To receive the Lords Supper, the actual right and duty of all church-members of years not excommunicate made good against Mr. Collins his exceptions against The bar removed, written by the author : and what right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the church have to the Lords Supper declared : many thing belonging to that controversie more fully discussed, tending much to the peace and settlement of the church : and also a ful answer to what Mr. Collins hath written in defence of juridical suspension, wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted : to which is also annexed A brief answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders / by John Timson ... Timson, John. 1655 Approx. 579 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 200 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A62668 Wing T1296 ESTC R1970 12076006 ocm 12076006 53614

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A62668) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53614) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 582:24) To receive the Lords Supper, the actual right and duty of all church-members of years not excommunicate made good against Mr. Collins his exceptions against The bar removed, written by the author : and what right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the church have to the Lords Supper declared : many thing belonging to that controversie more fully discussed, tending much to the peace and settlement of the church : and also a ful answer to what Mr. Collins hath written in defence of juridical suspension, wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted : to which is also annexed A brief answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders / by John Timson ... Timson, John. Timson, John. Brief answer to the antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders. [22], 374, [22] p. Printed by E.C. for Tho. Williams ..., and Will. Tomson ..., London : 1655. Errata: prelim. p. [22]. Advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. "A brief answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders ..." (p. [255]-374) has special title page. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Collinges, John, 1623-1690. -- Responsoria bipartita. Saunders, Humphrey. -- Anti-diatribe. Lord's Supper. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-11 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-02 Sampled and proofread 2012-02 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER, The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE.

MADE GOOD Againſt Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions againſt The Bar Removed, written by the Author. And what Right the ignorant and ſcandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared. Many things belonging to that Controverſie more fully diſcuſſed, tending much to the peace and ſettlement of the Church. AND ALSO A ful Anſwer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suſpenſion, wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted. To which is alſo annexed A brief Anſwer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders.

By JOHN TIMSON, a private Chriſtian of Great Bowdon in Leiceſterſhire.

Thoſe members of the body which we think leſſe honorable, upon thoſe we beſtow more aboundant honor,—That there ſhould be no Schiſm in the Body, 1 Cor. 12, 23, 25.

London, Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain, and Will. Tomſon at Harborough in Leiceſterſhire. 1655.

The Authour to the Reader.

HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the leaſt truth, and how unfit to appear in publick in its defence, I am very ſenſible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very ſoul, leſt I ſhould do any thing but for the Truth, and for the peace of our unſetled Church; or ſhould be injurious to ſo good a cauſe, which I am drawn out (I doe not well know how) to vindicate. Who is ſufficient to defend the Truth! I tremble to think how many precious and choyce Servants of the Lord, and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard, are againſt me in what I publiſh. I reverence and eſteem thoſe of the Presbyterian judgement above others in ſome conſiderable reſpects, and verily judge them conſcientious men, and ſuch as I look upon as beſt qualified, for promoting the Goſpel truth, and the Churches peace. And although my returns to Mr. Collins be ſomewhat round, yet I hope I doe not much reflect upon moſt of the Presbyterian judgement, notwithſtanding his ſeeming to write in the name of all of that perſwaſion. I do profeſſe my ſtudy was to ſpeak my very heart in this Controverſie, and to provoke different mindes to give ſome ſtronger grounds for their opinion and practice; aſſuring my ſelf, that a great deal more muſt be ſaid againſt that Free Admiſſion to the Sacrament, which I plead for, then any of late have ſaid, before either Mr. Humphrey or my ſelf will be anſwered, and many thouſands in the Nation, (which I hope fear God) will be ſatisfied. I may ſafely ſay, with a good conſcience, it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conſcience, that perſwades me to appear in this controverſie, then any private intereſt or affectation of opinion, or ſpirit of contradiction, or baſeneſſe of that ſpirit either o humor or flatter the common multitude. I am perſwaded it is the very ſimplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend, leading directly to the Churches Peace and Reformation. Truth ſeeks no corners, but is invincible, and intire in it ſelf; it may be over-born at a puſh, but will recover again, and vanquiſh all the dark parts of man. O that we had ſuch impartial and unbyaſed ſpirits, as to receive all truth in the love of it! Let me intreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controverſie deliberately; and then I doubt not, but of whatſoever judgement he be, he will confeſſe my principles and arguments are rational, and much the drift and ſcope of plain Scriptures: And if he will but grant me Infant Baptiſm, he will finde it a hard task to overthrow any of my building, as it is ſtated. He may ſee with what clearneſſe and eaſe I have anſwered to what is excepted againſt my firſt book, in the reading of this; and alſo to what is brought in defence of Suſpenſion as diſtinct from Excommunication, as it is ſtated by Mr. Collins. Indeed he pleaſeth himſelf with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten, but if he think to goe but an inch narrower, he will finde it a moſt difficult task to free himſelf of that charge laid againſt the Phariſees, the making void the Commandements of God by their Traditions: He cannot go a jot narrower, but he muſt uncovenant, undiſciple, and unduty thoſe which he cals Church members; the doing of which plucks up all that the Church ſtands upon, and levels Chriſtians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world, in point of right and actuall duty of receiving. This is ſo irrational that it ſtands Mr. Collins upon to doe his utmoſt to give ſome ſatisfaction therein; which if he doe, he muſt make good from the Scriptures thoſe things which he ſo often begs;

As 1. That the Lords Supper is ſtrong meat only.

2. A ſeal to juſtifying faith only.

3 And that every unregenerate perſon in the Church that receives, eats judgement to himſelf more then in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer, he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profaneneſſe.

4. That a Church-member of years, under Toleration of the Church, is no believer or diſciple under actual duty, as a Chriſtian.

5. That to the different ſtate of the Church, as conſiſting of regenerate and unregenerate, is under different rules and duties, as to publick worſhip.

6. That more knowledge and holineſſe is required to the Lords Supper, then to Baptiſm in perſons of years.

7. He muſt prove Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication a Church cenſure, and for what ſins.

8. That ſome baptized of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denyed the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance, or for not having fruits of holineſſe anſwerable to the Chriſtian Profeſſion; and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members.

9. He muſt prove a Paſtoral or Church tryal by examination of Church-members fitneſſe or unfitneſſe neceſſary to admitting to the Sacrament, and more ſuch like things, before he can juſtly debar any from the Sacrament, more then from the reſt of Church priviledges and duties: If he can make good all or any of theſe things by the Scriptures, ſo as to take off what we have excepted againſt them; then he may doe ſomething towards giving ſatisfaction in this Controverſie: otherwiſe in plain terms, I would have him to ſit ſtill, and let others (who may think to doe ſomewhat in order to it) put forth their ſtrength. For I am willing my grounds and principles ſhould be tryed to the utmoſt. I had rather be put to ſhame a thouſand times, then upon miſtake in any thing I ſhould diſſent from godly men, and draw any into errour. But yet I would have you to know, that theſe grounds and principles, on which my judgement is built, have been ſo long received and chewed upon, and examined and tryed by general rules of Scripture and Reaſon, that I ſhall not eaſily be removed. For I dare boldly ſay, the ſubſtance of what I write, I received not from Eraſtus, Mr. Prinne, nor Mr. Humphrey; my judgement was ſetled and ſatisfied in theſe things long before I heard of theſe Authors. And beſides what reaſon hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this, that we are Eraſtus his ſcholars, when he findes us ſo point blanck againſt him, in defending the Jurid cal cenſures of the Church? I cannot ſay that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in theſe things in any meaſure, til now of late I ſaw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admiſſion. So that whether my grounds be new or old, I have made but little acquiry in reſpect of humane authority; this I am ſatisfied in, that my grounds are ſuch as accord with the Goſpel Covenant, and the ſtate of the Viſible Church of Chriſt, as it is conſtituted in Parents and children, good and bad, called and choſen. And I finde that men of different judgements run themſelves upon dangerous rocks of Schiſms, Separations, and needleſſe diviſions in the Church; beſides their interferings, contradictions of themſelves, and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation, Church-memberſhip, Sacraments, ſigns, and pleadges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general. And therefore I hope, though I have endeavoured to remove an unneceſſary Bar, yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that ſin and curſe that Mr. Collins intimates, in ſaying, Was it our grief formerly, that we had no Bar, and is it our work now to remove the Bars? yea, the Lords and the Churches ancient Land-marks?

But who are moſt faulty in this? they that plead for the Churches Land-marks and rights, or they that unjuſtly defraud the Church thereof, laying the Church common with the world; judge ye: or who are moſt for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon; they that preſſe to all Scripture obedience, or they that exempt Chriſtians from ſome neceſſary duties of Worſhip; they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members, in a Juridical way, to their amendment; or they that unchurch them, undiſciple them, and ſo unduty them, and level them with the Pagan World. Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epiſtle prefixed to his Book; but I could wiſh he had more ſound judgement and knowledge in theſe things, to abate the inconſiderate noiſe he makes, and the paſſion which he ſhews therein. Firſt, he tels us that it was a burden that lay upon our ſouls, that in the Prelates dayes there was no bar but one wch Su pe •• on made. And then about ſix lines after, he ſaith, the Prelatical party may riſe up in judgement againſt us, and ſay, Lord we gave the Miniſter authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious ſins; &c. Firſt, he ſaith, there was no Bar, and then he ſaith that there was a Bar; and ſuch a one as I think might have ſatisfied men of his perſwaſion. The truth is, both Presbyterian and Browniſts make ſuch a ſlender thing of Covenant relation, the ground of baptiſm in the Church, that it will not bear up what they ſhould build upon it afterwards; for they make it upon the matter but a meer titular or nominal thing; reſtraining the Goſpel Covenant to believers only in a ſtrict ſenſe, making Sacramental Seals invalid, if they doe not ſo believe, conceiving that if perſons in the Church by their actual offending diſcover themſelvs to be in an unregenerate ſtate after baptiſm, that then they are out of Covenant, and ſo by conſequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental ſeals thereof; making no difference between ſuch and the Pagan world. But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their ſeed, as it was publiſhed and declared to Abraham, and all along to the Church of the Jews, and look upon the Chriſtian Church as graffed into them, and equally children of Abraham by profeſſion of faith and Baptiſm, as the Jew by nature and Circumcſiion, preſſe all to walk up to their profeſſion as Chriſtians according to Goſpel obſervances, being bound to obſerve all things as the Jews were, then ſhould we build upon ſuch a foundation of truth that would be immoveable, and bear up as much as we now plead for. But I have expreſt my ſelf more largely in this enſuing diſcourſe, and may not now inſiſt upon the largeneſſe of the Goſpel Covenant. In ſhort then I conceive, that it is a very great miſtake to narrow the Goſpel Covenant unto this, He that believes ſhall be ſaved, but he that believes not ſhall be damned.

I grant, 1. That this is a truth as taken in the uſual ſenſe, but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their ſeed.

2. I grant it a conditional propoſition, uſed in the firſt tender of the Goſpel unto Infidels, to move them to accept of Chriſt, and ſo to bring them into the viſible Church; but I deny that this in like manner was, or is to be preached unto the viſible Church, that profeſſe their acceptance of Chriſt, and all obſervances appointed by him.

3. I grant that actual believing and profeſſion of faith, was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptiſm, and graffing into the Goſpel Church, in which the promiſes of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely; but yet I deny that there is any promiſe of grace in thoſe words, He that believes ſhall be ſaved; it is true, there is the promiſe of being ſaved upon condition of ſincere believing; but there is no promiſe in that to give a ſinner grace to believe. So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a ſtrict ſenſe, as it is uſually urged alone without the abſolute, renders unregenerate ſinners, uncapable of any good news by the Goſpel, it not being in the power of any of himſelf ſo to believe. And to make the death of Chriſt a ſeal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only (as being that which the Sacraments hold forth) is to make the death of Chriſt a ſeal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Goſpel mercy and grace. Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant, as it's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apoſtles, the Church being built upon both. Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down, and applyed by the Apoſtles to the Church in Goſpel times, Act, 2.39. Heb. 8. Act. 3.25, 26. & 5.31. Rom. 15.8, 9. 2 Cor. 6.16.18. & 7.1. compared. Theſe Scriptures prove that the Apoſtles did uſually apply thoſe old free grace promiſes, (with the end of Chriſt coming into the world to confirm them) to the Goſpel Church. But if any pleaſe to enter their exceptions againſt theſe my notions about the Covenant, I ſhall be glad both of an occaſion and opportunity to inſiſt more largely upon them. For I muſt confeſſe, I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largeneſſe of the Goſpel Covenant made to the Church; and that ſtraitning the Covenant too much occaſions very much diviſion and ſchiſm in the Church. But Reader, I will detain thee no longer in the porch; only let me intreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my ſenſe, drift and end in what I have written: I would provoke none, but leave the probability of what I have aſſerted from Scripture and reaſon, to the conſideration of all. Only this let me tell thee by the way, That Suſpenſion, as it's ſtated by Mr. Collins, I judge to be ſufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book. What himſelf or any other may doe further in ſtating it, and proving it by Scripture or reaſon deduced thence, I know not; I think whoſoever undertakes it, will finde it a hard task to make this good; That ſome Church-members of years, and indued with reaſon, ſhall and ought to be denyed the Communion of the Lords Supper, and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worſhip as Church members at that preſent. And though I doe not in plain terms prove it an invention of men, yet I conceive I have ſo removed the arguments and reaſons it's pretended to be built upon, that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Chriſt, and ſo by conſequence, that it is but a Tradition of men. Jeſus Chriſt commands all that are Diſciples, Church-members, to obſerve all his commands, from which none that are baptized can be excluded without equal authority to that of Chriſt. Suſpenſion from the Sacrament only, muſt firſt be proved an Ordinance of Chriſt, before any may be ſuſpended from it. For no authority on earth can diſoblige from actual duty, but the ſame that doth oblige to duty; I mean no authority can doe it but that of Chriſt, in giving the power of the keys of the Church, to binde and looſe authoritatively. To conclude, let none deceive themſelves in reading this Book, as if it were intended for defence of promiſcuous Communion; for what I intend therein is to juſtifie a lawful Communion in the Lords Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Goſpel; and ſure that is the moſt pure Communion that is moſt agreeable to rule, as the caſe now ſtands in our Church. Mixt Communion properly is to admit an Infidel, Jew, or Pagan unbaptized to the Sacrament, that denyes or knows not that Chriſt is come in the fleſh; or to admit the Excommunicate, before they have given ſatisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life: If I ſhould plead for ſuch a Communion, then it would reflect upon me to my reproach & ſhame. But I plead not for this, but for Church diſcipline to reform the diſorderly in the Church Juridically. I would have the Church ſtill to preſerve the form of all neceſſary duties of worſhip, though they cannot bring up all to the power of godlineſſe, as is deſirable. Better to keep up Religion, though but in the right form, then not at all. What reaſon can any have to diſcourage from any religious form of true worſhip, under this pretence, that they come not up to the inward power, which is undiſcernable for the moſt part? Form and power are inſeparable in the true Religion, where the Lord gives his bleſſing. That place of Timothy is uſually miſunderſtood in our times: for it is clear they had not ſo much as the external form of true Chriſtian Doctrine and Worſhip, but ſuch a form of godlineſſe as Heathens have or may have: for it was ſpoken of falſe teachers and ſeducers, that uſually make pretences of a form of godlineſſe of their own deviſing, and deny or be enemies to the form of godlineſſe, which is according to truth commanded of God; for they are ſuch as reſiſt the truth, men of corrupt mindes, reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith. God never bleſſes falſe forms of worſhip with his powerful preſence, working grace in them that out of ſtrong deluſion have invented thoſe forms: but forms of his own preſcribed worſhip, are the power of God to ſalvation to whom he will. Now I crave pard n of all ſober men for this my ſo bold attempt, to claſh with ſo many able ſolid Divines, as I ſhall be judged to do. I reverence all, and ſhould patiently wait, and without contending ſubmit to all, were the Church in a ſetled ſtate: but we having run into ſuch endleſs diviſions and ſeparations, it concerns every one to ſtudy and indeavour the regaining of the ſettlement, peace, and edification of the whole. And I could wiſh that men of ober principles, who have an eye at the ſame end, would be more ſerious in weighing the grounds we build upon, and the weapons we fight with in managing this controverſie. I could wiſh that able and learned men would throughly ſearch and more deeply dive into this controverſie; for I know that unleſſe a great deal more can be ſaid againſt Free Admiſſion as it is ſtated then I could as yet ever hear of, contrary mindes will be forced either to yeeld, or elſe they will run themſelves upon ſuch rocks as will quite break the conſtitution of our Church. But prove all things, and impartially incline to own and imbrace that which brings the fulleſt and neareſt evidence of truth and ſolid reaſon to thy underſtanding. And the Lord give us at leaſt to ſee where the truth and the Churches peace lies, and eſtabliſh the ſame among us, which is and ſhall be the prayer of him that longs to ſee that day,

John Timſon.
The moſt principal things handled in this Controverſie are contained in theſe few queſtions.

1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no.

2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denyed the Lords Supper for ignorance, and ſtate of unregeneracy according unto Goſpel rule.

3. Whether Church-members as ſuch in relation to the Covenant, be not perſonally worthy during their abode in the Church, and in that ſenſe worthy receivers, though otherwiſe they be actually unworthy.

4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper, as to hear, pray, read, ſing, &c.

5. Whether the promiſes of firſt grace be not included in the Goſpel Covenant, which Sacraments ſeal: And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of thoſe promiſes.

6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthineſſe or unworthineſſe in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more then to all other acts of publick worſhip.

7. Whether the Sacrament can be denyed to be a converting Ordinance in the Church.

8. Whether Juridical Suſpenſion be an Ordinance of Chriſt or an invention of man.

ERRATA.

Reader among many leſſer faults which have eſcaped in the printing by reaſon of the Authors abſence, there is one great fault, pag. 143. in. 12, 13, 14. The diſtinction there mentioned is this, Hearing of faith preached was, and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens, but the whole work of the Miniſtry is the ordinary means of ſincere believing in the Church. And p. 239. l. 10. after probable, ſupply means of inſtructing them in the.

PAg. 4 lin. 7. read unto, p. 13. l. 27. r. privative. p. 1 . l 6. r. reaching. p. 29. l. 8. for il. r for it. p. 31. l. 12. r. Ʋzzahs. p. 31. l. 14. r. anſwer. p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable. p. 64. l. 15. r. examen. p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge. p 89. l. 14. r. propoſitions. p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened. p. 99. l. 21. r. chain. p. 100. l. 27. r. viſible. p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned. pag. 138. l. 28. ſupply in, after doth. p. 156. l. 9. r. uneldered. l. 30. ſupply of the whole Church, after ſettlement, p. 161. l. 9. r. privative. p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument. p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable. p. 189. l. 7. ſupply, an ordinance of, after give. p. 199. l. 6 dele it. p. 216. l. 3. f. firſt r. fift. p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency. p. 275. l. 21. r. ſuſpition. p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how. p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when. p. 298. l. 32. r. to perſecutions. p. 312. l. 29. r. think. p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable, after that is, & l. 16. r. themſelves.

To Receive the Lords Supper, the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate.

BEloved Chriſtian friends, Although I judge that I am not as yet anſwered by Mr. Collings, (there being enough in my Book to anſwer him and vindicate it ſelf from whatſoever is as yet objected againſt it, to the Judicious and impartial Reader) yet with reſpect unto Mr. Collings, who is eſteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title, and ſome profitable labours for the Churches good. And alſo for the further ſatisfying both of the weak and plain minded Chriſtians: As alſo the confirming of thoſe my friends, that cordially imbrace my Book, and adhere to the truth aſſerted therein: And that the controverſie it ſelf may come to ſome clearer iſſue; and ſomething more may be diſcovered in order unto peace and truth, and reformation in the Church of God: in all humility and reſpect unto different mindes. I crave leave once more ſoberly and freely to preſent my thoughts unto further conſideration, for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too haſty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my diſcourſe, by what he hath ſaid in anſwer thereunto: for the truth is, he hath not in the leaſt diſabled any one main thing I have aſſerted, nor is willing to keep to the queſtion as it's ſtated, nor anſwer to any purpoſe, where the main ſtreſſe of Controverſie lies; but trifles about Infants, and diſtracted, and Pagans, and the excommunicate, the admitting of which, a ſuch, not any in our times plead for. And therefore he might have ſaid leſſe to theſe; and more to thoſe that the thing in controverſie concerns: namely, Whether the unregenerate, or ignorant and ſcandalous members in the Church, being baptized, and of years, not excommunicate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, they expreſſing their deſires to receive and proffering themſelves. I anſwer in the negative all along, that they may not be put by Mr. Collings ſeems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing. A thing, ſaith he, that my ſelf am more guilty of; which I think is hardly ſo, unleſſe the worthineſſe of the perſon my opinion ſtrikes at doth ſo much the more aggravate the thing. As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he cals them: it may be better excuſed as to my ſelf and friend, then the other can.

1. Becauſe that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor, was finiſhed and gone from me towards the Preſſe, before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder.

2. When I did read it over, I thought his returns (to ſuch bitter cenſures and invectives againſt him) were very pathetical, yet humble and melting, and well becoming a ſober charitable Chriſtian, and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Goſpel.

3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Miniſtery acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable, and yet quick and rational. As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two laſt pages of his rejoynder; I conceive that Mr. Humfrey little thought that any would be ſo uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly ſenſe that Mr. Collings will force upon it; there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application: And thoſe that are impartial and ſober, can judge no leſſe of that. And for thoſe ſix or ſeven diſſatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of ſome Presbyterians unaſſociated, I know not how I ſhould have expreſſed my ſelf more modeſtly, then by profeſſing my ſelf unſatisfied, giving ſo many hints as I have clearly done againſt thoſe things I charge them with. And I am ſure if the main principles in my Book ſtand firm, (as I think they will for any thing yet ſaid againſt me) Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders, nor Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication, Church examination of her members into actual receiving, nor leaving out without any judicial proceedings.

But to the matter it ſelf, let us ſee what he hath ſaid againſt that.

Firſt his demand is, What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper, he knows the anſwer will be Church memberſhip; either this alone, or ſomething elſe; if this alone, then Infants and mad men, and drunkards must come ſay what they can, if they ſay not Church-memberſhip alone doth give a full right, then many of their arguments fail

1. That Church memberſhip alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper, according unto Goſpel rules, the which right is a true right, and that ſufficient unto free admiſſion of all in the Church: but then this right is to be diſtinguiſhed into a real right in point of title, and a right of actual poſſeſſion and injoyment: the former right reſpects all Infants born of Chriſtian Parents, the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years, that are baptized, and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right. An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Fathers land he being dead, as an heir at full age: but yet it doth not follow that a childe under age ſhall be left actually to manage his right himſelf in that ſtate, as an heir at one and twenty. We know the Apoſtle ſaith it, An heir under age differs not from a ſervant though he be Lord of all. Yet ſuch is the the conſequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion; if we grant them a true right as members in point of title, and a remote right actually to injoy aſſoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity, then ſaith he, they as members muſt come, ſay what we can to the contrary. Although Mr. Humfrey and my ſelf have ſhewed a clear difference between Infants and diſtracted, and the ignorant at age in ſeveral particulars.

The one 1. not in a natural capacity, as the other is.

Nor 2. in a rational capacity, as the other is.

3. The one not ſo under the obligation of precepts of publique actuall worſhip, as the other are.

4. The one not at all under the cenſures of the Church, as the other are: Nay although Mr. Humfrey in his rejoynder tels them, that there is as wide a difference between Infants and Ignorants, as between a doe not, and a cannot, (ſpeaking of Examination, and diſcerning the Lords Body,) the Ignorant they do not, but yet they ought to do, but Infants and diſtracted cannot, and are excuſed; yet notwithſtanding all this wideneſſe in the premiſes, Mr. Collings without an anſwer unto ours, moſt peremptorily enters his conſent unto the Doctors weakneſſe, and tels us the Doctor ſaith right, that by the ſame reaſon we except againſt Infants, &c. we may except againſt the ignorant and ſcandalous. Thus you may ſee, let the premiſes be never ſo different, they muſt hold to their concluſion, be it never ſo abſurd and irrationall: and I would have them to take notice that,

We doe not except againſt Infants and diſtracted, as a puniſhment or cenſure (as they) of the ignorant and ſcandalous: but rather we wave them as ſuch that are under a ſtate of weakneſſe and impotency (by the wiſdome and providence of God) inevitable.

We do not except againſt Infants as not having a true right, but out of the conſideration of their natural and rational incapacity actually to injoy their right.

We doe not except againſt Infants and diſtracted, becauſe they cannot examine themſelves, diſcern the Lords Body, (as Mr. Collings would have it) But becauſe ſelf examination, and diſcerning the Lords Body, coming to receive, are not their actual duties; but we judge all theſe are the actual duties of ignorants, and of the ſcandalous in the Church, untill they be excommunicate. And aſſoon as Infants are grown paſt childehood, and come under the actual obligations of precepts and worſhip, our principles incline us to as timely an admittance of youths, that ſhall voluntarily deſire it, and proffer themſelves, as thoſe that oppoſe us. 'Tis certain that children in the Church,

1. Come under family inſtruction and correction before they come under the Miniſterial inſtructions, admonitions, corrections, either of Church or State.

2. That children come ſooner under negative precepts, then affirmative acts of worſhip; it may be a ſin for that childe to lye, ſwear, curſe, ſteal, when at that age it is no ſin to omit publick prayers, and the Lords Supper. Divines ſay affirmatives alwayes binde, but not to all, at all times; in many caſes God will have mercy rather then ſacrifice, as is ſuppoſed to the caſe in hand. But I could wiſh we might keep cloſe to the thing in controverſie. Infant Communion is not a thing controverted in our Church. In the next place in anſwer to his.

Church-memberſhip tis very comprehenſive, importing no leſſe then Believer, Saint, Diſciple, Chriſtian, &c. and therefore needs nothing elſe to give a true legal right (according unto the rule) unto the Lords Supper: for all Believers, Diſciples, Saints by calling and profeſſion, when, and whileſt they were within, were never denyed the Lords Supper. It's true a Church-Member may come under divers conſiderations.

1. As an heir at age, or in his minority, or under diſtraction is ſtill an heir, and his right to be conceived of as before.

2. So, it is in the Common-wealth, an evill and a hurtful ſubject is a ſubject, and hath the benefit of the laws thereof, as any other ſubjects of the ſame kinde, though never ſo good and profitable: ſo it is in the Church; the moſt uncomely members are members, and have as true a legal right to the external priviledges of the Church, as any other members of the ſame kinde, though never ſo good and holy. A difference in the degrees alters not the kinde, for that whatever belongs unto a Church-member as ſuch, belongs unto all of the ſame kinde, is with out doubt. We do not finde a different rule to Church-members of the ſame kinde; if good or bad openly offend, they ought to be proceeded againſt accordingly; and neither the one nor the other ſhould be denyed an actual external priviledge of the Church, untill the Church hath given out judgement againſt them by excommunication authoritatively; and we are not to make any difference in the Church about members in reſpect of externals, the rule being only one, and the ſame unto all. Members, believers, diſciples, brethren, in a large ſenſe are as truly ſuch in a true ſenſe, as thoſe are ſuch indeed, in a ſtrict ſenſe.

Hence Mr. Collings his demand, What it is added unto Church-memberſhip entitles to this Sacrament? is both frivolous and improper, becauſe Church-memberſhip includes as much as can be added unto it, and yet doth not exclude the worſt born in the Church, and under her toleration. Nor did I ever think that any man would be ſo perverſe (as he) to make reaſon and age, additions to memberſhip, they being but eſſentials to the more perfect being of a man: for that is ſuppoſed of all that come under actual precepts of worſhip, that they are reaſonable men, and of years. There is the Church-memberſhip of Infants, and of men, and of women, yet all is but Church-memberſhip; age, ſex, and reaſon, &c. are not additions unto memberſhip: but a Church-member is the ſame with all theſe: Yet it's true too, that unto all actual obſervances in the Church, age, and reaſon muſt neceſſarily be preſuppoſed. So again, knowledge, faith, and obedience are not additions to memberſhip, but a Church-member comprehends all theſe, in his ſenſe, degree or kinde. And while they will acknowledge perſons in the Church Church-members, believers, diſciples, &c. they muſt conclude with me that Church-memberſhip alone gives a true legal right to the holy Supper, ſay what they can to the contrary: ſo that the vanity of this ſuperadding unto memberſhip unto Sacramental right, is nothing elſe but a raiſing a duſt to blinde our eyes. What Church either in the Old or New Teſtament required more then memberſhip unto this Sacrament? all that came under Circumciſion or Baptiſm, ſtood ingaged to keep the Paſſeover and the holy Supper. When Mr. Collings can give a clear inſtance otherwiſe, I ſhall think my ſelf bound to return him thanks.

If any make enquiry what Church-memberſhip in its riſe and nature is,

It's a relative ſtate of perſons only that have entred Covenant with God, profeſſing either expreſſely or implicitly their voluntary ſubmitting to the whole adminiſtration of the Covenant. And this entring into Covenant is either perſonal, or parental: Perſonal, of thoſe that are Pagans born, but parental in the Church who by birth-priviledge have entred Covenant with their parents. And this I call a relative ſtate, becauſe it hath its priviledge meerly from the Covenant which God through Chriſt hath freely made unto ſome of mankinde and their ſeed, whom he is pleaſed to own and make his people, and to be unto them a God, in a more peculiar relation, then to all others of mankinde; for thoſe whom God chooſeth to approach neer unto him in his own appointments, have the promiſe of being ſatisfied with the fatneſſe of his houſe. Now then I judge, ſo long as Covenant relation holds, memberſhip holds, and ſo long as memberſhip holds, the priviledges of that eſtate holds. It muſt be an authority equivalent to the ground of memberſhip, that can diſmember, or diſpoſſeſſe them of their right as members, which nothing but renouncing the Covenant, or obſtinacy continued in, under the Churches cenſures, can doe it.

But he goes on in his miſtake, and tels his Reader, That I hold, it's only the exerciſe of reaſon conjoyned unto Church-memberſhip gives all a right to the Sacrament, then it follows ſaith he, That all ſuch who are able to exerciſe their reaſon ought to come, and be admitted. And then asks us why are drunkards excepted againſt, pag. 22.

Here is but the ſame again which is already anſwered, only he ſaith, why are drunkards excepted againſt, for they are Church-members, and can exerciſe reaſon? In ſtating the queſtion Mr. Humfrey hath it, he might ſay the drunk, meaning the actual drunk, as void of reaſon, conſcience, and devotion for that preſent, as being more fit to be thruſt among Swine, then ſuffered to come unto any ſacred Ordinance of Worſhip, in that profane ſordid brutiſhneſſe, not denying but the ſame man at another time when he is ſober and in his ſerious minde to ſerve God as a Chriſtian, he being not excommunicated may and ought to partake of every Ordinance in the Church a member.

Saith, Mr. Coll. If he can but ſhew him the leaſt ſh dow of Scripture to prove that a capacity to exerc reaſon is that other thing which added unto Church-memberſhip gives one an actual right, we will be 〈◊〉 bondmen.

Memberſhip alone in its own latitude comprehends as much as he himſelf wi •• have added unto it to give a true actual righ as is made out above.

And then 2. I hope Mr. Collings will allo men and women that are baptized and continue to adhere to the true Religion to b Church-members, and if ſo, himſelf do grant their right, which is as much as h would have me prove; unleſſe he think that Church-memberſhip of perſons grow up to years of diſcretion, is a meer not onal thing, an empty nothing, levelling Church-members to the Pagan world, as 〈◊〉 may well ſuſpect him for ſeveral things me withall hereafter; his often urging of ſomething to be added to give one of years right to the Sacrament, as knowledge, faith, and the fruits of holineſſe, ſtrongly implies that to be a Church-member, diſciple, is nothing, to give a right. It's the things he ſuperaddes that gives the right to the Supper; whereas to Church-memberſhip I know, and ſo may be, that his ſuperaddings are not proper, nor indeed ſenſe; for adde thoſe things to a Pagan, and they wil give him right unto Sacraments, hereas a Church-member imports the ſame, e they ignorant, or ſcandalous, during that priviledged eſtate. Doth the Scriptures ſpeak 〈◊〉 any ſuch additions to a Jew unto his obſerving the Paſſeover in its ſeaſon? Let it 〈◊〉 proved that an ignorant Jew loſt his actuall right as a Jew, or Church-member, or at an ignorant Chriſtian in the Apoſtles ayes, that was baptized and within had no ight to the Lords Supper. Will you not al ow as much of Church priviledge to a baptized Chriſtian now, as was allowed then? Are the priviledges of the ſame Church diminiſhed o her members? Wherein will you have a Church-member not excommunicate differ from a Heathen, or the excommunicate? You allow all other Ordinances in the Church to a Heathen, the ſuſpended, Excommunicate, and juſt ſo much you allow to a Church-member tollerated, and no more, how doe you confound things that differ! What difference doe you make between the excommunicable, and the excommunicate, the ignorant, and ſuch as offend out of weakneſſe that are not excommunicate? The Primitive and Poſitive ſuſpenſion as you call them, the proper and improper, &c. the puniſhment de facto in its execution, is all the very ſame, deny them the Sacrament only, that's the leaſt, and that's the greateſt. Whether it be done by a Claſſes, or Presbytery, or a ſingle Miniſter, or by the diſco ragement of ſome private Chriſtians, or 〈◊〉 of peoples own careleſneſſe. The only po of reformation and end of Diſcipline is m that great deſign of keeping Church-members of years from the Sacrament, ſlight their Covenant, relation, obligation unactual obſervances as members, diſciples, 〈◊〉 lievers, &c. as if they were no more un the duties of Goſpel worſhip then Turks a Pagans. If Church-memberſhip with u judged the ſame with thoſe were added 〈◊〉 to the Chdrch in the Apoſtles dayes; w ſhould we queſtion the duty & priviledge •• ours, more then they of thoſe times? I wo have Mr. Collings either ſhew me a differ ſtate of Church-memberſhip; or elſe ſh me a different rule for the ſame Church 〈◊〉 walk by, either let him doe the one or 〈◊〉 other, or elſe be ſo ingenuous to yeeld 〈◊〉 every member his right, until the Chur have legally diſpoſſeſt them of it.

At the latter end of the 22 page, Mr. Coll. he draw up the queſtion between both, and wou have it put to tryal; but indeed the queſti is ſo wide from the queſtion in controverſ and ſo much ſaid already to clear the queſtion in hand, that I may well paſſe it b and ſee what we can finde in page 23. whe he is ſtill upon the ſame thing; and plea againſt me thus.

If a meer capacity to exerciſe reaſon entitule 〈◊〉 Church-member to the Sacrament, then every Church-member in ſuch a capacity hath an undoubted right.

I grant that every Church-member of years of diſcretion hath an undoubted right. I utterly diſown his antecedent, as not reckoning the queſtion as it's ſtated: he ſhould have put in this proviſo, Church-members that are profeſſing the true religion, not under the Churches juſt cenſure. And had he done ſo he might have aſſumed what he could, but he willing to leave ſo much out of his antecedent as would have ſpoyled his conſequence, nd prevented him in urging thoſe inconſequences that follow upon it in the whole page: although I muſt confeſſe the caſes he inſtances in, have need to be ſpoken unto with wiſdome and tenderneſſe; ſo that the truth be not prejudiced. As to the caſe of members that are ſo notoriouſly ſcandalous that of right ought to be excommunicate, but are not, as he inſtances in inceſt and adultery immediately before a Sacrament, he ſees I have large principles if I would admit ſuch a one.

1. Either ſuch are under the ſuſpicion of theſe ſins;

Or 2. are under evident conviction. A ſuſpicion is not ſufficient to ground Church cenſures upon, if this be clear upon ſufficient proof, the Chriſtian Magiſtrate hath to doe with them, thoſe things being puniſhable by death in our Law. And ſuch malefactors cannot ordinarily eſcape the penalty of the Law, if the Magiſtrate will n doe his duty. The Church may aſſoo judicially excommunicate, as ſuſpend ſu . And it's a queſtion that wiſer men then I ha need to anſwer. Whether ſuch ſcandalo ſinners as Mr. Collings ſpeaks of, ought no moſt properly to be puniſhed by the Judge in a Chriſtian Common-wealth? according to the penalties, the Law of God directs i ſuch caſes? And whether the Church has 〈◊〉 doe at all with ſuch or no in point of cenſures is a queſtion; as for other forts of ſinners that the Laws of this Common-wealth doth more indulge: the Churches cogniſance in point of diſcipline may reach, 〈◊〉 ſhe be in that capacity, otherwiſe ſhe ca but inſtruct the ignorant, warn the unruly, re buke in publick the open offender, admoniſh all: an have patience towards all men. Every Chriſtian in his place to doe what in them lyes to reform themſelves: and not ſuffer ſinne to lye upon their brother. But as for that knack of excommunicable and meerly upon that account keep members back, without any tryal, whether their offendings b out of weakneſſe or wilfulneſſe; or without any legal proceedings in order to their amendment, is a very bold part. Such precedents are of pernicious conſequence in theſe times, where we have none to make our appeal unto: knowing how that Browniſm hath too much leavened the greateſt part of the moſt knowing men, Miniſters, and others, in the Church of England. Well, let not any preſume upon ſin themſelves, in pretence of puniſhing ſin in others. If you cannot act orderly according to clear rule, make not ſuch haſte to reform as to goe about it in an unwarrantable way: as for Church-members that are in poſſeſſion of their right according to law, doe not diſpoſſeſſe them, untill the Church authoritatively hath given out judgement againſt them. Let not our Church-men be more irrational then our Lawyers for ſubjects in the Commonwealth.

And as for that, he ſaith, Church-members not knowing whether Chriſt were a man or a woman. I am ſorry that any ſhould be ſo groſſely ignorant. I thank God I never have known any ſuch; if Mr. Collings have, I hope not in his Pariſh. And I cannot but judge it a reproach of our Church and Miniſtry, if any ſuch can be found amongſt us. But it's a lamentable thing notwithſtanding our ſcruples about Sacramental Communion ſo many years together, but few that have prepared their people ever the more by doubling their diligence in catechizing of them plainly and familiarly, in publick and private. Which I fear, ſome that appear forward for a purer Communion, in ſeven years time never did ſo much as in a friendly way ſpend ſo much as an hour with their poor ignorant people in private, to inform them better, and to know their conditions, and incourage them to learn the things of God, in order to their better profiting in publick adminiſtrations. How long is it that we have been excepting againſt poor ignorant brethren, and yet not ordinary means uſed to prevent it more then heretofore; if ſo much: for in the Biſhops times care was taken that all did learn the Lords Prayer, the Creed, and the ten Commandements; with the explanations of them, and other parts of the Churches Catechiſing; we had our ſet Prayers, that people were apt to learn; but now in many places people never hear the Lords Prayer, Creed, nor Commands, ſcarſe in the year: nor have in uſe any common plain Catechiſm, &c. Ah, poor ſouls, that care is not towards them (I verily judge) as good Shepheards have of their Maſters dumb ſheep, who will ſee to every particular one that it be kept in order, and that nothing obſtruct its growth and feeding; and if any ſheep goe aſtray he diligently ſeeks it, and bringeth it to his fellows; and when either flye or ſcab doth hinder its proſperity, he will not let it alone untill the poor ſheep come to him, (though he ſhould call it) but he will goe to it, and gently catch it, (although it's ſo ſilly to flee from him) and mercifully help it: he will not let them goe till they be infectious, and then ſeparate the broken from the whole; but endeavour to keep every one in that order that all may fold together. Act. 20.28. Take heed therefore unto your ſelves, and to all, over the which the holy Ghoſt hath made you overſeers to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchaſed with his own bloud. If you have that love to your Lord and Maſter as you ſhould, you will feed his ſheep and lambs, that they may fold together. Reverend Elders we are fallen into careleſſe times, in reſpect of the Worſhip of God; little or no care is taken that our people conſtantly frequent the publick aſſemblies: ignorant perſons are left to watch to themſelves; you have the more cauſe to apply your ſelves to them in private even from houſe to houſe, and be tender unto them as a nurſe cheriſheth her children: to inſinuate your ſelves in a friendly familiar way into them, will gain in them a reverent eſteem of you in their hearts, which will give you the advantage of perſwading them to receive inſtruction from you, both in publick and private: It's an eaſie buſineſſe to make a ſeparation in your flocks; and to caſt off the relation of Paſtor and people, and to neglect relative duties, and to fill your people with prejudices, diviſions, and diſcontents, and to break the peace and union of the whole: but a work of commendable difficulty, when with care, prudence, and diligence you ſo apply your ſelves unto all, as they that muſt give an account unto God of every particular ſoul committed to your charge. Remember the bloud of ſouls; and judge your ſelves bound to deal with the worſt of your people as members of the body of Chriſt, while they remain children of the Kingdom, and not reckon them dogs and Swine, untill they be legally put out of Church-Communion, and hate to be reformed by the Churches cenſures.

Mr. Pag. 24. Collings urgeth againſt my principles, thus;

He muſt be able to diſcern the Lords Body from comm n bread. But many men may be Church members and rational, and yet not able to doe this, therefore ſomething elſe muſt he added.

The Minor wants prof, and ſo is but a reproach to Church-members, reflecting upon our Teachers that have opportunity enough to inform the meaneſt capacity of years more then ſo. And that reverent and trembling approaching generally every where, doth prove that they judge otherwiſe of the conſecrated ſignes then of common bread: why ſhould Mr. Collings be ſo uncharitable to any that profeſſe their deſires, and offer themſelves reverently in conſcience of this ſervice; he knowing that there is enough in the words of inſtitution, conſecration by Word and Prayer, the words uſed in the act of giving and receiving, ſufficiently to inform the meaneſt perſon that the elements are ſigns of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and that they eat and drink in remembrance of Chriſt for remiſſion of ſins, &c. His Concluſion is falſe, becauſe his Minor wants proof.

Again, He brings in a childe of five or ſix years old as able to exerciſe reaſon, and ſo is a Churchmember (if baptized) and if theſe two things give a plenary right, ſuch ought to be admitted.

Children minde childiſh things ordinarily and nothing elſe: and they come not under the obligation of worſhip as men of age that have put away childiſh things. And what if it be granted him, that they have ſome childiſh reaſon, doth it follow, that they have religious devotion from a principle of conſcience, as men of age ordinarily expreſſe in moſt ſolemn ſacred worſhip? Let him anſwer to what hath been ſaid already, as to this particular, before he concludes as he doth; That what he hath ſaid is ſufficient to ſhew the vanity of this conceit, as he is pleaſeed to call it, that meer Church memberſhip with years of diſcretion gives one a full right to the Lords Supper.

What he means by full right, he may doe well to explain himſelf, I have told him plainly enough, that Church-memberſhip having its riſe from Covenant relation, gives a true right unto all external Church-priviledges during that relative ſtate of actual memberſhip. I know that their real ſtate of ſpiritual intereſt in Chriſt, doth put members into a higher capacity to improve their right for their ſpiritual advantage, then thoſe that are but in that relative ſtate only, of viſible members in a large ſenſe. Yet the good improvement of the one, doth not hinder nor take away the juſt right of the other. An ill husbands right in law is as good as the beſt husbands in the world, untill by law his right be taken away. And an evill member in the Common-wealth hath as much priviledge in reſpect of the benefit of the law while he is a member, as any other of the ſame kinde, though never ſo good. The beſt ſubject is but a ſubject; and the worſt ſubject is a ſubject untill he be out-lawed, or convicted of treaſon. So I ſay, in the Church, the beſt and holyeſt man that lives, is but a Church-member; and the worſt that lives, (he being baptized, and adhering to the true religion, and under Church indulgence) is a member alſo of the ſame viſible Church, and in reſpect of his relative ſtate, his right is as good to the Sacrament as the other in a legal ſenſe, for the one is as much under obſervance as the other, all are Covenanters, and have entred it at leaſt, and hence ſtand bound to the tearms of Chriſtian obedience. There is but one Law and rule for good and bad: the one hath received the Spirit of the Covenant, that makes his ſervice ſweet and eaſie; the other is notwithſtanding under the letter of adminiſtrations in a waiting for a bleſſing, and may not be releaſed. Such have the right of precept, which is a ſufficient warranty for their obſervance of the Supper. The other not only that, but the right of ſpiritual priviledge and bleſſing through the real union and communion with Jeſus Chriſt. And Mr. Collings his ſuperadded qualifications to memberſhip, or Covenanters to give a right to precepts of worſhip, is ſo flat by this time (he urging it ſo often) that I ſhal trouble my reader with it no more; only take notice, that upon the matter he makes memberſhip a meer nothing: for doe but ſuperadde a knowledge of the things of God, conjoyned with faith in Chriſt, evidenced by the fruits of holineſſe, unto a Turk, or any other Pagan, or Jew, in the Infidel world, it would give them the right of memberſhip and Sacraments; and therefore at once you may ſee what clear conceptions Mr. Collings hath of the priviledges of Church-memberſhip.

In this page Mr. Collings conceives, Pag. 25. That I have dealt more unbrotherly with the friends of Presbyterian Diſcipline, even ſome hundreds of them, both learned and reverend men, as I charge the Doctor to have done with Mr. Humfrey; and that by entring ſome exceptions againſt that diſcipline. Bar removed, pag. 8, 9, 10.

I have ſpoke to this already, I am ſorry that ſuch groundleſſe conſequences I obſerved from the reverend Doctor, ſhould reflect upon ſome hundreds of learned reverend friends to the Presbyterian diſcipline. I had thought the moſt of the things I am unſatisfied in, as being meerly groundleſſe, would not have been owned by ſome hundreds of ſuch learned men. I ſpoke chiefly of them that are Congregations unaſſociated, and when Mr. Collings, or any other can clear themſelves of what I charge them with, I ſhal either make good my charge (if you take it ſo) or elſe ſubmit unto you, and acknowledge it my weakneſſe to be unſatisfied of the truth of what I pointed at in thoſe 8, 9, 10 pages of my Book: In the mean time Mr. Collings being the firſt that I have heard of, that hath put ſo hard a ſenſe of my diſſatisfactions, notwithſtanding I have many Presbyterian friends, learned and reverend, it makes me ſomething queſtion whether many will charge it on me for unbrotherly dealing or no. I being but a private Chriſtian might do it in order to my own and divers others ſatisfaction, that are in no ſuch way, nor dare attempt any ſuch practices, although we have made after the ſearch of warrant for thoſe wayes as well as other men, we not knowing how to know the minde of Chriſt better then by his Word in theſe things, nor how to know the ſimplicity of truth, then by ſeeking of God by prayer and humiliation for guidance and direction in our free and ſerious debates in the preſence of the Lord, amongſt our ſelves in order unto practice, the which we of great Bowden have carefully done, even a conſiderable number of us with our Miniſter, before we did communicate together in the holy Supper: And we hope the Lord was with us in the whole, we are fully ſatisfied, and not aſhamed to publiſh unto others of our Chriſtian brethren, the grounds and principles we act from. Our greateſt grief is, that we obſerve too great a careleſneſſe in our people to worſhip God with us in this great engaging Ordinance of holy Communion in the Sacrament of the holy Supper. And this we ſhall further declare, that although our Miniſter were, and is, one of our old Non conformiſts, and did indevour to draw us into another way of Communion; yet ſuch was our anſwers and grounds, that he was ſatisfied therewith. And doth adminiſter Sacraments freely with a ſetled ſatisfied judgment: we bleſſe and praiſe our God for it. Let others judge of us what they pleaſe; we judge that we act according to the minde of Chriſt, conſidering that preſent capacity we are in.

In this 26. page, he is pleaſed to examine my queries upon 1 Cor. 11. and that the rather it ſeems, becauſe, as he ſayes, all my ſuperſtructure ſtands upon the foundation that I have there laid, page 23. at latter end.

I confeſſe I judge the ſtreſſe of all the controverſie hath been occaſioned upon miſtake of the Apoſtles ſcope & ſenſe in that chapter and therefore have endeavoured by ſevera queries upon the place, with my anſwer to them conjoyned, pag. 14, 15, 16, 17. of my Book, to give you the ſenſe of the place Which I hope hath, and will ſatisfie many diſtreſſed conſciences, which have bee perplexed too much through ſome miſtak of our latter Divines; former ages an Churches, (as ſome of my friends have tok me ſince), do much favour the ſenſe that have given of the place. And it ſeems t me, that Mr. Collings is put to a ſtand wh •• to ſay to it, as for that great thing of applying the danger to unworthineſſe of perſons, Mr. Coll. whi •• troubled us all, he confeſſes he ſees no great han is like to come of it, if it be granted that th Apoſtle there doth not primarily ſpeak of perſon unworthineſſe, but actual. And again, he ſaith, 'Tis not much material to diſpute, whether th Apoſtle there ſpake of habitual unworthineſſe, only actual. That there is a perſonal unworthineſſe himſelf muſt grant he ſaith, or elſe Turkes, an excommunicated perſons cannot be excluded.

Here you may ſee a very fair conceſſion from Mr. Collings, I would we had found him as ingenuous in other things, that we might have been all of a minde, but though thi place doth not prove it, he would have u conceive that ſome other places doe in order to the Sacrament. And it is a thing that I muſt grant, elſe Turks, and the excommunicate cannot be excluded. I will examine his Scriptures anon, and ſhall firſt deny that which he will force me to grant, his reaſon is worth nothing, or elſe Turks, &c. I grant that there is a perſonal unworthineſſe in Turks and Pagans, and in the excommunicate alſo conditionally, but doth it therefore follow that there is a perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church, that profeſſe themſelves a people in Covenant with God, and have the Lord for their God? Here you may obſerve again, how Mr. Collings is levelling Churchmembers with the infidel world; it's ſtrange to me, that a Batcheler of Divinity, ſhould not be able to make difference between a Pagan and a Chriſtian. What, 1 Cor. 7.14. did he forget that foederal holineſſe that differenceth the clean from the unclean?

He queries, Whether every unregenerate man as ſuch, be perſonally unworthy; he believes he is. I ſeeme to doubt, he ſaith.

Without doubting that there is no perſonal unworthineſſe in the unregenerate in the Church, ſimply conſidered in it ſelf, for all ſuch are in Covenant relation, the which relation is perſonal, they are a conſecrate people to the Lord, and are in that ſenſe holy (in oppoſition to the infidel world, that ſtill lyes in profaneneſſe) thoſe whom God hath choſen to bear his name, and are entred into Covenant with God Let no man account common and unclea commonizing ſuch a called profeſſing peopl with the Pagan world, &c. (as is the humor and ſin of theſe times:) for perſon unworthineſſe cannot be in the Church, 〈◊〉 long as a perſons relative worthineſſe remains. Indeed we may diſtinguiſh of a perſons worthineſſe in the Church: it is either relative meerly, or elſe real and relativ together. The former is ſufficient for th acceptance of the Church unto all Goſpe Ordinances; the latter is that which hat its praiſe of God, it being called the ci cumciſion of the heart, &c. the other but o the letter only, Rom. 2.20. But Mr. Colling ſaith, there is no need of diſputing this. Although I know the main cauſe of this con troverſie occaſioned by this very thing. T what end is your Bar, but to exclude the unworthy? Why have you deviſed ſuch ſtrange things, as to make it ſtrong meat, 〈◊〉 ſeal to faith, a ſtrengthening and a nouriſhing Ordinance, &c. contradiſtinct from all: the reſt in the Church, excluding it from being a means of converſion, which you allow to all the other Ordinances in the Church. To what end is your ſuſpenſion, and hindring perſons more from this then any other? To what end are your proving and trying of ſuch that generally profeſſe the ſame religion your ſelves preach, though harmleſſe and honeſt as to men, yet may not be admitted? I ſay to what end is all this, but that you are afraid of perſonal unworthineſſe? And it is the only thing to be diſputed: for we are all agreed about actual unworthineſſe, that let a man be a godly man, yet if he ſin ſcandalouſly he is to be cenſured it, and ſo of the unregenerate, if they be obſtinate; our difference about actual unworthineſſe, will be in what caſes the Church may exerciſe the rod, for what ſins: but he tels us, pag 27.

That every Church member is by us to be lookt upon as habitually worthy, unleſſe by ſome actual miſcarriage he declares himſelf actually unworthy.

But the queſtion is, whether Mr. Collings will grant that thoſe in the Church, that they finde by their miſcarriages to be actually unworthy, they judge to be habitually worthy; and let him tell us plainly, that they keep back no man from the Sacrament for habitual unworthineſſe, if he can, and ſay truth, but for actual miſcarriages onely. Let him plainly anſwer me in that, and then I may tell him more of my minde: in the mean time let me tell him, that I much fear his charity to Church-members ſavours of exceſſe, and exceeds all due bounds. Take habitual worthineſſe in his own ſenſe, as he expreſſes himſelf in the ſame thing thus, Yet we believe their Church-memberſhip is not that which makes them thus worthy; but their into eſt in Christ, which charity obligeth them thus believe, untill by ſome fruits they diſcover the o trary.

Then it will follow,

That all Infants born in the Church a habitually worthy, not from their Covena holineſſe that gives them the priviledge 〈◊〉 memberſhip, but from their intereſt in Chr as beleevers. Let him try if he can convin the Antipaedobaptiſt of that.

That charity which obligeth us thus 〈◊〉 believe of all Church-members, is true, 〈◊〉 charity obligeth no man to believe that whi is falſe.

Then it follows, that thoſe that are ha tually worthy from their intereſt in Chriſ may fall away from that habituall wo thineſſe they have from their intereſt 〈◊〉 Chriſt.

This ſtrongly implyes that they hold th no one ſhould be continued a member of th viſible Church, but ſuch that are habituall worthy from an intereſt in Chriſt. An thus you may ſee how their extremity o charity runs them into an extremity of r gor and cenſorious dealing with Church members at length. Let the impartial Reader judge how true it is, that Mr. Colling hath ſaid. 'Tis not much material to diſpute whether the Apoſtle ſpake of habitual unworthineſſe o actual, when all he drives at is nothing elſe unto his admitting to the Sacrament. If I can but undermine him in that one prop, his whole building will fall, and the controverſie come to ſome good iſſue, for what Mr. Collings can doe in it, let him doe the beſt can.

In the next place he ſaith, he dares not deny but the diſorderly eating in the Church of Corinth, was an unworthy eating; and might be a cauſe of their puniſhment, verſ. 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that inſtance of Uzziahs caſe, &c.

This I take to be a good conceſſion to my anwer of the 3. & 4. query, pag. 16, 17, 18. The Bar removed: But I ſee he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it; mark, he doth but ſay, their unworthy eating might be a cauſe of their puniſhment. The holy Apoſtle ſaith plainly, for this cauſe many are weak and ſick, ſome dead. That is, the cauſe is plain, verſ. 29. Their not diſcerning was more out of careleſneſſe and profaneneſſe then ſimply out of ignorance. their eating and drinking unworthily, which he further explains to be their not diſcerning the Lords body, but uſed the bare elements as common bread, not diſcerning the body and bloud of the Lord they were conſecrated to repreſent, with other particular miſcarriages in the time of adminiſtration, for this cauſe, ſaith our Apoſtle, they were puniſhed; this were a cauſe, ſaith our Author, but not all the cauſe, for which they were puniſhed with death. Who ſhall carry the ſenſe now of theſe two competitors, our Apoſtle, or Mr. Collings. I need not again urge what have formerly ſpoke to this Scripture, 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other firſt anſwer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the ſet of the place, and let them prove that were for perſonal unworthineſſe if th can, or for any other ſins that they w guilty of before they met together for t time of adminiſtration, &c. Let them g •• us ſome clear demonſtrations of it, if they c •• if they cannot, let them be ſo ingenu as to give us their conſent, and trouble ſe ful conſciences no longer with ſuch kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author.

Mr. Collings hath given us three argume to ſhew us why e cannot digeſt the ſe that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20. to end.

He ſaith, becauſe the Apoſtle, chap. 5. had them of Corinth, that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feaſt with the old leaven of malice and wickedne And bidden them purge out the old leaven, verſ 7. And not eat with one called a brother who ſh be a fornicator, or idolater, &c. And agai chap. 10.21. had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup divels. What then, why did he not mal his concluſion, that we might have clear underſtood to what end he quotes tho Scriptures as a reaſon?

