SUSPENSION SUSPENDED.  
OR, The Divines of SYON-COLLEDGE late claim Of the Power of suspending Scandalous Persons, from the LORDS SUPPER (without sequestering them from any other Public Ordinance, or the society of Christians) and that by the very Will and Appointment of JESUS CHRIST (not by virtue of any Ordinance of Parliament) from whom they receive both their Office and Authority; briefly examined, discussed, refuted by the Word of God, and Arguments deduced from it; and the contrary Objections clearly Answered.  
Wherein; a bare Suspension of Persons from the LORDS SUPPER only, without a Seclusion of them from other Ordinances, is proved to be no Censure or Discipline appointed by JESUS CHRIST in his Word: That some Texts commonly alleged for proof of such a Suspension and of Excommunication, do really warrant neither.  
That the Lords Supper is frequently, not rarely to be Administered as well to unregenerate Christians to convert them, as to regenerate to confirm them: Whether it be a Seal of Grace or not, and in what sense? debated; and some common mistakes therein rectified.  
By WILLIAM PRYNNE of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.  JER. 14. 14. Then the Lord said unto me; the Prophet's prophecy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they Prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of naught, and the deceit of their heart. 1 JOHN 4. 1. Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God; because many false Prophets are gone out into the world. 
LONDON: Printed by T. B. for Michael Spark at the sign of the Blew-Bible in Green Arbour, 1646.   

To the right Honourable HENRY Earl of Kent, and the rest of the COMMISSIONERS for the Great Seal of England.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE,  
THE Lord's Supper being commonly termed by Divines, both in their Writings and Sermons (though never by the spirit of God in sacred Writ) a Sacrament, and a Seal; yea, God's GREAT SEAL of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace; where of our Zion College Ministers now preted themselves the divine LORD KEEPERS, asserting that by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ himself, they have both Commission and Authority to suspend all such whom they shall deem Ignorant or Scandalous from this SEAL (though they earnestly thirst & hunger after it, and be not actually excommunicated from any other public Ordinance, or the society of Christians:) I conceived I could not so fitly Dedicate this Brief Examination and Refutation of their Divine claim and new Institution of sole suspension from the Sacrament (so much contested for) to any others, as to Your Honours, the present Commissioners for the Custody of THE GREAT SEAL OF ENGLAND; to whose Noble Patronage I humbly recommend it, so fare forth only as it shall appear to be consonant to the Word of Truth.  
My little Treatise, entitled, The opening of the Great Seal of England, was, through God's blessing on it, one special means of passing the first Ordinance for the New great Seal of England, which hath ever since continued in your keeping; and I have some good hopes, that by the like divine Benediction on this smaller Pamphlet, the Lords Supper (the GREAT SEAL OF HEAVEN, as many stile it) shall be opened, and communicated to many poor souls cordially desirous to receive it, who otherwise might have most injuriously (by colour of the pretended Will and appointment of Jesus Christ) been suspended from it.  
Where this Will and Appointment of Christ is to be found in Scripture, it rests on the Divines of Syon-Colledge to demonstrate; for my part, after many diligent inquiries to find it out either in the old or new Testament, I always returned with a Non est inventus: only this I have observed in my reading, that when ever any matters of Ecclesiastical or Pontifical Jurisdiction have come to be debated, the Clergy in all Ages have made very strange Interpretations and perversions of Scripture to maintain their pretended Divine Authority. What ridiculous Inferences the Popes of Rome, with their Parasites have published in print to support their usurped Antichristian supremacy over all Bishops, Churches and Kings themselves, from, Thou art Peter; arise Peter kill and eat; Launch out into the deep; Feed my sheep; God made two great lights; Behold, here are two swords: Ye shall find an Ass and a Colt tied, lose them and bring them hither: Tell it to the Church, etc. is known to all who peruse their Books of this controversy; Whether some of our Divines have not incurred the like solecisms, and made almost as gross Misapplications of Scripture as they, in maintenance of their new Church-government and Discipline, I submit to the determination of such who without partiality have perused their la●e Discourses of that subject: For my part, having neither any private interest nor Design to misbyas my judgement, 
2 Cor. 3. 8  I ᵃ can (I dare) do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth in this present controversy. My impartial debate whereof, though it may displease some, will I trust conduce much to the settlement of our public peace (which the unhappy controversies about Church-government have disturbed) and find acceptance with all lovers of Truth in general, and your Honours in particular, from the hands  
Of your Devoted Servant, WILLIAM PRYNNE.   

SUSPENSION SUSPENDED. OR, SYON-COLLEDGE Claim of the Power of Suspending Scandalous persons from the Lords Supper by the Will and Appointment of JESUS CHRIST, and Authority derived to Church-Officers from him, Examined, Discussed, Refuted by the Word of GOD.  
WE Read, that one one of the first and fiercest contestations which broke out among Christ's own Apostles, even when he sent them out to Preach, and when he was about to institute the Lords Supper, was concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, 
a Luke 9 46. cap. 22. 24, 25 26. Mat. 20. 20. to 29. Mark 10. 35. to 46.  which of them should be the greatest: which though then severely checked and determined by Christ himself, yet I know not by what unhappy uninterrupted succession it hath disturbed the peace of the Church and whole Christian world, more or less, in all succeeding Ages; and in this last Age of ours, as much or more than in any precedent Century whatsoever; the wisdom of our wisest Counselors, united altogether in our greatest and wisest Counsel, the high Court of Parliament, being unable to quiet and conjure down this ambitious, restless spirit of Domination and contention about Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, still predominating in the Clergy.  
To instance but in one particular: The Parliament, after long and serious debate, was pleased to approve and set up a Presbyterial Government in our Church, and at the Clergies extraordinary importunity, in a prudential way, to give Ministers and Presbyteries power, to keep ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, confining them to a particular enumeration of scandals, not leaving it arbitrary and indefinite; investing them with this authority, not as a Jurisdiction bequeathed to them by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, being not satisfied in their consciences, that Christ had given them any such divine power in his Word, but as an authority derived to them by Ordinance of Parliament and humane institution, without declaring it to be of divine right.  
The Ministers of London, Westminster, and within the Lines of Communication, not satisfied with this New indulged Jurisdiction, meeting at Zion College, June 9 1646. agreed upon certain Considerations and Cautions, which they soon after published in print▪ wherein (contrary to the Parliaments intention and Ordinances) they professedly claim this new authority, and the exercise thereof by a Divine institution, and from Jesus Christ himself, not from the Parliaments grant: witness this passage, p. 5. We conceive the power of Church-censures, and in particular, the keeping of ignorant and scandalous persons from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to be in Church Officers, BY THE WILL AND APPOINTMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, AND FROM HIM THEY RECEIVE THEIR OFFICE AND AUTHORITY. Upon which ground they further Remonstrate; That the Ordinances (touching Presbyterial government) do not hold forth a complete rule, nor are in all points satisfactory to their consciences; and thereupon conclude thus; Resolving by God's grace to walk IN ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF THE WORD (not Ordinances) and according to the Ordinances SO FARE AS WE CONCIVE IT CORRESPONDENT TO IT; (so as they thrust the Ordinances and directions of Parliament quite out of door;) and in so doing, we trust we shall not grieve the spirits of the truly godly, either at home or abroad, nor give any just occasion to them that are contrary minded to blame our proceed; let the Parliament take it how they please.  
For my own opinion, I really profess the Presbyterial Government to be most agreeable to God's Word, and the Independent way to be a Seminary of Schism, Libertinism, Heresy, Errors, and a Babel of confusion: And▪ for the Ministers assembled at Zion College, who agreed upon these Considerations, and Cautions, though I cordially love and reverence their persons; yet as others much blame their Discretions in publishing them; so I cannot subscribe to this their New Paradox dogmatically asserted in them, That the power of suspending Ignorant & scandalous persons only from the Lords Supper, is in Church Officers, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, and that they have received this Authority from him; because I read of no such will or appointment of Jesus Christ in his Word, nor of any such Authority exercised by him (who admitted 
b See a Vindication of four serious Questions, pag. 17. to 28. Thomas beacons Catechism, vol. 1. fol. 481, 482, 484.  Judas himself to his last Supper) or expressly delegated to any of his Apostles, or any other Church-Officers by what names so ever distinguished. True it is, that Ministers of the Gospel have power given them to Instruct, Exhort, rebuke the Ignorant and scandalous with all Authority, Tit. 2. 15. To inform and warn them of the great danger of unworthy hearing the Word, and receiving the Lords Supper; to dehort them under the pain of their own souls, and incurring of God's judgements not to come unpreparedly to them, Luk. 8. 18. Jam. 1. 22, 23, 25. 1 Cor. 10. 21, 22. c. 11. 20. to 34. And when they have thus done, they have discharged their duties, freed their own souls, and are guiltless of the sins of such who will not be kept bacl from these Ordinances, and prove unprofitable hearers or receivers, as Ezek. 3. 17. to 22. c. 33. 7. to 17. Acts 20. 26, 27, 28. resolve, and I have 
c A Vindication of four serious Questions, p. 28. to 48.  elsewhere proved at large. But that they have any Ministerial or Magisteriall Authority to keep back any unexcommunicated person from the Lords Supper only, who earnestly desires to receive it, and promiseth reformation, without suspending him from all other Ordinances, and that by the very will and appointment of Jesus Christ, seems a mere erroneous paradox unto me; contrary to Isay 55, 1. Mat. 11. 28. John 7. 33. Revel. 22. 17. and other Scriptures; which (without any Relation at all unto, or opposition against the Ordinances of Parliament, for the suspending of Ignorant or scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, by virtue of a mere Parliamentary Sanction) I shall here summarily discuss and refute, with reference only to that pretended divine Authority, will and appointment of Jesus Christ, by which our Divines now claim it for the present, and resolve to execute it for the future.  
I shall contract the whole Controversy into this one Question, wherein the very marrow and substance of it consists, not hitherto exactly debated by any to my knowledge.  

Question 1.  
