SECTION 1.

IT has ever been the gracious appointment and will of God, to have a Church upon earth, or a certain number of men and women to be in cove­nant-relation with him, in opposition to others, who are said to be without God, and without Christ in the world.

Under the Old Testament it pleased the Lord to chuse out Abraham, Isaack, Jacob, and their posterity, to be the lot of his inheritance, Deut. 9.26, 27. and 32.8, 9. and his peculiar people, [Page 2] Deut. 7.6. & 14.2. Ps. 135.4. Under the New Testament he hath enlarged the tents, and lengthned the cords: so that herein now is his glory shown in having multitudes, people, nations, languages, to flow in to him, Dan. 7.14. Is. 2.2, 3, 4. Behold, thou shalt call a nation which thou knewest not, and nations which knew thee not shall run unto thee, Is. 55.5. there is Gods call of a Nation, and the Na­tions answer to that call, which being spoken of Christ under the Gospel, Rom. 9.26. Rom. 10.19. is manifest proof for our national Churches, as others have observed.

For as the whole people of the Jews were the Church of God, and so accoun­ted a holy seed, a chosen generation, a sanctified people, Ezra 9.2. Deut. 14.3. Dan. 8.24. Gods vine, the daughter of his people, his children, Deut. 14.1. in­somuch that every man, woman and child of them, without exception, are taken into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. There were many of them ignorant persons, Is. 1.3. Is. 5.13. many of them wicked persons, Ps. 81.11. Amos 3.2. Yet are they owned of God for his people, and so called his people, [Page 3]children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. children of the covenant, Acts 3.25. Deut. 32.6. in reference to this cove­nant-relation. Hear O my people, and I will testifie against thee, I am God, even thy God, Psal. 50.7. I enter'd covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine, Ez. 16.8. He came to his own, and his own recei­ved him not, Jo. 1.11. they are called his own still, though they refused him.

So is it now with all those Nations that having had the Gospel preached, and answering to that Gospel have re­ceived the doctrine of Christ, submit­ting to his Ordinances in profession of his name, they are hereby engrafted in­to the Jews olive or covenant, Rom. 11.17. with Rom. 2.26. and so to be reckoned, as they were, the people of God, 1 Pet. 2.10. Beleevers, Acts 8.12, 13. Disciples, Jo. 6.66. Christians, Acts 11.26. Saints by calling, 1 Cor. 1.2. the Church of the Gentiles, and Kingdom of Christ. Mat. 13.41.

And to this purpose doe such texts as these, Mi. 4.2. Jer. 4.2. Zach. 2.11. Is. 65. 1. Rom. 4.17. Matt. 21.43. Ps. 86.9. Is. 25.6. Ps. 22.27. Ps. 2.8. [Page 4] Zach. 14.9. &c. (See Mr. Hudsons Vind. p. 16. and Mr. Baxt. Inf: Bap: p. 339, 340. Edit. 3.) speak of the Church ve­ry largely and magnificently under the Gospel. The same covenant, sayes Ru­therford (Treat. Cov. p. 73. & 343.) that was made with Abraham, is made with the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 6.16. I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And as that is extended to the whole Jews, Lev. 26.12, 13. So are the whole Gen­tiles, Is. 55.4, 5. Is. 11.10. Is. 60.1, 2. All Nations, Isa. 2.1, 2. All flesh, Is. 66.23. Is. 40.5. Psal. 65.2. All the kinreds of the earth, Ps. 22.26, 27. The King­doms of the world, Rev. 11.15. From the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof, Mal. 1.11. (to wit, even as many of them as the Lord our God shall call, Act. 2.39.) said to be­come the people of God under the New Testament.

SECT. 2.

I Know indeed, for all these many and arge expressions every where in Scri­pture, some eminent Divines do con­ceive the Church and Covenant ought to be restrained to the regenerate only, and that none else are really, but nomi­nally & aequivocally Church-members. And so I remember Arminius expresses it for them, Disp. pub. Thes. 18. Sec. 15. Vocati, et non electi, ad ecclesiam visibilem pertinere judicantur, quanquam Aequi­vocè, quum ad invisibilem non pertine ant.

This doctrine enforces them to di­stinguish, between what gives right as to a mans own part unto Church-mem­bership and the Ordinances, and that which gives right to be admitted; whereas the truth is, these are Relata, quorum posito & sublato uno, ponitur & tollitur alterum; Besides, there is this grievous inconvenience it runs do [...]n­right into, that the Minister shall be bound to administer the Ordinances (particularly the Sacrament) unto peo­ple, when they are bound upon pain of [Page 6]damnation not to take them. Upon this arises inextricable difficulties which as they encline men to separati­ons, so they leave the doubtfull Chri­stian in such a case, that he can hardly ever act in faith upon such foundati­ons.

It is my opinion therefore, that the Covenant may be considered in the spe­cial grace thereof and in ernal admini­stration, and thus it belongs only to the elect and regenerate: Or in the gene­ral grace and external administration of the Ordinances, and thus it belongs to the whole Church as visible, and to the several members alike, whether regene­rate or not.

My reasons for this latitude are these:

• 1. It is manifest that the whole Na­tion of the Jewes, Deut. 29. were Gods peculiar people, in covenant with him, by the texts fore-quoted; and this is amply proved by Mr. Blake, Treat. Cov. p. 189, 190. but that most of them were only aequivocally so, is by others assu­med gratis.
• 2. It is plain, that the Gentiles are ingrafted into the Olive of the Jews, [Page 7] Rom. 11.24. that is, into their ex­ternal covenant, which covenant must be the covenant of grace, for else it could be no prejudice for any of them to be broken off, nor priviledge for any of us to be ingrafted in. And it must be as to the external administratiò, for else neither could any of them be broken off, not any of us ingrafted in.
• 3. It appears, that the Promise or covenant of Grace in the external ad­ministration belongs to all that the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2.39. To those that are afarr off, (that is, the Gen­tiles) and their children, when the Lord should call any of their parents, as it did for the present to the Jews, and theirs.
• 4. The called, no doubt, are many more than the elect; many are called, but few chosen. The called are such, as Mr. Blake phrases it, as are brought in covenant, The chosen, such as are brought up to the terms of it. Now it is to be considered, The called contain the chosen. As there is an outward vo­cation, and an effectual vocation, yet that outward is real as well as the o­ther; So there is an outward being in [Page 8]covenant, and effectual, (as we speak for distinctions sake,) Yet that outward is real, not aequivocally only.
• 5. The Scripture puts a real diffe­rence between the Nation of the Jews, as being in covenant, Rom. 3.1. and 9.4. and others that were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel, without hope, without God in the world, Eph. 2.12. but if none but the regenerate are in co­venant, there is no such difference ex­ternally between a Jew and Gentile, Christian and Heathen, but aequivocal­ly onely, in which manner methinks the Scripture should not be made to speak so abundantly.
• 6. For this latitude, as to Obligation and priviledge of Ordinances, it is evi­dent, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant ye shall keep between me and you, every man-child among you shall be circumcised. Here I note, that the waiting on Gods ordinance, is the keeping the covenant it self, in the external administration; And surely there is so much plain strength in the instance of circumcision, Gen. 17. Jud. 5. from this large right of Ordinances from covenant-relation, that it alone will hold against all [Page 9]can be said against it.
• 7. Excellent Mr. Baxter in his Inf: Bap: p. 224. mihi Ed. 3. highly com­mending Mr. Blakes opening of the con­ditional covenant, and affirming that he hath fully proved, that the reprobate (meaning of professors) is within the verge of it, he adds, And doubtlesse this imerest in the covenant is afruit of Christs death. Now if it be so, how can it be aequivocal only? that is, an interect or priviledge, which will become a lie, and dissimulation for those that have it, to assume; and can that be a fruit of Christs death?
• 8. If no unregenerate Christian be in covenant but aequivocally, then must not such a one bring his child to bap­tism, nor partake himself of Christian communion, but it is a meer mockery of Christ (as some seem to me here to speak harshly) to avoid which, he must tenounce his profession, and never come to the Supper, and to the other Ordi­nances, but only as an Heathen and In­fidel.
• 9. Then those that are disciples of Christ (for so was Judas) must not be caught to doe all things Christ hath [Page 10]commanded, Mat. 28.20.
• 10. The Scripture (as Mr. Blake ur­ges) speaks of dealing falsly in cove­nant, breaking, and not being stedfast in it: but if the regenerate only be in co­venant, there can be no such thing re­ally, but nominally only.
• 11. Christ said expresly to the twelve, Doe this, Drink you all of it, that was a command, and yet one of them was unregenerate; From whence it follows, that receiving the Sacrament is a duty of a disciple, though unregenerate, and so the covenant, as to priviledge of or­dinances, belonging to such. For my part, I cannot but think those titles of Disciples, Beleevers, Christians, Saints by calling, and the like, given to all within the Church, are titles of right, and not nominal only. We must distin­guish (saies Timson) of beleeving in a large sense, and of beleeving in a strict sense, both to be accounted true beleeving in Scripture sense: The denomination of a beleever, (and so Saint, Christian,) is as well derived from a right object beleeved on, as from the holiness of the subject belee­ving. (Answ. to Mr. Col: p. 153.) It is in my apprehension appositely spo­ken.
• [Page 11]12. The covenant is founded upon grace. Gratia (saies Bullinger, Decad. 5. Ser: 6.) est favor numinis, quo Deus pater, nos propter Christum complectitur, et donis instruct. Now in the Scripture there is two-fold grace; General grace, and Special grace; God is said to love all, (that he would have all to be saved) yet elect some; Christ is said to dye for all, and to dye for his sheep; Both these are true, whatsoever men con­tend, the Scripture must be beleeved, and we must not argue from the one to the destruction of the other. To define this sense orthodoxly how both are re­conciled, who is so wise to undertake? One Cottier, a grave French-Protestant Divine, in an Epistle of his to one of their Provincial Assemblies, and well approved of by them, having studied this point long, saies thus. Ad haec respondemus, non esse asystata, quia gradu & modo differunt. Deum putamus posse magìs et minùs velle. Par est majora ma­gìs, minora minùs velle. Quod verò de Deo dicitur, Christo etiam convenit, Pro omnibus mortuus, magis vero pro Electis. Doctor Twisse saies thus often, Fatemur et nos Christum-mortuum esse pro: omnibus [Page 12]et singulis, hoc sensu, nempe ut inomnes & singulos per mortem ejus redundet salus, modò in ipsum credant. Lib. 2. Crim. 4. Sect. 6. For my part, I dare not be pe­remptory in determining this sense of General grace, it suffices me that there is some sense thereof according to the word of truth, and I shall only observe this one thing, that in the Scripture this General grace belonging to all in some Orthodox sense whatsoever it be, is often appropriated to the visible Church, who are said to be redeemed, to be in Christ, and sanctified with his blood: in way of distinction from the world; when some of them are repro­bates, and perish with it, 2 Pet. 2.1. Jo. 15.2. Heb. 10.29. And herein I do conceive we may see how the cove­nant of grace in this latitude to the whole Church may stand upon a real, and not an aequivocal foundation; and that will be, if we doe not reckon the unregenerate and non-elect to be in co­venant in reference to special grace, as Christ is said to dye for his sheep and elect, whereof these cannot partake in­deed, only in the account of men, which is nominally only; but in reference to [Page 13]General grace, as Christ is said to dye for all (and that not nominally, aequivo­cally, in the account of men only; but really, so that the tender and offer of Christ to all is serious and real) as it is appropriated to the Church that re­ceives it, with distinction of priviledge from the heathen or world, that doe not receive this grace and Gospel, but deny it. And this by the way I shall humbly offer, for the removing some grand objections which stick with ma­ny. For instance, The Sacraments are signes of grace, instituted to testifie the be­ing and having the thing, saies. Gillespie, Aar: rod blos. B. 3. c. 13. Therefore they belong to the regenerate only. Again, It is not credible that Christ should say, This is my body broken for you, and my blood shed for you, if Judas were amongst the other disciples. B. 3. c. 8. Again, The Sacrament is the communion of the body & blood of Christ, with the like. I answer, The Sacraments are signs directly of this general Grace, as it is appropria­ted in Scripture to the Church and they do testifie to every nember the being and their having thereof, by way of ad­vantage and distinction from the world; [Page 14]And thus, as it is credible that Christ should say there are some branches in him that yet are fruitlesse; that Peter should say, some are bought by the Lord, that deny him; and Paul, that some are sanctined by the blood of the covenant, that trample upon it, accor­ding to the texts fore-quoted; So is it credibse that Christ should say these words, This is my body broken for you, to Judas among the rest, and in the same sense is there a communion of Christs body and blood to all within the Church, (even as Moses saies to all the people. Rehold the blood of the cove­nant which the Lord hath made with you. Ex. 24.8. Heb. 9.19.20.) though some of them be professors only. Two things here may be demanded, 1. How can this General grace of the covenant be appropriated to the Church, which belongs to all the world? I answer. It belongs to the world only in regard of publication, tender, and a kind of po­tential interest if they come in; but it belongs to the Church by way of actual interest, as already come in (See my Rejoynd. p. 202.) so that one is said to be in covenant, and the others yet ali­ens, [Page 15]from it, Eph. 2.12.2ly. What is that then which brings a man into this outward actual interest in the covenant, whereby this General grace thereof be­longs to him by way of priviledge now, when as yet he is no more partaker of the Special grace thereof than before? I answer with Mr. Hudson, Vind. p. 8. There are two Sieves which God useth, the first is to sift the world into a visible ecclesiastical body; The second is to sift this visible ecclesiastical body, into a spiritual invisible body. The one Sieve is managed by the hands of the Mini­ster, the other is in the hands of God only: Into the one a man is brought by the outward call of the Minister, and his own answering that call in recei­ving the doctrine of Christ, and subje­ction to the Ordinances; Into the o­ther a man is brought only by election and regeneration.
• 13. Lastly, The covenant under the New Testament is said to be better than under the Old, Heb. 7.22. & 8.6. But to account this priviledge of Ordi­nances which was in common to the Jews (as is proved before) to belong now only to the regenerate, is to make [Page 16]it worse under the New testament than under the Old, which is injurious to doe. Arbitrari (saies Calvin, Inst. l. 4. c. 16. Sec. 6.) Christum adventu sno pa­tris gratiam immiouisse, aut decurtasse, execrabili blasphemia non vacat. I know some do make this difference between the New and Old Testament, that the Jews were all called Gods people, and reckoned in covenant, though many of them were wicked; but it is not so now (say they) under the New. Against these I shall oppose only those two plain texts, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12. there are scan­dalous persons enumerated, a Fornica­tor, covetous, drunkard, yet within, (that is, within the Church and covenant) yet a brother. So 2 Thess. 3.15. There is the disorderly person, yet count him not as an enemy; that is happily (conside­ring the word in other places, as Rom. 11.28. Eph. 2.16.) count him not as one out of the Church, an Unbeleever or Heathen, but admonish him as a bro­ther. And indeed, unless such be loo­ked on as brethren, and as within, how can there be any excommunication, for what have we to doe to judge those that are without? I know that Cameroes authori­ty [Page 17]is here quoted, but that grave and pious man Mr. Blake hath made it his businesse to confute this difference, in the 27, 28, and 29 Chapters of his Treatise of the Covenant; wherein as I find Mr. Anthony Burgesse parti­cularly in this point commending that Tract as solid and judicious, in his se­cond part of Justif: after he had seen what hath been put in against it; likewise Mr. Vines, and others; So doe I humbly judge his labours there­in are worthy to be attested, as very serviceable to the Churches peace.

