I Have seen your Invitation to the Lords Supper, and am grieved to see the Sacraments so much wronged.

Denying the Sacraments to be Converting Ordinances is a very undo­ing wrong unto the Sacraments, and this wrong men must do unto the Sacraments before they can be Quakers, and when men have fully learned to do this wrong unto the Sacraments; then they are (I think) more than Semi-quakers, and are in danger to slight, neglect, and lay aside Sa­craments and Scripture too; and then the best thing that they have to hold unto is the Light within, the work of the Law written in the hearts of Heathens that have no Scripture, Rom. 2. 15.

The ancient Doctrine of the Church teacheth, that an In [...] in Bap­tism is made a Member of Christ, the Child of God, and an [...] the Kingdom of Heaven: If you believed this Doctrine, then you would never deny Baptism to be a Converting Ordinance; Or if you believed that an Infant by Baptism is Converted from being no Member to be [...] Member of the Church (which is the Body of Christ) then you would never deny Baptism to be a Converting Ordinance: And we have the more reason to acknowledg Baptism to be a Converting Ordinance, be­cause it very much brings Intents under more means of further Conver­sion: for it brings them under the care and oversight of the Church and Church Members, that they may be Trained up in the knowledg and fear of God: Again, we have yet further reason to acknowledge Bap­tism to be a Converting Ordinance, because the sence and meaning of Baptism is the New Testament, which calleth and obligeth all to repent and believe that they may be saved.

Denying the sence and meaning of Baptism to be the New-Testament, and putting false forces upon Baptism, and denying of Church Member­ship to be [...] Baptism are three very undoing wrongs to Baptism: for they make Baptism to signifie nothing at all really, and make it of no ef­fect, and to be very unprofitable and in vain.

[Page 2] And denying the true sence and meaning of the Lords Supper and put­ting false sences upon it, are very undoing wrongs to the Lords Supper, and make the Table of the Lord very unprofitable, and contemptible.

Christ calleth the Lords Supper his body and his blood, and the New-Testament in his blood; and I think it may with as good reason be so called as the letter of the New-Testament may be called the New-Testa­ment: for as the sense and meaning of the Letter is the New-Testament, so the sence and meaning of the Lords Supper is the body and blood of Christ, and the New-Testament in the blood of Christ: Therefore I thus argue.

The New-Testament in the blood of Christ is a converting Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is the New-Testament in the blood of Christ: Therefore the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance.

Obj. Why then should not the Lords Supper be Administred to all?

A. 1. Seeing you deny that Christ died for all, I wonder that you should make any such Objection: for if Christ never died for all then it is impossible for us to Administer the Lords Supper (or Baptism either) unto any without rendring them false Witnesses or uncertain and falli­ble Signs, which is a most horrible wrong to the name and credit of the Sacraments, and is such horrible prophaning and villifying of them as (I think) is worse then letting them alone as Quakers and many others do: And if such as deny that Christ died for all do receive the Lords Supper, I doubt they will do it with such a remembrance of Christ as will not be for the better but for the worse.

2. If Christ died for all, and the Sacraments be converting Ordinances of any means tending to conversion, these arguments considered together with the large extent of Christs commission ( in Math. 28, 19, 20.) Would be Argument sufficient for administring the Sacraments unto all, if we had no rule left us by Christ for some restraint of our administration of them; but it is well known that we have rule and reason enough for some restraint of our Administration of them, that the Whole Church may not be corrupted by suffering of Dangerous Persons in it.

But I do not believe that Christ ever died for any in the Arminian sense, nor in New-England sense neither, and yet I do believe that Christ died for all, and in what sense I do believe it, and upon what grounds, you may see in the Explications unto which this Letter is prefixed.

Denying that Christ died for all is a very undoing wrong to Sacra­ments [Page 3] and Scripture too, and it is of dreadful dangerous [...] as will further appear by the aforesaid Explications.

You say baptism is to signify our inocculation into the Lord Jesus Christ, and our Obligation to serve and fight under him; but the Lords Supper is to signifie our participation in all the saving benefits of our Lord Jesus, and our augmentation in our conformity and obedience to him; and you speak of a baptismal Vow: And I think these Notions have been received by many worthy men before you; but I think they are very dark, unprofitable, and dangerous Notions which have crept in­to the Church in times of great darkness, and serve for no better end, than to make the Sacraments false Witnesses, or uncertain and fallible signs, which is a most horrible wrong to the name and credit of the Sacraments, and is such prophaning and villifying of them as is worse then letting them alone as Quakers and many others do.

