§. 1.

AFter his Preface (the which by parcels is, most of it, sundry times repeated beneath) he thus be­gins. p. 4. The contents of your paper, I shall now set downe in parcels under the letter [L] and mine answers thereunto under the letter [W] And to put the more life into the matter in agitation, I shall call upon you, (as if you were present) to relate your own words, and shall (the Lord assisting) in mine own name subjoyne mine Answers thereunto. And now Sir I pray begin.

I am credibly informed that M^r W: told one who asked him what [L] stood for in his discourse, that it might stand for Li­beller. And he himselfe in his Epistle to the judicious Reader (for to him he directs his book, though his Title-page say it was for the satisfying of weaker consciences) thus speakes con­cerning my paper. At first, saith he, (there being no name sub­scribed to it) I put it back as a Libel. And why a Libel? Is eve­ry writing a Libel which hath not a name subscribed to it? A great part of holy Scripture and many other most excellent writings shall then fall under the imputation of being Libels. I am sorry to see this Gentleman so transported with passion in the very entrance. This cloud now rising which seemes no bigger then a mans hand, I am afraid will grow to such an ex­tension and thickness as to darken his following discourse, and fill it with stormes and tempests. When the Staffordshire hills have an angry and gloomy cap or cover on their heads in the morning, we in Cheshire are wont to expect no very faire wea­ther the day following.

Salvian concealing his name in the Epistle he wrote to the Catholique Church of his time, gives this account of it to Sa­lonius a Bishop. ‘In omni volumine profectus magis quaeritur lectionis, quam nomen auctoris. Et ideo si profectus est in lecti­one, & habet quisquis illud quod potest instruere lecturos, quid ei cum vocabulo, quod juvare non potest curiosos?— Cum enim nullus profectus sit in nomine, qui profectum in scrip­tis invenit, superfluê nomen scriptoris inquirit.’ And after a­mong other things he addes this for the concealing his name in that Booke, ‘Scilicet ne auctoritatem salubribus scriptis, personae suae parvitas derogaret: omnia enim admodum dicta tanti existimantur, quantus est ipse qui dixit. Siquidem tans imbecilla sunt judicia hujus temporis, ac penè tam nulla, ut hi qui legunt, non tam considerent quid legunt, quām cujus legant; nec tam dictionis vim at (que) virtutem, quam dictatoris cogitent dignitatem. Idcirca scriptor ille abscondi & latitare omnibus modis voluit, ne scripta quae in se habent plurimum salubritatis, minora forsitan fierent per nomen Auctoris.’ I might have thus [...]xcused my selfe if I had published that paper without adding [...]y name to it. But I made no matter of it, he to whom it was [...]ritten knew my hand well enough; and when it was shewed [...] M^r. W. and I heard he excepted against the want of my [...]me being subscribed to it, I gave order to his Parishioner, [...]ho by frequent entreaties had extorted that paper from me, [...]at he should (if that would do any good) put my name to it. [...]t if that be a right Etimology of Libel, that its a ly, as with [...]bell rung abroad, I thinke he that hath published sundry no­torious untruthes and calumnies concerning me, as that I in [...]aching acquitted the Pope from being Antichrist, &c. and [...]th done more against me in that way, then if he had posted [...] up, in every Market Towne in this, and the neighbour [...]unties, for a Theefe; he, I say, who hath thus abused me, [...] will appeare beneath) will appropriate this brand to him­ [...]e, with which he would stigmatize another, yet for my part [...]orne to put the terme upon him. But now to put the more life [...] the matter, he will call on me to relate my own words. Such [...] abusive piece very fitly fetcheth its life and soul from the [...], and it would be very dull indeed if this did not seeme a [...] to quicken it. And now he calls the parcels of my paper, [...] commands them to appeare and they appeare, to speake [...] they speake, and when he pleaseth they are silent; and he [...] his businesse so bravely and imperiously all along, that it [Page 12]can hardly choose but make one merry sometimes, to see (as the gallant that often looked back, and sayd, do not my spurres jingle) how much he seemes to please and applaud himselfe in his affected triumph and command over the poor paper, he hath captiv'd and detained to be the object of his scorne and indignation. Solus (que) in siccâ secum spatiatur arenâ.

§. 2.

To that noted with number (1) in my paper, he returnes, p. 5. Why begin you so abruptly, with an [It is said by some] As if it were rather the verbal saying of some, then grounded upon just warrant. See Reader whether I am like to please this Gentleman? It may be I should have begun thus; Some affirm, hold, maintaine and teach, as M^r. W. sounds it out, p. 127. say­ing, will not serve his turne, he will not be said. If I write they say this or that, I disparage them, as if they did only say it, and could not prove it; and yet when I had stated the Questi­on I would discusse, and then added (at number (20) I assert that its lawfull, &c. he seemes angry that I should so much as say what I held, before I proceeded to prove it immediately af­terwards; and thus chides me for it, p. 31. And at length as a triumphant opposer of our assertion, you manfully oppose us with an (I Assert:) a pretty charm to delude the simple. But if he had no designe to delude the very very simple ones, he needed not to have mentioned Oxford and Accademical and School-or­der so often; all others know (in their own reason, or by ob­servation of others practice,) that both the Opponent and Re­spondent declare which part of the Probleme each takes, be­fore they proceed to any disputation thereupon.

§. 3.

And this leads me to the answering his next exception, p. 6. which is made against my paper at (number 2.) wherein I pro­posed to note severall things for the stating the Question I in­tended to discusse. He saith, Its not the custome with us at Ox­ford for the opponent to state the Question. And further adds, Your method is unaccademicall; you might have spared the paines of your needlesse inventions: your stating the Question wee look upon as a declining of the Controversie, as a mudding of the cleare water, as consciousnesse of inability to refute the pretensions of the Assertor. However I must follow you in your Extravagancies, lest any poor soul should be seduced by your noyse of words.

Reader, thou seest the Clouds gather more, I hope thou wilt be armed for foul weather. To his exceptions I reply.

1. There is nothing more usuall in polemick Authors, then in their answering the pretensions of their Antagonists upon any point, to state the Question and set down what is granted and denyed, and often to tax their Adversaries with a wrong sta­ting of the point to be discussed. There's none who have read Chamier against the Papists, nor Chemnitius against the Council of Trent, or any such like Authors, but must observe how ordi­nary this is with them; and yet the Papists were never (that I know of) so silly as to charge them with an unaccademical procedure in their disputations with, and refutations of them.

2. It was not M^r Timpson only that I assaulted, though I mentioned him rather then others because I heard he was then (as he is since in print) much cryed up by M^r. W. And they are not agreed among themselves about the stating of this Questi­on. Some allow a disswasive debarring of some, who yet, they thinke, may not juridically be kept off, though notoriously wicked, if not (in their sense) excommunicated. Others granting a debarring of those who are ipso jure, excommuni­cate, though not ipso facto. And others allow only the de­barring of the actually ipso facto excommunicate, and that in their sense of it, as was said, to wit, as it denotes the separati­on of persons so censured from all publique ordinances in the Church, as well as from the Sacraments. And I matter not though it be not concealed, that as I disliked not all in the writings of those who were against suspension, so I could not comply with all I found in the writings of them who were for the suspension pleaded for. Was it not necessary then that I should freely impart my opinion concerning the point which I was desired to give some account of? which indeed is such as partakes of both parties, and is not wholly included in the proposals of either of them. And M^r. W. might easily see by my stating the Question, that though I held a conclusion con­trary to the maine assertion of those Gentlemen who have written against suspension; yet I have by the putting in of the term fully or not fully excommunicate, altered somewhat of the manner or method necessary for the defending or overthrowing the same.

3. I wonder not that M^r. W. is so hot against these limita­tions I gave for our question, since so much he had to say was concerning Examination, Ruling Elders, Prudentials in Go­vernment, excluding for ignorance, &c. for these all were by my limitations casheered the present dispute; one point being [Page 14]enough at one time to handle. Its the known way of the Qua­kers, and such like people, in their writings or Disputes to jumble many things together, and they will not be gotten to speake closely to one thing by it selfe. Let the Reader judge whether Mr. W. in his discourse do not by his example too much patronize that their roving and looseness? The order of the whole Controversie I take it lyes thus. 1. Whether any persons baptized at yeares intelligent not fully excommunica­ted (or if you will, not secluded from other Ordinances) may be debarred the Sacrament? 2. Whether they may be debarred by disswasion only? 3. Whether by a juridical act? 4. In what cases or for what crimes they may be debarred? 5. By whom that juridical act may be exerted for the debarring of them? In the first of these would be considered; whether a sen­tential debarring one the Sacrament, be not really an ex­communication? 2. Whether there is not a further degree of excommunication then this? 3. Whether its not lawfull to exert the first when the latter is not? And in the fourth, It might be enquired further: How farre ignorance may be a cause of suspension? 2. Whether the refusing of them who have never testified their understanding aright of their Bap­tismall engagements by a verbal profession thereof before the Church, or some appointed by the Church to receive the same, or at least before some publique Minister of the Church; whe­ther, I say, the refusing of them be any suspension properly? or if only non admission, whether it be lawfull? and here would come in the businesse of examination. But I expressly limited the Question first to be discussed to an enquiry, whe­ther in any case the parties above mentioned (baptized adult, and not fully excomminunicated) may be debarred the Sacra­ment, expressly secluding from our present dispute those inqui­ries, by whom and what power, and for what offences they may be debarred. And yet Mr. W. calls these my Limitations and explanations of the Question, Extravagancies, and need­lesse Inventions; when as their designe was to keep from ex­travagancies; and if he who took upon him to answer that paper, had duely observed them (as was meet) his discourse would have been much better, although much shorter, then it is.

§. 4.

My first limitation (which may be seene at numb. (3) and (4) in the copy of my first paper,) Mr. W. (I thinke) pretends [Page 15]to answer or except against, or some such thing, I suppose, he designes, in his p. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where he discourseth a­bout divine obligation to receive, baptismal regeneration, tolera­tion, examination, Church-constitution, &c. If in these words p. 8. The seed of regeneration was (as to us) sown in their Bap­tisme; he take regeneration for sanctification by inherent gra­cious qualities infused, at the time of Baptisme, I should be desirous to see him prove what he asserts. As regeneration denotes in Scripture, adoption, justification, and so our rela­tive state, I can close with the doctrine of sacramental regene­ration, yet in a sober and wary sense. But Mr. W. his expres­sion concerning the seed of regeneration, I feare is not capa­ble of that meaning. But this point hath no influence consi­derable, that I can discerne upon our Controversie; therefore I shall not launch out into it. The other things Mr. W. here hath in these pages, will occurre more then once beneath.

§. 5.

In my second note, (numb. 5.) I secluded from the present Question the consideration of the subject of the power of sus­pension; and Mr. W. in answer hereto, supposeth there is no need to enquire after the subject thereof, p. 13. Why might we not then here have agreed? But even in this place he will fetch in (though by head and shoulders) the mentioning of, illegal usurpation, flat Brownisme, Rebaptization, &c. What is the secluding, the consideration of the subject of suspension, from our present question, is this usurpation, flat Brownisme, Rebaptization? If not, how come these in here? But such termes as these serve for general Arguments (to them who are so silly as to be moved with them) and so will thrust in any where, as being indifferently calculated to fit every turne.

§. 6.

My third note or limitation of the Question (number 6.) secluded also from our present question, the consideration of the kinde of power, whether of order or jurisdiction, requisite for suspension. To this Mr. W. answers, p. 14. They (he meanes my Antagonists) hold there is no such kinde of suspending power as you stand for, prescribed in the word of God, for refusing to submit to your examination.—It is your usurped kind of sus­pension they except against, as you your selfe might have scene, had you read their workes through, as you snatch at a piece.

1. See now how nimble our learned Gentleman is, to evade the question if he could. Is our question, Whether persons may [Page 16]be suspended for resusing to submit to examination; not that I re­fuse to speake to that in its due place; but first we enquire whe­ther in any case, for any crime, the persons before mentioned may be debarred? and that was Mr. Timsons position before rehearsed, viz. No unregenerate, or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church; being baptized, and of years not excom­municate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, &c. It was not, none may be debarred for ignorance, or refusing to submit to examination. But none though never so scandalous members in the Church may be debarred. And this I opposed; which Mr. W. should have defended, as he took upon him.

2. Is not this a pretty stating the question Mr. W. here teach­eth and informes me in? viz. Whether is an usurped kinde of suspension lawfull? This is even like to the question, Quot sunt quinque praedicabilia? But what are we the better for a­greeing in that question, when as it presently occurres; whe­ther there is any suspension not usurped?