SECT. 3.

VNto the Church, under that noti­on, as his Church, or people, the Lord hath vouchsafed his ordinances by way of priviledge and distinction from the world. He shewed his word to Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Isra­el, he hath not done so to any nation, as for his judgements they have not known them, Ps. 147.19, 20. Ps. 78.5, 6, 7. What ad­vantage then hath the Jew? Much every way, chiefly because that unto thē were com­mitted the oracles of God, Rom. 3.12. To them pertaineth the adoption, the convenants and the service of God, Rom. 8.4. with Eph. 2.12. Upon this account, do our Divines solidly (as I think) make the Ordinances, the right administration of the Word and Sacraments (under which, a profession of the doctrine of Christ, prayer, and other worship is comprehended) to be the notes or marks of the visible Church. It is true indeed, that the Gospel is to be prea­ched unto every creature to bring men [Page 19]in unto the Church, as the Jewes no doubt might use the Word to make pro­selytes, neverthelesse the word of God as other ordinances, cannot be said to pertain unto any out of the Church, in the sense of the Scriptures now mentio­ned, until they receive the doctrine thereof, and externally subject them­selves to the same. For this same pri­viledge of ordinances, or this donation of ordinances by way of priviledge to the Church, in distinction from others, is a thing to be stood upon as a matter very considerable, both because, if we let this advantage fall, we shall present­ly level a Christian with an Heathen, the Church of Christ, with the Pagan world: and also because the Lord hath appoin­ted these his ordinances (whereby the advantage of them does appear) to be the ordinary means of bestowing his effectual grace, which he hath indefi­nitely promised in the use thereof.

SECT. 4.

VPon this latitude of the convenant, and this priviledge of ordinances belonging thus to the Church, as a pro­prium quarto modo, or an essential mark thereof, it must follow, that every mem­ber in statu quo, must have a right [...]evol­ved on him, or flowing to him from that relation as a member. Only here wee must observe two distinctions.

• 1. We must distinguish between a Right unto the effectual benefits of Christ held forth in an ordinance, as particularly the Lords Supper; and a Right to the external ordinance: The former right indeed, belongs to none but the regenerate; but the latter belongs to all within the Church, to all alike that are Members. Aliqui induunt Chri­stum (says Austin) usque ad Sacramen­torum receptionem, aln ad vitae sanctifica­tionem. I know some chuse to distin­guish here between an active [...]ight in the Church to conferre the Seals, and a passive right in a visible Member to receive; a right in foro Ecclesiae, and in foro Dei. But for my part, I think this former plain distinction of mine, re­specting an active and passive right in fo­ro [Page 21]Dei & Ecclesiae alike, is rather (for these two reasons, see Sect. 2.) to be used; and in other terms may, if you please, be expressed thus. The Sacra­ments may be considered either Com­plexly, with the entire fruits and be­nefits of the Covenant, unto which truth of Grace is necessarily required to the obtaining thereof: Or precisely in the Ordinance it self, and so it is Church-membership alone, or external covenant-relation, denominating the subjects, Saints, Beleevers, Disciples, Christians, that gives men right unto the same. See reverend Dr. Worths Inf: Bap: p. 16. It is one thing what is requi­red of the receiver in his coming or that comes to the Sacrament (as of the hea­rer, and him that prays in their hearing and prayer) and another thing what is requir'd to receiving: so that else he must not come.
• 2. We must distinguish between a Right, and use of that right; Though this right unto all the ordinances be in common, It must be acknowledged for the use and actual partaking of some or­dinances, particularly the Lords Sup­per; there is a difference to be put be­tween such as are not of age or capacity, [Page 22]but want the use of reason (as Infants, Idiots, Distracted, with the like) and other members; the direct and imme­diate ground hereof lying herein, in that the use of a right, is not of so large ex­tent, as the right is. A man may have a right to a thing, or to do a thing, when it is impossible for him to use the thing or to doe it, and the impossibility does disoblige, and excuse him from the doing. It is thus with infants and distracted persons in point of the Lords Supper; it is not for want of a right they are not admitted, (any more than the infectious or sick) they have a right, nay a full plenary right (let others use their own terms as they will) as appears con­vincingly by the other Sacrament of baptisme, where there being only a pas­sive reception, which they are capable of, they do, and must receive it: But it is because they cannot use the same right here, where such an activity is re­quired, as they are not capable of; E­ven as in their estates they have a right to them, but they do not manage them. An heir in his infancy is Lord of all, in respect of the one, and yet differs not from a servant, in respect of the other, Gal. 4.1.

SECT. 5.

FRom this concession of mine about Infants and the Distracted, it cannot be argued, à pari, by my opposers, for an exclusion of all ignorant, unregene­rate, and scandalous persons.

1. Because in the one they stand wholly on the point of Right, but in the other we look only on the use of that tight. The unregenerate (say they) have no right to the Sacrament, and if they be visibly so, through ignorance or scandal, they must be excluded: We say Infants and the distracted, have a right, but only they have not reason to manage their right, as the other have; so here is no parity. The truth is, it is membership (as before) that alone gives right, so that though a person be unregenerate he may have a right to the ordinance, and whether he be Infant, Distracted, Ignorant or Scandalous, it is all one for that, if he be a member, this external right is the same in the [Page 24]one as in the other; Now the right be­ing the same, in the use of the right must lie all the difference; which between these is plain enough; the one have the exercise of reason, and are thereby able to act from a principle of reverence to­wards God, the other have not. The Corinths sin of not discerning the Lords body, was more of carelesnes or pro­phanenesse, than bare ignorance; there is as much difference between Infants and Ignorants, (as I have said other­where) as between a Doe not, and a Cannot, if the one does not, it is their fault; but the other cannot, and are ex­cused.

2. Because there is yet a farther thing here, most considerable, and that is this. The very ground upon which we are to do any thing, or leave it undone, is the consideration of duty; The com­mand of God, as it is our rule, so it must be the reason of our actions. Now there is a difference in the very point of obligation or duty, between Infants and Distracted persons, and Ignorant and Scandalous persons. The com­mand of the Apostle is this, 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself, and so let [Page 25]him eat, discerning the Lords body; Now as for Infants, and the Distracted, they are not bound to this command, it is impossible for such to examine them­selves, and discern the Lords body; and there can be no obligation to that which is naturally impossible: But as for. Scandalous and Ignorant persons, they are bound to examine themselves, they are of capacitie, and are bound to get knowledge, and discern the Lords body, Who can deny that they are bound to do this, and that if they do it not, it is their sinne? It is true, an ig­norant person cannot examine himself, as well as a knowing Christian; but he can examine himself though so farr that he is bound to it: He cannot hear and apply the Word, as a man of more know­ledge; but he can hear and apply the Word after a sort, though as an igno­rant man, which he is bound unto; and so far as he can apply the word, he can examine himself, the doing of one, is a doing of the other. Likewise, an unre­generate man cannot discern the Lords body with that faith and love as the re­generate do; but yet neverthelesse, in point of dutie, the case is plain, every [Page 26]man must doe still what he can, that God may help him to do what he can­not. That which is a sin to neglect or leave undone, is a dutie to be done; but it is a sin in Ignorant and Scandalous persons not to examine themselves and discern the Lords body, and no fin in Infant and Distracted persons; and therefore it is a dutie in the one, and not in the other. And if it be a dutie, here comes in then this rule, which can never be taken off, that Mans impoten­cie in the manner of performance of a dutie, must not make void Gods autho­ritie in the substance; and so I cloze up this, if there be a dutie incumbent upon Ignorant and Scandalous members in respect of this Sacrament, which is not on Infants, and those which have not the use of reason, then can there be no argument here from the non-admission of the one, to the exclusion of the o­ther. And this might suffice, but I will adde.

3. It cannot be reasonably imagined that such a state of persons (as Infants and Idiots) in the Church should be ad­mitted to actual receiving, that in the discretion of the Church are no proper [Page 27]objects of Church-censures in point of offending, which growen persons in the Church are, though never so ignorant. As John Timson hath put in to my assist­ance in his Bar removed, p. 6. I will add, it is as unreasonable likewise that such a state of men in the Church as ig­norant persons, should not be capable of a right of receiving the Sacrament, who are upon their misdemeanour lyable to a censure of exlusion from it. Eadem est ratio contrariorum.

4. The non-admission of Infants, and Distracted or Idiots, is the office of eve­rie single Minister, belonging only to the right administring of the ordinance; so that the precept alone, Let a man ex­amine himself, and discern the Lords bodies, does suffice for the doing there­of: But exclusion of ignorant and scan­dalous persons is an act of Jurisdiction, and belonging (according to the Pres­byterians) to the Elders: so that there are other texts required, upon the ac­count whereof that is to be done, to wit, those texts which concern disci­pline, as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Put away from among you such a person. There is not therefore the same reason for the [Page 28]one, as for the other, as may be gather'd farther from what will follow. There is more required, and another ground, to an act which is ecclesiastically inflictive of punishment, than to a bare act of pa­storal discretion.

5. The Ordinances all are to be used only for edification: Now the work of the Sacrament on the receiver being on­ly by way of sign, as the understanding is exercised thereon, it is not possible, that those who have not the use of rea­son to discern any meaning here of can be edified, or have any real grace wrought on them by it. But for such as are of years & understanding, though spiritually ignorant and scandalous, though unregenerate (for the regene­rate may sometimes be such) I do con­ceive they are capable through the grace of God to receive good by it, as by the word; the Sacrament being nothing else but a visible word, or an appendix to the Gospel.