The Sacraments do signifie the death of Christ, and the New-Testa­ment in the blood of Christ, whereby w [...] obliged to believe and obey the Gospel; but it is dangerous error [...] make them signify that we do believe and obey the Gospel: And I believe that an outward inoccu­lation, or incorporating into the Church (which is the body of Christ) is effected by outward Baptism; but I think it improper and unsafe to say this inocculation is signified by baptism.

And in the Lords Supper, our remembrance therein of the body and blood of Christ, and of the New-Testament in the blood of Christ, and Church-communion, and Church-Discipline, all these are benefits by the Lords Supper; but I think it improper and unsafe to say that these bene­fits are signified by the Lords Supper. You say baptism signifies our ob­ligation to serve and fight under Christ; and if by [our obligation] you mean the New-Testament in the blood of Christ, then we agree ve­ry well, but by [our obligation] I doubt you mean something else, and I think it dangerous for us to make the Sacraments signifie any more or any less than the body and blood of Christ, and the New-Testament in the blood of Christ: we must not add nor diminish.

You grant that such as have not saving faith may and ought to come unto Christ and God in Christ; And will you not grant that such as have not saving faith may and ought to come to the Lords Supper? Do you make more of the Lords Supper then you do of Christ and God in Christ? if you do, then you Idolize the Lords Supper as much or more then Papists do. And yet (as aforesaid) you make the Sacraments false, [Page 4] [...], or unceryain and fallible signs; And yet you cry [...] up [...] very high priviledges and such as none but true believers have any [...] (is not this [...] doings.)

Many say true Believers have a right to the Ordinances: I cannot tell and it may be themselves cannot very well tell what right they mean, and the use of the word [right] in this matter is not only very unneces­sary, but may be of dangerous consequence, if all may and ought to be subject and obedient to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel, then it may be granted that all have a right to be subject and obedient to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel; but it is such a right as is seldom or never intended by the word [right] as it is comonly used amongst men, and the best right that any have to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel, is they may and ought to be subject and obe­dient unto them: therefore it is much planer and safer to say all may and ought to be subject and obedient to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel, then it is for to say all or any have a right to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel.

You teach men to think that the Sacraments are no means tending to Conversion; therefore no means tending to Salvation, and then we need not wonder if they slight, neglect, and lay aside the Sacraments, when you have made it so difficult for any to know whether they may and ought to come to the Lords Supper or no; and when you have made them to think it is much safer for them to let it alone, than it is for them to come to it.

The Sacraments are undone so many ways by such as seem to be the greatest Saints in the World, that we need not wonder that so many slight, neglect, and lay aside Sacraments and Scripture too, and cry up the Light within for the best Light in the World.

No Ordinance can convert unless God work together with it, but the Lords Supper is a very apt means for God to work conversion by, im­puting men in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, and of the New-Testament in the Blood of Christ Crucified for them: And all that are under the Gospel may and ought to go unto and wait upon God in Christ for Grace, mercy and salvation in a way of subjection and obedience to all the commands and Ordinances of the Gospel so far as they can through that assistance which God of his Free grace is pleased to afford unto them; and none may hinder any from being subject and obedient to any Command or Ordinance of the Gospel, so far as they can [Page 5] through that assistance which God of his free-grace is pleased to afford unto them (except in such case wherein they have an express warrant, from the Word of God so to do) but according to the Doctrine of your Invitation, I know not who can come to the Lords Supper without sinful presumption of doubting whether he may and ought to come to it, and he that doubteth is damned if he eat, Rom. 14.23. And I think your work about the Lords Supper, and Baptism, and the Death of Christ is very much Antitemple-work, and very dangerously tends to undo all the Chur­ches of Christ in the World and to make Antitemples and Quakers.

The sense and meaning of the Sacraments, and the ends unto which they tend, are all so good, and so profitable, and so necessary that Quakers would be in love with the Sacraments; if Ministers of your persuasion did not so undo the Sa­craments, and make them seem good for nothing but to set Christians together by the Ears.

I am willing to be as plain as I can that all the world may throughly under­stand what I hold; but you keep what you hold in very great darkness, as if you were not willing that any should throughly understand what you hold.

I hold that God made Adam in a very happy Estate, and this great happiness lay in this, that he was under a Law of active obedience unto God, he was un­der a Law of works; do and live, and if he had continued so doing, his so do­ing would have been very acceptable and well-pleasing unto God, and would have been rewarded with eternal Life. But Adam by sin fell utterly from this happy estate, and from being under this Law of works, do and live; and then nothing that he could do would be acceptable and well-pleasing unto God: Therefore the Law required nothing of him but passive obedience, thou shall die, and he must have died eternally if Christ had not died for him. Therefore Christ died for him and bought him with his own blood, and placed him again under a Law of a­ctive obedience, under the Law of Faith (that is) under the Gospel: or else A­dam had never any more been under any law of active obedience any more than a bruit is: Therefore if any will say that Christ never died for the Non-Elect, they had as good say in plain terms, that all the Non-Elect are in the [...] that Adam would have been in if Christ had never died for him, and that all the Non-Elect are no more under any Law of active obedience than a bruit is, and therefore no more under the Gospel than a bruit is.