WHether Ministers or Presbyteries Jurisdictionall Suspension of scandalous Church-members from the Lords Supper only who desire to receive it, without excluding them from all other public Ordinances (as Prayer, Preaching, Reading, Fasting, Catechising, singing of Psalms, Baptising of Infants, etc.) 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, because there is no direct precept or precedent 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 only, without a concurrent suspension of them from all other public Ordinances, and that in case only of obstinate impenitency.  
If any such be to be found, I shall desire them to inform me thereof, (since I could never hitherto upon my exactest enquiry, find out any such) and then I shall either clearly answer, on submit unto it.  
My second Reason is, 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 total suspension, exclusion from all public holy Ordinances and Church-assemblies, for ceremonial or moral uncleannesses, not from the Passover or Lords Supper only: I shall give you a taste of some of the principle Texts whereon our 
a See Master rutherford's divine right of Church government, cap 3. to 15.  Opposites rely, that you may discern how clearly 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 Leprosy among the Israelites, was to be 
b 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 Leprosy▪ and uncleanness he was to dwell ALONE WITHOUT THE CAMP, (for fear of Infecting others:) Upon which ground Miriam, when leprous, was shut out of the Camp seven days, and after that, received in again, Numb. 12. 10. to 16. Ergo, he was secluded from all public 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 spoke into Moses, saying; Command the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT THEY PUT OU● OF THE CAMP 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 CAMP shall ye put them, that they defile not their Camp, 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 public Ordinances, Sacrifices, and their common society, not from the Lords Supper or Passeover alone; if this putting out of the Camp were an Ecclesiastical censure and exclusion from God's Ordinances and society of the faithful, 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 ceremonial uncleannesses and nocturnal pollutions, were to go out of the Camp, and not to come within it till they had washed themselves, and then when they were cleansed, and the Sun was down they might come into the Camp again. Ergo, during the time of their exclusion they were equally debarred from all public Ordinances whatsoever, and not admitted unto any other Ordinance more than to the Passeover, Numb. 2. 6. to 13.  
From these Texts, much 
c Master rutherford's divine right of Church-government, cap. 5 and elsewhere.  urged for proof of an Ecclesiastical 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 only 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 Civil State and Republic, then of their Church? and the exclusion of Lepers, and those that had Issues, with others out of the Camp, for these natural infirmities and ceremonial uncleannesses, were not rather a temporary civil sequestration to prevent infection and diseases in the Camp, than an Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication orsuspention from the Tabernacle and public Ordinances used in it, to prevent spiritual infections of the soul, or profanation of the public Ordinances of God's worship? The reason why I propound this Quere is, because Exod. 37. 7. to 12. expressly resolves, that the Tabernacle of the Congregation, representing the Church of the Jews, wherein God himself manifested his special presence in the Cloud and Pillar, where all public Sacrifices and duties of God's 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 fare off without it, witness the express words of the Text; And Moses took the Tabernacle and pitched it WITHOUT THE CAMP A FARE OFF FROM THE CAMP, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation: And it came to pass, that EVERY ONE THAT SOUGHT THE LORD, went OUT unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, which WAS WITHOUT THE CAMP, etc. 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 down in a cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy Elders: And it came to pass, 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 Prophesied in the Camp: And there ran a young man and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophecy in the Camp; and Joshua the Son of Nun▪ the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said: My Lord Moses forbidden 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 got him into the Camp, he and the Elders of Israel. compared with Levit. 17. 3. to 7. By which it is most clear, that the Tabernacle stood without the Camp, where they used both to sacrifice and prophesy, not within it: Hence it is, in regard the Tabernacle was placed, and all the Ceremonial Sacrifices under the Law killed and sacrificed to God without the Camp, that Christ himself, 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 Hebrews 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 sin, ARE BURNT 
d 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 sanctify the people, SUFFERED WITHOUT THE GATE: Let us GO 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 public ordinances, and excommunicated from the society of the faithful, as our Opposites most 
e Mr. rutherfurd's Divine right, etc. p. 179.  confidently affirm▪ Then the Apostle by this exhortation, Let us go forth therefore unto him WITHOUT THE CAMP, bearing his reproach; should excite Christians to excommunicate and suspend themselves from all public Ordinances and Christian society with God's people, which were a madness to affirm. Wherefore this Champion argument for proof of the divine institution of excommunication among the Jews under the Law, and of suspension from the Lords Supper among Christians under the Gospel, must be quite cashiered, thrust of our Opposites Camp as Leprous, and excommunicated out of all their Presbyteries for an jenoramus. If then the Tabernacle of the Congregation, the place of God's special presence and public 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 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 Republic, then of their Church; and the exclusion of these ceremonially unclean persons from it, rather a temporary disfranchisement or banishment to prevent corporal infection and diseases, than any Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication or Suspension, to prevent spiritual infection, or punish moral pollution and public scandalous sins; The rather because Master 
e The Divine Right of Church-Government, p. 241, 242.  Rutherfurd and others affirm, that excommunication and suspension from holy Ordinances is expressed in the Books of Moses by another phrase, to wit, by 
f 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 civil cutting off by death, not an Ecclesiastical by excommunication, as is clear 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 total cutting off for the present from all pubblick Ordinances, and the society of the faithful, not a bare suspension from the Passeover or Lords Supper only.  
Secondly, I shall demand, Whether the exclusion of these unclean persons out of the Camp was executed either authoritatively or ministerially by the high P●iest, Priests, or Levites, who, for aught we read, had no judicial or ministerial authority in the Camp itself, but only in and 
g 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 expressly 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 Ecclesiastical 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 turn or put him out of the Camp, which our common Law writ, De Leproso am●vendo proves, it being directed to the Sheriff, Mayor, and Temporal Officers, not to Ecclesiastical persons. If then this putting of these uncleans persons out of the Camp proves any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction vested by Divine Institution in any persons to Excommunicate or suspend scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, it is only in the Christian Magistrate or people, not in Priests or Presbyters, as is pretended.  
Thirdly, whether the thrusting of Lepers and other such like unclean persons out of the Camp, be any infallible Argument, that they were thereby totally secluded from all access unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, till they were readmitted into the camp? since the Tabernacle where God's public worship was celebrated, stood not within, but without the Camp, as I have proved. If not, than it warrants no Excommunication, nor suspension of unclean for scandalous persons from any public Ordinances, and so is most impertinently produced for proof thereof. If yea, than it secluded them from all public Sacrifices and duties of God's worship alike, or from the Passeover only, o● some other particular Sacrifice? If from all alike, than it warrants my conclusion, that no scandalous person is to be suspended from the Lords Supper, but he that is likewise excommunicated or sequestered from all other public Ordinances: If from the Passeover, or some other particular Ordinance only, not from all in general (which cannot be proved) than it is no proof of an Excommunication from all public Ordinances and the socity of God's people, for which some now over-confidently allege it.  
Fourthly, Whether those who were thus shut out of the Camp for ceremonial or corporal uncleanness, were not admitted to wash and purify themselves (in the 
h Exod. 30. 18 19, etc. c. 38 8 c. 40.  Laver, standing between the Tabernacle and the Altar, as is probable) and likewise to offer their Oblations, Trespass and Sin Offerings in the Tabernacle before their readmission into the Camp? as is more than probable, if not infallible by Numb. 19 1. to 11. Levit. 14. 1. to 33. Deut. 23. 10, 11. If so, than their exclusion out of the Camp was no excommunication or suspension of them from the Tabernacle and all public Ordinances in it, as is pretended; Yea, than it necessarily follows, that ceremonial and corporal (much more than moral) uncleannesses, are to be expiated and purged away by admission to public 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 ceremonial uncleanness on him, was prohibited to eat of the Sacrifice of the Peace Offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, under pain of being cut off from his people; but yet he might bring a Sin Offering, and a Trespass Offering to the Lord, as is clear 
i 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 unclean in any thing should enter in: If this Text (with that of the 2 Chron. 26. 19, 20. coupled to it) make aught for excommunication of ceremonial unclean persons from the Temple, and all public Ordinances of God's worship there solemnised, as some pretend, (though here is only 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 
k 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 itself, 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 itself; 1 Kings 8. 64. 2 Chron. 7. 7. nor yet out of the Synagogues, the places of God's ordinary worship) yet certainly it makes point blank against any bare suspension only from the Passeover or Lords Supper, (not here particularised) since here is a total exclusion of unclean persons from the Temple itself, and all public 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 Jews accused Paul, Acts 21. 28, 29. for bringing Greeks 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 deem the contrary, it speaking only of excluding uncircumcised Heathens, not any unclean or scandalous circumcised Israelites out of the Temple at Jerusalem, not the Jewish Synagogues, nor of secluding or excommunicating any baptised Christians under the Gospel from the Church though uncircumcised either in the flesh or heart) yet certainly it proves nothing for any sole suspension 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 sixth Text is Matth. 18. 17. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican: that is, as our 
l Master rutherfurd's Divine right of Church-Government, cap. 8. and Due right of Presbyteries 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 proof of suspension from the Lords Supper only, not from other Ordinances, than 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 only from communicating at the Lords Table, once a month, a quarter, a year, but let him constantly resort unto, and communicate in all other Ordinances and duties of God's worship every Lord's day and Lecture day, without the least suspension or impediment, which Heathens never used to do, 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 Jews: Ergo, they were debarred from preaching, reading of the Word, prayer and all other publjck Offices of God's worship used in the Jewish Synagogues, not from the Passeover or Lords Supper only, never administered in any Synagogue that we read of in Scripture: And to intepret putting out of the Synagogue, to be nothing else but a bare suspension from the Lords Supper, without any exclusion from other Ordinances, is a mere Bull, and miserable perverting of these Texts, it being an unlawful act done by the unbelieving Jews, not against scandalous offenders, but faithful believers and professors of Jesus Christ.  