As for the ignorant in the first place, I suppose such as are of age and reason, let the Minister speak of Mans miserie, redemption by Christ, and tell the peo­ple plainly the meaning of the Sacra­ment [Page 29]they come unto, in as few plain words as they can and ought, who can deny that they may not receive instru­ction) and with instruction, convicti­on) now at this time they are here, as at another? If they do not, the fault will be their Ministers or their own. The Sacrament, mediante verbo, through the word, will be granted a teaching ordi­nance, but the Word does accompany the Sacrament, and is indeed a part of it. The Novices of the Jews were in­structed in the meaning of the Passeover and some mysteries of their Religion; at their eating the Passeover (Godwin, Jewish Antiq. l. 3. c. 4.) the Paschal Lamb was appointed for a teaching sign, and memorial in their generations, Exod. 12.26, 27. So doubtless is the Sacrament a teaching sign also. I must confesse, if you will say that some are so grosly ignorant that they are not ca­pable for the present to learn, or be in­structed by publick teaching, then may you have the libertie for me to number them amongst Idiots, and such as have not the use of reason, and so deal with them accordingly; and if indeed there be such, we had best happily, for avoy­ding [Page 30]cavil, to distinguish between these (excepting them, together with Infants and the Distracted) and those whom I speak of, that though they be ignorant, are of discretion and capacitie to edifie by the publick ordinances; and as for such, it seems to me against sense to de­ny that they may not receive instructi­on and edification by the Word that ac­companies the Sacrament, (especially in things of the Sacrament) as well as by that which goes before, or after it. And by the way, as for the younger sort come out of their childhood, my judge­ment is with Aquinas, Quando pueri in­cipiunt aliqualem usum rationis habere, ut possint devotionem hujus Sacramenti con­cipere, tunc potest eis hoc Sacramen­tum conferri, Part 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 4.

For the Scandalous in the next place, I would have some to know or consider that the Sacrament is an ordinance wherein the curse and wrath of God a­gainst sin is held forth in the sufferings of Christ, as well as pardon upon repen­tance, Herein is the joynt strength of the Law and Gospel applyed in power to the un­derstanding, and a most high-aggravating [Page 31]of sin upon the conscience, saies Mr. Blake, in his late Book, called The Covenant sealed, in reference to his former, The Covenant opened, ch. 7. Sect. 13. Arg. 3. & 4. A sin-aggravating, heart-brea­king, soul-humbling ordinance (as he calls it) is a means to reclaim even a scandalous sinner.

Reader, I speak not these things on the one hand, to hinder Catechism, Examination, and any means of private conference for the bringing our peo­ple unto knowledge; Nay, I am not against a prudential making use of this season to this end; but only in regard that few Ministers doe or can go to all their people, and their people will not come to them, I doe conceive it may be satisfactory to their spirits in doing their office, that though some persons be ig­norant, yet coming to the Supper, and hearing the nature and use of the Sacra­ment laid open, there is hope through Gods grace, that they may receive at the very time competent information to be edified and wrought on by it. I will speak plainly, they may receive in­struction for the knowing (according to their modell) the wretchednesse of [Page 32]sin, that Christ is the Son of God, through whose name alone we can be saved, and that he is held forth as crucified in the elements, and tender'd to beleevers, which is as much as Mr. Blake saies, he dares re­quire to admittance, Cov. Seal. p. 233. Again on the other hand, I speak not neither to favour the scandalous, my doctrine is rather too harsh in the cast­ing them out, yet am I not so far gone, as to think that it is not possible for such a person (not yet under censure) to be wrought on, or edified by this ordinance. No, let but a right application of what is held forth herein be made by every receiver, according to the state of his soul, and what can be more effectual through the word to break his heart? Let the man which is most keen against sin, consider what I have proposed in my Rejoynder, p. 37, 39, 40, 75, 76. 112, 113.235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 255. and he will see this is no loose do­ctrine I have taught.

Neither may they say this is no means to work grace or repentance, but confirm it; this is not an ordinance for con­version; but for edification▪ For I say otherwise, It is a means of edification [Page 33]and salvation, and therefore unto some likewise of conversion. The whole exer­cise of Christs officers in dispensing the word, seales, and all other ordinances of Christ, say the London Divines, (in their Jus Divin. Reg. Ec. p. 36.) is for the edifying the Church of Christ, or the visible body, Eph: 4.11, 12. with v. 4, 5, 6. & 1 Cor. 12.11, 12. From hence then I argue, If the Lord hath appointed all his ordi­nances within the Church for the edifi­cation of the whole, and there be some unregenerate within the Church, then is the Sacrament appointed for some un­regenerate mens edification, and conse­quently their conversion, for otherwise such cannot at all be edified unto salva­tion. But the former is true, therefore the latter. Again, The solemn applica­tion of the covenant to a mans self, ac­cording to his estate, to wit, of salvation through Christ, if he will beleeve and repent, and of judgement from Christ, if he continues in his sinnes, and does not turn effectually to him, is the very onely way whereby the Spirit usually worketh conviction and sincere conver­sion: But actual receiving of the Sacra­ment is a solemn means of such an ap­plication. [Page 34] Ergo. I pray see what I have written in the fore-quoted places for the clearing of this, and compare it with the substance of what Mr. Blake hath put in since (and, it may be, more cautiously exprest) in the said place of his Cov: Seal. p. 204. & 240. which hath much confirm'd me; and I am perswaded, when this matter is a litle more laid to heart, that many will not only be ready to con­fesse with him, (ibid. p. 240.) that there is more weight herein, than personally hath been acknowledged; but also, that though it be objected against my do­ctrine, that it strengthens the hands of the wicked, Ez. 13.22. yet shall the godly find here a sword put in their hands for the smiting the wicked, the secure, and hypocrite, up to the heart, with this Sacrament it self; while they are but taught to apply what is held forth to them according to their condition.

Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes for all this may be piously advised upon the account of prudence, and the solemnitie of the ordinance, to doe more good by it; (which I shall speak something of in the end, [Page 35]to yield what may be, to the satisfying the pious) but this will not come up to a necessity. All the disciples of Christ were ignorant in the funda­mentals of Christs death and resurre­ction, and Judas was scandalous (See my Rejoynd. page 15.) yet Christ ex­cluded neither of them at his Sup­per.

SECT. 6.

WEll now, let thus much be consi­dered, that the Lord hath his Church in such a latitude, to take into it whole Nations, regenerate and unre­generate; That the priviledge of or­dinances belongs to this Church by way of distinction of it from the world▪ That every member thereof therefore hath a right unto the ordinances devol­ved on him from this Church-covenant-relation: While yet it is confessed, that there are some which through their incapacity of reason cannot use the same. The result of all will come to this, that there is no person of discreti­on within the Church can be debarred any publick ordinance, particularly the Sacrament, before he be turn'd out of the Church, with which, this privi­ledge of ordinances is convertible, and from it inseparable. The Sacrament is the communion, or token of our com­munion in Jesus Christ; But every [Page 37]Church-member in statu quo, is in Christ, Jo. 15.2. and in some sense partaker of his blood, so as to sanctifie him, Heb. 10 29. and redeem him, 2 Pet. 2.1. and therefore his right is good to that which is in the same sense the token hereof; So long as he is in communion, how can he be debarr'd the communion? while he is in the body, he may partake of the body; The Church is the body of Christ, and so long as we are one body, we are one bread, and partakers of that one bread.

I must yet follow moreover, if it cannot be proved that Jesus Christ hath given order for the casting out some from the Church, so far that for the pre­sent they are thereby cut off their ex­ternal covenant-Church-relation, we must maintain a promiscuous communi­on, in the largest way, as learned Mus­culus, and others before Erastus have done; which yet I dare in no wise ap­prove, so far as it opposes an Ecclesiasti­cal government distinct from the Civil within the Church. It is my opinion therefore, that the Lord Jesus hath set up a power of the Keyes under the Gos­pel, distinct from the Magistrate, where­by [Page 38]he hath taken order, that if there be any persons within the Church that are scandalous, and remain obstinate after due admonition, that they are to be cast out by the censure of Excommunication, which being such as turns them out from the Church (Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor, 5.7, 13. Io. 9.22.3. Io. 10.) their right unto the ordinances must needs fall together with their Church-relati­on, and then they are justly to be kept from the Sacrament. So that I herein declare against an Erastian in-discipli­nary promiscuous communion, though I stand for an orthodox disciplinary Free-admission.

And here I will advance this one ar­gument against Erastus, which will stand, I suppose, when others will not; and it is this. If the Scripture does al­low an exclusion of some from the Church in general, or from her societie and communion in general, then may some be excluded from the Sacrament, because the Sacrament is a part of that communion. But the Scripture does allow and command this, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Purge out the old leven; Keep no company; Put away jrom among you such [Page 39]a person; Let him be to thee as, an heathen. Therefore an exclusion from the Sacra­ment upon those grounds as do respect it onely as a part of Church-society in general, is to be maintained against the Erastian by excommunication; as an exclusion upon other grounds, as parti­cularly from the distinct nature of the ordinance is to be opposed against others that would have it without excommu­nication.

SECT. 7:

FOr the Excommunicate, there is a received distinction of such that are so, Either Ipso jure, or De facto; Those are accounted ipso jure excommunicate, whose scandal and impenitency is evi­dent to the Church, that there need no tryal for their conviction. Those are de facto excommunicate who have farther a legal sentence passed on them. It must bee acknowledged that many Divines and Churches of God have allowed the Minister a liberty to with­hold the Sacrament from persons Excommunicate ipso jure, before sen­tence; unto whose reverend authority, I have ever judg'd with due limitation much is to be submitted; so that upon their score I have exprest my self in my Rejoynd. p. 21, 26. so farre, that sup­posing there are scandals, 1. Notorious, that they offend the Congregation. 2. Open, that they need no proof or debate. 3. Actual, or in the present [Page 41]fact, that no repentance can be plead­ed, it may not matter much, if you deal with such as excommunicate, when you judge it like to doe good. In extraor­dinary cases, some extraordinary procee­dings break no squares. Neverthelesse (ordinarily) upon my farthest conside­ration, I do believe it a thing more con­sonant to the scope of the Scripture, and lesse lyable to opposition, to resolve that an ecclesiastical judgement first passe upon a person, before he be ex­cluded any part of our Churches publick communion: and therefore I doe own here that thing (as fit and good) which is noted by Mr. Collings, Vind. Suspens: & Presb: p. 36. That though I grant to the Minister thus much upon a pinch, in case of some intollerable e­vil, yet as to what is ordinarily to be done, all my arguments are so framed, as to conclude, that a person must not be only de jure, but also de facto excom­municate, before he be debarred his ad­mission.

My reasons are, 1 Because the Apo­stle commanding the Corinths, 1 Cor. 5. Not to keep company nor eat with those brethren, that were fornicators, drun­kards, [Page 42]railers, and the like, layes down expressly this proceeding, For doe not ye judge those that are within? v. 12. that is, this not keeping company is intended no otherwise, than upon a judgement foregoing. This refusing to eat with such a one, was by vertue of a judicial sentence (saies Gillespie, Aar. rod. bloss. p. 430.) past against the scandalous person. And Beza, De Presb. p. 57. So in 2 Thess. 3.14. If any obey not, note that man, and have no company with him. The disorder­ly person is first to be noted, [...], that is, according to our chief Anti-Erastian Divines, Beza, Ham­mond, Rutherford, Gillespy. Set a mark upon him, or a censure, and then with­draw from him. Indeed it is a question whether this Note or Judging, in these texts be authoritative, or private only; I must confess if they be not authorita­tive, but of private discretion, as Era­stus holds, then this will not reach the purpose, nor this Have no company, I suppose then, reach to the Sacrament.

2. Because it seems not reasonable, that a penalty should be inflicted on a person before a judgement be given. I will expresse this in the words of Reve­rend [Page 43] Bowles, quoted by another out of his Evangelical Pastor. Qui omnium pessimi, usque dum ecclesia suâ sententiâ decretoriâ pro canibus et porcis habendos declaraverit, non mihi cum illis ut canibus & porcis agendum est. Latronem, qui mortem commeruit, nullus jure de vitâ tol­lat us (que) dum judex et reum declaraverit et sententiam tulerit.

3. Because there are like to follow many flippery and dangerous inconve­niences upon the allowing the Minister power of doing otherwise: insomuch as I find Beza in his book against Erastus, very often, and very earnestly me-thinks, speaking to this purpose. Etiamsi suis oculis minister quempiam viderit aliquid agentem, quod coenae exclusionem mereatur, jure tamen nec debeat nec possit, nisi voca­tum, convictum, legitimè deni (que) secundum constitutum in ecclesia ordinem, damnatum, à mensa domini, cum authoritate prohibere. See p. 26. 23. 75, &c.

4. Because Exclusion from the Sacra­ment, according to my judgement, is not to be allowed by any means upon those reasons which are most stood upon from the nature of the ordinance it self, as distinct herein from others, but upon [Page 44]the account of discipline only. To ex­clude from the Lords Supper (saies Scho­lastical Mr. Jeanes as the subject of his discourse upon this question, which he hath strongly carried) is a kind of Eccle­siastical punishment, and therefore presup­poseth an Ecclesiastical censure; though men have deserved such a punishment, yet it is not to be inflicted on them, untill they be legally censured, p. 118. Ed. 2.

SECT. 8.

THat my mind here may be clearly understood, the controversie be­tween mee and those that oppose me be more fully stated, and some pre­judice avoided, I must crave pardon to use some more words, it may be some more than enough, upon this particu­lar.