But let us a little follow him in theſ Scriptures, and examine what they will make to prove theſe two things:

1. That the Lord puniſhed the Corinthians for perſonal unworthineſſe.

2. That they were puniſhed for ſome other ſins then what they were guilty of in the time of adminiſtration: which is the main thing in hand.

As for 1 Cor. 5. he tels us, (not the Apoſtle) that they could not keep the feaſt with malice, &c. the Apoſtle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven, meaning that of the inceſtuous perſon, ſpeaking by way of an alluſion to the law of the Paſſeover, which were to purge their houſes of all leaven againſt that feaſt which continued ſeven days: reſemblably he would have them purge themſelves of that wicked perſon whom they had indulged amongſt them, and made the name of God to be evill ſpoken of, by tolerating ſuch ſins amongſt them, as is not ſo much as named amongſt the Gentiles, that one ſhould have his fathers wife, &c. therefore deliver him to Satan, purge your ſelves of your former connivence and indulging ſuch, and then ſaith he, let us keep the feaſt, but not with malice and wickedneſſe, &c. but with the unleavened bread of ſincerity and truth, meaning that he would have them ſpend their whole lives ſo; the Apoſtle tels them what he would have them doe, and how they ſhould keep the feaſt, Mr. Collins tels us, he told them they could not keep the feaſt, &c. but he that hath but half an eye may eaſily diſcern what this place is for his purpoſe; This proves that ſcandalous perſons ſhould be caſt out of all Chriſtian Communion, for the concluſion of the whole is in the laſt verſe, caſt out from amongſt your ſelves that wicked perſon, which is the thing that I all along contend for, the juſt cenſures of the Church; but I would have none debarred their right till then.

But Mr. Collings might have given us ſome probable grounds to prove that the feaſt mentioned, was the holy Supper, and not to leave us to ſuch uncertainties; for if it be not meant of the holy Supper, what is this to his purpoſe? Let him ſhew us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feaſt, and that this feaſt muſt needs be that, but this is but a ſhift to hold up the old intereſt. So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men, eſpecially, when themſelves are ingaged in ſuch wayes that men have framed. But then he goes on verſ. 11. And not eat with one called a Brother, This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter, as alſo the 1 Cor. 10.21. who ſhould be a fornicator, an Idolater, &c.

Mr. Collings ſhould have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat, whether, not eat, in a civil friendly neceſſary ſenſe, or not eat, at the holy Supper with ſuch during their actual abode in the Church. If he mean the latter, in reference to the Sacrament, I ſhall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper; and if it be not meant of the holy Supper, what is this to the thing in hand? The 9, 10. verſes doe give us ſome light of the Apoſtles meaning, He had wrote an Epiſtle to them, not to keep company with the fornicators of the world. But in this Epiſtle he mollifies the former with ſome liberty, elſe they muſt goe out of the world: his meaning is, not to keep company in a civil friendly ſenſe unneceſſarily; but if a brother be ſuch a one, keep no civil friendly company with him at all, no not to eat, upon unneceſſary occaſion. And ſo for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup Divels too. The main ſin the Apoſtle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry, verſ. 14. Theſe Corinthians being grafted into the Chriſtian Church, did bear up themſelves upon their Church priviledges too high. And hence grew fearleſſe of Gods judgements, notwithſtanding their manifold ſins, as that of Idolatry in this chapter, the Apoſtle tels them, that the Church of the Jews was inveſted with the like priviledges as they are, and yet for their provoking ſins God was not well pleaſed with them, but deſtroyed many of them for their murmurings, whoredomes, Idolatries, &c. and therefore warns them of the like in general. And then in the 14. verſe he applyes himſelf unto them in particular, Wherefore my beloved brethren fly from Idolatry, I ſpeak to wiſe men, judge what I ſay, for this is the thing that comes neer you, which ſome of you are guilty of. And that he might throughly convince them of the hainous nature of this ſin, he draws an argument from the nature of that holy Communion they had together in the holy Supper, which ſuppoſes them to be all of one Chriſtian body, for they all eat of one bread and drink of one cup, &c. Hence he would have them ſee what an inconſiſtent thing it were for them to be of this Chriſtian body, and of another Heatheniſh body too; in point of Communion they could not be of both, of Chriſt, and Belial, this were a mixture unſufferable, to drink the cup of the Lord at one time in the Church of Chriſt; and then at another time to drink the cup of Divels, in his Temple, Will you thus provoke the Lord, &c. you muſt either forbear the one or the other, for you cannot ſerve God and the Devil. And this he aggravates the more, becauſe it was ſuch an offence and ſcandal to the weak amongſt them, the which they that were the ſtrongeſt Chriſtians offended in, as the latter end of the chapter doth clearly give it, and that about indifferent things, and it became thus ſinful in regard of ſome evil circumſtances. But now what is this to prove, that this ſin was in their eating and drinking unworthily in the 11 chap. as Mr. Collins would have it? for here you may conceive, that at moſt the offenders were but implicitly threatned with puniſhment: but in the 11. ch. they were already puniſhed when this Epiſtle was ſent unto them, the which will trouble Mr. C. to reconcile. Beſides had the Apoſtle in ch. 11. meant their actual offending in the 5. & 10. ch. then he would have ſaid, for theſe cauſes ſome are puniſhed, or for this and divers other, but as he meant no other, ſo he writes, and terminates the only cauſe of their puniſhment, was their profaning the holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of the Lord, as hath been ſpoken to, For this cauſe, &c.

His ſecond reaſon to prove he cannot digeſt the ſenſe I have given, is, becauſe it ſeems very abſurd to him, that a man who ſhould but offend in a point of order, ſhould be guilty of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and ſo of judgement; and he who comes raking with the guilt of ſcandalous ſins, ſhould not at all be guilty or lyable to Gods judgements.

Why will Mr. Collins thus mince their ſin? Was their being drunk, and their uſing a ſacred Ordinance of Chriſt appointed for ſo ſpiritual an end, but as a civil or common Supper, but offending in a point of order? if this did not ſtrike at the very eſſence and nature of the Ordinance, I know not what doth; doth not the Apoſtle tell them plainly, This is not to eat the Lords Supper, but their own, this profanation of the inſtituted ſigns rendered them guilty of polluting the very body and bloud of Chriſt, that the ſigns did repreſent, and will he ſay, this were but to offend in a point of order? I might adde their offending in point of order to the main. But then to the latter part, Touching them that come in ſcandalous ſins, that they ſhould not at all be guilty or lyable to the judgements of God.

Who ever ſaid ſuch a word? Doth it ſollow, becauſe the Corinthians were puniſhed for no other cauſe but their prophaning this Ordinance; that therefore I muſt needs hold that they that come in other ſcandalous ſins, are not lyable to any of Gods judgements for their other ſins? I ſay, tribulation, anguiſh, and woe, to every ſoul that doth evill. And yet I ſay too, it's poſſible a ſcandalous ſinner may come to the Sacrament, and not at all be guilty of the Corinthians ſinning, nor as to his receiving be lyable to the judgements of God; provided he come as prepared, and carry himſelf as reverently at the adminiſtration as he can: for his ſcandalous life doth not diſingage him from Chriſtian obſervance while he is within, and not under the juſt cenſures of the Church to reform him thereby.

I know for carnal wretched impenitent ſinners, to come careleſſely, and cuſtomarily, is a great ſin, and for them that out of careleſſeneſſe, and want of affection to it ſhall neglect it when they are invited to it, is a great ſin alſo, and both puniſhable by the Lord. I wiſh all due and lawful means were uſed for the reforming of both, ſo might we expect a greater bleſſing of grace upon all in a holy uſe of Gods own appointments: in the mean time let us all reform what we regularly can, and mourn for what we are wanting in.

Mr. Collings third reaſon is, becauſe he cannot conceive that God ſhould be ſo unlike himſelf, as to look upon one legally unclean, unworthy to eat the Paſſeover under the Old Teſtament; and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New?

It is too bold to call the bleſſed God unto mans bar: becauſe he is not like to men that are not able to reach the reaſon of his declared will. God cannot be unlike himſelf be ſure; but it's poſſible Mr. Collings may be unlike the truth in what he ſaith pag. 28. how doth he know that God lookt upon one that was legally unclean as unworthy to eat the Paſſeover. We know that that uncleanneſſe was incident to good men as well as others? It will ſet him hard to prove, (I think) that it took away the habitual worthineſſe of a godly man, or that relative worthineſſe of memberſhip, if not, ſuch were not lookt upon as unworthy of the Paſſeover, but were under a contingent neceſſity by the will of God that they could not obſerve it, but they ſhould make the ſacrifice unclean: for by the will of God it was declared unto them, that whatſoever they touched in their uncleanneſſe ſhould be unclean. And we know it was a caſe the Lord indulged equally with thoſe that were in a neceſſary journey, appointing them another day of purpoſe the next month; nor were they ſo much denyed the benefit of this Ordinance, as of others, that they loſt the profit of during their uncleanneſſe, there being not the like proviſion appointed as to the Paſſeover.

Again, let me ask Mr. Collins, why the whole Church were to obſerve the Paſſeover upon their lives; and yet he cannot deny, but in that Church in their beſt eſtate, there were many that were morally unclean, in his ſenſe; and what doe my principles plead for more in the Chriſtian Church; if I plead but for the ſame now, that upon their lives was injoyned then, even by the Lord himſelf. I hope he will not charge it upon me, that I make God unlike himſelf; but if he will make the New Teſtament ſo contrary to the Old, as to ſay the whole Church may not obſerve the Lords Supper, his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeableneſſe of the faithful, true and living Lord God.

Thus I have given you to underſtand, that the legally unclean were not lookt upon as unworthy to eat the Paſſeover at all. And the ſenſe that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads no otherwiſe in favour of the morally unclean (as he cals them) then the Old Teſtament doth injoyn. One hint more: let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expreſſely forbid the Paſſeover. I am ſure Moſes knew of no expreſſe prohibition and therefore was at a ſtand when the caſe was brought before him, and could not tell what to direct, whether the unclean might keep it, or forbear, untill he had enquired of the Lord what they ſhould doe; Beſides when the Paſſeover was rejourned to the laſt day, multitudes did eat it, that were not cleanſed, and were accepted of: And the Lord ſaid, 2 Chron. 30.15, 17, 18, 19, 20. If any man of your poſterity ſhall be unclean by reaſon of a dead body, or be in a journey a far off, yet he ſhall keep the Paſſeover unto the Lord, Numb. 9.10. here you ſee is an expreſſe command for the unclean man to keep the Paſſeover. He kept the ſame Paſſeover at Gods appointed ſeaſon, as well as the reſt of the Congregation, for God appointing and ſanctifying another ſeaſon for them in ſpecial made, the ſervice the ſame in it ſelf, and to them. And yet for all this, what adoe have our late Divines made about this? I could wiſh we might hear no more of it, unleſſe they can make better uſe of it then Mr. Collins doth. Now I have anſwered three arguments that made him ſo hard of digeſting this truth, That the Corinthians were not puniſhed for perſonal unworthineſſe, but for their actual offendings at the time of adminiſtration. For the further helps of this hard digeſtion and edification and ſatisfaction of my Chriſtian friends, I ſhe freely ſpeak my heart for the clearing upo this in queſtion, according to my meaſure for I know well enough, that our miſtake about worthineſſe and unworthineſſe of perſon in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Biſhops ever did.

Our holy Apoſtle in 1 Cor. 7.14. ha clearly and ſully expreſt himſelf about hab tual worthineſſe, that if but one of marrias ſtate were a believer, the other infidel perſon was ſanctified by the believing party and tels us that if it were not ſo, their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy: meaning, that upon th faith, and entring into the Covenant of th one, their children enter covenant with th parent, and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the priviledges of the Church, as it was in the ſtate of the Jews Church. Why ſurely if the branches were holy, then the root was holy alſo. Now I ſay, how can it be imagined, that the Apoſtle will have the children holy even of thoſe perſons that in chap. 11. he judged perſonally unworthy? Sure if the children were foederally holy, then their parents were too, for the right of the childe is derived from the believing ſtate of the parents; & that was ſufficient to free them from unworthy eating in reſpect of their perſons. And therefore the Apoſtle concludes that all things are ſanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer. To the pure all things are pure, but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure. Here is a clear difference between the profeſſing Church and the infidel world: all is clean to the one, but nothing clean to the other. And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinths, in reſpect of their perſons. It will follow then that it was profaned by their evill actions only. The Apoſtle underſtood the nature of the Goſpel Church better then thoſe I have to deal with in this controverſie. He underſtood the right rule, and accordingly reduced all unto it. He diſtinguiſheth between clean and unclean, believer and infidel: all was clean to the one, and nothing clean to the other, that except the Corinths had admitted Infidels unto the body and bloud of Chriſt to pollute it, perſonal unworthineſſe could not be the ſin for which they were puniſhed; Heatheniſh uncleanneſſe the uncircumciſed might not eat thereof.

I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late, we make the ſame difference in the Church, that the Apoſtle made between the Church and the world. And all thoſe Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apoſtle, our Divines uſually apply to the different ſtate of perſons in the Church, the regenerate and unregenerate; and accordingly would be dividing their people, an are as fearful (many of them) to admi an unſound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumciſed Infidel, but I hope thoſe exorbitant diſtempers that ſome deſperately plunge themſelves into from the ſame miſtakes, will make ſober men conſider a laſt.

I know no ſuch language uſed in Scripture concerning perſons of the Church, as th any Church-members ſhould be perſonally unworthy to uſe Gods Ordinance, and ſerve God in his own appointments. Indee for perſons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Goſpel, to oppoſe and perſecute the meſſengers that publiſh liſe and ſalvation by Jeſus Chriſt; ſuch are ſaid to be unworthy of eternal life, Act. 13.46. the Apoſtle Paul again tels the unbelieving Jews, That it was neceſſary that the Word of God ſhould have firſt been ſpoken unto you; but ſeeing by envy, contradiction, and blaſpheming, verſ. 45. you put it from you, and judge your ſelves unworthy of eternal life, loe, we turn to the Gentiles, for ſ hath the Lord commanded. So our bleſſed Saviour, Matth. 10 11, 12, 13, 14. gave the twelve Commiſſion to Preach, that the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand, &c. they were rather to goe to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, then to the Samaritans. And when they came either into City, Town, or Family, they were to ſalute it, and preach peace unto them, but if they were not worthy, their peace ſhould return; and to thoſe that would not receive them and hear their words, they were to ſhake off the duſt of their feet againſt them, verſ. 14. with a grievous judgement threatned, verſ. 15. againſt ſuch people that refuſe the Goſpel when it is tendered unto them. Theſe are ſaid not to be worthy, that reject the Goſpel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did; which implyes thoſe that receive the Goſpel and believe the truth thereof, and profeſſe their ſubjection unto it, being of no other religion then what the Goſpel teacheth, they may be ſaid to be worthy, whatever they are for ſincerity and truth: ſo again Matth. 22. concerning the invited gueſts to the marriage Supper, (which ſet forth the fat things of the Goſpel adminiſtrations, and the grace thereof,) the meſſengers were ſent to call in the gueſts, that were bidden, but they made light of it, and would not come, and ſome went to their farms, and others to their merchandize, and others abuſed the ſervants that invited them, &c. Then the King was wroth and deſtroyed thoſe murderers, and ſaid to his ſervants, The wedding is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy, verſ. 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Chriſt, and would never come under his external adminiſtrations ſet up in his Church, in order to ſalvation: they are ſaid (you may ſee) not to be worthy, or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in, though ſo •• came abſurdly, and periſhed too, at laſt, y •• there is no ſuch thing ſaid of them, no the were worthy, though they conſiſted of goo and bad. The invitation priviledged all come, there is no pleading I am unworth to come, but refuſal was that which the unworthineſſe conſiſted in only. From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no ſuch thing as perſonal unworthineſſe order to obſervance and duty of perſo in Covenant relation, which all are the have entred Covenant, though but in the parents, untill they renounce the Covenan or for their hating to be reformed by th Churches juſt cenſures they be diſcovenante conditionally, that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way, the are gone forever; Now then I ſay, if t Scriptures charge not any with unworthyneſſe of perſon, but ſuch as I have inſtanced in, who can imagin that the Chur •• of Corinth was puniſhed for that?

I would gladly know of Mr. Collings, of any other learned man, where the Scripture threaten puniſhment againſt perſonal unworthineſſe ſimply? Or where can they give an inſtance that ever any weſe puniſhed for habitual unworthineſſe at all, in the Old or New Teſtament? If you cannot finde ſuch a thing in all the whole Bible, what reaſon can you have to judge that the Corinths were puniſhed for perſonal unworthineſſe? It's true, the ſin of our natures derived from the firſt man is puniſhed with death: for we al dye in Adam, but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all, good and bad, It's appointed for all men once to dye, Heb. 9.27. And we ſee death reigns over Infants that have not ſinned after the ſimilitude of Adams tranſgreſſion. Rom. 5. but in this both original ſin, and death that follows thereupon, is of unavoidable neceſſity by the decree of God. So likewiſe as actual ſin is the tranſgreſſion of the law, he that ſo tranſgreſſeth is lyable to the puniſhment of that law. 1 Tim. 1.9, 10. And the whole Law it ſelf is made for the lawleſſe and diſobedient, for the ungodly and for ſinners, for murderers, for whoremongers, for lyars, and for perjured perſons, &c. that is, for the puniſhment of all wilful diſobedience of men. And ſo it is ſaid of the Church, If you will walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to you. You have I known of all the families of the earth, yet the Lord will puniſh them for their ſins. And wherefore doth living man complain for the puniſhment of his ſin? Lam. 3.39. all the puniſhments threatned in the Word, and inflicted either by God or man, were for actual offendings: but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were puniſhed for a meer want of regeneration, circumciſion of the heart, an intereſt in Chriſt, &c. This is a caſe the Lord hath alwayes pity and promiſed the cure of unto his Church foraſmuch as no man can convert and rene his own ſoul, of himſelf; nay of thoſ that have the means, and uſe the ordinar means of their ſalvation, as the Jews di It's ſaid, not of him that willeth, nor of b that runneth, but it is God that ſheweth mercy, R 9. Habitual unworthineſſe in that reſpe is unavoidable; and is the common ſtate all by nature, as well them that are born the Church as thoſe that are born out of i Epheſ. 2. but the Covenants of promiſe a made to the Church for the cure of this d praved ſtate. And the Lord hath ſet up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word, Sacraments, and Pray in the Church, as the ordinary means fo men to uſe in their converſion and ſalvation revealed in the promiſes of the Covenant the neglect whereof is uſually puniſhe with blindeneſſe, and profaneneſſe, not diligent frequenting of them. But what i God doth puniſh habitual or natural u •• worthineſſe (it being an effect of Adams defection) What is that to the Church that i bounded by a rule? May they contrary t all rule judge of it, and puniſh it therefore with ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament? Our bleſſed Saviour rebukes this raſh humour in men, ſaying, Judge not, leſt you be judged It's clear enough, that we may judge of mens actions, and finding them tranſgreſfors, we may puniſh their perſons; but we have nothing to doe to judge of mens perſons, let them be good, or bad, as to their perſons, that is nothing to us, we muſt leave them to ſtand or fall to their own Maſter, for what have we to doe to judge another mans ſervant. But if either be found tranſgreſſors ſo far as their offendings come within the Churches cogniſance to puniſh, let them impartially doe it without reſpect of perſons in the Church. We read that thoſe that are appointed to judge amongſt their brethren, Deut. 1, 16, 17. are to judge righteouſly between every man and his brother, without reſpect of perſons in judgement: to hear the ſmall as well as the great; not fearing the face of any man, for the judgement is the Lords, and the cauſe that is too hard for man to judge of, was to be brought before the Lord, and he would hear it, there is a rule given to judge of cauſes and actions between brother and brother. And yet in point of cauſes and things external, that brethren might differ in, theſe might be too hard for men to judge of. How much more hard is it to judge of the ſpirits of men within them, whether they have an intereſt in Chriſt or no? ſurely if in the other, much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord; beſides, you may ſee in judging about things which concerns the Church, Matth. 18.

1. It muſt be of evill actions only.

2. Upon ſufficient proof.

3. And in caſe of obſtinacy, refuſing 〈◊〉 hear the Church, &c. before any judgement can iſſue out againſt them. Tell me ho you can apply this rule to perſonal unwor thineſſe? Can this be atteſted upon Oath? o is the Church able to convince any in particular of it? Or is it in the power of a to reform it? Hence I conclude, that as it not applyable unto the rules of Church dicipline; ſo it is ſuch an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members, that not any man of reſon will plead the puniſhing of, with ſuſpe ſion from the Lords Supper.

If the Apoſtles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinths were puniſhed for habit •• unworthineſſe, and that whoſoever eats as drinks that is perſonally unworthy is gui •• of the body and bloud of the Lord, and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation, then theſe ſe ral inconveniences and ſnares muſt neceſ rily follow.

That there is not any Miniſter on cancan adminiſter the Sacrament clearly in fai becauſe he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that thoſe he delive, the Sacrament unto, are habitually wort from their intereſt in Chriſt; ſo that 〈◊〉 muſt ſtill lye under the bondage of fear a doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Chriſt, and eating and drinkin their own damnation.

That all weak doubting fearful Chriſtian (either Miniſters or others) that are not groundedly aſſured of their intereſt in Chriſt for acceptance in this ſervice, cannot come in faith, for he that doubts is damned if he eat, and what ever is not of faith is ſin. Such perſons that are not upon good ground aſſured of the truth of their own worthineſſe, cannot be aſſured of their eating and drinking worthily, but muſt of neceſſity lye under the fear of being guilty of what is threatned; and ſo eat doubtingly, (if ſuch venture to come,) which is ſin, or elſe they muſt forbear until they be aſſured, or are fully perſwaded of the truth of their own perſonal worthineſſe. And this would be the perplexity of moſt ſincere Chriſtians, there being but few in compariſon of thoſe, that arrive to any grounded aſſurance of their own juſtification, ſanctification, ſalvation, &c. Hence we may concive, that when Mr. Collins cals the Sacrament ſtrong meat, he means becauſe there is not any but ſtrong Chriſtians that can partake thereof with ſatisfaction, peace and comfort. And ſo upon the matter he denyes it to be milk for babes, as well as a means of working grace in thoſe that want it.

That all blinde ſelf-conceited Phariſees, and ſenſleſſe ſecure carnal Chriſtians, formal confident hypocrites, that never were acquainted with any ſaving work of grace upon their ſpirits may come to the Sacrament boldly, for they doubt not of their good eſtate before God, and hence they ſhall be,

1. Either flattered in their groſſe preſumption by the Churches admittance of them.

Or 2. They muſt be bard out by ſuch ban as the Scriptures no where make.

That hence Miniſters of the Goſpel a forc'd to detract un worthily from Chriſts authority in hiscommanding this obſervance t the whole Church, diſſwading their people from this ſervice due to Chriſt more then fro any other whatſoever, and ſo will preſume t looſe where Chriſt binds; or elſe are force to ſuſpend them illegally, and ſo preſume t bind where Chriſt doth looſe, & leave at liberty freely to ſerve him in his own appointments.

What a ſnare doth this kinde of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate, and doubting Chriſtians! If they neglect the Sacrament for want of perſonal worthineſſe, they ſin in omitting ſo great a duty of publick worſhip; if they obſerve it as well a they can, yet being unworthy, they eat an drink their own damnation, by being guilty of the bloud of Chriſt, as ſome ſay.

What doth more occaſion godly and tender conſciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations, & gather Churches out of a Church, then fear of perſonal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion? as for the external action in the preſent adminiſtration, the deportments of all generally are ſuch as are inoffenſive, and they doe not ſeparate from us, for the moſt part, out of any other diſlike of publique Worſhip.

That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to claſh with themſelves, in that we will not ſuffer them to meet in the ſame ſubjects, and are afraid to adminiſter the ſeal to thoſe parents, whoſe children we freely adminiſter it unto: but the reſuſal of the o •• e followed home, will ſoon deſtroy the adminiſtration to the other, for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the ſame ſubject. When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of theſe ſeveral things, I hope he will finde in himſelf a better digeſting of that which I have given of the Apoſtles ſenſe.

And therefore in the next place I ſhall come to touch a little further of actual unworthineſſe in reference to the Sacrament, having clearly removed that miſerable miſtake of perſonal unworthineſſe in order to unworthy receiving. And indeed the whole controverſie will be brought to actuall ſinning; for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and puniſhed for.

Then the diſpute will lye in theſe few queſtions.

Whether any unworthy actions of perſons in the Church, makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more then of unworthy Communion in other ſpecial parts of publick worſhip, or no:

Whether the Church be able to judge i particular, what perſons in the Church upon tryal, or otherwiſe, will of neceſſity be guilty of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and ea judgement to themſelves in the Apoſtle ſenſe.

Whether the Church hath power to ſuſpen Church-members from Sacramental Comm nion, allowing them the priviledges of al the other Ordinances.

I ſhall anſwer in the negative unto the •• (under favour) to Mr. Collins, or any othe that ſhall endevour to give further ſatisfactions to the queſtions. And to the firſt I ha hinted at already in anſwer to Mr. Colli quotations, 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that b hath ſaid from thoſe Scriptures, doth no amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was puniſhed, chap. 11. I have alſo in m Book ſhewed at large, what eating and drinking unworthily it was, that was puniſhed and which made guilty of the body an bloud of Chriſt; in ſhort, I conceive it we an open abuſe, or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common uſe, with other diſorders in the very time of the adminiſtring the Lords Supper, practically deſtroying the very eſſence, and ſpiritual ends of Chriſ •• holy inſtitution. And upon this accoun alone they were guilty of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and of eating judgement to themſelves: not for any other cauſe or ſins they lay under; but for this cauſe ſome are dead, &c. And whoſoever they are that eat and drink the outward ſignes, ſet apart by the Word and Prayer to repreſent the body and bloud of Chriſt unworthily, as the Corinthians did, are guilty of the ſame ſin, and lyable to the ſame judgements, but that all other ſinful actions committed before they come, though not repented of, doth make guilty of polluting the body and bloud of Chriſt, and of judgement, they demeaning themſelves reverently, and conformly, as to the externals thereof: is to me not only doubtful, but irrational and abſurd. And untill ſome better grounds be produced for the ſatisfaction hereof, then Mr. Collins hath given, I am not like to be anſwered in this very thing. And let me tell Mr. Collins, and all that are friends to his judgement, that they muſt make out that very thing by holy Scriptures, or elſe themſelves will be forced to yeeld the cauſe, and not ſo much as threaten their poor people any more with the murder of Chriſt, and eating and drinking their own damnation: for as to that which is viſible, which man is to judge of in the act of publick adminiſtration, what fault can any of you finde? I could wiſh that in all other publick Worſhip, all perſons would carry themſelves as reverently, and be as ſerious and intent in their attendance upon divine appointment. It's a ſtrange thing to me, that although you cannot charge upon your people the profanation of the holy Supper in that way that the Corinths were puniſhed for, yet you fright them with the ſame danger, and are more ſevere in barring them from it, then ever we read of by any Apoſtles or Elders in Scriptures. In all other duties of publick worſhip, you preſſe your people to be frequent in; and to doe their homage to God as well as they can, you will tell them is better then to neglect them. And only touching this publick duty of the Sacrament, you tell them they had better to forbear. And it is a leſſe ſin not to come, then to come, although they come as prepared as they can. When this is a duty incumbent to all in the Church, that are baptized, and of years ſufficient to come under the obligation of poſitive precepts, as any other is. The uſual grounds you have given will never hold, becauſe you have run your ſelves upon ſuch miſtakes about this main place of 1 Cor. 11. and I verily believe I have made ſuch exceptions againſt the common interpretations of latter Divines, that you will finde it a work of ſuch difficulty to anſwer to ſatisfaction; that you will be forc't either to deny our Church to be a true Church, or elſe let the controverſie fall; (I mean as it conſiſts of all baptized members in general) and act as true Scripture Churches have done both in the Old and New Teſtament. I have ſeen what a deal of pains Mr. Collins hath taken to make good ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament; I have weighed his ſcripture arguments as heedfully as I am able, with the judgement of the ancient and modern Divines, and yet I cannot diſcern the leaſt ſolid bottome, for all that he hath ſaid in that diſpute to reſt upon, or truſt in, for my own ſatisfaction, although God knows I have not the leaſt prejudice againſt any authority he hath made uſe of, but am willing to try all things. And I purpoſe God willing to examine the main grounds of Scripture he hath concluded ſuſpenſion from, if I be not otherwiſe prevented hereafter: in the mean time I ſhall goe on with this undertaking in hand. I confeſſe were this true, that perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church, did of neceſſity cauſe perſons to eat and drink unworthily, and ſo bring judgment: or that the ignorant and ſcandalous amongſt us that are actual offenders upon other accounts, muſt of neceſſity eat and drink unworthily if they come, and ſo bring judgement upon themſelves for unworthy receiving: there were ſome colour for to fright men and hinder them from coming to the Sacrament: but if theſe things will not be ſufficiently made good, the ground of all our fears and ſcruples, and devices is removed and taken away, and we muſt conclude, that ſo long as the outward adminiſtration is carryed on with reverence and external holineſſe, and go order, ſutable to the inſtitution and rules 〈◊〉 worſhip; that there is no other unwort communion in this part of Gods publi •• worſhip, then in the other parts thereof, 〈◊〉 ſo much, for the ignorant unregenerate Ch •• ſtians are more careleſſe, and unreverent, a ſluggiſh in hearing, praying, ſinging, the the Sacrament; I cannot tell what men m ſay to this. I finde that Mr. Collins h ſaid but little to it, notwithſtanding my •• ging it ſo much in my Book, he knowi •• that if it be not fully anſwered, all that 〈◊〉 hath ſaid in favour of ſuſpenſion will fall 〈◊〉 the ground, and his book will be wo •• nothing. I alſo ſhall in all humility deſ •• Mr. Collins, or any of his judgement, to 〈◊〉 if they can make good the affirmative of t •• next queſtion.

Whether the Church be able to judge 〈◊〉 particular, what perſons upon tryal w •• eat and drink unworthily in the Apoſtl ſenſe.

I ſay it's a thing that the beſt Elderſh •• in the Church of England cannot certainl know of any member beforehand; for ſ •• they finde one very ignorant of God, an Jeſus Chriſt whom he hath ſent, and of S craments and all other worſhip; yet 〈◊〉 being a baptized perſon, and profeſſing 〈◊〉 willingneſſe to learn, and to ſerve God it his publick worſhip, as well as he can; Upon what account can any diſſwade him from it? as I have already proved in my Book, the baptized, as well as the circumciſed, come under all obſervance in the Church.

The which I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak more fully unto hereafter, when I come to that which Mr. Collins hath anſwered to that particular. If you ſay, ſuch will eat and drink unworthily in the Apoſtles ſenſe. You cannot be ſure of that, which was ſeldome or never ſeen in our Congregations; and for to diſſwade from a neceſſary duty of worſhip, upon ſuch a fear before hand, that was ſeldome or never heard of, is not very rational. I ſhall eaſily grant that blinde obedience and ſervice is ſinful obedience. And ſuch lye under an unſutable frame of ſpirit to attempt any of the things of God that are holy and ſacred. But how doth this impotency and unſutable frame diſengage them from duty and homage: eſpecially their reverential approaches unto Sacramental Communion, being ſuch as bears a good conformity to the main materials preſcribed for the carrying on the external part of that ſervice; and men can judge but according to the outward appearance; ſo that then there being no appearance of any open abuſe and profaning holy things, the Church cannot charge them with any other unworthy eating or drinking, then praying, and hearing, and ſinging, &c. Which not any that are ſober doth judge a ground competent to diſſwade from thoſe duties. Ignorant Churchmembers of years, no objects of Church cenſures, eſpecially when they are willing to learn. Beſides, ignorance is rather a meer want, that cannot in many be helped for want of viſion: or plain inſtruction; the which, though it be threatned, and puniſhable by the Lord: yet comes not within the verge and cogniſance of men to puniſh, otherwiſe then it is puniſhed in the effects of it, yea even for the actual miſcarriage of ſuch, &c.

Say again, that ſome perſons are known to be ſcandalous in ſome actual offendings, and doth not give ſuch ſatisfaction of their amendment as is required, ſhall the Elderſhip tell ſuch perſons they muſt not come to the Sacrament, for if they doe, they will eat and drink their own damnation, be guilty of the bloud of Chriſt in the Apoſtles ſenſe; when they may be knowing perſons and able to diſcern the Lords body, and to carry themſelves conformly, as to the preſcription of all Sacramental actions appertaining to that ſervice? it doth not follow.

I eaſily grant in this caſe, that any ſin indulged in a mans ſelf, or in the Church, may hinder Gods bleſſing upon his own Ordinances; For he that regardeth iniquity in his heart, God will not hear his prayers; and the ſacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord; but it will not hence follow, that ſuch muſt not pray, nor offer ſacrifice at all; but they ought to reform the evill as well as doe the good, if they expect that God ſhould hear them.

I grant alſo, that every ſcandalous ſinner in the Church ſhould be dealt withall according to divine rule, the neglect thereof as it reſpects private members, or the publick Officers either of Church or Commonwealth, doth leaven accordingly: but yet I deny that ſuch ſinners are to be debarred their neceſſary duties of worſhip, untill they be juridically proceeded againſt by a lawful Court of Judicature.

I grant again, that every ſcandalous ſinner in Church is lyable to the judgements of God for his ſinful enormities: but yet I deny that thoſe ſinful enormities of ſwearing, drunkenneſſe, uncleanneſſe, lying, couſenage, diſhoneſty, &c. is eating and drinking the body and bloud of the Lord unworthily, which the Corinthians were puniſhed for.

I grant again, that ſuch ſcandalous ſinners continuing impenitent, cannot communicate in the Supper without ſin, and it is unſutable and inconſiſtent with their Chriſtian prof ſſion, and that which God upbraids ſinners oft with in Scriptures; but yet this doth not reach the Corinthians ſinning at the time of the adminiſtration of the Supper: but is applyable to all other worſhip as well as to the Sacrament. For my part I cannot yet ſee one Scripture alleadged by any that doth prove, that the moral unclean in the Church were debarred the Paſſeover, or Supper, more then the other parts of publick worſhip; which is a thing of neceſſity to be proved by thoſe that venture to debar from the one, and yet allow them the liberty to enjoy the other. What the Doctor hath ſaid as to that, hath been anſwered, and what Mr. Ward hath ſaid, hath been anſwered alſo, and what Mr. Collins hath ſaid, or can ſay a to that, I doubt not in the leaſt but will be eaſily anſwered too. And to this purpoſe 〈◊〉 ſhall take leave to examine ſome of Mr. Collins quotations, pag. 101. Ezra 6 21. And the children of Iſrael which were come again out of the captivity; and all ſuch as had ſeparated themſelves unto them, from the filthineſſe of the Heathen of the land, to ſeek the Lord God of Iſrael, di eat, and kept the feaſt of unleavened bread ſeve dayes, &c. How this proves that the morally unclean were debarred the Paſſeover, 〈◊〉 know not, he might have told us how; that all that were returned from their captivity, that were of the true Church, and all ſuch that ſeparated from Heatheniſh idolatry and mixtures to the Church did eat the Paſſeover, is true, this implyes that thoſe that would not ſeek the Lord God of Iſrael, continued in Idolatrous practices, and would not keep the Paſſeover. Can Mr. Collins prove that ſome of the children of Iſrael, that returned from their captivity, was debarred the Paſſeover for their moral uncleanneſſe; or can he prove hence, that they were all free from that uncleanneſſe? doubtleſſe if he take notice of what follows in the 9.10. chap. he muſt acknowledg there were many guilty of moral uncleanneſſe; and yet all kept the Paſſeover: ſo that you may eaſily diſcern how pertinent this is for his purpoſe. The next quotation is 2 Chron. 23.19. And he ſet the porters at the gates of the houſe of the Lord, that none which were unclean in any thing ſhould enter in. From this Scripture he cryes up a ſuſpenſion of ſome from ſome Ordinances that were not excommunicated, &c. but he cannot tell it ſeemes whether from the Paſſeover or no, and then what is this for his purpoſe? I think we never read of any other uncleanneſſe in Scripture, but Heatheniſh uncleanneſſe, and legal uncleanneſſe, that were not to enter into Gods Houſe or Sanctuary; and as for Moral uncleanneſſe, either it was ſuch as was puniſhed by the Judges according to their Judicial laws, or ſuch as they were cleanſed from externally by their continual courſe of Sacrifices and offerings, and hence there was no ſuch thing at all, nor were any ever bar'd from the Paſſeover upon any ſuch account, that I could ever finde in the Book of God, and well might the Porters charge be, to keep out thoſe that were unclean in any thing, becauſe we know there were ſeveral kindes of perſonal uncleanneſſes that were legal, beſides the uncircumciſed Heathen that might not enter into the Sanctuary, Ezek. 44.7, 8. nor eat of the Paſſeover, Exod. 12. And the main reaſon why thoſe that were but legally unclean might not eat the Paſſeover, nor come to the Tabernacle to offer his Sacrifice, as others in their ſeaſon did and were accepted; was this, becauſe the perſon that was unclean made every thing he toucht unclean too, and he that neglected his time for cleanſing and concealing it, that ſoul was to be cut of from the Congregation, he hath defiled the Lords Sanctuary, Numb. 19.13, 20. That of Hag. 2.14. proves the ſame. But I have anſwered his other quotations in my examine of the Scripture rule. I need not inſiſt upon theſe any longer, for they are too triflingly urged to require any further anſwer. Why doth he not ſhew us ſome Scripture to prove that ſome have bin ſuſpended from the Paſſeover for moral uncleanneſs, and allowed the liberty of all other publick worſhip? the which is the whole ſubject of his great Book almoſt. Yet I am certain he can finde nothing for his turn in Moſes and the Prophets: And I think he hath as little from Chriſt and his Apoſtles; for the foundation of his ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament only; wch is the queſtion I ſhould ſpeak unto next. But I ſhall let it alone unill I come in ſhort to examine the quotations alledged in the New Teſtament, to prove the affirmative by Mr. Collins in the main body of his laſt Book. I ſhall now go on with anſwering to what he ſaith to mine.

My fift and ſixt queries are, 1. What is the remedy the Apoſtle preſcribes to that Church to prevent future judgement, and to enjoy preſent benefit.

2. Whether the unregenerate and moſt ignorant perſon, profeſſing and owning the true Religion among them, were not in ſome capacity ſo to uſe the remedy, as to prevent the judgement, and to receive benefit by the Ordinance where God gave a bleſſing, pag. 13. The Bar removed.

I doe not finde that Mr. Collins hath much to except againſt, what I have anſwered to theſe two queries in my Book, pag. 19, 20. He grants what I have ſaid is true, but yet he ſayes, in caſe of ſcandalous ſinners in the Church, ſelf examination is not enough, but there is ſomething to be done by the Miniſters and officers of the Church, he grants ſelf examination a perſonal remedy; but there are other Church remedies, which the Apoſtle commandeth the uſe of, as well as this, 1 Cor. 5.

I am ready to yeeld it, that there are Church remedies, and judge that his quotation, 1 Cor. 5. is ſo, for the reforming ſcandalous brethren. And that thoſe that are juſtly delivered up to Satan, or caſt out of Chriſtian Communion by the authority of the Church, ſhould not only be debarred the Sacrament, but all publick Ordinances, and all civil ſociety, ſo far as our particular callings will poſſibly admit of; but yet I am far from thinking, that the Apoſtle ever meant that delivering unto Satan, and to put from among themſelves that wicked perſon, was no more but exclude him the Sacrament. And I verily believe, that the ſame cenſure that was put into execution by the decree of the Apoſtle, was made a general rule for the Church, touching their dealing with all ſcandalous brethren in the Church, as plainly appears in the 10, 11, 12. verſes of that chapter, the which I ſhall more clearly ſpeak unto, when I come to examine the grounds of ſuſpenſion laid down by Mr. Collins.

He ſaith, He cannot ſubſcribe to my inclination, that ſelf examination, mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28. muſt be limited by the premiſes in the context, as the inſtitution repeated doth import with ſome other directions and cautions given in cure of their malady, &c.

He might have done it for any ſtrength of reaſon he can give to the contrary; for if thoſe two things hold, which I have pincht upon, That the Corinths were not blamed nor puniſhed for perſonal unworthineſſe at all; Nor 2. for any other actual offendings, but meerly for their profaning the Ordinance of Chriſt in the very time of adminiſtration; for this cauſe only ſome are weak, ſick, and ſome are dead, verſ. 30. I ſay, if this hold, as I believe it will, what reaſon can any man have to judge, that the Apoſtle intends more in this place then the reforming of them in thoſe particular ſins they were puniſhed for, and blamed for If they were puniſhed for coming to the Sacrament in an unregenerate ſtate, or for want of the knowledg of God in Chriſt, for want of love of God and of Jeſus Chriſt, & of men, or for any other want, or miſcarriage, ſave only this, ſo expreſt in the context, examination might have been urged accordingly, but they being not ſo much as blamed for any ſuch things in order to the Sacrament, no not in this chap. or elſewhere, what ſhew of reaſon can any man have to be ſo ſevere in urging of examination as a duty of that neceſſity, that if they be not able to diſcern the myſteries of the Kingdome of God, and to approve themſelves to God to be ſincere as to ſuch particulars, which are only neceſſary for admittance unto heavenly glory; or elſe if otherwiſe they come, they will but eat and drink their own damnation.

When in my anſwer I have limited this duty of ſelf-examination to the context, as if the Apoſtle had ſaid unto them; You being fully convinced of your former woeful abuſe, and profaning this holy Ordinance of Chriſt, you muſt now judge and condemn your ſelves accordingly: and approve your ſelves according unto the right rule preſcribed unto you in the inſtitution received from Chriſt, underſtanding within your ſelves, what this holy obſervance doth mean, and ſo come and demean your ſelves with reverence and good order, ſutable to Gods Ordinance, and then he tels them they ſhould not be judged of the Lord.

This ſaith Mr. Collins is ſhort work indeed, pag. 29.

What though it be ſhort of the ordinary laſts of ſome men that will extend this duty to an infinitum; yet until Mr. Collins, or any other can confute it, I ſhall judge it right work, and no whit ſhort of the ſenſe o this place; the which were it juſtly applyed to ours as it ought to be, they being members of the ſame viſible body, and under the ſame rule and priviledges of the Church; and not offenders in that kinde, I think a ſhorte work would ſerve, did not men upon miſtak affect to make themſelves more work the they have warrant for from their Lord.

But thus he ſaith, The wrod in the Gree will not be ſatisfied with ſuch a ſhort and ſea interpretation, Magiſtrates examine malefactor more ſtrictly, and the Goldſmiths tryal of his gold a more ſearching tryal, the Apoſtle expounds i 2 Cor. 13.5.

You muſt excuſe me as touching the Original, I am not able to examine it, I wiſh could, I am afraid the truth will be prejudiced through mine inabilities, yet as I a informed, this makes but little to his purpoſe, the ſame word being ſo often uſed i the New Teſtament, and that upon differen •• accounts, as Rom. 2.18. chap. 14.18. and the 16.10. 2 Cor. 7.11. & 10.18. the 13.7. Phil. 1.10. 2 Tim. 2.15. by ſome of theſe places you may ſee we are to approve of the things that are excellent, and good, and holy, ſo as to put forth our endevours in purſuance of them, and to decline the contrary, which is all one with 1 Cor. 11.28. the Apoſtle would have the Corinths to approve themſelves to the rules preſcribed them, and ſo come. 2 Cor. 13.5. is a different thing to 1 Cor. 11.28. there the Apoſtle perceived that they queſtioned his authority of Apoſtleſhip, and required a proof of Chriſt ſpeaking in him; the which ſaith the Apoſtle, they need not goe far for a proof of. Chriſt in accompanying his Word by him towards them is not weak, but mighty, verſ. 3. and hence he bids them examine themſelves, whether they be in the faith, prove your ſelves, that Chriſt is in you, and that would be a ſufficient proof of Chriſts ſpeaking in him, and of his Miniſterial authority. Thus you may clearly ſee, although here is the ſame word, yet it's uſed upon a far different occaſion, and therefore it doth not expound 1 Cor. 11.28. as Mr. Collins would have it.

Next he ſaith, That another kinde of examination is here required, hath been the concurrent judgement of all Divines, eſpecially thoſe of the reformed Churches, &c.

I heartily reverence the concurrent judgement of all Divines, and it is my grief that I differ from them in ſome things, I wiſh that the authority of man do not cloud the truth from ſome; for my own part, my inabilities are ſuch, that there can be no danger of ſwaying the judgement of any able Divines by my opinion, wherein I diſſent from them; it muſt be the ſimplicity of truth, and the juſtneſſe of what I maintain only, that bean me up againſt thoſe I have to deal with in this controverſie. I am a meer naked man that am ingaged with men of compleat harneſs and arms, that Hiſtory, Arts, and Tongue can furniſh them withall. I muſt confeſſe I am ſtrongly perſwaded of the truth of what I have writ in this controverſie; and that it is the onely way to bring the Churcher peace and truth together, and for Sions ſake I can have no reſt, but am drawn on to doe things not ſo well becoming my rank and calling in the Church. I beg your pardon, I hope ſome will confeſſe they can ſee ſomething of God in it, excuſe me, for it is not ſo much the judgement of Divines, as the Scripture grounds that will ſatisfie my ſpirit in this thing.

Next, pag. 30. Mr. Collins ſaith, But if they be to examine themſelves no more then whether they diſcern the Lords Body, we conceive it enough, for diſcerning muſt imply knowledge.

1. To know the Lords Body Sacramentally.

2. As the Lords Body.

3. Acknowledge of the ſign and thing ſignified in the Sacrament.

4. Acknowledge of the two natures of Christ, and of what he hath done and ſuffered for me.

5. And of the nature of the Sacrament, and what is held forth in it to the ſoul.

From hence (he ſaith) will eaſily follow an anſwer to the ſixt query, That ignorant perſons though by profeſſion they do own the true Religion; yet are not in a capacity to examine themſelves ſo, as to prevent the judgement, &c.

I grant that every one that comes to this Ordinance, ſhould be able to diſcern the Lords body, at leaſt notionally by the outward ſignes, and that the thing ſignified by the inſtituted ſignes is the ſame, and that the bread and wine is to be received in remembrance of the death of Chriſt, whoſe bloud was ſhed for remiſſion of ſins; but for to know the two natures of Chriſt, and what he hath done and ſuffered for me, and to underſtand the nature of the Sacrament diſtinctly; and what is held out in it to the ſoul, is more then the Apoſtle taught the Church of Corinth in order to their receiving, and therefore theſe requiſites require further proof before he can conclude any thing from them.

In charity I judge that there is not any that live under any painful Preachers, but are ſo well inſtructed, as to underſtand that the Sacrament is a holy Ordinance of God appointed for the good of their ſouls in general. And that accordingly they humbly and reverently make their addreſſes unto it to receive the outward ſignes, in remembrance that Chriſt ſhed his bloud to ſave ſinners, &c. and this is upon the matter as much as the Apoſtle requires unto worthy receiving, let it be proved that ſuch a receiving was ever blamed or puniſhed in the holy Scriptures: if it cannot be proved, why doe men bring ſuch needleſſe troubles and diſtractions in the Church by their own traditions?

It was not ſo much the ignorance of the Corinths that was puniſhed, as their profane actions, which they were guilty of in the time of receiving; it's a queſtion whether their ignorance ſimply were puniſhed at all any otherwiſe then accompanyed with thoſe horrible effects, the which doth very rarely touch the worſt of our Congregations in the Church: let Mr. Collins better conſider of theſe things before he anſwer them: for although many of ours ſhould be more ignorant then they of Corinth, yet ſo long as they doe not openly profane the Ordinance by their actual miſcarriages at the time of worſhip, as the Corinthians did, it doth not follow that they eat and drink unworthily, and ſo their own damnation, as they of Corinth. It's true alſo, that the Lord may juſtly puniſh perſons for their ignorance under the means. But doth it follow, that therefore men may too, with debarring them from the Sacrament? I think not, untill by ſome clear ground of Scripture, Mr. Collins, or ſome other, can prove, the Elderſhip may. And I ſhall intreat them to make it good with the greateſt ſtrength they can, for otherwiſe they muſt look to be baffled in it, ſo long as they grant them Church-members.

I ſhall now ſee what Mr. Collins excepts againſt my anſwer to the eight query, that is, Whether a careleſſe incapable neglect of ſelf-examination, doth excuſe, and give a writ of eaſe from that precept, Doe this in remembrance of me.

He ſaith, If I can prove this an univerſal precept, that concerns every individuall perſon, that is baptized, and of years of diſcretion, he may tell me that ſuch neglect makes them doubly guilty, &c. pag. 31. He ſaith further, That he conceives that precept onely to concern the diſciples of Chriſt, and none but true diſciples.

I wonder what Mr. Collins will make of ours that are baptized, and externally at leaſt adhere to the true religion, are they Pagans? If not, then they are diſciples and followers of Chriſt by profeſſion. And upon his own grant come under that precept, Do this in remembrance of me. I am far from going about to divide theſe duties; I would have them examine and come too; yet the neglect of the one doth not excuſe from the other: a man muſt not onely goe and be reconciled with his brother; but he muſt come and offer his gift alſo.

He ſaith, It will not much trouble him, what I have ſaid from Matth. 28.19, 20. the Apoſtles were bound to call upon thoſe they preacht unto, to obſerve all Chriſts commands, either that proves the they were to call upon Pagans to come to the Sacrament; or elſe to call upon all to obſerve ſuch things that he had commanded them reſpectively, and then it will ſtill remain to prove that Chriſt hath commanded an ignorant perſon to come to the Sacrament.

It's very true, for to avoid the trouble, he is not willing to reach the argument, as you may ſee pag. 23. Bar removed, the argument was drawn from the charge of Chriſt to his Apoſtles in order to them, that came under baptiſm, not to the Pagans they preached unto; but to them that by their preaching were converted and added unto the Church by baptiſm. Chriſt chargeth them to teach his Church to obſerve, and doe all whatever he hath commanded them, and loe he will be with them alwayes. Where are the Apoſtles bid? to teach the Heathen as ſuch? to obſerve all that he hath commanded? He gives his statutes and his judgements unto Iſrael, as for the Heathen they have not known his laws. This very charge of Chriſt is juſt the language of God to the Church in Moſes and the Prophets, upon the like encouragement of a bleſſing.

As Circumciſion brought all the uncircumciſed under all obſervances of the old adminiſtration, even the Paſſeover, upon their lives. So baptiſm layes the ſame ingagement upon all the baptized to come under all obſervances of the New Teſtament adminiſtration, that of the holy Supper, as well as others; hence the Apoſtle commends the Church of Corinth for remembring him in all things; and for keeping the Ordinances as he delivered them unto them, 1 Cor. 11.2. and it is not good to diſtinguiſh and diſpute away duty, where the Scriptures gives ſuch a general warranty. I know not well what he means by Chriſts commanding reſpectively; if he judge that ours are within, as the Church of Corinth were, without doubt they are both under the obſervance and diſcipline of the Church. If he judge that ours that are ignorant, and ſcandalous, are without; then what hath he to do to judge thoſe that are without? there is no hope to amend them by diſcipline, or ground to baptize their children, or to juſtifie the main foundation of our Church.

As I ſaid in my Book, pag. 23. The Bar removed, ſo I ſay again, that Jeſus Chriſt commands nothing for the hurt of his viſible ſubjects, they obſerving it according to their preſent capacity: Can an inſtance be given in the Old or New Teſtament of any any that came under Circumſion or Baptiſm, that as private members were admitted to all other Ordinances in the Church, and yet were forbidden the other Sacrament, the Paſſeover or the Lords Supper.

To this Mr. Collins anſwers, with a meer trifle, telling us, That it will poſe me, to prove that thoſe that had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinance, but he can prove they might not come to the Paſſeover, Numb. 9.

Enough hath been ſaid to this already, I need but repeat Numb. 19.13, 20, 22. The truth is, what ever the unclean did touch, or what ever toucht him, were unclean, Hag. 2. Nay ſuch perſons that neglected the Law, for their purification, were to be cut off from the Congregation, becauſe he had defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord. I might run through the ſeveral kindes of uncleanneſſe, and ſhew you how they were ſeparated both from civill as well as holy ſociety: but thoſe that are acquainted with Scriptures will be ſatiſfied in this thing. Nay as I have noted before, the Lord appointed and conſecrated a ſeaſon on purpoſe for the unclean to keep the Paſſeover, but not ſo of any other Ordinance: they were deprived of in the time of their uncleanneſſe.

Mr. Collins ſayes, Nor is that whimzy of mine, pag. 25. at all better, by which I prove the receiving of the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all, becauſe included in the firſt Table, he ſayes it will poſe me, to prove that this duty of receiving is commanded in the firſt Table; if it were, yet he hopes preaching of the Word is ſo alſo, which yet is not a duty enjoyned to all, but to thoſe only who are appointed thereto.

If that of mine muſt goe under the reproach of a whimzy with Mr. Collins, I know as reverend and as able Divines as Mr. Collins appears to be, that doe judge, that the affirmative part of the ſecond Commandement includes all Gods inſtitute worſhip, which at any time he hath, or ſhall preſcribe to be done. And except Mr. Collins will deny the holy Supper to be a part of Gods inſtituted worſhip; it muſt come under this preſcribed worſhip as well as any other, there being no part expreſt in the command more then another, it's enough to prove, that all in the Church come under the precepts of worſhip; the Sacrament being ſo, they are bound to that as well as all other: but then he ſeems to grant the thing, yet he hopes ſo is preaching of the Word, &c. It's true, and as I had ſaid in my Book, pag. 25, That all Miniſters what ever are bound hence to preach &c. And what need we have the ſame again, but that he had rather puzle then ſatisfie the weak? We know that which lays an injunction upon Miniſters to preach, or adminiſter, &c. doth alſo injoyn all their people to hear and receive as private Chriſtians, the Commandement doth not confound relative duties, although Mr. Collins of purpoſe doth to deceive his Reader. And me thinks it might make him bluſh to call that a whimzy in me, which is ſo ordinarily delivered by as reverend men as himſelf, and a great deal more. But the Judicious Reader may eaſily judge what poore ſhifts he is put unto, that excepts againſt the truth. Let Mr. Collins give us ſome rational account why perſons in the Church are leſſe ingaged unto this part of inſtituted worſhip then all others, that all of the Jews Church, ſhould come under the Law of the Paſſeover, without exception, good and bad. And he to plead no duty to the holy Supper of perſons in the Church too: they being not worſe then the carnal Jew. I ſee not but upon the ſame ground he exempts them from this duty, he may exempt them from all others that are eſſential to a Church ſtate, and ſo conſequently not only unduty them, but unchurch them too. For what he hath ſaid before implies no leſſe, where he is bold to undiſciple them, to evade this argument, we draw from the command of Chriſt, Matth. 28.20.

The Doctor was ſomewhat ſharp with my much reſpected friend Mr. Humfrey, for making the act of receiving, the principal, and examination but an acceſſory, in my vindicating of him I hinted two or three things.

1. That the duty of ſelf-examination is but a private duty. And the private is to be ſubordinate to the publick.

2. This duty of examination was preſcribed occaſionally as a remedy to that particular caſe, of making a breach upon the materials of divine inſtitution and order. And we may ſafely ſay, the end is moſt principal, the means leſſe.

3. Where a true Church doth not ſo offend as Corinth did, this duty is not ſo to be urged upon them, as to the Church of Corinth. But it's clear, there is not the ſame offending in the Church of England, as there was at Corinth.

Therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the ſame neceſſity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily, as to the Church of Corinth. Unto theſe Mr. Collins hath ſome exceptions.

