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

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

Rep. But doe We not hereby make [Page 39]our selves one with the wicked with whom we joyne, and can we have Communion with Christ and Beliall?

Answ. We doe, and must be one, with all that joyn in the same professi­on; that is we are one, or one body, as Members of the same visible Church in its outward capacity, freely administring the Ordinances, whereof we are to par­take; but we are not one with them in their evill courses, wee disclame them wholly in the impiety of their conver­sation. So that wee have communion herein onely with Christ, and have no­ting to doe with Beliall. For I would not have any so grosly think, that a joy­ning with a wicked mans person, is ha­ving communion with Beliall, but ac­companying him in his evill wayes (Communio malorum non maculat Quē ­quam participatione Sacramentorum (sayes Austine) sed consentione facto­rum:) If the Corinthians were alive, and you joyned with them in going to their Idols, this were indeed a commu­nion with Beliall; but if you only joyn'd with them in comming to the Lords [Page 40]Table, you should partake of Christ a­lone, as the Godly of them then did, and as we ought to doe. I will go with the wickedst man alive to the Church, but I must leave him at the Ale-house; We may joyn with any to doe good, as to worship God in his Ordinance, but we cannot (that is we may not) joyne with any in the least evill; we cannot serve God and the Devill. But you will say further, Doe wee not professe the wicked, with whom we joyne, not onely to be one of us, but one of Christ, and partakers of his death? and how can we doe so? I answer, very well. The visible Church is the Body of Christ; As Christ said, Every branch, in me, that beareth not fruit. Io. 15.2. As Peter sayes, There are some that deny the Lord that bought them. 2. Pet. 2.1. As Paul sayes, There are some that are sanctified with the bloud of the Covenant, which they trample upon. Heb. 10.29. (with Heb. 2.9. 2 Cor. 5.14.) So say I of all ungodly professors, They are such branches in Christ, redeemed and sanctified, in the same sense as the Scriptures mean in these places; that is, in regard of a visible esteem, where­by [Page 41]they externally partake of the Ordi­nances of Christ, and so are reckoned as Members of him: Let such places be laid it little more to heart, and when you have made the Orthodox interpre­tation, the Question will be even done, and we shall be no longer afraid of a free Admission, when we must affirme, that there is an historicall visible faith, that gives an outward Church-right un­to the Elements, as a true saving Faith, that gives interest to the effectual grace of the Sacraments; Even as the branches have some union with the root, that bring forth only Leaves, though they partake not of that vitall Sap, that sends forth fruit also.