3. But indeed I see no Antagonist who is so silly as to state the question on that fashion; though Mr. W. say if I had read their works through, I might have seene, it is our usurped kind of suspension, that they except against. Alas! good man! how industrious is he to make the world believe I am a man of no reading? I will not goe about to perswade them of the con­trary. Yet I must needs say I had read through divers Au­thors against suspension, and particularly Mr. Timpsons bookes, before I drew up those lines which Mr. W. hath assaulted. I would not have told this, but that I apprehend it will be no matter of glory and commendation to me; and it affords an argument somewhat probable in mine opinion to evince that Mr. W. is not infallible, who insinuates (elswhere as well as in this place) my not reading Timsons works through, but snatch­ing at a piece. I hope he will not be offended at our catching the piece of the Psalme following for our solace a while.

§. 1.

IN my fourth note (at number 7, 8, 9.) I said that my Anta­gonists by [excommunicate], understand them who are de­bar'd from all publick Ordinances in the Church, as hearing, praying, &c. And therefore if: I prove the person spoken of in the question, not debar'd from these, may yet be debar'd the Sacrament, it cannot be denied I shal rightly conclude against their assertion; wherein I do not declare any thing of my own judgment concerning Excommunication, but speak onely ad hominem.

And here though Mr. W. hath not a word against the Con­tents of this Note, he carries it as if he would seem to con­fute it, by 1. rendring extra communionem ejectio, an ejection out of the common union (as if there were not degrees of communion, and so not of an ejection out of communion). 2. by rambling about the Jus Divinum, without any occasion at all ministred by any thing I had spoken here in this note. for his mentioning the same. 3. By concluding thus: But for your full overthrowing of our assertion, we shall believe it when we see it. We believe you cannot, I am sure you do not: What needed this vapour here? The man is prodigall of them being sufficientiy stockt for the largest expence of them. I boasted not of a full overthrow of their assertion, but said, That if I prove a person baptized, adult, intelligent, and not de­barred the publick Ordinances of hearing, praying, &c. in the Church, I shall then fully overthrow their assertion which holds none baptized, adult, intelligent, and not ex­communicated [Page 18]may be debarred. The which Mr. W. doth not deny, yea he grants it in several passages of his Book, expressy or by consequence. But the former particular about Divine right, he is often upon: and he so often (as disturb'd if not intoxicated with passion) reels into discourses concerning prudentials, and Jus Divinum, charging me for excluding all prudentials from Church-government, that his importunity wil force me to trouble the Reader with some short account of my apprehensions concerning these things, he so pitifully raves upon throughout his Book.

§ 2.

1. The Lawes of Christianity are given to men suppo­sed not altogether destitute of right Reason, some beams of the Image of God, some remains of that signature imprinted on man at his first creation, still continuing upon him. And men are not called to lay aside any of their natural right Rea­son in their becoming Christians; but rather by Christian helps to attain to an higher improvement, to a more noble elevation and use thereof. And therefore whatsoever right Reason doth dictate in respect of government in generall, agreeing to all government as such, (as it doth in many things) Christians are to make use thereof in reference to Ecclesiasti­cal government. Alwayes provided, that that must not be accounted right Reason, which thwarts the blessed Scriptures, which should ever prevail against any conceit of our own. Right Reason it self teaching us, that God is infinitely wiser then we, and that Christs lawes must be obeyed, not disputed, when once they appear to be his lawes. But the light of Na­ture (the spirit of man, that candle of the Lord,) doth direct in many wholsome things, for the due ordering of any society in a suitableness to the end for which the association thereof is lawfully made; whether Civill, in Families, Towns, King­domes, States; or Ecclesiasticall in particular Churches, or in the associations of particular Churches, greater or lesser

2. Yea, the law of Nature, or Naturall Reason, is part of Christs law, whereby he rules his Church. And therefore Christians not onely may, but ought to act prudentially in the administration of Church affairs, as well as in other things, and to make use of all the light of Reason in pursuing that general Rule, Let all things be done decently, and in order.

3. Yet in Ecclesiasticall government Christ the King of his Church hath given us many positive Directions in his Word, [Page 19]partly by express preceptive Rules, and partly by obligatory presidents and examples, such especially as were not suited to any temporary account of those times, and the condition there­of; but whose ground and reason still continues in all the succeeding ages and conditions of the Church. These are Ec­clesiasticall constitutions on a Divine right simply and strictly. From these we may not digress upon any pretence of Reason whatsoever. Yea because we must act rationally, therefore we must close with all these the directions of wisdome it self; and deal with all our conceits and humours making insurrections against the same, as with mutiners which are in rebellion against their Lord and Master.

4. In a larger sense also a government may be said to be by Divine right, not onely in reference to its compliance with the foresaid positive Scripture rules and binding exam­ples, but also in respect of its rationall suitableness to godly prudence, for the order and edification of the Church, in things not particularly determined in the Scriptures, and yet neither expresly nor by consequence thwarted by the same. And thus (I suppose) who ever have owned a Church-government, they have thought it by Divine right, that is, that it was according to the Scriptures, and not contrary thereunto.

5. And thus I was satisfied to comply with the constitutions of the Presbyterial government (the government in substance upon the matter of all the forraign Protestant Churches in Europe) composed by a learned, pious, and judicious Assem­bly, imposed by authority of both Houses of Parliament, when I first setled in this County, and by their Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. still continued as much in force (for ought I know) as any other law, at least as any other Ordinance of Parliament, divers whereof are acknowledged to be still in force. Upon the apprehension, I say, of the lawfulnesse of the said government, partly upon a strictly Scripturall account in the main things, and partly, viz. in lesser matters, upon a rational, prudentiall account not contrary to the Scripture, I did and do submit unto the same. And I doubt not if it had been faithfully pursued according to the religious design and intention of the imposers thereof, the excellent fruits thereof through Gods blessing. would have been so great, as might have silenced the most of its considerable adversaries

§. 3.

In my fifth note. (at Numb. 10.11, 12, 13, 14.) I hinted [Page 20]the ordinary and common distinction among reformed Di­vines, of the greater and lesser Excommunication. Here Mr. W. crowes over me, as flying to the authority of men of so late a standing, for proving the abstention pleaded for. Whereas any one (yea one whose brains are as ill mar'd as he tells the world he fears mine are) may easily perceive that I quoted them not to prove suspension, but to shew that they called Suspension Lesser Excommunication. And therefore those who oppose the debarring of the suspended, should not have stated this que­stion, simply concerning the unexcommunicate without di­stinction. And yet for all Mr. W. so much blames me for this, he himself quotes Peter Martyr, who (saith he pag. 18.) being as great an Antiquary, and as great a reverencer of true Antiqui­ty as any of you, saith, That though degrees of excommunication may easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, yet no such thing can be proved from Scripture. And Mr. W. gives his own judgment thus, pag. 20. 21. We deny not degrees unto excommu­nication, nor in excommmnication unto further degrees of severity in case of persistance in obstinacy against the authority of the Church. To both which I answer, 1. Comparisons are odi­ous. Doth Mr. W. know, that none who assert suspension, do excell Peter Martyr in knowledge and esteem of Antiquity? Belike he thinks his tongue is his own, and he may talk at ran­dome. Our renowned Usher hath a glorious name in forreign Countries as well as in these Nations, for the Prince of Anti­quaries, who hath merited such an Epitaph as Doctor Hack­well in hs Apology for Gods providence, l. 3. c. 6. §. 2. saith was bestowed on that Phoenix of learning, Johannes Picus Earle of Mirandula.

Yet hath this our most learned Doctor and Bishop pleaded for Suspension, and that as grounded upon the holy Scrip­ture, in his Body of Divinity, pag. 435. 2. Did the Fathers think their degrees of excommunication, which they admitted, were not regulated within Scripture-bounds? 3. If that de­grees of excommunication may be proved from the Fathers, how come those who now plead for degrees of excommunica­tion, to be charged with novelty and innovation? and how came it to passe, that Mr. W. in his Epistle passed his word to [Page 21]the judicious Reader, that all men of reading know how much the Church government mentioned in, or collected from the Fa­thers, and in use in their dayes, differs from our mens present Mo­del? Immediatly before these words Mr. W. exclaim'd. High language! It may very fitly be the Title and Epithete of these his words following: What was Grotius no man of reading? & was he not a man confessedly impartiall in this matter? who yet asserts the ruling Elder from antiquity. Imper. sum. potest circa sacra. c. 11. quoted by Mr. Blake. Covenant sealed, cap. 7. §. 16. Was our renowned Cambridge Professor Doctor Whi­taker no man of reading? who in his Defence of his answer to Campions ten Reasons against Dureus, London. 1583. l, 9. de Sophismatis. p. Mihi. 807. saith, ‘Ita es ignarus ut esse in Christi Ecclesia presbyteros nescias, qui gubernationi tantum, non verbi aut sacramentorum administrationi operam darent? Art thou such an Ignoramus, as, to be ignorant that there are Elders in the Church of Christ, who should be im­ployed onely in governing, not in the administration of the Word and Sacraments?’ And he quotes 1 Tim. 5.17. and Am­brose on it. And (p. 820) he tells the Papists that Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and many others of our Re­formers, were Presbyters ordained by Popish Bishops, and then (to prove against them the lawfulness of our Ministery) that these being Presbyters, might ordain other Presbyters. ‘Tum si Presbyteri erant, & sunt presbyteri, jure Divino iidem, qui Episcopi, alios etiam Ecclesiis presbyteros praeficere potue­runt. Yet he adds, Sed nolim existimes a nobis vestros ordi­nes tanti fieri, ut sine illis nullam esse legitimam vocationem statuamus, &c.’ Or is it the business of Suspension [the pre­tended subject of his Book] which he saith, all men of reading know differs much from the Fathers; why then hath he ac­knowledged by Peter Martyrs mouth, that degrees of excom­munication may easily be proved from the Writings of the Fathers? For there's no question, I think, but suspension will be allowed to be one degree, if degrees be once granted.

§. 4.

But Aretius quoted by me as not against suspension as a les­ser excommunication (at Numb. 11.) Mr. W. takes himself specially concerned in, though yet he saith, pag. 19. that he never engaged Aretius as opposite to our suspension. The reason of my mentioning Aretius, was an information I received [Page 22]from him who desired my paper, that Mr. W. quoted Aretius against suspension. And how easily might Mr. W. have certi­fied his Parishioner of this mistake, without troubling the world with it in Print; since he doth not disprove in the least, what I alledged concerning that Author: Yet that he may seem not to say nothing, he will shew that A­retius useth not, nor pleads for the distinction of greater and lesser excommunication; which thing it is manifest I did not affix on him.

But he hath here another, (and that belike no small) quar­rell. I cited Aretius his Common places, and Mr. W. saith, He knowes no such Piece. I should have said his Problemes, as if his quarrelsomness were not more to be blamed then such a mistake supposed. O how exact will Mr. W. have us to take him in the very names and editions of Books! But why may not Problemata be rendred in English Common places, my most severe Master? Aretius himself I hope may be allowed to give us the meaning of his own words (to save a labour of turning to Holy-oke under whose leaf recubans sub tegmine, Mr. W. beneath (p. 137.) would shelter himself) In my Book Edit. Lusannae. 1578. the first page thus begins. Problematum s [...]u locorvm theologicorum pars altera. And it is likely Mr. W. his Book is of the same Edition, because his quotation of pag. 48. which he hath p. 20. agrees with the 48. leaf of mine. If I should tell him I find no such thing as he quotes in the 48 page, but it is in the 48 leaf, should I not be ridiculous to him? and yet he might then see his own weakness in mine.

§. 5.

But the substance and design of my fifth note, was to shew, that (as I apprehended) mine Antagonists do deny the di­stinction of greater and lesser excommunication: and in special they deny suspension or abstention to be one degree of ex­communication, which may lawfully be exerted by it self against any person. And therefore in their asserting, that the persons spoken of in our question, if not excommunicate may not be debarred, by [not excommunicate] they mean not cut off in our sense of full excommunication; and that otherwise they should but trifle. viz. if they took [excommunicate] for such as were under a lesser degree of excommunication in our sense. The which is so manifest, that I see not how any man of reason can deny it. Now to this Mr. W. answers, pag. 23. Why put you your non-sense upon us, and say we egregiously trifle, [Page 23]unless we admit of degrees of excommunication in your sense? What shal one do with a man who heeds not what he saith? He chargeth me with putting and affixing on my Antagonists, the distinction of greater and lesser excommunication, unless they would be guilty of non-sense: whereas I did flatly re­move from them that distinction, and said, they did not ac­knowledge degrees of excommunication, particularly not this of Suspension, adding, that if they did own them in this question (as they hold it) they should but trifle. And yet Mr. W. will needs face every body down, against the evidence of plain words before their eyes. And he talkes his pleasure of Sophistry and Imposture, and at last apeals to the judicious Reader, under whose eye I willingly leave him with the paper he pretends to be answering. In the interim I will step aside to take a little refreshing in the

§. 1.

THe terms of Excommunication full, or not full, sundry times do occurre in the following Argument. These [Page 24]Mr. W. rejects as adokima's, as fooleries, as not considerable, &c. and in a fume piping hot, he fancies the bag-pipes when he hears them named (p. 151) Such arguments as these must be his apodicticall proofs against them, in refuting whereof belike his friends think I shal be hard put to; and they conjecture not a­miss, I shal hardly devise a reply weak enough to bear a fit pro­tion to such sorry pretensions. But in stead thereof I shal judge it requisite to offer somewhat concerning excommunication, and that distinction of it, submitting the same in all humility, to the sober and judicious; as followeth.