In my Vindication of Free-admission (my first little book, p. 33.) for the ex­plaining my conceptions, I have laid down a distinction between discipline and worship. The exercise of the keys, as acts of discipline, I would have ac­counted one thing, and the use of the ordinances, as acts of worship, to be a­nother. Discipline to be in one element, Worship in another. I know, if some list to be contentious, they may confound these, but docendi gratiâ at least, for the expressing my self, no equitable man can deny me thus to distinguish for my pur­pose. Now there are two extreames, [Page 46]I conceive, concerning Free-admission to the Lords Supper; On the one hand, of such who are too large for it, and the other of such as are too strict against it.

There are some then, as hath been touched before, that plead for free admis­sion, not only in regard of Worship, but also in regard of Discipline; dis­claiming all exclusion from any of the publick Ordinances of God by the cen­sures of the Church, and indeed denying all Ecclesiastical government, distinct frō the civil, where the Magistrate is Chri­stian. There are others that plead a­gainst free admission, not only in point of Discipline, but also in point of Wor­ship, herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances, that those who have a granted right to all other parts of Gods worship and Church-com­munion as baptised members, are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament, though they be yet under Church-indul­gence, and not censured. The Sacra­ment (say they) requires truth of grace in the receivers; unlesse a man be rege­nerate on his own part, he is forbidden to come, and consequently, unlesse up­on [Page 47]trial and examination there be some evidence that he is visibly or probably such, on the Churches part, he must not be admitted. In the middle, between these extreames, my opinion (and the truth, as I think, without engaging o­thers) does lie; Affirming against the former, who are the Erastians, that the Lord Jesus Christ, hath set up a power of the keys in the Church, (as I have said before) and that the Scripture is manifest for an exclusion of some per­sons (to wit, the scandalous and obsti­nate) from Christian communion in ge­neral, and so consequently from the Lords Supper, as a part thereof. Ne­verthelesse I doe assert likewise against the latter, that there is no Scripture for the exclusion of any from this Sacrament without discipline, but that admini­string and receiving the Lords Supper, is as free and universal (in the nature thereof to our members) as other parts of Church-communion.

The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer, and other parts of Gods worship, as to the Sacrament; and as the want hereof puts no barre to the one, no more does it to the other. It [Page 48]shall never be proved, I believe, that the Scripture hath advanced this diffe­rence between the Sacrament and other ordinances, that herein alone it must be better to omit the matter and manner both, than to do the matter, if it be not done in such manner as it ought, di­rectly contrary to all other duty. In short then, neither the Erastian, nor ri­gid Suspensioner must have their wills; In point of Discipline, Free-admission is to be denied against the one; In point of worship, Free-admission is to bee maintained against the other.

It is a thing very considerable in the holding any point, upon what grounds it is we hold it; Those that oppose me in my opinion, are very hot for an ex­clusion from the Sacrament, and I for my own part doe allow and uphold the same. An exclusion it self, neither of us do deny, the very difference between us is, upon what grounds or arguments we hold it. Now all those arguments for this exclusion against Free-admission may be reduced to these two heads; Ei­ther to such as do arise from the nature of the Sacrament, as distinct herein from all other parts of Church-communion; [Page 49]Or to such as do arise from the nature of discipline, that respects the commu­nion of the Church in general, and so this Sacrament in common with the o­ther parts thereof.

Arguments of the latter sort are those, and those only which are from such texts. Let him be to thee as an hea­then. Keep no company with such. Pu [...]ge out the old leven. Avoid, withdraw from them. Put away from your selves such a person; with the like. The summ where­of comes to this briefly. The Scripture commands Excommunication, that is, an exclusion from the Church, and so­ciety in general; therefore from the Sa­crament also. These arguments now, I conceive, are firm; Free-admis­sion, as Erastus holds it, I maintain not.

Arguments of the former sort, are such as these. The Sacrament is ap­pointed only for the regenerate. It is a seal of Faith, and set to a blank, if given to any others. Every one else does but necessarily eat and drink damnation in the Apostles sense, with the like. Now these arguments, I conceive, are to be satisfied, & taken off as such as are both [Page 50]invalid, and doe hurt. Free-admission will stand for all them. Alas! were all such arguments conclusive and true, what will become of the poor doubtfull Christian? How shall he act in faith? How shall the Minister himself act? What will become of the Churches u­nitie and peace, the command of Christ, and the foundation of discipline? If it be from the nature of the Sacrament, and these grounds, upon which men are to be excluded, then must they be exclu­ded if there were no discipline; then must the keeping away of such not be an act of vindicative but distributive Ju­stice. As a godly Father shuts his stub­born son from prayers in his family, and from his presence: So does the Church (as I conceive) exclude her refractory children. It is not because the coming to prayer is not the duty of such a child, and is not a means to do him good; No; but because indeed it is so, the Fa­ther would make him sensible hereby how highly he hath offended him, and how much the more hainous is his evil, to reclaim him. A man hath enjoyed those priviledges and means of grace which should have done him good, so [Page 51]long, and he grows but the worse: Well now, the Church in her exclusion, does as it were say thus to him, I will teach you Friend (1 Tim. 1.20.) to make better use hereof when I again admit you to them. If the Sacrament were not a mans priviledge before, and for his benefit, then could not (as I say) Suspension be a judicial proceeding; It were not a punishment, but a delive­rance; That cannot be in way of punish­ment, that is onely to preserve a person from that which is noxious, and can be no wayes any good to him. It is not upon such grounds therefore wee must stand; the Scripture knows no such ad­vancement (whatsoever humane pru­dence may make) of this Ordinance a­bove her fellowes in point of duty; but for ought I know, leaves every man free in the use of this, as well as all other of his outward priviledges, untill he bee legally deprived of the same by a juridi­cal censure,

To this purpose (farther) It is a question, Whether the debarring of persons from the Sacrament, be an act specialis muneris, of the power of order, belonging to the Minister singly; or of [Page 52]the power of Jurisdiction, not belong­ing to him alone, but in common with others, that are rulers in the Church The School-men (as Mr. Jeanes tells us p. 95.) are of the former opinion, who affirm, that this denegation of the Sacra­ment if not to be considered as a judicial action, or inflictive of punishment, but only as a prudent and faithfull administring of the ordinance; (Suarez. in part. 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 67. Sect. 3. p. 856.) and so belonging to every private Minister a­lone, by vertue of his office. Now let this be well considered, and if any of the arguments of the former sort (last men­tioned) be binding, that is, if it can be proved that the nature of the Sacrament be such, that those who have a full right, and are in actual possession of all other parts of Church-communion, have yet no right hereunto, and upon this ac­count are to keep, and be kept away from it, then must these School-men in all reason be in the right, and the de­negation thereof to such, be requisite to the faithfull administring the ordinance, which is the office no doubt of the sin­gle Minister; But the reverend Pres­byterians, generally disliking that [Page 53]such a power should be left to every single Minister, wisely considering the dangerous consequents thereof also de­termine, that this same excl [...] from the Sacrament, does belong to the pow­er of Jurisdiction, and consequently, if they will be consonant to themselves, they should deny that any of those argu­ments which arise from the nature of the ordinances alone, as distinct from others, are cogent, and stand upon those only that arise from discipline.

As for the Schoolmen, by the way, it wil be no wonder if they stand u [...] those arguments from the nature of the Sacra­ment, as herein transcending all other ordinances, whose superstitious conceit of Christs corporal presence in the Sa­crament, could not chuse but induce them to it; as may appear upon their solutions of such questions as these, U­trum peccator sumens corpus Christi Sa­cramentalitèr peccet? Ʋidetur quod non; Quia, Sicut hoc Sacramentum semitur gustu & tactu, ita & visu; At peccator non peccat videndo. Respondeo, Quòd per visum non accipitur ipsum corpus Christi, sed solum Sacramentum ejus. Sed ille qui manducat, non solum sumit species Sacra­mentales, [Page 54]sed etiam ipsum Christum qui est sub eis. Aquinas Part 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 4. Upon such answers as these, I am the [...]e moved with their thoughts about this matter; as also with some passages often quoted out of some of the Fathers. Of whom I doe observe, that those out of whose writings the Papists usually have most for them, are most harsh, and high flowen in their expressi­ons about keeping of sinners from the Sacrament, as Chrysostome (a man of a hot spirit, according to his life, Soc: Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14 & 16.) and those, whose writings are quoted as most clear on our side, (as Augustine) are more so­lute and open in their speeches about admission.

SECT. 9.

THese things laid down, the sub­stance of the controversy between me and others, about Free-admission, will amount to these two questions.

• 1. Whether there be any argument from the nature of the Sacrament, with­out discipline, that remains binding ac­cording to Scripture, for the necessary exclusion of such from the same, who are yet rightly impriviledg'd, and actually possessed of all other parts of Church-communion, being baptized intelligent members. I put in the word Necessary, because prudentially by way of advise, something may be granted and wished.
• 2. Whether there be any such juri­dical proceeding or censure in discipline to be proved, either expresly, or by con­sequence from Scripture, as Suspension, distinct from Excommunication.

SECT. 10.

FOr the former of these questions, It seems to me, (as is before said) that were the Presbyterian judgement right and uniform to its self, I should not need to have any dispute with them; for, if Suspension, or exclusion from the Sacra­ment, be no other than a juridical acti­on, which those that are for Ruling El­ders do, and ought to maintain, then can no argument from the distinct na­ture of this ordinance, that would con­clude this exclusion, though there were no discipline, be of sufficient force for it. It there be one such, then is this exclusion thereby proved to be­long to the Ministers office in his faithfull administration of the Ordi­nance (as before) and not to the pow­er of jurisdiction. Neverthelesse, for ought I see, when they come to dispute, it is these arguments mainly they stand upon. And therefore, for my own part, upon consideration of those perplexities which arise from hence on tender con­sciences, [Page 57]together with the injury that is hereby offered to the Church in lay­ing the ground of all her divisions and separations (and upon no other interest of parties I profe [...]e in the world) I have thought good to do my endeavour for the answering and taking off those ar­guments, in what I have formerly writ­ten, and I hope I have in some measure done it, especially in my Rejoynder, to some mens satisfaction.

For 1. let but a candid interpretation, be given on that Chapter, 1 Cor. 11. lay­ing no more stresse on the words, than the purport of the contents will bear, and so those objections that arise from thence be allayed, which sink deepest; For which, I humbly offer that 4th Se­ction in my Rejoynder, p. 29. to 44.2. Let the covenant be layed down in that latitude as the Scripture does, and so those objections from the Sacrament be­ing a seal, be satisfied, seeing the seal (Quoad jus) must be as large as the co­venant; For which read p. 170. to 180. 3. Let the Sacrament with all the ordi­nances be look'd upon, as instituted for the visible Church, which consists of the unregenerate as well as the regenerate, [Page 58]and consequently, that it is both the du­ty and a means (subordinate to the word) for edification of the one as well as the other; whereby that obje­ction, that the Sacrament is for confir­mation, and not conversion, is taken off, For, though this ordinance is no conver­ting ordinance to the Heathen, it hin­ders not, but it may beget grace in a Christian. And I must confesse, I some­times wonder, to see how this sticks upon the spirits of most at their first thoughts: The Sacrament is no ordi­nance (say they) for the Heathen to convert them; therefore it is no means of conversion: whereas indeed the Sa­crament is no ordinance for the Hea­then, not because it is not converting, but because God hath appointed it on­ly for his Church. The Sacrament is no confirming ordinance to the Heathen; therefore is it no confirming ordinance? There is the same arguing in both: It is neither a converting nor confirming or­dinance to the Heathen, because it is no ordinance at all for them. Notwith­standing, That it is a means for edifica­tion of the Church, (as I say, and chuse to lay it down so) whether her Mem­bers [Page 59]bee regenerate or not, I humbly tender my Rejoynder, p. 206. to 241. and likewise what learned Mr. Blake hath put in more lately, Cov. Seal. chap. 7. sect. 13 and 14. who doth fully agree with me in this point, and hath easily answered Mr. Gillespyes twenty argu­ments, which have been stood upon so much by many.

Let these three things, now I say, be done, as I think they are, and there will be nothing left, as I suppose, that can hold considerable against the negative of the former question; for which, it shall suffice me to produce the judge­ment of my reverend and pious, though harsh adversarie, Doctor Drake himself. Let Mr. Humfrey (saies he, p. 116.) prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, and we shall be farr enough of hindring any the payment of their debts. Now this is proved in the third particular; The Sacrament is appoin­ted for the Church, the Church consists of unregenerate, as well as others, which is a firm and solid probation; and is in­deed that strong bottom (as Mr. Blake acknowledges it, Cov. Seal. p. 247. whatsoever others have said hereof) on [Page 60]which not only my book, but both his too, so far as concerns this matter, are founded.

