faith with other graces in such who formerly never had them, by his Spirit working in and by these meanes: Hence is that notable speech of Christ to Paul, Acts 26. 17, 18. Now I send thee to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, and to turne them from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgivenesse of sinnes, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me. These Ordinances doe not find us living, worthy or regenerate, but make us such; doe not presuppose faith and repentance already in us, (for what should work them?) but the contrary; and therefore are ordained to beget faith and spirituall life even in those who are dead in sinnes, Mark 16. 15, 16. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Acts 16. 14, 15. ch. 2. 37, 38. chap. 10. 44. Eph. 2. 1, &c. and after that, to confirme and strengthen all spirituall graces wrought within us; by meanes whereof, when wrought, the Ordinances which first instrumentally begat them, become more profitable and comfortable to us then before: This is so cleer, that Master Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 285, &c. Rutherfurd is forced to confesse, That the Church may, nay ought to give the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, even to such as are not truly regenerated, if they externally professe the Gospell, as well as preach the Gospell to them, (though contradicting himselfe, as I conceive, he affirmes Which Ma­ster Rutherfurd affirmes, Di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment, p. 280. elswhere, That to come to the Lords Supper is not commanded to all, not to Pagans, not to children, rot to the unregenerate, BUT ONELY TO THE REGENERATED;) Of which no other reason can be given, but that they are meanes of begetting, as well as en­creasing grace, and converting as well as confirming Ordinances, from which none who desire them (if not actually excommunicated for obsti­nate impenitency and contempt against the Ordinances) ought to be seclu­ded, unlesse naturall disabilities hinder them.

Hence Concordia Lutherana p. 542. to 250. Martin Luther in his Greater Catechisme, exciting men by ma­ny arguments to the frequent receiving of the Lords Supper, the neglect whereof makes our devotion and love to Christ grow every day colder and colder, causeth us at last-to grow bruitish, yea extreamly to conte [...]ne both the Sacrament and Word too, as he there avers from his own experience (which I wish those Divines who put off and deny the Sacrament to their people for moneths, nay, yeers together, would now at last consider;) removes one maine Objection which deterred many from the Sacrament (to wit, their owne unworthinesse sinfulnesse and unpreparednesse to receive it) with this encouraging argument; That this Sacrament was not instituted for those that are worthy, and purely cleansed from their sinnes, but cloane contrary, even for miserable and wretched sinners, sensi­ble [Page 37] of nothing but their owne unworthinesse: Therefore let such a one say, Lord, I would very willingly be worthy of this Supper, but yet I come unto it induced by no wor­thinesse of mine owne, but trusting on thy Word alone, because thou hast commanded me to come, &c. For the Sacrament is not to be looked upon as an hurtfull thing, from which we should run with both our feet, but as a saving and wholsome medicine, which may heale thy diseases, and give life both to thy soule and body: Why then doe we so shun it, as if it were a poyson (as some Master Ru­therfurds Di­vine right of Church-Go­vernment. pag 252, 253, 254 &c. A brotherly & friendly cen­sure▪ p. 6, 7. An Antidote a­gainst foure dangerous Q [...]aeries, with others. Divines now tearme it, to scarre peo­ple from it) which being received, would bring present death unto us? Yea, but some may say; I am not so sensible of my sinnes and unworthinesse as I should be: To such as are in this condition, I can give no better advice, then to looke into their owne hearts, and to see whether they be not flesh and blood, and may not say with Paul, Rom. 7. I know that in me, that as in my flesh dwelleth nothing that is good: In summe, by how much the lesse thou art throughly sensible of thy sinnes and defects, the more reasons thou hast of comming, and frequent seeking help and physick. The sub­stance whereof is but this: That the frequent receiving of the Lords Sup­per is an effectuall meanes to So the Lu­therans gene­rally hold. Hinkelman, de Anabaptismo, Disp. 9. c. 1. Er. 6. beget and work repentance, sense of sinne, spirituall life, health, true grace within us when we want them, as well as to encrease, confirme them when we have them; whence it is general­ly tearmed by Divines, A MEANES OF GRACE; therefore we must frequently resort unto it in obedience to Gods command, as well to obtaine faith, repentance and spirituall graces by and in it, when wan­ting, as to corroborate and augment them when wrought in us.