The eighth is the 1 Cor. 5. where the Apostle writes to the Church at 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, etc. with such a one no not to eat; and to put away from among themselves that wicked person: From which place our 
m Master rutherfurd's 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, lest he should infect the Sheep, and Christians are not to bear 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 means of Grace. Ergo, by their own argumentation, confession, exposition, this Text enjoins a total excommunication from all public Ordinances, means of grace and communion of the faithful, not a naked suspension only from the Lords Supper, with free admission to all other Ordinances: But if this Text be meant of a Suspension only from the Lords Supper, than 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 month, a quarter, a year, yet to communicate with him in all other Ordinances every day and week in the year, without scruple or scandal: 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 mark them that cause divisions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine ye have received, and avoid them: To which I shall annex, 
n Master rutherfurd's Divine right of Church-Government, p. 249▪ 269, etc. 12. qu. 8. Mr. Walkers Model 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 public communion, conversation in Ordinances of God's worship with Schismatical, Heretical, scandalous Christians, as well as in private; prohibit communion with them in all other public Ordinances, as well as in the Lord's Supper; but if appropriated to a single suspension only from the Lords Table, than 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 only 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 bear.  
The tenth is Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject: That is, as our 
o Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Walker, ibid.  Opposites interpret it, excommunicate and cast him out of the Church: But if objected to prove a bare suspension from the Eucharist, then reject must signify, suspend him from the Lords Table only, not from any other Ordinance, he may preach and broach his heresies still, to poison and canker others: To which I shall subjoin, Rev. 2. 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou 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 aught for excommunication, yet certainly makes nothing for a sole suspension from the Sacrament, but against it.  
The eleventh is the 3 John 9, 10. Neither doth Diotrephes himself 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 suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table only, than not to receive the Brethren, and to cast them out of the Church, is merely to debar them from the Lords Supper only; which the words will no ways bear.  
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 contain the highest degree of excommunication in the Church, as many 
m Master rutherford's divine right of Church-government, p. 372. with others.  dogmatise, 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 than pure nonsense.  
These several Texts of Scripture produced by our Antagonists for proof of Excommunication by divine institution, do utterly subvert the main 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 only, though they desire to receive it, without sequestering them from any other public Ordinances, to whom 
n 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 Sacramental actions, and that with a great deal of profit, only they must not actually receive the outward Elements: But when we demand a proof 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 Christ's pretended giving excommunication to the Church, which in 
o Divine right of church-government, cap 4. sect 4. qu. 5 p. 76.  Master rutherfurd's own 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 formal ground and reason; Because a Congregation is a number of sinful men, who may be scandalised and infected with the company of a scandalous person; this is so clear, 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 Jews or Christians, should have a moral power of avoiding the company of Publicans and sinners, because he might possibly convert them; but they could no ways 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, as is clear, 
If a little body of a Congregation in a remote Isle have power from Christ to cut off a rotten member, lest it infect the whole body, shal● we doubt but our wise Lawgiver 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 ourselves 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 Heretics, after they be admonished, lest we be infected with their company; just as nature hath given hands to a man to defend himself from injuries and violence, and horns to Oxen, to hold off violence; so hath Christ given the power of Excommunication to his Church, as spiritual armour to ward off and defend the contagion of wicked fellowship: Now this reduplication of frail 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 mean must be proportionable to his end.  
Since then by Mr rutherfurd's own assertion, 
o Master Walkers Model, etc. p. 18.  and others concurrent suffrages who writ 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, lest 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 Lord's Supper, but likewise from all other public 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 Lord's Supper is now more rare and infrequent then any other public Ordinance, administered in few Churches above once a month, in many not once a quarter, nay scarce once in a year or two, in these late unhappy times, an● then but once in a day; whereas we have prayers, preaching, reading of the Word, Baptism, singing of Psalms, exposition of Scriptures, Catechising in many Crurches every day of the week, at leastwise morning and evening in all or most of our Churches, every Lord's day, if not on week days too; besides public monthly Fasts and frequent Thanksgivings: Now there is fare greater danger of infection, contagion by scandalous sinners in conversing with them in these common public Ordinances every week or day almost morning and evening, & in keeping company with 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 year, as common reason will inform us; therefore we should rather exclude them, from those public 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 madness or folly to shun the company of a Leper, or one infected with the pestilence▪ one half hour only in a month or year, 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 cauterised (as experience informs us) but when they come to receive the Lords Supper they will promise a great deal of repentance, of reformation, and behave themselves very piously, devoutly in outward show, 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 less 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 conscience of abstaining from their sinful courses on Lecture days or Lords days, as they do on Sacrament days, coming unto them with, and in their scandalous fin●: therefore they ought rather to be suspended from all other Ordinances then from the Lords Supper only, at which they are least contagious, and seem to be most Penitent, most Reformed both in heart and Life.  
Thirdly, those who are truly pious, or at least not scandalous, are less capable of receiving infection, contagion from scandalous sinners at the Lords Supper, then at other public Ordinances; because as those scandalous persons are then least scandalous, and most reclaimed in their carriage, so these holy Communicants, in regard of their solemn preparations to the Sacrament, their previous examinations of their own hearts, lives, their serious Vows, Covenants to watch and war more against all sins, all occasion of sin for the future; and of those heavenly meditations which take up their thoughts, spirits, are less capable to be infected or polluted by them, then at other common Ordinances, to which they come not with such solemn preparations, watchfulness, seriousness 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, than they do at any other Ordinances, to which all promiscuously rush without distinction or much solemn preparation; therefore there is more danger of contagion in admitting them to, and greater reason to sequester them from all other common Ordinances, than the Lords Supper only.  
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 them 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 unlawful to admit them to any other, as to the Lords Supper. Secondly, because the same sins, scandals equally disable, unfit them 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, drunkenness, whoredom, covetousness, murder, malice, pride, and the like, as much disable, unfit Christians to pray, read, hear, meditate, sing Psalms, Fast, as to receive the Lords Supper; and such men's praying, hearing, fasting, is as unacceptable to God, as unprofitable, as sinful, as dangerous, as damnable to themselves as their unworthy receiving. Thirdly, because the defect or want of saving faith and God's spirit makes all Ordinances alike ineffectual to us, and unacceptable to God; we can no more pray, sing, fast, hear or read the Word of God with profit or acceptance without faith and the assistance of the spirit, than we can receive the Lords Supper, as is clear 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 SIN. Fourthly, because all God's Ordinances are holy, if not of equal holiness; the Word, Prayer, Preaching, Fasting, etc. are all holy as well as the Sacraments, and to be kept from profanation 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 self same right to one Ordinance of God as to another, and the self same command to communicate in, or abstain from the one as from the other, as they are visible actual members of the visible Church, to which all Christ's Ordinances are bequeathed, and wherein they are to be dispensed to all that do unfeignedly desire them: He that commands us to 
p Heb. 3 7, 12 13. c. 4. 2, 3. Luke 8. 18.  hear, and to take heed how we hear; to 
q James 1. 6, 7. c. 5. 15.  pray, and to pray in faith, nothing doubting; commands us likewise, Take, eat, this is my body, etc. Drink ye all of this etc. Do this, as oft as ye do it in remembrance of me, etc. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup, etc. 1 Cor. 11. 23. to 34. therefore all visible members of the visible Church, endued 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 allows us no more liberty to abstain 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 judicial suspension of scandalous obstinate sinners from the Lords Supper only, 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 they plead to be vested by divine authority in Presbyters and Presbyteries, but by what Scripture charter, I am yet to seek.  
The chiefest argument and reason I can meet with to justify this sole suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper only, 
Objection 1.  but not from other public Ordinances, is this; 
r Doct. Drakes sixteen Antiquaeries, p. 6. Master Walker Master Palmer & others.  Suspension from the Eucharist, is a step and degree to Excommunication, and they who have power to do the greater may do the less; 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 suspension from the Lords Supper only, much less doth it make it a step or prodromus to a total 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 own principles, 
s See Master rutherfurd's divine right of Church government, sect 1, 2, 3, 4. cap. 1. qu. 1. etc.  That the Scripture ought to be the only rule of all Church Discipline, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 13. Secondly, that where the Scripture commands a total Excommunication from the Church and all public Ordinances in it, there Ministers and Presbyters have no more authority to suspend from one alone, and give free admtitance to all the rest, than 
t Sam. 15. 2. to 34.  Saul had to spare Agage and the best of the Sheep and Cattle: or 
v Josh. 7. i. to 16.  Achan to save the Babilonish Wedge and Garment; 
x Numb. 31. i. to 20.  or the Israelites to spare the Moabitish women, when God commanded them to be all destroyed, for which sinful partiality they were severely checked, punished. Now the Scripture commands a total excommunication of obstinate scandalous sinners from all public Ordinances whatsoever (if from any) as the Texts forecited manifest, and our Opposites in their discourses concerning excommunication confess; therefore they cannot without sin and contempt of God's command, exclude them only 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, etc.) 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; which punishments must be inflicted only when and where the Law inflicts them, not for capital offences, as all our common Law-books, Lawyers will inform him; our Judges being bound by Oath, to judge only according to Law, not arbitrarily at their pleasure: If then Judges may not alter the penalties prescribed by the Laws of men, much less may Ministers or Presbyteries change or mitigate the censures prescribed (as they now contend) by the Law of God himself. Fourthly, suspension from the Lords Supper only, without sequestration from all other Ordinances together with it, is but a mere groundless 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 hear the Word and to all other public Ordinances but the Sacrament, yea be present at all the actions of the Sacrament itself, and be secluded only from the actual 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 
y Master rutherfurd's Divine right of Presbyteries, p. 227, 273, 274, 280, 281  Antagonists reply; That an excommunicate person may freely be admitted to hear the Word, and ought not to be excluded from it; 
z Sixteen Antiquaeries, p. 6.  Where (writes the Doctor) is it said that an excommunicate person, shall not have so much as the privilege of one that is without? 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25. Might an Infidel hear 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 privilege 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 Christ's death, the words of institution, and the Sacramental Elements and actions may do much (towards conversion) and let Master Prynne show me in Scripture, why either an excommunicate person or an Infidel may not be present at all these, yet neither of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance, etc.  