And as for that instance of Judas joy­ned by me to the precept, Doe this. Drink ye all of it. And they all drank of it. (in the choice of that text, Mark 14.23.) it does adde much strength here­unto, let it be taken directly, not on the part of the admitters, as it is usually urged, but on the part of the receivers; Thus. That these words Do this, Drink ye all of it, was spoken to All present, it will be granted. That Judas was present, the Evangelists do as it were command, at least allow us to beleeve, while they tell us he sate down with the rest, and his hand was at table. Now supposing him present, Christ bids Judas expresly to receive, (to Take) amongst the rest; From whence, actual receiving is irre­fragably proved the duty of a disciple, though unregenerate, or in his natural estate. And then you see what Mr. Drake yields me, and what would bee wonne, though he should not; for this foundation, as to the main, must hold so long as the precepts of God can be preserved from being made void by [Page 61]mans tradition. Go and disciple all Nati­ons, saies Christ, baptizing them, and tea­ching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, Mat. 28.19, 20. From hence we collect, that those who are discipled by baptism, that is, are baptized members, must be taught to ob­serve all the commands of Christ. But the Sacrament is one of Christs com­mandements.

I will onely urge here farther one argument, which I must confesse, sinks deep into me, as that which is not mere­ly fetcht from the brain, but from the hearts of many that are wounded by it. That doctrine which cuts off every doubtfull Christian from the Sacrament, is harsh doctrine and not to be endured: (By the Doubtfull Christian, I under­stand a man in doubt of his regenerati­on, a man that is indeed truly gracious, but doubts so, that he is inclined rather to think he is not.) But this doctrine that holds it not the duty, but unlawful for every unregenerate man to receive, does cut off every doubtfull Christian from receiving; Therefore this doctrine is not to be endured. The Major I hope will not be denied, the Minor I prove, [Page 62]That doctrine which concludes it to be sinne in the doubtfull Christian to re­ceive the Sacrament, cuts off the doubt­full Christian from receiving. This is manifest. But this doctrine concludes it to be sinne in the doubtful Christian to receive. Probo. That which a man is not fully perswaded in his conscience is lawfull to be done, it is sinne if it be done: This is the very direct meaning of those words, Rom. 14.23. Whatsoe­ver is not of faith is sin. But if it be not the duty, or it be not lawful, according to this doctrine, for any man which is not regenerate, to receive the Sacra­ment, then cannot the doubtfull Chri­stian, that is in doubt whether he be re­generate or not, be fully perswaded in his conscience, that it is his duty, or that it is lawfull for him to receive; and consequently, if he receives, he sinnes. If he eateth and doubteth, he is damn'd if he eat. This I humbly conceive is con­vincing. The argument I presume is strong as it is urged by others on the part of the admitters. If truth of grace be necessarily required to receiving, how shall the Minister act in faith, that can­not be assured of the truth of grace in an [Page 63]other? But as I doe urge it thus, on the part of the doubtful receiver himself, I think it is irrefragable. And as it is that, which hath wrought much with me in my Rejoynd. p. 30, 31. So hath it with pious Timson, who agrees with me in it, Ans. to Mr. Col. p. 51. and like­wise Mr. Blake, Cov. Seal. p. 192. where­in you may see a sympathy of our ve­ry soules and spirits in this point. I shall not need therefore to say any more of this former question, but refer to what is already written.

SECT. 11.

FOr the later question; Were the for­mer granted, that Exclusion from the Sacrament, does indeed belong only to the power of jurisdiction, which the Presbyterians grant; and consequently that no arguments from the nature of this ordinance barely, as distinct from all others, without discipline are firm and cogent for it; which they should grant likewise. Then will the whole dispute between me and them, come to this issue, that they must prove, Either, that there is a power in the Ministers to set up a discipline, or a part of discipline which is not prescribed in the Scripture, a thing which none of them I think will maintain: Or that there is such a part of discipline prescribed, in Scripture, as exclusion from the Sacrament, distinct from exclusion from the Church; that is, Suspension, defined to be, a juridical act of the Officers of the Church; whereby upon their having had due cognizance [Page 65]of such, as are unworthy the Lords Sup­per, they deny the Ordinance to them, as a censure, distinct from, and in order to Excommunication.

And here, that the whole difference between me and the moderate Presby­terian (unlesse where they fall from their own principles) does indeed come to this only, I shall produce one testimony that may suffice. Reverend Beza, De Presb: & Excom. p. 23. layes down, or yields to us these three things.

• 1. That the Supper is instituted for disciples.
• 2. That all such as profess Christ, though hypocrites, are disciples. Quales fateor quidem generaliter omnes censeri, qui se tales esse testentur, etiamsi reipsâ nihil mi­nùs sunt quam Christiani.
• 3. That they are so to be accounted of, in regard of ad­mission, untill they are orderly convict­ed and sentenc'd.

Deinde pro non detectis haberi, qui tales esse non fuerint, eo, quem Deus in ecclesiâ constituit ordine, convicti, & pro rebellibus damnati. So pag. 27. Christus, inquit D. Erastus, jussit omnes edere illum panem, et ex poculo illo bibere; Ergo neminem vult excludi qui se suum discipulum profiteatur. Id verò concedi­mus, adeò quidem ut ipsos etiam hypocritas, [Page 66]quamdiu vel penitus sunt tecti, vel neque authoritate publico convicti, et damnati in­ter discipulos numeremus. I know some of our Divines of late, but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza (as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gillespy, Mr. D. and o­thers) are more bold with the command of Christ, and taking up Beza for gran­ting thus much, do restrain it to the regenerate only. But this reverend man, who is much rather to be heard, durst not do so, but is plain you see and clear in these concessions,, upon which, the substance of my whole opinion (at least, as to the Ministers part) will stand. For if the Sacrament be instituted for disci­ples; and all that professe Christ are to be accounted such; and none of them to be excluded, until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed, (as he affirms) then must that disciplinary Free-admission which hold before excommunication, be good, unless it can be provd that there is some other censure in the order God hath ap­pointed, whereby the said rebels are to be condemned, besides excommunica­tion, which I deny. And so you see to what a little point our difference draws. [Page 67] Beza sayes, they must be convict and sentenced first, before they be excluded, as well as I; only he conceives there is a lesser censure to be first inflicted, be­fore the greater; which I must confesse I find not. And herein likewise Beza himself acknowledges thus far, that there is seldome mention in the Scripture of any such lesser censure, but the greater only. Tantum abest ut major excommu­nicatio censeri possit praeter Dei verbum in­vecta, ut contra rara sint in ipso verbo Dei expressa minoris excommunicationis exem­pla; majoris autem multa, p. 11. Now if here instead of rara, he had said nulla, I think he had delivered the very truth.

My reasons against the affirmative of this question, are these.

1. Because the Lord Jesus in that primitive institution under the Gospel, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. hath prescribed no other parts or order in discipline, than admonition and excommunicati­on. After the offending partie is ad­monished privately, then publiquely, If he will not hear the Church, (sayes Christ) let him be as an Heathen, that is, let him be excommunicate, accor­ding [Page 68]to those that oppose Erastus. Now if the Apostles have prescribed any o­ther order of discipline, than what is prescribed in this original pattern, let it be produced; If not, then may this text be sufficient, that there is no such mid­dle thing in the order Christ hath ap­pointed, as Suspension, between admoni­tion, and excommunication.

2. Because the power of the Keyes are given for binding and loosing, which I conceive is done, not in regard of a persons being debarr'd or admitted any ordinance; The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleannesse, yet were not their sins bound thereby; for many times they might become unclean without sin, Lev. 21.3. Numb. 19.8. But in regard of that state and relation men have to the Church outwardly, and Christ, as vi­sible members, from which, while they are excluded, their sins are accordingly, and no otherwise bound or retained (because there is no remission out of the Church, or out of Christ, the visi­ble herein, clave non errante, presenting the invisible) as they are loosed by be­ing received, in again through repen­tance. [Page 69]From whence I argue, where the sins of men are not bound or retain­ed, there is no Church-censure, Mat. 16.19. Io. 20.23. But it is not exclu­ding men from the Sacrament, but the excluding them from the Church, and so Relatively from all its benefits, in that sense as we say, Extra quam, non est salus aut remissio, that does bind the sins of men upon earth. Therefore suspension can be no Church-censure distinct from excommunication. See my Rejoynd. p. 145, 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a state, whereby every member, Relatively, though a Reprobate, is said in Scripture to be in Christ, redeemed, sanctified, to have communion of his body and bloud, with the like; so does the casting them out of the Church put them likewise into a contrary state or condition, whereby they are Relatively to be said without Christ, without God in the world, without redemption, remission, salva­tion.

3. Because the Scriptures whereso­ever they speak of exclusion in point of discipline, doe still speak in general. Purge out the old leven. Have no compa­ny. [Page 70]Put away from among your selves such a person, &c. From whence my argu­ment will be framed thus. If there bee no place in Scripture to prove any ex­clusion at all, but such as speaks of exclu­sion from the Church, the whole lump, society in general, or the like; then is it not possible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental exclusion, as distinct from Church-exclusion. Or, If there be no other medium in Scripture-discipline (I speak of the word Discipline all the way restrainedly, as to this part of cen­sure) but excommunication it self, for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanness from any publick or­dinance (as may appear by any thing of weight in Gillespyes 14 Arguments for exclusion from the Passeover. B. 1. c. 12.) then cannot suspension be proved, as distinct from, but only as conjunct with excommunication. The consequence here is apparent; But the former is true, therefore the latter. In a word, the Scripture knows no other exclusion that is disciplinary, but a casting out of the Church, and so from the Sacrament only, as included in it.

SECT. 12:

ANd this I take to be so true, full, and convincing, that I should hardly need any thing more for the an­swering even the whole of those argu­ments for juridical suspension, which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll: in that book of his upon this subject, wherein I may truly say there is bestowed a good deal of reading, only as it were to disco­ver how little there is to be found in others, and nothing from himself (be­sides humane authority) for his opini­on.

I must confesse there are here Certain Scriptures and Reasons urged by him, with so much pedantry, that is more than enough; and it will be necessary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures, though for what is mere for­malitie, ostentation, or personal abuse, it may passe. I pray God teach that author, and all of us, to become a little more vile in our own eys, that we [Page 72]may learn to vilifie others lesse. The Scriptures are four or five.

The first is Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, nor cast ye your pearls before Swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and rent you. For my judgement on this text, I conceive,

• 1. That this speech was proverbial a­mong the Jews; and I think I have read or heard it is in the Talmud.
• 2. That the purport or meaning, not the letter, is to be attended.
• 3. That this meaning or sense hereof tends unto prudence, or a prudential managing of such things as are designed to a good end.
• 4. That these holy things and pearls, (though they may more specially in the coherence, and in the thing, agree with admonition) are to be taken in general for all such things as have a subserviency to holy uses. 1. Because the text li­mits them not. And 2. Because there is no necessitie for us to do it.
• 5. That these doggs and swine are not to be taken in general for all sorts of sin­ners, for the same reasons on the con­trary.
  • 1. Because the text it self does describe them, to wit, to be such as will [Page 73]trample the holy things under their feet, and turn again and rent us.
  • 2. Because there is likewise necessity so to do. For no holy thing or pearl can be given to dogs or swine by this precept, it being boldnesse to limit what Christ hath not limited.
  But some holy things (as the word, or admonition) may be given, and was given by Christ himself unto such as are dogs and swine in general in other texts, as suppose ignorant and scanda­lous persons; therefore must not the sense of these dogs and Swine, be of all ignorant and scandalous sinners in gene­ral; but on necessity be confined to the text in hand, in which sense it is true, that no holy thing at all is to be given to such.
• 6. By these holy things then and pearls, I understand all things, whether matters of Religion, which are more properly the holy things, (as wholesom counsels in Scripture, pious conferen­ces, opening our experiences, and in general, the ordinances;) or matters of morality, which may be more properly the pearls (as precious sayings, wise se­rious contrivances, advice, actions) so far as they are either appointed of God, [Page 74]or made use of by reason for the Edifica­tion of others. And by dogs and swine I understand all persons, whether igno­rant, or not ignorant, scandalous or not scandalous otherwise, that are but like in the use hereof towards them, to tram­ple on) he things, and rear the givers, that is both to contemn the one, and de­spite the other.

The substance then of this precept or counsel of Christ, as I am fully perswa­ded, without binding others, comes to this, that every man in the managing of good things, should be prudent, so far, as to have a care, and such regard to the persons (with other circumstances) to whom he dispenses them, that we are to forbear, when we shall but exaspe­rate, give occasion of contempt, and do no good by them.

For instance, suppose a man (otherwise godly) is in a passion, so that I see re­proof, (which is a pearl and good thing in its season) would be surely contemn'd, if I should give it him at the present, and make him flie upon me, in this case now, under this dogged humour, this rule of Christ commands me in prudence to forbear, and take another opportuni­ty to do my duty.