1. Whether it be ſenſe or no, he cannot tell, that I ſay, ſelf-examination is a private duty, and ſo ſubordinate to the publick, and then ſayes, who denyes it? But yet he queſtions, whether upon an incapacity, or neglect of the private, the publick be a duty; for where a private duty is commanded in order to prepare us for the publick, we cannot without ſin perform the publick before we have performed the private; cleanſing were the unclean perſons private duty: yet till it was done, he might not come to the Paſſeover.

1. Though I grant ſelf-examination a requiſite duty unto a profitable receiving, and judge the neglect thereof ſinful; yet ſo long as the publique adminiſtrations are carryed on with reverence and good order, beſeeming Gods worſhip externally; I would gladly know wherein the Elderſhip is any further concerned.

2. What though an incapable neglect of the private, doth hinder the profitable uſe of the publick, and that it cannot without ſin be performed, doth it therefore follow that ſuch perſons in the Church may neglect the publick worſhip without ſin? if not, whether is the greateſt to obey, and doe as well as they can with ſin; or to caſt off all care o duty wholly? it's eaſily anſwered in all other duties, and but a meer begging the queſtion to deny it in this of the Sacrament, a to that inſtance of his, Cleanſing was the unclean perſons private duty, yet till it was done, he might not eat the Paſſeover.

1. It's a queſtion whether cleanſing were a private duty only, could an unclean per o make himſelf clean? by what law, is a query? Numb. 6.9, 10, 11. & 19.19. ſpeak the contrary.

2. Grant it were, might they enter into the gates of the Sanctuary to offer unto God any other ſacrifice until they were cleanſed? In Hezekiahs Paſſeover of the 2. month, many did eat the Paſſeover that was not clean, and were accepted. We know they might not; for it was accounted a defiling the Sanctuary, a thing threatned with death, or perpetual baniſhment from the Congregation. His inſtance doth rather prove, that the juſtly excommunicate ought not to be admitted to the publick Ordinances of Worſhip, untill they be lawfully admitted upon their ſatisfying the Church by repentance.

Then to prove perſons in the Church not excommunicate may not take the Sacrament untill they have performed that private duty of examination. I have ſaid enough, to prove that the neglect of this private duty of examination in order to receiving, doth not reach the neglect of that duty of cleanſing in order unto the whole worſhip of God.

In his 32. pag. he is nibling at my next thing, wherein I would have this private duty of examination occaſionally preſcribed as a remedy, or a means to that particular caſe of offending. And therefore they were to approve themſelves according to the rules of inſtitution and good order, and ſo come in doing the good, and declining the evill they had been puniſhed for, &c. To this purpoſe, I ſaid the end is more principal, the means leſſe. Unto this Mr. Collins ſaith,

No man can receive the Sacrament without ſin, neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver. He had thought due means muſt be neceſſarily ſuppoſed to the end.

Who will deny what he ſaith to this? But what is this to anſwer the thing? May the main duty of publick worſhip be neglected, unleſſe a man be able to uſe all due means in order to a more comfortable and profitable receiving? If not, let them ſo come, as well as they can, rather then the main of Gods worſhip ſhall be omitted. By this which hath been anſwered unto Mr. Collins his weak exceptions: I hope the impartial Reader may clearly judge upon what bottome we infer free admiſſion, namely, the authority of Chriſts command. Beſides, you may take notice of the pitiful ſhifts that our adverſaries are put unto, to diſpute againſt the authority of Chriſts commands: Let them conſider, He that breaks the leaſt of his commands, and teacheth men ſo, ſhall be accounted leaſt in the Kingdom of Heaven; Nay, if they ſhall wittingly thus offend in one, they are guilty of all.

My laſt query is, Whether there be any thing in the Nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elſewhere incongruous to the unregenerate receiving in the Church?

Mr. Collins ſaith, Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing or no, he will not diſpute, it is enough he findes it elſewhere, and he conceives there is ſomething contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and ſcandalous, which is the queſtion, for the Church judgeth not of ſecret things.

What he hath ſaid to this, hath been ſufficiently anſwered already: he hath nothing new, but the old taken for granted, which hath been denyed according to the ſtating of the queſtion. I am glad he is ſo ſober, as to ſay, the Church judgeth not of ſecrets; then I hope he will not proceed to cenſure any of his people, but for ſcandalous ſins perſiſted unto obſtinacy, if he, or his Elderſhip doe, they undertake to judge of ſecrets.

But then he comes more particularly to the queſtion.

As firſt, Touching the inſtitution, for ſaith he, Chriſt gave it to none ſuch, he means Chriſt gave it to none that were ignorant or ſcandalous.

1. Chriſt gave it to none but the twelve, that were impowered with Commiſſion to Preach and baptize, heal the ſick, and to caſt out Devils, &c. What then, muſt none but ſuch be admitted? this would be a good argument to deny not only the cup, but the whole adminiſtration from the Laity.

But 2. The queſtion is, whether the Apoſtles in their ordering of particular Congregations, gave any direction to exclude any that came under Baptiſm from the holy Supper, and yet allowed them the priviledge of all other Ordinances in the Church. The Scripture ſpeaks of thouſands that ſubmitted unto baptiſm, and continued ſtedfaſt in the Apoſtles doctrine and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, which are the main eſſentials of worſhip: and this is ſpoken of the whole, aſſoon as they were baptized. Act. 2.32. And the Church of Corinths are commended for keeping the Ordinances. It was a profaning of this of the Supper they were blamed and puniſhed for. And for groſſe ignorance amongſt them, we need not doubt of it, and other ſcandalous and diſorderly converſation; but what is this of his, but o inſinuate unto the world, that the bap ized in the Church that are either ignorant, or in ſome things ſcandalous are not of the Church: the old road of Browniſm.

But then he ſaith ſecondly, The Sacrament is contrary to ſuch in the nature of it, for it is ſtrong meat, and the ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith.

That it is ſtrong meat onely, we deny; it remains for him to prove if he can, his ſay ſo is no proof, yet that's his great argument. He had need commence Doctor before we credit his bare word; but he gives his reaſon for it in his Book, pag. 104. Strong meat belongs to men of age, who by reaſon of an habit have their ſenſes exerciſed to diſcern good and evil, Heb. 5.13, 14.

But the Sacrament is ſtrong meat; therefore it doth not belong to thoſe that are babes in knowledge.

But I deny his minor; he ſaith it's evident, he gives his reaſon, That meat which is of ha deſt digeſtion and concoction; and which not duly digeſted, proves moſt pernicious to the body, is ſtrong meat: but ſuch is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I deny his minor again: he proves it, 1 Cor. 11.28 and tels us, This meat is not taſted, nor digeſted well without the knowing of the greateſt myſteries of religion in ſome meaſure, namely;

1. The union of Christ with the Father.

2. The union of the two natures in the perſon of Christ.

3. The myſtical union of the ſoul with Chriſt.

4. The myſterious exerciſe of faith in applying the ſoul to the proniſe, &c. and this is all his proof, the which amounts juſt to as much as his ſay ſo: as to his quotation, 1 Cor. 11.28. enough hath been ſpoken already to ſhew the vanity of his high flown conceptions: And indeed a moſt pernicious perplexing tenent to poor, doubting, weak, unſatisfied Chriſtians, ſhould it be believed. I have alwayes been taught, that Sacraments are the loweſt condeſcenſions of the love of Chriſt to his weakeſt babes, they being ſuted ſo familiarly to our bodily ſenſes, as it were with Thomas, his ſeeing and feeling the body of Chriſt was more effectual to make him believe, then the teſtimony of their word who preached Chriſt was riſen indeed.

But the next he ſaith, The Sacrament is the ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith; and hence it ſeemes incongruous to the ignorant and ſcandalous that have not faith.

The queſtion is of the unregenerate in the Church, the which may be diſcernable by theſe Characters of ignorant, and ſcandalous in part, and know that I have nothing to ſay in behalf of them that hate inſtruction, and that perſiſt in their vile abominable doings, after admonition and due conviction unto obſtinacy. Let ſuch be declined and avoided as unworthy of all Chriſtian Communion, and ſpare not; but for thoſe that are yeelding ſinners, and are ready to condemn themſelves upon all occaſions, if being wiſely dealt withall, expreſſing themſelves willing and deſirous to amend; theſe I think ſhould have the benefit of all the Ordinances, as the ordinary means of their ſalvation. But now to his aſſertion, That the Sacrament is the ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith.

We know that Sacraments which had their Original from God unto Abraham, Gen. 17. were tokens of the everlaſting Covenant of grace, made with Abraham and his ſeed, God having deputed him to be a father of many Nations. And that all the Nations of the earth ſhall be bleſſed in him, &c. Circumciſion was appointed to be a token unto Abraham in this comprehenſive ſenſe, that not only they that were his ſeed by natural deſcent, but thoſe alſo that ſhall embrace the profeſſion of the faith of Abraham, ſhall be bleſſed with him, even they, and their natural iſſue alſo. And the Apoſtle, Rom. 4.4. deſcants much upon this large Covenant, or promiſe made unto Abraham, in the warranty of the Gentiles engrafting into the ſtock of Abraham by faith; the which the Jews ſtumbled at, and fell into prejudices and diſcontents upon the Gentiles embracing of the Goſpel, concluding it falſe, becauſe they imbraced it, that were always left of God, and ſo abominable to the Church as naturally deſcended from Abraham and the Prophets, &c. The Apoſtle diſputes this thing with them, and ſaith, Is he a God of the Jews only, is he not of the Gentiles alſo? Yes of the Gentiles alſo, chap. 3.29. And he tels them their fleſhly priviledges, according to the Law, will not continue them the people of God without faith in Chriſt. And by faith in Chriſt the Gentiles are made the people of God unto Juſtification, oppoſing faith unto works chiefly in point of Juſtification, as in the beginning of the 4. chapter is expreſſed in that inſtance of Abraham and David. It was not works, but faith, that was reckoned unto Abraham for righteouſneſſe in his uncircumciſed ſtate: and hence he argues Abraham to be a father of the uncircumciſion, as well as of the circumciſion; becauſe he received the token of circumciſion, a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of that faith he had in his uncircumciſion, that he might be the father of all that believe, that righteouſneſſe might be imputed to them alſo, and a father of the believing circumciſion too, &c. Now then what was the main thing that Abraham is thus commended for, and bleſſed for? Why it's ſaid, He believed God, and that was imputed unto him for righteouſneſſe. But then we may enquire, what was the thing he believed God would be as good as his word to him in? Anſwer. It' was this, that God had made him a father of many Nations, though he had no child; yet he believed againſt hope, &c. And this was imputed unto him for righteouſneſſe. We know that Abraham after the fleſh was not a father of many Nations; that is not the ſenſe, but he is ſo in a ſpiritual ſenſe by religion and ſaith, and that's the thing the Apoſtle drives at, to prove him a father of all that come in unto his religion and faith; And that all ſuch are of him, and bleſſed with him. And doubtleſſe Abraham that ſaw this day of Chriſt and rejoyced, ſo underſtood it, that all the Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed in him, by faith; and this bleſſedneſſe to begin in his own natural family; and to be extended unto all Nations in time. And hence that is true, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed in their generations for ever, Gen. 17.7. and that he ſhould be the father of many Nations, and that they ſhould be bleſt in him, &c. This is the everlaſting Covenant of Grace that Abraham believed, and this is the faith that circumciſion was a token of, and did confirm the truth of, to him and all that are in him by religion for ever, even to them and theirs: and I doubt not but the Sacrament ſeals to the ſame faith ſtill in reference to them that have entered the ſame Covenant, and profeſſe their ſubjection to the laws and adminiſtration thereof, but I have not expreſt my ſelf in this ſo fully and clearly, as I could wiſh, I ſhall have occaſion to doe more in it hereafter. This by the way to give a hint, what the Apoſtle means, in calling circumciſion a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of that faith that Abraham yet had in uncircunaciſion, it being too ambiguouſly leſt and applyed by Mr. Collins in order unto Church-members unregenerate.

Mr. Collins hath two or three things more in the 32. pag. but finding nothing in them that doth trouble us about the queſtion in hand, I paſſe them by, though it's true, he takes the boldneſſe to deny, yet he doth not give any ground or reaſon why, but takes all for granted ſtill, though I have rationally cleared the contrary in my anſwer to the query, pag. 36, 37, 38, 39. Bar removed.

I ſhall now ſee what he excepts againſt my 6. propoſition, pag. 30. 31.

I conceive that Sacraments in general, and this in particular were inſtituted for the ſpiritual good of the Church of Chriſt, comprehenſively taken in which every particular member is included.

Firſt he grants as much, pag. 33. and then addes, his jus ad rem, and then queries, how this proves that therefore every particular member ought in his preſent ſtate come to it, and coming ought to be admitted.

If the propoſition be true, as is granted it is, then it will follow that all Churchmembers ſhould be encouraged unto the pertaking of that which is for their ſpiritual good. And it's moſt injurious for any to deprive any of that ſpiritual good, that proffer themſelves, or diſcourage them ſo to doe.

But he hath two things to except againſt the conſequence.

He ſaith, Was not the Paſſeover ſo appointed, yet he thinks unclean perſons might not come during their uncleanneſſe?

But now there is no ſuch uncleanneſſe in the Goſpel Church to hinder any.

They were no more debarred the Paſſeover then all other publick worſhip, nor ſo much, for proviſion was made for them in that caſe, not in the other.

And as that of Moral uncleanneſſe was no hinderance then, ſo not now, as hath been ſhewed, and hence his firſt exception is worth nothing.

But then 2. he tels us, That ſome reverend men think the excommunicate perſon is yet a member of the Catholick Church, and ſhall not be baptized upon his repentance: and he owning the true religion, and being baptized, his repentance being ſuppoſed, the Sacrament is for his good; but it will not therefore follow, he ought in that ſtate of his excommunication to come to the Sacrament.

It's not material to the queſtion, whether the excommunicate be diſmembred or not; it's ſufficient to my purpoſe, that he be diſpoſſeſt of all external priviledges of the Church during his impenitency, in that condition he is juſtly ſentenced unto, to debar him the Sacrament. And I think all parties are agreed in this, and in this caſe I deny that the Sacrament is for his good, while he is under the laſt remedy and Ordinance of Chriſt for his amendment or utter ruine.

Then if you ſuppoſe his repentance and ſatisfying the Church, he ought to be looſed from that ſentence, and received into Church communion again.

That the juſtly excommunicate are abſolutely diſmembred is too harſh to affirm, untill we be able to judge that he hates to be reformed under the Churches juſt cenſures, adding unto his incorrigible ſinning, not only obſtinacy, but Apoſtaſie. And then he is undone for ever. For what the Church bindes on earth, is bound in heaven; though the Churches main end is onely to reform and heal a diſeaſed member. Therefore though I ſhould grant him not abſolutely diſmembred, and yet deny him the Sacrament; it doth not follow that Church-members under Church indulgence or forbearance, may be denyed the Sacrament. Theſe are two different caſes. And therefore doth not in the leaſt hurt my firſt propoſition.

My ſecond propoſition is, That the Church of Chriſt conſiſts of good and bad. And this Mr. Collins grants me alſo. And it having ſuch a dependence on the firſt, that it compleats for my opinion this argument.

The holy Supper is inſtituted for the ſpiritual good of every particular member of the Church.

But this Church of Chriſt conſiſts of good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate; therefore the holy Supper is inſtituted for the ſpiritual good of good and bad, regenerat and unregenerate, and conſequently is to be adminiſtred to them in order to that good.

I conceive that both propoſitions bein granted, the concluſion cannot be denyed.

My third is, That the unregenerate in th Church are the only immediate objects of the pr miſe of the firſt grace.

Mr. Collins anſwers unto this thus, That b h d rather ſay, that the unregenerate are objects 〈◊〉 the firſt grace, then of the promiſe of that grace, 〈◊〉 the promiſes profit not any without faith, and h •• the unregenerate ſhould apply the promiſe, he ca not tell.

1. In granting them objects of the fin grace, he grants them to be objects of the promiſe of that grace. Unleſſe the firſt grace is not at all to be lookt for from the promiſe.

2. Nor promiſed unto any at all.

3. Or elſe given to ſome to whom God never promiſed it. The which things to affirm would be point blanck againſt the Scriptures. So that the queſtion is, whether Mr. Collins doth own any ſuch thing as promiſes of giving the firſt grace at all. For if there be any ſuch promiſes at all made to the Church in general, they muſt of neceſſity immediately reſpect ſome proper object that hath not that grace, of, and in it ſelf; it is want and miſery that is the proper object of grace and mercy: But why ſhould Mr. Collins expreſſe himſelf thus doubtfully in ſuch a main thing. Doth he not baptize all Infants upon this account chiefly that the promiſe is to the Parents and children? ſurely if they be not objects of the promiſes of the firſt grace, the moſt of ours every where are objects of no promiſes that Sacraments ſeal; for it's too certain, that they and theirs have not a true ſincere purifying faith to apply the other promiſes of ſalvation. This is certain, if they be not objects of the promiſes of the firſt grace, they cannot be objects of the promiſes of crowning that grace with glory: exclude the unregenerate in the Church from the promiſe of the firſt grace, and you exclude them from all. And then judge what will follow.

And where he ſaith, The premiſes profit not any without faith, ſhall the want of a fincere faith make the faithfulneſſe of God without effect? God forbid. Let God be true in what he hath promiſed to the Church in general, and indefinite terms, and every man a lyar, Rom. 3.3, 4. We know of the Jews that were the greateſt enemies unto Chriſt, a remnant of them were ſanctified and ſaved, according unto Act. 2.39. Peter tels the wicked Jews that were guilty of the innocent bloud of Chriſt, that the promiſe is to them and their children, before he knew whether they would repent or no. What faith had they when Peter told them ſo? not ſo as much ours have that generally believe that Chriſt i the only Saviour of the world. Theſe Jews denyed this, yet being of the viſible Church as deſcended from Abraham, the Apoſtle make them and their children objects of the promiſes; and hence perſwades them to repent o what they had done againſt Chriſt, & be baptized for remiſſion of ſins, &c. And ſo many 〈◊〉 received his word were baptized indeed, and ſubmitted themſelves to the obedience o faith. What though the unregenerate cannot actually apply thoſe promiſes by faith unto themſelves? Doth it follow that therefor they are not objects, or ſuſceptives of them in a paſſive ſenſe, God being free in making theſe promiſes unto them, and by his Spirit in the uſe of his own appointments to apply them effectually unto whom he will, of ſuch that have not faith to apply them: Foraſmuch as not any can in aſtrict ſenſe believe, until he be impowered with regenerating grace: No, nor then, without the concurrence of a divine aid to apply the promiſes made to ſuch a bleſſed ſtate to their own comfort and ſalvation.

Beſides, the promiſes of the firſt grace are not only free, but abſolute, not ſo depending upon condition of faith in a ſtrict ſenſe, as many other promiſes doe: yet not ſo abſolute, but that the ordinary means of ſalvation ought to be obſerved diligently in order o attainment of the firſt grace: for God will e enquired after by the houſe of Iſrael, for the grace of the New Covenant, Ezek. 36.

My fourth propoſition is, That the whole dministration of the Covenant belongs to thoſe in he Church, that are the immediate objects of the bſolute promiſes, in order to the Lords putting theſe romiſes into execution.

Mr. Collin ſaith, If the argument be good, it's etcht from the right, which an intereſt in the Co enant promiſes gives one to the ſeals of it. And hen it muſt hold univerſally, and if the unregene ate world without be as much objects of the firſt ace, as thoſe within, there is no reaſon for that ſtriction.

It ſeems, Mr. Collins would not have the romiſes of firſt grace be limited unto the Church, but would have the unregenerate ut of the Church as much objects as thoſe within: for indeed he is ready at every pinch o level the unregenerate in the Church to the n fidel world.

Therefore I ſhall endevour to clear unto you the difference in this particular, briefly; t may be I may publiſh more of this hereaf er.

It is evident, that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of perſons in t, as is clear, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A ew Covenant I will make with the houſe of Judah and Jeruſalem: in which Covenant th promiſe of the firſt grace is moſt expreſſe an full: the ſtate of the Jews Church conſ •• ing moſt of carnal members, that were proper objects of the promiſes of firſt grace Why the Gentile world as carnal, and b miſerable, yet this Covenant containing th firſt grace was never made to them at all, b upon condition of faith, and grafting them ſelves into the ſame viſible body: as they a Infidels and without, They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Iſrael, ſtrangers to the Coven of promiſes, and without all hope: and with •• God in the world, Epheſ. 2.12. How can the be ſaid to be as much objects of the promi of the firſt grace that are without, as the that are within; when they are alienat from all, during that Infidel ſtate? It's t •• there is a promiſe, that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth ſhall be bleſſed in Abraham; but i runs in conditional tearms, as they are i him, they muſt firſt be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham wa father of, before they can be bleſſed in him and ſo the Apoſtle expounds it, They that a •• of faith, are bleſſed with him, and ye are all, eve the whole Church, Jews and Gentiles, th children of Abraham by faith in Chriſt Jeſus. And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel eſtate.

This difference is clearly intimated by the Apoſtle Peter, Act. 2.39. when he ſpeaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as deſcended from Abraham, he tels them plainly, The promiſe is to them and their children, ſpeaking in the preſent tenſe. But then ſpeaking of the Gentiles, he ſaith, the promiſe is intended unto them alſo, but with another reſtriction then to the Jews, even unto as many as it ſhall pleaſe the Lord our God to call of them, at any time for the future, and to none elſe: they of the infidel world muſt be externally called at leaſt, and planted into the viſible Church of Chriſt by baptiſm, before they and theirs can be children of the promiſe, and in Covenant relation.

As the Pagan world is without the promiſe of the firſt grace, ſo we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace, if they be as much objects of the promiſe of firſt grace, as the unregenerate in the Church. What's the reaſon the Lord denyes them the ordinary means of putting them into execution? The Apoſtle ſaith, If our Goſpel be hid, or withheld from perſons or people, it's hid to them that periſh.

Our own experience will convince us, that thoſe that are without are not ſo much objects of the promiſe of firſt grace as them within: becauſe we ſee the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time, in the converſion of many; but ſcarſe any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any converſions in ſome part of the Pagan world.

Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world; in reſpect of the one they are objects of the promiſes, the other without promiſe and hope, and God in the world; and me thinks Mr. Collins, and the friends of his judgement, (they being godly, ſober, Orthodox Divines) ſhould be ſatisfied with this difference, I have only hinted at in ſhort; for my part, I think there is nothing more clear, and eaſie to be made out from holy Scriptures, were not men of his judgement too much learned with Browniſm, deſtroying that which our fir reformers have planted. I muſt confeſſe it's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men; yet I doubt not but through the aſſiſtance of Gods grace, to maintain this difference I have in ſhort laid down, againſt all the contradiction of ſober Orthodox men: provided they will diſpute it from the authority of holy Scriptures, and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence. Next

Mr. Collins is pleaſed to put my propoſition into form, pag. 34.

Thoſe to whom the abſolute promiſes of the Covenant belong, to thoſe the whole administration of the Covenant; and ſo the ſeals belong.

But to the unregenerate in the Church, and of years the promiſes belong.

Ergo.

He ſaith, Let but [belong] in each propoſition be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe, and the anſwer is eaſie, and the argument weak, &c.

I will yeild him that which he deſires, and take it in that ſenſe which is moſt large, namely, that the promiſes of firſt grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church, then he denies the major, and ſaith, That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament.

I ſay no, unleſſe Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the abſolute promiſes in the Covenant, as the unregenerate in the Church. I think when he hath performed that task ſoundly and undeniably, I ſhall yeild the argument weak, and think the worſe of my cauſe: but untill then, he muſt give me leave to think the argument ſtrong, for any thing he hath yet ſaid in anſwer of it.

He only ſaith it, That no promiſe doth ſo belong to any unregenerate man, as his portion which he may cleare and make uſe of it in his unregeneracy.

What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptizing the Infants of ſuch, the uſual practiſe of our Church? How can he perſwade ſuch to offer their children unto baptiſm, if no promiſe belong to him to make uſe of as his? is not his childes baptiſm a conſiderable uſe?

The abſolute promiſe of the firſt grace to the unregenerate, is the main encouragement to the uſe of means for the attainment of grace: This is that which opens a door of hope unto all, and as they are ſinners deſtitute of the work of grace, they may rightly goe to God and pray for a new heart, and for his Spirit to beget regenerating grace it their graceleſſe ſpirits. Oh turn thou us Lord, and we ſhall be converted unto thee, for thou never ſaidſt to the ſeed of Jacob, Seek yee my face, in vain. And we are the ſeed of thy Church and people, whom thou haſt promiſed to be a God unto, and to make us thy people, for thy names ſake, forſake us not, but put forth 〈◊〉 work of thy mighty power, to open our hear to receive the grace of thy promiſe, we 〈◊〉 objects of, and without which we are undou I ſay ask, and you ſhall have; for the Lor will give his Spirit to them that ask it. An this I hope is of good uſe to the unregenerate it's a ſpecial ground to pray for renewing grace themſelves; and likewiſe for other that have grace to pray for them, as Miniſter for their people, and parents for their children, &c. Exclude them from theſe promiſes and you exclude them from your prayers, for we have no warrant to pray for that which God doth not promiſe to give.

My fifth propoſition, That the Sacraments being viſible repreſentations of Chriſts death, on which thoſe promiſes are founded, and by which they ne confirmed, the uſe of the Sacraments belongs to thoſe whom thoſe promiſes doe immediately reſpect.

Unto this he hath nothing conſiderable, but what hath been anſwered already; only he grants the main of this. And yet ſayes, that Sacraments are ſeals as well as ſigns.

1. Sacraments are ſeals as they are ſignes, and not otherwiſe.

2. They are but repreſentatives of the real ſeal that confirms the abſolute promiſes, namely the death of Chriſt, and ſo not ſeals properly, but by way of reſemblance, giving the name to the ſigns, that is only proper to the thing ſignified, namely, the death of Chriſt, it being all one to imagine the Sacraments real ſeals of the Covenant, with real preſence. If I miſtake not, hence it will follow, That which the death of Chriſt is a ſeal of, Sacraments are ſeals of: but the death of Chriſt is a ſeal of the promiſes of firſt grace, which reſpect the unregenerate in the Church: therefore the uſe of theſe ſeals belong to them. I ſee not but that the Sacraments, as they are ſeals to confirm the truth of the Covenant, in which are included promiſes of firſt grace to the unregenerate in the Church, the unregenerate may uſe the ſeals for their incouragement to wait upon God, in the uſe of that and all ordinary means, in hope of the bleſſing of regenerating grace, according to what is promiſed in the Word, and ſealed in the Sacrament; who elſe ſhould uſe the ſeals, if not thoſe that have a right unto what is ſealed, ſhould not?

But then he ſaith, It is falſe, that the uſe of the Sacraments belongs to ſuch as the promiſes of firſt grace doe reſpect, for then the uſe of the Sacrame belongs to Heathens: but the uſe of it belongs 〈◊〉 thoſe only who by faith apply the promiſes.

So long as any creatures are without to letter, and external adminiſtration of th Covenant, and have not ſo much as accepted of the outward tender, and made e trance therein by baptiſm; they are ſtrange from the Covenant of promiſe, and without a literal ground of hope; and without Go I have ſhewed the difference already: 〈◊〉 though I have granted elſewhere, that th Heathen are objects of the promiſe of 〈◊〉 grace in ſome remote ſenſe, yet it's hard 〈◊〉 ſay of any Nation in ſpecial, ſo long as th Lord is pleaſed to withhold the ordina means of their converſion from them, th they are objects of that promiſe. This is certain truth, where the Lord hath a peop •• to ſave, he will either ſend his Word to 〈◊〉 them; or bring them under the Word by ſo providence or other to that end: as for tho that are left to wander in their own Idolitrous wayes, there is no hope to ſuch, If 〈◊〉 Goſpel be hid, it's hid to them that periſh. An whereas Mr. Collins ſaith, The Sacrament belongs only to thoſe who by faith apply the promiſe . Alas, this he takes for granted, although be knows we have denyed it upon confiderable ground. Take faith in his ſenſe, can any man imagine that all the people of the Jews were able by faith to apply the promiſes? yet they were all bound to keep the Paſſeover: Conceive how improbable it were, that all that ſubmitted unto baptiſm in the Apoſtles age, were able by a true ſaith to apply the promiſes: yet none were denyed the Supper that came under Baptiſm. Doth Mr. Gollins think, that all in our Church are able by a true ſincere faith to apply the promiſes? Yet we adminiſter baptiſm unto their children, a ſeal of the ſame promiſes, upon the account of their parents. And I verily judge that the parents are in as good a capacity for the holy Supper, as their children are for holy baptiſm; If the childes right may be derived more remote, then much more the Parents of that childe as being a generation neerer that right. If the promiſe include the grand childe, much more his own childe; And wherein is the holy Supper a different ſeal of the Covenant from baptiſm? So that in giving Baptiſm to their child, you clearly yeeld their right to uſe the Supper, provided they be not excommunicated.

But Mr. Collins argues againſt me thus, in his late Book, pag. 104. Thoſe who if they were Heathens might not be baptized, though they be baptized, and in the Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper.

But thoſe who are ignorant and ſcandalous, if they were Heathens, ſhould not be baptized.

Ergo,

I grant his minor is true, that ignorant and ſcandalous Heathens ſhould not be baptized. But I deny his Major, that ignorant and ſcandalous Chriſtians are Heathens. Suppoſe them unbaptized, which they are not; for I will ſuppoſe that their Covenant relation holds ſtill, though they were unbaptized, they being the iſſue of perſons in the Church, and they never as yet have renounced the Covenant, but adhere to the publick adminiſtration thereof: which may be the caſe of ſome in theſe exorbitant time for there are many a growing up to year of diſcretion, that through the deluſion 〈◊〉 their parents are unbaptized, the which 〈◊〉 think are no Heathen, being Chriſtians born nor cut off from Covenant relation, no Church-memberſhip, notwithſtanding their parents wickedneſſe to diſpute them ou of the Covenant, and conſequently ou of the Church, and ſo from baptiſm a priviledge thereof: but they ought to be baptized when ever themſelves, or any other o their friends deſire it for them, upon the account of memberſhip, it not being their fault it hath been neglected ſo long, but their parents. And I ſay likewiſe of the ignorant and ſcandalous born in the Church, were they unbaptized, the Church ought to uſe all means poſſible, to perſwade them unto it as their ſpecial duty to engage them unto better obedience, and Church diſcipline for their amendment. The children of Iſrael were uncircumciſed a great many of them while they were in their travel in the Wilderneſſe; their uncircumciſion did not diſcovenant nor unchurch them; but they were al circumciſed when they came to Canaan. God was angry with Moſes for neglecting the circumciſing of his ſons, but yet their Covenant relation held, they muſt be circumciſed. And I think here is nothing againſt reaſon in all this. But then there is not the like reaſon for Heathen to be baptized, that are ignorant and ſcandalous, becauſe they are ſtrangers from the Covenants of promiſe, have no ſuch priviledge as Covenant relation, they are unclean, and untill they embrace the faith of the Goſpel, and expreſs themſelves real in their acceptance of it, and promiſe to joyn themſelves with the viſible profeſſing body of Chriſt, they may not be received. Theſe are two huge different things, which Mr. Collins all along levels to the ſame, and therefore his argument fals to nothing. And I would have Mr. Collins, and all others that profeſſe themſelves friends to the Church of England, to beware how they maintain that Baptiſm makes Church-members: it's true of thoſe that are of the Pagan world by nature, they can in no wiſe be made members of the viſible Church of Chriſt but by lawful baptiſm: but thoſe in the Church that are born of Chriſtian parents are members born, they being comprehended in the ſame Covenant with their parents.

But Mr. Collins in proof of his major ſaith, It is againſt reaſon to ſay the contraray. A not ble proof indeed! Let him ſhew us wh reaſon it's againſt, to ſay, that Church-members unbaptized, ought to be baptized up •• lower perſonal qualifications then Heathen.

I come to my next propoſition, That the in the Church whom we cannot exclude from C •• venant relation, that are of years, must not be excluded from the Sacrament, becauſe Sacrament are ſeals of Covenant love to that people the are in poſſeſſion of Covenant adminiſtrations.

Mr. Collins in anſwer to this, is fallen upon the old buſineſſe again, and wonders her years of diſcretion comes in, for he ſaith, the argument is to prove a right to Covenant ſeals, for ſ •• as are in Covenant relation. Now children are 〈◊〉 Covenant relation, that exception plainly implyes, ſay he, that Covenant relation is not enough to give right to Covenant ſeals. And ſo he ſayes, I have anſwered my ſelf.

Mr. Collins is more happy then others, i ſuch an anſwer be judged a ſufficient one, becauſe years of diſcretion, is no eſſential o Covenant relation, but of a man, putting him into an actual capacity to perform act of worſhip, the which until then he is not under the obligation of actual obſervance. I have ſpoken enough to this already. Why is not Covenant relation enough? I never thought ſo; but maintain that Covenant relation gives right to Covenant ſeals unto parents and children. I hope I am as clear in this point as moſt are. It's an handſome ſhifting of an anſwer, to ſay, I have anſwered my ſelf: The argument lies to anſwer ſtill. If Sacraments be ſeals of covenant love to a people in poſſeſſion of covenant adminiſtrations, then ſuch a people ought to uſe theſe ſeals of Covenant love unto them in remembrance thereof, untill they be legally diſpoſſeſt of the ſame. But ours are in Covenant relation, and in poſſeſſion of the Ordinances of the Covenant. Therefore it belongs to them to make uſe of the ſeals of Gods love in remembrance of his goodneſſe towards them. Untill you can diſcovenant them it's a weak thing to goe about to diſpriviledge them in the externals of the Church; eſpecially the Ordinances being the Ordinary way and means of attaining the grace of the Covenant.

In his 35. pag. he tels us, That Sacraments are not ſeals of the everlaſting Covenant, but ſeal to the acceptation of the Covenant to which faith muſt be ſuppoſed.

I have alwayes thought that the Covenant made with Abraham and his ſeed, and ſo often publiſhed and repeated, and explained to the Jews Church, and applyed to the Goſpel Church, Heb. 8. had been an everlaſting Covenant of grace; and that Sacraments ſeal to this Covenant: And that not only the new Covenant, but the ſeals thereof belong unto the viſible Church. And that the agreement or Covenant between the Father and the Son, for the elect, had been a different thing from the Covenant made unto the Church, which Sacraments ſeal. If that were not an everlaſting Covenant that Circumciſion was a fign and ſeal of, I muſt confeſſe I am out: but I am ſure it's that which I have been alwayes taught, and never heard it denyed, but by Anabaptiſts, and ſuch like Heterodox ſpirits. It's true, this everlaſting Covenant is to be entred into by thoſe the ſeals are to be applyed unto; and this entrance or acceptance is either perſonal or parental. An alien upon profeſſion of faith, and deſiring to joyn himſelf to the viſible Church of Chriſt by baptiſm, and ſo to come voluntarily under the Laws of Chriſt, is to be received, he hath accepted of the laws of the Covenant. But for thoſe that are in the Church by nature, and profeſſe no other religion and worſhip but the true, are all ſuppoſed to have ſuch a faith at leaſt as doth argue their acceptance of the Covenant, during their abode in the Church, the which is ſufficient to ingage them unto Chriſtian obedience, and doth entitle them to external Church priviledges; although this is not enough in order to their juſtification and ſalvation: but yet the external part is the way preſcribed for the attainment of the internal bleſſings of the everlaſting Covenant, even to as many in the Church that Jeſus Chriſt was ſent into the world to ſeek and to ſave, by giving them repentance and remiſſion of ſins. Hence it is very neceſſary to diſtinguiſh of a twofold acceptation; one common that accepts of the external part of the Covenant, which reprobates doe with the elect, the other is internal and ſpecial, when God by his Spirit opens the heart, and inclines the will to receive the grace of the Covenant unto eternal life: the former is that which gives right to the external priviledges of the Church; the other to the internal bleſſings of grace and glory. The former hath the promiſe of the firſt grace, the other the promiſe of increaſe in grace, and the reward of glory. If that be true of Mr. Collins, That Sacraments ſeal to the acceptation of the Covenant which ſuppoſes faith: It's ſufficient for our opinion, becauſe all in the Church doe accept of the Covenant, and have faith. And we doe not plead for Heathens untill they believe and come under baptiſm. But ſurely the death of Chriſt confirmed the everlaſting Covenant, out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow. And I think Sacraments are no other wayes ſeals, then they are ſigns of his death; as it is ſaid, This cup is the new Covenant in my bloud, the cup was not really the new Covenant, but a ſign thereof, repreſentatively; as I have hinted before: Yet ſurely, ſaith Mr. Collins, thoſe that are in a ſtate of unbelief, are not in Covenant, though they may be objects of Gods firſt free grace.

Anſw. If they be not in the everlaſting Covenant, they cannot be ſaid to be objects of Gods firſt free grace: for doubtleſſe God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant, himſelf grants that the elect are enrold in the everlaſting Covenant, and many of them may be in the Church, I hope, though in a ſtate of unbelief in his ſenſe; and doubtleſſe it is for the elects ſake that we have an external adminiſtration, a Church conſiſting of moſt bad, that his elect may be gathered out of all ſorts of ſinners, and others left without excuſe, is this wiſe contrivance of the ever bleſſed God. And hence this mingled ſtate of good and bad muſt grow together untill the harveſt, experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath ſprung out of the roots of wicked tares. And wicked tares have ſprung out of the roots of the choyceſt wheat: let that convince us.

Mr. Collins ſaith, That argument about baptiſm hath been anſwered again and again. The argument is this, If parents that are ignorant and ſcandalous in the Church, be ſo much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptiſm, a ſeal of the Covenant, then themſelves have right to the holy Supper, it being but the ſeal of the ſame Covenant.

The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins, and all that are friends to his judgement, and yet they deny the conſequence, becauſe they ſay more is required to the Lords Supper, then unto Baptiſm. Unto this I anſwer.

It cannot be proved, that in in the Apoſtles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptiſm of perſons of years: it's clear enough, that which prepared them for baptiſm brought them into the Church. And that being once within, they had the priviledges of the Church accordingly, is without queſtion.

Leſſe is required unto Covenant ſeals of perſons born in the Church, (they being free born to all the priviledges of this ſpiritual Corporation) then of thoſe that are aliens and ſtrangers by birth; theſe obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance.

The ignorant and ſcandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord, as their children are of the baptiſm of the Lord, they being under Church indulgence.

Firſt, They are in an active capacity of exerciſing the underſtanding heart and conſcience, memory, with all the externals required unto that ſervice, their children are meerly paſſive for the other.

Secondly, Parents are in poſſeſſion of the feals of themſelves, but their children before baptiſm are not.

Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Anceſtors, as their children doe untill they be diſcovenanted, if not more, as being a generation neerer that right.

If parents Covenant relation be ſufficient to give right to the ſeals for his childe, then ſurely for himſelf.

Beſides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins; as firſt, he pleads the Covna nt for the parents unto their childrens baptiſm; and then diſputes them out of Covenant in his admiſſion unto the holy Supper. They ſhall be accounted believers as to the one, but unbelievers as to the other. The promiſe is to them and their children in order unto baptiſm, but then in order to the holy Supper, there is no more promiſe belongs unto them then unto Pagans. And there is no promiſe made to any that have not faith to apply them; and ſo exclude children from the promiſe too at laſt, for they have not ſuch a faith as to apply the promiſes. Thus you may ſee he is a Presbyterian in practice; and an Anabaptiſt in opinion. For if his judgement be true about baptiſm, then it's falſe about the holy Supper; if his judgement be true about the Supper, then it's falſe about baptiſm: for both are the ſame ſeal of the ſame Covenant exhibited, only by different figns. People had need be well ſetled and ſatisfied of themſelves in theſe times, that keep their ſtation in the Church, where they have ſuch Teachers, and meet with ſuch opinions that deſtroy all. The truth is, our ſtraightneſſe in the one, and largeneſſe in the other, doth deſtroy it ſelf; and doth occaſion moſt intelligent Chriſtians, either to fall off from Infant baptiſm, or elſe to reſtrain it to thoſe that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lords Supper. Had it not been for our own ſcruples about admitting to the Supper, caſting off the moſt of Churchmembers from Communion, under the notion of ignorant and ſcandalous, we had never known of theſe exorbitances in the Church, which now we ſuffer under by the ſeparations.

It is an eaſie thing for Mr. Collins to ſay the argument is anſwered again and again, not telling us by whom; nor how. But if it be not better anſwered then he hath done it in his anſwer to Mr. Barksdel, he muſt anſwer it again, or elſe it muſt be unanſwered, and cleave cloſe unto him ſtill as ſuch a Churchrent that he will never free himſelf of, unleſſe he alter his judgement: which he will finde the readieſt way of the two.

In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admiſſion he puts in three exceptions.

He grants children are baptized in their parents right; but yet can ſee no reaſon, why it ſhould neceſſarily be the immediate parent.

True, for ſometimes it may fall out, that both parents may be excommunicate, or turn'd Apoſtates: in theſe caſes it's not neceſſary; but otherwiſe being of the true Chriſtian Church and faith, the ignorant and ſcandalous being in actual Church-memberſhip, and baptized; give as true a legal right to their childs baptiſm, as any other member what ever: ſo long as their own right holds, their childs right doth alſo, and that immediately from them, is to the ſober unqueſtionable. Indeed if parents be never ſo really godly and unbaptized, their childrens right to baptiſm muſt either be derived from Anceſtors, or elſe have none at all, a viſible peofeſſion of faith in perſons baptized gives a true right for their childe to the Sacramental ſeal, and conſequently for themſelves to the ſame ſeal of the Supper; there was the ſame danger for the neglect of the Paſſeover, as for circumciſion.

He ſaith further, There is no ſelf-examination prerequired unto baptiſm: but to the Supper a man muſt examine himſelf, and ſo let him come.

Philip put it upon the Ethiopian Eunuch, to examine whether he believed with all his heart or no in order unto baptiſm. And I think that was more then the other of Paul to the Corinths. Baptiſm to men of years was upon the condition of a perſonal faith, without which they might not be baptized, implyed by this, If thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou mayſt, otherwiſe not, but there is no ſuch thing in order to the Supper: they were to examine themſelves, and ſo come, it cannot be reaſonably conceived of, that if they neglected this private duty, they ſhould not come, for it was their duty to come together to celebrate the Supper, but not to profane it for the worſe. Profeſſion of faith was a publick duty in order to baptiſm, without which they could not be baptized: but examination but a private duty left to God and our own conſciences, which no publick officers have to doe with concerning others, but to inſtruct and to exhort unto the duty, &c. they have not the like warrant to require an account whether the private hath been performed, much leſſe to debar them upon a ſuppoſal of non-performance, or prejudge of their incapacity before hand, and ſo diſcourage from coming together, for which we have not one ſyllable of warrant: but I have ſpoken enough to this already. Remember the abuſe of the Brazen Serpent.

He ſaith, The children of the legally unclean were not forbid circumciſion, but the unclean man might not eat the Paſſeover.

The unclean during his uncleanneſſe, might not circumciſe his child, circumciſion being inſtituted a token of the Covenant, which an unclean man might no more defile and make unclean, then any other religious ſervice. And what though it were to be done the eight day, it might be rejourned for a week upon the ſame reaſon as the Paſſeover was for a month, and circumciſion in another caſe for forty years: we know the rule in caſes of neceſſity, God will rather have mercy then ſacrifice.

There is no legal uncleanneſſe in the Church now, and therefore this doth not ſo much as reach the argument; and indeed his other two, are as little for his turn: he muſt finde a better anſwer then ſo, or tell us where to finde one, or elſe the argument will cleave ſo cloſe that he will be forced to narrow Infant baptiſm unto the holy Supper, or enlarge the Supper unto Infant Baptiſm, or be irrational and abſurd in ſo flat a contradiction, as hath been hinted.

And to prevent ſome miſtake, let me intreat the Reader carefully to conſider, That although I have ſaid, that more is required unto the Supper then unto Baptiſm. It is to be underſtood in the Church of perſons that are Church-members by nature. But of Aliens, I conceive more is required of them unto baptiſm, then of Church-members unto the Supper, eſpecially when they were members by birth priviledge. The ground is this, becauſe a publick profeſſion of faith is neceſſary for the admitting of a Heathen into the viſible Catholick Church, by baptiſm. And ſo of his entring the Goſpel Covenant for himſelf and ſeed: but to them that are in Covenant by birth, it is otherwiſe, their Covenant right remains untill it be forfeited by renouncing the Covenant, or hating to be reformed by the Churches juſt cenſures. And while they are in the Covenant, and in the Church, they may not be denyed the external priviledges thereof, although they be tranſgreſſors of the Covenant, &c. But to proceed, and come more cloſe to the query in hand, namely, Whether there be any thing in the nature, end, action, language of the Sacrament, incongruous to the unregenerate in the Church receiving, in 1 Cor. 11. or elſewhere. To which I have in the general, ſhewed a congruity between the Sacrament and the unregenerate in the Church; And have anſwered unto Mr. Collins exceptions againſt me. Now we come more directly to the query, and to what is excepted againſt us. I muſt confeſſe in pag. 36. Bar removed, there is a great miſtake, but who were faulty in it, I cannot well tell, the 19. line is out of place, and is to be prefixed to my three arguments, to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, pag. 40. for that which follows page 36. line 19. is to demonſtrate a ſutableneſſe or congruity in the Sacrament to the unregenerate mans receiving, where the particulars of the queſtion are examined and cleared. And hence Mr. Collins followes the miſtake, and makes himſelf merry with thoſe three new arguments, as he had thought they were: but he findes the firſt as old as Pauls ſteeple. And the third proves a Monkies right to the Sacrament, in his pag. 35, 36.

I confeſſe my nature inclines me too much to give him returns ſutable unto his vein of levity, but I ſhall rather chooſe to keep to the queſtion and inform the Reader again, touching this queſtion in hand.

I laid down the nature of the Sacrament to be a viſible Goſpel, repreſenting Chriſt and him crucified to the outward ſenſes of the body, to that end that they might be the in lets of the ſoul to give the application of the benefits of Chriſts death to the heart and conſcience. And I thought the unregenerate in the Church have as much need of the uſe of all their ſenſes to underſtand Chriſt and him crucified, and to apply the benefits that come by him, as the regenerate and more, they being more dull to underſtand, or to be affected with the benefits and bleſſings that come to ſinners by vertue thereof. Unto this

Mr. Collins ſaith, Bravely concluded! from need to right is wide concluding.

I conclude from the nature of the Sacrament, &c. That therefore the unregenerate in the Church have need to be allowed the uſe of all their ſenſes, to let in the knowledge of Chriſt as the regenerate, they being more dull, &c. And hence I conceive a congruity unto ſuch, he ſayes, from need to right is wide concluding. The queſtion is not to prove a right, but a congruity, or rather to free the unregenerate from the charge of incongruity, &c. unto which Mr. Collins excepts nothing againſt the nature of it.

In ſpiritual things unto the Church, I much queſtion whether it be wide concluding from need to right. I am ſure need and wants are the only objects of Gods free bounty in giving Chriſt, and all he gives with him, With him the fatherleſſe and deſolate finde mercy. If any want wiſdome, let them ask it of God who gives freely. What though from need to right doth not alwayes hold in the Courts of men; it's a good plea in the Court of free grace, and well taken when ſinners come off, in the uſe of Gods own appointments, for the obtaining of a bleſſing of ſupply unto their neceſſities.

In the next place, we are to examine what Mr. Collins excepts againſt the end of the Sacrament, as I have expreſt my ſelf, pag. 37. The Bar removed, as touching the query in hand, The end of the Sacrament is to put the Church in minde of the death of Chriſt, and that ſatisfaction made by him, by which all the ſaving bleſſings of the Covenant are procured unto faln man. Chriſts bloud was ſhed for many, for remiſſion of ſins. That he might gather into one the children of God ſcattered abroad in all the world, and ages thereof; is the end of his death, Joh. 11.52. And the Sacrament is to be obſerved in remembrance of this, by all in the Church that profeſſe they hope to be ſaved by the merits of his death; which the unregenrate does whom we cannot exclude from being the ſheep Chriſt dyed for; and therefore it's as proper and congruous for ſuch to be put in mind of the death of Chriſt, by the Sacrament, for their ſpiritual good as others, regenerating grace being a bleſſing of the Covenant procured by the death of Chriſt, as well as ſalvation is.

Unto this Mr. Collins anſwers ſomewhat feebly,

1. Reſtraining the benefits that come by the death of Chriſt, unto thoſe only that have a lively hope, purifying themſelves, as God is pure, &c.

2. He queries, How if ſuch be ignorant of what Chriſt is, and did; how can ſuch doe it in remembrance of him?

3. Or how if by bloudy Oaths and blaſphemies profane his bloud. How can they doe it in a practical remembrance of him?

That the unregenerate as ſuch, have not a lively hope, &c. I grant, but that they have a warrantable hope, as profeſſing the true Chriſtian Religion, relying upon the mercy of God through the merits of Chriſts death, Chriſt being the right object of all hope; which is a good encouragement for ſuch to uſe the means in hope of a bleſſing; foraſmuch as not any man in ſpecial can exempt himſelf from the ſaving benefits of his death, whom they by the outward ſigns are put in minde of, every Sacrament.

As before he would not have them objects of the promiſes of firſt grace, becauſe they have not faith to apply the promiſes, &c. So now he will have none to have any ground of hope to receive the ſaving benefits that are procured for ſinners by the death of Chriſt, (which Sacraments repreſent) but thoſe in the Church, that have a lively hope. Doth Mr. Collins think, thas a man may have faith to apply the promiſe before he hath grace? Or doth he think thoſe promiſes have no object? Or that any ſhall have grace to whom it is not promiſed in the Church? So likewiſe, if none but thoſe that have a lively hope can receive benefit by the death of Chriſt; then it will follow,

1. That the firſt regenerating grace is not a benefit that flows from the death of Chriſt, except a man can have this lively hope before he be regenerate.

2. That regeneration, as it is a benefit of the death of Chriſt, belongs to none but regenerate perſons that have a lively hope; and then we ſhall exclude the unregenerate from all benefit or hope by Chriſt; unleſſe they can convert themſelves; which they cannot; and ſo exclude them from the day of grace and mercy, and make them aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, ſtrangers to the Covenant of promiſe, and without hope and God in the world; equal with the Pagan world; which upon groſſe miſtake he hath done all along in this preſent Controverſie. But I hope enough hath been ſpoke to ſatisfie my Reader, as to that particular. And therefore the unregenerate being ſo much concerned in the benefits of the death of Chriſt, which Sacraments are remembrancers of, it's very meet and ſutable they ſhould partake of the ſignes, that are ſo much concerned in the thing repreſented and exhibited thereby. Unto his ſecond I

If they be ſo ignorant, they ought to be inſtructed better, which hath been ſpoken to already. Hardly can any be excepted againſt for ignorance that are intelligent, if a Miniſter will doe his duty to inſtruct them in a plain familiar way.

And for ſuch as are ſcandalous, they ſhould be dealt withall in a regular way, for their amendment, that their actual miſcarriages indulged doe not leaven the whole, and hinder the bleſſing of every Ordinance from themſelves. And although a practical remembrance may be deſired of all; yet in the viſible Church we ſhall alwayes meet with many looſe carnal wretched ſinners, that will offend ſcandalouſly, and ſo abuſe the grace of Goſpel Ordinances to their utter ruine, if the Lord prevent it not by giving them his grace to repent. The Sacrament is a means to ingage unto amendment, as proper as any other Ordinance, untill they be Juridically caſt out. Nothing elſe can diſoblige them from duties of publick worſhip, as the Sacrament is. I confeſſe it is a ſad and a lamentable condition, that ſuch wretched miſerable perſons are in, that wofully abuſe the Grace of the Goſpel, and make ſuch deſperate returns for ſuch exceeding rich grace and mercy, abuſing the patience and longſuffering of God which ſhould lead to repentance. How dare any profane perſons bear up themſelves upon the name of the Lord, and hope they ſhall be ſaved by Jeſus Chriſt, and yet live in licentious courſes, and hate inſtruction, and will not have Chriſt to rule over them by his Word and Scepter! Why, conſider this, yea that forget God, leſt he tear you in peices, and there be none to deliver; doe not flatter your ſelves the more becauſe you are in the viſible Church; for ſo long as you are but chaffe and tares, you are lyable every moment to be pluckt up and burnt in unquenchable flames. What though thou mayſt eſcape the cenſures of the Church; be ſure thou ſhall not eſcape the judgement of God, if thou continueſt thy rebellion againſt him. It may be thou art ſpared for the ſake of ſome precious wheat of Gods Elect, whom he will cauſe to ſpring out of thy roots, though a wicked tare thy ſelf, and thy anceſtors before thee. Remember Judas that deſperate Traytor, and ſon of perdition that was falſe to the Lord Jeſus: his falſe heart and unworthy actions to his Lord whom he religiouſly profeſſed, made him ſwell untill he burſt aſunder, and all his bowels guſhed out. If thou wilt ſwear, blaſpheme, be drunk, and ſcoffe at godlineſſe, and live an idle filthy voluptuous life, and yet hope to be ſaved by Chriſt, and profeſſeſt thy ſelf a Chriſtian; it may be thou hadſt as good have been that Judas, as ſuch a wretch as thou art, adding obſtinacy unto thy former rebellion, untill the wrath of the Lord and his jealouſie ſmoake againſt thee, bringing all the plagues written in his Book upon thee, and blot out thy name from under heaven. Either doe what in thee lies to walk up to thy profeſſion of the true Religion that Sacraments oblige thee unto; or elſe be ſure thy profeſſion will rather aggravate thy abominable doings, and ſink thee deeper in the bottomeleſſe pit, then be any plea for thee at the Judgement ſeat of Jeſus Chriſt: for he will ſay unto all ſuch falſe hearted profane Chriſtians at the laſt, Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, &c.

In the next place we come to the Sacramental Actions, he ſays, I have argued learnedly, when I ſay the unregenerate have a hand to take, and a mouth to eat, which the reverent Doctor denyed, becauſe they have not faith, &c. I deſired him to prove that faith was that hand, but Mr. Collins hath prevented him, and given his proof of it in John 6.54, 53, 56. compared with verſ. 40.35, 50. Epheſ. 4.17. Joh. 3.36.

The 6. of John doth prove, that a ſincere ſaving faith in the perſon of Chriſt is of abſolute neceſſity unto ſalvation. Chriſt is the bread of life, which came down from heaven to give life unto the dead world: he that believes in him ſhall never hunger and thirſt more, but ſhall have everlaſting life, and be raiſed up at the laſt day. And the very humane body of Chriſt, as conſiſting of fleſh and bloud, without which he could not have been made a perfect Sacrifice for ſin, nor ſatisfied the juſtice of God for mankinde that had ſinned; was this bread of God, which whoſoever believed not, hath no part in. But what is this to prove that faith is the only hand to receive the outward ſigns of the body and bloud of our Lord? Doth it follow that the ſame faith is as neceſſary to receive an outward ſign, as the benefits that come by Chriſt unto ſalvation? This chapter proves no ſuch thing, it having no reference at all to the Sacrament of the holy Supper: for theſe words were ſpoken long before the Sacrament of the Supper was inſtituted and ordained. I hope the real fleſh and bloud of Chriſts humane body is not to be received under the forms of bread and wine; nor indeed at all, for it's the Spirit of Chriſt that quickeneth: the fleſh profiteth nothing The words of Chriſt unto his, they are Spirit, and life. I am ſorry the Papiſts ſhould ſee our Divines applying this 6. of John to the Sacrament.

I ſay ſtill as before, that taking and eating are bodily actions, and to be underſtood according to the rules of inſtitution, which the unregenerate Chriſtians are capable to doe, and act as well as any. And it remains ſtill to prove, by Mr. Collins favour, that take and eat, &c. is meant of faith to be the hand and mouth to take and eat with; his quotations are drawn too much awry to ſpeak his opinion. I muſt demand further proof, or elſe he will not clear the thing I am ſure.

I grant that unto actual receiving of the ſignes, there ſhould be in every one both a knowing and a believing that Chriſts bloud were ſhed for many, for remiſſion of ſins, and that themſelves take and eat the outward elements of bread and wine in that remembrance, in hope that they are of that unmber which Chriſt laid down his life for.