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

Answ. I grant with sorrow, there are too many of us come absurdly, and but wickedly, when wee forget to doe that we ought, The Lord forgive us; but though in the reciprocall action, as it is to be a seal (as is said) of mans part, the receiver fails in his solemne mutuall engagements according to the Covenant (whereof he is to repent;) yet as for the Minister, or Church, who offer it as a seal on Gods part, there is a true seale to a true Copy, and nothing out of Order. The Sacraments therefore [Page 45]may be considered in their nature, and in their use: In their nature, I take them to be Gods seals only, as primarily signifying his grace, and shewing forth Christ, though in the use and effect they are to be mans too, as secondarily he is reciprocally to believe, and engage himself unto God: (Sacramenta nostra accipimus ex manu dei, & nobis sunc signa gratiae primo, secundarie obligati­onis & professionis nostrae: Paraus in Loc­praedict) In the notion they are mans seals, we may conceive the Sacraments Seals of Faith, for Faith is the Conditi­on of the Covenant, and we seal to our Condition, so that as they are concei­ved thus indeed; they are seals of Faith, because seals of the Covenant, which I stand upon: But as they are Gods seals, for the same reason they cannot be seals of Faith (but consecutivè, as I said be­fore, in the effect to the Godly, to yeeld what may be expressively only) because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is Faith, but to his owne part, which is the promise, and so I call them seals of the Covenant or promise formally, and not of faith. Now I say cleerly, though an unregene­rate [Page 46]☞ man cannot receive the Sacrament, as a seale of his Faith, yet the Church can give it, as a seale of the Covenant; and though it wants its due effect on him, there is the right nature neverthe­lesse in the Administration, though not a right use of it in the receiver; even as at the word, where there may be true preaching, and the nature of the Gos­pell, though the hearers apply it not as they ought, by faith. Look back to that only place Ra. 4. where it is said Cir­cumcision is a seale, Abraham is said to receive it as a seale, which receiving includes Gods giving; so that we must look upon the Sacraments in the nature of them, as Gods seals from the very in­stitution; who else durst appoint such things to signifie such spirituall matters? & as they are Gods seals they are set to his own word, and so can never be to a blanck while there is truth in the pro­mise, and writing in the Gospell. Now then the Sacraments being Gods seals certainly, in the institution & nature of them, if I should deny them to be mans seals at all, there being not for it one tittle of Scripture, I should quite remove the scruple from the hearts of men; but [Page 47]whereas (that I may not remove their care and duty too) I grant though in the nature of seals, they are Gods Seals, Gods own seals, seals of the Cove­nant only, yet in the use of seals and effect, they are to be mans seals also, seals to the Condition of our part, seals of faith, and so I cannot, I may not ac­quit the receivers wholly, but that they come absurdly, set a seale to a blanke, and take the Sacrament in vaine (as it is to be their seale) if they come without Faith, and those solemne engagements as God Requires of us; though I can fully acquit the Church herein, in her delivery of the signs on Gods part (as we are his Embassadors;) because the Covenant by him stands sealed to all whomsoever, and there can be no doubt of sealing to a blanke I affirme, so long as the Promise or the Gospell it selfe holds in force, the tenour whereof this Sacrament seals absolutely to us. The te­nour of it I say, marke me, not our in­terest in it; for that it seals not abso­lutely. The Sacrament is the ex­ternall seale (the internall only of the Spirit can absolutely give this interest to any) this outward seale, is set to Gods [Page 48]outward copy of the Covenant, that is the word; now look what the word af­firms, the Sacrament seals, and con­firms according to the tenor thereof, and no otherwise. Now the word speaks not particularly of any mans single interest, but generally it declares to all a common interest upon condition they beleeve; now as this interest is exprest conditionally, so the Sacrament cannot seale to it but conditionally, ac­cording to that tenor is exprest; or rather let me say the Sacrament seals ge­nerally (so I will expresse it) the truth of the Covenant freely to all, engage­ing them unto it, and the interest or be­nefits of the Covenant, to every single person, upon the terms, conditions, or tenor only of the Gospell.

I must professe this in the Embrion has layn a long time in my apprehensi­ons, and I cannot but be glad to find a piercing and godly man (I take him) whom the right conceiving of. this alone (he says) converted hi [...] and satisfied him.

The Covenant runs thus, He that believes shall be saved, adde I believe, Ergo I shall be saved; from which syllo­gisme [Page 49]we gather our assurance. Now to which of those propositions (sayes he) does the Sacrament seal? not to the minor as it is surmised, for no Scripture sayes of any particular man he beleeves, and God seals to his own word not ours. Nor to the conclusion for the same reason. But to the major, which it absolutely seales, as true to us, according to the tenour of the Gos­pell.