This foundation being laid, I shall here propose these two questions.

• 1. How can our delivering the Sacra­ment to our intelligent & unexcommu­nicate members, be a giving thereof un­to dogs, seeing we are sure they will not turn again upon us, and rent us for that; Or swine (which some distinguish) see­ing they doe not trample thereupon, by neglect, vilipending, despising or reje­cting of it (for that is trampling the holy things in the text) but so far as we can possibly see, do reverently receive it?
• 2. Whereas if we with old the Sacra­ment from them, unlesse we could have a fair proceeding unto censure, which would stop their mouths, they on the contrary will turn upon us and rent us; withall trampling thereupon, by not ca­ring at all for it: Whether or no is not this rather a plain breach (in the want of prudence) of this rule, seeing suspen­sion of them is supposed to be a holy thing and pearl, and these persons in this case, unlesse we could take farther or­der, we are sure are doggs and swine in reference thereunto, in the very sence of the text. Let those tender Ministers that have been so much scrupled about [Page 76]this businesse, lay this consideration well to their hearts, together with the wis­dom and sweetnesse of their Saviour, whose commands are not grievous, and they may happily find satisfaction, e­ven in this very text, from which they may have likely received at first the dee­pest impressions towards the ensnaring of their consciences.

The second Scripture is 1 Cor. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and the table of Devils.

For the sense of these words, I judge there is no difficultie. Many of the Corinths being brought over from Hea­thenism to Christianity, and so members of that Church, made neverthelesse but little conscience (as if it were a lawfull thing) of going to the temple of Idols, & eating there, of those things that were sacrificed to Devils; Now to reclaime them from this, and prove that they ought not so to doe, the Apostle uses this argument; I speak to you, saies he, as wise, that is, as rational men, Judge ye what I say; Doe not you know that the [Page 77]Sacrament which we celebrate is the com­munion of the body & bloud of Jesus Christ, so that all that partake thereof are visibly professors of communion with him? So all that partake of those meats sacrificed to Idols, are visible professors of communion with these Devils. Now there is no agree­ment between Christ and these Idols, such things are [...], you cannot partake of the table of Lord, and the table of Devils.

In which words wee are to under­stand by this Cannot, [...], a Logi­cal cannot, that is, in reason you cannot; this is manifest, because he lays it down by way of argument, which the more you consider, will be the lesse denied; and by these words, the cup and table of the Lord, and the cup and table of Devils, we must understand the outward ele­ments in both, that is, the bread and wine in the Sacrament, and that meat offered to Devils in their Idol-temple, the reason being open, because the A­postle argues from their partaking of the one, against their partaking of the o­ther.

For those Commentators (as Pareus) that restrain the sense to inward spiri­tual [Page 78]communion, because we Can (say they) partake of the outward things in both, they go but on a slight foundati­on; for this Cannot, we say, is not a na­tural cannot, but a logical cannot, A cannot argumentative. Ye cannot par­take of this Sacrament (saies the Apo­stle) and of those meats sacrificed to I­dols, because there is no agreement be­tween these things (he explains his own cannot) there is a plain inconsistency in reason between them; for by the one we professe communion with Christ, by the other with devils; and I would not have you (saies he, v. 20.) have com­munion with devils.

To this purpose, that Note from Be­za upon the word cup is pertinent, that it is not said, you cannot partake of the body and blood of Christ, which would rather expresse this inward communion, but you cannot partake of the cup and table, which must intend the outward elements, and not the things signified only, the very drift, reason, and matter of the Apostle else is evacuated. Not as Mr. Col. urges, because Pauls argu­ment is plainly to prove the unlawfulnes of their comming to this table, while they were [Page 79]guilty of such sinnes, which is indeed a plain untruth, but because his argument is from their partaking of the Lords ta­ble as their duty, being Christians, to disprove their partaking of the meats offer'd to Idols with the Heathens.

I know some interpret this Cannot morally, Id possumus solùm quod jure pos­sumus, You cannot, that is, in few words, you ought not; which might be admit­ted, if they will apply it right, to wit, thus; You cannot, that is, you ought not, to goe to the Idol-temples, who are according to your profession to bee partakers of the Lords table. But for them to apply it quite contrary, you go to the temple of Idols, and so you can­not, that is, you ought not, come to the Sacrament; This I must tell them cannot be admitted, Cannot, in the sense of the Texts cannot, that is, cannot in any reason.

Let this cannot then here be under­stood, not of a physical cannot, nor a bare moral cannot, but a logical can­not, grounded if you will on a moral cannot on the one side, yet so long as you shall not be able to deny the moral Can, which the whole former part of [Page 80]the chapter enforces, on the other, here will be nothing at all for the adversarie. The Apostle does not say any where be­fore, You partake of the table of Idols, or have eaten of those meats, & I would not have you have felloship with Christ; But he says plainly, you partake of the Lords Table, you are in communion with Christ, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Thus then the main being clear, I shall propose here four things.

• 1. Whether it can be denied that this action of these Corinths, in partaking of these Idol-tables, was scandalous? Scan­dalum being dictum vel factum minùs re­ctum praebens atteri occasionem rui­nae.
• 2. If it cannot, how then can any man gather an argument from this place (whatsoever they may do from others) for the keeping away persons from the Sacrament for scandal, when the Apo­stle himself pleads the general privi­ledge of these persons comming to the Sacrament, as an argument to reclaim them from their scandall?
• 3. Whether this argument here may not be irrefragably advanced; Those [Page 81]that were by the A ostles reasoning en­gaged from partaking of the table of I­dols, partook of the Lords Supper (for this is the ground upon which he proves they might not partake thereof) But not only those Corinths that were more pi­ous, but those scandalous patricularly, were hereby engaged, and warned from partaking of those tables of devils; Er­go, these Corinths, though scandalous, were admitted to the Sacrament. Thus much is not to be gain aid they were. I adde, and they ought to be (tid excom­municate) upon the same consideration, because else you make a sinfull medium in the Apostles Argument.
• 4. Whether many of our godly breth­ren that take occasion from these words, to separate from us in our mixt commu­nions, are not a little mistaken in them, seeing the Apostle here pleads not a­gainst the comming of divers persons (good and bad) to the same table, but against the same persons, going to diverse tables.

The third Scripture is, 1 Cor. 5.8. Therefore let us keep the feast not with the old leaven, &c.

For the meaning of these words, we find in the beginning of the chapter, the Apostle is speaking to these Corinths a­bout their gathering together in an ec­clesiastical way, for the excōmunicating the incestuous person, as appears espe­cially from the last verse, unto which with v. 7. and the word [...] in v. 5. what Erastus opposes I judge is strain'd and insufficient, though what he urges upon the words [...], were plausible otherwise. For this now St. Paul gives his plain reason, which yet he expresses metaphorically, Know ye not that a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump? that is, one such evil ex­ample tolerated, will bring a blot or infamy upon the whole Church, besides the hurt it may doe through imitation. Purge out therefore the old leaven that you may be a new lump, that is, Cast our of your society therefore this person; For Christ our passeover is sacrificed for us, that is, as to the sense and matter agree­able to Tit. 3.14. Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to be a peculiar people zealous of good works: so that Christ being sacrificed for us, is an argument to us, as to purge [Page 83]out sin in our selves, so to purge out the old leaven from the Church. The word Old, happily may signifie, not every fresh sinner for one lapse, or so, but the veterate, and obstinate therein. For the manner of the expression, it is plain­ly brought in by way of elegancy, in pur­suance of the Metaphor, as likewise the text that follows, therefore let us keep the feast. The words are [...], Igitur epulemur, as the olo translation; that is, Ita (que) solennitèr vivamus; or, vitam presentem transeamus; Let us live festivally: or as the Margin of our Eng­lish Bibles, most properly, Let us keep holy day, to wit, in our communion toge­ther as Christians. Let us lead or passe our life, which ought to be a perpetual celebration of our redemption, Not with the old leaven, or the leven of malice or wic­kednes, but with the unleavened bread of sin­cerity and truth; that is, what the Israe­lites did typically for 7 days, let us per­form in the truth and thing signified, all the days of our lives, to wit, purging out the leven both of imbred corruption, and scandal from amongst us. So that to make here a solemn enquiry what is this feast we are to keep in the text, seems [Page 84]to me, an injudicious and needless trou­ble, the substantive Feast being not in the text, but the Metaphor exprest only in one verb [...] manifestly bor­rowed to follow the allusion, or to suit with the rest in the sense I have spoken according to Athanasius, Chrysostome, Theophilact, Lyra, Calvin, Beza, 'Diodate, our Assemblies annotations, with the most upon the place. From all which, it will appear, that though this text may be well urged, as it is by Beza and his followers against Erastus, to prove Ex­communication, yet here is nothing a­gainst me, to prove Suspension as di­stinct from Excommunication: which Mr. Rutherford acknowledges in his Di­vine right of Ch: Gov: p. 349. We con­tend not (saies he) that the debarring of men from any one Ordinance, was sig­nified by the putting away of the leaven, but the putting a wicked person out of the church 1 Cor. 2. with v. 5, 6, 7, 13.

The Fourth Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.11. which with the words before is this, I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the for­nicators of this world, for then must ye needs [Page 85]goe out of the world. But now I have wrote to you not to keep company, If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or cove­tous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drun­kard, with such a one no not to eat.

In this text there is only one difficul­ty to our purpose, and that is, what is meant by this Company and Eating? Dr. Hammond in his Power of the Keyes, is something willing to take it of sacred communion only, as others both of sa­cred & civil upon the censure of excom­munication; Unto which, as I have e­ver confest my self inclining, so am I now no lesse than ever. Notwithstanding there are these reasons may be produced for the contrary, that it is to be taken only of common eating and ordinary fa­miliarity, without censure.

• 1. Because the Apostle seems to bring in this as a new matter from that before (which is more manifestly about ex­communication) though suitable to it. I wrote to you in an epistle, &c.
• 2. Such as is the communion with these we are to avoid, such is the eating, because the one explains the extent of the other; But that seems to be of or­dinary [Page 86]familiarity, Keep not company with them.
• 3. That company and eating is per­mitted in this place to an heathen for­nicator, which is not to such a one cal­led a brother; But Sacramental eating or communion was not permitted to an Heathen; therefore it is not Sacra­mental eating, of which the place speaks.
• 4. The manner of expression, which is, by way of explanation, as to the ex­tent, how farre this not keeping com­pany reaches; with such keep no company, no not to eat, as it shews this eating to be of the same kind with companying, so it seems plainly to hold it forth, as a thing the most common, or dinary, and the least matter amongst them to be admitted to, of any, No not to eat. But my opposers will hardly sure conceive thus of this sa­cred and solemn eating at the Sacra­ment. If they will, (it being of old in common with their love-feasts, and and mingled with them) why should they scruple at free-admission as to this ordinance, above other parts of Christi­an communion, from which they ex­clude none before excommunication?
• [Page 87]5. There may be clear reason for a man to eat at the ordinance with such a person, whom yet he is to avoid in his common familiarity, because the one is necessary, which he is bound to observe as part of the service of God; but the o­ther (at least as to the nature of the thing in its self) is arbitrary, at his own liberty.
• 6. This may be exemplified in the Pharisees, who would not eat at their common table with any of the Publi­cans, whom yet they could not debarre the Sacrifices, Passeover, or service of the temple, many of them being not on­ly Jews; but devout men.
• 7. There may very probably be a dif­ference between this [...] in v. 11. and an [...] in v. 13. & 2. It may be one thing to withdraw our selves from such a man, and another to remove such a man from amongst us. The one may respect Church-censure, and not the other.

Upon these reasons I confesse for my own part, before I read Erastus, (which to say the truth I had not done, nor yet seen him, till after my Rejoynder was a­broad) I have been swayed to this o­pinion [Page 88]But since I have read him and some of hi [...] opposers, I am more indiffe­r [...]nt [...]oward the other.

• 1. Because the most Commentators I see, and the ablest of Erastus antago­nists, do go that way, making these ver­ses, as the rest of the Chapter, serve for excommunication, and I have no mind to approve of the taking away of Church­censure, which this text as well as o­thers, may help to maintain.
• 2. Because the Apostle speaks of kee­ping company in general, and eating in general, and I begin to fear a man may be too bold to limit it to common fami­liarity onely, as to sacred only; Yet as to the limitations of that old verse, Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse. I count these words in v. 10. will bear them out by way of proportion, to wit, Yet not altogether, for then must you needs goe out of the world.
• 3. Because these reasons I have laid down doe indeed seem to me cogent (at least some of them) for the proving that common society and eating must be understood here inclusively; but I think them not so cogent to prove it exclu­sively, that sacred communion and [Page 89]eating may not be meant here also.
• 4. Because I question whether a man be bound to avoid every scandalous sin­ner in civil communion, or ordinary eating, unle [...]e in case of partaking in their sins, by acting with them, con­nivance or the like, until he is censu­red by the Church, and so this precept may be perhaps to be understood only upon supposition, that there is a prece­dent ecclesiastical judging, and decla­ring him to be avoided; for it seems a grievous thing to think, I may not eat with a covetous person, or the like, in our neighbouring invitations; yet in­deed I may be bound not to chuse such for my Companions in intimate familia­rity.