1. The consideration and strict perusall of the places and phrases of Scripture treating on this matter, is the best foun­dation of a right knowledge and discerning hereof.

2. Yet some places speak of an excommunication which is not pertinent to our times, or at least not to our present con­troversie. I mean that excommunication by way of Anathema­tizing and cursing an incurable offender; to which kind Po­lanus (Syntag. l. 7. c. 18.) referres, Gal. 1.8. and Rom. 9.3. which he calls the simplex anathema, and 1 Cor. 16.22. called Anathema maranatha. And that cutting off mentioned Gal. 5.12. (not to speak of Hierome and Grotius their interpretation of it, for the smoothing or dismembring the parts of those Hereticks who so much pressed circumcision) It is by the lear­ned Doctor Hammond made parallel to that of 1 Cor. 16.22. viz. (as he saith on the place) as an expression of excommunica­tion of the highest degree, answerable to the SHAMATHA among the Jewes; which he explained on 1 Cor. 16.22. to be excommunicated from the hope of the Lord, and as leaving the offender to Divine vengeance (agreeable to the denunciation of Enoch, Jude v. 14.) which is denounced against them who love not Christ, that is, as he excellently expounds it, who fall from Christ, by renouncing of him to avoid persecution, especially if teachers of others, so to do, and justifying the thing as lawfull, as it is said the Gnosticks did. See Doctor Hammond in Apoc. 21.8. denying the Lord (before men) who bought them.

3. That phrase also of [delivering to Satan] though a tole­rable sense of it, may be, and is accommodated to the ordi­nary excommunication still in use in the Church; yet many, if not most, learned Interpreters think, it had a further and more peculiar sense in those Apostolicall times, which the Church doth not now look at nor expect, viz. the [Page 25]externall buffeting the offender by Satan.

4. There are two other passages, which though they are by divers referred to some excommunication, yet I think we can build little or nothing upon them, in the explication of this point The first is, [...], to be cast out of the Sy­nagogue, used John 9.22. and 14.42. and 16.2. Now this is ap­plyed only to the Jewes their wicked practice against them who owned Christ; and the phrase is no where (that I know of) justified by Christ or his Apostles. And me thinks we have little reason to seek for the nature of Christs Otdinance in the vile practice of his enemies taken by it self.

The other passage is in 3 John 10. where Diotrephes is said to cast the Christian Jewes out of the Church, that is, a Church of the Gentile-Christians. Let us a little peruse the Text, which runs thus, [...].

1. I would ask, Who are these he cast out of the Church? Not those who would entertain the Jewish Christian stran­gers, there is no probability any would be so sottish, as to ex­communicate them for their will, desire, or intention to have entertained those guests: and if those he is said to have cast out, were the guests themselves called the brethren, then ex­communication cannot be here meant, because they were not under the jurisdiction of that Gentile-Church, nor any Officer therof, and so could not be cast out of that particular Church in which they were not before. 2. It cannot be proved that Diotrephes was any Church-officer in that Church. [...], may signifie one who seeks inordinatly, or assu­meth dignity, as well as one that useth immoderatly the same, and it is very probable (saith Doctor Hammond, that this Dio­trephes did this without having any reall authority in the Church, as a presumptuous, confident bold person, and then his act in casting any out of the Church, would not be accounted a sen­tential excommunication. 3. The word [...] is frequent­ly used in the New Testament to signifie any hindring, although it be not by any act authoritative forbidding, nor pretend thereunto, and is rendred to hinder, Luke 11.52. and to with­stand, Acts. 11.17. and to let. Rom. 1.13. and therefore that passage wherein this Diotrephes is said to forbid, or hinder, and withstand them, who would be more hospitable then him­self, doth not invite us at all to interpret the following words of any authoritative Ecclesiasticall censure. Upon the [Page 26]whole matter I humbly conceive, that this passage here, [He casts them out of the Church] doth denote nothing else, but his thrusting out the Jewish guests from being kindly har­boured, telieved and accommodated in that Church, he by his factious and pragmatical endeavours (taking upon him to be thought some body more then ordinary,) laboured to draw the Church to joyn with him in that inhospitality, wherein he had among many too good successe. But I shall not contend in this, onely I have signified the probabilities which incline me to conceive that Ecclesiasticall excommunication is not strictly signified by the phrase of [casting out of the Church] here used; at least that it is so dubious, that it will be no founda­tion stone in the Doctrine of Excommunication.

§. 3.

I shall now proceed to consider the less questionable and more plain phrases and passages in the New Testament, where­by excommunication is intimated, which are such as these.

Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican, Matth. 18.17. that is in some respects, as to thy behaviour towards him, and esteem of him, as generally the Interpreters I meet with do understand it.

To bind on earth, v. 18. doth also relate to the same thing. That fifth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, hath most in it concerning Excommunication, of any one chapter in the Bible. Here are severall phrases signifying the same thing. v. 2. That he who hath done this deed, might be taken away from you. So also v. 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person. The phrase of delivering to Satan, used vers. 5. and 1 Tim. 1.20. so far as it may signifie what is yet of continued use in the Church, is commonly interpreted by the words of Christ before mentioned, Matth. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican. Satan being visibly the God of the Infidell world, and of the manifestly and no­toriously prophane and wicked men, as the Publicans though Jewes, were accounted by their own Nation. But there are in this chapter two more expressions concerning excomunication, which we must somwhat more insist upon, especially the for­mer, which wil help to clear the later. The one of these in v. 9. and 11. [...], I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, &c. the meaning wherof he cau­tions against mistake, v. 10. yet not altogether with Fornica-tors of this world. [...] may be ren­dred [Page 27] not at all, as 1 Cor. 16.12. or in no wise, as Rom. 3.9. or (ta­king [...] for an Adverb of confirming) not surely, as Luke. 4.23. Act. 18.21. & 21.22. & 28.4. And [...] is not found in that ancient manuscript, which the profoundly learned Do­ctor Hammond hath given us an account of, in what it differs from the other received Greek Copies. Quasi dicat, What I wrote to you concerning your not keeping company, or not being mingled with fornicators; In that word [Fornicators] I meant, not at all, or surely I meant not, or (at least) I did not altogether mean the Fornicators of this world, &c. For ye must needs go out of this world. For with Calvin I so understand those words, [...], q. d. Quid o­pus est, vobis praeclpere de fili is seculi, quando ut semel renunci­astis mundo it a oportet vos ab ecorum onsortio subducere; totus enim mundus in maligno positus est, saith Calvin on the place. Neither doth it at all prejudice this interpretation, that [...] here seems to be left out. For though sometime it signifie and is rendred Then, as Matth. 12.42. 1 Cor. 7.14. yet it is also elswhere but an expletive particle, signifying no more then nempe, to wit, so, Act. 7.1. 1 Cor. 15.15. And (that I may further pursue this sense) 1. I humbly conceive the Corin­thians could scarce need such an admonition and instruction, viz. that their separation from the world obliged them not to a totall separation from all persons not of the Church. 2. Divers learned Interpreters think that in this tenth verse, the Apostle referrs not to any Canonical. Epistle of his now lost: but to the second verse of this chapter, where he had ad­monished them concerning their duty of withdrawing from Fornicators. And the vvv, or none in the beginning of the eleventh verse, is but an ordinary transition. 3. The phrase [...], is used in Scripture but rarely: and then it is used to signifie the Churches withdrawing from a brother offending. So it is manifestly taken 1 Cor. 5.11. and 2 Thess. 3.14. and it is never else used in the New Testament save in this ninth verse [...], therefore here it must be so sensed, unlesse there were some cogent reason for the contrary, which to me appears not. And being thus sensed in v. 9. the [...] in the beginning of verse 10. must be read, not at all, or to that purpose, and not, [not alto­gether,] whereby the [...], should be in part referred to the not keeping company with heathens, which is to Church or Ecclesiasticall withdrawing by way of censure.

4. According to the sense our translation hath of the tenth verse. (which many other learned Interpreters comply with) it should seem but a temporary monition, of not altogether a­voyding the company of Heathens. viz. so long as the altoge­ther avoyding them would necessitate the believers to go out of the world, or to have almost no converse with men. And then in a Christian Nation we might have no converse at all with a heathen, which no one will assert.

5. What an harsh Ellipsis is there in the sense of our transla­tion? I wrote to you not to keep company (or to be mingled) with Fornicators, yet [here we must supply, I wrote not to you not to keep company] not altogether with the Fornicators of this world. But if you take it with the most excellent Interpreter Calvin, it runs easily, referring [...], not to [...], but to [...], the very last word before, q. d. I wrote to you not to keep company with Fornicators [we may either leave out [And] as the Kings M. S. Copy doth, or else translate it but! [...] being frequently an adversative particle, put for [...], as Stephanus shewes in divers instances. See his Grae­co-lat. Concord. Nov. Test. in the word [...]) But not at all the Fornicators of this world — for ye must needs depart from the word: as if he should say, I meànt not the heathen Idola­ters and fornicators, when I warned you not to keep company with fornicators: those I was not speaking of, for [or since that] yee ought to go out from them, the Church being called out of the world, and therefore ye ought not onely to shun their sinfull wayes, but that personall converse with them which might coun­tenance them therein, or endanger your selves thereby. This I thought not needfull to admonish you of, you knew it well enough before. But now I have written to you, not to keep company with a wicked brother, &c. And thus I have shewed (in clearing the context) that [...] is peculiar to Eccle­siasticall withdrawing, or excommunication, as it is used in the New Testament.

§. 4.

The other intimation of excommunication, we have in the later end of the eleventh verse of this. 1 Cor. 5. not to eat, which as all agree, includes exclusion from the Lrods Supper; so it's very probable it must be extended so far further, as to leave the wicked brother censured under as great a separation from the privat familiarity of the church, as the heathen was. see the phrase elswhere used, Luk 15.2. Acts 11.3. Gal. 2.12. I suppose [Page 29]there is little difference betwixt the import of this and the o­ther last mentioned. But here that is expressed proverbially, or Symbolically, which there is more plainly. A persons eating with another, when he doth it upon choyce and design, being a symbol of intimate friendship, and voluntary complacential communion with him. At least so it seems to have been in those times of Christ and his Apostles, Matth. 11.18, 19. The whole significancy of the phrase as to the present point, is grounded on the opinion and custome of the time and place, where eating with any as aforesaid, is notoriously reputed to be an owning of the courses of them with whom we eat or drink, and a testification of that complacentiall respect to them which may probably harden them in their wickednesse, and incourage others in the same: there not to eat is a neces­sary withdrawing or not mingling our selves. But where eat­ing with, is not a probable sign of countenancing of them, as a­foresaid; and there are more evident sighes of discountenan­cing them manifested at that time, I suppose that phrase then and there ceaseth to signifie the withdrawing mentio­ned in this chapter. The learned Doctor Hammond thus pa­raphraseth on this eleventh verse ‘But the purpose of my writing is onely to interdict you that free encouraging con­verse with Christian professors guilty of any of these sen­suall heathen sins, used by Idolaters: and to command that with such an one, you enter not any friendly commerce, so much as to eat with him; much less to admit him to the Sacrament, or the feast that attends that, untill he do re­form.’

§. 5.

Another phrase is used, Rom. 16.17. Mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, & avoyd them. It must be confessed, some learned Interpreters make this exhortation parallel to that of our Saviours, Be­ware of false prophets—and that Christ his sheep should not hear, but fly from the voyce of the stranger and salse shepheard. But others interpret it of discountenancing those seditious per­sons, by shunning communion with them. "From such ye are to separate, that others may not be deceived, by taking them for men as orthodox as any, as Doctor Hammond paraphraseth it. And Paraeus saith, Hos igitur, observari & vitari, hoc est, ab Ecclesiae consortio excludi monet Apostolus. And he paral­lels it with Titus 3.10. A man that is an heretick after [Page 30]the first and second admonition, reject. Which is another Scri­ture phrase referring to the casting of a person out of the com­munion of the Church.

In the 2 Thess. 3. There are two other phrases, both relating to the denying some communion to disorderly Christians. Many think these, especially the first of these, belong not to any authoritative sententiall excommunication pronounced and declared by the Officers of the Church, but shew the du­ty lying on all Christians to use their own discretion to discern and seperate from these offenders, so far as concerned them in their places and stations. The first of them is at verse 6. We command you brethren to withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly. And the later is at verse 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed, yet count him not as an enemy, &c.

That also is a denying of some Christian communion, which the Apostle exhorts to in the third Epistle of John, verse 10, 11. If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine (that is, a doctrine contrary to the doctrine they had received before mentioned) receive him not into your house, nor bid him god speed. For he that biddeth him god speed is partaker of his evill deeds, the which Doctor Hammond interprets of the wicked and Apo­statizing Christian Gnosticks, who taught men to deny Christ in time of persecution.