Secondly, this Argument necessarily implies, that the Sacraments must be administred to none but the Elect and truly regenerate: For since none are endued with saving grace, faith, repentance, but onely the Elect, and none ought to be admitted to the Sacraments but such who are endued with saving grace, faith, repentance, as the Objection concludes; It inevitably followes, that none but the elect and persons truly regenerate, must be admitted to the Sacrament: But this the Objectors themselves de­ny and refute, both in the case of Baptisme and the Lords Supper too: Hence Master Rutherfurd determines in his Due Right of Presbyteries, ch. 4. sect. 5. pag. 185. The Church may orderly and lawfully give the Seales of the Co­nant to those to whom the Covenant and promises of grace doe not belong in Gods De­cree of Gods Election: refuting the contrary opinion as Anabaptisticall: Defence of Infant Bap­tisme. part 3. Ma­ster Marshall doth the like, and that upon these grounds:

First, because Christ and his Apostles admitted divers to Baptisme and the Lords Supper, who were never elect or truly regenerate, as Judas, Si­mon Magus, and others. Secondly, because no Ministers without speciall revelation, but 2 Chron. 6. 33. 2 Tim. 6. 19. God alone infallibly know who are Elect and truly regenerate, Jer. 17▪ 9. the hearts of men bring deceitfull aboue all things, and Mat. 22. 14. many called, but few cho­sen▪ and so they cannot tell certainly who to admit, or who to seclude from the Sacrament: Upon which ground Master Defence of Infant Bap­tisme p 111. & 140. Marshall himselfe concludes thus against Master Tombes: And truly Sir, whosoever will grant that a Mini­ster in applying the Seale, must doe it de fide, in faith, being sure he applies it accor­ding [Page 38] to rule, must either grant such a right as I plead for, that many have right to be visible members, and be partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances, though they be not inwardly sanctified; or else he must by revelation be able to [...]ee and know the inward conversion of every one he applies the Seales unto, for certainly [...] hath no written word to build his Faith upon, for the state of this or that man: And for my owne part, when once you have disproved this, that there is such a visible mem­bership and right to externall Administrations as I have here insisted upon, I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants, Note. but the Administration of the outward seale to any, what profession soever they make, untill I may be de [...]ide assured that they are inwardly regenerate. Thirdly, because Christ hath ordained the Sacraments to be means of distinguishing Christians from Pagan [...], yea, to be an accidentall means of [...] Cor. 11. 27 28, 29. 2 Cor. 2. 25, 26. Arti­cles of the Church of England, Art. 29. aggravating mens sin, ingratitude, damnation, and to leave those without excuse who unworthily receive them, which end should be wholly frustrated, if unregene­rate Christians should be secluded from them; therefore this argument which subverts our Opposites owne Tenet, and with the Anabaptists ap­popriates the administration of the Sacraments to the Elect alone, must wholly be exploded as false and dangerous.

Wherefore the Objectors must be driven of necessity to renounce this Objection, together with that of In cap. 4. 2d Rom. p▪ 39. 2. & Explic. Ca­tech. qu. 81. Art. 1. Paraeus, which seduced them, Sacramenta non sunt instituta justificandis, sed justificatis; hoc est non infidelibus, sed conversis; which if meant onely of persons inwardly converted, is an errour; if of Pagans not converted, as he perchance meanes it, is quite mistaken by the Opposites.

Finally, Objection 6. See Master Rutherfurds d [...]vine right of Church-go­vernment, c. 5 qu. 1. p. 242▪ 243. &c. 15. they object. That the Priests were to put difference between holy and unholy, between uncleane and cleane, Levit. 10. 10. Hag. 2. 11, 14, and that they are checked by God himselfe, Ezek. 22. 26. for putting no difference be­tween the holy and prophane, the uncleane and cleane: Ergo, Church-officers and the Ministers of the Gospell have power by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, not onely to excommunicate, but likewise to suspend scandalous and ignorant persons from the Lords Supper.