Rejoinder.  To this I rejoin, First, that Master Rutherfurd citys many Canonists and others in the same place to prove, That excommunicate persons ought not to be present at Prayers, Preaching, or any other public Ordinance, the general opinion of Antiquity and the Schools; nay, he proves from Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9 & Acts 21. 28, 29. That unconverted Heathens were prohibited to come into God's Sanctuary, or enter into the Temple at Jerusalem; and that those who are thus excommunicated as Heathens, are in this sense persons quite excluded the Church and Commonweal 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 heath; 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 Gospel 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 mere Infidels ordinarily to hear the Word in their Congregations, is not yet resolved, neithr will the 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25. evince it, which speaks of such Ministers only, who were endued with the supernatural 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 hear the Word ought not to be excluded, but admitted to hear it, yet it follows not that excommunicate persons should therefore be admitted into the Church to hear the Word preached, whiles actually excommunicated for their obstinacy and incorrigibility in scandalous sins; First, because they are judicially, by way of public censure and punishment, actually cut off from, and excluded out of the visible Church, and sequestered from all public Ordinances, all Christian society, for scandalous offences, till their repentance and readmission, as is clear by the premised Texts, and most Canonists, Casuists, School men, who writ of Excommunication, which mere Heathens who desire to hear 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 lawful sentence banished the Kingdom for any crime, or a Freeman of London expelled the lines of Communication for his Delinquency till his conformity, it is not lawful for the one of them to return into the Kingdom, or the other to come within the City, till their sentences be revoked; yet Aliens and Foreigners 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 public Ordinances by a legal sentence, ought not to be admitted till repentance, though a mere Heathen may. Secondly, because an impenitent, obstinate, scandalous Christian, by Paul's own resolution, is more to be avoided then a mere Heathen without the Church; witness 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 than ye must go 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 Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one NO NOT TO EAT (of which few make any conscience that press this place so much:) for what have I to do to judge them that are without, do 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 informs us, First, That scandalous Christians are 
z Which Master Ruthe●furd affirms, Divine right of Church Government, p. 357.  worse than Heathens that are scandalous in the same kind: Secondly, That Christians in some cases may keep company 
a So 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 Pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you: spoken principally of the preaching of the Word, not of the Lords Supper, than not known 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 Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things that were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming: Then Paul and Barnabas waxed s● 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 yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles: But the Jews stirred up devout and honourable women, and the chief 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 certain 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, etc. So that servant came and shown his Lord these things: Then the Master of the house being angry, said to his servant, Go out into the lanes and streets of the City and bring in hither the poor and the maimed, and the halt and the blind, etc. and compel 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 near the City, he wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, 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 contemn 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 express Text Mat. 21. 33. to 45. where the Lord of the Vineyard, when his servants were beaten and his son slain by the husbandmen from whom he required fruits; threatens he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his Vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render him their fruit in due season; Christ himself thus closing up the Parable, with reference to the obstinate Jews; Therefore I say unto you, the Kingdom 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 ways fortify our Opposites weak Cause, but confirm my tenets.  
But it is secondly objected by our Antagovists, 
Objection 2. b M●ster Ruthe●f●rds Divine right of Presbyteries, p. 361, 362, 524, 525.  that the Word may and must be preached to mere Pagans and Infidels, to convert and instruct them; but the Lords Supper is not to be administered 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 aught to be suspended from the one, though they be admitted to the other.  
I answer, 
Answer.  First, this Objection, if examined, is but a mere fallacy, and inconsequent, the controversy not being, Whether Infidels, Turks and Pagans ought to be admitted to the Lords Table before they publicly embrace and profess the Christian faith? But, Whether scandalous Christians externally embracing, professing the faith of Christ, endued with competent knowledge, professing, unfain●d repentance for their sins 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 access to the Word, and all other pulick Ordinances? Therefore to argue thus, the Lords Supper ought not to be administered to Turks and Infidels; Ergo, not to scandalous Christians, is a mere Nonsequitur, and departing from the point in issue. Secondly, the reason why the Lords Supper and Baptism ought not to be administered to Turks and Pagans before their external conversion to the Christian faith, though the Gospel may be preached to them, is not because preaching of the Gospel is a converting Ordinance, and the administration of the Sacraments only a confirming, but not converting Ordinance; (as is pretended;) but because the Sacraments (as all 
c Calvin, Peter Martyr, Aretit●, Jewel, Beacon, Paraeus, Willet, others, and Master Rutherfurd himself, Divine right of Presbyteries, cap. 4. sect. 5. p. 212.  Divines accord) are badges of our external Christian profession; yea, solemn Covenants or Oaths to oblige us to yield all obedience and subjection unto Christ, and distinguishing signs to difference Christians from all Infidels and Pagans in the world; therefore not to be administered to any but such who actually embrace and profess the faith of Christ, and are admitted members of his visible Church; whereas the bare external hearing of the Word preached (wherein the hearers are only passive, but no ways active or stipulative, unless they embrace it) is no such badge or emblem of Christianity, nor such an external Oath of Allegiance to tie us to the obedience of Christ, as Baptism and the Lords Supper are, which belong to none but such who profess themselves Christians and are members of the visible Church of Christ. Thirdly, It is generally agreed by all orthodox Divines, that Baptism 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 known 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 legal Excommunication, or hindered by some natural disabilities, who have a true right to, and interest in them, though not actually regenerated and endued with saving faith. Upon which grounds Master 
d Due right of Presbyteries, cap. 4. sect. 6. throughout.  Rutherfurd, and Master 
e A defence of Infant's Baptisms, part 3. p. 106. to 130.  Martial expressly maintain, the lawfulness of baptising the children of excommunicate persons, Heretics, Schismatics, and Christians unregenerate, even for the external profession of the Christian faith by their ancestors, though their immediate Parents be Heretics, or persons excommunicated from the visible Church: Which being granted, resolved as an undoubted truth in the Sacrament of Baptism, must likewise thus fare 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 entitles him thereunto, as well as himself or his children to Baptism, and gives him a right to receive it, 
Objection 3.  yea makes him guilty of sin, in case he neglect to participate thereof, when publicly 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, 
f Master rutherfurd's 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 Seal of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace, as it is a Sacrament, which 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 public Ordinances, else we should put a sezle unto a blank.  
I answer, 
Answer.  First, that the Lords Supper is by no Text in Scripture styled a Seal, or Seal of Grace, or of the Covenant of Grace, though many Divines (without any Scripture authority) style it so. Secondly, it is true, that Circumcision is once only in the Now Testament, to wit, Rom. 4. 11. styled, The SIGN of Circumcision, A SEAL of the righteousness of faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised: Whence 
g 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 infer, That Baptism and the Lords Supper are both Sacraments and Seals of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace: But that it should hence necessarily follow, that Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments, are Seals of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace (though never so called in Scripture, nor yet the Passeover) because Circumcision is called a Sign and a Seal of the righteousness of faith, which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised, is expressly denied by 
h 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. count. 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 aught appears to me. Thirdly, admit the Lords Supper be a Seal of Grace, as Circumcsiion was of faith, yet in what sense, or in what respects it is or may be 
i See willet's six-fold Commentary on Rom. 4. qu. 7.  styled a Seal, and what kind of Seal it is, is questioned by many, and very difficult to determine. Origen thinks Circumcision was called a Seal of the righteousness of faith, because in Circumcision was sealed and lay bid the righteousness of faith, which should afterward be revealed and unfolded in Christ, and a Seal to the unbelieving Jews, shutting them up in unbelief, until they should be called in the end of the world: chrysostom, Theodoret and others, expound it to be a Seal, that is, a testimony only of faith received: Aquinas thinks it was called a Seal, because it was an express Sign, having a similitude of the thing received: Others affirm it was termed a Seal, because it distinguished the Israelites from other people, as Seals distinguish one Merchants Goods and Letters from another: But Calvin, Paraeus, Fayus, Aretius, Peter Martyr, Marlorat, Willet, and the stream of modern Divines term it a Seal, because it is a visible confirmation of God's promises to his people, as Kings and other m●ns Seals confirm their Patents and Deeds, being added to them for better assurance: And in this last sense our Divines generally term Baptism and the Lords Supper, SEALS, that is, external visible confirmations of God's promises: Indeed though I find not the Lords Supper or Baptism called Seals in Scripture, yet I read therein of a six-fold use of Seales. The first is, to conceal and close up things from public 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 Greeks' term Sacraments Mysteries or hidden things, the phrase used by Paul, Eph. 3. 9 chap. 5. 32. and 
k Decana Dom. & Baptismo Se●m.  Bernard, with others, styles 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. 9 10. The fourth, to appropriate things, and mark them for our own, 2 Cor. 1, 22. 2 Tim. 2. 19 chap. 7. 2. to 8. Ephes. 1. 13. The fift to authorise and give commission, John 6. 26. The sixth, to confirm, ratify, 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 Seal by way of allusion, but yet not properly and directly, since Master Rutherfurd himself puts many differences between it and a civil seal, 
Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212, to 218.  and Christ himself ordained it not to be a Seal, but Remembrance, memorial, representation of his Death and Passion, as is clear 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 do ye as often as ye drink it in REMEMBRANCE OF ME, For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, YE DO SHOW THE LORDS DEATH TILL HE COME. Now being a Remembrance and Representation of Christ's Death by divine institution, which hath no Analogy with a Seal, which serves not to commemorate or represent any thing, and being no where termed a Seal in Scripture; I conceive it fare more proper to style the Lords Supper (as the 
k Bishop Jewels Defence of the Apology, part 2. cap. 13 Divis. 1. p. 251  Fathers usually do) a Figure, Sign, Remembrance, Memory, or Representation of Christ's Death, than a Seal; which phrase is the original ground of men's bare suspension from it. Fourthly, It is admitted by all, that Baptism is a Seal of Grace, and of the Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lords Supper; I would then gladly be informed by our opposite Brethrens, by what authority, will and appointment of Jesus Christ, those who are admitted to be partakers of one of the Seals of Grace, and whose children by their own resolution ought to be admitted unto Baptism, even for these their Parents external profession of Christianity and membership in a visible Church, should be thus suspended, excluded from the Lords Sxpper, the other Seal, not being totally secluded from all other Ordinances, having as good a title to the one Seal as the other, to the Lords Table as to Baptism or the Word itself? If they reply, as usually they do, that it is, because we must not put a Seal unto a blank, nor give the Seal of grace to those that have no grace. I answer, First, that this reason is a mere whimsy of their own, warranted by no Scripture. Secondly, it is contrary to Scripture, their own practice and confession; who 
l Master rutherfurd's Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4 sect. 5. Master Marshals De●f ●ce of Infant's Baptism.  grant; First, that the Sacrament and Seal of Baptism may and aught to be given to the persons, yea Infants of those who externally profess 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 external 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 Seal is not put put unto a blank, for if their very baptising at first was no sealing of a Blank, then by the same reason, their receiving the Lords Supper cannot be so. Now that their baptising was not so, I shall prove by Master 
l A defence of Infant baptism London, 1646. (Dedicated to the Assembly of Divines) p. 117, 118.  Marshals own resolution, approved by the Assembly; You conclude (writes he against Master Tombs) that if there be not a promise of these saving graces to Infants, in vain are they baptised, and the Seal is put to a blank.  
My meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory, and according to that direction I do pray, That God would make Baptism to be a Seal to the Infant of adoption, and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny your consequence, that unless 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 Jews, was the seal put to a blank with them, or had they all promises of saving graces? Secondly, let me put the same case in grown men, who make an external visible profession, and thereupon are admitted to baptism; can any man say, that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it, is promised to all visible professors? is it not abundantly known, that in all Ages, even in the best times, even in the Apostles time, multitudes were baptised, 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 Seal, 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 do what is required in or by that Sacrament: I say therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen; Jesus Cbrist became a Minister of the Circumcision, to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers; and so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptism, 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 Baptism; but as to the second, which is interest meum, or the receivers interest in that spiritual part of the Covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally; in this particular, all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia, conditional Seals, sealing the spiritual part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition, that he perform the spiritual condition of the Covenant; thus our Divines use to answer the Papists; thus Doctor Ames Answers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine disputing against our Doctrine, that Sacraments are Seals, alleges, than they are falsely applied oftentimes; he di● were to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditional Seals, and therefore not seals 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 baptised persons did, or do stand absolutely engaged to perform the conditions required on their part, and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law; that is, that legal and typical administration 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 Seal was administered to them: Now then, since in Baptism there is such an absolute Seal of the truth of the Covenant of Grace in itself, a conditional Seal of the receivers interest in the Covenant, and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part; IS THERE ANY REASON YOU SHOULD SAY, THAT THE SEAL IS PUT TO A BLANK, WHERE THE SPIRITUAL PART OF SAVING GRACE. IS NOT PARTAKED OF? This answer of Master Martial to Master Tombs (approved by the Assembly of Divines, and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland, to whom it is Dedicated) in the case of Baptism, gives a full answer to the selfsame objection of our Antagonists in case of the Lords supper, they being both Sacraments and Seals alike, and subverts the very main foundation of Suspension only from the Lords Table; for if the Lords Supper be in truth a Seal of Grace, as is alleged, yet seeing it is only a conditional Seal of the receivers interest in the Covenant, but an absolute Seal to every worthy and unworthy receiver of the Covenant of Grace in itself, and an absolute obligation to make good the Covenant on their parts, as Master Martial determines, and Master Rutherfurd himself concludes against the Anabaptists, in his Due Right of Presbyteries, cap. 8. sect. 5. p. 214, 215, 216. Nay more (which I shall add) if it be a visible memorial, Remembrance and Representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ to every receiver, a badge of distinction to difference Christians from Turks, Pagans, Insidels, Jews, and a strong incitation and engagement to them to many Christian virtues duties, as namely to Faith, Hope, Charity, Thankfulness, Mortification of their carnal lusts, Patience under the Cross, unfeigned love to the Lord Jesus Christ and all his members, hatred of, and watchfulness against sin, and universal obedience to Christ, (as 
m Aretius, Calvin, the Harmony of Confessions, and Master Rutherfurd himself, Due right of Presbyteries c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212.  Divines unanimously accord;) and if it be in truth but a mere visible Word, or Preaching of the Gospel and Christ's 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 public Ordinances; the rather, because 
n Doctor Drake in his sixteen Anti-queries, in the Preface and p. 6.  Doctor Drake himself asserts, That not only a scandalous Christian, but a very Heathen may be present at the Lords Supper, and hear the prayers and exhortations, see the Elements consecrated, and all the Sacramental actions, and that with a great deal of profit, if the Lord please to sanctify these things to him, yet neither of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance itself, or outward Elements, though of all the concomitants and actions of it; a prettty novel, Popish whimsy, 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 Catechism, vol. 1. f. 462. Finally, it is asserted by all our 
o Master Rutherfards Due right of Presbyteries, c. 9 sect. 9 etc. 4. sect. 5. p. 186.  Opposites, That the true Saints of God endued with saving faith, may fall into scandalous▪ sins as well as unregenerate persons; for which they may be justly suspended from the 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 Seal of Grace, because they have a true interest in the Covenant of Grace, and by reason of their frailty and lapse into sin, have more need of this confirming, sealing Ordinance to strengthen, increase their graces, and fortify them the more against all future relapses after their falls, then before: Wherefore this Objection extends not unto such.  
To close up my Answer to this grand Objection; admit the Sacraments to be such Seals 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 
a Heb. 6. 1●, to 20.  with an Oath, and by the death and passion of Jesus Christ, 
b 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 complete, firm, valid in themselves, without these Seals annexed to them; or merely void and null in Law, as Kings, or men's Deeds and Charters are without a Seal to ratify them? If firm, valid, complete without them; then how are they seals and ratifications of the Covenant of Grace, as seals are of royal Charters? If incomplete, infirm, invalid; that were extremely 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 seals. Secondly, Whether these Seals are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of Grace in the Old or New Testament, as parts or parcels of them, as seals are annexed to Charter? If yea, then show us to what Covenants and promises, and in, and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed; and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of Grace, who do not actually receive these Seals of Grace; when as yourselves, with all 
c Harmony of Confessions, sect. 13. 14.  orthodox Divines must grant; that many who were never baptised, 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 Seals of Grace. If not, then how can these be termed, Seals of the Covenant and promises of Grace, which are not inseparably affixed to them, as seals are to Charters? since many receive the Covenant and promises of Grace without these Seals, and others receive these Seals without the Covenant or promises, the benefit whereof they never enjoy. Thirdly, By what reason, or upon what solid grounds they can deny the Seals of the Covenant and promises to those very scandalous or ignorant Christians once a moneh, a quarter, a year, 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 Seals are annexed? Can men have an interest in any Covenant, Deed, Charter made, tendered 〈◊〉 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 seals thereto affixed? This certainly is a monster, a solecism in Law, why not them in Divinity too, especially in this point, wherein Divines turn Lawyers, and allude to Law assurances? If then they will grant the Lords Supper to be a Seal of the Covenant and promises of Grace, they must either deliver and give this Seal to all those visible Church-members, to whom they daily preach and tender the Covenant and promises of Grace, which is the main (the Seal being but the 
c Accossorium s●quitor principal.  Accessary, which necessarily follows 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 Seal, and appendent to the Covenant and Promises of Grace, and must not be divided from them.  
Fourthly it is objected, 
Objection 4.  
p Antiquaeries, Master rutherford's divine right of Church-government, p. 523, etc. Answer.  That the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance, to confer and bege●grace where it is wanting, but only to confirm 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 
q See a Vindication of four serious Questions, pag. 40. etc.  elsewhere, and proved the the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance to beget grace, as well as a confirming to increase it, by reasons not yet answered; and (as I conceive) unanswerable, which I shall not here repeat; yet because 
r Sixteen Antiquaeries, the Preface, p. 1. & 6.  Doctor Drake and others (out of their ignorance or wilfulness) style this A NEW PARADOX AND MISTAKE OF MASTER PRINNES, as if I were the first broacher of this truth; I shall only add something the novo for refutation of their mistake.  
First, it is most apparent, that in the Primitive Church the Lord's Supper was administered to Christians every day, at lest every Lord's 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 always sin, might always 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 effectual to an holy and unblamable life, than 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 
s Harmony of Confessions, sect. 14.  sundry others, and largely manifested by Thomas Beacon in his Cat●chisme, vol. 1. f. 463. When this pious custom began to be discontinued, we find divers Decrees & Canons made to enforce them to a frequent reception of this heavenly repast; 
s Platina in vita ejus, and The beacons Catechism, 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, enjoined by their Decrees, That ALL persons should, if not more frequently, yet at leastwise thrice every year receive the Lords Supper; to wit, at Easter, Pentecost, the Nativity of Christ, and every Lord's day in Lent; witness the Decrees of Pope Fabian & Silverius, recorded by 
t De Consect. Dist. 2.  Gratian, 
v Decretalium pars 2. c 27, 29,  Iv● Carnotensis; and 
x Ivo Carnotensis, Decret. pars 2 c 28. Lutheri Carechismus major  Saint Hilary decreed, That if a man's sins were not so great as that he were to be excommunicated, non debet a medicina corporis Domini seperari, he ought not to be sequestered 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, etc. Besides these, the 
y Surjus Concil. Tom. 1. p. 712. Gratian de Consecr. Dist. 2. Ivo Decret. pars 2. c 33.  Council of Agatha about the 440. yeer● after Christ, decreed, That secular men who rece●v●d not the Lords Supper in Christ's Nativity, Easter and Pentecost, should not be reputed Catholics, nor numbered among Catholics; which is seconded by sundry other foreign Councils, as 
z 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 own ancient British Councils, as 
a Spelmanni Concil. Tom. 1. p 519, 548, 615, 616.  Concil. Aenhamense Generale, An. 1009. the Ecclesia●icall Laws of King Knute, An. 1032. with other ancient chapters, prescribe, that every Parishioner should receive the Sacrament at least thrice every year: and the Bubrick in the old Common-Prayer Book after the Communion, with the 21 Canon, made Anno 1505▪ enjoin, That EVERY PARISHIONER shall receive the Lords Supper at  three times every year, of which Laster to be one; And that in Cathedral 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 contrary: Yea, our learned 
b In his Catechism, 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: faithful 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 Son his passion and death: the custom of the Pope's Church is, that the people receive the Sacrament usually but once in the year, that is to say, at Easter; by 
g See 〈…〉 p. 542. 〈◊〉 550. to like purpose.  which means the commandment of Christ is broken, the Sacrament is neglected, the death of Christ not so earnestly remembered, the people become unthankful, dissolution of life breaketh in, vice increaseth, virtue decreaseth; which he condemns as contrary both the Scripture and Antiquity; informing us, That among the Greeks, even at this day, if any man absent himself from the Lords Table by the space of fourteen days (except be can render a reasonable cause of his absence) he is excommunicate, and put from the company of the faithful; and that in all those mighty, large, populous Kingdoms under that most puissant King Prceious John, the holy communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord hath from the beginning been DAILY ADMINISTERED 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, tyrannical practice of sundry of our Ministers, who (I know not out of what new whimsies & 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 Parishioners for whole years together or more, denying this heavenly Ordinance of Christ, as well to the religious among them who desire it, as to the ignorant, scandalous, profane; prostituting this Institution of Christ himself to their own ambitious designs, to encroach a jurisdiction over it and their people's consciences by this irreligious stratagem, no ways justifiable before God or men; so it yields 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 enjoined frequently to receive it, as well as to hear 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 years of discretion, was thus exhorted, obliged to receive it at least three times every year, under pain of excommunication and not being reputed a christian; the greatest part of whom, as the Scripture and experience inform 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 less as a means of their condemnation or aggravation of their sins; but only as an instrument of their inward conversion and regeneration, to beget saving faith and spiritual life within their souls, and unite them unto Christ.  