§. 6.

From these hints the Scripture gives us about withdrawing communion from wicked Christians, duely perused, we may ga­ther,

(1.) That Excommunication is no Scripture word, but is used by the Church to signifie all that just Ecclesiastical seve­rity, which over and besides admonition, is to be used towards a wicked brother in respect of the Churches behaviour towards him, for the reclaiming of him, ond freeing the Church from the pollu­tion of his intimate society. For this description doth agree to the texts before mentioned, as is manifest; and therefore if excommunication do signifie what is the sense of those texts, we shall not in the description aforesaid, misconceive the im­portance of it.

That it is a part of Ecclesiasticall severity no one doubts, all the texts mentioned do evince that. That it is all that Ec­clesiasticall severity the Church and members thereof do make [Page 31]use of, besides admonition, will not, I think, be questioned; because so generally Authors do make Admonition and Excom­munication the only divident members of Church censures in generall: and because also neither the texts quoted, nor any other, do give ground for adding a third part of Ecclesiasticall censure distinct from these. The rest of the description also is so plain in the texts, that I shall not insist upon any of the particulars thereof, viz. that the object of Excommunication is a wicked Brother; that it is inflicted by the Church, and the members thereof, and that for the ends mentioned. It is im­plyed in just Ecclesiasticall severity, that it is done according to the appointment of Jesus Christ.

(2.) Excommunication is nothing else but a Suspension of a person at present from personal priviledges; & not a cuttig him off simply from the Church. But (as I said) a suspending him from the priviledges, which as an orderly Church-member he might rightfully enjoy. Mr. W. renders extra communionem ejectio, an ejection out of the common union. p. 15.

But though some excommunicate persons are to be dealt with (in some eminent respects) as if they were cut off from, and were none of the Church, in reference whereto it is ordinary for Divines to speak of them as cut off. Yet they are not sim­ply cut off from all union with the Church thereby, nor are so to he reputed; which may be evinced from the forementioned Scriptures.

For 1. he that is most excommunicate according to those Scriptures, is to be but as an heathen, therefore not an hea­then. Simile quâ simile non est idem. Now if he were simply cut off he should be an heathen, and not onely as an heathen.

2. Some excommunicate are to be accounted as Bre­thren, 2 Thess. 3.15. Therefore they are not reputed no Church-members.

3. The Pastors are to have a pastorall care over the excom­municate, and they and other Church members are still to admonish him as a brother.

4. He is onely as a sick person under cure and Church re­medies in order to his recovery. 1 Cor. 5.5. Mat. 18.15. 1 Tim. 1.20. Now there is no physicking of a member simply cut off.

5. He is obliged to hear the word as a Church-member, and to receive admonitions in publick and private. For he is tied by vertue of the baptismall Covenant he hath professedly en­tred [Page 32]into, to exercise himself in all the ordinances of Christ he hath opportunity for, as he hath for hearing the word as well as an heathen, with hope of receiving good thereby; and for some other ordinances it is said that he looseth at present possessionem rather then jus, as Mr Rutherford expres­seth it, and explains it by the similitude of a man having three houses, who is for some offence confined to some one of them, and sequestred from the other, so as he may not make use of them.

6. If he were made no Church-member by excommunica­tion, he should upon his repentance be rebaptized: and so the Donatists rebaptized those who came into their Societies, which was reasonable enough upon supposition that they were before no members of the visible Church, as Mr. W. speaks. pag. 22. 23. and passim alibi. But the excommu­nicate when readmitted are not to be rebaptized, therefore they were not reputed simply no Church-members whiles they were excommunicate.

7. All (say they) are cut off but conditionally, if they do not repent; therefore they are not cut off till that condition be fulfilled, which cannot be before their death, for ought we know; the sin against the Holy Ghost, or the sin unto death, I suppose can hardly (if at all) be known to be committed by any individuall person, so as that the Church should conclude him absolutely irrecoverable. To say a person is cut off con­ditionally, includes he is not simply and absolutely cut off, whiles that condition of his finall impenitency is not existent and ac­complished. Doctor Ricard Field of the Church, lib. 1. ch. 13, 14, 15. shewes how those three sorts of men who go out of the Church, viz. Schismaticks, Hereticks, and notoriously wicked persons who are excommunicate, do yet all of them remain still parts of the Church of God. And concerning the last of them he thus speaks ch. 15. Excommunication doth not wholly cut off the excommunicate from the visible Church of God. ‘For they may and often do retain the intire prosession of sa­ving Truth, together with the Character of Baptisme, which is the mark of Christianity, and so far forth notwithstanding their disobedience, still acknowledge them to be their lawfull Pastors and Guides, by whose sentence they are excommuni­cate, that they would rather endure and suffer any thing, then schismatically joyn themselves to any other communion.’ So he. And in the same chapter speaking of suspension, he saith, [Page 33] ‘The lesser excommunication excludeth onely from the Sacra­mentall pledges, and assurances of Gods love; which when it is pronounced against them that stubbornly stand out, and will not yeeld themselves to the Churches direction and disposition, is properly named Excommunication.’

I have the rather insisted on this, because of two conse­quences which wil naturally and easily flow from this doctrine, viz. 1. That the scruple hinted by Mr. W. p. 133. and insisted on by others (in opposition to our abstension, or suspension) is manifestly frivolous and groundless. They say, if a parent turn not his children out of doores, he will not deny them bread; and apply their simile, that in like manner, those who are not excommunicated, or not cast out of the Church, should not be denyed the Sacramentall bread in the Lords Sup­per.

2. That Church-membership (taken at large) doth not give right to persons of years, to the Lords Supper. For then they who are cut off by any excommunication, should be ad­mitted; they being still parts of the Church of God, as Field calls them.

§. 7.

(3.) Since excommunication is a withdrawing or rejecting of one from communion, hence it follows, that as communi­on is more or lesse, so this withdrawing (and therefore ex­communication) is capable of degrees, to be more or less. And some more notable degree may be denominated by one name, and another by another. Thus it was among the Jewes, the common nature of whose excommunication was, a withdrawing from some communion, as ours is. Many of the learned have described theirs, in the three speciall degrees of it: as Schindler pentaglot. in voce [...]. Gerrard. harm. Evang. c. 178. gives a summary account of them out of se­veral Authors. The first was truly a separation, or withdraw­ing. But the second was more solemnly such. Quâ quis solenni­ter in totius Ecclesiae conspectu—exclusus est. The word so­lenniter some such man as Mr. W. would catch and cavill at; as he doth p. 18. against such a passage in my papers. What (saith he) is your Suspension such an Apocryphall business that it deserves no solemnity in the managing thereof? Unto such in­considerable flirts I shall not trouble my self nor the Reader with any answer. But I insist not in describing wherein the severall sorts of their excommunication did consist (there being [Page 34]much difference among the learned in that. See Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. 5.) But that there were severall sorts; and in those, that one was a severer degree of exclusion or separation and withdrawing from, then another. The four degrees or steps in the censure of excommunication among the Greeks for­merly, are mentioned by most who have written on this con­troversie. The stantes, succumbentes. audientes and plorantes. But the Gentlemen who oppose us alledge, that those were steps in readmission of the excommunicate, not steps or degrees in excommunication. But (though I confess this is an ingenuous answer, yet) methinks we may rationally inferre the lawful­ness of proceeding by steps in excommunication, from that supposed lawfulness of admitting severall steps of delivering out of excommunication. Sure I am, there is as much ground in Scripture, (and reason too as I apprehend) for the former as there is for the later.

And that conceit of excommunication under the notion of a dismembring, and turning out or cutting off from Church-membership, being (I conceive) sufficiently and clearly re­felled in the fore-going Section; this inference will appear much more evident and convincing. But I shall offer here these two considerations, for the further confirming of gradual excommunication, or putting out of Ecclesiasticall commu­nion.

1. If there be nothing in the nature of excommunication it self, which is against a graduall procedure in excommuni­cation, nor any Scripture prohibition of it, and if it be not contrary to the generall Rule of doing all things in the Church orderly and to edification; then it is lawfull: But the former is true; therefore the later also. That there is nothing in the nature of excommunication against it, hath been shewed, in that withdrawing communion, which expresseth the nature of all excommunication is capable of degrees. That there is no Scripture prohibition hereof is to be reckoned upon, till some Scripture prohibition be produced, which I could never yet see, nor hear, so much as pretended by any. Nor is it contrary to the Rule of orderly and edifying transaction of affairs in the Church: since courses of mildness and gentle­ness are most likely to edifie, when they thwart not Ju­stice and Right, as those do not which are not contrary to the Word, the Rule of Right and Justice.

2. Again, if a person may have no right to, yea ought to [Page 35]be debarred the Sacrament, who yet ought not to be turned out of all that private Christian communion, which some ex­comunication deprives of; then there may be degrees of ex­communication, or putting one out of Ecclesiasticall commu­nion, and particularly one degree of abstension or suspension, preceding (for some time) the withdrawing of private Chri­stian communion. But the former is true; therefore the later. The Consequence I suspect not the deniall of; the Antece­dent stands firmly upon these two pillars, viz. 1. That no Christian notoriously under gross and scandalous wickedness, hath any right to the Sacrament, nor hath the Minister any rightfull commission from the Donor or author of the Cove­nant and Seals thereof, to administer or give the Sacrament unto him. As suppose in point of faith, a notorious Heretique who denies a fundamentall of the Christian Creed; or in point of manners, suppose one hath committed whoredome, and it is notoriously known; both these remaining visibly impenitent, are uncapable of having the Lords Sup­per lawfully given unto them. And yet 2. an offender though so notorious as in the forementioned cases, ought not forthwith to be rejected and turned out of all that Christian private communion, which some excommunication deprives of. For the proof of the former of these two propositions, I must crave the Readers patience, and (God willing) in the following discourse he shall find it (I hope) clearly and convincingly confirmed. The later of them I know none that deny. And there is Scripture-evidence for it. The heretick, Titus 3.10. is not to be rejected and cast out of all that private Chri­stian communion, which some excommunication deprives of, till after the first and second admonition, which are not to be given together and at one time, as all acknowledge; but at some distance. And a person is not thus to be rejected, till obstinate: Now obstinacy in wickedness (referring to faith or manners) cannot be suddenly manifested, but requires se­veral admonitions being to be rejected by an offender, before he can be declared obstinate.

§. 8.

(4) There are sundry sorts of persons in sundry capacities, concerned and exercised in withdrawing from a scandalous brother. 1. The Ministers, the Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 2, The people. 3. The whole Church of Officers and people together. These ought to be distinctly considered, [Page 36]and not confounded, as too usually they are.

1. The Minister are exercised herein, by the power of Or­der, which enables them to take cognizance of their capable or uncapable subjects of any of their administrations, as in reference to the reproof and admonition of scorners, so e­pecially in reference to the Sacrament; (especially where there is no governing Church which might over-sway their particular judgements of discretion.) And they are to bind and retain sins. not onely by preaching the Word, and de­nouncing the judgements of God against such as walk in wicked courses indefinitely, Matth. 16.19. John 20.23. but also by with-holding the sacramentall pledges of Gods fa­vour (so far as concerns their office and administration there­of) from such as are manifestly and notoriously impenitent, though not yet declared obstinate in such gross wickedness: And much more are they to deny the Sacrament to them who are by Ecclesiasticall juridicall procedure manifested to be ob­stinate in such scandalous prophanenesse: this is included in (though not the whole of) those texts directed to the Apo­stles and Ministers, Matth. 18.17, 18. Titus 3.10. being compared with other Scriptures which authorize them to administer the Sacraments onely to obedientiall believers (of which we must treat beneath) and therefore do inhibit their ad­ministring to any other.