I answer, Answer. that the Argument is a meere Nonsequitur: For first, these Texts belong only to the Aaronicall Priests under the Law, Heb. 7. 11. to the end, &c. 8▪ & 9. & 10. Abolished by Christ, not to the Ministers of the Gospell: Secondly, they speak onely of c [...]re­moniall Holin [...]ss [...] and prophannesse, cleannesse and uncleannesse, Acts 10. 10. to 17. Col. 2. 14. to 23. 1 Tim. 4. 5. abrogated by Christ, not of morall: Thirdly, not of persons morally holy or unholy, cleane or uncleane; but rather of me [...]ts, or creatures ceremonially holy and unholy, clean and uncleane, or at leastwise of persons, meats and crea­tures promiscuously, only as ceremonially clean & uncleane: Fourthly, the putting of difference here mentioned, was not any actuall secluding unclean [...] persons from the Passeover or Lords Supper, or suspending them from all publick Ordinances by any judiciall power vested in the Priests, but onely the Priests instructing of the people what was holy and unholy, clean and uncleane, as is evident by Levit. 10. 10. That ye may put difference between ho­ly and unholy (things) uncleane and cleane (things:) But how was this to be [Page 39] done? Onely by instruction, as the next words manifest; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath commanded them by the hand of Moses; ( viz. concerning the holy and unholy, uncleane and cleane creatures, mentioned in Levit. 10. & Deut. 14.) compared with Ezek. 22. 26. Her Priests have broken my Law, and have defiled my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and prophane, neither have they shewed the difference between the uncleane and the cleane: and Ezek. 44. 23. And THEY SHALL TEACH MY PEOPLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOLY AND PROPHAN [...], AND CAUSE THEM TO DIS­CERNE BETWEEN THE UNCLEANE AND THE CLEANE: So that the Priests putting difference between holy and unholy, cleane and uncleane in Lev. 10. 10. is both by the t [...]nth verse, and these Texts of Ezekiel expresly in­terpreted to be nothing else, but a teaching or shewing the children of Israel to put a difference and to discerne between the holy and prophane, unclean and clean things pre­scribed by the ceremoniall Law; not a judiciall power or Ecclesiasticall juris­diction to excommunicate unholy and uncleane persons from the publick Ordinances, or society of the holy and cleane, much lesse a power to sus­pend them onely from the Passeover or Lord Supper, as is pretended by the Objectors: This I shall further cleer by Haggai [...]. 11, 12, 13. the place objected: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Aske now the Priests concerning the Law, saying, If one beare holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt doe touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or any meat, shall it be holy? and the Priests [...]nswered, No: Then said Haggai, if one that is uncleane by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be UNCLEANE? And the Priest, answered and said, It shall be UN­CLEANE: And by Levit. 20. 25, 26. Ye shall therefore PUT DIF­FERENCE between CLEAN AND UNCLEAN BEASTS, and between UNCLEANE FOWLES AND CLEANE, &c. And ye shall be holy unto me, for I the Lord am holy: and Levit. 11. 46, 47. where after God had made a large description what flesh, Birds and Beasts were cere­monially uncleane and not to be eaten by the Israelites, and what cleane and to be ea [...]en by them, he concludes thus; This is the Law of Beasts, and of Fowles, and of every living thing that moveth in the waters, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, THAT YE MAY PUT A DIFFERENCE (not the Priests) between the uncleane and cleane, and between the Beasts that may be eaten, and the Beasts that ought not to be eaten: If then this be the genuine meaning of these Texts, as is cleer in my apprehension by paralelling them together, then all the argument that can be thence deduced is but this inconsequent:

The Aaronicall Priests were to teach the people to put a difference be­tween Beasts, Fowles, Meats that were cleane and uncleane, and between things holy and unholy by the Leviticall Law.

Ergo, Presbyters and Presbyteries under the Gospell, have a judiciall Ecclesiasticall authority vested in them by the will and appointment of Je­sus Christ, to suspend ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, and excommunicate obstinate sinners from the Church and pub­lick Ordinances.

[Page 40] What ill logick, sense and coherence is in this argument, I referre to the meanest capacity to determine: Yet this is all these Scriptures yeeld our Opposites for proofe of excommunication or suspention, though they much insist upon them; they might as well, or rather better argue hence, that the people themselves, not the Priests, ought to excommunicate or suspend scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, because the people were to put a difference between creatures cleane and uncleane, and the Priests themselves were but to teach the people to put the difference between the holy and unholy, cleane and uncleane, as these Texts resolve; the rather, for that the Apostle Jude in his Epistle verse 1, 22, writes to all Christians who are called and sanctified (not to Mini­sters and Presbyteries) to have compassion of some, MAKING A DIFFE­RENCE, and others to save with feare, &c.