I grant it neceſſary, that every one that comes to the Lords Table, come in the warranty of faith, and to be fully perſwaded of the lawfulneſſe of their own receiving, for whatſoever is not of faith is ſin. And hence all the Church as profeſſing themſelves Chriſts ſubjects, muſt plead for their warranty Chriſts command, Doe this in remembrance of him.

I grant it good and lawful for them that truly can, in the act of receiving, to exerciſe an act of faith in appropriating and applying the true, real, ſpiritual bread of life, Jeſus Chriſt, himſelf, with all the ſaving benefits of his death unto their ſouls; but yet I deny that this is of neceſſity required of all that come thither to ſerve Chriſt in his own Ordinance.

I grant that the outward ſignes are holy in a relative ſenſe, as reſpecting their end, and ſo are objects of faith, and of the minde: but as they are ſigns ſimply and elementary, they are only objects of the outward ſenſes, and not of faith properly.

I grant that the Sacraments are of fingular uſe, for the encreaſe and growth in grace of the moſt eminent Chriſtians in the Church; and yet have their ſpecial uſe for the weakeſt babes in the Church, for knowledge and Chriſtian obedience, even the worſt of members (as it is Gods Ordinance) may receive good by it where God is pleaſed to give his bleſſing, as in all his other Ordinances ſet up in his Church for the ſpiritual good thereof.

Mr. Collins had thought the taking, eating, and drinking the outward ſigns muſt be ſpiritual by faith, he ſayes.

I think there is but few of his minde in this: for certainly nothing more clear the that to take, eat and drink of the ſigns i natural and bodily, which is neceſſary to be done, by every one from the words of inſtitution. And as they are elements or creature fit to eat and drink, they are properly objects of the outward ſenſes, and not of faith, as I ſaid before, which natural actions are appointted unto a ſpiritual end, which end requires the exerciſe of the minde, memory, heart and conſcience, faith in Chriſt being ſuppoſed in all that are baptized and admited thither, I mean a profeſſion of faith 〈◊〉 be ſaved by Jeſus Chriſt at leaſt. And ho Mr. Collins can prove, that all the actions about giving and receiving muſt be ſpiritual by faith I know not, unleſſe he can tell how to make a Sacrament of every action abo •• the Sacramental adminiſtration; the which to doe will finde him ſome work. Let hi prove, that take, and eat, is a ſign of our ſpiritual taking and eating by faith, which is more eaſie to be proved then the other, that to take and eat muſt be ſpiritual by faith: for then all natural actions are needleſſe, if faith be all that is meant. And if thoſe actions be ſignificant, and inſtruct the receiver to receive Chriſt by a particular applicatory act of faith, I hope the unregenerate have as much need to be taught and encouraged unto this by the Sacrament as any. I know n •• incongruity in this.

I ſaid in my Book, pag. 38, 39. The language of the Sacrament was in general and indefinite terms. This cup is the New Teſtament in my bloud, ſhed for many for remiſſion of ſins, &c. Mr. Collins asks, who thoſe many are? and anſwers himſelf, and ſaith, diſciples of Chriſt.

It's true, Chriſts Diſciples are of thoſe many Chriſt ſhed his bloud for. And what doth Mr. Collins conceive of Church-members baptized, and not excommunicate? Are not they Chriſts diſciples? if not, let him prove them Infidels if he can.

When the Lord Jeſus ſaid he ſhed his bloud for many, he means not only his diſciples in preſent being, that are called and ſanctified, but the whole number of his elect in all ages and places of the world, for remiſſion of ſins, and the Sacramental cup, is a token and ſeal thereof, to be received at all times by the Church in that remembrance. And I doubt not but Chriſt has a great number of his Elect alwayes of the unregenerate in the Church. What incongruity in all this?

Beſides, ſome other things, I ſaid, It ſounds very harſh in the Church, to exclude this Ordinance of Chriſt from being a means of converting the unregenerate in the Church, they being the moſt proper objects of converting grace, as held out in in the promiſes, for the putting of which into execution, all the Ordinances in the Church ſeeme to be ſubſervient.

And I verily believe, this Ordinance of the holy Supper, had never been denyed to convert in the Church, had not Divines run themſelves upon ſuch great miſtake about habitual unworthineſſe from 1 Cor. 11. That very miſtake hath occaſioned this: for if the unregenerate eat and drink unworthily as the Corinths did, and were puniſhed for, of neceſſity then it were rational to deny it a converting Ordinance: for as the Reverent Doctor argues rationally from that, thus, Natural men are guilty of the bloud of Chriſt, and ea and drink judgement to themſelves, and ſhall we think, that that ſinful act in unworthy receiving ſhall be ſo blest of God, as to become a means of converſion to them, &c. This muſt needs be a conſequence of the other miſtake, That being removed, men will eaſily yeeld the other. Mr. Collins tels us of twenty arguments of Mr. Gilleſpy, that it is not for converſion, the which he ſayes, I have not yet anſwered. I muſt confeſſe it; neither doe I know what they are, for I have not his Book. My friend Mr. Humfrey hath promiſed to anſwer thoſe arguments: Which I believe will be eaſie enough to doe, unleſſe they be ſtronger then the ſtrongeſt of Mr. Collins in his anſwer to Mr. Barſdale, upon the ſame argument, pag. 14. the latter end of his Book, the which argument of his I ſhall examine anon. Let us firſt ſee what he hath excepted againſt mine. Which I think are ſo much for the probability of the affirmative, that the negative muſt remain doubtful, unto the impartial intelligent Reader.

That one ſpecial end of the work of the Miniſtery in general, is for converſion of the unregenerate in the Church, will hardly be denyed.

But to the adminiſtration of the Sacrament the main eſſentials of that work of the Miniſtery in the Church are of neceſſity, as Word, and Prayer, and breaking of Bread, Act. 2.42. Therefore one ſpecial end of the Sacrament, as it is an eſſential part of that work, is for the converting the unregenerate in the Church.

The major propoſition is bottomed from Epheſ. 4.8, 10, 11, 12, 13 verſes. Chriſt aſcended far above the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtors and Teachers; for the gathering of Saints, for the work of the Miniſtery, for the edifying of the body of Chriſt, till we all come into the union of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man; unto the meaſure of the ſtature of the fulneſſe of Chriſt.

1. Here it is plain that God hath ordained the work of the Miniſtry in the hands of Paſtors and Teachers in the Church, to edifie the body of Chriſt, untill the whole number of his elect be united to him, and made compleat, &c. And we know there is alwayes in the Church, objects of converſion as well as of the promiſes, to which the work of the Miniſtry is intended to unite them unto Chriſt, &c.

And this is to be done by the work of the Miniſtry in general, without any diſtinction of parts, the whole work together without exception of any part, is for converſion in the Church, as is clear from this place. Now unleſſe Mr. Collins, or any other what ever, can give us ſome clear Scripture to exclude a part of this work from that end of converſion, they muſt allow this end of converſion to the work of the Miniſtry in general, but as that was never performed as yet, ſo I think never will by any: only men take the boldneſſe to ſeparate that which the holy Ghoſt doth joyn together, upon meer miſtake about unworthy receiving.

And it is a rule that Mr. Collins doth juſtifie from Matth. 7.6. Where the Scriptures d not diſtinguiſh, we must not diſtinguiſh. If a principal end of the work of the Miniſtry in the Church be intended for converſion in general, then the particular parts of that work; for the particulars are included in the general. And the moſt comprehenſive ſenſe i to be taken of all Scripture-expreſſions, unleſſe ſome other Scriptures put ſome limitations of that ſenſe; and when any man ca ſhew me a Scripture that excludes the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, from this principal end of converſion in the Church, I will have done with this Argument. And untill then, the Argument is of more force then all the authority of men (meerly) can in the leaſt overthrow. We ſhould diſtinguiſh of preaching the Goſpel unto Pagans, that are aliens to the Common-wealth of Iſrael; and of the work of the Miniſtry conſiſting of the whole adminiſtration of the Goſpel, intended only for the ſpiritual good of the viſible Church of Chriſt: unto Infidels the preaching of the Goſpel is appointed the ordinary way and means to convert them unto the faith, and bring them into the Church; but thoſe that are in the Church as they are objects of the promiſes, and under the obligation of all obſervances, which Infidels are not, ſo they are under greater advantages of converting them unto ſincerity of faith, and the power of godlineſſe by the work of the Miniſtry in general, of which Infidels are allowed but a part.

The minor propoſition is evident, that to the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, it's neceſſary that the main eſſentials of the work of the Miniſtry in the Church be performed, as publiſhing not only the Word of inſtitution, but the Hiſtory of Chriſts death and paſſion, with exhortations ſutable to the Ordinance in hand, according to the practiſe and cuſtom of our own Church, with ſolemn prayers and praiſes conſiderably meet for ſo waighty an Ordinance; unto which are adjoyned inſtituted ſignes to be given and taken in remembrance of the death of Chriſt; all which concurring together in the act of adminiſtration, doth compriſe upon the matter the main eſſentials of publick worſhip, wherein the work of the Miniſtry doth chiefly conſiſt; ſo that I cannot conceive how the premiſes can be denyed by any: therefore the concluſion doth neceſſarily follow, That the Sacrament, as it is an eſſential part of the work of the Miniſtry, is for converſion in the Church.

But Mr. Collins ſaith, This argument is worth nothing. But why did he not ſhew the weakneſſe of it then, his bare ſay ſo is no anſwer. But he ſayes, Let it be proved that therefore Chriſt hath appointed it for converſion; if it were, doubtleſſe the excommunicate ſhould not be debarred.

I have made good the premiſes, the concluſion needs no proof. If the ſame inſtruments of the Spirit unto converſion be in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, as at the other parts of the Miniſterial work in the Church, then we muſt allow the fame effect to the one as to the other, both being the Ordinance of God, and performed by perſons in the Office and Function of the Miniſtry.

But in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, are the ſame inſtruments of the Spirit, unto converſion, as Word, Prayer, &c.

Therefore the Sacrament is appointed for converſion in the Church.

Whereas he ſayes, Then doubtleſſe the excommunicate ſhould not be debarred, it is no conſequence, becauſe converting of ſinners, is not all the ground why God commands his Church to obſerve all things of his preſcribing, but his own glory, in commanding what he will, becauſe he will: Beſides,

2. Bar removed, pag. 70, 71, 72, 73. The excommunicate ſhould be put out of all Church Communion in all other parts of publick worſhip, as well as from the Sacrament, as I have made it out in my anſwer unto Doctor Drake, which is not yet anſwered by any.

3. This implyes that the unregenerate are not to doe any thing by way of duty, but what is for converſion, not be diligent in their callings, ſhew mercy, and doe juſtly, &c. becauſe theſe duties are not appointed to convert them.

Next, all men confeſſe that the Word and Prayer, as they are publick Ordinances of God, are for converſion in the Church.

But without the Word and Prayer ſanctifying, and ſetting apart the elements of Bread and Wine, there can be no Sacrament.

Therefore the Sacrament, as conſiſting in Word and Prayer, is converting.

This Mr. Collins tearms, A thread-bare argument that hath a great hole in it. For though the Word and Prayer are means of converſion, and they doe conſtantly attend the Sacrament, yet it doth not follow, that the Sacrament quà Sacrament is ſo; nor is there any need for converſion, that the unregenerate ſhould be at it, for they may hear, and pray, and not receive.

Why did not Mr. Collins really diſcover a hole in the argument by ſome ſolid anſwer, but fancy a hole before it be made: he confeſſes the Word and Prayer are means of converſion, and ſo grants my major: and upon the matter grants my minor, by ſaying, that Word and Prayer doe conſtantly attend the Sacrament, but yet he is not willing to yeeld the concluſion; which is not very rational, I concluding no more then what he grants in the propoſitions. But he ſaith, It will not follow, that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is converting; either he muſt mean, that the giving and receiving without word and Prayer, is the Sacrament, quà a Sacrament, or that giving and receiving the ſignes, in relation to Word & Prayer conjoyned, is the Sacrament, quà a Sacrament. If he means the former, let him prove that giving and receiving the ſignes of Bread and Wine without Word and Prayer is the Sacrament. If the latter, then in his granting the premiſes he yeilds the concluſion, and thus you may quickly ſee what a great hole the hath made in this argument.

But then he ſaith, Nor is there any need for converſion, that the unregenerate ſhould be at it, for they may pray, and hear, and not receive.

No! is there no great need of converting the unregenerate? I had thought they have great need to take the advantage of every Ordinance in the Church, appointed for their ſpiritual good, and in order to converſion. And have not they as much need to enjoy the benefit of inſtituted ſignes, conjoyned to the Word and Prayer, to repreſent the death and paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt unto the outward ſenſes, which are the inlets to the underſtanding, heart and conſcience, as any others? But then he ſayes, They may hear, and pray, and not receive. It's true, (ſo may any other) doth it therefore follow, that none may receive? or that hearing and praying in order to receiving, is ſufficient without taking, and eating and drinking the inſtitute ſignes in remembrance of the death of Chriſt? Or would he have them to hear and pray, in order to receiving, and then turn their backs upon Gods holy Ordinance, after they have prayed unto God for his bleſſing upon it? The Reverend Doctor ſaid, That preſence might anſwer this end, unto which I anſwered, If bare preſence, much more actual receiving. But now Mr. Collins ſayes, That they cannot promiſe them, that their preſence will do them good, but they are ſure, he ſaith, their receiving will not. And hence concludes my conſequence is naught.

Who can promiſe before-hand, that any other Ordinance in the Church ſhall doe the unregenerate good by their preſence at the time, ſhall they not therefore give their preſence? It's the language of Scripture, that all in the Church are to keep Gods ſtatutes and judgements for their good.

But he is ſure their receiving will doe them no good. I wonder how he dare limit the holy One, and detract ſo injuriouſly from the wiſdome, power, and grace of Chriſt in his own appointments. He hath confeſſed before, that the Sacraments were inſtituted for the ſpiritual good of the viſible Church of Chriſt in general, and that this Church conſiſts of good and bad; and now he ſayes the Sacrament wil doe the unregenerate no good. Doth he think the unregenerate are not of the viſible Church, that Sacraments were inſtituted for the good thereof? The judicious Reader may eaſily diſcern how conſonant he is to his own judgement, in more things then this.

But this antecedent of his, That he is ſure their receiving will doe them no good, is ſufficient to publiſh to the world, that my conſequence is naught, &c. in anſwer to the Doctor.

But why doth Mr. Collins give us his argument for the negative? He turns me over to Mr. Gilleſpy, that hath twenty arguments. I ſuppoſe himſelf may uſe ſome of them in his anſwer to Mr. Barkesdales 9. argument, wherein he ſeemes to make a ſhew of ſilenceing all men, that hold the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, pag. 14. And becauſe the argument which he anſwers unto, is the ſame with mine, I ſhall crave leave of Mr. Barksdale, to examine in brief the ſtrength of his, becauſe he thinks he hath done enough at once to ſhew thevanity of our opinion.

1. He argues from the abſurdities that will follow: Then it is as proper to go to the Heathen and call them to a Sacrament, in order to their converſion, as to preach the Goſpel unto them.

It concerns Mr. Collins to prove that every Ordinance in the Church inſtituted for the good thereof, doth belong unto Heathen and ſuch, and may be uſed for their good.

Let him prove that the unbaptized Heathen are as much in Covenant relation, and under the obligation of all Chriſtian obſervance, as the unregenerate Chriſtian.

Let him prove that whatſoever is for converſion in the Church, is for the good of Heathens as well as preaching the Goſpel. The exerciſe of diſcipline is for converting an offending brother, doth it follow that Church diſcipline is to convert Heathens, to whom it never was intended or appointed? Beſides, we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof; were there the like ground to the unregenerate Chriſtian, I ſhould be ſatisfied. Thus you may ſee even in the very thing wherein he would charge abſurdity upon us, it will return upon himſelf, by putting no difference between the Church of Chriſt, and the Infidel world.

He ſayes, If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance, there can be no perſonal unworthineſſe ſufficient to debar any from it, then come Turks, Indians, Papiſts, excommunicate perſons, &c.

This is but the ſame again in other words, which I have anſwered again and again all along: here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again, as if the ſame perſonal unworthineſſe were in the Church as is in the world; doth it follow that becauſe no perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church is ſufficient to debar any from the Sacrament, but only actual, perſiſted in unto excommunication, that therefore there is no perſonal unworthineſſe in the unclean Pagan world, that lies in unbelief? They muſt firſt receive the Doctrine of the Goſpel, before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred. And as for thoſe that are in Covenant-relation, and in poſſeſſion of Church-memberſhip, it's true, perſonal unworthineſſe can be no bar, becauſe in a relative ſenſe, there is no ſuch thing in the Church: but I have ſaid enough to this already.

He ſaith, If it be a converting Ordinance, he can ſee no reaſon why the Communicant ſhould be bound to examine himſelf, and ſo eat, or whether he hath skill to diſcern the Lords body.

The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances, and yet he may ſee reaſon enough to urge upon ſuch, preparation, and caution, prerequiſite and concomitant in thoſe duties of hearing and praying, (if he examine the Scriptures) in order to a bleſſing; the ſame may be ſaid of the Sacrament, if Mr. Collins be not too perverſe.

But then he comes to ſpeak diſtinctly to the argument.

He diſtinguiſheth between converting by accident, or by inſtitution deſigned unto that end, in an Ordinancel; hearing of the Word is ſuch, faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Hear and your ſoul ſhall live, let any ſhew us a Scripture ſpeaking to this purpoſe concerning the Lords Supper.

'Tis true, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working ſincere faith in the Church, when they are joyned with the Word in the work of the Miniſtry, as hath been ſaid already? That of Rom. 10. proves, that it is not poſſible that any ſhould call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not beleived. And how ſhould they believe in him, of whom they have not (ſo much as) heard of? And how ſhall they hear without a Preacher, &c. which is ſpoken to the caſe of Heathens that never heard of Chriſt. Such muſt of neceſſity hear Chriſt, before they can believe in him. And this faith comes by hearing, and this hearing by the Word of God, by a Preacher ſent. This was the ordinary means of bringing perſons into the Church, that were Pagans born; and then being within, they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church, for their edification and ſalvation. What then, will it follow hence, that perſons born in the Church, that draw in the knowledge of Chriſt by education and tradition in their youth, cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only? The promiſe is, that whoſoever ſhall call upon the Name of the Lord ſhall be ſaved, in oppoſition to thoſe that never heard of his Name. Salvation is of the Chriſtian Church, as once of the Jews, unto which promiſe of Salvation all the Ordinances ſet up in the Church are ſubſervient.

The work of the Miniſtry was to be carryed on by the Paſtors and Teachers fixed unto their ſeveral flocks in the Church, which they are conſtantly to attend upon for the ſpiritual good thereof; as they which muſt give an account thereof unto their Lord; and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Miniſtry accordingly towards their whole flock, and not to make Heathens of them, & then content themſelves onely with preaching unto them on the Lords day, and the work is done, as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members, then with Pagans, nor no more means to be uſed for their ſpiritual good then they would uſe unto Heathen, whom the work of the Miniſtry was never intended for. And whereas Mr. Collins cals for proof, Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, as is preaching and hearing? I anſwer him by diſtinguiſhing thus, hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of ſincere believing in the Church, of which the Sacrament is a ſpecial part. Befides, the Sacrament cannot be adminiſtred without hearing the Word of God, and prayer, with the uſe of other ſenſes, as it is the viſible compendium of the whole Goſpel holding forth Chriſt crucified for remiſſion of fins.

But to ſpeak a little unto his other quotation, Iſai. 55. Hear and your ſouls ſhall live. This was ſpoken unto the Church he will ſay; I grant it was, and more then this too, as that chapter ſhews. That firſt they were invited to come unto God in whom all ſpiritual bleſſing was to be had, for the ſatisfying of every empty thirſty ſoul; and diſſwaded from thinking to be ſatisfied elſewhere- Secondly, exhorted unto ſeveral duties.

1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had ſaid unto them, and be ſatisfied with good.

Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me, that you may be ſatisfied with the fatneſſe of my houſe: They were to hear, and come to God too in all holy obedience; for in the Scriptures men are ſaid not to hear, when they will not regard to doe what the Lord hath commanded them, ſo hear that your ſouls may live, hear and doe is the language of the holy Ghoſt to the Church uſually.

3. Then to ſeek God while he will be found, and to call upon him him while he is neer, ſeek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances, where he hath promiſed his preſence.

4. Then is ſubjoyned, Let the wicked forſake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, &c. Therefore you may eaſily conceive here is not only hear, and your ſoul ſhall live, but all other duties of worſhip and obſervance are required alſo in the Church, in order to a bleſſing of ſpiritual life, and there are promiſes of grace and mercy unto the Church in that ſame chapter upon their doing their duties enjoyned: the which doth make good the diſtinction above; We know in the Church, Not the hearers of the Word, but the doers thereof ſhall be bleſied in their deed; perſons in the Church are bound to obſerve and doe all that Chriſt in his Word hath commanded; upon that account they have the promiſe of his gracious preſence; and if the Sacrament be an Ordinance of Chriſt for the good of his Church; why may we not exſpect the preſence of Chriſt, in bleſſing this for the ſpiritual good of his Church as all the reſt? Mr. Collins muſt give ſtronger reaſons to deny it a converting Ordinance then theſe, or elſe he had better have ſaid nothing: me thinks Mr. Gilleſpie might have furniſhed him with a greater ſtrength then ſo.

Next he ſaith, Either the Word alone (read at the adminiſtration) is to convert, or Word and ſignes making up the Sacrament; if the Word only, he thinks wicked men may ſtay and hear that, if we ſay more, we muſt prove it.

This, as it is no argument to prove the negative, ſo it need not be anſwered: for his main thing in this, is to bid us prove that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance in the Church: the which I conceive is clearly done already. And when Mr. Collins is able to exclude the Sacrament from the work of the Miniſtry in the Church; and exclude Word and Prayer in order to the Sacrament from that work, (and end of converting) in the Church; and can exclude this Ordinance, from being a ſpiritual inſtrument in the hand of the Spirit of Chriſt to quicken whom he will, and can exclude the unregenerate from Covenant relation, and memberſhip, and allow them no other priviledge in the Church for their ſpiritual good, then unto Infidels, &c. I ſay, when he hath performed this task ſoundly and ſubſtantially; it's poſſible he may make the vanity of our opinion (that are for the affirmative) to appear, and put us upon further proof: untill then let the Judiclous Reader judge of the arguments between us, whether ours or his be moſt rational and ſatisfactory; as they are deducted from general rules of Scripture and reaſon. And by this time I have given you an account of all that Mr. Collins hath excepted againſt the firſt part of my book. I doe not know of any material thing I have omitted to anſwer in particular: but indeed not ſo much for any great cauſe I had thus to doe, in what he hath ſaid to looſen the foundations and principles upon which my whole building ſtands, but from a deſire further to clear up the thing in controverſie, and to reduce the controverſie into a narrower compaſſe.

In the cloſe of Mr. Collins anſwer, he collects about ſeven rotten pillars, as he cals them, out of the whole of mine, and pens them down as he pleaſeth, and then bids others judge of them, taking it for granted that he hath diſcovered them to be rotten and falſe, And that my Book hath not much truth in any one page of it.

It's poſſible that there may be ſome things in my Book, that are doubtful, and that upon the piercing tryal of ſome grave Divines of deeper Judgements, may be diſcovered unſound or rendered weak; but I am confident that Mr. Collins hath made no ſuch diſcovery in any one thing that he hath excepted againſt.

I humbly conceive, that whoſoever undertakes to anſwer the main grounds and principles I build upon for free admiſſion to the Sacrament, they muſt deny our Church and Baptiſm, or elſe deſtroy themſelves by their own inconſiſtences, let their parts be what they will. And I wonder that any of the Presbyterian judgement, ſhould contend with me, for they doe but diſcover their own nakedneſſe, and give occaſion unto Browniſts and Anabaptiſts to reproach us; ſo that I profeſſe I am afraid to ſpeak what I ſhould in ſome things.

I ſhall give you a breviate of the principles I build upon in the managing of this in controverſie.

That the Eternal God hath created all mankinde for himſelf, and hath decreed the bleſſed and everlaſting happineſſe of ſome, with all the wayes and means for that end, with his eternal purpoſe not to give ſpecial grace unto the reſt, but in his wiſdome and providence, doth ſo order and diſpoſe of the means effectually, in reſpect of ſin and the puniſhment thereof, to the infinite glory of his Juſtice, in the juſt condemnation of the wicked world.

That for the Elects ſake, Chriſt was promiſed after the fall, and came into the world, as the only means of Gods putting into execution his eternal purpoſes concerning their ſalvation, the whole creation and race of mankinde is preſerved ſucceſſively in their generations, for the being and gathering of Gods Elect unto grace and glory.

That Jeſus Chriſt is the only meriting and procuring cauſe of the Goſpel Covenant, freely made and publiſhed unto ſome of mankind, of free choice.

That this Covenant of grace, is of a large comprehenſive extent, including the parents, and their children in their generations for ever, to them that have entred into it by profeſſion and baptiſm, and doe not renounce i or apoſtate from it.

That the Covenant of Grace conſiſts it promiſes of giving the firſt regenerating grace.

Secondly, in promiſes of growth in grace.

Thirdly, In promiſes of rewarding graces with comfortable bleſſings temporal and ſpiritual in this life, and with eternal glory i the world to come.

That the Church of God on earth, is ſo conſtituted by the will and pleaſure of God, that in it might alwayes be ſutable objects o thoſe different promiſes included in the Goſpel Covenant, unto which the natural iſſue of Chriſtians in the viſible Church doth well agree.

That Sacraments, as they repreſent the death of Chriſt, are ſeals confirming the truth of the whole Covenant of grace made and publiſhed to the viſible Church only.

That Sacraments are inſtituted and intended only for the Churches uſe, in order to the ſpiritual good thereof in general, which includes the uſe of every one in particular.

That all in the Church come under the the obligation of all inſtituted worſhip preſcribed, of which Sacraments are a principal part.

That Covenant relation is either perſonal, or parental; the former founded upon profeſſion of faith and holy baptiſm, the later derived really and wholly by ſucceſſion.

That a poſitive profeſſion of faith explicitely is neceſſity unto admiſſion unto Church-memberſhip of thoſe that are Heathens born, but Church-memberſhip is the birth priviledge of all born of Chriſtian parents in the Church.

That to be Saints, Believers, Diſciples, a Brother, and within, is underſtood by Church-memberſhip.

That during the ſtate of Church-memberſhip, every member ought to enjoy the external priviledges of that Church, whereof he is a member in particular, untill he voluntarily fall away by final apoſtaſie, or be juſtly caſt out of all Church Communion by an authoritative act of Church cenſures.

That thoſe that derive their Church-memberſhip from that great Charter of Covenant relation with the Church, and have it confirmed by the authority of the Church, baptizing them as members of the viſible body of Chriſt, cannot be legally put out of Church communion, at the pleaſure of ſome few Elders of themſelves, unleſſe deligated ſo to act from a National Aſſembly of Presbyters.

Though the right of diſcipline may be inherent in every lawful Presbyter, yet the exerciſe thereof is proper only unto thoſe that are intruſted therewith by the repreſentatives of the whole.

Irregular actings and good ends cannot ſtand together; to doe evil that good may come, is not only dangerous but damnable.

The ſtate of unregeneracy and perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church doth not bar any one from the Sacrament, nor doth come within the verge of the Church to judge of or correct in the leaſt.

Actual unworthineſſe perſiſted in unto obſtinacy, is the only object of Church cenſures of perſons in the Church; yet all actual unworthineſſe doth not neceſſarily run perſons upon eating and drinking the Lords Supper unworthily, in the Apoſtles ſenſe.

There is no perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church, in a relative ſenſe, in reference to the Sacrament, or any uther Ordinance, but the careleſſe neglect thereof is moſt unworthy and puniſhable.

Not to diſcern the Lords Body, is, not to put a difference between common bread and the inſtituted ſignes, ſet a part by Word and Prayer, to repreſent the death of Chriſt for remiſſion of ſins.

Examination is a private duty to be performed between God and the conſcience unto a profitable receiving, having a ſpecial eye to the rules of the whole adminiſtration, making their approaches there accordingly, externally at leaſt.

There is a real difference to be put between the unregenerate Chriſtian, and an unregenerate Infidel, the Church and the world, believer and unbeliever; the confounding of theſe hath run us into Browniſm of late.

The whole Church is in Covenant with God, and are the immediate objects of the promiſes; but the world lies in wickedneſſe, and under wrath, without the promiſes of the Covenant and hope and God in the world.

The whole Church are under all Goſpel obſervance; the whole work of the Miniſtry as the ordinary means of their converſion and ſalvation: The Pagan world for the moſt part never had the advantage of ſo much as any part of that work, the Goſpel being hid to them that periſh.

Salvation is of the Chriſtian Church, but no ſalvation out of it. How can they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And there is ſalvation in no other Name, whatſoever, ſave only in Jeſus Chriſt.

That the legally unclean were not ſo much debarred the benefit of the Paſſeover, as other Sacrifices or ſpiritual obſervances in that Church.

That the Moral uncleanneſſe then, was no more bar to the Paſſeover, then unto all other obſervances in the Church. Nay that was either puniſhed by the Judges, according unto their Judicial proceedings, or otherwiſe cleanſed from it, by a continual courſe of Sacrifices. And therefore no bar at all againſt any.

That no perſons in the Church of the Old Teſtament, or in the Churches of the New, read of in Scriptures, were ever debarred the Paſſeover, or the Sacrament of the holy Supper, and allowed the benefit of all the other Ordinances in the Church. Hence I cannot but conceive that ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament alone, uſually called the minor Excommunication, is but a humane invention in the Church.

More is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptiſm in the Church, yet leſſe is required to the holy Supper of them that are Church-members, then of Heathens unto Baptiſm.

We muſt diſtinguiſh of real and relative perſonal worthineſſe, The whole viſible Church not under Church cenſures are perſonally worthy in a relative ſenſe. And hence there is no perſonal unworthineſſe in the Church.

2. Of believing in a large ſenſe, and of believing in a ſtrict ſenſe; both to be accounted true believers in Scripture ſenſe: The denomination of a Believer is as well derived from a right object believed on, as from the right and holineſſe of the Subject believing.

3. Of entring into the Covenant, and of continuing in the Covenant. The former is proper for Infidels: the latter concerns the Church; for it is ſuppoſed that all in the Church have entred the Goſpel Covenant. And in the Church we muſt diſtinguiſh of tranſgreſſing the Covenant, and renouncing the Covenant, of breaking, and renewing it; and whoſoever is entred into the Covenant, comes under the whole adminiſtration thereof, and cannot be diſobliged from any obſervance thereof, but by the binding power of the Keys of Chriſts Kingdome exerciſed Juridically.

Beloved Friends, I have now given you an account of the moſt of my principles that I build upon, and conclude free admiſſion to the holy Supper from. And I judge they are ſuch that have their riſe from the holy Scriptures; or are rational deductions drawn from thence, which are not in the leaſt looſened nor ſhaken by Mr. Collins, nor any other of his judgement; nor I think never will, notwithſtanding his forwardneſſe of ſpirit in the cloſe of his Book, to cry up a victory, when he has not ſo much as routed me in any one thing in all my Book, which argues a bold conceited vapouring ſpirit a little too much.

Therefore now in ſhort, I ſhall collect ſome of his main ſtrength and magiſterial principles made uſe of to undermine the foundations of mine, either expreſt or implyed.

He denyes that Church-memberſhip alone doth give a full right to the Sacrament, therefore ſuperaddes knowledge, faith, and the fruits of holineſſe to give one right: all which ſay I is included in Memberſhip. And his ſuperadding will give a Pagan right.

He affirms that he looks upon all Church-members habitually worthy from their intereſt in Chriſt, until they diſcover the contrary by their actual offendings.

Then ſay I, he holds, That all Infants are habitually worthy from their intereſt in Chriſt, and commonly fall away from that ſtate of grace.

He ſayes, 'Tis not much material, whether the Corinths were puniſhed for habitual unworthineſſe or no, and yet upon the matter, that the whole he diſputes againſt.

He ſaith the unregenerate are perſonally unworthy, and therefore cannot receive.

He ſayes there is no promiſe belongs to the unregenerate in the Church, that have not faith to apply it; and that they are rather objects of the firſt grace, then of the promiſe of that grace; and that the Heathen are as much objects of the promiſes of firſt grace as the unregenerate part of the Church. And doubts whether any promiſe belong to men as unregenerate; if ſo, then Heathen may come to the Sacrament.

He puts no difference between the unregenerate in the Church and the Pagan world, in reſpect of promiſes, titles, duties, priviledges, except it be the baptizing their children: he undiſciples them, unduties them, uncovenants them, in reference to the holy Supper, and yet will have them Church-members, and preſent their children unto baptiſm.

He ſays, That Sacraments are ſtrong meat, which weak Chriſtians are not able to digeſt, and that they are ſeals of faith only.

He denyes the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance, becauſe then Heathens ſhould come, &c. And will not have the unregenerate Chriſtians to come under any duty, but what is converting.

He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation, a ſingle Miniſter may ſuſpend from the Sacrament, he being the ruling part of the Church, &c. And yet in all other thing ſeeme to bear himſelf much upon the authority of men. With ſuch like things as theſe he thinks he hath looſened all that I have built upon, and hence thinks that the whole will fall; but he muſt take a great deal of pains more then yet he hath done, if he think to be the man that muſt give ſatisfaction in this Controverſie. And I believe he muſt ſpeak a great deal more then hath been ſpoken by any, if in the leaſt he can make good ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, more then from any other part of holy Communion in ſacred worſhip, I mean of Church-members of years of diſcretion, as the queſtion is ſtated. He muſt not think that the authority of men will carry the thing, it being a buſineſſe of this conſequence, that on which the peace and ſettlement depends; which can never be as to our condition, ſo long as men make habitual worthineſſe in a real ſenſe, that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament. 2. And ſet up the diſtinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church. 3. And level the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in reſpect of Covenant relation, promiſes of firſt grace, work of the Miniſtry, feals of the Covenant, &c. Such like interferings in a viſible Church doth deſtroy it, and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England ſtands. My conſtant prayer to the Lord is, and ſhall be, that he will ſo favour us with the bleſſings of his people, as to give us Magiſtrates and Miniſters, that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himſelf hath planted. And it's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement ſhould not ſee where truth and the Churches peace lyes.

I have done with him, as to what he hath excepted againſt my Book in particular; I ſhall very briefly examine his ſtrength for Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper.

FINIS.
I ſhall in the next place annex a ſhort Anſwer to, or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he cals A Juridical Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper, the main Subject of his late Book.

BEloved Friends, I am ſorry that our Author ſhould take ſuch a deal of pains, to make good that thing that hath, and doth ſo much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church; and hath been the occaſion of the extirpation of the Churches Diſcipline; and the main impediment of an eſtabliſhment of Diſcipline at the preſent. And how impoſſible it is, that the Church of England ſhould be preſerved and ſecured in a Church ſtate, from the common reproaches of adverſaries upon his principles, let them that are ſober judge; when himſelf is equalling the moſt of her members to the Infidel world, diſobliging them from duties of inſtituted worſhip and obſervance, under this pretence, that they are unbelievers, and no diſciples, nor brethren that are within; and hence he will allow them juſt as much priviledge in the Church, as he doth unto Pagans; except baptizing their Infants, which he will hardly doe upon their own parents faith, but upon their remote predeceſſors. And thus he makes a great ſtir about ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament; and by this groundleſſe cenſure, doth hinder or make invalid other neceſſary commands of Jeſus Chriſt, to the great prejudice of the Church of Chriſt; As namely, the benefit of Gods Ordinance of Sacrament, and juſt excommunications according to the practice of Apoſtolical Churches, when this ſuſpenſion was not known nor heard of. And therefore I having ſpoke ſo much already in defence of this priviledge and and right of a Church-member, and that being already ingaged in this Controverſie, give me leave further to anſwer to what I can finde urged againſt the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been ſpoken unto, as may ſatisfie the plain minded Chriſtian, that is not able to unravel ſo many ſubtil needleſſe ſyllogiſms, that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book. But I intend brevity; And therefore expect not my anſwer unto every thing, but to his main grounds he hath laid for ſuſpenſion.

In ſtating of the queſtion Mr. Collins ſayes;

1. As to ſuſpending of ſome perſons from the Supper; he means no more then a denyal of that Ordinance from ſome, pag. 1.

2. He diſtinguiſheth of Suſpenſion, To be either Juridical, or Paſtoral, Poſitive, or Primitive.

3. Of a Presbytered Church he ſaith, They finding ſome of their members groſſely ignorant or ſeandalous, not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time, and if they preſſe in to deny it them, declaring the Church hath no Communion with them, pag. 3.

I ſhall ſpeak unto that ſuſpenſion he cals Juridical and Poſitive only; for if I can break him in the proof of that, his other will appear to be a dream. But to the queſtion,

1. He ſaith, They mean no more by ſuſpenſion then a denyal of that Ordinance of the Supper from them, for a time.

Then 2. In caſe they will come, to deny it them, declaring the Church hath no communion with them.

Here you may take notice, how clear Mr. Collins is in ſtating the queſtion.

1. He makes ſuſpenſion no more but a de yal of the Sacrament from ſome for a time.

And then ſecondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them: ſo that he in ſtating the queſtion layes foundation for a Suſpenſion, and Excommunication both: For if excommunidation conſiſts not in putting out of all Church Communion, I know not what it is. He ſo confounds theſe, that I know not how to take him.

And therefore I muſt query him a little further about the queſtion ſtated.

I query whether a Miniſter with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can ſaſpend their members Juridically. I judge this but the ſame with a Paſtor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleaſure. Such Elders have no more to do with the exerciſe of diſcipline then with the adminiſtrations of all publique worſhip. They have not ſo much as a name, nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture. And it is a buſineſſe of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church, diſtinct from Miniſterial rulers, as to prove Juridicall Suſpenſion from the Sacrament only diſtinct from Excommunication.

I query whether in ſuſpending of members from the Sacrament, their proceedings be according to that known rule, Matth. 18.15, 16, 17, &c. and how they can apply that rule unto the ignorant, that are not ſcandalous, they may doe well to tell us.

I query what difference they make between a Juridical ſuſpended member, and thoſe that keep away out of careleſneſſe or diſlike of their proceeding in order unto receiving.

I query again in what relation doth a ſuſpended member ſtand in reference unto holy Communion in the other parts of Gods worſhip. Has he a Communion with you as a Church-member, upon the account of his duty and Church priviledge, or as you will allow the preſence of a Heathen in order to converſion?

If you ſay, but as a Heathen, whom you will allow the benefit of converting Ordinances in the Church; then your ſuſpenſion is the ſame with excommunication; for you allow an excommunicate perſon as much benefit of converting Ordinances as a Heathen. And if you ſay, hearing and praying, &c. You allow as a members duty and priviledge, then in thoſe acts of worſhip you hold communion with them as members of the ſame body with you, then how is it that you declare unto ſuch in the name of Chriſt, and the Church, that you have no communion with them, as Mr. Collins hath ſtated it?

If in the third place you ſay, The Church declares ſhe will have no Communion with ſuch in the Sacrament as a member onely; limiting her none Communion to that, and from no other holy Communion in worſhip as a member, then you will make a diſagreement in acts of worſhip, which are all acts of holy Communion, and make a ren in that which is uniform in it ſelf; by God appointment all acts of worſhip being of Gods own preſcribing, and are incumben unto all that are in Covenant relation with him, as all Church-members are untill they be legally diſmembred, conditionally; the Churches cenſures binding perſons under wrath, untill they penitently return unto Chriſtian obedience. If Church-memberſhip be not a ſufficient title to claim the benefit of a Sacrament, as I have ſtated it, cleared and proved it, we ſhould rather begin the reforming of our Church at memberſhip (if we can tell how) then at the Sacrament, the Sacrament being the undoubted right of every Church-member. If ſuſpenſion put perſons out of all Church Communion in acts of holy worſhip, then they are conſidered as in the ſtate of Heathens, which is all one with excommunication. And therefore Mr. Collins hath taken a great deal of pains to prove I know not what, unleſſe it be excommunication under the name of Juridical ſuſpenſion, and then what will become of ſuſpenſion? it will fall of it's own accord without any further diſputing.

Doubtleſs if there be ſuch a Church cenſure as ſuſpenſion, diſtinct from excommunication, then we ſhould finde ſomething of it in the Scriptures: And in what caſes it ſhould be exerciſed; if it be a leſſer cenſure, then in reaſon we ſhould have ſome hints from Scriptures, for what ſins, or for what want of qualifications prerequiſite unto the Sacrament more then any other Ordinance of Worſhip. Now Mr. Collins ſaith, If he can but prove it in any caſe how ignorant, heretical or ſcandalous ſoever, &c. pag. 4. Mr. Botemans challenge will be anſwered. True, but that ſtill remains to doe; and if Mr. Collins fail in the ſtating of the queſtion, it's ten to one he is at as great a loſſe in his proof.

Therefore I will ſuppoſe, that that ſuſpenſion which Mr. Boteman would have proved, is this, that a Miniſter with his two Elders have power, in the Name of Chriſt to deny the Sacrament to thoſe that are Church-members and in poſſeſſion of the Sacrament, and allow them the priviledge of all the other Ordinances of Worſhip and Communion in the Church, as members of the ſame Church. And I believe Mr. Boteman and I ſhall never ſee nor hear that ſuſpenſion proved by any whatever, from the Scriptures. And I think that the thing he endeavours to prove: either he means this, or elſe the ſame with excommunication, if he wil allow them no other Communion with the Church then unto Heathens.

Now I come to examine his proof: and his principal examination is this.

To thoſe whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given, it may lawfully be denyed. But there be ſome baptized perſons in the Church, to whom it may not lawfully be given.

Ergo,

His Major is granted, let us ſee how he can prove his Minor; Namely, that there are or may be ſome baptized perſons not excommunicate to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given. His firſt proof of this is Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, neither caſt you your pearls before Swine, leſt they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you. He is a great deal more large upon this proof, then he is profitable or pertinent to the buſineſſe: I ſhall endtvour firſt to give the ſenſe; and then to examine the main of his, for he is too large for me to tranſcribe.

I conceive then, That this Text of our bleſſed Saviour is chiefly ſpoken by way of counſel and caution unto his Diſciples and followers in general, reſpecting all that were then preſent hearers of him at his Sermon upon the Mount, that gave credit unto his Doctrine, and acknowledged his Perſon: and whereas he would not have them give that which is holy to the dogs, he means private reproofs and admonitions; becauſe thoſe were perillous times in regard of the cruel carping In fidel Phariſees and Jews, that were ſuch deadly enemies unto him, and unto all that ſhould ſpeak on his behalf: therefore in reference to the ſafety of their perſons, he warrants their ſilence, rather then to put their perſons upon ſuch imminent danger of being rent by that untoward generation of malicious enemies of Chriſt; and eſpecially, Chriſt knowing that they were given up to a ſpirit of blindeneſſe and hardneſſe of heart, that they ſhould not repent; and therefore whatever Pearls of Divine Truth were caſt unto them for their good, were to no purpoſe, they would but ſlight and ſcorn them, and trample them under their feet; ſo that the reaſon is double, why he warrants their filence to ſuch dogs; not only the ſafety of their perſons, but the unprofitableneſſe of their reproofs and holy admonitions; they will but trample them under feet, &c. Good reaſon had our bleſſed Saviour thus to caution his Diſciples; for, if I miſtake not, Chriſt himſelf not long before was led by ſuch kind of wretched people, unto the brow of a hill, thinking to have thrown him down headlong; but by a divine power eſcaped through the midſt of them. If you compare Matth. 4. with Luke 4. 'tis probable that it was before this Sermon.

1. That it was meant of private admonition or reproof, is clear, becauſe it was before the twelve were ſo much as all called, much leſſe ſent publickly to preach.

2. It cannot be meant of publick Ordinances in the Church of Chriſt, becauſe then the old adminiſtrations were in form, which all were injoyned to obſerve; And the new adminiſtrations were not then in being.

3. It could not be meant of the Lords Supper, becauſe it was not inſtituted then, nor of two or three years after; therefore thoſe whom he preacht unto, and meant by the word yea, could not be in a capacity to give that holy thing at all.

4. By Dogs and Swine cannot be meant Diſciples, and thoſe that were followers and adherers unto Chriſt, for to them is this counſel and moderate merciful caution given. I do not deny, but this place is applyable unto all times in the Church upon the ſame or like reaſon and occaſion, but I think this place is nothing at all to the Controverſie in hand, for I know of none that will plead for the admiſſion of ſuch that will rent you for giving them the holy Supper. And as that is no reaſon why they ſhould deny it to ours, ſo not the ſenſe of the place, as by dogs were not meant profeſſors and followers of Chriſt then, ſo not now; but by dogs muſt needs be underſtood cruel perſecutors of Chriſt & the truth of precious doctrine that he taught, and was believed by many. And therefore when he firſt ſent forth his Diſciples to preach the Kingdome of heaven only to the Jews, Chriſt gives them the like counſel, Behold, Matth. 10. I ſend you as Sheep among Wolves, be ye therefore wiſe as Serpents, and innocent as Doves. And when they perſecute you in one City, flee to another. And ſhake the duſt off your feet againſt thoſe that will not receive you: but are ready rather to rent you. You ſee our bleſſed Saviour compares the unbelieving Jews, Scribes and Phariſees, and Prieſts unto Wolves, which are a kinde of wilde dogs: the which ſtrengthens the ſenſe I have given. Tell me where the Prophets or Apoſtles are forbid to warn, reprove, admoniſh the Church (though never ſo corrupt) in their publick diſpenſations, or forbid to adminiſter the holy Sacraments unto them; from the like reaſons as in the Text. The Prophets were to give warning, and tell the people of their ſins, and of Gods judgements for their ſins, the Paſtors and Elders of their ſeveral flocks are to feed the flock of God, and to teach them all obſervances preſcribed by their Lord. And ſee that their people know, obſerve, and doe all things that Chriſt commands, ruling over them as the heritage of their Lord, and not as if they were of Belial, Dogs and Swine, whom they may ſhut out of doores, and ſtarve them at their pleaſure.

Having given this ſenſe, which I doubt not but is nearer the mark, and leſſe lyable unto exceptions then Mr. Collins his ſenſe will appear to be. And is applyable to men of reproveable ſpirits now, and in the Church too unto private Chriſtians, that upon their neceſſary journey, or otherwiſe may poſſibly meet with ſuch that will not bear reproofs, be it performed with never ſuch wiſdom, but will either fly in the face, or reproach and ſcorn their reprover. In ſuch like caſes, Chriſt doth warrant his peoples ſilence. Indeed Mr. Beteman hath done well upon this text; and although it were not very civil for Mr. Collins to print his brothers Sermon without his conſent, and that at ſecond hand too, himſelf not hearing it at all. Yet I doubt not but his printing of that Sermon hath done much in taking off, what he ſo freely aſperſes and reproacheth him with, in his long narrative preface.

But in ſuch caſes as before the Church, (were ſhe in a capacity) might uſe her power to reform ſuch rayling dogged offenders.

Mr. Collins queries 1. What is meant by that which is holy, which was forbid to be given.

2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here ſpoken of.

3. To whom this precept is directed.

His anſwer to the firſt is, That all holy things and pearls are here forbid, &c. which the Scripture doth not elſewhere plainly allow to be given unto Dogs and Swine.

Secondly, He ſayes he hopes it will eaſily be granted to concern ſuch holy things as God hath betruſted us Miniſters to give out: His reaſon is, For is is to men Chriſt ſpakes.

How can Mr. Collins be aſſured, that all holy things are here meant, when Chriſt ſaith only to private men that he preacht unto; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs? Were private hearers in a capacity to give all holy things? This interp retation will pleaſe ſome men in theſe exorbitant times, that put no difference between perſons in the Office and Function of the Miniſtry, and private gifted men.

Private reproofs, inſtructions, admonitions, is that which is holy, and anſwers the Word, for Chriſt doth not ſay, give not all holy things (ſpeaking in the plural number) as Mr. Collins doth; nor doth he ſay, give not that which ſhall be holy hereafter unto the dogs, within my Church, as Mr. Collins would have it, but he ſaith, Give not that which is holy, &c. ſpeaking in the preſent tenſe; and then judge whether the holy Supper be here meant, that was not yet inſtituted, nor propheſied of. Nay, ſee how our Author is intoxicated with his own fancy, that he fetches firſt ſuch a compaſſe to include it in; and then ſo narrows the text again, that he excludes all other holy things out of it, and will allow no other thing to be meant but the holy Supper only, which is not to be given unto dogs, ſaith he; this is a fine fetch to prove ſuſpenſion indeed, if it would hold, 'tis certain the Sacrament was not ſpoken of in this text at all.

Whereas he ſaith, He hopes it will be granted him, that the text concerns all ſuch holy things as are betruſted unto Miniſters by God himſelf; for it is men that Chriſt ſpeaks unto.

See his reaſon, we muſt grant him that the text concerns all holy things which Miniſters are intruſted with to diſpenſe, becauſe they were men that Chriſt ſpoke to, as if all men were intruſted with publike Ordinances. And he cannot prove that any of his hearers were in Office to diſpenſe holy things; if he could he would have ſaid Miniſters for men, but I ſhall proceed and come to his ſecond query, What is meant by Dogs and Swine.

His anſwer to this is ſomething large, in giving the opinion of the learned; but I ſhall not meddle with his authorities; but to what himſelf ſaith in his 15, 16. pages, wherein he ſhews, that the Scriptures call ſome men dogs in ſeveral reſpects; but I ſhall only examine thoſe which concern the argument in hand, namely, who are Dogs and Swine in the Church of Chriſt, whom Miniſters are forbid to give the Sacrament unto, and allow them the benefit of all the other Ordinances.

To his 1, 2, 3. account, let the indifferent reader look unto his quotations, and he will be ſatisfied, that they concern not the argument in hand.

His 4. is, Wicked men both in the Old Teſtament, Prov. 26.11. and in the New, 2 Pet. 2.22. are called dogs, becauſe as the dog filthily licks up his vomit again, &c.

That of Solomon is this, As a dog returns to his vomit, ſo a fool returns to his folly. Every fool is not a wicked man, yet every wicked man is a fool in Scripture ſenſe I think: but it doth not follow, that every wicked graceleſſe man is a dog, though he may have ſome properties like the properties of a dog, but this is a different property from that in the text, and nothing to the purpoſe. That of Peter is meant of Apoſtates, falling from the Truth and profeſſion of faith once embraced, like thoſe that St. Paul propheſies of, men ſhall ariſe from among your ſelves, ſpeaking perverſe things, and ſhall draw diſciples after them, ſuch as theſe Peter ſpeaks of, that turn from the Truth unto Error, and upon that account take upon them to be Teachers, that they may vent their damnable hereſies, &c. and ſo fall away from the true Church, either to their former vomit of Heatheniſm, or to wallow in the mire of their former ſenſuality; ſuch need not to be ſuſpended, that fall off from the Church of themſelves. This will not reach the argument in hand as to our caſe.

His 5. is, Heathens are called dogs, Mat. 7.27. and we will yeild the argument ſo far.

His laſt is, Sinners in general are called dogs, Phil. 3.2. Beware of dogs, where he means falſe teachers, rightly called dogs, ſaith Muſculus.

This is fine, falſe Teachers are rightly called Dogs from his quotation, as he prove by reverend Muſculus; and yet this he quotes to prove that ſinners in general are called dogs. What, are all ſinners in general falſe Teachers? Then the groſſely ignorant are too; And if falſe Teachers that pervert and trouble the Church be rightly called dogs, then offending brethren that adhere to the doctrine and profeſſion of the Church are but falſely called dogs; for they are to be admoniſhed as brethren.

Let Mr. Collins ſhew us ſome Scriptures to prove that Church-members, diſciples or any one that is called a brother, and within, that is an object of Church-cenſures, is any where called a dog. Doth not himſelf ſay, that one that was excommunicate was to be admoniſhed as a brother, according unto 2 Theſ. 3.15? And doth not the Apoſtle allow a diſorderly member the title of a brother? And would not have ſuch counted an en my, or dog, (which Mr. Collins makes of all ſinners in general) as before: And ſo himſelf too, if he be a ſinner, which I believe he will confeſſe that he is: but me thinks if Mr. Collins will allow a diſorderly ſtubborn ſinner under excommunication to be a brother, (for ſo he takes that quotation) then he hath little reaſon to count a member under the indulgence of the Church a dog, or a ſwine. The truth is, he is ſo miſerably out, I think he did not know what he writ; and he had need have a better head then mine to bring all his ends together in this argument, they are ſo wide one from another; and the Church and World ſo confounded into one, that I cannot tell what to make of him; For if we ſay, (ſaith he) that by dogs are meant the Heathen, as Mark. 7.27. Then either thoſe only, or thoſe amongſt others. (2). If we ſay the latter, then they yeeld it.

What doth he mean by Heathen amongſt others, but the ignorant and offending brethren in the Church? Thus you ſee they muſt be the dogs in the text, or elſe he will make Heathens of profeſſing Chriſtians in the Church to doe it.

I but if we ſay that the Heathen are the only dogs to whom only holy things ſhould be denyed, then holy things may be given unto Perſecutors and the Excommunicate.

1. I have denyed that all holy things are there meant, and given my reaſons.

2. That the text is not directed unto Miniſters properly, but unto private Believers or hearers of Chriſt.

3. That which is holy, is to be underſtood of private reproofs and admonitions, which for the ſafety of their perſons, living amongſt ſuch Dogs, and Wolves, as the unbelieving cruel Phariſees, Prieſts and people of the Jews, then ſo called by Chriſt. And here they are cautioned not to meddle with them, &c.

4. This counſel is directed unto the whole Church or Brotherhood touching their dealing with others, that were Perſecutors and fierce dogged enemies to the Chriſtian profeſfion; and is not at all applyable to perſons in the Church, in reſpect of publick adminiſtrations, the which all in the Church are commanded to obſerve; nor is our Saviours reaſon of any force for any in the Church, (leſt they turn again and rent you) nor applyable to the publike Ordinances; for there is not any that will rent you for adminiſtring unto them the Word, Sacrament, and prayer, in the Church; if any will doe ſo, let the Church judge them for it.

5. I grant that by dogs is meant cruel perſecutors, that at any time ſhall rent and ruine the perſons of thoſe that profeſſe the true Chriſtian Religion. And this may be done by ſome that are not Heathens, for there are many miſ-believers and falſe teachers, that where they are backt with power, (as in the Papacy) are cruel dogs againſt the Profeſſors of the true Religion: but yet it does not follow, that any that profeeſſe themſelves members of our Church are the dogs meant in the text. It's true, we have had our differences amongſt our ſelves, about ſome circumſtances and inconvenient Ceremonies, about the ordering of Worſhip. And our firſt Reformers put us in a way for diſcipline, confirmed by the Supreme Authority of this Nation. And thoſe that had the exerciſe of the Churches diſcipline, have been ſevere in puniſhing thoſe that have not been obedient unto her commands; and we know they abuſed their power in ſome caſes too much, under the pretence of ſingular good ends: Namely, the order, peace, unity, and edification of the whole, to prevent the common miſchief of factions, ſchiſin, diviſions, erroneous doctrine, and the like, without which, in a Church theſe evils will abound. Now I ſay, it is not very handſome for Mr. Collins, that profeſſes himſelf a younger ſon of the Church, to account the Rulers of our Church Perſecutors; much leſſe the common people for adhering unto their Governours and Teachers: as they ſhall have better Rulers, and Teachers, I queſtion not but we ſhall finde them better diſpoſed; how ever this is a far different caſe to the cruel unbelieving Jewes, and Hereticall bloudy Papiſts, and yet neither of them Pagans.