Of this excommunication I suppose they especially speak, who sometimes deseribe it with reference onely to a with­drawing from sacramentall communion. So Camero in one of his Epistles, inter opuscula mifcellanea, pag. (mihi) 532. col. 2. thus speaks, ‘Haec una est legitima excommunicatio, quare sic defin [...]o: Excommunicatio est sententia peecatori impeniten­tiam profitenti, vel reipsâ, vel etiam verbo, denuncians peecata ejus non esse remissa, proinde (que) abstinendum esse illi sacramen­torum usu, quae sigilla sunt remissionis peccatorum.’ And Calvia hath a passage to the like purpose, in his 278 Epistle. Qui suspensi à sacra coena protervè judicium Ecclesiae respuunt, declarant se extraneos, ac proinde nihil senioribus restare video, nisi ut Magistatum exslimulent ad cos durius coercendos: nam in poenis Ecclesiasticis ultima est excommunicatio. On this account I suppose it is, that Chrysostome so much and vehemently warns Ministers, that they admit not such as they know to be under gross wickedness, to the Lords Table. Chrysostom. Hom. 60. ad populum Antiochenum de sumentibus indigne divina & sancta [Page 37]mysteria. ‘Let no cruel, no unmercifull, no impure one any way approach. Haec tam ad vos qui communieatis, quam ad vos qui ministratis dicta esse volo— No small punishment hangs over your heads, if yee suffer any one to partake of this Table, whom you know under wickedness: For his blood shall be required at your hands. If a Captain, if the Consull himself, if he who hath the Diadem, approach unworthily, do thou hinder and restrain him.’ — This he amplifies by one ha­ving the charge of keeping a Well clean. — And a little after the same Father adds, ‘But thou wilt say, How shall I know this or that man, what he is? I dispute not what sins are unknown, but what are known. Dico horribile quoddam atque tremendum: non est ita malum demoniacos intus esse, sicut istos qui peccatorum sordibus polluuntur. Illud enim pessimum est, sicut Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & Testa­menti sanguinem ducere communem, & spiritus gratiam contemnere. Multo igitur Demoniaco pejor est, qui petccati sibi conscius accedit. — Let us therefore exclude all whom we see come unworthily &c.’ And that speech of Chrysostome is known sufficiently, ‘I will sooner give my life, then the Lords body to one unworthily: And I will sooner endure my blood to be spilt, then I will allow that most holy blood to any but the worthy.’ So also in Cyprians time, to give or deny the communion was all one, as to give or deny the Churches peace. See his Epistle 54. Cyprianus, Liberalis, Caldonius, &c. Cornelio fratri.

§ 9.

2. Private Christians in the Church (wherein also are in­cluded the officers, considered in their private capacity com­mon to them with other members) are concerned and exerci­sed in excommunication or withdrawing communion. For to them as such, seem those instructive directions and precepts to belong, 2 Thess. 3.6, 14. Rom. 16.17.3 Ioh. verse 10.11. to withdraw from and avoyd, and not entertain some noto­rious offenders: yea, and that whether these offenders are censured and declared to be such by the governing Church or no. Indeed it is most orderly, that the Guides and Officers go before and direct the people concerning such as are to be avoyded. yet are not the people excused in their neglect of withdrawing communion (in their places and stations, viz. as to private encouraging intimate communion) from noto­rious obstinate offenders, although their spirituall Governors [Page 38]enjoyn them not this withdrawing from the foresaid obstinate notorious offenders. For these Scriptures do absolutely com­mand this withdrawing, and give no such dispensation to the people in case of the negligence of their guides. And when the people follow the injunctions of their Officers herein, (as being thereby and therewith satisfied concerning the obsti­nate wickednesse of such particular offenders) they do close therewith not meerly because the governing Church requires this, (for then they should be bound so to withdraw from any whom their leaders may warn them to avoyd;) but especial­ly because they are satisfied in their opinion of the integrities and abilities of their guides, or by their personal knowledge of the parties censured, or by some other way, that these particular persons whom they are warned to avoyd, are such as the Scripture commands them to withdraw their foresaid intimate and encouraging communion from.

3. The Officers and people of the Church conjunctly are to withdraw communion from some offenders. For to them as together, the Directions for this purpose are prescribed, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13. When the Church is met together. Whether it refer to any parricular congregation met, among the Corinthians, or to a classicall meeting of sundry con­gregations, comes to one pass as to the present point. For in a classicall Church-meeting, there are (as there were in that Synod, Acts 15.2, 22, 23) besides the Ministers, others of the brethren, delegates from the rest, and therefore representa­tives of their whole congregations respectively, & with respect to the transaction of a withdrawing by these, excommunicati­on is thus described, as Aretius hath it. Problem. Theol. de Ex­communicatione. ‘Excommunicatio est alicujus prosessi religionem nostam à consortio fidelium, in sacris & prophanis rebus exclusio, facta in nomine & virtute Christi, per ordina­rios Ecclesiae ministros, consentiente reliquâ Ecclesiâ, & facta emendandi peccatoris causa, & ad liberandum à contagione peccati Ecclesiam’ And thus in Cyprians time it's manifest, great respect was had to the people, or brethren as such, in the management of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and especially in matters of Excommunication or Absolution of their members; and they had so great a stroke, that they had a negative voice, and scarce any thing done without, or at least, against their will, in these great affairs. ‘Remeant quotidie (saith Cyprian Epislola 55. Cornelin sratri) & ad Ecclesiam pulsant; nobis [Page 39]tamen à quibus ratio Domino reddenda est, anxiè ponderanti­bus & solicitèe x aminantibus, qui recipi & admitli ad Ec­clesiam debeant. Quibusdam enim, aut crumina sua obsistunt, aut fratres obstinatè & firmiter renituntur, ut recipi om­nino non possint, cum scandalo & periculo plurimorum. Neque enim sic putamina quaedam eollig [...]nd a sunt, ut quae integra & sana, suntvulnerentur; nec utilis ac consultus est pastor, qui ita morbidas & contactas over gregi admiscet, ut gregem totum mali cohaerentis afflictione contaminet— ut gaudent & laetuntur, cum tolerabiles & minus culpabiles redeunt: ita contrà, fremunt & reluctantur, quoties immenda­biles & protervi, & vel adusteriis vel sacrificiis contaminati, & post haec adbuc insuper & superbi, sic ad Ecclesiam re­meant, ut bona intus ingenia corrumpant. Vix plebi per­suadeo imo extorqueo, ut tales patiantur admùti.’ And even in the weighty business of installing or ejecting Ministers. (Epistola 68. Cyprianus, Caecilius, Primus, Polycorpus, & Fe­lici Presbytero, &c.) it is said, ‘Propter quod plebs obse­quens praeceptis dominicis, & Deum metuens, à peccatore prae­posiio separate se debet, nec ad sacriledgi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere, Quando ipsa maximè habeat potestatem, vel eli­gendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi— In­struit & ostendit ordinationes sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ fieri oportere, vel plebe praesente, vel de­legantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium suffragio & ju­dicio fuerit examinata.’

§. 10.

This joynt act of the Ministers and people (or the major part thereof) declaring according to the word of God, a no­torious (and not only so, but) obstinate flagitious brother to be as an Heathen and Publican, and so to be removed from that Ecclesiasticall communion, which an heathen may not be admitted unto; (This I say) I take to be the greater or full Excommunication: which yet is not simply a cutting off the excommunicate from the Church, but in some respects only, viz. in regard of the suspending them from some priviledges of the Church, as Maccovius saith. Loc. com. c. 84. ‘Non igi­tisr penitus è corpore gladio hoc (excommunicationis) amputa­tur, sed quoad certas quasdam communicandi rationes per sa­cramenta & familiarem consuetudinem.’ This withdrawing in these two respects (viz. 1. in respect of sacramentall com­munion. [Page 40]And 2. such inward encouraging familiarity as might not be afforded to an obstinate heathen) being decla­red and denounced by the Church as aforesaid, against an of­fender, I conceive includes the utmost which is in any ex­communication now in use in the Church of God. I know some extend it further, both for the exclusion from the word and prayers of the Congregation, and from almost any civill communion, except in some cases of very neer relation to the excommunicate; yea, and then too, from praying with them, that the wise might not joyn in prayer with the excommuni­cate husband. But this severe Doctrine I know not how to prove, and therefore must not assert it. I find indeed an Antichristian excommunication, Revel. 13.17. That none might buy nor sell, save he that had the mark of the Beast. But it is dangerous (as one faith) to sweep Christs floore with Antichrists besome. I know some of the Ancients speak of the excommu­nicate as deprived of the suffrages and prayers of the Church. But then I think their meaning is, that they are not prayed for as the faithfull are; not but they were prayed for under the notion of impenitents, that God would give them true repentance, as the Church prayes for the conversion of the heathens. Some were thrust out of the place of the Assem­bly, but then mostly those places were (I conceive) private houses where the Church had their meetings; of their com­ing to which there is not the like reason as there is of their li­berty to come to our assemblies, where the excomunicate may have a civill right to a seat as well as others. And where there were seats for the excommunicate distinct from the faithfull; there also were such like distinct seats for the Catechumens and Heathens; whereby as it appears they were not excluded from the hearing of the Word, so it is also manifest they were not excluded any more then Heathens were, which is all contend for in this matter. The reverend Vindicator M^r Humsreys, Vindic. p. 149. is so ingenuous as to acknow­ledge, he thinkes there's reason to come to composition with his worthy Antagonist about the admitting the excommuni­cate to the Word and Prayer, from 1 Cor. 14. ‘I could be willing (saith he) to compound the matter with one distin­ction: Exclusion is either reall or relative. I shall leave it to him that will dispute with M^r Drake how the Church can exclude the excommunicate really from being present at the Word and Prayer; and it shall suffice me that they are ex­cluded [Page 41]cluded relatively however, so that though they may be present as heathen, yet are they cut off from all their interest in them, still as members; so here.’ But why will not this handsome distinction be applyed, to the receiving the excommunicate to the Sacrament also really, though not relatively, if that this ex­communication did not essentially containe in it a withdraw­ing from communion in the Sacrament, and not so in other Ordinances? And why should our Brethren check us for ma­king such a difference as they say we do betwixt Ordinances of equall sanctity, viz. the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments; when they themselves are here forced (as to admission to them) to do the same thing? Exclusion from the Word and Prayer, I doubt not may be exercised on an excommunicate (and so on heathens) where no civil right he hath hinders not; in some cases as prudence may direct. But then its an accidentall, and was not intended in the sentence of excom­munication considered in it selfe. That great mistake of taking excommunication for a cutting off from Church-membership hath been sufficiently, I hope, manifested in the sixth section of this Chapter.

§. 11.

I shall only adde one thing more concerning this full ex­communication. As the consent of the particular Congregati­on, whereof one is a member, is necessary for this his excom­munication, because else it cannot have its execution; and therefore cannot be inflicted, where the major part of that Church are against it (though the Officers are never so ur­gent in it). So also because in a neighbourhood and associa­tion of Congregationall Churches, this excommunication pas­sed in some one of them, is not likely to be effectuall for hum­bling the offender, unless the rest also comply therewith: And it cannot be expected they should, unless they have satisfaction concerning the justness thereof. Therefore we judge it re­quisite that where a Classis may be had, this excommunication be managed with their advice and consent, that so other Mini­sters and Churches may not admit an excommunicate of any one, to their Communion among them; either sacramentall, or that private encouraging fellowship, which by excommuni­cation he is justly debarrd from, at home.

§. 12.

(5) Lastly, from the Texts before mentioned, it may also appeare, that there is an excommunication ipso jure as well as [Page 42] facto, that is, 1. where the Law of God determines who are to be withdrawn from, and its left to the discretion of the Church-Officers and private members, to determine who those persons are, who by the Law are so excommunicate, upon a notorious manifestation thereof. And 2. where there is re­quired the juridical sentence of some Ecclesiastical Judge to determine that such a person is to be excommunicated. This latter none doubt of. And the former is proved by 2 Thes. 3.6. and 3 John ver. 10, 11. That learned Gentleman M^r. Willi­am Morice, quotes Estius, saying, that, If the crime be so noto­rious that by no gainsaying it can be denied, it seemes not that the sentence of the Judge is to be expected, in order to the avoyding of the offender. This quotation he hath in the 147 page of his booke, which he hath entituled, Caena quas [...] [...]. The new In­closures broken down, and the Lords Supper laid forth in com­mon for all Church-members, having a dogmatical faith, and not being scandalous. Which position, if it be limited to Church members adult, who have duely once made a personal recog­nition of their baptismal Engagements. And if herein he ex­clude not the profession of a justifying faith, as if it were not necessary to be joyned to, and with the dogmatical faith he speakes: I say, if that position of his be so understood (as I see not but it may according to the tenor of his discourse fol­lowing) I finde nothing therein to be gainsayd. For all such Church members are to be reputed and dealt with, as justified sincere beleevers.

§. 13.

In my sixth particular concerning the state of the Question (in the M S. numb. 15, 16.) I made use of Ames his words to expresse my minde, viz that the lesser degree of excommuni­cation which consisted in suspension, hath place in the Church, not by any particular express Institution of Christ, but from equity, and the nature of the thing it selfe. There, first Mr. W. flouts me as quoting so low an Authority, and adjudgeth me to be stiled a private man for it. I had been more private but for him. But its evident I built nothing upon the authority of Ames here, no more then Mr. W. doth on the Author of cha­rity mistaken, or Tornesius which he quotes in his Epistle. Next, he gives us his observations concerning the time and order of Ames his workes; and that (in part) I thinke to shew my quotation of him to be amisse. And though he after mention his Transcriber of my copy; his diligence he commends, that [Page 43]none of the faults may be taken off my selfe; Let him excuse his Transcriber as he pleaseth, my paper quoted Ames, de Consc: lib. 4. cap. 29. But who could thinke this lofty Eagle would deigne to catch at such poore flies as these. But he had leasure enough it seemes, and a mind to say any thing, so it might be against me. And then because Ames is not of my minde in all things about the subject of the power of excommunication, he tells the world I wrong Ames, in quoting that passage from him. When as our dispute was purposely and expresly separated from the Question about the subject of this power. Numb. 5, 6.