Hence the 
c Bochellus de crete 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 
d 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 only proves, Baptismi Sacramentum sua virtute conferre Gratiam, styling it, Lavacrum regenerationis quo denuo nastimur; but likewise resolves thus of the Lords Supper; Quis autem VIVIFIC 'EM neget Eucharistiae Sacramentum, quod tam apertis Scripturae testimoniis comprobatur? Calix enim benedictionis cui benedicimus, nun communio sanguinis Christi est? & panis quem frangimus, nun participatio corporis Domini est? etc. Quibus luce clarius constet, hoc sacrosanctam Eucharistiae Sacramentum non solnm GRATIAM CONFER, etc. Which thus interpreted and seconded by the Synod of 
e Bochellus ibid. c. 32. p. 148  Paris, Anno 1557. may pass 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. una 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 instrumentaliter quod sensibiliter figurat. Henc● 
f Bochellus ibid. c. 5. p. 142.  the Council of Bordeaux Anno 1582. defines the like in these terms: 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, pastors omni study & diligentia commissum sibi Christianum populum exhortare debent ad frequentem Augustissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti usum: And Concilium 
g 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, etc. 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, etc. By all which it is apparent that the Lords Supper and Baptism are converting as well as confirming Ordinances, and were so reputed in most 
h 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 Baptism, the Sacrament of divine Generation, the laver of Regeneration, A New Birth, the Regeneration of the soul, the Mother of our Adoption, etc. and call Baptising, giving God's Grace; denying it, denying God's Grace, as Master 
h Defence of Infant. Baptism par. 1. & ●  Martial proves at large, and many of them hold That those who died without Baptism could not be saved; Yea, most 
i In 4 scent Dist. 1. 4. & ●n the●● Treatises of baptism  Papists hold, and many Protestants assert, that Baptism is not only a badge, but instrumental means of our regeneration and first conversion unto God; and if this Sacrament be a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance, than the Lords Supper by like reason must be so too.  
Thirdly, all Popish Schoolmen, Writers, Councils unanimously assert, That Sacraments (especially Baptism 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 physical way ex opere operato (as most of them affirm) or as 
k Master Ruther●urds Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 212.  moral 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: Witness 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 Council 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 
l 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 cousin 76, 77 willet's 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 physical virtue, or ex opere operato, confer grace, yet they generally grant, that they are the means, Organs, or instrumental causes of conferring, confirming grace, through the concurrence of God's 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 spiritual 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 
m Harmony of confessions, sect. 12. p. 279, 280, 281. l. 4. c. ●4.  Bohemia, 
n Decad. 5. Serm. 7  Calvin, 
o Tract▪ Theol▪ p. 350, 357.  Bullinger, Vrsinus, seem to deny the Sacraments to be converting Ordinances, but confirming only: Yet others (especially the Lutherans) hold the contrary. Peter Martyr in his Commentary on Rom. 4. writes, That one chief end of the Sacraments is,  accendant in nobis fidem, Dei; and that they do CONFER GRATIAM in that sense as Paul calls the Gospel, 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.  
Martin Luther in his 
h In concordia Lutherana● p. 378.  lesser Catechism demanding this question. What doth it profit us to eat and drink the Lords Supper? returns 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 SALUS DONENTUR, Vbi enim remissio peccatorum est, ibi est & vita & salus: Therefore he 
a So do his followers; see Brochman, list. 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; alias regenerate an●è, alias post, alias 
i Plane nemo dubita●e debet quod in alvo Baptismi, priusquam Infans a fonte surgat, spiritu● sanctus in animam renascentis in funditur, etc. Pascatius Rathhertus de corporo & sanguine Domini, c. 3.  IN BAPTISMO; sio aliàs antè Coenam, alias post, alias IN ILLA CONVERTIT AD VERAM P●NITENTIAM; sed quotquot regenerate & convertit ad veram paenitentiam illa bona in eyes obsignat usu Sacramentorum: Hence Augustine in Psal. 73. torms them, Sacramenta DANTIA SALUTEM: And Hilary l. 8. de Trinitate, writes thus of the Sacramental Elements, thus accompanied with the spirit; Haec accepta atque exhausta EFFICIUNT, Us nos in Christo & Christus in nobis sit: Therefore by their resolutions the Lords Supper and Baptism are converting as well as confirming or Sealing Ordinances: Yea, Victor Antiochenus in cap. 14. Marci, together with chrysostom and 
k Summa Theolog. pars 4. qu. 11. Artic. 1. sect. 3.  Alensis, affirm, That Christ admitted Judas to his Supper for this very reason, That he might leave no means unattempted to reclaim, convert and reduce him to a sound●nind; which clearly proves it to be a converting Ordinance in their judgements.  
The opinion of Augustine is notorious, that the Sacraments both of Baptism 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 Baptism, but the 
l 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 aught 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; Vnde, 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 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 
l See Capit. Karol. & Ludovici, l. 1. c. 161.  Church's judgement from the Apostles days (it being an Apostolical tradition embraced by the Church, as he avers) these Sacraments are the original primary means both of conversion, spiritual 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. affirms, That Death fed upon men on earth until 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 spiritual life and sanctification, and so a converting Ordinance: The say 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 own Church; for Bishop Jewel 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 INCREASE FAITH IN US, there are more ways than can be reckoned: Some men are moved only by the hearing of God's Word; some others by the beholding and weighing of God's Miracles: Justinus the Martyr was first alured to the faith by the cruelty of the Tyrants, and by the constancy and patience of the Saints, etc. Among OTHER CAUSES, THE SACRAMENTS SERVE SPECIALLY TO DIRECT AND TO AID OUR FAITH; For they are, as Saint Augustine calleth them, Verba visibilia, visible words and Seals, and testimonies of the Gospel, etc. Our learned Thomas Beacon in his Catechism, f. 425, 426. thus defines a Sacrament; A Sacrament is an holy Action and exercise of Christ's Church IN which the redemption and partaking of our Lord Jesus Christ IS GIVEN TO US through the Word, and the Signs 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 inform us of the grace, favour, mercy and good will of God towards us? Which he answers thus:  
Christ the wisdom of the Father, knowing our grossness and dulness 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 God's mysteries, that we may be saved, hath not only given us his holy spirit to inform, instruct and teach our inward man, but to make us perfect both in body and soul; he hath also given his Word to instruct our ears, 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 ears▪ and the Sacraments to serve our eyes, preach, declare and set forth outwardly, 
Note.  that we may be taught both corporally and spiritually. Again▪ who knoweth not that things seen with eyes are more surely fixed in the minds of men, than those things which are only heard? And therefore a Sacrament may right well be called a visible word: For whatsoever the word is to the ear, 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 inform and instruct our outward senses, ordained these outward signs 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 spiritual gifts nakedly and simply, which are given to the faithful in the deliverance of the Sacraments; but forasmuch as we have bodies joined to our souls, therefore in sensible things he doth communicate unto us the gifts of grace; and this hath been the property of God not only in the New, but also in the old Testament.  
If then the Sacraments be but visible words, which preach the selfsame things (yet in a more lively and sensible manner) to our eyes, as the Word preached doth unto our ears, as this Author, with all 
m Calvin, Melanchton, Peter Martyr, Zerchius', Aretius, and others.  Orthodox Divines, and 
n Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 121.  Master Rutherfurd himself, unanimously accord; it must needs follow, that the Sacraments (especially the Lords Supper) most lively representing Christ's passion to us, must be a converting Ordinance, as well as the Word read or preached: Upon which ground, the Ancient Catholic Fathers (as our own 
o Concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 189 190.  Homilies resolve) styled the Lord's Supper; A comfortable medicine of the soul, the salve of immortality, and sovereign preservation against death, the Pledge of eternal 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 confirming Ordinance. Master Richard Ward in his Commentary upon Matthew, pag. 399. in the written Copy, writes, Sacraments do not confer Grace upon all, nor by a physical power give grace unto any; but sometimes GOD IN AND BY THE SACRAMENTS CONVEYS GRACE INTO HIS ELECT CHILDREN, and sometimes by the Sacraments confirms grace which he hath formerly conferred.  