6. I affirm, That as all other Scripture, ſo this, in ſpecial, is written for our learning and uſe; and it alwayes holds in the ſame, or like caſes, or reaſon. Whether unto the deſperate irreproveable Ruffian in the Church, or of the bloudy Perſecutors out of the Church, Jews, Turks, or Papiſts: and yet I ſay alſo, that whomſoever upon taſting of them, we finde them of peaceable ſpirits, whether they be in the Church or out of the Church, we ſhould reprove, inſtruct, admoniſh and warn every ſinner, to flye the wrath to come: And this we ought to doe towards all, in our places and callings as private Chriſtians. And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely miſtaken, that ſtretcheth the metaphor of dogs, to any kinde of ſinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs, for other kinde of properties of dogs, as worthleſneſſe, greedineſſe, barking, or licking up their vomit, &c. the text is of ſuch dogs that will tear and ſcorn you for the beſt counſel you can give them for the good of their ſouls.

And me thinks, that the ſame ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens, the Excomunicate, &c. might ſatisfie him, as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and ſcandalous in the Church: all that he pleads to the other is from ſome other Scripture warrant; and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us, whether Paſtors and Teachers of their reſpective flocks, be not as much bound by Chriſts command to adminiſter the holy Supper unto their particular flocks, conſiſting of Church-members, diſciples, baptized and not excommunicated, as to adminiſter the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen, the Excommunicate, &c. I think I have ſaid enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20. to give full ſatisfaction.

Let me tell our Author and the world, that although it be ſufficiently taught in the holy Sciptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper; yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to thoſe that are without, or under Church cenſures; much leſſe doth it forbid the Sacrament to thoſe that are within, which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove. And thus in ſhort I have anſwered to the main of Mr. Collins ſtrength, as touching this place. And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogiſm, pag. 4. That there may be ſome baptized perſons in the Church, not caſt out, to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given. And he muſt quit himſelf a great deal better (then in his book) to make good his two propoſitions from this text, before he can conclude any thing for his purpoſe. And truly I think it was an acceptable ſervice (both to God and the poor Church) in Mr. Boteman, who ſo preſently addreſt himſelf to redeem a captive text, ſo wofully wreſted to perplex and diſturb the poor Churches peace, in ſeting up an invention of men, which Jeſu Chriſt commanded not.

And for his aſſumption, That the Sacrament is a holy thing, and a Pearl; and there may be ſome in the Church not caſt out, who in Scripture phraſe are Dogs and Swine. Ergo, &c.

It's true, the Sacrament is a holy thing; but it doth not therefore follow, that it i that which is holy (meant in the Text) nor forbid to be given upon that reaſon our Saviour gives, for fear of being rent, &c. And though it be granted that there are ſome in the Church that are ſuch kinde of dogs, that are irreproveable, that will not endure a private reproof, it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Miniſterially by perſons in Office in their publick preaching; nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admoniſhed, and cenſured by the Church Juridically, for their deſperate rayling dogged miſcarriages: if there be any ſuch offending brethren, why are they not dealt withall according unto the right rule, Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any perſons in the Church be objects of Excommunication, I judge ſuch are; and then judge whether Suſpenſion be ſufficient, where Excommunication ſhould and ought to take place, provided they be obſtinate: otherwiſe Church admonition may be a ſufficient remedy to reform ſuch ſcandalous ſinners. Hence judge how pertinent this text is made uſe of to prove ſuſpenſion of ſome from the Sacrament, that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church, in all other ſpiritual acts of worſhip! How this proves Suſpenſion of ſome diſtinct from Excommunication, I leave to the freedome of your own Judgements to judge of.

In the next place (without any wrong to the Author) I ſhall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather chooſing to follow the Apoſtles order in this Epiſtle, becauſe by anſwering of this firſt, it will ſave me ſome labour in my anſwer to his ſecond, 1 Cor. 10.17.

His Argument is this,

It is unlawfull for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to ſuch with whom it is unlawful for themſelves or their brethren to eat.

But there may be ſome in the Church not caſt out, with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat.

Ergo.

I queſtion the truth of his firſt propoſition, by diſtinguiſhing of a friendly familiar unneceſſary eating, and of a true neceſſary eating. Now in a civil ſenſe, I may not have friendly unneceſſary familiarity with ſcandalous brethren, though not caſt out, but may withdraw from all friendly unneceſſary familiarity from ſuch, as a means to bring them to ſhame; but it does not follow therefore, that I upon my neceſſary occaſions in my Calling muſt ſhun ſuch, but that I may ſet ſuch a one a work, and admit him to my Table he being not caſt out, though ſcandalous, or a poor man may work for a ſcandalous rich man, and eat at his Table with him, &c. or upon a journey, and divers ſuch caſes, with relations, &c. Therefore the ſame perſons that I may not eat with, the ſame perſons I may eat with, ſo that if the Apoſtle in 1 Cor. 5.11. mean but civill eating, his firſt propoſition is not good, nor very clear, which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt, or proof.

If we may eat with a ſcandalous brother not legally caſt out as before, then we may have company, and eat with ſuch at the Sacrament, becauſe giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our neceſſary duty as profeſſing Chriſtians, and Church-members, which I have ſufficiently proved before; the which the worſt offenders in the Church may not careleſſely neglect, ſo long as they are in a Church capacity to receive, and that capacity remains untill the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members. And then, and not until then, are ſcandalous brethren, diſobliged from publick duties of worſhip: and hence his argument that he draws from the leſſer to the greater is fallacious: and that muſt needs be the bottome of his argument: For there is but few Interpreters otherwayes expound it, but of a civil eating. And himſelf ſeems moſt confident in that argument in its place. And therefore he ſhould have proved his main propoſition; namely, That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to thoſe in the Church not Excommunicate, with whom in ſome caſes it is unlawful to eat in a civil ſenſe. And for to take it, for not to eat at the Sacrament only properly, as it's too difficult to prove, ſo it would follow, that he will prove the ſame, by the ſame; for then the ſenſe of his propoſition is this: That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament unto ſuch that we may not give the Sacrament unto: but there is ſome not caſt out we may not give the Sacrament unto. Ergo.

Take his argument in what ſenſe you can, there is nothing in 1 Cor. 5. to ſtand upon, or in the leaſt to make it good: his proof of his Minor fals too ſhort.

I will grant him, 1. That there may be ſuch in the Church, that the Apoſtle cals old leaven.

2. That it is unlawful for the Church to connive at their wickedneſſe, that was that old leaven, and keep the Feaſt of the Lords Supper with them: but what's this for his purpoſe? himſelf ſaith it's a plain caſe, that the Apoſtle did chide the Corinths, in that they did not caſt out the inceſtuous perſon, that leavened their Communion, by Excommunication, pag. 35. in this he ſayes true, and they of Corinth put this Decree into execution, concerning the inceſtuous perſon, as the only remedy to purge themſelves of that leaven that ſowred the whole, by their connivence and ſinful indulgence. What then? Does it follow becauſe they were chidden for their neglect of exerciſing Church-cenſures, therefore they were chidden for admiſtring the Sacrament unto him before he was Juridically put out of all Communion with them? If the Apoſtle had underſtood that ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament only, had been a ſufficient remedy to purge the Church, and reform the ſinner, then doubtleſſe he would have blamed them for admitting him to the Sacrament, and he would have given the remedy in preſcribing a rule to ſuſpend him from the Sacrament only: but as their whole Communion was leavened by their ſinful indulgence, ſo they were urged to caſt that ſcandalous perſon out of all Chriſtian Communion, ſacred and civil, with ſuch a one, no not eat; but how doth this prove, that there may be ſome in the Church not excommunicated, with whom it's unlawfull to eat the Sacrament?

But he goes on with his proof of his ſecond thing. That it is not lawful to communicate with ſcandalous ſinners, let us therefore keep the Feaſt, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedneſse: from hence is eaſily gathered, ſaith he, that Chriſtians ought not to keep the feaſt with ſcandalous ſinners.

True, I ſay ſo too, where a Church is in a capacity to deal with the ſcandalous Juridically, and thereby put them out of all Chriſtian Communion, as the Church of Corinth did.

But I deny ſtill, that they were blamed for admitting ſuch unto Gods Ordinances before they were Juridically by the cenſures of the Church ſeparated from the Congregation, Search and ſee if you can finde one ſyllable of a ſentence in this chapter tending that way.

Mr. Collins makes a great deal of doe about keeping the Feaſt, but at laſt I think he faſtens upon a good honeſt ſafe interpretation, pag. 38. from Iſai. 25.6. Where the Lord promiſeth to make a feaſt of fat things unto all people, Gentiles, as well as Jews; by which, ſaith he, is promiſed all Goſpel Ordinances, and a holy Communion with them, in all his Ordinances, &c. and hence the Sacrament is a part of this Feaſt, &c. pag. 39.

But if that be the ſenſe, then upon his own confeſſion the Sacrament is but a part of that Feaſt; Why, how doth this prove then, that we ought not to keep the Feaſt with ſcandalous ſinners, when Mr. Collins allows ſcandalous ſinners the liberty of all the other diſhes and parts of this Feaſt: but being aware of this, he addes, that the Lord Supper is the only proper Feaſt of this Feaſt, that's his ſenſe; firſt he will be honeſt, and let every Goſpel Ordinance have a ſhare in this Feaſt, and then attributes all to this one, and makes it the proper Feaſt of the Feaſt they was to keep. And he tels us, Doubtleſſe it muſt be ſo, becauſe ſome Communion with on inceſtuous perſon in other Ordinances may be allowed.

Thus you ſee, let the Scripture ſay what it will; and although Mr. Collins is forced to confeſſe his aſſent unto a rational ſenſe, you may ſee how his private opinion and fancy draws him off again, and makes him venture to give the denomination of this Feaſt to the Lords Supper only; and it muſt be ſo, becauſe againſt his own reaſon and ſenſe he will have it ſo; is that a reaſon to make it good, for ſome Communion with an inceſtuous perſon in other Ordinances may be allowed, directly contrary to the Apoſtles decree, and direction, when he commands them, To put out from amongſt your ſelves that wicked perſon, verſe the laſt.

But ſtill the very main thing of his argument wants proof, That there may be ſome in the Church, not Excommunicate, with whom it is unlawful for the Church to eat.

In his proof of this, he muſt make good theſe ſeveral things.

That in this 5. chap. 1 Cor. the Church was blamed for eating with the ſcandalous brother before the Churches tryal and cenſure of Excommunication was inflicted.

That the Church was not leavened for their careleſſe connivence, and tolerating ſuch a ſcandalous brother, but only for admitting of him to the Sacrament.

That the Church of Corinth had done their duty, if they had only ſuſpended him from the Lords Supper.

That we are as much forbid the company and civil friendly familiarity in eating and drinking with a ſcandalous brother not caſt out, as with an Excommunicate perſon.

I ſhal refer my ſelf to thoſe that are learned & ſober, if it be not of neceſſity to prove thoſe things, before he can conclude from this Chapter, that there may be ſome in the Church not caſt out, with whom it may be unlawful to eat the Sacrament, or that the unexcommunicate members ſhould be ſuſpended from the Sacrament, and allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members.

But Mr. Collins in ſtead of making good his Argument, he trifles about making that word Feaſt, to be meant only the Sacrament, after he hath granted it was but a part thereof, as it is one Ordinance with the other of Goſpel Worſhip. He quotes Mr. Gilleſpy, that tels us this Feaſt cannot be reſtrained unto the Lords Supper only. And Mr. Rutherford, that underſtands it of Church Communion in the dainties of the Goſpel. And Ravenella, that ſayes it is taken for all Goſpel Worſhip, from Zach. 14.16, 17, 18. and yet he will goe beyond his own Authors, and prove with reaſon beyond them all, that by this Feaſt is meant the Sacrament only.

I confeſſe I had thought (to prevent tediouſneſſe) to have paſt by his reaſons; but leſt he ſhould be wiſe in his own conceit, I ſhall take ſome notice of them.

All he ſayes amounts to this, ſurely it were not a civil Feaſt, nor a Moſaical Feaſt, but meant of ſome ſpiritual Goſpel Feaſt; and the Supper is a part of the Goſpel Feaſt, the relation the text hath to the Paſſeover, and the liberty of Communion with an inceſtuous perſon in the other Ordinances.

1. Is he ſure that all Moſaical Feaſts were then out of uſe?

2. That their Feaſts of Charity may have no reference to this Feaſt? Jude tels us, that ſcandalous looſe heretical perſons in the Church were ſpots in their Feaſts of Charity. And this ſcandalous perſon is ſaid to leaven them, and nothing more oppoſite to their Feaſts of Charity then to feaſt together with malice and wickedneſſe.

3. Is there no difference to be put between that one Sacrifice of Chriſt himſelf once for all, and the Paſchal Lambe an outward ſign thereof, that the Apoſtles analogie muſt needs be reſtrained unto the Sacrament ſucceeding? The reſt have been anſwered.

Let him prove that the Sacrament is any where called a Feaſt: it doth not become him to give Jeſus Chriſt a nick name.

I muſt confeſſe for my own part, I moſt incline to thoſe that underſtand by keeping holy Communion in the Profeſſion of the Goſpel thoughout the whole courſe of our lives, not denying but that the Sacrament is involved in this General of a holy life.

And my reaſons are theſe.

The Apoſtles motive thus to keep the Feaſt, holds unto all holy duties, and to all times: for Chriſt is always our Paſſeover that was ſacrificed for the Church.

We have alwayes cauſe of purging out the old leaven out of our own hearts and lives, and purging of our ſelves from all ſinful connivence and indulging of ſcandalous brethren that leaven the whole, when Church diſcipline is careleſſely out of coldneſſe neglected.

The rule or remedy preſcribed in the text, as touching ſcandalous offenders to amend them, is upon that particular occaſion, drawn out into a general that holds always, as I ſhall make good in anſwer unto his next argument drawn from this text.

But what if I ſhould grant him what he can never prove that by Feaſt is meant the Sacrament only, will it follow that ſcandalous brethren muſt only be left out, or barely denyed the Sacrament only, when the Apoſtle chides the Church of Corinth, for not grieving it ſo, as to provoke them unto zeal, to put away that perſon from among them, verſ. 2. Beſides, if ſuch ſcandalous ſinners in the Church, as the Apoſtle reckons up ver. 11. ought not to be excommunicate, then not any at all, and is it ſafe for the Church to deny ſuch the Sacrament only, whom they ought to Excommunicate and put out of all Communion whatſoever? Suppoſe the Church had done no more, but put that wicked perſon from the Sacrament, doe you think they had put that Apoſtolical ſentence into execution, verſ. 4.5. Let him prove that ever any Church in the Apoſtles age ſuſpended their members from the Sacrament only, as he would have it. The truth is, he affects to draw up many ſyllogiſms, but he is not able to prove any one of them. I could wiſh he would either ſtudy his things better, or elſe give over his writing about this controverſie.

His ſecond Argument from this text is this,

If there be ſome in the Church not yet caſt out by Excommunication, who are Fornicators, or covetous, or Idolaters, or Raylers, or Drunkards, or Extortioners, then there may be ſo e in the Church with whom a Chriſtian ought not to eat the Lords Supper.

But there may be ſuch in the Church. —Ergo,

He ſayes the Minor will eaſily be granted, the Major is grounded on 1 Cor. 5.11.

And he further ſayes, all that can be ſaid in this caſe is, that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper: ſo ſaith the friends of my opinion.

If no more can be ſaid and proved but that, it's enough to break his argument.

But he is a little too confident, and looks too overly upon the Text.

For 1. the proof of his major doth not ſay that in the Church of Corinth there were ſuch. But if a man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, &c. which implyes that there may be ſuch in a true Church, as well as a Brother that was an inceſtuous perſon.

Suppoſe that there be ſuch in a true Church, doth not the Apoſtle reminde them of the rule, how the Church ſhould deal with ſuch, namely, as with the inceſtuous perſon, with ſuch, no, not to eat, verſ. 11. and then gives the reaſon, verſ. 12. for what have I to do, to judge them that are without? Doe not ye judge them that are within; but them that are without God judgeth; therefore put from among your ſelves that wicked perſon. There was one of their Church that was actually guilty, others might be: as any ſhall be guilty of ſuch and ſuch ſcandalous ſins at any time in the Church, the Church ought to judge them by putting them out of all Communion, as in that particular caſe of inceſt. If ſuch as the Apoſtle nominates for ſcandalous brethren be not objects of excommunication, not only my ſelf but all reformed Churches in Chriſtendome are hugely out. Can any have the leaſt ſhew of reaſon to conceive, that the Apoſtle ſhould be ſo ſevere againſt an inceſtuous perſon, and the Church for not putting him away from among them, verſ. 2. and ſay nothing to their conniving and indulging an Adulterer, Idolater, &c. That were then ſuch guilty perſons known amongſt them, as he for inceſt; or that ſuppoſe there were ſuch, can we imagine that they were ſuſpended from the Sacrament only, as a ſufficient puniſhment for thoſe ſins, as Mr. Collins would; And ſo uppon the matter loſe this Ordinance of Excommunication, except it be for inceſt? Beloved Friends, I beſeech you mark the Apoſtles order and ſcope, and you may eaſily conceive his ſenſe; he had wrote an Epiſtle unto them before, not to company with fornicators, covetous, Extortioners, or Idolaters of the world, but upon this occaſion of a members miſcarriage in the Church, in this Epiſtle he mollifies with lenity his former Epiſtle, and tels them now, yet not altogether forbear company with ſuch & ſuch of the world, for then you muſt goe out of the world, but now I have written unto you, not to keep company, not to eat, upon another ſtricter account, if a Brother be ſuch a one as an Infidel Pagan is, put them out of your Communion altogether. And thus he drawes out a general rule from this particular caſe of the inceſtuous perſon; leaving the Infidel world to the judgement of God, but ſets up a judging in the Church for the deſtruction of the fleſh, that ſcandalous Brethren may be reformed, and their ſouls ſaved in the day of the Lord Jeſus; as I have ſpoke already. And if I miſtake not, Reverend Calvin ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe, upon the ſame place, in his 12. chap. 4. book. 5. Section Of his Inſtitutions. Upon the ſecond end of Excommunication. 'Tis true, he ſayes, in the adminiſtration of the Supper choiſe is greatly requiſite, which yet (ſaith he) cannot be had but by the Juriſdiction of the Church. Then in the ſecond end, leaſt (as it is wont to come to paſſe) with the continual company of the evill, the good ſhould be corrupted. This end the Apoſtle touched, when he commanded the Corinths to put the inceſtuous perſon out of their company. A little leaven (ſaith he) corrupts the whole. And he foreſaw herein ſo great a danger that he forbad him all fellowſhip, and ſo applyes the 11. verſe to the ſame with the inceſtuous perſon. If any Brother be either a whoremonger, or an Idolater, &c. with ſuch a one I grant you not leave, ſo much as to eat. Therefore you may clearly conceive that Calvin applyes that particular inſtance to be ſpoke of all other, the Apoſtle names in the 11. verſe: this Reverend Author would have none debarred the Sacrament, but by the Juriſdiction of the Church, nor have any Excommunicate for leſſer ſins, when the ſeverity of words authoritatively will amend them: but when they grievouſly offend the Church; they ought for a time to be deprived of the Communion of the Supper, till they have given aſſurance of their repentance; his ground is 1 Cor. 5.5. thus explaining himſelf, for againſt the Corinthian Paul uſeth not only rebuking of words, but driveth him out of the Church, &c. What's this but Excommunication? and yet Mr. Collins quotes this very place to prove ſuſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication in his pag. 140, 141. If he deal thus with his authority, he makes ſuch a noyſe withall, no wonder they be not all of his opinion. Then he quotes Ʋrſin, which I deſire in brief to to give you an account of, he concludes that Ʋrſin is for ſuſpenſion.

1. Becauſe he makes Excommunication the laſt remedy.

2. Becauſe he hath given fourteen reaſons to prove that ſcandalous perſons ought to be kept from the holy Supper.

1. He hath not a word of ſuſpenſion.

2. Muſt the laſt remedy neceſſarily imply ſuſpenſion, why not ſeverity of words, private and publike admonition, &c. And to his ſecond, he gives fourteen arguments to prove that the Power of the Keys is neceſſary in the Church. And Mr. Collins tels his Reader they are to keep the ſcandalous from the Sacrament: but he deals with his Author as he doth with Scriptures. But as touching this Reverend Author, for my purpoſe;

1. He admits of no other proceedings in the diſcipline of the Church, but according to that known rule Matth. 18.15. and that in all caſes of ſcandal and open ungodlineſſe.

2. Not to proceed unto Excommunication, but in point of obſtinacy perſiſted in.

3. He defines Excommunication to be the baniſhing of a grievous tranſgreſſor, or an open ungodly and obſtinate perſon from the fellowſhip of the faithful, by the judgement of the Elders, and conſent of the Church, and by the Authority of Chriſt, and by the holy Scriptures, and then ſayes, when the Church pronounceth of any that they are not godly, they muſt be excommunicated, and not admitted unto the Sacrament, &c. in his 5. queſtion upon the Keyes of the Kingdome. Thus you may conceive this quotation of his, directly proves that Excommunication is that which debars ſcandalous ſinners from the Sacrament, and not ſuſpenſion, as Mr. Collins would falſely have it be.

By this time the Reader may eaſily judge what foundation Mr. Collins hath deducted his argument from: he firſt miſtakes the text, and then rayſes his argument; and thus he hath built a Caſtle in the ayr. And before he can conclude any thing to ſuſpend ſcandalous brethren from the Sacrament, from 1 Cor. 5.11. he muſt prove that thoſe that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, were not Excommunicate, or that he ſpeaks to the caſe of ſcandalous brethren in the Church, in the want of Church Diſcipline. I muſt confeſſe with grief of heart, that his Minor is true, that there are ſuch ſcandalous ſinners in o •• Church, that the Apoſtle doth inſtance i 1 Cor. 5.11. and not Excommunicate; but where doth any Scripture forbid to keep company, not to eat, as in caſe they were Juridically Excommunicate? A difference muſt be made between a Brother under Church toleration, and a brother under Church Excommunication, or elſe Church cenſures are meerly ſuperfluous; and to n purpoſe, if we be as much bound to withdraw Communion to the one, as to the other, in reſpect of holy and civil fellowſhip together. So that his diſpute about not keep company, not to eat, with ſcandalous Brethren not Excommunicate, is nothing at all to the Text, nor to his Argument, for we are all agreed in this, that the Excommunicate perſon may not come to the Sacrament, nor during that cenſure, may we keep company, and as Calvin renders it, the Apoſtle would not grant them leave ſo much as to eat with ſuch, (the neceſſity of relation excepted) but as touching an offender in the Church not Juridically proceeded againſt, Mr. Collins doubts not, nor any that are ſober, but upon our neceſſary occaſions as our ſeveral callings lead us unto, we may keep company, we may eat, and take more liberty of familiarity with ſuch then with Heathens, did we live amongſt them as the Corinthians did. Yet doubtleſſe all unneceſſary intimate friendly familiarity is to be declined with ſcandalous brethren, the Church not being in a capacity to judge them, or neglects her duty through careleſneſſe: but this is more then this text will bear too, but yet is conſonant unto other parts of holy Scriptures, &c.

From the Apoſtles ſcope in this chapter, I ſhall aſſert theſe things.

That Church cenſures are of ſuch neceſſity, that without which the well being of a true Church cannot be.

If the Church of Corinth were leavened with indulging of one ſcandalous Brother, what may we judge of our ſelves that tolerate and connive at thouſands for want of the ſeverity of true diſcipline?

If the Church of Corinth was thus chidden by the Apoſtle for their neglect of Diſcipline unto one ſcandalous member, What chiding deſerve they that have pluckt up the diſcipline of the Church, and have laid all waſt, and left our offending Brethren to periſh in their ſinful courſes, for want of the right way and remedy to reform them that their ſouls may be ſaved?

That a true Church of Chriſt may poſſibly have ſuch ſcandalous members in it, as the Apoſtle enumerates in the 11. verſe.

That ſcandalous perſons in the Church, ought to have the title of Brethren, and to be differenced from the Infidel world, verſ. 11.

That leſſe familiarity in civil and ſacred Communion is allowed to the Excommunicate, then unto ſcandalous ſinners out of the Church, verſ. 10, 11.

That the Apoſtle urgeth a general rule for the excommunicating of all ſcandalous brethren in the Church, upon that occaſion of the inceſtuous perſon.

That the main and proper end of Excommunication, is the reforming of a ſinner, and ſalvation of his ſoul.

Here is not one word in this Chapter for Suſpenſion from the Sacrament only; Nay, the Church is not blamed for their giving the Sacrament to that inceſtuous member, but for not puniſhing him for his ſin by excommunication: hence we may doe things that are commanded and lawful with ſcandalous brethren not caſt out by Excommunication.

Although this inceſtuous perſon was in Church Communion and fellowſhip with them in all the Ordinances, yet the Apoſtle in the 10. chapter tels them verſ. 17. We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, meaning the Sacrament; and the inceſtuous perſon was one of that all, and they were commended for keeping the Ordinances of the Church, chap. 11.2. and not blamed nor puniſhed for any ſuch cauſe, as their admitting of an inceſtuous perſon; nor was he puniſhed with others that the Lord was angry with, for the profaning his Ordinance in the very time of that obſervance; therefore it's not well doing in one that is ſcandalous and not caſt out, that doe leaven the whole, but his doing and living in that which is wicked, and being let alone through Church negligence, that leavens the lump.

The Apoſtle no where ſaith, if one that is called a Brother be an ignorant perſon or unregenerate, or one that cannot pray ex tempore, &c. with ſuch doe not eat, but he inſtances in ſcandalous ſins only.

I confeſſe Mr. Collins hath a great many words about this, no not eat with ſuch, which had he applyed to a Brother Excommunicate, it would be yeelded him; but his argument is a different thing; for it's of a Brother not caſt out by Excommunication.

1. Can any diſoblige a brother from his neceſſary duties of inſtituted Worſhip, that is not under the binding power of the keyes of Chriſts Kingdome?

2. Are we as much to decline friendly familiarity to a ſcandalous brother within, and not ſo much as brought to his tryal, as to one that is caſt out for continuing obſtinate in his ſin?

3. As the caſe doth not hold ſo much as to neceſſary company, and civil eating, (as hath been hinted) much leſſe will it hold in duties of commanded worſhip. Chriſts commands are of more force to oblige his viſible ſubjects, then the private prohibitions of a ſingle Paſtor with his intruded Elders. It's true, they can excommunicate, as well as ſuſpend from the Sacrament; but I humbly deſire ſuch to be ſure that they are intruſted with the exerciſe of Church Diſcipline of binding and looſing, before they put it into execution.

Now I ſhall examine what he hath drawn from 1 Cor. 10.21. to prove ſuſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication; his argument is this:

It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to thoſe that cannot eat or drink it, but there may be ſome in the Church (not excommunicated) who cannot drink of the Lords Cup.—Ergo.

In his explaining the tearms, he underſtands cannot eat, in a moral ſenſe, and then the ſenſe is, you cannot lawfully and warrantably eat and drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: the ſum of all is,

1. Such as God hath forbidden to come to that Ordinance.

Or, 2. Such as if they ruſh upon the Ordinance, yet can have no Communion with Chriſt, no benefit by it: this he makes to be the ſenſe, and then doubts not but he ſhall make good his argument, pag. 27, 28, 29.

Give me leave to ſearch into the Apoſtles ſenſe, and then examine how Mr. Collins and the holy Apoſtle doe agree in the ſenſe of this Text, 1 Cor. 10.21.

I have ſaid ſomething unto this already upon another account; I will be as brief as I can. This is the fourth publick fault the Apoſtle deals with the Corinthians about.

Firſt, he chides them for their factious reſpect had about their Miniſters, upon which they ran into diviſions, and making of parties, chap. 1.3.

Secondly, he chides them for indulging and tolerating a known member amongſt them in an inceſtuous marriage, which hath been largely handled, chap. 5.

Thirdly, he chides them for their unneceſſary ſuits of Law, Brother with Brother in Infidel Courts before Heathen Judges.

Fourthly, he blames them for eating of things offered in Sacrifice unto Idols, at their Idolatrous Feſtivals in the Idol Temple, chap. 8. And to that end he might reform them, and take them off that were guilty; as in the other different faults, he applyed himſelf unto them with different remedies, and means of reforming, (which would be too tedious to ſpeak unto) ſo here in this as it is a different fault he deals with the offenders in a different way to the former.

His conceſſion with them, that the thing it ſelf (to them that had knowledge) was not ſimply a ſin: for an Idol was nothing, and unto them there was but one God, and meat commends not unto God, though they had this knowledge, and ſtood upon their liberty, he tels them, If you doe eat, you are not the better, if you doe not eat, you are never the better, verſ. 4.8.

But then he tels them that this practice was dangerous and of evill conſequence in reſpect of ſome circumſtances.

1. In reſpect of the Heathen that out of conſcience eat it, as a thing offered unto the Idol, the preſence of Chriſtians emboldened them in their Idolatry.

2. In reſpect of weak Brethren, that have not that clear knowledge in the nature of the thing it ſelf, as ſome had; which upon ſuch Precedents was ready to venture upon the ſame practice, and not having knowledge of himſelf, his conſcience were defiled by the liberty and practice of the other, v. 10. and ſo by conſequence it became a ſin unto the ſtrong, verſ. 12. &c.

3. Then he comes to perſwade with them to forbear that practice upon ſeveral conſiderations and reaſons.

1. He urges Chriſtian Charity in order unto the edification of others, before knowledge in their liberty, ſo as to uſe it to the prejudice of the weak.

2. Tels them his own tenderneſſe in ſuch a caſe, rather then he by meat ſhould make his brother to offend, he would eat no fleſh while the world ſtands.

3. Then commends unto them himſelf and Barnabas, for an enſample in another caſe, ch. 9. That although they had power as well as other Apoſtles, to marry, & require maintenance from them, which was no more then Chriſt had ordained and appointed for the Preachers of the Goſpel, yet they uſed not this power, nor required any ſuch maintenance from them: and though he was free from all, yet he became ſervant unto all, to the Jew he became a Jew, to the weak he became as weak, that he might ſave ſome; and this he did for the Goſpel ſake, &c. and then applyes it, Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, even ſo run that you may obtain; even as himſelf denyed himſelf in many things (which he might have lookt after) for their ſakes and the Goſpels; looking for a better prize or reward hereafter, ſo he would have them to deny themſelves in ſome things, that they might doe, rather then to cauſe their Brother to offend ſo uncharitably, But in the 10. chapter he comes more cloſe, and addes ſeveral arguments taken from their relation they had to God, as they were of his Church and people, and inveſted with ſuch priviledges of gifts and graces, and of Church Ordinances, in which they had Communion with Chriſt, and one with another, as he inſtances in Sacramental Communion, &c. Well this he yeelds unto them, and then draws his argument,

1. From the Church of the Jews; they were related unto God as near as we can be, and they had the ſame Sacraments and other peculiar Ordinances of Gods own preſcribing; yet notwithſtanding the Lord often puniſhed them for their ſins, I and for as ſmall ſins as ſome of them were guilty of; and therefore he would have the Corinthians (and all others) be warned and admoniſhed by ſuch precedents of Gods ſeverity towards his own; the particular inſtances thereof are written for our admonition. Wherefore let him that think he ſtands, take caution, leſt he fals. It's a dangerous thing to goe to the outſide of your liberty, and to put your ſelves upon ſuch dangerous temptations, as to go into the Idol Temple to feaſt with Idolaters. Gods people before time have been drawn into Idolatry by ſuch temptations; and ſo might they. And yet ſee the tenderneſſe and the good opinion the Apoſtle had of them, he mingles his ſharp with ſome ſweet, telling them, that although ſome of them had miſcarryed, in this very thing, yet there hath no temptation taken you but what is common unto frail imperfect man: but God is faithfull, who will not ſuffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, &c. And hence exhorts to decline the temptation, v. 14. Wherefore my beloved Brethren flee from Idolatry: Two things to be noted,

1. He doth not call them Idolaters, but his beloved Brethren that were guilty of this fault.

2. He doth not charge them with flat Idolatry, but is earneſt to perſwade them to flee the temptations, appearances, occaſions of Idolatry.

He ſpake unto wiſe men, that as they gave offence this way, ſo they were able to judge of his arguments and manner of dealing with them; ſtill yeelding unto them their deſerts, that his arguments might the better take with them to reform them: but ſtill goes on with further conſiderations, that might further convince them, and be prevailing to reform the evil, by commending unto them the conſideration of their Sacramental Communion, verſ. 16, 17. comprehending all, The cup of bleſſing which we bleſſe, is it not the Communion of the bloud of Chriſt? Doubtleſſe it was unto the whole Church in a Sacramental ſenſe, as follows, For we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, even thoſe that were in fault were a part of that (many) and (all) we are all partakers of that one Sacramental bread, and conſequently of Chriſt Sacramentally; as he gives a proof thereof, verſ. 18. Behold Iſrael after the fleſh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? this they could not deny, but muſt yeeld it, What ſay I then? that the Idoll is any thing? or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any thing? He grants them that ſtill which they ſo much ſtood upon, but yet he ſaith, This is ſomething that the things which the Gentiles ſacrifice they ſacrifice unto Devils, and not to God; and I would not that you ſhould have fellowſhip with Devils; That's the conſequence; and here lyes the argument, If, as you are Chriſtians by eating the inſtituted bread, you have Communion together, and partake of Chriſt the end of that bread, then as you eat and partake with the Gentiles in thoſe things that are conſecrated and ſacrificed to the Devill, you have communion with Devils; or as Iſrael which eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar were partakers of the Altar; even ſo Chriſtians with Heathens that eat of the things ſacrificed unto Devils, were partakers of Devils. This by conſequence was a greater evil then they were aware of; and therefore he tels them, I would not that you ſhould have fellowſhip with Devils; which had they been aware of, doubtleſſe they would have declined it. The Apoſtle having thus brought the ſin home, by ſuch an argument that could not be evaded, then he concludes from hence, that you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of Devils. Doe you provoke the Lord to jealouſie, are you ſtronger then he, &c. verſ. 21, 22. Well, now we are come to the place that Mr. Collins makes the very bottome of his argument, You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils, &c. That I conceive is to be underſtood thus; ſo long as they profeſt themſelves for Chriſt, and continued in his viſible body the Church, and were partakers of the Sacramental Communion with Chriſt, they could not without ſin drink the cup of Devils, and be partakers of the table of Devils: there was ſuch a direct oppoſition in theſe two Tables, that it was a thing inconſiſtent, or a contradiction for one to partake of both: as a Heathen might not drink the cup of the Lord, ſo a Chriſtian might not drink the cup of Devils, there was a diametrical oppoſition in theſe two, even as much as Chriſt and Belial. Accordingly our bleſſed Saviour in another caſe, No man can ſerve two Maſters, that is, two Maſters directly contrary: ye cannot ſerve God and Mammom. And ſo Elijah, If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal be God, follow him; they could not follow both: who will or can imagine that our Saviour ſpoke this to forbid ſuch to ſerve God? Or that Elijah forbid the Iſraelites to follow God, becauſe he ſaid they could not follow both? And yet Mr. Collins ſtrength of phancy hath wryed his reaſon, that he will have the Corinths forbid the Sacrament, and their ſerving of God therein, becauſe they could not doe both. The Apoſtle's end in writing is to reform the evil, by forbidding them the cup of Devils; but Mr. Collins end in writing is to forbid them the cup of the Lord, and that's all the reformation that he drives at.

But the Apoſtle goes on and grants as much at the laſt as he did at the firſt, All things are lawfull for me, but all things are not expedient, all things are lawfull, but all things edifie not, verſ. 23, 24. meaning the things that were ſacrificed unto Idols, upon the ſame account as at firſt, that an Idol is nothing in the world, chap. 8. But the thing was inexpedient, and uncharitable, did rather deſtroy then edifie my ſelf or brother, and therefore adviſeth not to ſeek our own, but every man anothers wealth, &c. And ſo he hath done with that, only he hints at another caſe, upon their civil and neceſſary occaſions, if they bought any ſuch meat at the ſhambles, they might lawfully eat it without ſcruple of conſcience; nay further, if an unbeliever ſhould bid a Chriſtian to a civil feaſt, he leaves them to their own liberty to goe and eat whatſoever was ſet before them. But I have been too long already, yet I was willing to ſearch after the true ſenſe of the place, which is not eaſily diſcerned, unleſſe we minde heedfully the ſcope, eſpecially when a thing is in an intricate caſe, and ſo much reaſoning largely held out, proving that to be evill by conſequence, as cloathed with ſome circumſtances, which in it's ſelf, in its own nature is lawful and good, as here; Now I ſhall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottome it ſtands on, his argument is, It's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto thoſe that cannot eat it, But there may be ſome in the Church (not Excommunicate) who cannot drink of the Lords cup — Ergo, &c. His Major he ſaith, is proved, verſ. 21.

I will confeſs that in this place we have the Sacrament ſpoken of, and that thoſe that the Apoſtle blames for drinking the cup of Devils, were not Excommunicate: but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to ſuch;

For 1. it's a great queſtion, and will require ſome time for Mr. Collins to prove, That eating of things offered unto Idols, was a ſin that came within the verge of the Church to puniſh with putting ſuch out of Sacramental Communion. In the 5. chapter as I take it, thoſe that the Apoſtle deals with in the 10. Chapter, are not in that particular liſt, verſ. 11. which the Church was to judge: doubtleſſe if they had been ſuch Idolaters, that in the 5. chap. 11. he ſpeaks of, he would have threatned the rod, and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion ſuch Idolaters: for their connivence at Idolaters would leaven the lump, as well as an inceſtuous perſon; but herein not a word of any ſuch thing. But he will be ready to ſay, The Apoſtle ſpoke of putting out of Com union before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not neceſſary to repeat it again in the 10. I, but how will theſe things hang together?

1. To give a charge to the Church to caſt out Idolaters, and then himſelf uſing ſuch mildneſſe of ſpeech, and variety of argumentation, as I have ſhewed, to convince them that it was a ſin, granting the thing in it ſelf lawfull, but evill in reſpect of ſome circumſtances.

2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a ſin, was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament, in which themſelves, as Chriſtians, are ſaid to have Communion with Chriſt, by being partakers of the cup and bread conſicrated for to repreſent the body and bloud of Chriſt; in like manner they were ſaid to have Communion with Devils, by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple, that was conſecrated and offered unto Idols: and hence the Apoſtle would not have them to have Communion with Devils; as all his other reaſons, ſo this tends ſolely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple, and not a word of forbidding any ſuch the Sacrament, as Mr. Collins would have it, when he ſaith, The ſum is, they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord, are either

1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither.

2. Or thoſe that can have no Communion with Chriſt, nor benefit by this Ordinance.

Thoſe that give credit to that ſenſe, muſt be ſuch as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy, then the ſenſe of holy Scriptures; what are any of thoſe two, to the text in hand? was any forbid the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols?

2. Doth not the Apoſtle affirm, that they all had Communion with Chriſt in partaking of the cup of bleſſings? Is not that the very medium of his argument? the Apoſtle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Chriſtians, to decline Communion with Idolaters. Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols, to a none Communion as Chriſtians. And thus the Judicious Reader may eaſily judge of the ſoundation of his argument, who out of an inconſiderate raſhneſſe moſt groſſely runs upon miſtake, and thence forms a ſilly ſyllogiſm, pag. 29. I grant it a ſin to deliver the Sacrament to thoſe whom we know God hath forbid it. But I deny that theſe of Corinth ſpoken of are in the leaſt, ſo much as blamed, or in the leaſt tittle forbid the Sacrament, the Apoſtle proves they all took it, and had Communion in Chriſt in it.

I wonder that ever a man pretending unto ſober principles, ſhould be ſo fond as to think, (that thoſe that the Apoſtles writes to as Saints, ſanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, his dearly beloved Brethren, and writing unto them as wiſe men, and ſuch that had great gifts, and largeneſſe of knowledge in their liberties by Jeſus Chriſt, that knew an Idol was nothing in the world, and that which was offered was never the worſe, every creature of God was good, and not to be reſuſed, &c. as the Apoſtle yeelds) I ſay, how he comes to think that theſe ſhould be forbidden the Sacrament, and to be ſuch as could not have Communion with Chriſt, makes me wonder: if Saints, and the Apoſtles dearly beloved Brethren, whom he argues ſo friendly with, were not under Chriſts command of this neceſſary obſervance in the Church, then here is not any that are, but I have ſaid enough to this already, and all that he ſaith to this text is moſt irrational and impertinent, to prove that ſome in the Church not excommunicated, ought to be denyed the Sacrament; this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. and puts the thing paſt queſtioning. He hath more things in making good his argument, but having pluckt up his ground work, it's too tedious both for me to write, and you to read the confutation of the reſt; for it will fall of it ſelf, you muſt grant him what he ſayes to be true, becauſe he ſayes it, for he is not able in the leaſt to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove ſuſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication, as himſelf ſtates it.

I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument; for now I intend brevity in all he has further to ſay in defence of Suſpenſion; for I know not any one thing more much material, that I have not fully anſwered in the former diſcourſe, in order to his ſeveral exceptions againſt the Bar removed.

He ſayes, He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wiſdome of God, to think that he ſhould lay an obligation upon his Miniſters to give this Ordinance unto them, whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it.

What is this but to beg the queſtion, and thence inſinuate upon us an abſurdity? let him firſt prove that a ſcandalous member not caſt out, is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation, I know no ſuch text, and it remains ſtill to prove that the Corinths were threatned or puniſhed for any ſcandalous ſins committed before they came, or for admitting any ſcandalous brethren at all; but only for their actual miſcarriage in the very act of adminiſtration. I have ſaid more for the negative, then Mr. Collins will be able to anſwer this two dayes.

He ſaith, None can without ſin knowingly expoſe the Ordinance of God to neceſſary abuſe and profanation: but to adminiſter it to one that cannot have Communion with Chriſt profanes it.—Ergo.

Let him prove the conſequence if he can.

1. The Apoſtle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup, and eat of that bread, had Communion with Chriſt, and he ſayes, We that are many are one bread, ch. 10.16, 17. And doubtleſſe thoſe that made diviſions, and lived in inceſt, and eat of things offered unto Idols, and that oppreſt one another by needleſſe and ſcandalous ſuits at law in the Heathen Courts; and thoſe that were guilty of ſuch great ſchiſms and diſorders in the Church, were a part of that many. The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the inſtitution is a Sacramental Communion, which is a holy Communion in the relation the ſignes have to the thing ſignified thereby: And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof, Sacraments being inſtituted to that end for the Church; as hath been proved.

But he tels us how a thing is abuſed.

1. When it is not turned to a right uſe.

2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane, Ezek. 22.26.

The firſt is anſwered, his latter I ſhall ſpeak to, his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean, that her Prieſts through careleſneſſe made no difference, and ſo profaned the holy things by admitting ſuch to bring their ſacrifices, that during their uncleanneſſe made every thing they touched unclean; but there is no ſuch difference to be made in the Goſpel Church now; that difference is taken away, Heathen uncleanneſſe remains ſtill, but we doe not plead their admittance into Church Communion.

He ſayes further, That he cannot ſee but every ſcandalous ſinner, Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer, &c. hath as great a fellowſhip with Devils, as the Corinthians had.

He muſt ſee a great deal more fellowſhip with devils in ſuch, then in the Corinthians, or elſe he can conclude nothing for his purpoſe; for it's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament, nor forbid it upon that account.

His firſt argument for Suſpenſion is,

That nothing is lawful in the worſhip of God, but what we have precept or preſident for: but to give the Sacrament to ſuch as are viſibly ſcandalous, not Excommunicate, is to doe that in the worſhip of God which neither precept nor example doth juſtifie.—Ergo, Sacraments are parts of inſtitute worſhip, and in the adminiſtrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given, upon the inſtitution of them; and according to the example of the Lord Jeſus, who at the firſt inſtitutiō of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it, &c. p. 51, 52.

His Major is good, but his Minor is falſe, and to be denyed; matter of ſcandal doth not diſoblige any that are within, and of Chriſts family and Kingdome from precepts of inſtitute worſhip, as the Sacrament is confeſſed to be; but rather it is thus, that this precept of inſtitute Worſhip doth oblige all Church-members that are within, to reform their other ſcandalous actions. 'Tis true Chriſt gave to none but his Diſciples. And the Apoſtles directed this obſervance only unto the viſible Churches which conſiſted of viſible Saints, by their profeſſion and external calling at leaſt. And who will plead for any but viſible Saints, profeſſing the true Religion externally at leaſt? while they are Church-members and within, we plead the priviledges of that eſtate as all Scripture Churches alwayes practiſed, and yeelded unto their members. And ſo long as our Antagoniſts own our Church for the Church of Chriſt, and our members true members of the Church, they doe but diſcover their own nakedneſſe in all they ſay againſt us, and what's this argument in hand but the ſame with the Anabaptiſts, if not a great deal leſſe rational, then they uſe it for? Had we but that clear precept, or precedent for Inſant baptiſm, that we have for baptized members of the viſible Church, to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Chriſt; I doubt not but there is hundreds of thoſe that would quit the argument, and reform their practiſe. Chriſt ſayes to his Diſciples when it was firſt inſtituted, drink ye all of it. The Apoſtle Paul underſtands this precept, as reſpecting the whole Church of Corinth, for he directs that Church in general to act according to the inſtitution of Chriſt; for he delivered what he received from the Evangeliſts that did hear and ſee the inſtitution. That queſtion about Judas is not very material to the Controverſie, whether he did receive the Sacrament or not: 'tis certain he eat the Paſſeover, and what was the Paſchal Lambe, but a ſign of the body and bloud of Chriſt? and the Bread and the Wine is no more. Beſides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a minde to have continued with them during that ſervice, who hindered him or forbad him? if he did not, he had done better to have adhered unto Chriſt in the obſervance of his holy Ordinances, (though but a hypocrite,) then by giving way to the Devils temptation to turn his back upon Gods Ordinance, and ſeek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Maſter into the hands of his bloudy enemies; but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament, but I need not trouble my ſelf with that diſpute.

I have ſaid enough as from that of Matth. 28.19, 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24. to ſatisfie any that are impartial. I need adde no more in proof of this, that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to obſerve the Sacrament, as any other publique duties of Worſhip. This we ſhall with more caſe and leſſe time make good againſt all oppoſition of men, then our adverſaries who oppoſe us, will free themſelves from what the Phariſes were charged withall, namely, in making void the commands of God, by their own Traditions.

As for Precedents, the Analogy of the Paſſeover, the practice of the Apoſtolical Churches, which have been urged ſufficiently to ſatisfie any that are ſober of the Presbyterians judgement, that have not ſuch clearneſſe of reaſon from the Analogy of circumciſion, nor new Teſtament Precedents for Infant baptiſm, as we for free admiſſion of Church-members baptized, and not excommunicated, unto the Supper, and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other, the controverſie would ceaſe amongſt us that are for a National Church.

I proceed unto his ſixt Argument,

If there may be ſome in the Church not yet caſt out, with whom the Communion of the Church cannot be pure; then there may be ſome in the Church not Excommunicate whom the Officers may not without ſin admit to the Lords Supper.

But there may be ſome ſuch in the Church. —Ergo,

His proof of the propoſition is,

1. That it is the duty of the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowſhip of the Church pure. This, he ſaith, none will deny: but if any be inclined to deny it, he ſhould doe well,

Firſt, To think to what end the rod of diſcipline is put into their hands.

Secondly, How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7. and thoſe many other Texts that look this way, pag. 86, 87.

2. That it is their ſpecial duty to keep the fellowſhip of the Church pure, as to this Ordinance, as this was proved before from 1 Cor. 5.8. ſo it's c ar from reaſon; it's apparent, that of all other Ordinances, this Ordinance alone is appointed for ſuch as have ſomething of grace in them.

I grant that it is the duty of the Rulers of the Church to uſe all neceſſary and lawful means to preſerve the purity of Church Communion in all acts of publike Worſhip.

I grant that they are in a ſpecial manner to take care to keep the Communion of the Church pure, as to this Ordinance of the Sacrament; but ſtill I deny that this is to be done by ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, and allow them the priviledges of all other publique Communion in the Worſhip of God as members. That 1 Cor. 5.7, 8, 13. hath been examined already, and proves no ſuch thing: let it be proved that the Communion of that Church was leavened for admitting one that was ſcandalous to the Sacrament, or that their Communion is that Ordinance was polluted, by their connivence towards him: or that to deny him the Sacrament was a ſufficient remedy both to reform the offender, and to purge out the old leaven wherewith they were leavened: if the Text will bear none of theſe things, what is it quoted for? The Rod of Diſcipline it's expreſſed clearly from the text, was to reform the ſinner, with the ſalvation of his ſoul, and the Church by doing her duty is correcting, with this merciful end, did clear and purge her ſelf from that ſinful connivence and toleration of ſuch a one. And if this purging was not by excommunication, then I am out, if it was, then Mr. Collins is quite out in quoting it, and he hath ſaid nothing in laying the foundation of his argument, as to the keeping of the Sacramental Communion pure by Suſpenſion. I beſeech you mark, for in this very argument many are very much perplexed, as if the only end of diſcipline were to preſerve the Communion of the Church pure only at the Sacrament, and as if the greateſt impurity of Communion in the Church lay in the admitting of ignorant unregenerate ſcandalous brethren unto the Sacrament: whereas I dare be bold to affirm, that to receive the Sacrament is as much the duth of any ſuch, as they are Church-members and within, as any other duty of publike worſhip whatever; and their obedience in that obſervance is as well pleaſing and acceptable unto the Lord (they coming as prepared as they can) as any obſervance in the Church. And if it was not for the correcting of ſuch things that are in their own nature ſinful, ſuch as are nominated, 1 Cor. 5.11. there would be no need of Church diſcipline. The main end of diſcipline is to reform that which is evill in Church-members, and to encourage unto well doing, that every member may be obedient in all things. And for Mr. Collins to ſay, that the Sacrament alone is appointed for ſuch as have ſomething of grace in them, is only his bare ſaying, and doth claſh with the command of Chriſt, as alſo with the peace, edification, charity, and unity of the Church.

But he ſayes further, The Word is called the bread of life, and it is to be offered to dead ſouls. Heathens were ever admitted to hear, and profane perſons are the objects of diſcipline. The Excommunicate may hear, and ought to be admoniſhed as brethren. That he knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of a Church pure, if not in this Ordinance, a to this, the Scripture ſaith it cannot be pertaked of worthily, without examining our ſelves and diſcerning the Lords Body.

It's true, the Word is the Bread of Life, and doth quicken dead ſouls where God gives the bleſſing, doth it follow, that the Sacrament the viſible Word of Life, is not appointed unto that end, where God gives the ſame bleſſing? Heathens may hear; true, What then? therefore Church-members may not receive.

Or, 2. Therefore Church-members may hear; but the queſtion is, whether he will allow a Chriſtian to hear as a member, or as a Heathen. The profane are the objects of diſcipline: What them? Muſt they not pray, hear, receive, untill they be caſt out by it? Are they objects of nothing elſe? How are they objects of diſcipline that were never admitted unto the Sacrament? Can you ſuſpend them from that they never had? wherein are ſuch more objects of diſcipline then thoſe that are without; who may hear, and pray, and be preſent at every Ordinance as well as the other that are within? Then he ſaith, The Excommunicate may hear, and ought to be admoniſhed as brethren. Very good; it's well the Excommunicate may have the title of Brethren; but as ill that thoſe in the Church whom we cannot charge with obſtinacy, untill it be Juridically tryed, ſhall have the odious tearms of Hogs, and Dogs, profane, &c.

He knows not wherein the Officers of a Church, can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure, if not in the Sacrament.

What, doth all their work lye, in that?

1. Is no care to be had how men profane all the other Ordinances by their ſleeping, talking, laughing, and diſturbing the Miniſter and others, in holy Worſhip?

2. Is not care to be had that the doctrine be holy, and ſound, even the Word of the Lord, that is taught? That the Worſhip of Prayer be performed with ſoundneſſe of words ſutable to the neceſſities of the people, and with ſuch devotion and affection becoming Worſhip?

3. Is not care to be had that the Sacraments be rightly adminiſtred according unto the inſtitution, without ſuperſtitious addings unto, or detracting from them?

4. Is not care to be had to admoniſh, rebuke the unruly, and to excommunicate the obſtinate, to reform and amend them in order to their ſpiritual good? And is this and the former no work, if the Officers may not ſuſpend from the Sacrament only? The truth is, he puts ſo much in this, that he makes nothing of all other work that the Scriptures clearly teach; allow him but ſuſpenſion, which he hath unneceſſarily ingaged himſelf to prove, and he will give you an acquittance, or a releaſe from Excommunication; keep but from the Sacrament, you need not fear any examination, adomonition, or excommunication; if you can but diſpenſe with your conſcience careleſſely to neglect this Ordinance, you may freely enjoy all the reſt as well as a Heathen, or an Excommunicate perſon. Nay, it may be, if you will but keep from the Sacrament, he will allow you the title of Brethren, as well as an Excommunicate perſon: but if you will not be ſatisfied unleſſe you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Chriſt for remiſſion of ſins, then you muſt look to be called Hogs, and Dogs, unbelievers, murderers of Chriſt, the profane world, that are without hope and God in the world. This argument of his doth better become a Browniſt, then one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church; but the poor Church may ſay; theſe ſlanders, diviſions, Separations, and confuſions, are the wounds that ſhe hath received by the hands of ſuch friends. All that he ſaith in proof of his Minor hath been ſufficiently anſwered already, both by my learned friend Mr. Humfrey, and my ſelf; I intend brevity, for there is nothing left in his following arguments much conſiderable. His ſeventh Argument,

Either it's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to ſuch as they finde ignorant, ſcandalous and impenitent, or they are bound to give into ſuch. But they are not bound to give it to ſuch,—Ergo.

His proof of the Minor is, The Officers are not bound to adminiſter the Ordinance to thoſe who they know are not bound to receive it, but the ignorant and ſcandalous are viſibly ſuch as are not bound to receive it.—Ergo.

His main proof of this Minor is this, If ſuch be bound to receive, then they are bound to make themſelves guilty of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and to eat and drink their own damnation, which are ſtrange things for a man to be bound in conſcience unto.

This argument is wholly founded upon that groſſe miſtake of perſonal unworthineſſe, which I have ſo clearly confuted at large in it's place, where I ſhall refer the Reader for full ſatisfaction. His eight Argument,

If none may be ſuſpended but thoſe who are excommunicated, then none muſt be kept away but thoſe that are contumacious.

But ſome may be kept away who are not contumacious.—Ergo. The major is plain, Mat. 18.

The minor only needs proof (ſaith he) 1. Surely thoſe that are under admonition are to be kept away.

2. Suppoſe one ſhould come to the Miniſter the morning he were to receive, and blaſpheme Chriſt; and tell him he came for nothing, but to abuſe the Church; or ſuppoſe a Miniſter ſhould know one of his people had committed murder, theft, inceſt, whoredome the night before, &c. ſhall ſuch be admitted, they not being excommunicate? if not, then there is ſuſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication, pag. 98.

The Major admits of ſome queſtion, for Matth. 18.15. ſpeaks not very clearly unto all caſes; that inſtance is of particular treſpaſſes between private brethren, which are things of a leſſer nature, yet theſe perſiſted in unto contumacy after the Churches admonition makes one lyable unto Excommunication; but I queſtion whether all publike notorious open ſcandalous ſinners in the Church, be thus to be proceeded againſt, eſpecially when their ſcandalous ſinning is of long continuance, and doth offend the Congregation: the whole Congregation in ſuch a caſe is to be ſatisfied, which cannot be by a private repentance (ſhould it be ſuppoſed) upon the admonitionof the Church. I think the inceſtuous Corinth was not dealt withall according to that rule, Matth. 18.15. Publike ſins ſhould have publike ſhame, that others may fear, and the offender be brought to a ſerious and notorious repentance, before the Church declare themſelves ſatisfied, and receive them into holy Communion; ſo that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in ſome caſes, as ſuch as Mr. Collins doth inſtance in, is not alwayes neceſſary, nor to wait untill the offender appears to be obſtinate, but ipſo facto to be forthwith cenſured. But theſe caſes are not to be left to the diſcretion of every particular Paſtor to judge of, but to the diſcretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church. Beſides, I queſtion whether one that hath been often reproved in the publike Miniſtery, and yet lives in ſcandalous ſins of whoredome, drunkenneſſe, curſing and ſwearing, variance and contention, &c. is not to be judged contumacious, and upon that account, the Church being in a capacity, and informed, ſhould upon ſufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him. I leave theſe things to better Judgements, but yet I am inclinable to conceive, that Matth. 18. moſt properly reſpects private treſpaſſes which are not openly known, and how that rule ſhould hold to be applyed in the ſame manner to open ſcandals, that cauſe the name of God, and the true profeſſion of Religion to be blaſphemed and reproached, I am not very clear.