However, as unbyassed herein, and not more peremptory than the matter will afford; It shall suffice me to speak to the text so far as it concerns my self; To do which partially we must have re­course to the following verse, ver. 12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without, doe not ye judge them that are within? The Illative, for, plainly brings the matter before to be concerned here, and the meaning of [Page 90]the words I take to be this; The Apo­stle may be said to judge such by pre­scribing rules, or giving precepts con­cerning avoiding them, and the Church may be said to judge them by doing an­swerable to his prescriptions; Whe­ther that must be necessarily understood in their Elders meeting together accor­ding to Order for the excluding such by ecclesiastical censure; Or the people only every one avoiding such by a judgement of private discretion, I cannot deter­mine; but rather doubt, whether any reasons can be so manifestly laid down on the one side, but that there will be reason lest like wise for the other.

If this judging then, Doe not ye judge those that are within? be meant of ec­clesiastical censure, upon which, such men are to be avoided, then must this censure be the censure of excommunica­tion. For, That censure by which men are excluded Christian Societie in gene­ral, and not the Sacrament only, is the censure of excommunication. But such is this, in the expresse words, Keep not company with such. It is not said on­ly, Eat not with such, but Keep not company, no not to eat, explaining as I [Page 91]have said, the extent thereof; And then you may have still a text here, if you will, against Erastus, to prove excom­munication; but here is nothing against me to prove Suspension as distinct from Excommunication.

If by judging (Do not ye judge, &c.) be meant only a judgment of private dis­cretion, and no Church-censure, then must this keeping company and eating, be meant only of common familiarity, and those reasons before mentioned will certainly evince it upon that suppositiō; For it is a most grievous and unreasona­ble thing, that one private brother should avoid another in any one of the publick Ordinances or worship of God upon his own private judgement. Privato cujusquam ar bitrio hunc vel illum defugiendum relinquere nihil aliud est quā schismatibus & infinitis offendiculis janu­am aperire, saies Beza De Presb. p. 91. and so Gillespie, and others; and then this text makes nothing for Suspension nor Excommunication neither.

There is but one thing here, which all have, can be urged: and that is this, If wee must avoid such a person at our own table in common familiarity, then [Page 92]much more at the Lords table. But this objection is sufficiently met with­all in the laying down my matter. It is true, if this avoiding such, be upon a Church-censure (which then I say is excommunication, not suspension) the argument, à minori ad majus, may hold. That censure, that excludes a man from commō eating, does much more exclude him from the Lords table; if from commō familiarity, then much more from sacred communion. But if this avoiding such (which is supposed in the pleading here­of) be upon private discretion, the ar­gument is no waies valid, because the denyal of common eating at our own table is in every mans private hands, but the denial of eating at the Sacrament is in the Churches hands, and for one private brother to take upon him to a­void another at the publick ordinance, before Church-censure, will not I hope be maintained, by any that are not in love with Schism and separation.

Unto this text I might adde a fifth, 2 Thess. 3.14. which is a parallel to it. If any man obey not our word by this E­pistle, Note that man, and have no compa­ny [Page 83]with him, that he may be ashamed.

Here we have the same [...] and I conceive the same difficulty. For some do look on this Note here as pri­vate, civil, common only; and some do take it to be Ecclesianical, authorita­tive, a Note of censure, for which Au­stine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theoderet, are quoted among the Fa­thers, and the learned Anti-Erastians of late, do all go this way.

For my part therefore (without de­termining that which is dubious, and having no need to determine it) I should answer to this text as to the last. If this Noting be private onely, then does the Apostle command us onely not to keep common company or familiarity with disorderly persons, and so the text concerns not the Sacrament at all. If this Note be Ecclesiastical, then does the A­postle command us to excommunicate such persons, and so the texts concerns the Sacrament as a part of company in general, and no otherwise, which is most plain and undeniable, in that there is not a tittle in the chapter to point out to us this Sacrament in particular.

For the former interpretation there may be these reasons, 1. The persons to be noted are the disorderly in the verses before, that went about idle, and would not work for their living; Now the bare denying such persons entertain­ment in their houses, and not keeping them company, seems a direct and suffi­cient course alone to reclaim them here­in, and set them to work, especially when they knew the Apostles precept, That if any would not labour, neither should he eat, v. 10.2. These words [...] may refer to the [...], and be thus construed, Hunc no­tum facite per epistolam, signifie that man by an epistle, to wit, that he may be censured if the case require, and not to be understood as already under censure. 3. The person that is under censure, is to be accounted as an Heathen, Matt. 18.17. but this person here is not to be accounted as an Heathen, (for so the word Enemy probably signifies, as in Rom. 11.28. Eph. 2.16.) but admonish­ed as a brother, v. 15.

For the other interpretation there may be these reason.

• 1. The person to be noted, is not only disorderly, v. 11 [Page 95]but seems here also to be refractory; If any man obey nor, or will not obey.
• 2. The word [...] is judged more than a bare [...] indeed signifies barely indico, but [...], notam impri­mo.
• 3. The [...] (which I de­sire may be most observed) Keep not com­panie (as in the text before) is general, and indefinite, comprehending all socie­ty, both sacred and civil, and there is no­thing to limit the same in the text. Now to avoid a person so far, as to have no company in general with him, is not to be supposed, but upon an ecclesiastical censure.
• 4. The end wherefore the person is Noted, is the same with ex­communication, to wit, that the man be brought to shame or repentance.

I must confesse, to deal ingenuously, If I were to chuse out an argument to prove Suspension, I should pick out this text chiefly, which yet Mr. Coll: fore-quoted, hath not produced for one amongst these others. And I would urge it thus, Here is a Noting of a per­son to this end, that he may be ashamed, which is probably a Church-censure. But this censure is not excommunication, because the excommunicate is to be [Page 96]counted as an heathen, Mat. 18. but this person is still to be accounted as a brother, v. 15. (which reason is not the least amongst the rest now mentio­ned) therefore must this censure be an Exclusion from the Sacrament only, or Suspension. And this argument, I sup­pose, were more to the point, than any of those I read in this reverend Brother, which generally doe labour still in this one fault, that they prove Suspension by Excommunication, when they should prove the same as distinct from it.

Yet were not this argument neither to be thought sufficient and convincing,

• 1. Because the ground on which it stands, is at most but probable; We are not sure this Noting here is ecclesia­stical.
• 2. Because those Divines that do understand this text, as well as Mat. 18. of Excommunication, do reconcile them both pretty well together.

Some say the Excommunicate is not as a man quite dismember'd, but as a disea­sed member under cure. It is not said [...], but [...]. Some say he is cast out, quoad us in se, not quoad jus ad rem. Others say he is indeed cast hereby out of the Church, [Page 97]but this is conditionally, he is not as an heathen absolutely, but that such an expression may be used. I will adde, A man may be Relatively put into the state of a heathen, through some mis­demeanour, when yet Really he may be a Saint and a true child of God. 3. If this does not satisfie, but that you think here is a censure, and that not so high as excommunication, it will not fol­low for all this, that it must be necessa­rily this suspension, because it may be a­ny thing else as well, unlesse there was something in the place, to discover that the Apostle had some aim here in parti­cular at the Sacrament; which being a vain thing to affirm, if you should frame twenty kinds of keeping not company, or exclusions, as well as from the Sacra­ment, and should say the Text means one of them, you would have quite as much from the place to prove the one as well as the other.

To conclude then these Scriptures, (about which I have been something long) Mr. Col. argues thus still in the main (and in particular p. 87.) It is the duty of Church Officers to keep the fellow­ship of the Church pure, for to this end is [Page 98]the rod of Discipline put into their hands, Therefore must such and such persons be excluded the Sacrament. But he should say therefore they should be excluded Church-fellowship; for to plead for suspension from this Ordinance only, instead of casting them out of fellowship in general, to this end that it may be kept pure, is nothing else but to yeeld openly, that Church-fellowship in o­ther parts of it should remain polluted and impure. And then will all these texts return most forcibly on himself, and overwhelme him. Christ does not say, keep the Sacrament only from Dogs and swine, but give no holy things at all to them. Paul does not say, Purge out the leaven from this ordinance only, but from the lump. He does not say, Keep not company only in the Sacra­ment; but Keep no company, Put such a one from amongst you; Let him be as an Heathen. The summe then is this, according to what hath been before. If these very Scriptures which are alleadged for suspension, do re­spect the Sacrament no otherwise but as a part of Church-communion, that is, if they doe not prove a man [Page 99]is to be excluded from communion in the Sacrament at all, but only that they prove he is to be excluded commu­nion in general, we shall not need any stronger proof against Suspension, then that there is not such a censure in Scri­pture, as distinct from Excommunica­tion.

SECT. 13.

THere are some other Divines of something more candid spirits, that look upon Suspension only as a pruden­tial, pastoral duty, and no juridical cen­sure, and so labour to maintain it. For such as these, I must acknowledge that those reasons of mine laid down before, do not strictly meddle with them. It may suffice me as for such, that they have Beza with the Presbyterians directly a­gainst them, and no Scripture for any Suspension at all (I speak as to the Sa­crament) whereon to build such an opi­nion. And as for that they have to say for it, for that is the whole, that the Apostle commands a man to examine himself, and discern the Lords body, up­on which, we granting that infants and distracted persons are not to be admit­ted by the Minister; therefore say they likewise, neither ignorant nor scanda­lous persons, I conceive it too insuffici­ent a ground alone, to build a businesse [Page 101]of so much practical weight and trouble upon. I will adde therefore two or three reasons more against this opi­nion.

1. A regenerate person that can exa­mine himself, and discern the Lords bo­dy in the strictest sense, yet may be scan­dalous, and for that scandal deserve ex­clusion, as Theodosius by Ambrose. It is not therefore because the Apostle commands a man to examine himself, and discern the Lords body, that a scan­dalous person is excluded; but, because the Apostle commands other-where, let such be censured, Put away from your selves such a person. The same ground or reason that will exclude an unregene­rate man, will exclude the regenerate, and no other. From whence likewise, I shall take away this argument from the hands of my proper opposers. If the kee­ping of persons from the Lords Supper upon this ground or account; that the Apostle commands those that come hi­ther should examine themselves and dis­cern the Lords body, be a pastoral duty, as these think, (and indeed so far as it is done barely on this ground in infants and distracted persons (who being not [Page 102]bound hereunto through incapacity of reason are refused) it is no other) Then must not exclusion of ignorant and scan­dalous persons stand upon this ground with the Presbyterians; for that is an act, that cannot be done according to them (as Beza fore-quoted) but by the power of jurisdiction. This is, what hath at large been said before Suspensi­on from the Sacrament, must not be held upon any argument from the nature of the ordinance, but from disci­pline.

2. It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be accepted of God in one part of Gods worship, as in another. The Scripture requires us expresly to pray in faith, in love, with understanding, and the like, when it does not expresly but by consequence com­mand us so to receive; and as for due preparation, or self-examination, and a right discernment of the Lord in his worship, who will deny it to be requi­red in every ordinance, by the same con­sequence as in the Sacrament it is ex­presse? It cannot therefore be said, that the debarring of scandalous or ignorant persons from the Sacrament, is a Scrip­ture-result [Page 103]from the nature of that ser­vice and the requisites to it (which is the whole can be pleaded to make this a pastoral duty) any more than from prayer and other Ordinances. It is true, we may suppose, according to the ratity & solemnity of an Ordinance, our addresses to it may and ought to be more solemn, but yet is the Ordinance alike otherwise, as to the nature and requisits to it; and not to be preferred before others, to the breeding such a supersti­tious conceit on the spirits of men, that looks to me, like to bowing at the name of Jesus, and not at the name of Christ, God, and the Holy Ghost.

3. It is not the part of Pastors to con­tent themselves with keeping men a­way from the Sacrament without pro­ceeding unto censure and debarring them other communion (at least that of com­mon familiarity) to make them asha­med. I know many happily may be ready to think thus: The Scripture commands such and such should be cen­sured, cast out of the Church and a voi­ded; Now seeing we cannot proceed so farre, it is good to doe something towards it, we will keep them from the [Page 104]Sacrament, and that will be well. But under favour, I am perswaded this is a great mistake and evill, in regard that hereby men doe place a virtue in a meanes of their owne to con­vert sinners from their evill wayes. It is true, when men are duly admo­nished, convicted, and censured as they ought, then is there the virtue of an Ordinance which may be ex­pected to reduce them; for God hath appointed his Ordinance of disci­pline for this purpose to bring men to repentance.