§. 14.

My seventh and last note was to this purpose, One particu­lar affirmative overthrows an universal negative, and therefore if I prove some in the Question, in any case may be suspend­ed, I attaine my end. The which is so manifestly true to every fresh man, that Mr. W. hath not the face to deny it; yet he chides about it extreamly, but most impotently, as if he would challenge our Wych-wallers to a scuffle with him. Your majesti­call severity — in a bead roll of words, as if you would charm the senses of the vulgar with your rare skil in Logick. —to delude the simple, by fraudulent and illogical arguments, &c. Thus his tongue runs at random, and he hath confuted me fluently, if his Reader will but do him this small, very little favour, as to be­leeve him without proofe. But in the midst of this ranting fit, he interweaves two impertinent Questions, Pag. 31. The first is this; Why all unregenerate, ignorant and scandalous members should not be debarred as well as some? seeing they all (as well as some) do stand guilty of the same notorious cause of exclusion. To which I answer. 1. Some may be unregenerate, who are neither ignorant nor scandalous. 2. There are degrees of ig­norance and scandall, and therefore some may be more debar­rable than others. 3. I no where say that any notoriously ig­norant or scandalous should be admitted; but its sufficient for the overthrowing their universall negative, None such may be debarred; if I evince any may, let him look to it whether all such may; my present province not putting me on the proofe thereof.

His second Query is; Whether your pretented flagitious Bur­gess may lawfully be whipt, before be he carefully convented or convicted, or after; If before, tell us by what Law, if not till af­terwards, Then you no wayes contradict our Assertion. As if I [Page 44]had brought this simile to prove suspension, when as I used it only to shew, that a particular affirmative overthrows an uni­versall negative, viz. that if some flagitious Citizen may be whipt, then its false that none such may; so it some scandalous Church-members may be suspended, then its false that none such may. The matter he queries as to some excommunication of scandalous persons notoriously such, although no juridical sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge hath passed on them to be such, hath been answered in the last section. And now having dispatcht his cavills against my explication of the Question, and the management thereof; I shall attend him in the argu­ment it selfe. But first let me take a little refreshing.

§. 1.

TO my first syllogisme (at numb. 21. of the Copy of my M S.) he answers p. 33. 1 by quarrelling with my con­clusion; and that in two respects. (Besides his exception a­gainst the phrase [fully excommunicate], which hath been re­selled above) 1 that theres left out of it [They expressing their [Page 45]desire to receive, and offering themselves:] But how vaine is this cavill, expressing the desire he hath to receive any evasion that of­fers it selfe? For 1. will he grant we may suspend them who do not profess their desire to receive, and do not offer themselves? If so, then Church-membership alone doth not give right to the adult for the Sacrament, and so his cause is marr'd. And he a little before, and in his Epistle, puts in the limitation of intelligent persons at yeares, who only with him are admitta­ble; so that if they are not intelligent, they are to be debarred, though they express their desire to receive, and offer themselves. Now let Mr. W. shew what Scripture debarrs these from the Sacrament, and not from the prayers and other publique ordi­nances of the Church? But that he attempts not to doe. If he had, it were ten to one, the same proofes would bring in more limitations as well as that. But its sufficient for him, for his part to cavill against others. 2 Againe, my argument pro­ceeds concerning the law of Christ debarring a visible pro­phane person; and then who sees not that it concludes against him, whether he desire and offer himselfe to be admitted or no? And yet with these shifts it seemes he non-plust my paper, when he and it were together, and tells it he could stop its course here, and since it brisled not againe, he is heartned to let the world know, how brave acts he could do, if he would. 2 The other quarrell he hath against my conclusion is, That its a Tautology; and that is meanes that some baptized persons at yeares suspended may be suspended. For (saith he) by [not fully excommunicate]. we understand your meaning to be [sus­pended.] Suspending may either denote the sentence of debar­ring, or the execution of that sentence. To say some persons cen­sured with abstension or suspension, may be suspended, that is, have the Lords Supper denyd to them is no Tautology, no more then to say, a person censured with full excommunication, may be debarrd all publique Church ordinances (according to their sense of it). But the pofition I undertooke after stating the Question was this; viz. That its lawfull to debar some persons the Lords Supper, who are baptized, and not warned to depart or kept from other publique ordinances, of hearing, praying, sing­ing, in the publique Congregations of the Church. And immediate­ly after this I began my argument, the conclusion whereof was, Some baptized persons at yeares not fully excommunicated, may be suspended from the Lords Supper. Whereby its manifest, that by [not fully excommunicate] I meant [not kept from all pub­lique [Page 46]ordinances in the Church] which is their sense of excom­munication. And is this a Tautology, some baptized persons not kept from all publique ordinances, may be suspended from the Lords Supper? My own judgement concerning full excommu­nication hath been shewed before in the last Chapter. But what a pittifull business is this, that Mr. W. so much quarrels at the state of the Question, and sometimes saith, I say what he holds himselfe in it; and yet he would never rectifie the same in a line or two, though desired (as I am informed) so to do, if it pleased him not, that we might have been agreed on that, be­fore we proceeded to dispute upon it. But he seemes to imitate the crafty Gunner, who would alwayes say he aimed at that which he hit, but would never agree before he shot, what should be the mark he would shoot at. Thus much concerning the conclusion of my Syllogisme. Now he comes to the pre­misses.

§. 2.

The major he saith p. 35. he grants with my elucidation thereof in such general termes as they stand. Yet after he be­thinks himselfe, and will (as he seemes to me) grant it upon condition that the granting of it may do no hurt to his own opinion. Whether this be not the sense of his p. 36, 37, 38. let the Reader judge who will peruse the same.

The proof of my Minor (which the Reader may receive if he please to turn back to the Copie of my paper M S. at numb. 24.) M^r W. sets down in his p. 39. and gives us words upon it, p. 40, 41, 42, 43. without distinguishing upon, or denying any proposition therein. He talkes much of Accade­micall disputings. Be it known to him I am not ignorant of the method of Disputation used in both our Universities. But if the Respondent (as he here makes himselfe) should in stead of giving a short answer (as he ought) by denying or distin­guishing upon the terms of either proposition, run out into such extravagancies as he here doth, he would (and that most deservedly) be hist out of the Schools. He raps again at the distinction of greater and lesser, fully and not fully excom­municate; but impotently, without any proof offered against the same. And then lest the practice of the Church of England formerly used, should give any countenance to the distinction, he endeavours to clear the Church of England, who manifestly used that distinction. But the great fault is, that it is now used by us; & what in them he excuseth, in us Presbyterians is a [Page 47]crime, he can hardly find terms of aggravation and disgrace bad enough to put upon it.

§. 3.

Let us then first see what was the practice of the Church of England herein. And then how M^r W. takes us off from plea­ding that, and I shall give my reply thereto. And first let us observe what was required by the Church of England former­ly, in reference to the manifestation of the knowleledge of such as were to be admitted to the communion, and their un­derstanding owning of the Christian faith.

In the order for Confirmation, it's thought good, that none be confirmed, but such as can say the Articles of the Creed, the Lords Prayer, & ten Commandements, and can answer to such questions of the Catechisme as the Bishop (or such as he shall ap­point) shall by his discretion appose them in. And this order is most convenient to be observed for divers considerations: First, because that when children come to years of discretion, and have learned what their God-fathers and God-mothers promised for them in baptisme, they may then themselves with their own mouth, and with their own conseat, openly, before the Church, ratifie and confirm the same: And also promise, that by the grace of God, they will evermore endeavour faithfully to observe and keep such things as they by their mouth and confession have assented unto, &c. And at the end of the Confirmation it's ordered, And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, untill such time as he can say the Catechisme and be confirmed.

Here is the substance of what is required among us, Let a­ny who come to communicate, shew that ever since they came to years, they thus personally owned the Christian Faith, and I know no bar in the Presbyterial Government to their admis­sion. The Ordinance of Parliament no where requireth that all should be examined now in order to their admission. But that the ignorant are to be excluded; and that implies not (as some have over-hastily concluded) that all are to be now ex­amined. But onely that all not examined sometime before, are to be examined now, and they onely; unless there be proofes (or at least strong presumptions) of any their apostasie from (or losing the knowledge of) the faith they have some­time personally professed.

§. 4.

Secondly, for scandall; the order of the Church of England was manifest, that the scandalous should be suspended, though [Page 48]not then fully excommunicated, or excommunicated majori excommunicatione, as the Canons speak.

In the Rubrick before the Communion, it is thus ordered, If any of those who intend to communicate, be an open notorious evill liver — the Curate shall advertise him, in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table, untill he have openly de­clared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, &c. — The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to partake of the Lords Table, untill he knowes them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at va­riance, be content to forgive the other from the bottome of the heart — & to make amends for that he himself hath offended, and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly unity, — the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate.

The first exhortation which is ordered to be read at certain times, when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the holy Communion, is mostwhat verbatim and altogether in sense, what Mr, W. hath prefixed before his Book under the name of D^r Peter Martyr, and why he might not have quoted the Common-Prayer Book for it as well as Peter Martyr, I can­not certainly tell; but the Reader may easily guesse somewhat shrewdly at it. And for answer thereunto, as I see nothing therein against the suspension pleaded for, so those who fra­med the Common-Prayer, thought it no way thwarted their suspension and lesser excommunication; if they had, they would not have contradicted themselves so grossly, as to in­sert it in the Communion, where they so expressly give order for the debarring the ptophane, as you have already heard. And in their next exhortation to examine themselves, repent and amend, they add, For otherwise the recieving the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your damnation. And especially in their third Exhortation. It's said thus, Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or flanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime, bewayl your sins, and come not to this holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Divel enter into you as he entred into Judas, and fill you full of impiety, and bring you to destruction of body and soul. Whereby it is evi­dent, the first exhortation to come, was made to them onely, who were supposed obedient believers; and here they who [Page 49]were disobedient are warned to keep off, whiles so wilfully dis­obedient; and those who were notoriously such, were to be kept off by the Minister. But yet certainly the Curate did not fully excommunicate all them whom he was not to suffer to partake of the Lords Table, though in part he did ecclesiasti­cally withdraw from them; as is more evident in the Canons of the Synod held at London in the first year of King James.

§. 5.

The title of the 26^th Canon is, Notorious offenders not to be admitted to the Communion. And in the Canon; No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion, any of his cure or flock which be openly knowne to live in sin no­torious, without repentance, nor malicious persons not reconciled, nor unfaithfull Church-wardens, &c. Can. 27. The title is; Schismatiques not to be admitted to the Communion. The title of Can. 57. is, The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching Ministers. In the Canon it selfe its ordered; Those who leave their own Parish Churches in that respect, &c. they are from the Ordinary to receive punishment by Eccle­siastical Censures — that is, Let them (persisting in their wil­fulness) be suspended; and then after a moneths further ob­stinacy excommunicated. In Can. 59. Enjoyning Ministers to catechize every Sunday; Its decreed, if the Minister do neg­lect, he is to be admonished — and if he wilfully offend a­gaine, suspended; and if the third time, then excommunicated; and others concern'd to come themselves, or send theirs to be catechized, are in the same Canon, in case of their neglect herein, to be suspended by their Ordinaries (if they be not children) and if they so persist for the space of a moneth, then let them be excommunicated. Can. 68. the title whereof is, Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury. But in the body of the Canon there is this proviso; Except the party deceased were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testifie of his repentance.

These three last Canons I have quoted, shew how cleerly they owned a degree of Censure, called by the name of suspen­sion; though it was in those cases to be inflicted by the Ordi­nary. But the former quotations shew how farre the Minister also was entrusted with a debarring from the Communion, notoriously prophane persons, who might tender themselves to receive. Now we are to heare, what Mr. W. alledgeth to cut [Page 50]us off from our present pleading this order of the Church of England: The suspension (saith he) taken up in the Church of England, in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime, was the publique act of the Church and State, not inherent in a Minister (as a Minister) but derived to him by deputation; and cannot now be pretended to, the Common prayer book (which gave the power) being now abolished. So he, p. 41.

§. 6.

First; Its to be observed that Mr. W. here speaks of the sus­pension taken up in the Church of England, as if it were only in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime; whereas its manifest, most of the passages before rehearsed out of the Canons and Common prayer booke, cleerly evince, that suspension was in­flicted for several crimes without respect to obstinacy therein, and then obstinacy and continuance in those crimes, without visible repentance and reformation, was punished with greater excommunication, as the Canon it selfe speakes.

2. But as to the substance of his exception, I answer briefly thus for the overthrowing of it; Either the Common prayer booke was not abolished by a lawfull authority sufficient for the nulling and abrogating of that sanction whereby it was for­merly established; or els it was. If it were not, then Ministers by vertue of the Common prayer booke, may (as opportunity is offered) suspend according to the Directions therein given them; which remaine still in force, if not nulled by a sufficient authority. But if the Common prayer booke was abolished by a lawfull authority, sufficient for the abrogating that sanction whereby it was formerly established, then certainly, they who had such power to abrogate that government and order, had power also to establish our suspension. It belonging to the same power or authority to null as to make a law. And then the same suspension (in substance) is delegated to Church Officers still, in the Ordinance of 48 for Presbyterial Government where this is appointed, by the Lords and Commons, by whom only the Service booke was abrogated.