But now we ſhall examine his Minor, But ſome may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious.

So may ſome be Excommunicate that are not contumacious, as I have hinted at, which if that be true, then the argument fals to nothing of it ſelf.

But he ſaith ſurely, Thoſe that are under admonition are to be kept away.

This he begs; how will he prove it? For where the offence will admit of hearing the Churches admonition, and upon that give hope or ſatisfaction of amendment, why ſhould they be kept from the Sacrament more then the other Ordinances? they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion, is it rational for to execute, before ſentence be given?

Unto his ſuppoſitions, I ſhall anſwer him, firſt they are no proof.

If ſuch may be Juridically ſuſpended, then they may be Juridically excommunicated, for it is Juridical Suſpenſion that is now in queſtion. And as it is ſtated the Church may as well doe the one as the other: And the Church need not be long in giving ſentence in ſuch caſes, if there be clear proof; beſides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a ſhort time, then that any ſhould juſtly be offended, or that a ſingle Miniſter ſhould doe that which is not regular.

Murder, theſt, inceſt, whoredome is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation, and if any can diſcover any ſuch, they ſhould attach and put them into the cuſtody of the Civil Officers; theſe are gaol ſins, and to be puniſhed by the Judges. And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to cenſure thoſe that are under the penalty of the courſe of civil Courts of Juſtice.

If one ſhould grant that in an extraordinary caſe, ſome extraordinary courſe at the preſent might be taken; as ſuppoſe ſome profane abuſe at the Sacrament, as to diſturb the adminiſtration by ſome diſorder, I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thruſt them out of the Church, & do the like to any that ſhould come drunk or mad; but what is this to Juridical Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication, as it's uſually practiſed in ſome Churches? Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been ſo haſty in aſperſing Mr. Boteman, pag. 98. unleſſe he could in ſome ordinary caſe prove Juridical Suſpenſion from the Sacrament diſtinct from Excommunication, the which he hath not yet done, and it's a great queſtion whether he ever will or can.

It's true, that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to ſome, to the diſcretion of particular Miniſters, as he alleadges; but then let me tell you, this doth not reach the argument.

For 1. this was only in caſe of obſtinacy, being dealt with all by the Miniſter, who was by the Canons and Rubrick of the Church authoriſed thus to doe.

2. Such acts of diſcipline were ſubject to the Churches judgement and cenſure afterwards; the perſons conceiving themſelves wronged might complain, and thoſe Miniſters were lyable to be cenſured for going beyond the rule, as ſome have been ſuſpended from officiating themſelves, for putting perſons by, upon ſlender proof, even ſuch as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent.

3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a neceſſary duty incumbent upon all of years, and upon that ground both earneſtly exhorted all to come, and puniſhed thoſe that careleſly neglected it.

4. The Churches Juriſdiction conſiſted of Excommunication only in caſe of obſtinacy, but in caſe of penitency, admonition, and publike penance, the offenders confeſſion of his ſins (humbly in the body of the Church) craving the forgiveneſſe of their ſin in particular, both of God and the Church, did free from Excommunication: The obſtinate was denyed all the Ordinances, except to hear the Sermon at the Church doores, or behinde the Font, the penitent not denyed any one Ordinance: lay theſe things together, and then let wiſe men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suſpenſion which Mr. Collins contends for; namely, that a Miniſter by vertue of his Office, with his Elders may, and ought upon Scripture ground to deny ſome the Sicrament (not obſtinate) and allow them the priviledge of all other Church Communion as Members. And this he would have Juridical, although the Church be in no capacity to impower them with any acts of diſcipline at all, nor have the help of appeals to reſtrain the raſh proceedings of inconſiderate uncharitable zealous Miniſters, whoſe principles tend too much to diviſion, Separation, and confuſion in the Church, who would be more careful to further the edification, peace, and unity of the Church, were themſelves under the rod of holy diſcipline Juridically exerciſed by grave, learned, experienced preſidents, which particular Presbyters in reaſon will not be very zealous for, ſo long as themſelves are left to themſelves to exerciſe an abſolute power, to rule as they pleaſe in their own Congregation without controll. I wiſh theſe petty irregular reformings prove not the greateſt remora's that hinder the reformation, peace, and edification of the whole, eſpecially where particular Paſtors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion.

1. That makes a meer nothing of Church-memberſhip without grace.

2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens.

3. That will not ſo much as allow them the external titles of Brethren, Saints, Believers, within, but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs, unbelievers, and of the Devil, &c. though they he ſuch as never had the benefit and help of holy diſcipline to amend them, or try whether they ſin out of weakneſſe or wilfulneſſe.

4. That will take upon him in his own name to diſſolve them from Chriſts commands, and threaten them not to doe it upon pain of damnation.

5. That will make the Sacrament ſtrong meat, that cannot be digeſted by weak doubting Chriſtians.

6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure, if not in the Sacrament.

7. That will allow no more priviledge in duties of worſhip to the ignorant and ſcandalous, then to Heathens out of the Church.

8. That doth inſolently affirm that a ſingle Paſtor alone, may lawfully ſuſpend from the Sacrament, he being the ruling part of that particular Church.

9. That upon the matter puts the whole of diſcipline in Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper, either making it the ſame with Excommunication, or elſe renders Excommunication needleſſe in the Church. Are men thus leavened with Browniſm, fit to be rulers in the Church of God? Or like to preſerve the peace, unity, edification, and ſeek reformation of the whole, according to the general rules and ends preſcribed in the Scriptures? I appeal to the ſtanding rule of Sciptures to judge, whether ſuch as himſelf, or the friends of my judgement and opinions, as to the weal of the Church, (it being judged true by both) be conſonant unto it, and whether he or we be guilty of the moſt folly and filth, and defend ſuch things as is a ſhame to be named amongſt Chriſtians, as himſelf expreſſes againſt our opinion in oppoſing his, pag. 98.

I come to his ninth argument; the ſum is,

If ſcandalous perſons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Paſſeover, then ſuch may be ſuſpended from the Lords Supper: but the firſt is true, therefore the latter.

I grant the conſequence is good, but let him prove the antecedent, that ſcandalous ſinners not cut off, nor unclean were debarred ſome Ordinances, and the Paſſeover; I dare give him ſeven years time to prove that by Scriptures, either by direct text or ſound conſequence, that cannot rationally be denyed: all that hath been ſaid to that thing is, to give us a gloſſe of moral uncleanneſſe, and thence argue, that if the legal unclean might not eat the Paſſeover, much leſſe the moral unclean, if the legal unclean defiled holy things, much more moral uncleanneſſe, the conſequence is naught. Becauſe

1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation, and holy in a Covenant ſenſe, and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any ſuch account.

2. Becauſe it was either puniſhed by their Judicials, or taken away by a continual courſe of Sacrifices; and therefore could not reſt upon them, much leſſe bar them from the Sacrament of the Paſſeover.

3. Becauſe nothing could excuſe from the not obſerving of that ſervice in its appointed ſeaſon, but legal uncleanneſſe, and a neceſſary journey, upon their lives; if nothing elſe would excuſe, then all others were to keep it.

4. It's clear that ſome did keep the Paſſeover that were guilty of that which you will ſay was moral uncleanneſſe. Ezra 9.1. after they had kept the Paſſeover, complaint was brought unto Ezra, ſaying, The people of Iſrael, Prieſts and Levites have not ſeparated themſelves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, of the Canaanites, &c. for they have taken of the daughters for themſelves, and for their ſons, and the Princes have been chief in this treſpaſſe.

5. I ſay further that in ſome caſes the people of Iſrael were accepted of, in their keeping the Paſſeover, although many of them did eat the Paſſeover otherwiſe then was written, for ſome that were unclean did eat thereof, 2 Chron. 30.18, 19, 20.

6. It was the will of God that declared that ſuch things upon a man ſhould be unclean, and all things he touched ſhould be ſo by his inſtitution only; but there is no ſuch thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleanneſſe in the Church, as to debar them the Paſſeover or any other Ordinance all his, and other mens quotations have been ſufficiently examined as to this, and fully anſwered, unleſſe it be one of Mr. Collins, Deut. 23.18. Thou ſhall not bring the price of a whore, or the price of a Dogge into the Houſe of the Lord for any vow, for theſe are abomination to the Lord, if not the price, then not the Whore or Dogge.

He argues from the leſſer to the greater.

Anſw. Doth it follow, that becauſe they might not offer any of thoſe two for any vow, that therefore they might not bring their Lambe in its ſeaſon to the Houſe of the Lord, and offer it before him according to Gods command? It was an abomination to doe thoſe things that God forbad; therefore it is abomination to doe that which God commands; that's all the text will prove, as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Paſſeover. Away with ſuch trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures. The truth is, men of his judgement muſt do more then they have yet done; I had almoſt ſaid more then they can doe, or elſe had better never to have ſaid any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Paſſeover: all that man can ſay againſt us from that, doth but diſcover their own weakneſſe in fighting againſt the Truth.

His tenth Argument, It's a ſin in a Miniſter to declare thoſe one viſible Body, who are not one body with viſible Saints; but ſcandalous ſinners are not one body with viſible Saints. And be that gives the Lords Supper, declares thoſe to whom he gives it unto, to be one viſible Body.—Ergo.

1. Is it a ſin to ſay the viſible Church is the viſible body of Chriſt, and this viſible body conſiſts of good and bad, Wheat and Tares, &c. Is it a ſin to declare this?

2. Are not all that are baptized into one Body, of that Body, and are not the ſcandalous in the Church baptized, and is it a ſin for one to declare that the baptized are one viſible body with viſible Saints? What is a viſible Saint, but a baptized viſible profeſſing Chriſtian, that is a member of the true viſible Church? Is not an offending brother a brother, and within while he is within? If the Sacrament of baptiſm doe initiate into that one body, and the Sacrament of the Supper beſpeaks them ſo too that are baptized: Is it a ſin for a Miniſter to give the Sacrament to ſuch, by declaring that which is true, and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true viſible Church? Who can you ſay is not a real member of Chriſt in particular? And one that he dyed not for? The Apoſtle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth, that they were one body. What if Gilleſpy will not be perſwaded the Apoſtle would ſay it of all, we finde it ſo written, and I think it ſafe to be perſwaded of the truth of what is written: the authority of Scripture ſhall perſwade with me before the authority of men.

His eleventh Argument,

The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Chriſts Diſciples, but ſcandalous ſinners are none of his diſciples—Ergo.

The Major is true, but the Minor is to be diſtinguiſhed into ſcandalous ſinners out of the Church, and ſuch like ſinners in the Church; to the former it's granted, but to the latter it's denyed, What are Church-members but Diſciples? What are all that profeſſe the true Chriſtian Religion, and only call upon the name of the Lord Jeſus in hope of eternal life by him, but Diſciples? if they be not Diſciples and within, then they are Heathens and without, whom the Church have nothing to doe to judge in order to their amendment; and if they be without, and ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſes, why doe you baptize their children or preſſe them to any duties of Goſpel worſhip, as incumbent upon them as Chriſtians? If they be Chriſtians, and within, why ſhould they not have their proper titles, and priviledges of that eſtate? If you can make them neither within the Church, nor without, then it's poſſible you may doe ſomething in this argument; and when you have done that, I doubt not but you will be anſwered.

His 12.13. arguments, I have anſwered in my anſwer to what he hath excepted againſt The Bar removed; His fourteenth Argument.

It is unlawful to partake of other mens ſins, Epheſ. 5.7. But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant ſcandalous perſon partakes with him in his ſin.—Ergo.

I grant his Major, but deny his Minor, becauſe giving and receiving the Sacrament is a moſt neceſſary duty of worſhip, which both Miniſter and people ſtand mutually ingaged to obſerve and perform as any other duty of worſhip in the Church, and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy inſtitution, there is no ſin, as to the matter it ſelf; and as for the manner, as in every thing we fail all, ſo in this, and if this were ſufficient to forbear the Sacrament, then we muſt give over all worſhip. In all duties better to doe as well as we can, then not at all; ſo that it follows, that thoſe that deny the Sacrament to thoſe that are bound to receive it are partakers of their ſin, in not allowing them to doe their duty; for ignorance and other offendings, doe not excuſe from precepts of inſtitute Worſhip, and the holy Supper, more then all other Goſpel Worſhip, while perſons are within. Shall mans impotency and iniquity pull down Gods authority? If in all other duties of Goſpel Worſhip ſuch had better obey as wel as they can, then neglect Gods worſhip altogether, it's but a begging the queſtion to deny it, in the obſervance of the Sacrament.

It's true, a Miniſter may be guilty of his peoples ignorance, and may fear and tremble at that guilt, if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion, that may in ſome meaſure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church: But having done his duty, he need not fear to give them the Sacrament, but tremble at the neglect of that adminiſtration, and diſcouraging weak and ignorant Chriſtians from it.

True it is alſo, that a Miniſter and the Church may make themſelves acceſſory to the ſins of offending brethren in the Church, by their careleſſe indulging of them in their evill wayes, by not reproving, admoniſhing, cenſuring, &c. by which ſinners ſhould be reformed from their evils; otherwayes the Miniſter and Church may partake of thoſe ſins, though they never come to the Sacrament; but this is a conceit of ſome men, that unleſſe a man doe what he can to keep ſuch away from the Sacrament, he is a partaker of their ſins, whereas the Sacrament is his duty as well as any other Worſhip, who is not to be blamed for that, but for his ſins, ſuch works of darkneſſe that the Apoſtle doth inſtance in, Epheſ. 5.2, 3, 4. the place that this argument ſtands upon. We are not to reform ſuch offenders in thoſe lawful things, they are but to reform them from the wicked and ungodly courſes that they offend in.

I grant that if any in the Church ſhould pollute the holy ſigns of Bread and Wine to profane ends, in a meer carnal eating and drinking unto exceſſe, as the Corinthians did, and were puniſhed for, or if by any rude profane carriage or miſdemeanour, ſhall be diſorderly in the time of adminiſtration, the Officers of the Church not doing what in them lyes to reſtrain and prevent it, might be partakers of their ſins: but this is a caſe which was hardly ever known in our Congregations. But as for Church-members that come with reverence, and demean themſelves orderly, and conform to the external actions, according to the rules of inſtitution, there can nothing be proved againſt any for being partakers with other mens ſins, as to this particular, ſo far as I am able to judge.

I have now given you an account of Mr. Collins 14. arguments, to prove Suſpenſion from the Sacrament, only diſtinct from Excommunication. And if I miſtake not very much, I have ſully anſwered them by removing all his foundations from Scripture and reaſon he pretends to deduct them from. What others can doe I doe not know, I will prejudge none of his perſwaſion; but yet I am ſomewhat confident, that the more wiſe men ſearch into this Controverſie, the more they will finde it a work of that difficulty to make good Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper only from Scriptures, and allow the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members, that they had need follow no other ſtudies but this that undertake it.

Touching that authority brought in proof of Suſpenſion, ſo largely inſiſted upon, I cannot examine. And therefore muſt leave it to thoſe that are in a capacity to ſearch and judge; whether Mr. Collins hath dealt any more impartially with his Authors then with the holy Scriptures.

I queſtion, whether any of his quotations, Ancient, or Modern, doth reach Suſpenſion, as, himſelf hath ſtated it, and as many practiſe it: for it was alwayes to be put in execution by the authority of the whole Church, and not left to the liberty of a Paſtor and his Elders to deny the Sacrament to whom they pleaſe, without any remedy of appeals.

Whether they ſuſpended from the Sacrament of the holy Supper only, and allowed the ſuſpended the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as Church-members.

Whether their Suſpenſion was gradual and made uſe of only in order to their proceedings unto Excommunication, and ſo of no longer continuance then to try the offenders obſtinacy, or repentance.

Whether they grounded Suſpenſion on the Word of God, or on the policy and prudence of the Church: if he ſay the former, he may doe well to ſhew us their grounds; if the latter, then that doth much alter the caſe: for Mr. Collins doth not urge it upon any ſuch account, nor may the Churches prudence be pleaded, where Chriſt commands, and the Word doth determine.

Whether non-admittance of Penitents, Aliens born, Catechumens, unbaptized, were any thing at all unto ſuſpenſion from the Lords Supper.

I queſtion whether any one inſtance can be given of any Church or perſons that were judged Orthodox, that ever maintained that a Church-member in poſſeſſion of the Sacrament, was denyed the Sacrament by his Miniſter and Elders, meerly for ignorance and for the omitting of ſome private duties; and allowed the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church as members, which is the practice of the Presbyterian party that Mr. Collins defends, or that ever any ſcandalous members were only kept from the Sacrament, without any further Juridical proceedings unto Excommunication; or whether any Church ever would ſuffer their members of years to neglect the Ordinance of the holy Supper year after year through careleſneſſe, or meerly leave them out as Heathens, though born in the Church and baptized. Now I ſay, if that authority which is quoted by Mr. Collins will not reach theſe caſes, they are but little for his purpoſe, they will not ſpeak to the clearing of the Controverſie in hand. Beſides humane authority only will not ſatisfie the conſcience of the doubtful; it is only the authority of the holy Scriptures that muſt ſatisfie conſcience, and be binding unto all. And as it is apparent the ancient Church did erre in their extremity of rigour in their cenſures in reſpect of length of time, ſo it's poſſible enough they might erre in their ſeveral degrees of cenſures. Not ſo much their practice as the ground thereof from Scripture rule will give ſatisfaction to thoſe that doubt.

Beſides theſe, let Mr. Collins give us authority of any Church before theſe laſt ages, that ever made a Paſtoral examination of Church-members of years, of that neceſſity unto the holy Supper, without which they would debar them the Sacrament. By theſe and the like queries, I hope we ſhall hear by ſome of the Presbyterian judgement, or others, by what authority they practiſe ſo many things, not to be found in the holy Scriptures.

But I finde Mr. Collins in his Booke pag. (157.) making ſome Apology for themſelves. He confeſſes their preſent practiſe doth differ from other reformed ſetled Churches: as to the ſuſpenſion of any they admit, they agree with others, and wil ſuſpend none but after admonition for ſome ſcandalous ſin. And indeed ſaith he this only is properly Suſpenſion. We deny the Sacrament indeed to others, viz. ſuch as will not give account of their faith and ſubmit to the order of the Church, &c.

What did Mr. Collins mean in his ſtating the queſtion to put in ignorant perſons, if none are to be ſuſpended, but after admonition for ſome ſcandalous ſin? if this indeed be properly ſuſpenſion, what will he make denying the Sacrament to the ignorant not reſuſing to learn? and denying it thoſe that are not convinced of ſubmitting to Church examination, and an explicite profeſſion of faith as their duty? What will he call that? If it be not ſuſpenſion properly, what is it then? the puniſhment is the ſame with thoſe that are excommunicate for ſcandalous ſins, or ſuſpended properly: all they doe, amounts but to this, to deny them the Sacrament. And yet they would be judged to agree with other reformed Churches, but it was never heard of before theſe preſent times, that a Heathen, an excommunicate perſon, the ſuſpended, or left out, had al equal priviledge to all other Ordinances but Sacraments.

They agree with other reformed Churches as to ſuſpenſion properly; as the Browniſts and Anabaptiſts doe, all agree in this to ſuſpend ſcandalous members that will not be reſormed by admonition: but what's this to the caſe in controverſie, unleſſe they judge, that not any are members untill they be admitted upon profeſſion of faith, &c. as others of the ſeparations judge: if ſo, what is the Church priviledge of one born a Chriſtian and baptized, and of years of diſcretion to the holy Supper, more then a Pagan, who upon his profeſſion of faith, hath right to Sacraments? What doth admiſſion upon profeſſion of faith imply, but that all in the Church not ſo admitted, are Heathens and without, making the Lords Supper the initiating Ordinance into Church Communion, and ſubjection to cenſures?

If of thoſe that are admitted none may be ſuſpended but after admonition for ſome ſcandalous ſin, and this only is properly ſuſpenſion; Then let me demand of Mr. Col. what he will make the cauſe of excommunication. If he ſay that ſcandalous ſinning is the cauſe of both, then one of thoſe cenſures are ſuperfluous; if he ſay, we muſt diſtinguiſh of ſcandalous ſining in regard of degrees ſome deſerving the leſſer cenſure, the other the greater Excommunication. Let him make that good from the Scriptures; which concerns him to doe before he can prove ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament diſtinct from Excommunication: in the mean time what he affirms of proper Suſpenſion, is all one with Excommunication, and upon the ſame ground, the Church may as well proceed unto Excommunication as Suſpenſion: ſo that this very conceſſion of his, doth (upon the matter) undermine his chiefeſt ſtrength, and render all he hath ſaid in proof of Suſpenſion as diſtinct from Excommunication, frivolous.

But in the next place his pleading, That they muſt be lookt upon as now reforming a diſordered Church: had former Miniſters done their duties they might have ſaved us this labour of putting our people upon making a profeſſion of faith in order to admittance to the Lords Supper. 1. Me thinks the ſad effects of our late reformings might have put a ſtop to Mr. Col. thus late pleadings; the iſſue being little elſe but either neglect of Gods Ordinance, or running Paſtors and people into a deluge of diviſion, and confuſion. 2. It's granted by all, that our Church in reſpect of ſome evil circumſtances in doctrine, worſhip, and diſcipline, had need of a holy, yet a wary and a wholeſome reformation, that might beſt ſtand with the health, peace, union, & edification of the whole. 3. That the moſt godly and knowing part of the Nation, have had the advantage of power and opportunity to reform what ever was amiſs, I think cannot be denyed. But whether they have ſincerely endeavoured it, in that way that might beſt ſtand with the health, peace, union, and edification of the whole, doth admit of queſtioning. 4. 'Tis certain our late reformers found an eſtabliſhment of the main ſubſtantials of Doctrine, Worſhip, and diſcipline in the Church. And do they think to advance reformain the removal of the foundations of the Churches well being? 5. Reformation ſtands in the reducing all Chriſtians to a univerſal obſervance of al the known Laws & Ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt uniformly; and not in ſetting up of humane inventions, that the Church muſt bow unto, in order to holy worſhip: and hence Mr. Col. muſt firſt make good, that it is the duty of all in the Church to make a publick profeſſion of faith, or ſubmit to the examination of his Elderſhip, in order to the holy Supper, before he tels others what they require now, & ſuſpend for, is to be excuſed, by their being upon reformation now: A ſtrange reformation that's begun in making void the commands of Jeſus Chriſt, & carryed on with prejudices and diviſion, and if perſiſted in, may end in confuſion. Was it ever known before now that Reformation began in admitting to the Paſſeover or Lords Supper? it's an abſurd reforming that wil allow thoſe to be Churchmembers, and yet deny them to do the duty of a Member and Chriſtian. It was more rational and agreeing with Scripture rule, to correct that general careleſſe neglect in Miniſters and people in order to reforming, then to deviſe a novel way in a ſetled reformed Church to hinder the moſt of Church-memb. from doing their duty. The care & zeal of our firſt reformers, was both to exhort and to preſſe all of years to actual receiving, not thinking it ſufficient to be preſent gazing on, or careleſſe in not preparing; and likewiſe corrected thoſe that neglected this holy obſervance: how unlike are theſe mens ſpirits to our firſt reformers? It's true, many Miniſters then were too careleſſe of their duties in catechiſing and inſtructing the younger ſort, and ſo it will be ſtill; but what then? Doth that diſoblige Chriſtians from that neceſſary part of inſtitute Worſhip? Miniſters neglect their duties to their people, therefore the people muſt not doe their duty to their Lord; but muſt be left out and levelled with the Pagan world! Had our Church been aboliſhed, when they aboliſhed Epiſcopacy, then in order unto conſtituting and gathering a new Church, a verbal profeſſion of ſaith in order unto lawful baptiſm, had been proper; but to plead it unto reforming but of the ſame Church already imbodyed and planted together by baptiſm, is to be wiſe beyond what is written. If Mr. Collins plea be good for the Presbyterian perſwaſion, it holds as good to the Independent practice, for they admit into Communion upon the ſame principle, But he would not have this lookt upon as a standing principle.

Anſw. (Why,) becauſe it wants a ſtanding rule, that's his reaſon I judge.

But then he tels us, Our former Miniſters would admit any one for his two pence.

This is ſomewhat an ignorant ſlander, as if it was left to the liberty of a private Miniſter to admit and refuſe at his pleaſure, when he might know both the Miniſter and people were under the precept and penalty of the Church. But what means all this pleading to excuſe their rigid practices, but that either they queſtion their warrant, or would have us think the caſe is extraordinary, and ſo will warrant their irregular improper proceedings in order to admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper; an argument indeed of late, that doth ſet the whole land at a ſtand to anſwer, but not ſo much for ſtrength of reaſon that is in it, but for a power out of it, that will make any thing hold that's ſaid.

158. pag. Mr. Collins pleads further, and tels his Reader, That there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongſt us, who by our former way of adminiſtration of the holy Supper had made our Churches a reproach to Papiſts, and a grief to all Proteſtants, and opened a way for Browniſts and Anabaptiſts to fill their Congregation with our ſtricteſt Profeſſors, &c.

The ſubſtance of this is much to be doubted of, unleſſe our common people were more ignorant then the common people in Rome or Italy, who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, and I think the moſt of Orthodox Proteſtants were more grieved about the geſture determined by the Church, and thoſe ſuperſtitious rails, and turning the Table Altarwiſe, and the inſufficient adminiſtrators; then at our free admiſſion of Church-members.

Suppoſe all he ſaith were true, is there no way to reform, but to remove the foundations of the Churches eſtabliſhed doctrine, worſhip, and diſcipline, and innovate wayes of our own politick chooſing, different to all other ſetled reformed Churches (as himſelf confeſſes) Say our malady in a great part was ignorance, could not they begun reformation with a more then ordinary diligence in teaching and inſtruction, and friendly admonition, in the carrying on all Gods ordinances in love, reverence, and unity, taking all advantages to promote knowledg, in wch in time we might have hoped to ſee ſome good proficiency, in the growing up of the whole together by the goodneſſe and bleſſing of the Lord. For it's certain, that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the cenſuring of Church-members for ignorance ſimply, and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of Gods Ordinances, for cauſes leſſe then the Scriptures do warrant, is no reformation, but rather an uſurpation upon the priviledge and right of a Church-member. Say again, that looſe and ſcandalous members was another part of our malady, is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of ſuch ſinners, the only way to reform them? What care ſuch for the Sacrament, ſo long as it's the ordinary caſe of moſt, and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members? How is this like to reform their perſons, when they may be let alone to be looſe and profane, if they doe but keep away from the Sacraments? Such a kinde of reforming that was never read of in holy writ, nor in any Orthodox Authors. Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents, (we judging all in the Church adhering to the Proteſtant Religion Church-members) to have preſt them unto all Chriſtian obſervance, and to have dealt with them as thoſe that are within? and to have proceeded againſt ſome unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically? Gods way is alwayes beſt, and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a bleſſing of ſucceſſe in the amendment of the worſt ſinners amongſt us.

It's a pitiful ſhift to prevent our ſtricteſt profeſſors from running into the Browniſts Congregations, to practiſe their principles, and ſo become like them in making admiſſion to the Lords Supper upon a publike profeſſion of faith, the only ground to unite and imbody the viſible Church into Eccleſiaſtical Communion, and ſo in gratifying ſome few in their error, require ſuch terms unto actual receiving of neceſſity, that the baptized in the Church of years are no where bound to ſubmit unto, nor in a capacity to come unto: And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving, unleſſe in plain tearms you will unchurch them, and ſo unduty them, and ſpeak out as the Browniſts do.

But I think enough hath been ſaid already as to this, and therefore I ſhall now take my leave of my Reader, having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it oppoſes free admiſſion to the Lords Supper. And I hope Mr. Collins may ſeriouſly conceive himſelf ſoberly and rationally anſwered, as to Juridical Suſpenſion diſtinct from Excommunication, as himſelf hath ſtated it. He hath taken ſome pains to prove it in the power of a ſingle Miniſter to ſuſpend from the Supper, but I think it needleſſe to examine him, or anſwer him in that; for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper which he cals Juridical; he might firſt have tryed how he could have come off with this, before he had ſhewed himſelf ſo forward to goe about to prove that which is ſo denyed by all that are Orthodox and ſober. And I know were there any thing in what he hath ſaid of private Suſpenſion conſiderable, and worthy of a conſutation; that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes, whom he attempts to anſwer, would call him to an acount of his forwardneſſe of Spirit, to Lord it over Gods heritage, and to be a Pope in his own Congregation.

FINIS.

A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders, Miniſter of Holleſworth in Devonſhire.

Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church, and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SƲPPER Is Examined, and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL.

LONDON, Printed by E. Cotes, for William Tomſon at Harborough in Leiceſterſhire, 1655.

ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE.

IN the midſt of theſe unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God, I know not how ſuch a worm as I ſhould improve a few hours better, after redious l bor in my honeſt calling, then by remembring the happy and ever to be deſired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion. As it is my daily prayer, ſo it is a part of my dayly care and ſtudy to endeavour that the Churches peace and truth may meet in one. And hence it is that I ſo often appear againſt thoſe who upon dangerous miſtakes deſtroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations, on which the Churches peace and reformation ſhould ſtand, and conſiſt in. How ſad are our miſeries like to be in the end, when thoſe that are our profeſſed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of wayes of Separation and Schiſm? Amongſt others this unhappy Author doth bear his ſhare, by defending ſuch a way that is rarely met withall, and yet cryed up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Goſpel rule. The way he defends in brief is this, ſome certain Miniſters and Chriſtians have agreed to form up a Church in the choyce of a Paſtor, Officers and members in ſome one place: The tearms agreed on unto admiſſion to and excluſion from the ſacred Communion of this Church, as to the holy Supper, is either a publick profeſſion of faith, or ſubmitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto ſatisfaction, &c. and ſo likewiſe, as to practiſe, they require not only a freedome from things ſcandalous, but ſome real demonſtrations of the faith of holineſſe unto admittance.

This way it appears hath been rigorouſly carryed on againſt the conſent of ſome able Miniſters in thoſe parts. And ſomething is excepted againſt their way by a ſolid reverend Gentleman I judge; with ſeveral demands, and queries, and objections for them to anſwer and clear in defence of their way and practiſe. Mr. Saunders in behalf of the reſt hath taken ſome pains to give ſatisfaction unto others, profeſſing himſelf ready to ſtand or fall, as the truth is with him or againſt him in their practiſe: It's an ingenuous reſolution I confeſſe; and if he will but ſtand to it, I doubt not of the iſſue, but that it will be worth our labour to diſpute it with him according to Scripture and Reaſon, the only Judge of Truth. Beſides, I am the rather inclined to enter the liſts with him in this Controverſie, becauſe he proteſts againſt a rigid ſeparation from a true Church, and declares himſelf only for a moderate and lawful ſeparation in the Church; not as yet diſowning our Churches I take it.

Unto this I anſwer,

That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church, is either made by Orthodox Doctrine;

Or 2. by wholeſome Diſcipline Juridically exerciſed;

Or 3. we may and ought to withdraw all unneceſſary friendly and intimate familiarity from ſcandalous brethren, where the neceſſary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to our ſelves. And then the queſtion will be, whether the practice defended in reſpect of ſeparation be no more but ſo: if it be but Doctrinal, or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication, or declining all unneceſſary familiarity with the ſcandalous though tolerated: all will be yeelded on his ſide. But if it be found otherwiſe, I ſhall deny it as dangerous, and warn all Chriſtians to avoid it, leſt they be infected with Schiſm, a curſed fruit of the fleſh; and drawn into ſuch needleſſe ſeparations as can never be warranted. It's one thing to ſeparate from the ſinful courſes of ſcandalous brethren, and another thing to ſeparate from the neceſſary duties of Gods Worſhip, and of our calling, where ſuch are tolerated. It's one thing to exclude the ſcandalous Juridically, another thing to exclude the ignorant who deſire to be learners of wholeſome Doctrine; or thoſe that are not ſatisfied to yeeld unto their tearms, as preſented under the neceſſity of duty, when upon ſearch their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of ſtrong fancies, and not to be owned upon any ſuch account as is pretended. Yet I ſhall adviſe to a condeſcenſion to the ſame terms upon a prudential account, for the help and incouragement of all in ſaith and knowledge: provided it be uſed to no ſuch end as to exclude Church-members from that neceſſary duty of inſtitute worſhip, Doe this in remembrance of me. Chriſtians ought not to betray their own and their brethrens liberties to thoſe that have the boldneſſe in theſe exorbitant times to invade them, and bring all into diviſion and confuſion. Why ſhould not all that are within, and of the Church, enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment, untill the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending, and iſſued out judgement againſt them? I think I have writ more to this then will be anſwered in haſt. Mr. Saunders would be judged a ſober moderate man that ſtill owns our Church, Miniſtry and members for true. But yet we finde him ſo inconſiſtent to himſelf, that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations, that he will not allow them to be Churches, but in an equivocating ſenſe; that is to ſay, in no ſenſe as a •• riſh in it's Precincts; but as a ſeparate Church may be in a Pariſh, as in the world. We doe not ſay, ſaith he, that our Aſſemblies are Churches as Pariſhes, but that they are Churches in Pariſhes; and in that ſenſe Pariſh Churches, pag. 127. and yet he is ſharp againſt rigid ſeparation, and pretends but to Surgery, not to Butchery: but if unchurching of our Parochial Aſſemblies be not a rigid Butchery, let him tell us what is more rigid. They of the Independent judgement doe generally acknowledge our Aſſemblies to be the Churches of Chriſt, though out of order. The Anabaptiſts will confeſſe, a Church may be in a Pariſh, as well as in a City, Country, and World, and in this ſenſe they may ſay there are Churches in Pariſhes, and ſo Pariſh Churches. How is our Church beholden to ſuch pretenders that will ſpeak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches, as they ſtate them, as our adverſaries will grant? And yet he hath the happineſſe to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation, if love to his perſon and cauſe deceive him not: Mr. Manton in his approbational Epiſtle to this Book.

I confeſſe, if thoſe we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account, then all muſt needs goe againſt us; for it is certain that Heathens, the unbaptized, or ſuch as have renounced the Chriſtian Religion may not eat thereof; our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptized and not excommunicated, as knowing not any rule againſt the admitting of ſuch to the Lords Supper, produced yet by any. And yet Mr. Manton ſaith peremptorily, amongſt all others, none have deſerved worſe of the Church of God, then thoſe that plead for a looſe way (as he cals it) of receiving all ſorts of perſons to holy things: and by promiſcuous adminiſtrations proſtitute the Ordinance of God to every comer. I confeſſe this paſſage from ſo reverend a Miniſter as he is reputed to be, did enter my very heart at firſt, and plunged my ſoul into a greater perplex of paſſion then is ordinary. Yet not out of any apprehenſion of guilt, (though I have alwayes cauſe to flee unto Gods mercy for acceptance) but that ſo good a man, and an eminent Miniſter of the Goſpel ſhould be ſo inconſiderately raſh in his cenſure of the Churches friends.

But to anſwer directly;

1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all ſorts of Chriſtians unto Gods Ordinances of Word, Prayer, ſinging of Pſalms, the adminiſtration of holy baptiſm? Are not theſe holy things? And is it looſeneſſe in himſelf to admit all ſorts of perſons in the Church to partake of theſe? I hope not, and why then not in the other, it being a neceſſary duty to all in the Church, of years, (as the Ordinances before named:) he might doe well to give ſome better reaſon then others doe. When he can charge us juſtly with pleading the admiſſion of the unbaptized, Heathens, the Excommunicate; then let him charge us with that odium of looſeneſſe, or a looſe way, as being againſt Goſpel-rule; but untill then his charge and cenſure is no other then a raſh ſlander unbecoming ſuch a perſon. It's ſtrange and to be admired, that our preſſing unto Chriſtian obſervance to thoſe that are baptized, profeſſing Chriſtians, and of the viſible Church, ſhould have ſuch a hard ſenſe put upon it, as to be branded with looſeneſſe; when in all other duties preſſing to obedience according to rule is accounted godlineſſe, and holy ſtrictneſſe. But doubtleſſe that way that is the neareſt to Goſpel rule, is the good way and ſtraight way. However it may have the hap (upon miſtake) to be called a looſe way.

Truly to ſpeak freely, I little value that perverſe diſputing in moſt that oppoſe us, that are forced to uncovenant, unchurch, undiſciple, unduty a Chriſtian profeſſing baptized people to make out their argument and own invented way, againſt ſuch manifeſt demonſtration, which cannot otherwiſe be anſwered: and yet for the zeal of the Churches peace and priviledges we defend in behalf of her members, we are counted the greateſt enemies to the Church; none deſerve worſe of the Church then we, no not Ranters, Quakers, Antitrinitarians, Anabaptiſts, Browniſts, that deſtroy all the Church is in poſſeſſion of, through the gift of his grace; for there are ſome amongſt all others that deſerve bad enough ſure, but we deſerve worſe then all theſe, if this good man ſay true. As for looking at a worldly intereſt (he hints at) I have as little cauſe as ever had any man, I have what I lookt for before I ingaged, to have many tongues and pens againſt me, even of them I eſteem my very good friends; which thing I have put my ſelf upon with no ſmall reluctancy of ſpirit; what the Lord intends by it for good or hurt, I am not certain, but content to ſubmit to his pleaſure and further guidance in the Controverſie, being well aſſured of this, that I ſhall not looſe my labour of zeal and love for the Churches peace, and edification.

I ſhall ſpeak one word more to vindicate my ſelf and friends from this heavy cenſure. The queſtion ſhall be put to the judgement of the learned and ſober in the Church of England, Whether Mr. Saunders himſelf gives approbation of, or Mr. Humfry, or my ſelf, deſerves worſe of the Church of God. If we doe not deſerve worſe of the Church then the Author himſelf approves of, I hope the judicious Reader will forgive us the wrong, and what himſelf hath publiſhed will acquit us. And I doubt not but when our principles and theirs are laid together, and compared impartially, as I have given ſome diſcoveries in theſe followings ſheets; it will not be very difficult to judge, whether they or we deſerve worſe of the Church of God. And ſo I will leave Mr. Mantons hard cenſure to himſelf and others, that ſhall read both to judge between us.

I ſhould hardly have troubled you with theſe ſheets had not that paſſage much provoked me, nor would I hinder that reverend Gentleman ingaged; he may rejoyn more deliberately, if he ſee cauſe. I think I have done enough to caution the Reader of leſſe judgement from being taken with this Author, with whoſe ſmoothneſſe of expreſſion and plauſible pretences his Reader may quickly be intangled, and carryed away with a ſound of enticing words that have no truth nor ſolid reaſon in them. I ſhall now upon the ſudden come to examine the main of his Book.

And my way will be firſt to examine what himſelf relates of their way.

Secondly, I ſhall examine the ſtate of the queſtion, and the proofs urged to defend it, anſwer his arguments, queries, and motives, and then conclude.

Mr. Saunders tels us what their way is: There is a Church formed in one of our Congregations according to the rule of the Word. In the choyce of a Paſtor, Officers, and Members; other Miniſters and people are joyned to this ſociety, in which we are like to walk till we can ſee truth or reaſon againſt us, pag. 121.

To this ſomething may be yeelded, as namely, that where a people is deſtitute of a faithful Paſtor, they may chooſe one that is qualified for the carrying on the whole work of the Miniſtery in the Church. And the people to ſubmit unto him as ruling over them in the Lord; I mean ſo far as his Office and Function doth authorize him according to rule, to admoniſh, warn, rebuke, and command.

Then ſomething is to be denyed, untill further proof of their practice appear.

As namely, 1. That he that is a Paſtor of a particular Congregation, and Church, or flock, (unto which he was either lawfully ſent, and inducted by the Church, or came in by the conſent of the people over whom he is) I ſay for ſuch a one to joyn himſelf to another Church as a common member, and to hold conſtant Communion in the Sacrament with that Church, and altogether neglect the adminiſtring of the Lords Supper to that people he is Paſtor of; I utterly reject as that which the Scripture doth no where allow, but is contrary to reaſon, order, peace, and edification of his people; if it doth not imply a forſaking his Paſtoral relation and duties.

2. I would gladly ſee it made out by Scripture, that one that is a Paſtor of a Church already, may be choſen a Paſtor again, either by the people he is Paſtor unto, or by others that have lawful Paſtors over them already; if this practice be permitted in thoſe that are confeſſed by the Author to be true Churches, (which they dare not ſeparate from) What a deluge of diſorder & confuſion muſt neceſſarily follow! Can a man be a Paſtor of a ſelect company out of ſeveral Churches, and a Paſtor to his own people in general he was firſt related unto, denying the Lords Supper to them that are properly his own flock, & give it as Paſtor to other mens flocks and charge? Or can a man be Paſtor of a true Church, and an Officer of another? Or a particular private member in conſtant Communion with another in acts of worſhip? Theſe things have need of ſugred words indeed to make them paſſe; yet this is repreſented unto all with the common guiſe of every Sect, to be according to the rule of the Word; when Mr. Saunders hath given us his proof to make good theſe paradoxes hinted at, and further declared and explained their way, we may have occaſion more ſtrictly to examine it in all the particulars of it. In the mean time I can conceive no leſſe of their way, but that it makes ſuch a rent in their ſeveral Congregations that moſt properly and juſtly is called Schiſm; pleading neceſſity will not help you, eſpecially when it's of your own makeing, running upon ſundry miſtakes, and taking principles upon truſt for truth, that the holy Scriptures no where teach, brings moſt knowing men under theſe ſtraights, overwhelming the Church with diſtraction, diviſion, and confuſion. Beſides, there is no neceſſity to ſin upon pretence of reforming, that Reformation that is begun by ſinfull means is not of God, nor can never tend to the Churches good. Arguments drawn from pretended neceſſities are of little ſtrength in a ſober rational diſpute, however prevalent they are conceived to be, when accompanyed with the ſword. How can thoſe Miniſters think they have done their duty in adminiſtring the holy Supper to their reſpective Congregations, by drawing a few of their own members with them to receive it in another mans Congregation? They may as well think they have done their duty in preaching to their own Congregation by a conſtant drawing a few of their people with them to hear another man preach; and if the other be their Paſtor, as to ſome in the way they are in, cannot be denyed, why ſhould not ſuch members conſtantly attend him in all publick adminiſtrations, as their duty? And with what conſcience can ſuch live upon the Churches maintenance, that forſake their function and duty to their Congregations? And if they make the Sacrament the diſtinguiſhing Ordinance between the Church and the world, as the Author cals it ſome where, then no wonder they are ſo tender who they admit into the Church; and thus upon the matter they look upon the greateſt part of their Congregations as Heathens, unbelievers, whom the duties of Chriſtianity doe not concern. In another place he ſaith, an unregenerate perſon is far from being a diſciple, &c. and therefore not a Chriſtian, for the Diſciples were firſt called Chriſtians at Antioch. And hence they deviſe ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equall unto a Heathen. But me thinks they might eaſily perceive their miſtake; for baptiſm of old was accounted the only diſtinguiſhing Ordinance; as circumciſion between the Church and the world, and the only ſeparating and diſtinguiſhing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication, which they make no uſe of, for Mr. Saunders ſaith they Excommunicate none, if they judge their people Church-members and within, if they have any ſcandalous crime againſt them, why do they not begin reformation by caſting out the obſtinate, according to rule? they are all for admiſſion of members, when they ſhould be for ejecting in the work of reforming. If they be for admiſſion into Church Communion, they muſt begin with baptiſm, and I think the tearms they ſtand upon in order to the Supper, will ſooner be made good in order to baptiſm, of grown ones, then to thoſe that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptiſm, I have writ enough to this already; the truth is, if my judgment fail not, Mr. Saund. doth but ſhuffle, when he ſpeaks of our Aſſemblies to be true Churches ſome of them, one while they are true Churches, and have both matter and form (which are the main eſſentials of true Churches) agreed upon by al, only he ſaith, but not without great diſorder at preſent, (Diſcipline being interrupted, as I ſuppoſe he means). And he muſt needs ſpeak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches, for he makes mention of the Churches of England, of which ſome he will undertake to prove to be true Churches, againſt thoſe that deny all for matter and form to be true, pag. 127. And yet in the very ſame page he contradicts himſelf, in ſaying, We doe not ſay our Aſſemblies are Churches as Pariſhes, but that they are Churches in Pariſhes, and in that ſenſe Pariſh Churches: and in the page before, he thinks the truth of ſome of our Churches, (as to their Eſſence) he can prove. A Church may be in a Pariſh as well as in a Country, or City, (as Epheſus, Corinth) yea as well as in the World. By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Pariſh Churches, againſt Anabaptiſts, and Browniſts: that although he accounts them rigid Separatiſts, they will grant that there are ſome Pariſhes in England, that ſome that are godly and real members of Chriſt dwell in them, which they will confeſſe are the matter of a true Church. Nay, there may be a rigid ſeparate Church in fellowſhip and order in a Pariſh as well as in a Countrey, City, World. And in this ſenſe they are Pariſh Churches. What ſhifts are theſe? but why doth he not ſpeak plain to the caſe in queſtion, and clearly ſpeak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptized, and adhere to the publick Miniſtry in general, conſiſting of good and bad, nay the moſt very ignorant, and in ſome thing or other either ſcandalous, offenſive, or remiſſe? Will he prove ſuch Pariſhes in their Precincts and outward bounds, to have both the matter and form of true Churches? If he would doe ſo, I ſhall imbrace him as friend of the Church. And one would think in his 128. page that is his ſenſe, by what he infers for baptiſm: ſaying, That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptized, for Congregational Churches (as they are called) baptized all their Infants, and then, If it be objected that ſundry of the parents are ungodly whoſe children we baptize, he asks whether they can deny baptiſm to the childe of any member how offenſive ſoever, before the ſentence of cutting off paſſe upon him? So he anſwers of ours. Theſe ſuppoſed wicked ones, whether (as carnall or profane) are not excommunicated, what therefore ſhould hinder their childrens baptiſm? Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptized members Chriſtians, and within; for I ſuppoſe he would not plead the baptizing of the children of thoſe that are Infidels and without, that are no objects of Excommunication. And yet in other places they are far from being Diſciples, Church-members, &c. Nay, he ſaith, as to baptiſm we ſuppoſe our Churches to be true, but ſick, and corrupt, pag. 126, but wherein corrupt? if all be true you publiſh (129. pag.), wherein you adde to what you ſaid before? Beſides the children are not baptized in their Parents right alone, but in the Churches, where the childe is born a member, being holy federally by birth, and therefore to be baptized You prove the Subjects of our baptiſm lawful, the Miniſt •• , and baptiſm it ſelf for matter and manner I preſume; wherein is it ſick and corrupt then? I could wiſh you were more ſteddy in your judgement & conſonant to your ſelf, and honeſt to your Reader. But to reply upon your own grants: if all children born in the Church he holy foederally by birth; then it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are ſo born are believers, for the Apoſtle affirms that only of the children of believers, 1 Cor. 7.14. And then if all parents in the Church be believers, why doe you not adminiſter the Lords Supper to them? for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers; how you will deny the conſequence I cannot tell. I pray you conſider well of my Anſwer unto Mr. Collings, for I muſt be very brief to yours.

Again if our Churches be true Churches; and all it conſiſts of lawfully admitted into it,

Then it will follow, 1. That while they are within, they are to enjoy all external priviledges of our Church according unto Goſpel rule, which is one and the ſame unto all Church-members as ſuch. This is ſo rational and clear, that all that ſeparate from us, own and practiſe it; untill a member by Apoſtaſie fall off, or be Juridically caſt out of Church priviledges.

2. That Paſtors of true Churches are to attend their ſeveral flocks in a conſtant exerciſe of the whole miniſterial work they are deſigned unto, by the Church that ordained them ſuch.

3. That forming a Church in the choyce of a Paſtor and Officers, members, in a true Church already formed according unto rule, (as to the eſſentials thereof, at leaſt) is a work not only ſuperfluous and abſurd, but Schiſmatical and pernicious, breaking the peace and union of that Church they are of by making unneceſſary rents and diviſions in it. It is not ſeparation from a Church, but ſeparation in a true Church cauſeleſly, that is properly a Schiſm: abſolute ſeparation from a true Church is properly apoſtaſie in an Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe, I take it. Hence his diſtinction of ſeparation from a true Church, and ſeparation in a true Church where the ordinary means of ſalvation is, and the fruits thereof, (as himſelf confeſſes of ours) is groundleſſe and wicked. The firſt ſort come under the cenſure of the Apoſtles John and Jude, 1 Epiſtle of John 2.19. Judes general Epiſtle, verſ. 19. The laſt ſort are detected by St. Paul. 1 Cor. 1.10, 11, 12. Chap. 11.18, 19. Rom. 16.7. Act. 20.30. 1 Cor. 12.23, 24, 25. chap. 14.33.

Now I ſhall a little touch upon what this new formed Church requires of perſons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them. And I will give you the queſtion as themſelves have ſtated it.

Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church, Mr. Saund. it be neceſſary that all the members thereof doe ſubmit to ſome examination or tryal of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lords Supper. This queſtion they fear not to maintain in the affirmative; Here they ſuppoſe corruption in our Churches, and therefore with men well ſatisfied with their preſent frame and temper, not looking on them as under any ſuch diſorder, as we ſuppoſe: with ſuch we deſire not much to diſpute, we can expect little of reaſon, or truth from men of that minde.

This queſtion is but ambiguouſly ſtated, and ſhould be further explained as to the particular branches of it: for as to our Church in reſpect of doctrine, it muſt be ſpoken with thankfulneſſe, that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon, as himſelf confeſſes pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to ſound knowledg, the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in, ſo as to deſerve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that reſpect. For generally the principles that were taught, and received by the people were Orthodox, that the people cannot in reaſon generally lye under the Suſpenſion of heretical knowledge, for they have been ſo long habituated to ſound words in reſpect of ſeveral Creeds which very frequently were profeſſed and aſſented unto in our aſſemblies, with ſuch plainneſſe of Catechiſing, &c. that in reſpect of the ordinary means of the peoples knowing in a competent ſenſe (which is the ſubject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the queſtion) that the Church cannot be truly ſaid, to have been a long corrupted Church. And then that clauſe in the queſtion (as to us) is needleſſe, which indeed upon the matter is the very cauſe of the queſtion, that being taken away makes the queſtion fall, for then the queſtion will be, Whether in a reformed Church, as to knowledge, examination be neceſſary in all we admit to the Sacrament? And I judge this the moſt proper queſtion, by what himſelf hath acknowledged of our Church in reſpect of purity of Doctrine, the only means of ſound knowledge to her members, they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth; ſo that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt; That many of her members have but little knowledge, and are weak in the faith, is confeſſed, and is their ſin, but whether it be ſuch a ſin that the Church may chaſtiſe with diſcipline, I very much doubt of: they being otherwiſe not tainted with ſcandalous offending. And how a Church-member ſhould be denyed a neceſſary duty of inſtitute worſhip without ſome proper act of diſcipline, I cannot tell. I confeſſe had the generality of our people been poyſoned with Popiſh heretical principles, touching the holy Supper, and all other worſhip, there had been a rational cauſe of the queſtion, as he hath ſtated it, and a ground ſufficient to be ſuſpicious of the knowledge of moſt, whether that little moſt know were true or falſe, Orthodox or heretical. And if upon complaint or tryal they ſhould be found heretical, and will not be reclaimed, I think ſuch come under the chaſtiſement of the Church; but this is not our caſe, nor queſtion.

If by the word (neceſſary) in the queſtion, be meant a duty incumbent upon all to ſubmit unto, and that every one muſt ſtand to the trial of their Paſtor and Officers in reſpect of their knowledge, before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lords Supper; It will be denyed, and the Author muſt give us ſtronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative then what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe; we ſhall examine his proofs anon.

I ſhould grant him that it might be neceſſary, in reſpect of ſome benefit and help to a more profitable receiving, if people would come off in ſuch a prudential way, only to that end they may be prepared better, but to make uſe of it to that end, as either to diſſwade them from their duty, or exclude them from a neceſſary duty of ſolemn worſhip, out of a perſwaſion that their knowledge is incompetent, this I utterly diſlike as raſh and groundleſſe.

I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exerciſe of true diſcipline, may and ought to convent any of her members, before them complained of or ſuſpected for matter of ſcandal, and examine them, and finding them guilty and impenitent, may cenſure them, but the queſtion intends another thing.

I grant that ſelf Examination is a neceſſary duty in order to receiving, and that may ſatisfie the queſtion as it's ſtated; for that is (ſome examination) to receiving as his expreſſion is, when this is indevoured of profeſſing Chriſtians, although they neglect that which is Paſtoral, it's a queſtion whether they deſerve to be excluded or no. But to reply. If Church Examination be a neceſſary duty to all admiſſion: As he would; why not unto every time they come to receive? For that examination that the Apoſtle enjoyns, holds to every time the holy Sacrament is adminiſtred; but they require it but once, and that only upon a ſuppoſition of a general corruption of our Churches, (p. 22.) But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at ſome times, and yet at ſuch a time did not as godly men as your ſelves call all to obſerve the Paſſeover without ſuch a way of examination you plead for; think of Joſiah, Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, &c. You confeſſe the Paſſeover and Supper are the ſame for ſubſtance; and in anſwer to the firſt objection, you ſay Chriſt had communicated with his Diſciples before in the Paſſeover, therefore he needed not examine thoſe that were admitted before: If your reaſon be good, I ask what need you examine thoſe that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before? Nay what need you examine thoſe that are admitted unto holy Baptiſm before, that are of years, not excommunicated? That which was neceſſary unto Baptiſm was ſufficient to admiſſion into the Church, where Sacramental Communion (only) is: and which none ever was denyed in the Apoſtolical Churches during their abode in thoſe Churches: And to thoſe that judge ours lawfully baptized, and in a true Church, cannot rationally refuſe to admit them while they are within. And again if the examination defended be a neceſſary duty, why not binding unto all Church-members of the ſame kinde? Neceſſary duties uſe to be univerſal. How comes this to be reſtrained only to ſuch as well may be ſuſpected for incompetent knoweldge? Sure if it be a neceſſary duty, it is incumbent upon all in the Church, or elſe to none at all; if a Miniſter be at liberty to diſpenſe with ſome, a gift may blind their eyes at length. But what Scriptures determine of the juſt meaſure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of, without which they muſt be excluded the Sacrament? if no certain rule can be found to ſatisfie us in this, how can men determine of it? Then it will follow, as in all other doubtful or groundleſs things; ſo many men, ſo many mindes, and will but adde more fewel to our too many hot diviſions already. And know an unqueſtionable duty of publick worſhip ſhould be made void upon ſuch trifling uncertainties, that not any are able to determine of, ſeems to me, too great a boldneſſe in man. Thus as briefly as I could, I have not only queſtioned the queſtion, but have examined it in particulars thereof, by explaining and yeelding ſomething, and by denying other things intended by the Author. And I think the true queſtion is this.

Whether it be the duty of all profeſſing the true Religion, (and admitted into fellowſhip and Communion of the Church already by holy baptiſm, and conſtantly attend the publick Worſhip of God) to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Miniſter and Officers, and either to be admitted or refuſed the Lords Supper, as theſe examiners ſhall approve, or not approve, of the meaſure, truth and ſoundneſſe of the knowledge of all, and whether all that refuſe to ſubmit to this duty, are juſtly to be excluded the Sacrament.