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

Answ. As the Sacrament is a shew­ing forth of Christ, with a tender of the Covenant in his bloud, there is an open, free, generall right to it, for all that will come in to Christ. Let me beseech you, mark this distinction; There is a dou­ble right here observable. A right of [Page 52]Obligation, and A right of privilege. For the right of Obligation, in the Mi­nisters offer of Christ freely, and the peoples receiving him in his own terms, I doe avouch a universall right, to eve­ry Ordinance, Isa. 66.23. they being dutyes of worship, which is of universall command (and this often, primitively once a week) though for the right of privilege in any, to enjoy the sweetnes, comfort, efficacy, life, and benefit of them, I acknowledge it a prerogative, belonging onely to the Saints, and Elect of God. Now put case, a poor soule should stand in doubt of his right to this Ordinance, that yet fain would come to Jesus Christ. Let him say, Lord my heart is humbly afraid of my unworthi­nesse, yet seeing I come resolving to give up my Soule to thee, and it is our duty to come in, at this Supper; This Right of Obligation shall be my warrant to bring me in, and then Lord I hope thou wilt let me find the Right of Privilege too, in thy due season O my God; Put case again, A godly heart should rise at the conceit of a wicked person receiving with him, Let him think presently thus, though there is a neerer Right unto [Page 53]my soule, blessed be the mere free grace of God, yet there is a right of obliga­tion to every one, I ought not to be offended with any, the Lord sanctifie it to them for their conversion, the knowledge of this distinction may do very much to allay the troubles of ma­ny judgments, and more Consciences in this controversy.

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

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

But that I may wholly root out this [Page 59]subtility, which I think the spirit of error has insinuated in the hearts of many Godly men; I have three things more to say, which by Gods blessing will fully do it.

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

2. Consider what is conversion. There is an outward conversion from Heathenisme, to the profession of Christ; we doe not stand to say the the Sacrament is such a converting Or­dinance, as if Christ should bid us go forth with this Sacrament, and convert the Nations, let this be imagined only of the word. But there is an inward effe­ctuall [Page 60]conversion of such as outwardly professe Christ, to the truth of grace in their hearts. Now how is the worke of grace (or true conversion) wrought through the word it selfe? Not from a­ny active power it has per se, upon the Soule; but per modum objecti we say, and instrumentally; the object is proposed or revealed, that is all the word does, and then it is the spirit that by illumina­ting the mind, and a touch upon the will, brings the heart to embrace the ob­ject, whereby it is converted. Now is it not just thus likewise in the Sacra­ment? This Sacrament shews forth Christ Crucified according to the Co­venant, who is the true object of Faith and Life, upon this the spirit of God draws the heart (by illumination and conviction) to embrace him upon those terms he here is offered, insomuch that experience can witnesse that some are, and have been hereby converted. What difference is there imaginable betweene this conversion and at the Word? What a shift is it to say it is only At, and not By the Sacrament, when it is instrumen­tall per modum objecti, as the Word? where I may say the same too as truly, [Page 61]that it is more properly At, than By, the Word it self, there being no active ver­tue but of the spirit, in the one, or the other.

3. As for this device of the Sacra­ment being occasionally, not intentio­nally converting; There may be a prin­cipall intention and subordinate; more primary, or secondary ends in an Ordi­nance: Though the word be the prin­cipall converting Ordinance, we cannot deny but others may be subordinately also converting, as Prayer; why els doth the Church pray, Turne thou u [...], and we shall be turned, Convert thou us, and we shall be converted? Now as Prayer and other means of Grace are conver­ting, and that intentionally in being used to this end; So I affirm of the Sa­crament, unlesse you can finde in your heart to keep this pitifull shift still, and say, rather than this shall be, you will distinguish between a converting ordi­nance and means of Conversion, other ordinances are means of Conversion, but yet the word, you persist, is the only intentionally (that is intended) conver­ting ordinance: Well; goe too, what then I pray? To the purpose. Then [Page 62]you will say the word shall be held forth to all as intended to convert them, but the Sacrament shall not, being not so intended in the Institution: Be it so: It followes then, there must be no Ordi­nance administred to those that are not converted, but only that which is thus an intended converting Ordinance: Is this as you would have it? This is the very ground on which you stand: But harke ye, my Friend, I pray then what shall become of publick prayer & other Ordinances in the Church, when the Word is the onely principally intended converting Ordinance out of question? By this doctrine at one dash you take away all other dutyes in our mixt con­gregations: In what a case are you here brought? what can you invent? On necessity you must recant and confesse indeed, that Prayer and the like duties, though not principally, yet in a subor­dinate way are converting Ordinances, or means and helps of conversion; and upon that account you admit all to them: Now if you will doe so, then is the door as full open in this subordinate way too, for the Sacrament: If you will not, I beleeve the Sacrament will be [Page 63]contented to be shut out with such good company, and desires to fare no better, than her fellow-ordinances.