I have the rather hinted this for the satisfaction of some godly persons who have not been well satisfied with the State proceedings, in reference to Church Government; who yet have an high esteem of the former constitutions of the Church of England: And, me thinkes, where the same thing for sub­stance is appointed and practiced, they should not reject it. And now let the Reader if he please, judge, whether M. W. or [Page 51]we behave our selves most like Ministers of the Church of Eng­land, (in reference to the degrees of excommunication, and specially in reference to suspension) the neglect whereof, he (out of Mr. P.) chargeth us with. Mr. W. proceeds to carp at [may be] in my syllogisme, when as yet [may be] was in the position I opposed. And the question was, whether such ca­ses may occurre, not whether they did occurre, wherein the per­sons spoken of might be suspended, as appeares in my M S. at numb. 6.17. But our Doctor resolutissimus & absolutissimus, descends not so low as to observe the state of the Question; he had rather, it seemes, be shewing his Logick to his weaker consciences (for whose satisfaction his title page designes his booke) and telling them, p. 43, 44. which are the subjects and the predicats in the Propositions, and the medius terminus in the syllogisme: they will (it may be) applaud their Doctor, with an Egregiam veró laudem. But if any of his weaker consciences meet with these lines, I am of opinion they will not so farre admire those logical termes as to refuse the plaine and whole­some provision I now offer them to share with me, in the

§. 1.

THe confirmation of the Major Proposition in my second syllogisme, (at numb. 25. in my M S.) Mr. W. repeats in his p. 44. where he hath such jejune and lanquid exceptions, against some explications being inserted in Parentheses, and so separated from the syllogisme it selfe; that I judge it needless to make any defence against them. There being none (I thinke) who manage a dispute in writing, who do not use the like. Although its true, in disputations face to face, there is less need of them; any mistake which might occurre about the meaning of the termes, being soone rectified by explicati­on thereof. The like frivolous complaint he makes of some various equipollent phrases used, viz. [visibly unbeleevers] and [such as ought to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers] when as I had expresly signified the equipollency of them, numb. 25. The proposition I was to prove was, Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom the Lord would not (according to the revelation of his will in his Word) have the Lords Supper administred. Now my con­clusion in the syllogisme I brought to prove this, was; Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such, to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be administred. An ordinary Reader, I think, would see no difference betwixt [them to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be administred], and [them to whom the Lord would not, (according to the revelation of his will in his word) have the Lords Supper administred]. But Mr. W. that he may seeme to see further in­to a milstone than another can doe, hath spyed the disagree­ment. He was (belike) at a great want for exceptions who takes up these; and considering his necessity, he may be better excused. Its better to pick strawes than to doe just nothing.

But at last he hath unbutton'd his eyes, and can perceive some strength in my proofe when it hath been (he thinkes) beholding to him for a better dresse, p. 46. where he thus formes it; Those who are visibly unbeleevers, are visibly such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred. But those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly unbeleevers. Ergo, Those who by word openly renounce the Lord [Page 53]Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administred.

§ 2.

Well, now he hath the honour (as he speakes) to be oppo­nent himselfe, I hope he will be more civil in his answer, and not be captious against his own creature. Wherein now (saith he, p. 47.) doth this argument advance your pretensions, or dis­parage ours? and then explaining that Question, or shewing that he is not at a want of other artificiall words to say the same thing againe as pompously, he addes, What evidence doth it artificially and intrinsecally give for you or against us? My conclusion was [those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom (according to the word of God) the Lords Supper ought not to be administred]. The conclusion he hath made for me is [those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such, to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be admini­stred]. Let the Reader judge what material difference there is betwixt them. Yet he grants the latter, when he quarreld the former. But then as bethinking himselfe, that the argu­ment is mine, though the dress be his, he will now have ano­ther thrust at it, and denies the Minor: yet not absolutely but with distinction; now he attempts to play the part of a Respondent indeed. But what he might have said, as befitted a Respondent in a few lines, he must spend many leaves upon (though not altogether) in the following part of his booke.

This being the very point of my argument, and this place most fit to consider it more throughly, I shall here make my reply to him upon it, once for all.

§. 3.

Visible unbeleevers is not taken (saith he, p. 47.) in the same sense in the Major and Minor. In the Major according to the an­cient and famous sense of the Catholique Church for pagan Infi­dels, for men without, for non-receivers of Christian doctrine, but positively standing under the delusion of some visible Idoll or Idolls. In the Minor, according to your moderne Brownisme (thats one of the flowers he useth to dress me a garland with) and private sense, for Christians within the Church, baptized and adult; but manifestly defective in their Christian Ethicks, though orthodoxall otherwise in all points of faith, and frequenters of our Church Assemblyes and solemnities, as professedly of our Protestant per­swasion in point of Religion and divine worship.

By the way I might reply, What if these baptized adult persons are not orthodox in faith, nor frequenters of our Church: assemblies and Solemnities? Are they then unbelie­vers in the first sense? or must there be a third sense devised for them? The Reader will observe this confusion. But if he had applied this distinction such an one as it is, he had done somewhat becoming the place he hath taken upon him. But that he leaves at large. Well, since one good turn re­quires another, I will endeavour to make out his Answer as he (ere-while) thought to do my Argument. And it may be this: Visibly unbelievers may be taken in a two-fold sense. 1. For Pagan-infidels. 2. Morbid-Christians, [under which term I suppose he will contain scandalous and notoriously-prophane Christians, or else he saith nothing to the question.] Now, take visible unbelievers in the former sense, for Pagan-Insidels, and then I grant the Major. Those who are visi­bly unbelievers, that is, Pagans, are such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred. And then I deny the Minor. All who in word openly renounce Christ, are not vi­sibly unbelievers, that is, visibly Pagans.

But take visible unbelievers in the later sense for Morbid-Christians, and then I grant the Minor. Those who by word openly renounce Christ, are visibly unbelievers, that is, Mor­bid Christians: But then I deny the Major, and say, That those who are visibly unbelievers, that is, Morbid Christians, are not such to whom the Lords Supper ought to be administred. I appeal to any judicious Reader, whether I wrong Mr. W. in this guessing at the application of his distinction and answer thereupon to my Argument. And indeed this elsewhere he gives us in as his sense, many times over and over. p. 50. saith he, You mis-judge in taking the Morbid Church members of our Parochial Assemblies to be unbelievers and Infidels positively, as Pagans, &c. So p. 51, 52, 53. and passim alibi.

§. 4.

Here Mr. W. asserts, that to use the word Infidel, or un­believer for any but Pagans (who never took on them a posi­tive obligation to the service of the true God) is Brownisme. And that the Scripture and Catholique sense of the word, doth onely denote Pagans. But how hastily was this asserted by him, shall be shewed in the following observations concerning the Scripture use of the word.

1. Christ said to Thomas, John 20.27. Be not thou [...], [Page 55] be not an unbeliever, but a believer. Was not he now in a possibility (ex natura rei) though baptized, to have become an unbeliever by apostasie from the principles of the Christian faith, especially this, that Jesus is the Mes­sias?

2. Those two Texts, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. Be not unequally yoa­ked with unbelievers — What part hath a believer with an In­fidel? and Titus 1.15. To the unbelievers nothing is pure, &c. are both expounded by D^r Hammond (whose reasons are worth weighing) to be understood of the Gnostick Hereticks, cal­led there Infidels, or unbelievers, in that their doctrines and practices made so great an opposition to the Gospel.

3. And on Matth. 24.51. he makes those two words, hy­pocrites and unbelievers of equall importance, i. e. saith he, Knaves, false, deeeitfull persons, expressed by S. Luke in setting this down, ch. 12.46. by [...], unbelievers, or unfaithfull. And he renders the [...], Rev. 21.8. unfaithful, that fall off from Christ.

4. The Jewes, after Christs ascension, who received not Jesus for their Christ, or Messias, were unbelievers in Scrip­ture-sense. Act. 14.2. and 17.5. yet were they not then Pa­gans, under no positive obligation of worshiping a false God. And an excommunicate person, who hath been baptized, and still professeth the Christian faith, is to be dealt with, as an Heathen, yet he is no Pagan, nor absolutely cut off from the Church, as hath been shewed above. And the Apostle tells us, that the Jewes were broken off by unbelief, though they were Church-members before,, Rom. 11.23.

5. Belief, doth ordinarily in Scripture-sense, denote such a professed acceptance of the Gospel-call, as in­cludes sincere obedience; and visible believing, visibly sin­cere actuall obedience. (And on the contrary, unbelief and unbelieving, may in Scripture-sense denote wilfull disobe­dience and rebellion against the Gospel, and visible unbelief, such visible notorious rebellion or actuall disobedience.) Therefore some disobedient within the Church, may be ter­med unbelievers. For the Concrete is rightly denominated from the abstract; a just man from justice, so an unbeliever from unbelief prevailing. The Antecedent is manifest in ma­ny Scripture-instances. 1. That believing to which justifi­cation and pardon of sin is annexed, is a sincere and obe­dientiall believing, 2. And so also is that to which salvation [Page 56]is promised; But to a Scripture-believing is annexed justifi­cation, Act. 16.39. and pardon of sin, Act. 10.43. And also to it is promised salvation, and that most frequently, Act. 16.31. Rom. 10.9. 1 Cor. 1.21. Gal. 3.22. Eph. 1.19. 2 Thess. 1.10. Heb. 4.3. & 10.39. John 3.15, 16, 18, 36. & 6.35, 40, 47. & 11.25, 26. & 12.46. Rom. 1.16. & 9.33. Mark 16.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. 1 Iohn 5.10. 3. It may also be obser­ved, how Abraham is called the Father of believers, in respect of that eminent and exemplary faith of his, which was truly justifying and saving, and included in it sincere actuall obe­dience, Rom. 4.3. Gal. 3.6. So not to believe is not to obey, Rom. 15.31. Rom. 10.16. They have not all obeyed the Gos­pel. For Esaias saith, Lord who hath believed our report. And this is referred to the Jewes, who were Church-members, at least before Christs death. And those in the later time, who should depart from the faith, may be called unbelievers; those departers from the faith mentioned 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. the learned Mr. Mede doth shew, are meant of Papists, and the grand apostasie of the Antichristian Man of Sin. So those who draw back from the truth, either in respect of doctrinall or practicall apostasie, are opposed to them who believe, Heb. 10.38, 39. Therefore those who apostatize, do not believe, and so are not believers in some Scripture-sense: which also a­grees with the usuall signification of the word. Budeus Com­ment. Ling. Graec. saith, [...], cui credi debet, & fidem faciens verbo suo. And Scapula explains [...] to be incredu­lus, qui fidem non adhibet. Item infidus, cujus suspecta est sides; cui fidendum non est. Item perfidus.

6. I acknowledge the words believe and not believe; belie­liever and unbeliever, are used more largely sometimes in Scri­pture, as I shall perhaps shew beneath. But that some Church-members, (that is, such men on each as by their positive engage­ments and promises, are obliged to believe in Christ, and for­sake their sins,) may yet by their notorious disobedience, be­come visibly unbelievers in some Scripture-sense, is all that I here contend for. And therefore my reverend brother comes off (me thinks) but blewly, who puts so great an honour on Brown, as to call this the Brownisticall sense of unbeliever, opposing it to the Scripturall and Catholique sense of the same.

§. 5.

2. Now I proceed to the application of the foresaid distin­ction, [Page 57]and the very stress of our controversie will lye on this point, Whether to those who are visibly unbelievers in this sense (I have proved to be a Scripture-sense of the word, that is, as are visibly in the way of actuall notorious disobedience to the Gospel, whether to these I say) the Lords Supper ought not to bè administred, though they be baptized, adult, intelligent, and not excluded other publique ordinances in the Church? I explicated [visibly unbelievers] by [such as are according to the word of God to be judged and taken to be thus unbe­lievers.] Such explications Mr. W. cannot endure. Oh! how he puffs and storms at them! p. 60, 61. and in very sad earnest calls them Bombast, &c. But let us leave our brother to cool at his leasure, and calmly consider the thing it selfe now before us. And herein I shall design, 1. To premise some considerations, as introductory to what followes. 2. To determine and prove against Mr. W. the negative of the que­stion last proposed. 3. To annex some cautions at the later end, for the further clearing and preventing mistake in this doctrine I must insist upon.

The considerations to be premised are these.

1. It is certain, that a distinction ought to be made betwixt Believers, and those we are to account and deal with as in the way of believing actually. The same is to be said of the dif­ference to be put between unbelievers, and those we are to account and deal with as in the way of notorious disobedience and unbelief.