I dare ſay that's the proper queſtion as to our caſe, and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reaſons laid down by Mr. Saunders, to prove the affirmative. Namely, that all are bound to ſtand to this tryal before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper: His quotations are many, and he is ſomething large upon them, therefore I muſt deſire the Readers patience in my anſwer; yet I will promiſe thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences.

Mr. Saunders firſt proof, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order. This, he ſaith, is a general rule, ſerving till the worlds end, to direct the Churches in matters of outward worſhip, whereof this of admiſſion to, and excluſion from the Lords Supper is one.

Who knows not that the Apoſtle as in the 11. chapter, reproves the Church of Cotinth for her diviſions and diſorders in their publick Aſſemblies, in the very time of adminiſtring the Lords Supper, and preſcribes them rules and orders in ſpecial as to the reforming of thoſe profane diſorders: ſo in this chapter he takes them up for ſome other diſorders they were guilty of, in the like aſſemblies in the carrying on of ſome other exerciſes of Religion amongſt themſelves, as verſe 26. doth intimate: How is it then brethren when you come together, every one of you hath a Pſalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation? let all things be done to edifying. The fault was this, in the exerciſes of theſe different gifts by different perſons, they obſerved no order, but made a confuſion, all exerciſing their particular gifts at once, that not any could be edified by anothers gift; either for his own, or becauſe ſo many ſpoke together, that thoſe that were hearers could not tell which to attend, &c. Therefore after many particular directions preſcribed to particular caſes, leſt the Apoſtle ſhould omit ſome other things, that might fall out about the ordering of Worſhip in the Church of God, he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like caſes. Let all things be done decently, and in order. The Apoſtle orders ſpeech and ſilence in their Aſſemblies ſo, as all may be edified and comforted, but here is not a word of admiſſion to and excluſion from the Sacrament, nor any other Ordinance in the Church: for they that were received into the Church, were bound as Chriſtians to attend upon all Ordinances of publick Worſhip, while they were within: this rule was given to direct us about ſome neceſſary circumſtances in the ordering of neceſſary worſhip, which other Scriptures inforce upon all in the Church to obſerve, as time and place, and external order in all parts of inſtitute worſhip; decent and reverent geſture, ſilence and watchings, authorized adminiſtrators, &c. But Mr. Saunders conſequence is falſe, for it is not ſuch a general rule as he would have it, namely to warrant a Miniſter to receive of his people to duties of neceſſary worſhip whom hee pleaſes, and refuſe whom he pleaſes, is this to direct in matters or circumſtances of outward worſhip, to exclude Chriſtians from their neceſſary duties of worſhip? If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worſhip, then from all at his pleaſure; if a perſons admiſſion, and excluſion be but a circumſtance of outward worſhip, then our Biſhops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon, and puniſhing thoſe that made conſcience of their duty otherwiſe. By this Church-members are not left at liberty to doe what Chriſt commands, but what the Church commands: we may ſee how ways of mens own chooſeing will warp them. If this conſequence had been publiſhed by a Biſhop in their times, Chriſtians would have ſtartled at it. But he goes on. And ſuppoſes, they had no particular warrant in Gods Word to bear them out, yet, ſaith he, if our courſe be holy and orderly, it hath warrant from that general rule.

1. That courſe cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a deſperate ſchiſm in the Church, as I have hinted already.

2. That tends to their peoples hinderance and excluſion from their neceſſary duties of worſhip as Chriſtians.

3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule.

4. The diſcovery of the fallacie of your conſequence from this general rule, makes your ſuppoſition nothing for your purpoſe. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſuch a rational prudential decency and order in the Church, that may be neceſſary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of, as to particulars, either in commanding or forbidding. And would Miniſters take up an order (under the ſame notion) to inſtruct, ask queſtions of their people to that end, they may better profit by every Ordinance, and be incouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a bleſſing, I conceive were nearer the minde of Chriſt from this text, then what it is urged for. Next he aſſumes ſomething from what is granted by Biſhop Abbot, but that's nothing to the text, nor proof of his way, pag. 131. The Text he ſaith will yeeld us this argument, page. 133.

Where is no due order in Sacramental adminiſtrations, Mr. Saund. there Gods Word is not obſerved. But where all are admitted there is no order. Therefore in admiſſion of all Gods will is not obſerved.

The major may be yeelded, the Minor is to be denyed by diſtinguiſhing.

1. Where all are admitted without diſtinction of Chriſtian and Heathen, baptized or unbaptized, a member in Communion, and one under Excommunication, &c. there is no order, it's true, as being againſt many Scriptures.

But 2. where (all) are admitted that are of a true Orthodox Church, and are baptized profeſſing Chriſtians, under the Churches indulgence, the children of whom himſelf accounts (holy) federally, of theſe the Minor is to be denyed, and ſo the argument fals; for preſſing of baptized Chriſtians or believers, come under the obligation of this part of inſtitute worſhip in the Church as of any other the precept is commended to the whole Church, As oft as you doe this doe it in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. And if a Miniſter will be faithful to his charge, he muſt teach and incourage al of his flock to obſerve and doe (all) that Chriſt commands, Mat. 28.20. And how can they ſay as St. Paul did, that they kept back nothing that was neceſſary for the Church, when they keep back ſo neceſſary an Ordinance from their reſpective flocks? The Lord diſcover unto his ſervants their great neglects and error.

Mr. Saunders addes in proof of his Minor thus;

Where there is mixture and confuſion of good and bad, fit and unfit, there is no order. But where all are admitted is this mixture. Ergo.

What is an evill mixture, and againſt the Word, I have explained above, and to call this mixture of good and bad (as he cals them) evill in the Church in reference to external Ordinances, and duties of worſhip and homage, is very unſound, and doth accuſe the wiſdome of God of weakneſſe in conſtituting his viſible Church ſo, as to conſiſt of good and bad, fit and unfit, but are not all things ſanctified by the warrant of the Word to the whole Church? And are not all things clean to them in a federal ſenſe? Is there not grace and mercy enough in the Goſpel Covenant made to the profeſſing Church, to cure the worſt, Gods bleſſing concurring with the neceſſary means uſed to that end? Let not men be dividing where God joyns by his own conſtitution and merciful gift, comprehending the natural children of all parents in the Church with the Church, for the gathering of his elect out of them all. To call this a mixture in an evil ſenſe as corrupting the Church and Ordinances, is a ſlander and an unjuſt reproach brought upon the Church by raſh and inconſiderate heads, care is to be taken for the exerciſe of true diſcipline, for the amendment of the ſcandalous, as is provided in all my writings. But there is nothing can be ſaid otherwiſe to exclude any in the Church from neceſſary duties of inſtitute Worſhip. And therefore the vanity of that ſelf flattery is diſcovered in his 134. pag. wherein he applauds their courſe and way, as tending to advance order and holineſſe in the Church, which indeed they are guilty of the breach of very great commands of Jeſus Chriſt, in ſetting up this pretended order and holineſſe. Let them conſider better of it, and free themſelves from what I charge them with, if they can tell how, or elſe make good what they promiſe in returning from their way of ſchiſm, to their Paſtoral duties to their reſpective flocks.

His ſecond proof is Jer. 15.19. If thou takeſt the precious from the vile, then ſhalt thou be as my mouth.

In ſhort to give a few hints of the true ſenſe before I examine his.

The people of Judah and Jeruſalem were in a moſt deſperate apoſtaſie in the reign of King Zedekiah, the time of this holy Prophets propheſying, for they had forſaken the Lord and his preſcribed worſhip, which but a little before godly Joſiah had put them in poſſeſſion of according to the laws of God, left in writing by Moſes; but his ſon being wicked, turned to Idolatry, and all the people with him ran a whoring after ſtrange Gods, inſomuch that the Lord complains of them, according to thy Cities are thy Gods oh Judah, for which and many other of their abominable doings, the Lord ſent his ſervant Jeremie to denounce Gods judgements againſt them, eſpecially that judgement of their being ſubdued by the King of Babylon, and carryed away captives by him. This meſſage did ſo vexe them, that they wholly ſet themſelves in oppoſition to the Prophet, inſomuch that the good man was ſo tired out with their revilings and threats, that out of his frailty he grew into a paſſionate diſcontent, queſtioning the meſſage that he had received from the mouth of the Lord; and ſtaggering at Gods promiſe of protection made in particular to him, chap. 1.8. here he chargeth God raſhly, as if he had been to him as a lyar, and as waters that fail, chap. 15.18. this 19. verſe is an anſwer to Jeremiahs raſh charge. Therefore thus ſaith the Lord, if thou return or repent, then will I bring thee again, and thou ſhalt ſtand before me, if thou take away the precious from the vile, then ſhalt thou be as my Word, let them return to thee and ſubmit to the truth of that meſſage I have ſent by thee. But do not thou return to them by reaſon of their extream unreaſonable oppoſition they raiſe againſt thee: for I will be as good to thee as ever I promiſed to be: for I will make thee to this people a ſtrong brazen wall, and they ſhall fight againſt thee, but they ſhall not prevail, &c. v. 20. Jeremiahs duty was to bear up himſelf in diſcharge of the meſſage ſent upon with courage, conſtancy, faithfulneſſe, againſt all diſcouragements met with whatever, he was to denounce the judgements of God againſt them for their provoking ſins, to bring them to repentance, or leave them without excuſe, and in ſo doing his duty, the Word of the Lord ſpoken by him ſhould have an anſwerable effect upon the ſpirits of men, ſome ſhould believe it and reform, and yeeld themſelves voluntarily to the King of Babylon, and ſo live: others ſhould be hardened and accuſe the Prophet of revolting from his own Nation, and holding intelligence with an enemy, and diſcouraging the people from their arms by perſwading them to yeild and live, and ſo ſet themſelves againſt him, and reject his word and periſh. Thus the Word of the Lord made a ſeparation for the ſaving of ſome and deſtruction of others I take it. And ſo the ſtream of Interpreters runs, but to this Mr. Saunders anſwers;

If this Text allows only a doctrinal ſeparation, and denies any other, then Excommunication fals.

We doe not ſay that this Text denies any other ſeparation, but this we ſay, it was but doctrinal of it ſelf, in reſpect of act, as touching the Prophet; yet in reſpect of the effect the Word took upon them, it became perſonal and the inſtrumental cauſe of ſome to ſeparate from that deluge of Idolatry the moſt were involved in: nor is there any danger that Excommunication ſhould fall, unleſſe it ſtands upon this text, ſo long as other texts of holy Writ uphold it: which himſelf cannot be ignorant of, and this ſeparation of Juriſdical Excommunication we grant, and examination in order unto it. But what is this in favour of the thing in the queſtion, that is only in reference to a perſons knowledge, which not being judged competent, ſhould be excluded the Sacrament? theſe are huge different caſes.

Takes occaſion to ſpeak of ſeparation as Eccleſiaſtical, Mr. Saund. and that twofold.

1. From an Idolatrous Church, as we from Rome, juſtly, &c.

2. When a Church doth ſeparate from the ſcandalous members of her own body; Or ſeparate ſuch as are ſcandalous from her: this he ſaith is grounded upon the Text in hand, and 2 Theſſ. 3.6. This is tearmed a negative ſeparation in a Church, not from it. This he ſaith, is their caſe, they ſeparate only in that wherein thoſe ſeparated from cannot lawfully joyn, pag. 136.

The firſt ſeparation may be lawful when we cannot have communion with them in the main eſſentials of doctrine and worſhip, the whole of theſe holy things being mingled with the ſuperſtitious inventions and heretical doctrines of men; the text in hand doth juſtifie this: For the Church of the Jews was then Idolatrous in their worſhip, and had forſaken the Lord and his preſcribed worſhip; therefore he denounceth moſt terrible judgements againſt them by his Prophet to reform them, which could not be as to particulars without ſeparating from their Idolatrous aſſemblies of worſhip.

But to ſay as he, in the next, that this text doth warrant a ſeparation in a Church (where the doctrine and worſhip is holy, and owned by the preſence and bleſſing of the Lord) as themſelves cannot deny of ours, is too impudently aſſerted.

How proper it is for a Church to ſeparate from the ſcandalous members of her own body, I am yet to learn; that ſhe may ſeparate ſuch as are ſcandalous from her Juridically is all along granted, but this is nothing to their caſe, who confeſſe they excommunicate none.

But here lies the bottom of all, They ſeparate only in that wherein thoſe ſeparated from cannot lawfully joyn. Let's examine how the text in hand will warrant them in that, Did Jer. and thoſe that were ſeparated by vertue of Gods Word, ſeparate from the other of the Church, becauſe they could not lawfully joyn with them in Gods own preſcribed worſhip, which all were injoyned by Gods command to obſerve? Then it will be ſome ground for your way: but as there can be no ſuch thing in the text, ſo no colour of ground for you to plead hence in defence of your way. Nay, it may rather reflect upon you, thus, As they fell off from that Reformation of Joſiah that had reduced the people to a conformity to the Law, and choſe to themſelves new Idolatrous wayes that God commanded not, ſo you fall off from that Reformation begun according to the Laws of Chriſt, enjoyning al profeſſing baptized Chriſtians to a conformity to all his laws and Ordinances in the Church, and chooſe to your ſelves a way of Schiſm and ſeparation needleſly, without the leaſt ſhew of ſolid ground; for if an Iſraelite, though otherwiſe ignorant and wicked, was priviledged to joyn with the Church in all holy and commanded worſhip, then, why not a Chriſtian as well under an equal capacity? If thoſe you ſeparate from in that of the Sacrament be under the obligation of Chriſts command, as they are profeſſing baptized Chriſtians, which none can deny upon good ground, then Chriſts command is of ſufficient warrant to juſtifie their lawful joyning with you, as in all other commanded duties of worſhip you ſeeme to practiſe; the antecedent hath been proved already from 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Matth. 28.20. the conſequence will be yeelded I hope. But to give you the ſum of all he draws from the text in hand.

That which God commands is our duty; but God requires more then a doctrinal ſeparation in applying the Word. Therefore more is our duty.

His Major is undenyable, his Minor is true alſo, and therefore Excommunication i granted, though not from this text, but what's this argument to prove that thoſe that either refuſe to be examined by their Miniſter and Officers, or upon Examination not ſatisfying their Miniſter and Officers in reſpect of knowledge only, ought to be excluded the Sacrament?

Indeed all he ſaith to this, in order to the text, is but this one ſlender clauſe, Now if ſome ſeparation muſt be made, then examination, and ſuch like proper means alſo, pag. 138.

Though this may be granted in reſpect of Excommunication, yet this is more then can be concluded from the text in hand, as I have given ſufficient hints of already.

His third proof is, 2 Theſſ. 3.2, 6, 14, 15 verſes.

Mr. Saunders ſaith, The Apoſtle ſpeaks of wicked men, verſ. 2. which he will have noted, (verſ. 14) that is cenſured, as is plain, &c. In the 2. verſ. he gives a character of ſome falſe brethren, unreaſonable wicked men; then a command, verſ. 6. to withdraw, and after to have no company, verſ. 14. which by the following words we are conſtrained to underſtand of ſome excluſion from fellowſhip in ſome Ordinances, &c.

1. If thoſe unreaſonable wicked men were of the Church and Brethren, which the Apoſtle deſires the Church to pray that he may be delivered from in reſpect of his ſafety, then ſurely they deſerved to be excommunicated and caſt out out of all Chriſtian Communion, or elſe none at all; and if ſuch were the Delinquents writ about, verſ. 6.14. Divines need not fear to ſay that Excommunication is too much at firſt (as he) pag. 140. and therefore by his own ſenſe from verſ. 2. this text will prove no more but what he always granted, namely excommunication.

If thoſe unreaſonable wicked men, there meant, were not of the Church, but perſecutors that abſurdly hindred the preaching and profeſſion of the Goſpel, as all men where the Apoſtle came amongſt, had not faith, but were either Infidels or Apoſtates, then to what purpoſe are thoſe directions given to this Church toward ſuch, that were in no capacity to be dealt withall as members in Communion? for they that are without, God judgeth.

Suppoſe one ſhould grant him, that this withdrawing is to be underſtood of ſome excluſion from fellowſhip in ſome Ordinances, what can hence be concluded for his way? As to examination in reſpect of knowledge (only), which is the thing in queſtion, as himſelf hath ſtated it, pag. 20. Theſe were not excluded any Communion for ignorance, but for diſorderly walking. And we allow ſome examination to finde out offenders in the exerciſe of diſcipline; but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge; for that ſhe may exclude them from fellowſhip in ſome Ordinances, without better proof.

But becauſe both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain; and in doubt of the practical part of the Apoſtles directions as touching the offending Brethren, I ſhal here contribute that little of my dark apprehenſions I have at preſent towards the ſearching after the ſenſe of the place. And in ſo doing three things are to be inquired after eſpecially.

Firſt, The quality or condition of the perſon.

Secondly, The nature of the ſin.

Thirdly, The remedy preſcribed to reform the ſinner.

In the firſt there is no difficulty at all, that the Apoſtle meant a brother, one that was within, and a Chriſtian, all agree: ſo as touching the nature of the ſin writ about it is clear enough. (How Mr. Saunders ſhould be ſo wide is to be admired, in applying the remedy to wrong perſons, verſ. 2.) It's certain the fault or ſin intended was this, there was one, or ſome of that Chriſtian Church that altogether neglected the workes of their particular calling, and lived in idleneſſe, not working at all, verſ. 11. and not only ſo, but that ſuch were guilty of that common vice that alwayes attends idle perſons, they were (buſie bodies) in the ſame verſe, and this is uſual when a mans minde is not taken up in ſome lawful calling, he is ſubject to thoſe temptations; for want of buſineſſe of his own, he will buſie himſelf with other mens, and for want of neceſſaries of his own, which idleneſſe brings upon him, he is ready to thruſt in where he can, and backbite, flatter, invent tales, tending to the diſquiet and contention of the places where ſuch are, this ſeems to be intimated, ver. 12. In the firſt part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Chriſt, that with quietneſſe they work, eating their own bread, yet they might the rather be gently dealt with, becauſe they having newly received the knowledge of Chriſtian hope of eternal life by him, they might be ſo taken with this mercy, that it might take ſome off from their neceſſary occaſions, and make them think that they ſhould alwayes be talking and ſpeaking of the things of Chriſt, they not conſidering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon, not only the burdening of the Church, but giving an occaſion of the growth, and putting forth ſuch vitious corruptions (hinted at before) that the corrupt nature of all men are more or leſſe inclined unto.

The remedy preſcribed conſiſts of ſeveral parts, I ſhall but touch at things.

A command in a double reſpect.

The firſt was when he was with them in perſon, verſ. 10. and this ran upon a penalty, This we commanded you; that if any would not work, neither ſhould he eat: notwithſtanding this charge the Church was careleſſe and remiſſe in putting this into execution, and did relieve them, and too much countenance them in that diſorderly courſe, inſomuch that ſome complaint was made againſt the thing. For we hear, ſaith the Apoſtle, that there are ſome that walk diſorderly, not working at all, &c. verſ. 11. and in order to this ſinful connivence of the Church, he layes a ſtrict injunction in the authority of Chriſt upon the Church to withdraw from ſuch, verſ. 6. in reſpect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge, as before.

He repeats the command again in his abſence, and that in the authority of Chriſt, and in poſitive tearms; That with quietneſſe they work, and eat their own bread, verſ. 12. and further tels them, if any one ſhall refuſe to be obedient according to this Epiſtle, the Church ſhould note them, by ſome ſign of diſtinction, declining that wonted and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly; and ſo doing, would be a means to bring them into ſome ſhame, and amendment, and clear the Church of the guilt of ſuch diſorders; I mean the Church in general. Beſides I ſhould have taken notice how the Apoſtle preſſeth upon them his own practice when he was amongſt them, verſ. 7, 8, 9. for the Apoſtles they wrought with labour, &c. but not becauſe they had not power and liberty to forbear working, but to make themſelves an enſample unto all in the Church to follow them: and that they might not be chargeable to any.

But laſt of all, leſt the Church ſhould run on the other hand into too much ſeverity, and in ſtead of healing and amending of the offender, deſtroy and looſe him, by expelling him out of their ſociety, as they would an enemy, the Apoſtle puts in a moderate caution, yet count him not as an enemy, (or Infidel, as we judge of one that is Excommunicate) but admoniſh him as a brother, (or one within) under a more gentle cure.) So that I conceive the moſt ſeverity here intended, was to decline all friendly fellowſhip with them, by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindeneſſe, and rather to reprove and admoniſh them, for their amendment; this ſeems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule, Epheſ. 5.11. Have no fellowſhip with the unfruitful works of darkneſſe, but rather reprove them, nor partake in other mens ſins.

But Mr. Saunders ſaith, This ſenſe that I pitch upon in reſpect of the penalty is too little, as Excommunication is too much: quoting Eraſmus, pag. 140. he ſaith further, it muſt be ſuch a noting and withdrawing, as tends to the ſaving and reforming of ſcandalous and miſliving brethren; ſuſpenſion from eivil ſociety is leſſe ſhaming.

1. They may doe well to give ſome reaſons, why the declining all friendly familiarity in reſpect of civil courteſies, and charity, is too little to bring ſuch brethren to ſhame, conſidering thoſe times, and of what neceſſity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church; all Chriſtians being ſo lyable perſecutors, unleſſe they were ſuch that would revolt from their Chriſtian profeſſion upon the leaſt danger.

2. The puniſhment in a civil ſenſe was ſo ſharp, that had all in that Church but done their duty, in putting it into execution, the offender muſt either have reformed, or have been pined to death, or forſake the Church; for every member was under an Apoſtolical command, If any would not work, neither ſhould he eat, had the whole together, or a part made conſcience of their duty, they might have humbled the proudeſt, and brought them under ſome yoke or other I warrant you.

3. If this was too little for ſcandalous miſliving brethren, as he ſaith, then why is not ſuſpenſion from the Lords Supper too little, eſpecially where moſt in a Church are upon the matter ſuſpended, as with them of their way? many of which are neither ignorant nor ſcandalous, nor any way of a miſliving courſe, and can it be imagined that any that are ſcandalous miſliving brethren ſhould ever be brought to ſhame by keeping them from the Sacrament (only), when ſo many of them that are brethren of honeſt and good repute are kept away as well as the other. It's both a vain and abſurd thing to pretend to the right means to reform, and yet ſo to uſe them as to be certainly diſappointed of the end. Nay where ſuch reforming as theirs is once in acting, what's the event and end, or fruit that follows, but ſtrife and debate, contention, diviſion, prejudices, back-biting, quarreling and queſtioning what ſuch a Miniſter preaches, with deriſion and confuſion, and ſuch like deſperate fruits, as experience doth daily ſhew.

4. If excommunication be too much for ſcandalous miſliving brethren, that would not reform, as is ſuppoſed of theſe in the text, why then it will follow as before, that none ought to be excommunicate at all, for none can be worſe in the Church then ſcandalous miſliving brethren, ſure, that will not reform.

But to come to this argument in the cloſe of this Mr. Saunders forms it up thus;

Noting offending brethren ſo as to ſhame them, is holy and neceſſary. But ſuch is our ſuſpenſion of miſliving men. Therefore holy and neceſſary.

How wide his Major is from the text needs no great diſcovery to the Judicious, but for the ſake of the weak, and leſſe intelligent Reader ſomething ſhould be done. Had the Apoſtle writ to the Church to take any courſe they could deviſe to bring theſe diſorderly brethren unto ſhame, then his Major had been tolerable, but when the Church is directed to the particular way and means to bring ſuch to ſhame, as in the text; and the Church to invent ſome other wayes drawing a general from a particular is evill: if any kinde of noting will but ſhame them, (then it's holy and neceſſary) from this text, it would as well follow, that the ſtocks or pillory is ſo to note offending brethren as to ſhame them, therefore holy and neceſſary from this text; what may not then be aſſumed to be holy and neceſſary, if it will but ſhame men? But I have ſhewn above that their way brings none to ſhame, and therefore hath not the leaſt colour of warrant from the text. The Lord give them hearts to conſider of it.

His fourth proof to prove examination a neceſſary duty unto admiſſion to the Lords Supper, is 1 Cor. 5.11. If any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, drunkard, &c. with ſuch one no not to eat.

If we take not to eat in a civil ſenſe, then they raiſe their argument from the leſſer to the greater.

2. If we take it for Sacramental eating, then we have an Apoſtolical injunction againſt the coming of the ungodly ones to the Lords Table: and by conſequence an allowance of ſeparation, as to ſuch, and of tryal in order to it, pag. 141, 142.

1. You ſhall ſee what himſelf ſaith in anſwer to all this, in that which follows in the ſome page.

1. The whole chapter concerns Church-fellowſhip & cenſures. It is about caſting out of the inceſtuous perſon, as every one ſees: Doe not we judge them that are within, put away from among you that (or the like) wicked perſon. Again, he ſaith that the nature of the recited ſins, verſ. 11. ſhew that he intends ſcandals calling for diſcipline and coming under the like cenſure with inceſt; thus far himſelf, pag. 143. And therefore from his own ſenſe of the context I conclude that this text allows of no other ſeparation in the Church, but what is made by Juridical Excommunication; for doubtleſſe the inceſtuous perſon was only ſo ſeparated from the fellowſhip of the Church: and this is the ſame which I alwayes plead for and would have reformation begin withall. Let him draw what conſequence he can from his own ſenſe of the text for their ſeparation, when he confeſſes in another place that they excommunicate none.

By this the intelligent and ſober may know what to judge of the way he defends, that is ſo point blanck to his own quotations: for in the text reforming the ſcandalous in the Church is onely by Excommunication; and they excommunicate none, but ſeparate from their Churches, leaving the infectious and diſeaſed to cure themſelves, or periſh for them, by neglecting thoſe due and neceſſary Ordinances appointed for their amendment: but in my anſwer to Mr. Collings I have ſpoke largely to this Scripture, whither I ſhall refer you.

His fifth proof is Matth. 7.6, but I cannot conceive he doth draw any thing from it at all in proof of the queſtion in hand, and I having largely ſpoke to it in my anſwer to Mr. Collings, it's needleſſe to repeat: beſides, I have anſwered to more difficulties from Mr. Collings, then is urged by Mr. Saunders.

So alſo his ſixth proof, 1 Cor. 11.27. to the end, is fully anſwered, no more need be added untill what I have writ in my anſwer to Mr. Collings be throughly anſwered and confuted. All that I can finde of Mr. Saunders, amounts but to this; If ſelf-examination be neceſſary to goe before receiving, then ſuch as doe not, or cannot, ought to be excluded. And hence they will inforce it the duty of all to be examined, that they may know who are able to examine themſelves; and thoſe that upon this ſearch they finde not capable, exclude them.

It concerns them, 1. To prove what every one is to examine himſelf of from the text.

2. To determine of the loweſt degree of what is neceſſary to receiving or excluding in reſpect of every member.

3. To prove that unleſſe the private be ſo done at leaſt the publick ceaſeth to be their duty; but certainly I judge that thoſe that are under the actual obligation of ſelf-examination are under the actual obligation of receiving; I grant the Word doth juſtifie the neceſſity of thoſe things he lays down, and are the duties of all Chriſtians. But deny that theſe things are to be applyed to qualifie perſons for the Sacrament. for the Church of Corinth was commanded both: and ſure both were the duty of all her members of years: however denyed to ours by the Author. The qualifications in order to receiving laid down by Mr. Saunders, pag. 171.172.173. are ſuch, that had he not forſaken his Paſtoral charge, and joyned himſelf to another Church, before he had been able to prove the leaſt particular there confidently affirmed; he ſhould never have runned into that needleſſe exorbitant ſeparation while he had lived. But this is that which undoes them, firſt they fancy to themſelves a falſe ſenſe of ſome Scriptures, and then draw a multiplication of far fetcht conſequences from it too, and by this means run themſelves into an infinitum of miſchievous errors, to the Churches prejudice and trouble. And truly I cannot but admire at the wiſdome and providence of God only wiſe, that hath by ſtrange workings made void from time to time what hath been prepared in order unto the exerciſe of diſcipline; I doubt not but when our principles are more the minde of Scriptures in regard of the bleſſed and priviledged ſtate of the whole viſible Church in Covenant relation with God, the Lord will favour us in his great kindeneſſe, by putting the poore deſpiſed Church of the Nation into a poſſeſſion of that diſcipline that is moſt the minde of Jeſus Chriſt revealed in the Word. In the mean time we have all need to pray much, for we are under an hour of temptation, and many are ſcared by it.

I come to his ſeventh proof, pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22. Neither be partakers of other mens ſins. The ſum of what he ſaith to this, was not enough for a Miniſter to give the unworthy warning of the danger, or to reprove and denounce Gods judgements againſt the impenitent to free him from other mens ſins.

This may clear him as a Preacher, but not as a Ruler or Steward, for if the ſame Miniſter ſhall looſe the ſame men by giving them the ſeals of the New Covenant, which is to tell them that they are intereſſed in Goſpel priviledges and promiſes, he fears that the guilt that was thruſt out of the fore doore, comes in again at the back doore.

1. The main of the queſtion lies in this, whether the Miniſter admits any ſuch who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbid to come, he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them. I ſhall eaſily grant that a Miniſter through careleſneſſe and unfaithfulneſſe may be involved in the guilt of their peoples ſins, as touching the Sacrament, but the queſtion is, when a Miniſter hath laboured to inſtruct his people, and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily, and hath ſtirred them up to come reverently and orderly, carrying themſelves ſutable to the external actions there required, hath not done his duty in an Evangelical ſenſe, as to that of his, that every Miniſter is a Ruler, and therefore to urge upon them acts of diſcipline, and Juriſdiction as a Ruler, when the whole Church is without diſcipline, is ſuch a boldneſſe, that never any pretending to ſober principles aſſumed, (untill theſe exorbitant times we are fallen into) for want of holy diſcipline.

But he grants that in reſpect of all, the Miniſter doing his duty as before, is clear as a Preacher. And that is ſufficient from his own mouth to juſtifie thoſe that dare aſſume no other power in the Church at preſent, but what they have by vertue of their Miniſterial Office. And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the diſpenſing of that, leaving the iſſue to the bleſſing of their Maſter. And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himſelf a Ruler, and impowered with the actual exerciſe of the Keyes of Juriſdiction in his Church, before he take upon him to binde and looſe at his pleaſure; if he be ſo impowered, why doth he not reform his own Congregation, and adminiſter all the Ordinances in his own Church? Why doth he not by his authority convent the ſcandalous before him, and admoniſh, rebuke, Excommunicate, without any fear or ſcruple, and practiſe all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his cenſure? Will he blame another in that which he neglects himſelf? If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules, lyable to his cenſures to amend them, why doth he neglect to adminiſter the holy Sacrament unto them? If there be ſcandalous members in his Church, why doth he connive at their wickedneſs, and ſuffer himſelf to be leavened by his careleſſe indulgence towards them, partaking of their ſins, foraſmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. If he ſay, he keeps them from the Sacrament, I anſwer, But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more; Was it ever read of in the Scripture, that a Paſtor refuſed to adminiſter the holy Suppe to his flock to keep the ſcandalous from communicating with them? What though you plead but for Suſpenſion, ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered ſo to act? And have you ſo proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper? I pray you Sir, ſatisfie me in theſe things, either by ſome Scripture grounds, or by your Reformation as you are a Chriſtian and a Miniſter of the holy Goſpel. As to the reſt of this Paragraph, I wiſh you would better ſtudy the nature of the New Covenant, and whom it reſpects. And how the Sacraments may be ſaid to be ſeals thereof, and what they ſeal to in the Covenant, which things I have inſiſted ſomewhat upon in my other writings, both in anſwer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins, whither I refer you, intending haſt at preſent.

In his next Paragraph he ſpeaks to the text in hand, The Apoſtle ſpeaks of Ordination of Miniſters, wherein by not examining the perſons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving, as 1 Tim. 3.10. is too ſudden ſo likewiſe the giving of the Sacrament is ſudden and guilty (though but once in a year) where no difference or tryal is made of them that come but he that will, though of the baſeſt of the people may be a gueſt at the Lords Table. Men may put all this off, by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others mens, but others mens ſins may be ou s. As incivil Judicatories there are principals and acceſſories: So before God there will be too: and non-examiners are acceſſories before the fact: thus far he, p. 150

This text is quoted either for illuſtration, or probation of the thing in queſtion: If but for illuſtration, then it's not argumentative, and the inference but begged. If for proof of the thing in queſtion, the conſequence muſt be this, as the Presbytery is guilty of others mens ſins, when they ordain into the Miniſtry, (ſuddenly) without tryal of their gifts and life, ſo in like manner thoſe Miniſters are guilty of others mens ſins that receive al to the Sacrament without Examination. To this I anſwer, by pleading non-ſequitur: it remains for him to prove the neceſſity of the latter equal with the former; let the like proof and reaſon be given for the one as the other, they being of themſelves things diſtinct to each other, and different things in the premiſes will not bear the ſame concluſions: And therefore that which the text intends I grant; but deny the other untill further proof. And for his diſtinction in principals, and acceſſories in ſin. And non-examiners are acceſſories before the fact. Still the queſtion is but beg'd, it's ſtill to prove that examination is the duty of every Miniſter in order to excluding the ignorant, &c. his diſtinction holds only in thoſe ſins or actions that are abſolutely forbid, in that which i ſin in its own nature; but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is ſo to baptized Chriſtians of years, and of the Church. I have ſufficiently proved that to be their neceſſary duty, which will not be anſwered theſe two dayes. And untill that be anſwered, the argument doth reflect upon themſelves, not only by being acceſſories of their peoples neglects of inſtitute worſhip; but being principals of inforcing thoſe neglects of neceſſary worſhip groundleſly hindering thoſe that would.

1. You muſt prove that the baptized rational members of the Church, if ignorant, and in ſome things offenſive, are forbid the Lords Supper, and yet ſtand bound as members to all other obſervances of worſhip.

2. That a ſcandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded.

3. That the prime end in caſting out the ſcandalous & obſtinate, is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly; I ſay that which leavens a Church, is to connive at the ſcandalous, by not doing what they are in a capacity to doe in acts of ſevere cenſures to reform them, it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a ſcandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole, but his evill actions not puniſhed with ſeverity of diſcipline according unto rule. But why the Church ſhould be leavened more by the admiſſion of ſuch to the Sacrament, the to holy prayer, &c. is to me a myſterie, becauſe the Scriptures are clear both in commanding ſpiritual qualifications in order to prayer, and forbidding the evill; and yet are ſilent as to theſe in order to the Sacrament.

2. It cannot be denyed but the Sacraments are the moſt carnal Ordinances in the Goſpel Church, conſiſting of external matter, that more ſuites with our bodily ſenſes then any other.

And laſtly the weakneſſe of their argument, that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the miſchievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably. Yet notwithſtanding (to prevent miſtake) I judg the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holineſſe, with the reſt of holy appointments in the Church, as being holy in reſpect of the holineſſe of the Author, inſtitution, uſe, and ends, requiring as much of preparation, reverent approaches, and divine adoration in this part of ſacred Worſhip, as any other part of worſhip preſcribed.

His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 3.15. pag. 151.

Obey them that have the rule over you, &c. be ready to give an anſwer to every one, that asketh a reaſon of the hope that is in you.

The ſum of that in Peter is but this, he ſaith, If this were to be given before an enemy, then much more, and eaſier is it to be made before friends, ſuch as deſire to be helpers of mens faith, not upbraiders of their weakneſſe.

The Author ſhews ſome ingenuity upon this text, as if he were tender of wreſting the ſenſe: he yeelds it concerns Chriſtians under the tyranny of perſecutors to be conſtant in their profeſſion, and therefore waves the conſequence he had a minde to. He doth not ſay, if to enemies, then much more it's your duty as Chriſtians to make profeſſion of your faith and hope before friends as neceſſary to admiſſion to the Sacrament. Which he ſhould had the text been for his purpoſe. But he ſaith, if this were to be given before an enemy, then much more, and eaſier is it to be made before friends. So that here he inſinuates by way of motive as helping their faith, &c. and I dare ſay it will be ſooner yeelded unto upon that ſcore, then upon the account of a neceſſary duty; and I ſhall highly honour thoſe that are endeavouring to their utmoſt to draw on all their people to ſome profeſſion of faith or other, provided they doe it to no other ends, but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge, without the leaſt infringement of the priviledges of the Ordinances in the Church, they ſtand bound to obſerve as they are profeſſing Chriſtians. But for men to urge it as a neceſſary duty in the name of Chriſt, when he never commands it at all to any ſuch nd, they pretend, that is in order to admiſſion to and excluſion from the Sacrament, is that which I think my ſelf bound to oppoſe as ſuperſtitions, pernicious, and tyrannical in the Church of Chriſt. And I doubt not but to make it good againſt all thoſe that will acknowledge the conſtitution and form of our Church to be true at preſent, though in ſome things out of order. I confeſſe my expreſſions may be judged too harſh, but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal, it being in the behalf of the Church, defending their juſt rights againſt thoſe that thing they doe well to degrade them of the ſame.

That of Heb. 13.17. doth now come to be ſpoken to, Mr. Saunders obſerves;

1. That the people under them muſt be ruled and governed by them.

2. Miniſters muſt give an account of them, which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their eſtates.

3. They muſt not only preach and exhort, but doe all elſe which may conduce to the peoples ſalvation.

4. If people obey not (their Rulers in the Church) they hurt themſelves two wayes.

1. By ſinning againſt this command.

2. By ſadding their Paſtors hearts, and ſo leſſening their profit by his Miniſtry. All theſe are applicable to our purpoſe urging activity on the Miniſters as well in diſcipline, as in preaching, calling for compliance from the people.

To his 1. where a Church is ſo happy, as to have regular Rulers, choſen by the whole, and ſet a part to exerciſe holy diſcipline Authoritatively, I grant that not only the people, but every Miniſter ought to be ruled and governed by them, in all lawful and profitable things; but I deny that in the want of ſuch Rulers and government, any Miniſter or Miniſters, by vertue of that Function alone, may aſſume to themſelves an authoritative power to exerciſe acts of Juriſdiction over their people, although the people out of ignorance ſhould deſire it.

I grant that the people ſhould be obedient to their Miniſters in the religious carrying of that Miniſterial work, accordingto Goſpel rule; but I deny that the Apoſtle intended the peoples obedience to every fancy that ſome have the boldneſſe in theſe times to urge upon their people, to their great prejudice and ſpiritual hurt in debarring them ſome neceſſary duty and Covenant bleſſing. Therefore as children unto parents, ſo people unto their Paſtors muſt be obedient, in all things, but with this reſtriction, in the Lord, for this is right, Epheſ. 6.7.

To his ſecond, Miniſters muſt give an account of them, which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their eſtates.

Anſw. 1. He doth not keep to the tearms of the text. The Apoſtle doth not ſay that, Miniſters muſt give an account of their people, (whether they be good or bad, profitable or unprofitable): but he ſaith, for they watch for your ſouls as they that muſt give an account, that they may doe it with joy, and not with grief, &c. The ſenſe is this, they muſt perform all neceſſary duties belonging to their Office towards you, as ſuch that muſt give an account to God of their being diligent and faithful in the work they are ſent to perform: therefore he would have the people to be willing and obedient unto them, for their incouragement in the work, that they may do it with joy, &c. 'Tis certain, both Miniſter and people muſt give an account to God; The Miniſter of his faithful diſcharge of his duties in relation to his people, and the people of theirs accordingly. For if ſouls miſcarry for his unfaithfulneſſe in not warning them of the danger, they make themſelves guilty of the bloud of ſouls, otherwiſe doing their duty faithfully, they are free from the bloud of all.

But Mr. Saunders would have it thus, That Miniſters muſt give an account of the ſtate and condition of their people, I think; or if he mean, they muſt take knowledge of their ſpiritual eſtates, that they may know how to apply themſelves toward them both in private and publick with ſeaſonable words, &c. in reference to their own account: I ſee no great hurt in that; nor doth it prove any ſuch thing the text is quoted for. But if he ſhould argue as ſome others doe from this text, Miniſters muſt give an account to God of their people, therefore the people muſt give an account of themſelves to their Miniſters.

Anſw. 1. As before by denying the antecedent as reſpecting their perſonal condition, whether regenerate or not, or whether they have profited or not, but of their own duty in reſpect of their peoples good.

2. Grant it, as themſelves would, the conſequence is not clear, becauſe a Miniſters account unto God, and a peoples account to their Miniſter ſtand at ſo great a diſtance, ſo wide a difference. But why ſhould this be required of the people more in order to the Sacrament, then Prayer, or in reſpect of their Salvation? Prove that the Miniſter is to give an account to God only, how he prepares, and whom he admits to the Sacrament, reſtraining the Text to that particular only.

But the text he ſaith is for their purpoſe, Becauſe it urgeth to activity in diſcipline, as in preaching, a d calling aloud for compliance from the people.

1. Grant it true, what he ſaith, it urgeth to activity in diſcipline, then it muſt be ſuppoſed that the Church thus writ unto was in actual poſſeſſion of Eccleſiaſtical Rulers, and holy diſcipline. But doth it hence follow, that they themſelves are ſuch Rulers, and impowered with the exerciſe of holy diſcipline? I think no, without better proof; Try how you can prove, that the exerciſe of diſcipline is an inſeparable power of every Miniſter; and that he is as much bound to draw out this power into act at all times, as his preaching power; if ſo,

1. Then the Church cannot be ſaid to be undiſciplined at all, ſo long as ſhe hath Miniſters, but all the fault lies in this, the Miniſters negligence in not exerciſing acts of Juriſdiction, as he is bound to doe, and impowered with.

2. Then a Miniſter is abſolute and independent of himſelf, and not accountable to any Church power in his male-adminiſtrations of that power, but to Jeſus Chriſt alone.

3. Then all have this power that are Miniſters, and ſo at liberty to act as their ſeveral humors move them, and muſt be left to this liberty as they are Miniſters, being once ordained, but who can be ſo blinde as not to ſee into what a gulf of diviſion, tyranny, and confuſion, that error, if put into practice, would involve the whole? And moſt miſerable is the condition of thoſe people, that are oppreſſed with Miniſters of ſuch impudent inſolent principles, when drawn into act. It concerns the Chriſtian Magiſtrate to relieve ſuch a people.

But to proceed to his next, called the 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. proofs, pag. 153. from Levit. 13.5. 2 Chron. 23.19. Joel 3.17. Nahum 1.15. Zach. 14.21. For the two firſt, he pleads an equity in them, which is argumentative, The three laſt, he ſaith, are againſt the impure and horrid mixtures, which in our dayes are without ſufficient check in most Aſſemblies.

Do but read read over his quotations, and you will be able to anſwer him your ſelves.

His 1. ſpeaks of the uncleanneſſe of Leprofie, and how he was to be ſhut up ſeven dayes, now during this time he could come to no Ordinances, therefore ignorant perſons in the Goſpel Church muſt not come to the Sacrament, a goodly equitable conſequence indeed. But I have been large in confuting the ſame in my anſwer to Mr. Collings, whither I refer the Reader, as alſo his

2. Is there fully ſpoken to. His laſt three are ſo impertinent, that it is but loſt labour to repeat the texts, for they are ſpecial promiſes peculiar to the Jews, upon their return from the Babyloniſh captivity.

1. The Temple ſhould be built again, and no more be defiled with the uncircumciſed Heathen. And this he applyes to us, as if the unregenerate, ignorant, and offending brethren that are of the Church were meant to be theſe uncircumciſed Heathens, aliens and ſtrangers, that pollute the Churches Communion now, as they the holy Temple and Sanctuary then: though himſelf doth grant ours to be within, and of the Goſpel Church, and their children (holy federally) by vertue of the Covenant; but this is ſo abſurd that it tires me, I having ſpoke ſo much to this already.

But he ſaith, God hath promiſed this happineſſe unto his people under the Goſpel, that there ſhall come no more in to them the uncircumciſed and unclean.

Now if ſtrangers, men of Belial not enduring the yoke of Chriſt ſhall ſtill be mixed with Gods people; How is this promiſe made good? he asks.

This promiſe Iſai. 52.1. was made directly to the Jews Church after their return from their captivity, and by the uncircumciſed and unclean, is meant Heatheniſh uncleanneſſe, they ſhould no more invade their land, and defile holy things as before. But I never was acquainted with any ſuch promiſe as himſelf tels his Reader of, made to Goſpel times, that there ſhould be no ſtrangers in his ſenſe and meaning, that is, no ſcandalous ſinners in the viſible Church; no tares among wheat, no mixture of good and bad. I would have him ſhew us ſuch a promiſe as that, and that it reſpects the Goſpel Church at all times, and in every place where God hath his Church: which is neceſſary to make good, or elſe how can our Author apply it to this period of time, and to our Church in particular.

Beſides 1. How doth it call into queſtion all Churches of the Goſpel, that ever were? for there were ſcandalous and wicked perſons in them all.

2. It's inconſiſtent with the wiſdom and pleaſure of God, who hath conſtituted the Church in ſuch mercy and grace, that all that are born in the Church are of the Church; and is it likely that ſuch admiſſion did intend ſuch a purity; all being ſo corrupt by nature as the Church maintaines?

3. The very Ordinances ſet up in the Church to convert, the promiſes made to the Church in order to that end: and our own experience of ſome fruit thereof, may diſcover the vanity of that conceit, (namely, that there ſhall be no regenerate or wicked in the Church). And he that ſhall reſiſt ſuch manifeſt demonſtration, I think he underſtands but little of the truth and nature of the Goſpel Covenant, and the bleſſings of grace and mercy that are conferred upon ſinners in the Church from it. I pray you Sir, why is it not Goſpel-like for ſinners in the Church, to partake of all Goſpel Ordinances of Worſhip? What is the Goſpel it ſelf, but good news to ſinners? And what do all the Ordinances tend to, but to bring ſinners home to God? And I hope he is no enemy to holineſſe, as our Author intimates pag. 154. that would have Miniſters to allow Jeſus Chriſt the liberty of his own appointments in the Church to unite unto himſelf all thoſe he dearly loves and dyed for.

But Mr. Saunders tels us, That God looks now for a more real and ſpiritual people, and will not own ſuch for his people that are graceleſſe, what ever their profeſſion may be, quoting Camero.

But what a ſtrange aſſertion is this, and how derogatory to the Goſpel Covenant, and diminiſhing the grace and goodneſſe thereof to ſinners in the Church who are the people of God, (and holy federally) by birth as himſelf confeſſeth! And will God now diſown them for his people that are graceleſſe by nature? then we may caſt all Infants out of the Church, and ſo from baptiſm: For it will hardly be made good that Infants by nature have real inherent grace: then what hope is there left for graceleſſe profeſſing people under the Ordinances? if God will not own ſuch, they are left deſtitute of all hope; for who can own God, and come to him by the power of Grace, untill the Lord own them for his people by giving them that grace firſt? But what reaſon can any of ſober principles give, that God will not now in the Goſpel times own ſuch a graceleſſe profeſſing people for his people, as he hath done before the coming of Chriſt in the fleſh?

For 1. Is not Jeſus Chriſt the Author and procurer of all ſpiritual bleſſings to faln man, and always the ſame, yeſterday, to day, and for ever?

2. And was not the Goſpel Covenant, (as to the ſubſtance of it) alwayes the ſame to the viſible profeſſing Church and to their ſeed? Is it ſtraightned in reſpect of grace and mercy towards man ſince the coming of our Lord, more then before? Or doth it run upon ſuch tearms now, as that not any may come under the outward adminiſtration that have not real grace? Or will you have none come under Goſpel worſhip and duties, that profeſſe Chriſtianity, that have not real grace? What rocks doth that aſſertion daſh againſt?

3. Is not the viſible Church the ſame, all being graſſed into the ſame Olive and Vine, and planted together into the ſame body by baptiſm, as the Jew by circumciſion? Doe you think that a different adminiſtration only made ſuch a different Church, and conſequently requires ſuch a different ſubject in admiſſion into it, as yours imports? What was there in the old adminiſtration that ſhould in reaſon indulge ſo great a latitude as to the ſubjects, more then in the new? Thoſe that can tell us wherein the myſtery of this lies, ſhould doe well to give us the diſcovery; for my part, I muſt confeſſe, I judge both the Old and alſo the New, meerly external, as in the letter, both fitted for reaſonable man, as inſtrumental to conveigh a bleſſing of grace unto whom the Lord will, of thoſe that in obedience yeeld what homage they are able unto their Lord. Whoſoever entred this great Covenant of grace, that the viſible Church alwayes hath, and is in poſſeſſion of, came alwayes under the reſtipulation thereof as his duty, which is this, to obſerve and doe all that the Lord requires to be done at that time and age that any perſon lives in, ſo ſhall ye be his people, and the Lord will be your God. The Lords Covenant with his Church doth always oblige thoſe that have entred into it, to all that obedience that at preſent is in force by the Lord. A Jew by nature was under all that God commanded them, and a Chriſtian by nature is under all that God commands now. A Jew by nature and profeſſion had all the Church priviledges of a Jew. In like manner, a Chriſtian by nature and profeſſion hath all the Church priviledges of a Chriſtian, only with greater advantage; foraſmuch as the priviledges of the Chriſtian Church are more clear and ſpiritual, tending more unto the ſpiritual profit and edification of the whole. And what reaſon, beſides the good pleaſure of God, can any man give why the Lord ſhould vary in theſe different adminiſtrations? Moſt certain it is, that ſince Chriſt was manifeſted in the fleſh, and juſtified in the Spirit, and aſcended into glory, greater hath been the advantage both of knowing and believing in the Son of God, in compariſon of attaining unto knowledg and faith in Chriſt, by thoſe that had but ſome darke obſcure diſcoveries of him by types and ſhadows; for men now to ſay that God looks for more at our hands then of them, is rational. But to affirm that the Lord in Goſpel times will not own a Chriſt-profeſſing people that have not real grace, is altogethere groundleſſe, and a little too peremptorily ſpoken, without better proof then Camero. And it's too harſh to affirm that a meer want of reall grace doth diſcovenant a Chriſtian profeſſing people, and that God will diſown them for his people upon that account, they being holy federally by birth, and upon that account baptized, and thereby put in poſſeſſion of the Sacramental Seal, which himſelf will grant. And would the ſame men but argue as rationally from the ſtate of the Jews Church, as touching grown ones, as they doe of Infants, this Controverſie about who ſhall be admitted to the Sacrament would have been frivolous.

But now Mr. Saunders hath done with the texts which he ſaith Conclude poſitively for their practice in gathering and diſtinguiſhing their Communicants, by examining. What all theſe lights will doe being ſet up together, who knows?

So likewiſe, I have now done with examining of what you have concluded from theſe ſeveral texts for your way, and I hope I have given both your ſelf and every ſober unprejudiced reader clear and rational demonſtrations, that there is not ſo much as one of theſe 15. texts that will prove examnation a neceſſary duty unto the Lords Supper, as it's ſtated. Nor hath Mr. Saunders ſo much as applyed them (for the moſt part) to prove the queſtion. So little is his own confidence of the pertinentneſſe of his own quotations; for ſome of them he hath applyed to prove ſuſpenſion, and others to prove excommunication, which in order to their way of gathering they meddle not with at all, nor is it proper ſo to doe in the way they have deſigned, their way being rather to admit unto memberſhip, then the excluſion of Church-members from the priviledges of the Church they have formed. But Sir, how doubtfully doe you expreſſe your ſelf at laſt, as if your ſelf were in ſome doubt whether theſe texts make for your way or not, What they may doe, who knowes? and yet in the beginning of the ſame ſentence you ſay, they conclude poſitively for your practiſe.

I may well aſſure you (Sir) that it's a grief to my Spirit, that ſuch ſober godly moderate Gentlemen as your ſelf ſeems to be, ſhould ingage in a practice before you could tell how to make it out by the authority of holy Scriptures againſt all the world. Had you been ſo happy as firſt to have ſeen an undoubted warrant, before you had ingaged in this ſeparation, you ſhould never have been one in that ſociety, whileſt you had lived. How an ingenuous and rational head can withſtand ſuch plain demonſtrations, that by the aſſiſtance of the Lord I have expreſſed my ſelf in, in oppoſing yours, and indeavouring to give the true ſenſe of the Scriptures in debate, I cannot tell; I muſt and doe commend all that is written to the powerful working of the Spirit of Truth and Grace, to perſwade and incline the hearts of the godly, to ſee where truth and the Churches peace and reformation lies, according to plain and evident rule. I doubt not but your own heart will bear me witneſſe, that I have rationally diſcovered the moſt (if not all) your conſequences and concluſions as applyed to deſend your practice, to be meer miſtakes and impertinent. I beſeech you conſider ſeriouſly, how ever you will be able to give the Church of God ſat is faction, for running into ſuch a needleſſe ſeparation that is altogether without Scripture warrant. Nay, doe but think how you will anſwer your Lord, for breaking the peade and union of your particular Congregations, rayſing prejudices, bringing your perſons and Miniſtry into contempt, by making ſuch a groundleſſe rent and ſchiſm in his Church: and that to the great prejudice of his viſible ſubjects; ſetting up laws of your own chuſing, urging them upon your people as neceſſary, or elſe muſt be excluded, (as to you) the neceſſary Laws of Jeſus Chriſt their abſolute Lord. You ſay well, (as every conſcionable ſober ſerious Chriſtian ſhould) that you are ready to ſtand or fall, as the authority of Scriptures ſhall determine. In charity I am bound to believe that you intend no leſſe then what you have ſoberly publiſhed. Gods providence hath ſo over-ruled the action, (that one that is a meer ſtranger unto you; I not ſo much as hearing of your quality, no otherwiſe then I can gather by your Book) to give you a ſudden anſwer, wherein you are now upon the tryal of your ingenuity and honeſty, there to make good your practice you are acting vigorouſly in, or to return to your own flock, and withhold nothing that is from them. If you ſeriouſly ſearch into the conditions of your people, I believe you may ſee cauſe to confeſſe that you have loſt more in your reſpective flocks, then you are like to recover while you live; at leaſt ſome of you. Pleaſe not your ſelves with what is ſo much pretended in this giddy age; Namely, to act in reforming in ſome pure and ſtricter way. For many have run them out of all, under ſuch like pretences. Be holy and ſtrict as it is written according to the known and undoubted rule of Scripture Canon; and be aſſured that that's the pureſt way, for you know, not our own way, be it never ſo ſpecious; but the way of the Lord is the ſtraight way that leads to life in glory, and if you return, and be ſaithful in diſpenſing the things of God, as you are obliged by the Word, that's the way that God will own, the way of the Churches peace and edification; the way to make Miniſters a bleſſing to their people, and their people a bleſſing unto them: and the only way both to unite and to reform the whole. The Lord give you a heart to be ſerious and ſearching after the ſafeſt way, in the further diſcharge of thoſe relative duties, as Paſtor of a Congregation, whom you are ſet to watch over, and warn and feed alſo in the Lord.

I muſt confeſſe unto you, that I have been ſomething more round and rude in my anſwer then is ſo well becoming; conſidering the moderate temper of our Author. But the Lord is my record, that I have not any ſlight eſteem of his perſon; but am verily perſwaded he is a precious, able ſober, Divine, that expreſſes much of true godlineſſe in him. It is partly the want of ſome eaſier & ſmoother expreſſion; partly my zeal of the Churches peace, ſo miſerably plunged into diviſions and ſeparations, the great impediments to reformation; partly becauſe I would provoke to more ſearching into this Controverſie about admiſſion to & excluſion from the Sacrament, for I ſee that our over rigid principles in this, doe run us upon other dangerous rocks. Partly to vindicate my ſelf, and thoſe of the ſame perſwaſion from what we are cenſured for, by Mr. Manton. But if any thing be inexcuſeable, that your charitable conſtruction cannot moderate, I beg your pardon, for I affect not to be bitter, nor would I be guilty of any incivility towards any godly Miniſters of the Goſpel.

But I ſhall go on, and come to examine his convincing arguments, laid down as ſeconds to the Scriptures alleadged, pag. 156. and the firſt is this, Becauſe the holy Supper belongs to godly ones, real believers men have a right in Gods ſight only as ſuch: They that have no true grace, have a ſeal ſet to a blanck. Men ſtand in the viſible Church as they are apprehended to belong to the inviſible; all this, he ſaith, is ſoundly proved by our Saviour adminſtring to Diſciples only, Matth. 26.26. not to Diſciples in the largeſt acceptation, for many profeſſed beſides: but to ſuch as were more peculiar was it given. And his practiſe is to be a rule to the Church.