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

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

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

I answer, (besides that we have no Quum possit) it is a wonder to me any religious man should compare this Sa­crament to a Cup of Poyson, seeing it is in its own nature a Cup of Blessing, and if it prove death to any (as Sin may take occasion from the Commande­ment and slay us) through their owne impiety; it is more than we can know, or ought to judge, seeing God is able to make it (as it is) a Cup of Salvation, even to the worst. Let us act with chari­table thoughts, and leave the successe to God. Even as Paul in his preaching, who in 2 Cor. 2. tells us, It was the sa­vour of death unto some, ver. 16. yet must he preach it in every place, ver. 14. be­cause it was neverthelesse a sweet savour [Page 70]unto Christ, in those that perish'd, as in those that were saved, ver. 15. So say I of this Sacrament, we must doe our du­ty and administer freely, knowing God will make all his ordinances a sweet sa­vour to himself, whether it be of life un­to life, or death unto death to any of us.

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

☞ The first, Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation, that is, (to free some [Page 71]weake mindes from fearfull thoughts) whether it be such a sinne, as makes a man guilty without repentance and Gods mercy, of Condemnation? And I conceive we must distingnish between the very receiving, which is good; and the unworthinesse, which makes the sin onely. This unworthinesse is in the Person, or in the Act: In the Person it consists in his evill conscience, which will condemn him whether he comes, or abstaines from comming. Put case one receives not, and is unworthy, the guilt of his unworthinesse lyes never­thelesse upon him for that, it may be, more; for in this very refusing, his own Conscience condemns him, and God is greater than his Conscience; whereas if he comes, it happily may excuse him something in not neglecting the out­ward performance, not aggravate his condition; for though he failes in the inward, and that failing is sin, yet that Act he does, makes him not more sinfull for the doing, but he would have sin­ned more, to have failed in that too, and not have done it, Unworthinesse in the act, consists in obliquity, deficiency, or failing in the right manner of receiving, [Page 72]though the outward work it self be not amisse. There is the matter of a duty and manner; As for the matter, every one can doe, in a Christian deportment at the Table, but in the manner, to re­ceive in Faith, Love, and other graces as we ought, this a naturall man cannot doe, and so he sinnes in his duty. His very Act is not sin, so far as he does doe in the matter it is good (not only sub genere entis, but good in tanto sub ge­nere morum) but this failing and swer­ving in the manner, is the evill, which as it cleaves unto, we may conceive, defiles the Act, and makes it lyable unto judg­ment.

Now then my second Quaere is, whe­ther receiving the Sacrament unworthi­ly, is otherwise damnable, then pray­ing and hearing unworthily; (whereof Christ says as much, Go and preach, he that beleeveth not, is damned, Mar. 16. I ohn 3.18. ipso facto as much as heere) And if it be not, why upon the same ac­count, as men go to prayer, to the word and other dutyes, though they cannot pray and hear worthily, they may not as well goe to the Sacrament? my thoughts are thus; It is a sad Dilemma unregene­rate [Page 73]men are in; If they pray, hear, re­ceive, they sinne (not in what they doe, I conceive, but in what they not doe) by failing in the manner, their persons being not acceptable: If they doe not pray, hear and receive, they sin worse and are impious. Now what must be done here? If there be a necessity of sinning, of two evills the least must be chosen: it is a lesse evill to doe what we can, though the outward matter on­ly [...] be done, than to fail in matter and manner too, wholly casting off the care of God. But if that axiome be true, No­mo angustiatur ad peccandum, there is no case wherein a man is necessitated to sin, (and so that saying Of two Evills, must be taken alwayes de malo poenae not culpoe, Rom. 3.8.) then it is more clear, Every man must come and do the best he can, which if he doth, happily he shall not sin (at least so far, he does not) and God may blesse his endeavours, Ha­benti dabitur, whereas if he neglects, he sinneth without question, this being ma­sum per se, the other per accidens onely. I will be hold therefore to distinguish: There may be a profane, presumptuous comming to an Ordinance, or a Christi­an [Page 74]comming in conformity to Gods Worship; though it is better not to come, than to come in a prophane way, this being rebellion and sin in the fact; yet I say clearly, it is better to come in a Christian way, though but in an out­ward conformity to Gods service, then altogether to neglect it; which being granted and practised of all in other du­ties, I think it but a begging the questi­on, to deny it in this Sacrament.