You do not plainly [...] the beginning [...] you hold, but you seem to hold.

1. That Christ never died for the Non-Elect.

2. That all the Non-Elect are in the same condition that Adam would have been in if Christ had never died for him, and that all the Non-Elect [Page 6] are no more under any law of active obedience then a bruit is, and there­fore no more under the Gospel then a bruit is.

3. That it is no duty for the Non-Elect to believe and obey the Gospel.

4. That not believing and not obeying the Gospel is no sin in the Non-Elect.

5. That God will never Damn any for not believing and not obeying the Gospel.

For all these dangerous errors hold together as so many links of a chain that cannot be broken: Therefore whosoever they are that do hold any one link of this chain, they do consequentially hold the whole chain and every link of it, although for some other reasons many of them may be in such difficulty about them that they will not grant that they do hold them all; but they can never well clear themselves from holding them all without condemning themselves for denying that Christ died for all; neither can they ever well answer any that do hold them all without condemning themselves for denying that Christ died for all.

I hold that Christ & God in Christ and by Christ bought all fallen man­kind that he might (without wrong to that Law in Gen. 2. 17.) make them the subjects of all that grace and good which he freely willed to bestow upon them, and he freely willed to bestow common grace upon all, and special grace upon some, and both these are from meer free-grace and unmerited love, and that God bestows more of either of these upon some, then upon others, is from the meer free-grace and unmerited love of God.

You seem to hold that all good is merited and a debt due from God unto all those for whom Christ died; and hence it followeth that you cannot tell how to avoid granting Universal Salvation without denying that Christ died for all; and this is the best reason you can give for your undoing of the plain literal sense of so many Scriptures which plainly shew that Christ died for all, & this is the best reason you can give for your undoing of the Sacraments, as aforesaid; and your undoing these things very dangerously tends to undo all the Churches of Christ in the world, and to make Antitemples and Quakers, and to b [...]ing all at last, to meer Heathenism,

It is (saith one) an ominous and a dangerous thing for a man underta­king a long Journey to mistake [...]. As he must needs go wrong all the [...] so the further he goes, still the farther out of the way.

They seem to be out of love with [...] and in love with [Page 7] Fundamental error; but I think you and many others are wavering and halting in very much darkness and difficulty between them both for want of a full and clear understanding of them both: And that you may have a full and clear understanding of them both, Explications of them both are very necessary. Court and Country are much lead by their Ministers in matters of Religion: Therefore let their Ministers take heed how they lead, lest at last they be found the principal undoers of the Country.

The people of New-England are now brought very low by the Hand of God against them, and that they may know before they are undone, wherefore God is contending with them, it is necessary that they have Explications of Fundamen­tal Truth and Fundamental Error. The Lord awaken them to consider such Explications, that they may throughly understand the goodness of Fundamental Truth, and the evil of Fundamental Error; and then they will easily understand wherefore God is [...] contending, with them.

The more Fundamental Truth is Explicated, the more the goodness of it appears, that it may be loved and embraced by all: And the more Fundamental Error is Explicated, the more the evil of it appears, that it may be hated and rejected by all. Therefore full and clear Explicati­ons of Fundamental Truth and Fundamental Error are both of them very necessary.

If I am out of love with Fundamental Truth, and in love with Fundamen­tal Error; then let me have Explications whereby I may throughly understand the goodness of Fundamental Truth, and the evil of Fundamental Error; lest God require my Blood at your hands: And let all the People of New-England have such Explications, lest God require their blood at your hands; for they are in great danger to be undone for want of such Explications.

The sence, consequences, grounds, and other arguments of fundamental truth are all good: And the sence, consequences, grounds and other arguments of fun­damental error are all bad: And full and clear Explications of fundamental truth, [...] consequences, grounds and other arguments of it, to be [...]: And full and clear Explications of fundamental error will show the force, consequences, grounds and other arguments of it, to [...] they really are all bad. Therefore [...] as are out of love with fundamental truth, and in love with fundamental error will be [...] Explications: Therefore I shall not wonder if such be [...] of against the following brief Explications:

But before I come to the Explications, I would say further: That the English Nation now is in a very desperate dangerous Condition, and it is [Page 8] almost undone already with undoing wrongs done unto the Sacraments so cunningly that almost none can tell what they are, and where I am it is dangerous for any to labour to discover them; but if they are not dis­covered, they will certainly undo the English Nation: Therefore for the discovery of them, I have adventured this Letter and the follow­ing brief Explications.