All Mr. Saunders ſtrength in proof of this argument ſtands in two things.

1. In his aſſerting ſeveral things that are uſually taken for granted, without any ſpecial proof.

2. In urging the practiſe of our Saviour in the firſt adminiſtration, Matth. 26.26. as proving ſoundly all the particulars aſſerted in the argument, he denying that this was an accidental circumſtance, but was foredetermined by Chriſt ſo to have it, but his enumeration of particulars are meerly begged, and argued againſt in my anſwer to Mr. Collings, unleſſe it be this, that men ſtand in the viſible Church as they belong to the inviſible. I know not any ground why we ſhould apprehend that all in the viſible Church doe belong to the inviſible of Gods Elect: for in the Church amongſt them that are called, it's ſaid that many are called, but ſew are choſen; though it's true in a negative ſenſe in this reſpect of particular perſons we cannot exclude any one from Election.

Mr. Saunders argument in form, as to the ſubſtance and ſenſe, is thus.

Such only that Chriſt gave the Sacrament unto, have right to receive it; But he gave it to none but holy ones, Diſciples by peculiar choyce—Ergo, holy ones, diſciples by peculiar choyce (only) have right unto it.

The argument is ſo weak and feeble that to the Judicious it needs no anſwer; but for the help of the weak ſomething would be ſaid.

1. Were there no other Scripture preſidents, Precepts, Intimations, for clearing and warranting the right of thoſe that are to be admitted, but the firſt preſident argued from; then it would have poſed us to anſwer it; or to prove the continuance of it to the Churches uſe at all; becauſe at firſt it was given to extraordinary perſons in Office only. But if he will allow the whole of holy Scripture he might ſee enough to juſtifie the right of all in the Church in general without any peculiar choyſe, 1 Cor. 10.17. Act. 2.42. ch. 20.7.

2. If this Preſident, Matth. 26.26. were fore-determined by Chriſt to be an example and rule for the Church; then

1. Who muſt adminiſter this Ordinance now according to this pattern? Chriſt himſelf only bleſſed, and gave it unto Apoſtles only.

2. Then it will follow, that none but perſons in Office, and of the Miniſtry ſhould receive it.

3. Then the greateſt part of ſincere Diſciples and followers of Chriſt ſhould be left out; for without doubt there were many ſuch at that preſent that were not admitted. Beſides the ſeventy Diſciples ſometimes ſent forth to preach the Goſpel, there were other holy perſons both men and women; the names that preſently met together for religious and divine imployments were about an hundred and twenty; of whom ſome choyſe perſons are named, as Mary the Mother of Jeſus, and other women, and Matthias and Barſabas, Act. 1.14, 15, 23. which Chriſt gave not the Sacrament unto: therefore if this preſident muſt be our rule, no wonder they refuſe as good as they admit, nay better then they admit; for without doubt Chriſt gave it to ſome, that afterward diſcovered great ignorance and unbelief, beſides one of them was a Devil.

4. If this preſident muſt be our rule as it's urged, then there muſt be a choyſe of ſome peculiar holy ones, out of holy ones admitted, and as holy and ſincere refuſed. And yet ſee how the Author prevaricates and departs from this preſident in another place: where he ſaith, Our way is only to exclude the viſibly unworthy, and no others, pag. 166.

3. If all that Chriſt gave the Sacrament unto were not holy, then the argument will fall of it ſelf; but Chriſt gave it unto Judas whom he knew was a Traytor, and had conſpired with other of his enemies to deſtroy him: therefore all that Chriſt gave it unto were not holy ones, and ſo the argument als. That which is to be made good is the Minor; for indeed ſome are in doubt whether Judas received the Sacrament or no. And therefore I ſhall a little touch upon that: and it will be made good from Matth. 26.26. his own quotation: in this text, Chriſt gave the ſignes of his body and bloud to his Diſciples, and ſaid, Take, eat, this is my Body; Judas was one of his Diſciples that ſate down at the Table, verſ. 20. When Even was come, he ſate down with the twelve, and one of this twelve ſhould betray him, verſ. 21. and that Judas continued at the Supper it evident, verſ. 23. He that dippeth with me in the diſh, the ſame is he. And St. Mark 14. chap. of his Goſpel, verſ. 17.20. relates juſt the ſame with St. Matthew, Then come to Saint Luke, chap. 22.14, 21. he agrees with the former, that all the twelve ſate down, and he in ſpecial ſpeaks of the actions done at the Table the twelve ſate down unto.

Namely, 1. The eating of the Paſſeover, verſ. 15, 17, 18. Then Chriſts celebrating this ſacred Ordinance, bleſſing and breaking bread; to be done in remembrance of Chriſt, verſ. 19.20. And now having related the main actions that were performed thus ſolemnly at the Table, then he relates what words fell out to be ſpoken at the Table, verſ. 21, 22. notwithſtanding Chriſts love in this familiar manner expreſt to them, and theirs to him both in the Paſſeover, and holy Supper; yet Chriſt tels them that one of them ſhould betray him: and Luke you ſee relates theſe words as being at the concluſion of thoſe holy appointments of the Paſſeover, and holy Supper. And thus we may conceive a clear agreement of theſe three Evangeliſts, that Judas was at the Lords Table, and did doe as the other did for any thing in the leaſt hinted at by theſe three, that wrote firſt of this holy hiſtory. And how ever it ſhould come into the head of any ſo much as to ſcruple ſuch a thing, whether Judas (one of the twelve that ſate and eat at the ſame Table with Chriſt and the other,) received the holy Supper or no, eſpecially there being not the leaſt hint of his excluſion or withdrawing more then of the other: is to be admired. Without doubt we may rationally conclude from theſe three, that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord, as well as Peter or James, or Thomas, &c. for they are not recorded to have received it by name in particular, but as they were his Diſciples, and of the twelve, that ſate down at the Table. But then you will ſay, how comes it to paſſe, that this of Judas receiving or not, is made ſuch a great controverſie in the Church in all ages.

Anſw. That which hath occaſioned this Controverſie from the four Evangeliſts is in Joh. 13.30. Judas having received the Sop, went immediately out, and it was night, hence it's conceived that John hath relation to the Paſſeover Supper, and this ſop was ſome part of that ſervice, and upon his eating this, the Devil entred, verſ. 27. and he went out immediately before the Lords Supper was inſtituted and given; and brought about his actual treaſon in a part of that night. This place and ſenſe hath occaſioned the queſtion, and quarrel, as to Judas, ſo far as ever I could meet with any colour of reaſon. Therefore now I ſhall both briefly and plainly give you my thoughts how to reconcile the Evangeliſts, and to ſatisfie any that are rational, I hope.

1. It can never be proved, that St. John doth ſo much as mention, or mean the Paſſeover Supper in the 13. of John, at all, only he gives a more particular account of that Supper, which Chriſt and his Diſciples had together at Bethany, two dayes before the feaſt of the Paſſeover, in the houſe of one Simon a Leaper, where a woman poured upon Chriſts head a box of very coſtly oyntment, &c. all the Evangeliſts ſpake of this Supper, Matth. 26.2, 6, 7. Mark. 14.1, 3. Luk. 21.1, 3. Joh. 13. 1, 2. all the doubt is of this of John, whether it be the ſame with the other three.

Anſw. Conſult the words and circumſtances, v. 1. Now before the Feaſt of the Paſſeover, &c. Matthew and Mark hath it, You know that after two dayes is the Feaſt of the Paſſeover. Luke upon the ſame ſaith, Now the Feaſt of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Paſſeover: thus far you ſee there is no diſagreement; only Matthew and Mark are more punctual for the ſpace of time before (namely) two dayes, then Luke and John.

2. They all agree in this, that Judas began his treaſon, made his bargain before the Paſſeover night or Supper, 1 Joh. 13.1, 2. compared, Now before the Feaſt of the Paſſeover, and Supper being ended, the Devill having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him. Even now before the Paſſeover came at a private civill Supper in Simon the Leapers houſe, the Devil firſt put it into Judas heart to betray him. And then Luke relates the ſame, chap. 22.3. & 1. put together. Now the Feaſt of the Paſſeover drew nigh. Then entred Satan into Judas, one of the twelve, and he went his way and communed with the chief Prieſts, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad and covenonted to give him money, and he promiſed and ſought opportunity to betray him in the abſence of the people, verſ. 4, 5, 6. Then after this came the Paſſeover, verſ. 7. Thus it is clear the Devill entered into Judas before the Paſſeover Supper. Now if the ſop John ſpake of, had been at the Paſſeover Supper, (which preceded Satans entring and prevailing, putting Judas upon treaſon,) then how will Luke be reconciled, and the other, Matthew and Mark, which ſpake the very ſame with Luke, And from that time he ſought to betray him, Matth. 26.16. that is, after he had made his bargain for thirty pieces of ſilver, verſ. 15. all this was done before they went into the City, or could tell where to keep the Paſſeover, verſ. 17, 18. The very ſame is in Mark. 14.10, 11. Thus far we ſee an agreement of all the Evangeliſts, that the Devill entred Judas, and he had plotted and contracted the treaſon before the Paſſeover Supper, and therefore this of John cannot be meant of the Paſſeover night.

1. Becauſe the ſop preceding Satans entring was before that night, as Luk. 22.3. is expreſſe.

2. Becauſe that Supper, Joh. 13.1, 2. was before the Paſſeover.

3. Becauſe the ſop in Joh. 13.27. was that which did immediately precede Satans entrance, prevailing with Judas to betray his Maſter.

4. Becauſe when after the ſop our Saviour ſaith, What thou doſt doe quickly, the other Diſciples not knowing what it meant, thought becauſe it was ſpoken to Judas, he having the bag, that Jeſus had bid him buy thoſe things that they had need of againſt the Feaſt, verſ. 28, 29. and therefore it was before the Paſſeover Feaſt began, there being no lawful buying and ſelling, when the Feaſt of the Paſſeover was begun. If any ſhall ſay, that St. Mark, chap. 14.20. ſpeaks the ſame with John; and it's clear, that of St. Marks was ſpoken in relation to the Paſſeover Supper, and therefore the dipping a ſop in John was at the Paſſeover; for they ſeem both to relate to the ſame thing.

Anſw. I grant St. Mark hath relation to the Paſſeover Supper, but then I deny that both theſe dippings were the ſame, and at the ſame time. Marke ſaith, Jeſus ſaid, Verily I ſay unto you, one of you that eateth with me ſhall betray me, v. 18. Nay Chriſt came nearer, and ſaid it was one of the twelve, that dipped with him in the diſh; and ſo left it in the general amongſt them, which cauſed every one to ſuſpect himſelf: But this in John ſeems to be a different thing; for this of dipping and giving was occaſioned by Johns private queſtion, verſ. 25. Lord who is it, ſaith John, leaning on Jeſus breaſt, (being put on by Peter to move the queſtion). Jeſus gave this ſign privately only in anſwer to John; He it is to whom I ſhall give a ſop, when I have dipped it, and he gave it to Judas, and ſaid, What thou doſt doe quickly. This diſcovered the Traytor unto John only; For no man at the Table knew for what intent Chriſt ſpake thus unto him: this is a far different thing to that of Marke, there one of the twelve, that did eat with him in the ſame diſh which all did, here he it is that Chriſt gave a ſop unto when he had dipped it; there one of the twelve, here which of the twelve; there none could be ſatisfied who was the Traytor; here John only could tell that it was Judas, and indeed John knew the Traytor, but did not diſcover him. Many more things might be added, but I have done more then I intended, to clear up the Evangelical Harmony in relation to Judas his receiving the Lords Supper. Matthew, Mark, Luke, are clear for the affirmative, and John you may clearly ſee in his 13. ch. ſpeaks not at all of the Paſſeover Supper, but of that Supper at Bethany, which all the other make mention of too as well as he, they larger in relating of ſome particulars; he of other particulars, for the perfecting of this holy Hiſtory. Hence it may be clearly concluded that Judas received the Sacrament; And they all drunk of it, Mark. 14.23. And now you may eaſily ſee what foundation Mr. Saunders firſt convincing argument ſtands upon, to prove that there ſhould be Examination, and differencing of men in order to Reformation, and preventing unworthy receivers. Chriſt though he knew Judas to be a Devil, and had diſcovered him to be the Traytor unto John, yet he gives both the Paſſeover and Sacrament of his body and bloud to Judas amongſt the reſt, without any differencing act of excluſion; yet not without telling him ſmartly of his ſin, and the judgements of God ready to follow thereupon; which left him more without excuſe.

I come now to his ſecond Argument;

The means and the end come under the ſame command; Now we finde the end commanded, unworthy ones are forbidden, and denyed. Who will ſay that Ignorant and ſcandalous in life are to be admitted? Now this being granted any proper and ſufficient way to this end; Namely, the excluſion of the unfit: cannot want a probation from the Word, for the end is attained by means, and is in vain ſet forth without them, pag. 157.

I grant thoſe that are forbidden to come, there are means to be uſed to exclude them; but I deny the Minor, that Church-members for ignorance meerly, or ſcandalous lives are forbidden to come, untill all due means have been uſed to reform them; as namely, admonition private, and authoritative Excommunication; untill then, I will ſay all Church-members of years ought to be admitted. That which is the onely thing in queſtion, he would have it granted him; as that unworthy ones, (as he cals them) are forbidden: but who in the Church are they? I would gladly know; the Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſome that did eat and drink unworthily: but it doth not follow therefore that their perſons were unworthy, becauſe ſome of their actions were. I have inſiſted largely upon this in anſwer to Mr. Collins. The truth is, how can they be ſaid to be forbidden, that are of the Church and baptized, and as ſuch are under the command of all inſtitute worſhip? Nay it's a queſtion whether Excommunication doe diſoblige from precepts of worſhip, although the Church may lawfully deny them the benefit of all worſhip in the puniſhing of impenitent ſcandalous ſinners for their amendment. A priſon doth not excuſe a Fellon from duties of publick worſhip, when he by his own ſinning hath brought himſelf juſtly under that reſtraint. And in his ſaying, Any proper and ſufficient way to the excluſion of the unfit. I know no way but Juridical cenſures of the Church that is proper according to the Goſpel rule, Juridical Admonition and Excommunication the Word hath preſcribed directly, and that only is proper and ſufficient for the excluſion of the unfit; as for any other way to be proper that is no where to be found in the Scripture, and neglect to doe as it is written, is but a raw ſancy of a mans own framing, and puniſhable by the Scriptures, as is clear in the caſe of Nadab, and Abihu, Levit. 10.1, 2. they invented a proper and a ſufficient way in kindling common fire to conſume the Sacrifice of Incenſe, the fire of the Tabernacle being out through their own negligence; but the Lord deſtroyed them with fire from heaven, for preſuming to offer that which the Lord commanded not. For where the Lord himſelf preſcribes a way, the Church is bound only to that way, not any way; but that only of Gods own preſcribing will he be pleaſed with. God will be ſanctified in them that come nigh him. Now then I ſay, when we upon Church reforming, through the ſubtilty of ſome, and careleſſeneſſe of others, have loſt the exerciſe of the Churches diſcipline: being out of actual poſſeſſion, through our own default, as to the edification of the whole, ſhall any be ſo bold now, as to invade this authoritative power, and aſſume to themſelves without the conſent of the Church the exerciſe of diſcipline? and under that pretence uſe any way that is but proper and ſufficient to exclude the ignorant and ſcandalous from the Sacrament? when the Lord hath preſcribed a direct way what is to be done with the ſcandalous in the Church. Again, that the Ark ſhould be fetched unto its proper place, was an (end) commanded, yet any proper and ſufficient means ſubſervient thereunto were not warrantable; but that way and means only that God had appointed: and you know David ſwerved from the preſcription in fetching back the Ark, but the Lord made a breach upon them for it, in ſmiting Ʋzzah that he dyed. This way was proper and ſufficient to attain the end, yet they were puniſhed for it. The Lord made a breach amongſt them, becauſe they carryed not the Ark according to that order God had preſcribed in the Law. It's a dangerous and deſperate attempt to invent ways and means of excluſion of Chriſts viſible ſubjects from their native rights otherwiſe then it is written. There is a clear rule for Juridical Excommunication, and in what caſes, and by whom to be exerciſed; and let that ſatisfie all, untill they can finde further order from the Scriptures to warrant their other proceedings, under the notion of diſcipline in this giddy age. The Reader may ſufficiently by this ſee the weakneſſe and vanity of the way and practiſe defended by the Author. I have fully anſwered the texts of Scripture and the reaſons added as ſeconds to warrant their way, they muſt either finde out a better warrant then is yet produced; or elſe as the ten Tribes were jealous of the other two and a half, Joſh. 22. when they heard that the two had erected an Altar of their own heads, conceived they were in a ſuperſtitious rebellion, in forſakeing the wayes of the Lord, and ſo to provoke the Lord unto anger to puniſh the whole Congregation, as in the matter of Peor and Achan; ſo may we be jealous and ſuſpicious of theſe new invented wayes, ſo vigorouſly acted in by our brethren, which tend ſo evidently to make diviſion and ſchiſm in the Church, and is ſuch an impediment, that doth obſtruct and make void all hopes of attaining unto that diſcipline, that God hath preſcribed for the health and welfare of the whole Church. They cannot ſay as the two Tribes of their Altar, It is not for ſacrifice, but for a witneſſe to the other Tribes that their children had part in the Lord, and in the Altar that he had commanded to be built for ſacrifice and worſhip. For the way that Mr. Saunders defends is for worſhip, and held forth as neceſſary, to the prejudice of profeſſing Chriſtians that have any intereſt in the Lord, and in all his commanded worſhip that you exclude them from, and upon the matter diſcovenant them, and their children from having a part in the Lord. Doe you think it but a ſmall evill to your profeſſing people to deprive them of the benefit and bleſſing of Goſpel appointments, inſtituted by the Lord himſelf for the ſpiritual good of his viſible Church, of which your people are members and within? What know you but it may lye heavy upon your ſouls, if ever you be reduced into ſtraights and tryals, to think of the wrong you have done to your peoples ſouls in withholding that from them, which was neceſſary? You think (now) the fault is your peoples, and that they keep themſelves away from the Sacrament; they may be admitted if they will; for you ſay it's more for want of a will, then of capacity that they are not admitted. But by your leave Sir, may I preſume to ſpeak one word on the peoples behalf? you impoſe ſuch laws and ties upon their conſciences in order to admiſſion, that you cannot in the leaſt make good by the authority of your Maſter, you pretend very much to his authority in thoſe very things, which are meerly your own fancies, and inconſiſtent with your own principles otherwayes. I dare boldly ſay that you are in ſuch a way, (and ſtickle to defend it too) that you will never while you live be able to produce one plain text of Scripture, (allowing it its own ſenſe) to juſtifie either the forming of your Church, or to prove any one thing of what you ſtand upon as neceſſary to admiſſion: you have quoted 15. texts to prove examination, and ſuſpenſion only, and not one will in the leaſt favour you as hath bin diſcovered already, and in your laying down neceſſary things to qualifie unto receiving, you quote about ſixty texts, and I have ſearched after them, I dare ſay it and juſtifie it too, that there is not one text of all that number in the leaſt pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications, as laid down to be neceſſary to this end; namely, to admiſſion to the holy Supper. And how would you have your people to come up to your tearms, when you ſo evidently wreſt the ſenſe of Scriptures to juſtifie the boldneſſe of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord? This is the way you are agreed of, and you rejoyce in your comforts, and applaud it for purity, and you are reſolved thus to walk, and you cry up Goſpel rule: and yet your actings are not conſonant to any rule the Scripture teach; for any thing you have ſaid in defence of your way. May not your comforts be ſuſpected, as well as others, whoſe wayes and courſes are dangerous, and to be avoided? I would have you conſider of it, for theſe unneceſſary ſeparations in a true Church, (as you confeſſe of ours) are abſolutely ſchiſmatical: and your people are bound to decline your way, and to keep their ſtation in the Church into which they are imbodyed, and to uſe all their indeavours to partake of Gods Ordinances where they may, without running themſelves into ſuch dangerous ſchiſms that directly tend to the confuſion of the whole. And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you expreſſe, you muſt either return to your diſtracted flocks and perform thoſe relative duties you ſtand bound unto, or perſiſt in wayes of your own chooſing, meerly without the words warranty, which is ſcandalous in the Church of Chriſt, ſo to doe and deſerves to be cenſured.

Mr. Saunders after his arguments, he gives ſome motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them, or the like courſe.

1. And chiefly God is provoked to remove our Candleſtick, for neglect of Church cenſures upon ſcandalous offenders: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6.

I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church cenſures in it according to that text, for Mr. Saunders ſaith, they excommunicate none, and Excommunication (alone) is meant by this Scripture. The Apoſtle doth not ſay, Separate the meal from the leaven, but purge out the leaven from the meal, he doth not ſay, exclude the ſcandalous. from the Sacrament, but put out from among your ſelves ſuch wicked perſons: that is, out of all Chriſtian Communion, civill or ſacred. What is their courſe to this Text, when they Juridically cenſure none, nor indeed are in a capacity ſo to doe? Caſting out of the Church, and leaving out from the Sacrament thoſe that are within, are huge different things; the firſt is lawful and according to Goſpel rule, the other unlawful, as being againſt all Goſpel rules or precedents. It's true, the neglect of Church cenſures where a Church is in ſuch a capacity, is a great evill, that doth much provoke the Lord to puniſh ſuch neglect, and that we are in this capacity at preſent, ſome have more to anſwer for, then I fear they are ſenſible of, nor humbled under that direful guilt; my prayer to God is to make us all ſenſible of our malady, and in his due time reſtore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy diſcipline.

His ſecond evil is, The confuſion of ſouls by ordinary and common profanation; eating and drinking their own damnation.

This is high indeed for words, but hath not that dreadful doome in it as he reports without better proof: ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture ſenſe was never read of. The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation, but it was not ordinary or common I think. 'Tis probable they never offended ſo again, nor any other Church: what their ſin was ſhould be enquired after more ſtrictly, and the puniſhment inflicted, and then judge whether the Sacrament be, for the confuſion of ſouls; it was a temporal chaſtiſement to prevent the damnation of ſouls. This to the puniſhment: The ſin was a ſacrilegious miſuſe of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of adminiſtration, which I have largely given my thoughts of, and ſhewed that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely ſo offend; and what he meanes by common profanation, muſt be ſome other thing, that the Scripture no where condemns, otherwiſe then in every other Ordinance of God, that is too careleſly performed. As all other Ordinances, ſo this was inſtituted for the ſpiritual good of the Church; Chriſt commands nothing for the hurt of his viſible ſubjects, they conforming thereunto according to their preſent capacity: the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only: Sometimes he permits a people for their puniſhment to chuſe Ordinances and ſtatutes of their own making for their hurt, as Iſrael of old did. I conclude then, that this evil, the confuſion of ſouls, &c. is a ſlander of Gods Ordinance, and an evill of mens own making, when applied to the Sacrament more then to all other Ordinances in the Church. — Next,

He ſaith in his third place, Abuſe of the bloud of Chriſt by being too prodigal hereof.

1. They properly abuſe the ſigns of Chriſts bloud, that ſlight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to uſe to that end they were inſtituted for.

2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to perſons unbaptized, or excommunicate, or to thoſe that come on purpoſe to abuſe the ſigns to common ends. But to adminiſter the Sacrament unto ſerious profeſſing Chriſtians that come reverently, and demean themſelves orderly according to the external part of this obſervance, is that which is according unto Goſpel rule, and the adminiſtration holy and warrantable; Chriſt that gave himſelf for his Church, doth not think much of giving the ſigns and repreſentations of himſelf, body and bloud to the members thereof. And who will plead for any but Church-members, who are under the obligation of this obſervance of their Lord? And to deny it to ſuch, is to be more withholding then is meet, and a diſhonour to Jeſus Chriſt, who came into the world to ſave ſinners.

His fourth is, Obſtructing the reformation of the Churches we live in.

And what is reformation in the Church, but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jeſus Chriſt, externally at leaſt? For the Church can goe no further; it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men. And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Chriſt, as to any other act of obedience in the Church. He that commands all the reſt of obedience, commands this too: And therefore they underſtand not what Reformation is, that are buſie in ſuch reformings in their Churches, that the greateſt part of Chriſts ſubjects are out of carleſſeneſſe neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience; Nay thoſe that would ſerve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worſhip, as they are believing Chriſtians, in hope of his mercy and bleſſing to their ſouls, are diſcouraged and hindred by theſe pretenders to reform: They ſhut up the Kingdome of Heaven againſt poor ſouls, that as ſinners would be entring in and adhering to their Saviour. They forbid whom Chriſt commands to ſerve him in this Ordinance, and in reforming of their Churches they make void the commands of Chriſt by their own traditions; which wayes tend more to the deſtruction and confuſion of Churches then in the leaſt the reforming of them.

His fifth is, Croſſing the deſire of the godly in the land, and the actings of the State herein.

The deſires of the godly were, and ſtill are for the reformation of the whole, according to the Word of God, and when they ſee evident demonſtrations from the Word to juſtifie a more general admiſſion to the Lords Supper then upon miſtake have been thought of; they will be ſatisfied in their deſires, accounting thoſe deſires irregular that have bin drawn out without Scripture ground. Better ſuch deſires ſhould be croſſed then attained.

His ſixth, Degenerating from the Primitive times, and all true antiquity.

That the Virgin Primitive times in the Apoſtolical Churches admitted all to the holy Supper that came under baptiſm, and were received into the Church, is ſo evident, that no ſober man will deny, as hath been ſhewed already; and for after times, if they acted otherwiſe, they are as much to be queſtioned for ſwerving from the firſt precedents, as we.

As for that Antiquity that is newer then the Scriptures, this Author is no adorer of it, as himſelf writeth: The Fathers were divided in truth, and united in error. The principle of Antiquity yeelds but a popular and fallacious argumeent, pag. 6.9. and therefore he might have ſpared this quotation of Chryſoſtom in his Homily 83. Let us keep away all without exception, that we ſee to come unworthily. But what he meant by unworthily who can tell? and what he meant by keeping away; whether as a ſingle Miniſter, or by the Churches Juriſdiction, is a query. But did ever Chryſoſtome forſake his Church as Paſtor, and joyn himſelf as an Officer or member to another Paſtor and Church? And in ſtead of adminiſtring the holy Supper to his own Congregation, or uſing any acts of diſcipline to amend them, leave them out? and ſeparate ſome few with him to receive the Sacrament in another Church? See whether Chriſt or his Apoſtles, or Chryſoſtome, will juſtifie your own practice; all that you have yet pretended from the Scripture, to warrant your way, hath been ſufficiently examined and confuted.

His laſt, The want of making ſome ſeparation, as to the Lords Table, hath given occaſion to ſome to forſake our Congregations. Maſter Cotton, Bloody Tenent.

1. The want of right and ſolid principles, as touching the conſtitution and firſt reforming of our Church, hath given the occaſion of the Browniſts ſeparation from us, for they in New England doe not ſcruple the adminiſtring of the Sacrament to a ſcandalous member tolerated by the Church, till cenſured Juridically: and for them that own our Church and Ordinances for true, they might be rationally ſatisfied upon the ſame principle.

2. The want of right principles, as to the Sacrament, hath wryed more of the godly minded then otherwayes would be; as men come to embrace truer principles, and conceptions of this holy Ordinance, according to the Scriptures; they will be more tender of making unneceſſary ſeparations and rents in the Church.

3. It is a wonder that our common principles in order to the Sacrament, doe not hurry all knowing conſciencious men into ſome ſeparations or other, ſith it's ſaid the unregenerate are far from being diſciples, believers; and the Sacrament is a cup of poyſon, and for the confuſion and damnation of ſuch ſouls; they are guilty of the murder of Chriſt, &c. And that they have nothing to doe with the Covenant; and therefore the Sacrament is but a ſeal to a blanck when adminiſtred unto them; Theſe erroneous principles doe more diſtract and trouble the poor Church, then men are willing to underſtand; or decline the unneceſſary ſtirs that follow thereupon.

His ſecond motive contains, The great advantages got by acting in ſome courſes of diſcipline. But he ſhould have told us, what courſes of diſcipline he means, whether any courſe that men can invent? or that which the Scriptures only teach? What ſhall we think of that courſe themſelves are acting in? Doth theirs (were it generally taken up) enable us the better to defend the truth of our Churches, as he tels us, pag. 162.

Muſt we run into a ſchiſm, and become like unto our adverſaries in unchurching our Parochial Congregations? and gather or form up Churches out of them, as you; to defend the truth of our Churches? what is this but to yeeld the cauſe, and betray the Church, to defend the truth of a ſeparate Congregation; and ſo to end the quarrel in becoming like unto our reproaching adverſaries of Browniſts and Anabaptiſts, &c. I doubt not but we ſhall finde friends to defend the truth of our Churches, as to their being, as they are formed up already and grafted into the true Olive, root and branch. And I think none are more perfidious to our Churches, then thoſe that forſake their former ſtation in the Church; and form a new with the ſpecious pretences according to Goſpel rule. What doth this imply, but that our Churches are falſe, and not according to Goſpel rule? What (beſide their own word) can free them from rigid and abſolute ſeparation? That which follows; We ſhall have the better ſatisfaction in our Conſciences, (whileſt God is our witneſſe that we have taken pains, drawn loſſe upon our eſtates, ſtirred up the envy of the multitude for his ſervice ſake.)

And who hath required this at your hands? Where is it written that you ſhould act as you do? If you meet with ſufferings for your irregular actings, what thank have you? It's not the goodneſſe of the men or ends, but the goodneſſe of the cauſe that makes a Martyr, and brings ſolid comfort to the ſouls of Gods people; all ſects are apt to bleſſe themſelves in what they ſuffer by contrary mindes; but this and the reſt that follows is but weak and beg'd too. I come to his anſwer of objections, pag. 164.

1. The stirs and troubles where any ſuch ſeparation is made.

2. The ſeparation defended is the ſame with ſchiſm, and abſolute ſeparation, pag. 165.

His anſwer is, We muſt follow peace with men, as it may ſtand with holyneſſe and no otherwiſe; and indeed from a high, raſh or abſolute ſeparation there are dangerous conſequences; but from that which is moderate and warrantable no ſuch dangers, ſaith he.

To this I reply,

1. That keeping the peace of the Church of Chriſt is more urged and preſt home amongſt Chriſtians, then to other men in the world; Chriſt came to make diviſion between the Church and the world: but left a legacy of love and peace to his Church only, they are to follow after the things that make for peace and the edification one of another without limitation: but holineſſe is the boundary of our peace with all other men of the world: there is an abſolute injunction to the Church. And have peace amongſt your ſelves, 1 Theſſ. 5.13. Mark. 9.50.

2. That to break the Churches peace by an unneceſſary Separation is ſo far from holineſſe, or loſing our bleſſing, that it's a wicked ſchiſm, as I have proved theirs to be; they not being able to warrant the ſeparation they are acting in by any ground of Scripturce or prin iples of ſolid reaſon: And therefore it will reflect upon them to their reproach and ſhame, untill they be able to give ſatisfaction to the Church in their fuller defence, or reforming, by returning from the ſchiſm they have hatched and nouriſhed to the great prejudice of many of their peoples ſouls. I come to his queries, pag. 166. I ſhall be very brief, and but touch at things, I having done more then was intended.

1. Whether it be not againſt the Solemn Covenant, not to act in ſome diſciplinary courſes, for in this we have ſwo n to endeavour Reformation in Diſcipune according to the Word Hence he aſſumes when this was taken, either we ſaw the alteration of corrupt cuſtomes to be neceſſary in the Congregations we live in, or not neceſſary now; if the latter be true then whoſoever ſo took it he ſwore not in judgement, and ſo took Gods name in vain for he ſwore to reform being convinced of no corruptions. But if the 1 be true, then we deſire of every Miniſter and other man, that hath taken it, with what conſcience they can oppoſe ways and courſes tending to that ſworn end, and bow they dare to withhold their own activity therein?

1. Without doubt it's againſt the Solemn National Covenant, not to endeavour in our ſeveral places and callings, the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England, and Iteland, in Doctine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government according to the Word of God, and the example of the beſt reformed Churches; and likewiſe not to endeavour to bring the three Nations to the neereſt conjunction and uniformity in Religion, confeſſion of faith, form of Church Government, &c. But then the queſtion is, What our endeavours ſhould be as the caſe ſtands, as particular Miniſiers or private members? Reformation in Diſcipline being not yet agreed of by the whole what it is, nor in preſent exerciſe and force by vertue of law which was intended in the Covenant.

2 Whether the wayes and courſes defended by our Author, doe not croſſe and aſſault the ends of the Covenant, as tending to nothing more then making diviſions and ſeveral factions & confuſions in the Churches of God, which have ſwore to bring the whole Church of the three Nations to the neereſt conjunction & uniformity in Religion, confeſſion of Faith, form of Church-government, &c. That we and our poſterity after us, may as Brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midſt of us.

3. The Covenant binds us to reform in Diſcipline according to the Word, and example of beſt reformed Churches. Mr. Saunders puts in, and practiſeth a more general lati ude, Whether not to act (in ſome diſciplinary wayes) and courſes be not againſt the Covenant; he means ſome courſes or other of mens own inventing, as that of theirs which hath nothing of the particulars in the Covenant, in it, as being not grounded upon the Word (as I have made it manifeſt) not according to the example of beſt reformed Churches that have ever abhorred rents & ſchiſms in the Church by unlawful ſeparations, as their is, upon their own principles: for they ſeparate from Churches they confeſſe to be true Churches; and the members thereof they own for believers, brethren, and within, in baptizing their children upon the account of federal holyneſſe. In ſtead of reforming their Churches, as formed of old by our firſt Reformers, they form up a new of the principal part of the old; leaving out of this frame the main matter of the old, ſo that upon the matter they pull down many Churches to build one, and rather deſtroy their Churches then reform them by holy Diſcipline. Diſcipline is to purge out ſome few to amend them; but theirs is to ſeparate from the moſt of their Churches to deſtroy them, in not uſing the right means towards them as brethren to encourage them in all Chriſtian obedience, &c. And hence with good conſcience I fear not to oppoſe their way and courſe, without breach of my Covenant.

Nay in the 2. Article of the Covenant we are bound without reſpect of perſon to endeavour the extirpation of Superſtition and Schiſm, as well as Popery, Prelacy, and Hereſie. The two former may with good conſcience be charged upon your way.

1. Superſtition, becauſe you urge upon all you admit, duties of neceſſity that God no where commands, binding the conſcience where it is free, and ſo become Lords of mens faith: and unleſſe Chriſts ſubjects will ſubmit to theſe ſuperſtitious inventions, you have framed, you exclude them from neceſſary duties of homage and worſhip injoyned by their Lord.

2. Schiſm, becauſe you are run into an unneceſſary ſeparation in the Church breaking the peace of the Church cauſeleſly, as hath been hinted all along, It being the main I have writ, to diſcover your way Schiſmatical. But it ſeems he thinks that there was nothing corrupt in the Church to be reformed by Diſcipline, but admiſſion ſo largely to the Sacrament, and that this was the only thing we ſwore to reform; and therefore muſt joyn with them, or elſe be forſworn, although they have nothing at all of true diſcipline in exerciſe: for they excommunicate none himſelf confeſſes. And it's clear as the Sun at mid day, that there is no other means to exclude Church-members from the Sacrament, but by caſting them out of the Church Juridically, which is a queſtion, whether any at preſent in our Church be in a capacity ſo to act; and hence the Covenant bindes us to endevour after ſuch a capacity as to reform all corruptions that are properly reformable by true Diſcipline.

3. He asks What other way there is to be walked in to keep cloſe to the Word.

I have given my thoughts in my anſwer to Mr. Ward. The Scripture rule examined; Mr. Joanes is conſiderable to anſwer this query, as the ſtate ſtands with us at preſent. And if we were in poſſeſſion of true diſcipline, we ſhould endeavour ſo to exerciſe it, that the worſt might be reformed by it, not refuſe to admit them to the Sacrament, and ſo exclude them from all diſcipline, as if they were Heathens: and let not any aſſume the exerciſe of diſcipline, that are not ſure of their warrant from the Word. And let them be ſure they uſe no other cenſures then they have precept or precedent for from the word. And let them be ſure they proceed to cenſures gradually, and for no other cauſe but for the like ſins and ſcandals that the Word directs in.

4. Whether the Church ſhould own men to be members for a bare profeſſion, &c.

I confeſſe I doe the more wonder at the query, becauſe the moſt of ſober Divines are taxt for unfoundneſſe in holding the affirmative, and yet himſelf ſaith the children of ſuch are holy federally, and therefore to be baptized, whereas if the parents be not Church members, how come their children to be holy federally, and to have right to baptiſm, that being ſpoken of the children of ſuch that were in the Church? And if a remote right may ſerve to bring in the childe of ſuch a bare profeſſor, as he pag 129. then why have not the parents of that childe the ſame remote right as being a generation nearer that right; they being not Excommunicate as is ſuppoſed? Is the child a member without ſo much as a bare profeſſion, and the parents none that profeſſe Chriſtianity externally? A bare profeſſion may be ſerious in its kinde I ſuppoſe, though it want the will of holineſſe. So that if we adde to a hiſtorical or temporary profeſſor, but to be ſerious and real in his profeſſion for the preſent, he may paſſe for a member with him: and I ſhall think thoſe men very uncharitable that judge leſſe of ours, generally that frequent Gods Ordinances, and take themſelves greatly wronged, when they are deprived of any one, I take it to be a good ſign that they are ſerious in what they profeſſe, and then this is but the ſame (which in others) he conceives unſound.

2. What ſhall be done with the children of the moſt godly when they are grown up, if profeſſion without true holyneſſe doth not continue ſuch members, foraſmuch that there is no rule left to diſmember for ignorance or want of the work of true holineſſe, regeneration, &c. members ſuch, are, not only by birth, but formally by the Churches approbational act of baptiſm, they are ſo far from renouncing or forſaking their Chriſtian profeſſion, that they adhere to the external part of it, and are not ſcandalous: They neither fall off, nor are cut off by any rule, or act of cenſure; what hinders them, but that ſuch remain members of the Church, and have a true right to all the external priviledges of memberſhip?

3. If poſitive unbelief in denying the perſon and Ordinances of Chriſt, on whom the Church is built, cut off perſons from the Church, as is clearly ſpoken of the Jews, Rom. 11. then the contrary to that Infidelity, which is a real owning and profeſſing the perſon and Ordinances of Chriſt continues thoſe that are members born, to be members ſo long as they hold to the Chriſtian profeſſion. Excommunication diſmembers but conditionally, for in caſe the offender externally reform, and hold to his profeſſion, and promiſe amendment, he ought to be looſed from that cenſure. But I haſten.

What ſhall Miniſters doe while Government is unſetled, and their people oppoſite to wayes of Reformation?

1. Shall they give the Sacrament promiſcuouſly to all?

2. Shall they by their own Antiquity exclude the unfit?

3. Or ſhall they wholly deſiſt? To the laſt he anſwers, that the uſe of the Ordinance of the Supper is ſo neceſſary, as that it may not alwayes nor long be diſcontinued; the command of Chriſt (Doe this) requires obedience: this (he ſaith) is well proved by Mr. Joanes, but yet he doth not cloſe with him in another point; namely, that while the Church is undiſciplin'd, the Sacrament may be adminiſtred in every Congregation without any ſeparation. But he conceived that the Lords Supper cannot be holily tranſacted by any unleſſe the ſcandalous be removed, &c. pag. 169.

1. It's a queſtion whether their people are oppoſite to true reformation, or no; becauſe they were never yet tryed with it; and therefore who can tell whether they will oppoſe it or no? That they are oppoſite to ſuch wayes of Reformation as the Author pretends to, and labours to defend, is no great wonder; when Miniſters will venture to ſpake, and doe ſuch things to reform them which are no where to be found in the Scriptures, but in their own wills and fancies, as I have diſcovered already, it's well he is ſo ſober, as to hold the adminiſtring of the Lords Supper ſo neceſſary that it may not long be omitted, and that he aſſents to that Reverend Miniſter Mr. Joanes, (who hath done the Church moſt eminent ſervice in that undertaking of his.) And then if it be a neceſſary duty requiring obedience, why then this may ſatisfie him in anſwer to his firſt, Shall they give the Sacrament to all? Yeato all that are concern'd in Chriſtian obedience and obſervance, which all in your Pariſh that are baptized and of years are, as well to this, as to any other part of inſtituted worſhip in the Church. And there's no more danger in the word (promiſcuous) to this Ordinance then to all others; there being as much to be ſaid for the caſting the ſcandalous out of the Church, as from the Sacrament, and more too; for we have no rule at all to exclude a ſcandalous member from the Sacrament while he is within, but we have clear rule to caſt ſuch out of the Church by Excommunication, and then removal from the Sacrament fals in as a conſequence of that Juridical act, and no otherwiſe.

That Miniſters are in a very great strait, by reaſon of the neceſſity of the one hand to adminiſter (ſaith he) and yet perchance have a wicked party predominant to hinder any good courſe of ſeparation.

Anſw. The ſtrait is not to great more, as in ſhew and conceit, men firſt receive falſe principles, and then conclude accordingly from them: and that brings them into ſtraits, whereas if they were rightly informed of their own duties and their peoples priviledges as Church-members, the caſe were eaſie. Chriſt commands to all his viſible ſubjects, while they are within, is a ſufficient warranty, & upon this very ground, you are now in no more ſtrait about the Lords ſupper, then in all other worſhip which many ſcarſe make ſo much as a ſcruple of. His ſaying, that this is againſt the mind of Chriſt, he intending it for diſciples only, is pitiful weak, when himſelf grants, the baptizing of the children of all as holy federally from their parents, which cannot be true unleſs their parents be believers or diſciples, as hath been ſhewed: and therefore in granting that, it doth neceſſarily prove the lawful right of all to the holy Supper, Baptiſm & Lords Supper being but the ſame ſeal of the ſame Covenant, in which both are in cluded and concerned. And doubtleſſe a ſingle Miniſter is not impowered with authority to excommunicate Juridically, which I ſuppoſe he means is Mr. Joanes his advantage upon his adverſaries, he holding them ſtrictly to ſome ſuch Presbyterian principles, as this; which I wonder that any man ſhould dare to aſſume to doe as Mr. Saunders opens his minde in, and hath publiſhed it againſt the learned Aſſemblie, and all ſober men; he ſaith, Thus the Miniſter by his own authority (without Elders) may put back ſuch as he knows to be unfit. But if by his authority he may put back the unfit, then by the ſame authority he may as well Excommunicate; if by authority he means the authority of rule in acts of diſcipline; but if he only underſtand his Miniſterial authority in a caſe of neceſſity, I think it not ſo inſolent as the other, although it is a hard task to juſtifie either from the rule or free themſelves of doing evill that good may come, &c. And Mr. Saunders will finde work enough to juſtifie their own way from Schiſm: he had not need entice others to as bad. But he ſaith further, the Miniſter is impowered and Commiſſioned as to all Ordinances by Chriſt, whether to this Sacrament, to act ſolely, or alone, is a queſtion? Anſw. What ſhould hinder, but that one alone may adminiſter the Sacrament by vertue of that Miniſterial power as well as in all other Ordinances of Worſhip? I know not Scripture that requires acts of diſcipline in order to the Lords Supper more then to the reſt of worſhip in the Church. Thoſe that can finde any ſuch Scripture may do well to publiſh what they know.

6. He asketh who are fit to come to the Lords Table, and what qualifications may be juſtly required? And gives his anſwer.

1. Concerning knowledge; he ſtands not ſo much upon the muchneſſe as the ſoundneſſe of it, ſave this, it muſt be ſo much as may let in Chriſt into the ſoul, &c.

But he is not clear and diſtinct in preſcribing the leaſt meaſure of ſuch a knowledge, that lets Chriſt into the ſouls of ſome perſons; for it's ſuppoſed that ſome have Chriſt in their ſouls in their Infancy.

2. Chriſt firſt comes into a dark ſoul, that hath no other but a paſſive reception, and he alone brings true and ſaving light with him.

3. If no more knowledge be required to actual receiving of the Sacrament, then to a paſſive reception of Chriſt, where Chriſt pleaſeth by his Spirit. Firſt to take hold on ſouls, we may conſent to this: but if he mean ſo much light and faith, whereby a man is capable actually to apply ſome further ſpiritual bleſſing by Chriſt, it requires proof; the bare ſayings of men meerly are not competent to weigh with the Churches peace and truth; ſo much concerned in this practice.

4. How weak is all that they can ſay in defence of this qualification to admiſſion to the Lords Supper, when ours are all baptized (and within) and therefore under the actual obſervance of this duty as any other; himſelf ſaith well of a wicked mans praying thus.

Their preſence at the duty can be no ſin, while 'tis that they are commanded to doe: though at preſent their own evils make them unable to doe as they ſhould, pag. 126. would men ſay but the ſame of this of the Sacrament, it's not ſin to receive while 'tis that they are commanded to doe, though at preſent they through ignorance and other wants cannot receive as they ſhould. I ſay would but men thus judge and ſay of the Sacrament, there being the ſame reaſon for it, as is proved clearly in another place: this controverſie would be ended, and all parties pleaſed. Beſides there is not any law or rule in Scriptures to warrant the puniſhing of ignorance, or unregeneracie in the Church with the deprivation of a common priviledge belonging to members in common of the ſame kinde: never was ſuch a thing heard of in the Apoſtolical Churches, that any were cenſured for ignorance in excluding them from the Lords Table, or from any other Ordinance in the Church. If you judge ours within, and baptized, and of years, and yet exclude them the Sacrament for want of knowledge: I dare be bold to ſay, that you venture to doe that which you have neither Scripture precept, nor counſel, nor precedent for: How you think to be born out in ſuch a bold preſumptuous practice againſt the clear command of Chriſt, you may doe well to conſider of it. His quotations are ſo impertinent for his purpoſe, that it will be but loſſe of time and labour to examine them. I admire how men dare ſo notoriouſly miſ-apply the holy Scriptures.

2. As to practice he ſaith, Theſe four quallifications ſeeme neceſſary to admitting to the Sacrament.

1. They muſt be no companions of drunkards, or any other wicked livers.

2. They muſt be ſuch as frequent and delight in the ſociety of godly people.

3. Such as are not known to be guilty of any known ſin.

4. Such as perform all religious duties, as well in private as in publick, &c.

1. That theſe are qualifications or duties required of all profeſſing Chriſtians, is granted. That receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is ſo alſo, (it being a publick duty of worſhip incumbent upon all in the Church, and comprehended in his laſt) cannot be denyed.

2. That theſe qualifications are neceſſary in order to Gods glory and our Salvation is confeſſed: but that they are neceſſary in order to receiving to the Sacrament (upon good grounds) is to be denyed untill better proof.

3. Theſe qualifications are neceſſary to prove our ſpiritual ſtates by, and to know in what condition we ſtand in before the Lord. But the Scriptures quoted doe not in the leaſt urge them as prerequiſite unto the Lords Supper, more then to all other worſhip. They that have this Book, let them ſearch and ſee if they can finde one of theſe ſixty texts, that hath ſo much as a ſound to prove any of theſe qualifications laid down, pag. 172. neceſſarily prerequiſite in order to the Lords Supper. And if you cannot finde one of ſo great a number for his purpoſe, had it not been more for his repuration (as he is a Miniſter) not to have quoted them, then thus abſurdly to miſapply them to juſtifie a way themſelves have inconſiderately choſen? It's the uſual road of thoſe that have ſtrong fancies and weak judgements to multiply texts of Scriptures impertinently. If this Author ſhall think it neceſſary ſtill to defend their way, I much deſire that he may ſhew himſelf a workman that need not be aſhamed by dividing the pure truths of God aright: one clear and rational deduction from the holy Scripture properly applyed either for ſuſpenſion or examination, or excluding the ignorant, would doe more to juſtifie the ſeparations that ſome venture to make amongſt their people in order to the Sacrament, then multitude of texts impertinently alleadged, as hath been diſcovered. Nay it's a ſtrange thing, and to be wondred at, that the ſame men that doe ſatisfie themſelves, touching Infant Baptiſm, upon the Analogy of Circumciſion, Covenant relation according to the ſtate of the Jews Church, without any expreſſe rule in the New Teſtament, in reſpect of precept or precedent. And yet the ſame men will except againſt the Analogy of the Paſſeover, notwithſtanding we have clear precept and precedent in the New to warrant the baptized of years to receive the Lords Supper. If the ſame men ſhould be as exceptions againſt the Analogy of Circumciſion to Baptiſm, as of the Paſſeover to the Lords Supper: they would utterly throw away the cauſe and run to the tents of our adverſaries; both weak and worthleſſe is that of Mr. Saunders in reply to Mr. Humfry, upon the Analogy of the Paſſeover, pag. 185. The Paſſeover had an external benefit which all did partake of, therefore a right to that Ordinance ſo far as external: but the Lords Supper is a more, ſpiritual Ordinance, no type. The wicked were tearmed Gods people then, not ſo in the New. See Camero.

1. Doe not the Anabaptiſts ſay the ſame of Circumciſion? it was more carnal then baptiſm, more typical, and annexed to external promiſes, and ſo would ſpoyl the Analogy; and may we not ſay of this Author, that his hath been ſharpened at their forge?

2. It concerns the Author to make good the firſt thing aſſerted, That all had an external benefit by it, more then what was eaten and drunk to the ſatisfying of nature, for all that came under the Law of the Paſſeover were not in Egypt to partake of that benefit of preſervation, when the firſt born of the Egyptians were ſlain. What think you of the generations that were then to come ſucceſſively untill Chriſt? Nor were all the Egyptians ſmitten with that death, but the firſt born only. Beſides, what external benefit were this to the Aliens and ſtrangers that were Proſelytes, and came under Circumciſion? they were as much under the Law of the Paſſeover as the Iſraelites, and yet did not partake of that external benefit, and therefore that was not the thing that gave them right as he pretends. And whereas he ſaith, the Lords Supper is more ſpiritual, it is to be proved, the Paſſeover having the ſame Author appointing it for the ſame ſpiritual uſe and ends in the Church with the holy Supper. The external Ceremonial part of the one and of the other both alike carnal: and his granting, that both are the ſame for ſubſtance, as to the uſe and end, doth croſſe and contradict this of his here: let it be proved that the unregenerate and wicked in the Church are not to be tearmed Gods people now. Doe not the Apoſtles give equal titles to all in the Church; calling them Saints, and ſuch as were brethren and within, although ſcandalous and ſtubborn? and if the unregenerate and wicked in the Church, are not to be tearmed Gods people, how are their children holy federally, that being affirmed only of the children of believers, which himſelf grants, which is croſſe to Camero. And the truth is, the arguments we urge from the Paſſeover, Covenant relation, ſtate of the Jews Church, Goſpel precept, and precedents, the right of memberſhip, the love of Chriſt to ſinners, are ſo ſolid and full of ſtrength, that all that oppoſe us will be aſhamed at laſt.

There is no need of any further examining of what is writ by this Author in anſwer to Mr. Humfry, for had he conſulted with what was written of late before his came out, he might have ſpared that part as unneceſſary, he having but little that's new, conſiderable in the controverſie. If the Author want work, let him anſwer Mr. Humfreys rejoynder, or the laſt part of my firſt Book not yet anſwered, or make good his own ſo clearly confuted, if he can: Or elſe return to the Church in feeding his own flock, and be quiet, endeavouring to heal the breach, which by an unneceſſary ſeparation he hath ſinfully made in his Church.

I ſhal now take my leave of my Reader, and end with ſome Apologizing reaſons, why I have appeared ſo ſtiff in oppoſing of theſe petty irregular reformings.

1. Becauſe they have no foundation to ſtand upon from the Scriptures.

2. Becauſe they hinder and obſtruct the Reformation of the whole: Who will deſire or endeavour after a uniformity of true diſcipline, if theſe private petty wayes will attain the end without it?

3. Becauſe Suſpenſion and Separation makes void Juridical. Excommunication, the only ſeparating Ordinance in the Church, and now upon the matter is wholly loſt in Church.

4. Becauſe theſe new contrivances tend to wicked diviſion and ſchiſm in the Church, and a complying with that wilde Principle of tolerating every Sect and way, to the ſcandal of the whole.

5. Becauſe theſe groundleſſe partial reformings do make us inſenſible of our malady, and ſo careleſſe of the right remedy.

6. Becauſe this groundleſſe pretended diſcipline runs private Miniſters upon intruding the power of Juriſdiction, which as private Miniſters they are not impowered with at all, untill the Church have choſe and deſigned them unto Eccleſiaſtical rule and Juriſdiction: for all are not competent for that work, nor is it neceſſary that all ſhould bear a ſhare in the exerciſe of Church cenſures and policies.

I confeſſe I judge that not any Miniſter in the Church can juſtly aſſume an authoritative power of Juriſdiction in his Church by vertue of his Ordination and Induction.

And laſtly, what Reformation can be rationally expected, when thoſe that ſhould be intruſted with the exerciſe of diſcipline, are wryed in their judgements about the cenſures of the Church, and in what caſes to correct, and who ſhould have the exerciſe thereof? Whether every Presbyter in general, or ſome peculiarly choſen, and ſet apart for Eccleſiaſtical rule and order only? What work would have been made in the Church by this, if the Presbyterian principles had been put into execution? We ſhould have had but few Communicants in many of our Churches, had that rigid way of Examination and power in the Elderſhip to ſuſpend upon pleaſure gone on. When the Lord of his Church is pleaſed to bleſſe this poor diſtracted Engliſh Church with ſo great a bleſſing, as true and holy diſcipline is; he will both qualifie and furniſh us with inſtruments fit for that work; in the mean time let us pray and wait, and uſe all good means we can to poſſeſſe ſo great a mercy, as may truly tend to the Reformation of the whole, without the hurt or prejudice of any part of Chriſts viſible Church.

FINIS.
Books that are to be ſold by Thomas Williams at the Bible in Little Brittain.

A Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Romans Govrnment unto the raign of King Charles, containing all paſſages of Church and State, with all other obſervations proper for a Hiſtory: the ſecond Edition enlarged with notes and a large Table.

A compleat Chriſtian Dictionary ſhewing the Interpretation of the proper names, the ſeveral ſignifications, and ſeveral acceptations of all the words in the Bible, with the addition of above four thouſand words and phraſe , with a deſcription of the properties of Beaſts, Fowls, Hearbs, Trees, &c. A book of great uſe unto Miniſters, Maſters of families, all private Chriſtians; the ſixt Edition.

The Art of Diſtillations, with the choyceſt preparations performed by way of Diſtillations, with a deſcription of the beſt Furnaces and veſſels, uſed by ancient and modern Chymiſts: alſo divers Spagerical Experiments and Curioſities, the anatomy of gold and ſilver, with their preparations and vertues; the ſecond Edition, to which is added the London Diſtiller, ſhewing the way to draw all ſorts of Spirits and Strong waters.

The New Light of Alchymy, by Sandevogius, with nine Books of Paracelſus of the nature of things, with a Chymical Dictionary.

Glaubers Philoſophical Furnaces, or a New way of diſtilling in five parts, with the tincture of Gold, and Aurum Potabile, the firſt part of his Mineral work.

Spots diſcovery of Witcheraft, ſhewing the power of Witches, contracting with Devils, Spirits, or Familiars, and their power to kill, torment, and conſume the bodies of Creatures, with the knavery of Conjurors, Inchanters, Figure-caſters, Aſtrologers, the vanity of dreams, with all tricks of Jugling, and Legerdemain; and many other ſecrets.

Vade Mecum, A companion for a Chirurgeon, ſhewing the uſe of every inſtrument belonging to a Chirurgeon, with the cure of all green wounds, the vertue and quality of all medicines uſeful, with the way to make them; with directions for Crowners how to make Reports with a treatiſe of Bleeding.

A Vindication of Mr. Humfreys free Admiſſion to the Sacrament, being an anſwer to Dr. Drakes Bar, done by John Timſon.