Not to multiply Authorities in so clear a case, the very Directory itself (composed by the Assembly, and ratified by both Houses of Parliament) pag. 25. enumerateth the Word and Sacraments among the special means of Grace and salvation in these words; To give thanks to God for all his benefits, and especially for▪ ALL MEANS 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 equally in the self same manner means of grace, and coupling them both together in the self same predication; therefore if the Word be a means of begetting grace where it was wanting, and of obtaining salvation, the Sacraments must be so too. In fine, 
p Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 217.  Master Rutherfurd himself writes thus: You say, Sacraments do not make a thing that was not, but confirm a thing that was before; while you would seem to refute Papists, who vainly ●each, that Sacraments ex opere operato do confer grace, yet do you make the Sacrament but a naked sign, and take part with Arminians and So●●nians, whose very Arguments in express words you use; for if a Sacrament make not a thing which was before, and if God give not, and really produce, confer, exhibit grace, and a stronger measure of faith and assurance of remission of sins, at the due and right use of the Sacrament, the Sacrament is a naked sign, and not an exhibitive Seal; but if Christ give, and in the present exhibit as surely remission of sins as the Infant is washed with water, as our Divines and the Palatinate Catechism teacheth, and the Confession thereof and the Synod of Dort teacheth, then by the Sacrament of Baptism (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 
q Master rutherfurd's divine right of Church-Government, p. 523, 524.  another discourse in those terms: Master Prynne might have spared his pains That the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, because it applies Christ to us; WE GRANT IT TO BE A CONVERTING, QUICKENING 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, etc. 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 show that the Church taketh such as are externally called, to be internally called, whence they dispense the Supper to them.  
In which words, we have a most clear confession, That the Lords Supper is both a converting and quickening 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 confirms 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 means of our first conversion from formal profession to inward embracing the Gospel: For the Word must go before; and not simply the external Letter of the Word, but the Word first believed and received by the efficatio●s working of the holy Ghost, etc. This is only 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 please, as well as by the Word; and confines the Spirits first inward conversion of men only to the Word, 
r John 3. 7▪ 〈◊〉  Who breatheth where and in what Ordinance ●e listeth, the breath of spiritual life into our souls. True it is, the Word preached i● the first ordinary and most usual means both of external and internal conversion, but yet the Sacraments as well as the Word are very frequently made the instruments, though not of external conversion of m●n from Paganism to Chrstianity (not here in question,) yet of carnal Christian's 
s See Ta●●●●● in Thomam, Tom. 4. Disp. 3. qu. 3. Du. 50  first inward and real conversion from sin & satan unto Christ, and a m●st effectual means both of begetting, increasing grace and spiritual life in their souls, as I have elsewhere largely evidenced.  
Hence 
a Loci Communes printed 153●. Lo●● de Sacramentis.  Philip Melanchton (in a Book Dedicated to our King Henry the VIII) though he deny, that the Sacraments ex opere operato confer grace and justification; yet he expressly resolves, that they were principally instituted to be signs of Gods good will towards us, incurring into our eyes, that they may admonish us TO BELIEVE the promise proposed in the Gospel: Thus we conjoin 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 certain note which is received with the ears, 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 belief, so likewise is he apprehended in the Sacrament when we believe: Wherefore as the Word is an instrument by which the holy Ghost is effectual, as Paul saith, The Gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth: Also, Faith is by hearing, etc. So BY THE SACRAMENTS the holy Ghost IS EFFECTUAL; namely, when they are received by faith; FOR THEY ADMONISH AND MOVE US TO BELIEVE AS THE WORD DOTH: Therefore by his resolution the Sacraments are converting Ordinances, and means of begetting grace as well, and in like manner as the Word, and not confirming Ordinances only of grace begun. Yea, he 
b Ibid▪ loc. de Sacramentorum numero.  positively affirms, (and so did our English Apostle 
c 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 Wickliff long before him) That the very preaching of the Word is a Sacrament instituted in the Gospel's▪ 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 adds, That Prayer likewise may be called a Sacrament, because it hath great promises annexed to it. If then Sacraments do only confirm grace where it is begun before, not confirm 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 only confirming Ordinances▪ Since in Melanchtons and Wickliff's opinions (to omit others) they are and may be called Sacraments as well as the Lords Supper or Baptism; which Wickliff 
d Dialogorum l. 4. ●. 1.  terms, 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 which makes them Sacraments, and appropriate the tilet of a Sacrament only to Baptism and the Lords Supper, from which they exclude and suspend all scandalous persons (& their children too from 
e Apology of the Churches in New-England against the exceptions of Richard Bernard, ch. 8. See Mr. rutherfurd's due right of Presbyteries c. 4. sect. 5 p. 221, etc.  Baptism in New-England) upon pretence they are only confirming Ordinances, Sacraments and Seals 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 God's 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 Reign, Anno 1553. Artic. 26. refined and confirmed by Act of Parliament, Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, Art. 25. of Sacraments; which determines thus: Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges and tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather, they be certain sure witnesses and EFFECTUAL SIGNS of Grace and Gods good will towards us, by the which he doth WORK INVISIBLY IN US, and doth NOT ᶠ ONLY QUICKEN, 
The holy Spirit doth seal 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 do the Sacraments by its concurrence with them.  but ALSO STRENGTHEN AND CONFIRM OUR FAITH IN HIM: Therefore by our own Church's resolution, which all our Ministers have actually subscribed to; the Sacrament of Baptism, 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 confirm 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 mere upstart error, maintained purposely by some Divines (against their own subscriptions, if not their consciences too,) to justify and support the sole suspension 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 main pillar of it be subverted.  
As for Master rutherfurd's, 
Objection 5.  Doctor Drak●s▪ and others main reason to the contrary, That no man can receive the Lords Supper worthily, unless 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 damnation, not conversion to himself: Ergo, This Sacrament is no first converting, but only a confirming Ordinance.  
I answer, 
Answer.  First, that the argument is but a mere fallacy, which will either nullify all Ordinances, or prove no Ordinance (no not the preaching of the Word or Prayer) to be converting, but merely confirming; for the very preaching of the Word will neither profit, nor externally nor really convert any that hear it, unless they hear 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, ineffectual, & receiveth nothing from the Lord, Jam. 1. 5, 6. ch. 5. 15. Ergo, by this reason (if allowed) a man must have saith and spiritual life wrought in him before he can either hear or pray with profit as he ought, and so must be first converted ere he can hear the Word or Pray: What then shall we conclude hence, that men neither may nor aught to pray, hear or receive the Lords Supper until they be actually regenerated and inspired with saving faith? God forbidden; for then Godshall have no worship, and men no public Ordinances: we must  know, that God hath appointed both the Word, Sacraments and Prayer, as the ordinary means or instruments whereby he begets true spiritual life, faith and grace within us, by the effectual concurrence of the spirit in and with them; whereupon he frequently 
s 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 converted, and quickened by them when we want grace, as well as strengthened 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 quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will: He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: Verily, verily I say uno you, the hou●e is coming and now is, THAT THE DEAD (in sin and natural corruption) SHALL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD, AND THEY THAT HEAR IT SHALL LIVE. Which is thus seconded, Eph. 2. 1. to 8. And you hath he quickened (to wit, by the Word and other Ordinances accompanied with the Spirit) WHO WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND SINS; But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, EVEN WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN SINS HATH QUICKENED US together with Christ, and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, etc. For by grace ye are saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, etc. a pregnant Text: As Christ's speech to Lazarus lying dead and buried in his grave, to wit, Lazarus come forth; was the instrumental means both of his raising from the dead, and coming forth of the grave accordingly, John 11. 43, 44. And as his words to the dead Rulers Daughter, Mark 5. 4●, 42. Damsel arise; and Peter's speech to dead Tabytha, Acts 9 40, 41. Tabytha arise, were the instrumental means and cause both of their raising and reviving; and as Gods command in the very first creation, Let there be light, etc. was the instrumental 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 sins, and begets saving faith with other graces in such who formerly never had them, by his Spirit working in and by these means: 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 turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me. These Ordinances do not find us living, worthy or regenerate, but make us such; do not presuppose faith and repentance already in us, (for what should work them?) but the contrary; and therefore are ordained to beget faith and spiritual life even in those who are dead in sins, Mark 16. 15, 16. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Acts 16. 14, 15. ch. 2. 37, 38. chap. 10. 44. Eph. 2. 1, etc. and after that, to confirm and strengthen all spiritual graces wrought within us; by means whereof, when wrought, the Ordinances which first instrumentally begat them, become more profitable and comfortable to us then before: This is so clear, that Master 
t Due right of Presbyteries, c. 4. sect. 5. p. 285, etc.  Rutherfurd is forced to confess, That the Church may, nay aught to give the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, even to such as are not truly regenerated, if they externally profess the Gospel, as well as preach the Gospel to them, (though contradicting himself, as I conceive, he affirms 
v Which Master Rutherfurd affirms, Divine right of Church-Government, p. 280.  elsewhere, That to come to the Lords Supper is not commanded to all, not to Pagans, not to children, rot to the unregenerate, BUT ONLY TO THE REGENERATED;) Of which no other reason can be given, but that they are means of begetting, as well as increasing 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, unless natural disabilities hinder them.  