On the contrary, for men to make a businesse onely of keeping people a­way from this part of Gods service, without discipline, how can any such fruit be expected by it? Can men or­dain or set up themselves a reclai­ming Ordinance? If they doe, How shall they give a power and pro­mise to it for this effect? Let those Ministers consider that have kept ne­ver so many away, even whole con­gregations from the Sacrament for ma­ny years together, what are the fruits they have reaped by it. Are their people indeed ever the better for it? [Page 105]Does it not rather serve only to breed indignation to themselves, make their Suspension to be flighted, the Sacra­ment it self to be neglected; so that the most of their people care not at all to come thither? If this indeed be the fruit, then will I thus argue. The Ordinances of God, as exclusion from the Church and Sacrament is one, are to be used only for Edification, and not destruction. But to exclude men the Sacrament without discipline, without a due legal conviction and authority, does not tend to their edifica­tion, but in all this, to their destruction. Or thus, The Lord Jesus commands us expresly not to give holy things to doggs and swine, (as before.) But to use suspension without discipline, or a due authoritative sentence, as should put a reverence on it, is but likely to cast it to such, as will tram­ple upon it, and turn again and rent the doer. And consequently therfore, unles Ministers will purposely goe about to make men dogs and swine, that else would not be so in the sense of this text, they are bound [Page 106]directly (at least, when they see plainly this is like to be the issue) by this very precept of Christ (which is that happily scruples them main­ly to the contrary) to forbear Sus­pension, till they can use it to edifi­cation.

SECT. 14.

THese two questions being laid downe, with my judgement thereof, there will remain two things onely for the compleating my mind in this controversie. The one is, whereas I hold in the first que­stion, that no argument from the nature of the Sacrament alone, without disci­pline, will be of validity for Suspensi­on, it may be required that something be condescended to the tendernesse of most mens spirits and practice herein before censure. The other is, where­as I hold in the second question, that those arguments alone are valid for ex­clusion from the Sacrament, that respect it only as a part of Church-commu­nion, and consequently that a person must be excommunicate, or excluded Church-communion in general, or else he cannot be legally excluded the Sup­per, it may be required that there be some [...], some salve found out [Page 108]here also for the abatement of so much rigor in censure, that a person may be permitted some of the Ordinances, as the Word, while he is debarred the Sa­crament, and no breach be made on ex­communication.

If these two things can but be done with reasonable satisfaction, I hope it will serve to take away the prejudice of many sober and moderate spirits from my opinion; the drift whereof is not at all to doe the pious Ministry any harm (let not my brethren think so) in obstructing their care and inspection over their flocks, but to bind up their broken hearts with a grounded support, that in what they do, and cannot but do, in admission of their people, (the most whereof are unregenerate persons, and so in their sense unworthy) they may do with a sure foot and safe con­science. My great business, I may say truly (with pious Mr. Blake, Cov: Seal. ch. 7. sect. 15. p. 247. in what I have written about this matter together with him) hath been for their comfort and en­couragement that give admittance, that their benefiting is possible, that are thus ad­mitted.

And yet by the way I would not be taxed for the opinion of a promiscuous admittance, which I do not own, with­out the distinction thereof into Erastian and orthodox, as before; An Erastian promiscuous communion I declare a­gainst, as much, and I think something more than Mr. Blake; but for an Ortho­dox Free-admission, the end whereof is to advance discipline, not depose it, I confesse it is what I think should be maintained, being bold to say this one thing in reference to that worthy man now named; that an Anti-Erastian free-admission will be found I believe at last to stand a great deal better, both with the Churches peace and conso­nancy of Scripture, than a kind of Erasti­an, indisciplinary Suspension.

SECT. 15:

FIrst then for some condescension in the former question, how farre those that are more tender in their spirits and practice may goe towards with-holding the Sacrament from such they conceive unqualified, as ignorant or scandalous, before censure, I have touched at in my Rejoynder, p. 82, 83. 111, 112. where distinguishing between what is to be condescended to as prudential, and what to be yielded as necessary; between what is done by way of advice, and by way of compulsion; between forbea­rance and exclusion: I doe acknowledg it is a rule to be allowed in affirmative precepts, that though they doe bind sem­per, they do not bind ad semper, at all times. Upon which account I take it to be lawfull for a man that is obliged, and hath a right to an ordinance, to for­bear the same upon a just occasion; which (I think) may be, as upon other mat­ters, Numb. 9.10. so much more up­on [Page 111]pious ends regarding preparation, Mat. 5.24. Upon this same ground then I humbly conceive, that a Minister looking into the state of his flock, and finding some ignorant and scandalous a­mongst them, though he cannot take up­on himself to exclude them the Sacra­ment before censure, he may proceed so far towards it, that besides the rebuking of them sharply, he may admonish or advise them to forbear the ordinance at present, so long as he judges it in pru­dence to be a means to make them come the more prepared to the next Sacra­ment; what hinders but the Minister may stretch himself even to the utmost end of his line of doctrin, when he stands there, and knows that he is still without the line of jurisdiction? And this I conceive may satisfie the conscientious in this thing, putting into their hands as much advantage as a single pastor can have to the following them with instruction for the good of their souls, which is that I suppose they only aim at in this matter; and if it were any thing else, it is fit they should never obtain it.

Only I must adde here that I suffer not in my principles; It is not because [Page 112]I think receiving is no duty unto such, for this, I conceive, were evil to hold; Nor because I think it not appointed for edification unto such; for those arguments that reverend Mr. Blake hath put in, to prove the Sacra­ment a means of grace to the unregene­rate within the Church (Cov. Seal. ch. 7. sect. 13.) must needs reach, and be cogent for these also, as they are Church­members, although he would not have them; Nor because I think that such are in an utter incapacity to be edified by it, as infants and the distracted are, (wherein the formentioned learned man places his whole ground of dissent he hath from me in this point) seeing the Sacrament through the word (and the word goes along with it) doth teach as for the one, and convince of sin as for the other, as is said before, and granted by him. That it is a teaching Ordi­nance, mediante verbo, even at the present for the ignorant; I pray let me but pro­pose this one thing, Were not those words of our Lord to his disciples [This is my body broken for you, This is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for remission of sinnes] teaching words, in­forming [Page 113]forming them of his death, and myste­ry of our redemption? Who can deny this? And were not the disciples igno­rant at that time, of his death, and my­stery of our redemption? Compare Mar. 9.31, 32. Lu. 9.44, 45. with Lu. 24. 7, 8. Io. 20.9. and what then will fol­low for the ignorant, is cleer. That it is a sin-aggravating Ordinance, and so a soul-humbling, heart-breaking Ordi­nance for the sinner, Mr. B. and I so well agree, Rejoynd. p. 235, 236. with Cov. Seal. p. 204. that it needs no argument; and then what follows for the scandalous is as clear likewise. It is not therefore, I say, for these causes, that I allow thus much; but it is in­deed, because I think that no lesse can be denied to belong to the Minister up­on the score of prudence only. That there is a possibility (upon what is said) of edification unto all intelligent Church-members, though scandalous, (Cov. Seal. p. 240.) or ignorant (p. 233.) Mr. B. cannot ingenuously de­ny: and that there is not that moral pro­bability or likelihood hereof, as upon their further instruction and preparati­on, I do grant; From both which then [Page 114]the plain reason will arise, why such may in prudence be advised to forbear the Sacrament at present, when yet it must be held fast, that there is no neces­sity on the conscience, simpliciter, for the ir exclusion.

To speak a little more my thoughts freely, I conceive it to be a Magnale in the wisdom of the Church, which hath ever kept up some more solemn times for the putting in mind of her members to shrift or addresse their souls to God in a more peculiar manner at some seasons above others, to make use of the Sacra­ment to this end; insomuch, that though the primitive Christians broke bread every week, and sometimes daily, yet hath it been the use of after Ages to celebrate this Ordinance more rarely, that the solemnity and rarity (those ex­pressions in 1 Cor. 11. giving help here­unto) might have this desired work up­on the people. Upon this same score I do conceive this condescension may take place in allowing that a forbearance of the Lords Supper be advised many times to unprepared, unfit persons, when we judge it in Christian prudence con­ducible through a more solemn address [Page 115]thereunto, towards a farther improve­ment thereof for their souls; And so may the same be asserted happily (as I judge of it) Ex quadam conveniontia, Ob ma­jorem reverentiam, as the School-men speak in some other cases about this Sa­crament; When as I am perswaded o­therwise there is the same outward pri­viledge, aed the same inward qualifica­tions held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances. And this for my first concession.

SECT. 16.

SEcondly then, for some [...] or condescension in the latter question, that the excommunicate person may not be so turned out from all the Ordinan­ces, (though he be turned out from them, and that alike too, from one as well as the other, in a sort) but that he may have admittance to some of them, upon an account which may be justifiable, for the gaining of his soul and yet without the introducing of this lesser censure of suspension, into the discipline of man, which is not in the discipline of Christ, or the Scripture I have spoken more at large in my Re­joynd. part. 2. sect. 1. See particularly p 87. & 149. Where having shewn that Church-censure or Excommunication does reserre to Church-communion in general, and consequently that a person excommunicate is cast out from every part thereof, and so from all the Ordi­nances as well as the Sacrament, I do [Page 117]humbly offer this distinction, of a Real, and Relative exclusion. A real exclusi­on is an exclusion of a man from a thing, so that he cannot by any means partici­pate of the thing; A relative exclusion, is the exclusion of a man from his relati­on to a thing, or his right of priviledge in it, whether he yet otherwise possesses the thing or not. Now that which we admit Heathen to, in receiving them in­to the Church, I think we cast them out from, in excommunicating them; But we admit not persons to an actual hea­ring the Word, or participating such or­dinances as they did, and might attend before; but we admit them into a state and relation, whereby the ordinances belong to them, with a difference of pri­viledge from the world, and as they par­took of them while they were without; They were then indeed admitted to the Word, and it may be Prayer, to bring them in, as they ought, yet neither one nor the other Ordinance did belong to them by way of advantage, Rom. 3.2. or propriety, as externally in covenant, in Christ, redeemed sanctified, &c. as they doe, being members. Consequently therefore, my thoughts are, that though [Page 118]Excommunication cuts off a person Re­latively from all the Ordinances (from one alike as well as the other, in the sense now spoken) and does cut off a man really from that Ordinance, the actual participation whereof is peculiar to that relation, as the Sacrament; Yet this Relative exclusion does not necessarily inferre a Real exclusion of a man from those other Ordinances, as the Word and Prayer, which may be partaken of out of that relation. And so here will arise that, which may give content­ment; to wit, that upon this it shall be left in the Churches hands by way of Mitigation, to admit the Excommunicate hereunto, whether one or more (or none) of them, as she sees it fit to use severity or indulgence to bring the sin­ner to repentance.

It is manifest, that the Primitive Chri­stian Church was wont to permit an Heathen, or those that were without, to be present in their assemblies at the Word if not at Prayer and some other Ordinances, for their conviction, as appears, 1 Cor. 14. According to this president, it is my opinion then, in short, that a person excommunicate may be [Page 119]admitted to an Ordinance, or Ordinan­ces, as an Heathen (into which condi­tion he is expresly cast, Mat. 18.) when yet he is cut off from all his priviledge and interest in them as a member. And this, I suppose, will even serve the turn of my very adversaries, and yet be no dishight or prejudice to that latitude of Excommunication which the truth di­ctates, and must be maintained, accor­ding to my opinion.

In fine, two things are objected against me by my Opposers, which methinks do even quite take off one another. In the former question it is objected that my doctrine is loose, in that it admits of e­very intelligent Church-member to the Sacrament, before censure; To which I answer, That doctrine about admission that maintaines Excommunication, in point of offending, cannot be loose to­wards the offender; and if a man have not offended, I mean so far as to deserve censure, the Minister can but admonish and advise, he can go no further; and here how much I allow upon the score of pastoral discretion is declared, And why should any more be desired? In the second question it is objected, my [Page 120]doctrine is too severe, bloody, and cru­el, in that those persons which it cuts off from the Sacrament, it cuts off from all other parts of Church-communion al­so; To this I answer, It is true, it does do thus indeed according to the Scrip­ture; but let this be understood aright and candidly of this Relative exclu­sion, (here declared likewise) and then I hope all will be reconciled and satisfied.

And thus I have now finished my pur­pose, endeavouring to keep in a way of moderation, that I might avoid the ex­tremities of others. I have not in any thing, I suppose, departed from the Scripture as my Guide; and yet in every thing come up as near as I can to those that are against me, to content them. I do not know how it may be taken, but it shall suffice me that I have in the since­rity of my intention (so far as I can judg of my own heart) proposed my thoughts, leaving others to their own. The Chur­ches peace is the thing I have aimed at, without hindring (but happily furthe­ring) her reformation. If I have done well, and as is fitting to the matter, it is that I desired, if I have done but slenderly and meanly, it is what I could attain unto.

Deo gloria.