My third Quaere is, Whether an un­regenerate man conceiving himselfe not worthy, must never come to the Sacra­ment, for fear of eating his damnation. And herein my thoughts are apt to run comparatively on the word; The word sets forth Christ on the termes of Faith and new obedience, that is the Gospell rightly administred, whatsoever effect it hath on the hearers; Now it is their part indeed to receive and apply it by Faith, if they doe not, it pronounceth them damned; Thus the Sacrament like­wise shews forth Christ unto the sight; and for the Churches part she is to de­clare and offer him to all, however he is received: Now the Receivers, 'tis true, in the like manner again are to receive [Page 75]in Faith, as they ought to doe: If they receive unworthily as the word de­nounceth, this seal [...] their damnation. Now a man will say, if the word pro­nounceth my damnation, so long as I am an unworthy hearer, I will not goe thither, I shall but heare my damnation; but I say you must goe thither, you lye in a damned state already, and it is ne­cessary this damnation should be pro­nounced upon you, to awake you out of your security in it, that by the terrours of Conscience you may be driven to re­pent and be converted; so the word is good in it self, and the savour of life e­ven while it damns a man, if he usefully receive it: So say I of the Sacrament, it is good in its nature, it is appointed for our good, and so we are to come unto it, as a means of grace; but if it acciden­tally seals to any man his damnation, it is through his own unworthiness, and he is then to make the same use of it, as of the damning word, that laying to heart the horror of his sinne, in being guilty of the bloud of Christ, he may be provoked thereby to flie to Iesus Christ, for a merit of his bloud to wash away his guilt of it; and having received so [Page 76]many seals of his damnation, he may be forced to the Lamb who alone is able to open all those seals, by pardoning his sins, and so to turne the savour of death unto life, and to make even damnation it self (such is the power of his grace) subservient to his conversion and salva­tion. I summe up this. If comming un­worthily makes a man guilty of Christs blood, by powring it out in vaine, what shall an open refusing deserve, that even tramples upon it in the despising this or­dinance?

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

I Answer. There are severall dutyes of a Christian he is to doe: He is to pray, receive. He is to love his neigh­bour: Among the rest there is a duty much neglected of brotherly Admonition, whereby wee are to Rebuke the faulty, and to tell the Church of them, supposing it in a capa­city to hear us, if we neglect our duty we are guilty in some measure, parta­kers of their sin; and defiled by it; well, let this be granted; what then? why me must labour a Church establish­ment, and so to amend this great neg­lect among us, but I hope it will not follow, that in the mean while we must not receive the Sacrament, pray, nor performe those other severall duties we have to doe, it is a plaine fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid I take it) to think our coming to the [Page 80]Sacrament with a wicked man is sin it self, or makes it the sin, or us more guilty of the sin, because we ought to have admonished them, and laboured their excommunication: no, this neg­lect of ours is the sin by it self, and the coming is our duty: God forbid that I should think, if I do sin in omitting one thing, that I must not therefore goe to do my duty in another. Because the leaven is not purged out must there be no lumpe? this was, I may humbly say, a too overly surprise of godly Mr. Burroughs.