Hence 
w Concordia Lutherana p. 542. to 250.  Martin Luther in his Greater Catechism, 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 brutish, yea extremely to contemn 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 months, nay, years together, would now at last consider;) removes one main Objection which deterred many from the Sacrament (to wit, their own unworthiness sinfulness and unpreparedness to receive it) with this encouraging argument; That this Sacrament was not instituted for those that are worthy, and purely cleansed from their sins, but cloane contrary, even for miserable and wretched sinners, sensible of nothing but their own unworthiness: 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 worthiness of mine own, but trusting on thy Word alone, because thou hast commanded me to come, etc. For the Sacrament is not to be looked upon as an hurtful thing, from which we should run with both our feet, but as a saving and wholesome medicine, which may heal thy diseases, and give life both to thy soul and body: Why then do we so shun it, as if it were a poison (as some 
x Master rutherfurd's Divine right of Church-Government. pag 252, 253, 254 etc. A brotherly & friendly censure▪ p. 6, 7. An Antidote against four dangerous Queries, with others.  Divines now term it, to scare people from it) which being received, would bring present death unto us? Yea, but some may say; I am not so sensible of my sins and unworthiness as I should be: To such as are in this condition, I can give no better advice, then to look into their own 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 sum, by how much the less thou art throughly sensible of thy sins and defects, the more reasons thou hast of coming, and frequent seeking help and physic. The substance whereof is but this: That the frequent receiving of the Lords Supper is an effectual means to 
y So the Lutherans generally hold. Hinkelman, de Anabaptismo, Disp. 9 c. 1. Er. 6.  beget and work repentance, sense of sin, spiritual life, health, true grace within us when we want them, as well as to increase, confirm them when we have them; whence it is generally termed by Divines, A MEANS OF GRACE.; therefore we must frequently resort unto it in obedience to God's command, as well to obtain faith, repentance and spiritual 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 administered to none but the Elect and truly regenerate: For since none are endued with saving grace, faith, repentance, but only 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 follows, 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 Baptism 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 Seals of the Conant to those to whom the Covenant and promises of grace do not belong in God's Decree of God's Election: refuting the contrary opinion as anabaptistical: 
x Defence of Infant Baptism. part 3.  Master Martial doth the like, and that upon these grounds:  
First, because Christ and his Apostles admitted divers to Baptism and the Lords Supper, who were never elect or truly regenerate, as Judas, Simon Magus, and others. Secondly, because no Ministers without special revelation, but 
y 2 Chron. 6. 33. 2 Tim. 6. 19  God alone infallibly know who are Elect and truly regenerate, 
z Jer. 17▪ 9  the hearts of men bring deceitful above all things, and 
a Mat. 22. 14.  many called, but few choose▪ and so they cannot tell certainly who to admit, or who to seclude from the Sacrament: Upon which ground Master 
b Defence of Infant Baptism p 111. & 140.  Martial himself concludes thus against Master Tombs: And truly Sir, whosoever will grant that a Minister in applying the Seal, must do it de fide, in faith, being sure he applies it according 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 external 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 Seals unto, for certainly 〈◊〉 hath no written word to build his Faith upon, for the state of this or that man: And for my own part, when once you have disproved this, that there is such a visible membership and right to external Administrations as I have here insisted upon, I shall not only forbear baptising Infants, 
Note.  but the Administration of the outward seal to any, what profession soever they make, until 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 accidental means of 
b ● Cor. 11. 27 28, 29. 2 Cor. 2. 25, 26. Articles of the Church of England, Art. 29.  aggravating men's 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 own 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 
c 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 only of persons inwardly converted, is an error; if of Pagans not converted, as he perchance means it, is quite mistaken by the Opposites.  
Finally, 
Objection 6.  
d See Master rutherfurd's d●vine right of Church-government, c. 5 qu. 1. p. 242▪ 243. etc. 15.  they object. That the Priests were to put difference between holy and unholy, between unclean and clean, Levit. 10. 10. Hag. 2. 11, 14, and that they are checked by God himself, Ezek. 22. 26. for putting no difference between the holy and profane, the unclean and clean: Ergo, Church-officers and the Ministers of the Gospel have power by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, not only to excommunicate, but likewise to suspend scandalous and ignorant persons from the Lords Supper.  
I answer, 
Answer.  that the Argument is a mere Nonsequitur: For first, these Texts belong only to the aaronical Priests under the Law, 
e Heb. 7. 11. to the end, etc. 8▪ & 9 & 10.  Abolished by Christ, not to the Ministers of the Gospel: Secondly, they speak only of ceremonial Holiness' and profaneness, cleanness and uncleanness, 
f Acts 10. 10. to 17. Col. 2. 14. to 23. 1 Tim. 4. 5.  abrogated by Christ, not of moral: Thirdly, not of persons morally holy or unholy, clean or unclean; but rather of me●ts, or creatures ceremonially holy and unholy, clean and unclean, or at leastwise of persons, meats and creatures promiscuously, only as ceremonially clean & unclean: Fourthly, the putting of difference here mentioned, was not any actual secluding unclean persons from the Passeover or Lords Supper, or suspending them from all public Ordinances by any judicial power vested in the Priests, but only the Priests instructing of the people what was holy and unholy, clean and unclean, as is evident by Levit. 10. 10. That ye may put difference between holy and unholy (things) unclean and clean (things:) But how was this to be done? Only 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, unclean and clean 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 profane, neither have they shown the difference between the unclean and the clean: and Ezek. 44. 23. And THEY SHALL TEACH MY PEOPLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOLY AND PROFANE, AND CAUSE THEM TO DISCERN BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN: So that the Priests putting difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean in Leu. 10. 10. is both by the t●nth verse, and these Texts of Ezekiel expressly interpreted to be nothing else, but a teaching or showing the children of Israel to put a difference and to discern between the holy and profane, unclean and clean things prescribed by the ceremonial Law; not a judicial power or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to excommunicate unholy and unclean persons from the public Ordinances, or society of the holy and clean, much less a power to suspend them only from the Passeover or Lord Supper, as is pretended by the Objectors: This I shall further clear by Haggai ●. 11, 12, 13. the place objected: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Ask now the Priests concerning the Law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or any meat, shall it be holy? and the Priests answered, No: Then said Haggai, if one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be UNCLEAN? And the Priest, answered and said, It shall be UNCLEAN: And by Levit. 20. 25, 26. Ye shall therefore PUT DIFFERENCE between CLEAN AND UNCLEAN BEASTS, and between UNCLEAN FOWLS AND CLEAN, etc. 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 unclean and not to be eaten by the Israelites, and what clean and to be ea●en by them, he concludes thus; This is the Law of Beasts, and of Fowls, 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 unclean and clean, 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 clear in my apprehension by paralleling them together, than all the argument that can be thence deduced is but this inconsequent:  
The aaronical Priests were to teach the people to put a difference between Beasts, Fowls, Meats that were clean and unclean, and between things holy and unholy by the levitical Law.  
Ergo, Presbyters and Presbyteries under the Gospel, have a judicial Ecclesiastical 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 public Ordinances.  
What ill logic, sense and coherence is in this argument, I refer to the meanest capacity to determine: Yet this is all these Scriptures yield our Opposites for proof of excommunication or suspension, though they much insist upon them; they might as well, or rather better argue hence, that the people themselves, not the Priests, aught to excommunicate or suspend scandalous persons from the Lords Supper, because the people were to put a difference between creatures clean and unclean, and the Priests themselves were but to teach the people to put the difference between the holy and unholy, clean and unclean, as these Texts resolve; the rather, for that the Apostle Judas 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 fear, etc.  
Fiftly, admit the Priests had power to put a difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean persons as well as Beasts, by virtue of these Texts, as is pretended; yet putting a differerence is no infallible proof of a power vested in them (much less in the Ministers of the Gospel or Presbyteries) to excommunicate unholy or unclean persons, or suspend scandalous or ignorant ones from the Lords Supper only, since every private Christian is to put a difference between spiritually holy and unclean persons, and those that are morally unholy and unclean; yet it follows not thereupon that he may judicially excomm●icate or suspend them from the Sacrament; the Ministers and private Christians must put a different between such as these: First, in their affections and esteem of them; they must 
g John 13. 34, 35. Eph. 1 15 c. 5. 2. 1 John 3. 11, 14. Psal. 15. 2.  love and honour the one, but 
h 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 
i Titus 1. 13. c 2. 15. Luke 13 3, 5. Levit 19 17. Eph 5. 11  admonish and sharply rebuke the one, denouncing Gods judgements against their sins, but 
k Isa. 41. 1, 2. Col. 3. 16. Gal 6. 1, 2.  exhort, encourage and comfort the other with God's promises; they must 
l 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 
m 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 than this, is no ways warranted from these objected Texts.  
I shall therefore conclude from all the Premises (till convinced by better Scripture Authorities, Arguments, Reasons, than ever I could yet meet with in any Foreign or Domestic Writers;) That Suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper only, who desire to receive it, without excommunicating them from all other public Ordinances and Christian society, though it be somewhat ancient in the Church, introduced, prescribed at first by the Canous 
n 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 certain Councils, in special cases of Apostasy in times of persecution, as a mere Ecclesiastical punishment of humane institution, as the Canons themselves demonstrate (which seem very unreasonable or fictitious) and 
o De Rebus Ecclesiast. cap. 17.  W●llafridus Strabo intimates, who terms it, A sanctis Patribus constitutum, a constion of the Fathers, not of Christ; (in which sense I oppugn it not, nor as prescribed by the Parliament in a prudential way) yet it is no Divine Censure or Institution; and that there is no power to inflict any such suspension vested in Ministers, Presbyteries, or Church-Officers by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ revealed in the Scripture, as many now most confidently aver both in Press and Pulpit, without any solid reason or authority to justify their assertion.  
Wherefore consider seriously what I have written, and the Lord give us understanding in all things, that we may no longer disturb the peace both of Church and State with any groundless 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 administered to them for their conversion, edification and spiritual consolation, upon mere new crotchets and grounds of conscience, never once insisted on heretofore, till this new project of claiming an Ecclesiastical power of suspension from the Lords Supper only, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, was set on foot; but rest satisfied with the Apostles resolution and council, with which I shall conclude, Rom. 14. 16, 17, 18, 19 Let not then your good be evil spoken of; for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink (I may add, nor yet Excommunion nor suspension from the Lords Supper, as some now make it) but righteousness, 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 edify another; not domineer or tyrannize 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.   
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page 1. line 8. deal one. p 4 l 20, for 2 read 9 l 36, for 37 r 33: p 5 l 40, thrust ou●. p 7 l 3, for, or. p 11 l 31, Churches. p 12 l 44, unfit. p 13 l 44, deal a. p 23 l 27, Charters. p 25 l 42, the, to: p 27 l 33, conferunt. l 44, all, many.  
In the Margin. p 5 l 2, 23 r 29. l 10, 179, r 278.