Fiftly, admit the Priests had power to put a difference between holy and unholy, cleane and uncleane persons as well as Beasts, by vertue of these Texts, as is pretended; yet putting a differerence is no infallible proofe of a power vested in them (much lesse in the Ministers of the Gospell or Presbyteries) to excommunicate unholy or uncleane persons, or suspend scandalous or ignorant ones from the Lords Supper onely, since every pri­vate Christian is to put a difference between spiritually holy and uncleane persons, and those that are morally unholy and uncleane; yet it followes not thereupon that he may judicially excomm [...]icate or suspend them from the Sacrament; the Ministers and private Christians must put a differente between such as these: First, in their affections and esteem of them; they must John 13. 34, 35. Eph. 1 15 c. 5. 2. 1 John 3. 11, 14. Psal. 15. 2. love and honour the one, but 2 Chron. 19 2. Psal. 15. 4▪ Psal 139 21, 22. Prov 29. 27. 2 Kings 3 13, 14. hate and disrespect the other: Secondly, in their carriage towards them, they must Titus 1. 13. c 2. 15. Luke 13 3, 5. Levit 19 17. Eph 5. 11 admonish and sharply rebuke the one, denou [...] ­cing Gods judgements against their sins, but Isa. 41. 1, 2. Col. 3. 16. Gal 6. 1, 2. exhort, encourage and comfort the other with Gods promises; they must Psal. 16. 3. Psal. 101. 6. Acts 2. 44, 44, familiarly converse with, and lovingly embrace and delight in the company of the one, but avoid all 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. 2 Thes 3. 14. 2 John 10, 11. Tit. 3. Psal. 101. 4, 7, 8. familiar conversation and in­timacy with the other: Such a putting of difference as this between holy and unholy we admit of, but any other then this, is no wayes warranted from these objected Texts.

I shall therefore conclude from all the Premises (till convinced by bet­ter Scripture Authorities, Arguments, Reasons, then ever I could yet meet with in any Forraigne or Domestick Writers;) That Suspention of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper onely, who desire to receive it, without excommunica­ting them from all other publick Ordinances and Christian society, though it be somewhat ancient in the Church, introduced, prescribed at first by the Ca­nous See Concil. Ancyranum, can. 5, 6, 7, 8. Nicaenum 1. can. 11, 12, 13. Eliberinum can. 1, 2, 3. A relatense 2. can. 11, 12. a­pu [...] Laur. Su­riam. Concil. Tom 1. of certaine Councils, in speciall cases of Apostacy in times of persecution, as a meere Ecclesiasticall punishment of humane institution, as the Canons themselves demonstrate (which seem very unreasonable or fictitious) and De Rebus Ecclesiast. cap. 17. W [...]llafri­dus Strabo intimates, who termes it, A sanctis Patribus constitutum, a consti­on of the Fathers, not of Christ; (in which sense I oppugne it not, nor as prescribed by the Parliament in a prudentiall way) yet it is no Divine Cen­sure or Institution; and that there is no power to inflict any such suspention vested in [Page 41] Ministers, Presbyteries, or Church-Officers by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ revealed in the Scripture, as many now most confidently averre both in Presse and Pulpit, without any solid reason or authority to justifie their assertion.

Wherefore consider seriously what I have written, and the Lord give us understanding in all things, that we may no longer disturbe the peace both of Church and State with any groundlesse pretended divine Cen­sures and Jurisdictions, which Christ never exercised, nor instituted in his Church, nor deprive the people of those divine repasts at the Lords Table, which should be frequently administred to them for their conversion, edi­fication and spirituall consolation, upon meer new crochets and grounds of conscience, never once insisted on heretofore, till this new project of claiming an Ecclesiasticall power of suspention from the Lords Sup­per onely, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, was set on foot; but rest satisfied with the Apostles resolution and councell, with which I shall con­clude, Rom. 14. 16, 17, 18, 19. Let not then your good be evill spoken of; for the Kingdome of God is not meat and drink (I may adde, nor yet Excommuni­on nor suspention from the Lords Supper, as some now make it) but righte­ousnesse, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost; for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men; let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another; not domineer or ti­rannize one over another, and the Lords Supper too.

Alensis Summa Theol. par. 4. qu. 22. mem. 1. Art. 4. Pluribus conceditur clavis absolutionis, quàm gladius excommunicationis; quiâ pauci sunt qui sciunt hoc ense percutere; undè propter periculum, paucorum manibus tradi debet.