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, The keeping of any cannot be pretended to, without power in our unelderd Congregations, it being con­fessed a power not of order but of juris­diction.

Fourthly, Men may be Dogs and Swine, either in the course of their lives, or in the publick esteem of the Church; now in our Ministeriall ad­mission, we are to look on men as they are in the Churches esteem; and may not account or deal with them as Dogs, (as we cannot execute an arrant thiefe) untill they are juridically censured to be such, by lawfull authority.

Fifthly, To speak particularly: Con­cerning the ignorant, I dare not judge so rigorously; The 5 Hev. 2. comes neer my heart; there are many sorts of ignorance, the case whereof may need instruction mostly, not censure. For the scandalous we know there must be admonition first, twice or thrice, Mat. 18.15.16. And then if they continue [Page 82]obstinate (not else) and are notorious, an Excommunication is granted. verse 17. 1 Cor. 5.13. yet I cannot finde any where (unlesse I look without the book) that this is merely in reference to the Sacrament, but from Christian Commu­nion in generall; at least in the primary nature thereof, though I will yield much by way of indulgence, unto the Church­es wisedome, according to the ancient practise of the Jews and Greeke Christi­ans; the severall species or rather de­grees whereof I must leave unto more learned Rabbies; And as to this pre­sent writ of suspension in hand, which men would have a middle thing be­tween Admonition and Excommunica­tion, I must make my returne truly, Non est inventa, in baliva nostra. I speak it with reverence to wiser judge­ments, who may allow as prudent, in the way of Discipline, what they will not enforce upon the Conscience, as ne­cessary, in our worship.

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

I Answer, this is clear fallacy, I am sorry to see many graveld in their minds at it; as if there were any force in this, I must not be such a mans com­mon companion, therefore I must not goe to Church with him: Wee must know, Arguments from the lesse to the greater, must be in things of the same kind and nature; Now it is one thing to eat at home, an indifferent action, where I am left to my own arbitration and must not chuse evill, and another to eat at the Sacrament, which I am bound unto as a piece of the service of God.

In the third sense I take Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.1. to the 9. where the whole Communion or Life of Christians, is compared to an unleavened Feast (from which that person was to be excluded in generall) without peculiar mention (as some would have it) of the Sacrament [Page 86]you may reckon hither many places Io. 9.22. 1 Tim. 1.20. &c. In which case only when excommunicated, the matter is granted. And thus I am apt to think, 1 Cor. 5.9.10.11. 2 Thes. 3.6.14: 2 Io. 10. &c. quoted in the second sense before, if strictly taken, stands in full force onely. As for Mat. 7.6. which properly concerns Admonition, Ier. 15.19. 1 Tim. 5.22. which, (with some cere­monious precepts of the Law) In the words, are much applyed for the scaring of many consciences, I must appeale to other judgements when they are well weighed, whether in their proper sense and importance they are not many leagues off this peculiar businesse of the Sacrament.

I will conclude with 4 Wishes:

• 1. I Wish we had a Government e­stablisht in the Church, the neerest in Christian prudence that may be, to the word of God:
• 2. I Wish the duty of Fraternall correption, a watching over, and admo­nishing one another in love were better known and practised amongst us.
• 3. I Wish that men would look more into their own consciences, and leave [Page 87]the judging of others spirits, hearts, and reines alone, to the judgement seat of Christ.
• 4. ☞ I Wish, though there may be some judging by the fruits, that wise religious men would be more cautious of counte­nancing these separations in the visible Church, seeing upon the same ground that you goe to gather a Church out of my mixt congregation another will ga­ther a separation out of your Church; and so continue (as I have intimated from our sad experience) an endlesse se­perating, untill this first separation shall in a few years be able to take up the say­ing of that Greatest Grandmother, unto those many schisms she shall see issuing, as her naturall offspring, out of her own bowels, Rise up Daughter, goe to thy Daughter, for thy Daughters Daughter has a Daughter; for this separations se­paration has a separation.