As to the habit of faith, or unbelief, and the denomination a person may receive from the existence or predominancy of either of them; we cannot certainly know, that any (besides our selves) are so believers or unbelievers. But we may know who are visibly in the way of faith or unbelief. And therefore I own and comply with the substance of what Mr. W. saith concerning the impossibility of our knowing who are true be­lievers in respect of the habit, p. 55, 57. &c.

2. Yea, I do not onely grant this in respect of the ha­bit of justisying and saving faith, but in respect also of a dog­maticall faith, that is, assent to the propositions of the Chri­stian faith, as truths, such as the Divels may have, and the damned, who doubt not of the truth of the Gospel. And if this be made out, I hope the Disputes may be somewhat al­lay'd, which are at present on foot, betwixt very learned and godly men, viz. Whether a dogmaticall faith, or justifying [Page 58]faith entitle to the Sacraments? The one may with like reason be granted as the other, and both are attended with equall difficulties or inconveniences supposeable. I may as certainly know whom I am to account a justified believer, as whom I am to account a dogmaticall believer; yea, and most commonly (perhaps) as easily too. Is a persons professing his assent to the Articles of the Creed, or owning the Scriptures, a suf­ficient character of his believing dogmatically or historically? So, is his professing consent, and cordiall submission to the doctrine of the Gospel, as sufficient and ready a note to us, of his being a justified believer? yet we cannot be certain he is of that perswasion in the Articles he professeth assent unto; no more then we can be assured he sincerely consents to the same, according to his profession of sincerity. Is (on the contrary) a persons disclaiming the principles of the Christian faith, a sufficient token whereby we may be directed in ac­counting him dogmatically or historically no believer? so his professed renouncing of subjection to Christs Lawes, [quasi dicat, I will not yet forsake my lusts that I may obey Christ] is a sufficient note whereby we are to account him at present as out of the way of actuall justifying faith: Is a persons de­nying Christs divinity, a note to us that he is not a dogmati­call believer, though yet he profess he believes the Scriptures to be true and so contradicts himself? So is a persons disobe­dience to, and actuall rebellion against the Commands of Christ, when notorious, a sufficient token to us that he is not in the way of actuall justifying faith, although he doth pro­fess in word that he believes sincerely and obedientially, and so in this contradicts himself. But of this we shall have occa­sion to say somewhat more beneath.

§. 6.

3. Sometimes persons are called holy and Saints, and per­haps may be beleevers too, and such like titles attributed to them, whiles here alive in this world, on the account of their being positively obliged (by their own promise) to holiness, faith, and the service of the true God; so as the Heathens and other Nations were not. Thus all the nation of the Jewes, who were devoted to God by their professed acceptance of the Covenant of God tendred to them, were an holy people, chil­dren of the Kingdome, the Church of God, &c. And so all those persons alive are now Saints, and holy, and beleevers, who have solemnly taken an engagement upon themselves, by their [Page 59]promise made, to believe in Christ; and they are in Covenant, that is, they have by their own promise covenanted with God, and bound themselves thereby unto his service, so as Pagans are not. And no one can be sure that that promise was not in sin­cerity, and therefore we cannot say absolutely of any such (though never so wicked, and censured too) that he is no Church-member; that is, that the hath not devoted himselfe to Christ in truth. But now an heathen hath not (visibly) devo­ted himselfe at all to Christ, and therefore cannot be a Church-member; yea though he be of Gods Elect. But for those who have visibly devoted themselves to Christ, this indelible cha­racter remaines on them, though they are apostates from the Covenant they have professedly entred into; whether in re­spect of doctrine or practice. Christ speaking to the rebelli­ous Jewes saith, John 8.54. It is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that he is your God; when yet he had told them before, that they were neither Abrahams children, nor had God for their Father, nor were of God, as they pretended, vers. 39, 41, 42.47. The branches broken off visibly from the olive (in some respects) are thus holy still, Rom. 11.16, 17. and so are such as are excommunicated, and suspended from the personal priviledges of orderly and uncensured Church-mem­bers. They are brethren in this sense still, 2 Thes. 3.15.

A Church-member really is one who is sincerely devoted to Christ, and we must account all such against whom we cannot prove, that they never were so sincerely devoted to Christs call. And then I thinke none alive must be rejected absolutely from being Saints, beleevers, Christians, Disciples, and Church-members, who have been positively engaged to Christ; unless we could tell who had committed the sin against the Holy-Ghost, or had sinned unto death in St. Johns sense; the which is so difficult if not impossible to discerne, in particular persons, that I need not have much respect thereto in this matter.

4. In this last sense its true we may be certain (in reference to many or most) who are beleevers, and who are not. But that this is not the character and Rule of admission to the Sa­craments, will appeare in the ensuing arguments; which I now hasten to.

§. 7.

In the second place I designed to prove this Conclusion; That to those who are unbeleevers in respect of actuall notorious disobedience to the Gospel, (whiles such) the Lords Supper ought not to be administred.

1 And my first Argument shall be grounded on Mr. W. his concession, and the Introductory considerations before evin­ced. Mr. W. grants that beleeving is the Rule for admission, p. 56, 57. You say (saith he) that knowledge who are belee­vers, or who are not beleevers, must be the loadstar of our admi­nistring or not administring the Lords Supper. We say in thesi, the same. And I have proved that neither a persons being a be­leever habitually is the Rule of admission, for that cannot cer­tainly be known; nor yet his being a beleever in respect of po­sitive obligation layd on himselfe to beleeve, though that may cer­tainly be known; for then none could be debarr'd who have ever been baptized, yea or who otherwise have entred into a positive engagement to Christianity. For the Jewes were Gods people and holy, not only by Circumcision, but by the renewing of that Covenant, afterwards to take the Lord for their God, Deut. 26.17, 18, 19. & 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Now hence it cleerly follows, that the knowledge who are visibly in the way of beleeving or obedience to the Gospel they have positively (especially by Baptisme) obliged themselves unto, is the Rule of admission to the Sacrament. For the two former being re­moved, no other but this can be assigned, that I know of. And then none can doubt that to those who are unbeleevers in re­spect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, the Lords Sup­per ought not to be administred.

§. 8.

2. If such were to be excluded the Passeover, who were in visible notorious disobedience to the Law they were debtors positively unto by their Circumcision, and other obligations; then the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them who are in a visible notorious disobedience to the Law they are debtors to by Baptisme and other obligations. But the former is true; therefore the latter also.

The Consequence, at least (ad hominem) to the men con­cerned in this dispute, holds firmly.

The Assumption shall be proved by Instance of the parent-Proselyte, who though circumcised himselfe, yet, might not eat the Passeover lawfully, if he wilfully neglected his duty in circumcising his males. And this was not such a meerly cere­monial bar, as is pretended to have been the only bar (among the Jewes) from the Passeover.

The place is Exod. 12.48. When a stranger shall sojourne with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord; Let all his Males [Page 61]be circumcised, and then let him come neere and keepe it. [...] veaz, et tunc, [...] saith the LXX (a phrase of like im­portance with the [...], 1 Cor. 11.28.) the Syriack reads it, After that all his males are circumcised, then shall he come neere and keep it. And he shall be as one that is borne in the Land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. By the geer here is not meant the advena, vers. 45. but the stranger within the Covenant, distinguished from thè stranger within the gate only, who did but dwel among them as Ains worth shews; and so the LXX render it by [...], and the Latine ver­sion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, hath, aliquis proselytus. Now he was not a Proselyte but by Circumcision; and yet (we see) before he might be permitted to eat the Passeover, all his males must be circumcised. Both were his duty, yet the neglect of cir­cumcising his males barr'd him the Passeover. For saith Ains­worth, ‘he was yet in his sin, whiles his children were (through his default) uncircumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13, 14. Exod. 4.24.26. And thus (saith he out of Maimony) the Jewes have interpreted this place, that as the circumcision of himselfe (if it be omitted) debarreth him from doing the Passeover, so doth the circumcision of his sons, and of his servants, &c. and if he kill it before he doth circumcise them, it is un­lawfull.’

Its added in the Text; For no uncircumcised person shall eat hereof. I confesse it may be rendred [And no uncircumcised person, [...] vecol, et omnis praeputiatus] with which agree the Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Latine Interpretation of the Syriak version; and the LXX leave out [And], and saith only, No uncircumcised person shall eat it. But if it have refe­rence to the preceding part of the verse, as our Translators seeme to have conceived, (and doubtless vau is frequently used as a causal or rational conjunction, as Schindler shewes in Pentaglott. and so is rendred Psal. 60.11. For vaine is the help of man. Esa.' 64.5. Behold thou art wroth, for we have sinned,) And then I do not see how it can be accommodated thereunto, unlosse we conceive, that [uncircumcised] is here taken for [one notoriously disobedient to the Laws which his circumcision had obliged him unto], as in special in this of circumcising his males; and that not only in regard of the dis­obedience in this neglect considered in it selfe, but as it argued other disobedience accompanying the same; as we heard out of Ainsworth; he was yet in his sin, while his children were un­circumcised. [Page 62]This accords with those words, vers. 43. of this 12 Chap. No strdnger shall eat thereof; as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it; Omnis filius Israel, qui fuerit Apostata, non comme­det ex eo; no son of Israel, that is an Apostate, shall eat thereof. Thus we have an instance of debarring the Passeover for a pol­lution not ceremonial which should make him uncleane cere­monially, so as to separate him from the company of others ci­villy. And this we shall have occasion (I thinke) to improve further beneath. Mr Cotton in his grounds and ends of chil­drens Baptisme, p. 11, to shew the hainousness of the sin of a baptized parent, who neglects to baptize his Infant, quotes this place, and saith, Surely in the old Testament a man was accoun­ted of God as uncircumcised himselfe, if his children were un­circumcised. And according to the analogy Mr. W. pro­ceeds upon, (and reasonably enough) in his solving the Que­stion why Infants are not admitted to the Communion; taken fromthe not partaking of the Jewes Infants at the Passeover, p. 131. I say on the same analogy we may more particularly argue, If a circumcised person formerly might not eat the Passeover if he circumcised not his males, then a baptized pa­rent now may not eat the Lords Supper, if he bring not his in­fant to Baptisme; and indeed supposing the command as cleere now for the baptizing of Insants, as it was before for circum­cising of male Infants, the argumentation is strong enough.

§. 9.

3. I thus argue in the third place; The Sacrament ought not to be administred to them, whom we are no wise called, nor obliged to administer to, upon the account of administring to beleevers. But we are no wise called, nor obliged to admi­nister the Sacrament to unbeleevers, who are such in the sense, and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, upon the account of administring to beleevers. Ergo, the Sacrament ought not to be administred to unbeleevers, who are such in the sense, and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Go­spel. The Major is manifest; the Minor I thus confirme. If in other like cases, where duties are incumbent on us, respecting our behaviour towards others, as so and so qualifi'd, the obli­gation to those duties of our behaviour towards persons cea­seth when they are not visibly so and so qualified; then we are no wise called, nor obliged to administer the Sacrament to un­beleevers, who are such in the sense and respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel. But the former is true; therefore [Page 63]the latter also. The Consequence is cleere; For paria arguunt fidem (que) faciunt.

The Minor may be shewed in sundry like instances. The Scripture enjoynes us several duties in our behaviour towards the wicked and godly, the righteous and unrighteous, although we cannot certainly tell who these persons are habitually and inwardly. But all agree (I thinke) that those are to be taken and dealt with by us as such, who are visibly in the wayes of godliness or impiety. David describing the practices of an ho­ly man, Psal. 15. among others reckons this, ver. 4. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoreth them who fear the Lord: we must shun the company of the wicked, Psal. 119.115. we are to give to him that needeth, and not as in a way of cha­rity and necessary reliefe, to them who need not. But we know not ever who needeth, that craves our almes; he may coun­terfeit; and if it appeare he doth counterfeit, we are not obli­ged, nor called to give unto him what belongs to the needy. We must know persons to be Christs Disciples by their loving one another, yet such love cannot certainly be known to us to be in others. John 13.33. So also we are commanded, Luk. 17.3, 4. If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him.

But how shall I know when he repents? It follows, vers. 4. If he trespasse seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn a­gain to thee saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him. There is a two-fold forgiveness, 1. that which is opposed to hatred, grudges, and unjust desire of revenge against him who hath wronged us. Thus we are to forgive him who trespasseth a­gainst us, whether he repent or no; we are to love our enemies remaining such. 2. That which is opposed to the not receiving him into familiarity, and tokens of intimate and encouraging friendship as formerly. And thus we are not bound to forgive, unless he who hath trespasled do repent; that is, do manifest his repentance; and his saying he repents, may be a manifestation thereof sufficient to us, that we may so far acquiesce therein, as to be obliged to forgive him in this later sense. But here Calvins caution is useful, Addendum est (saith he on the place) Christum non privare fideles judicio, ut slultè ad verbulum unum creduli fint; sed tantum velle aequos esse & humanos, ut resipis­centibus manum porrigant, si modo apparet ipsos ex animo sibi in peccat is displicere— sed quoties probabile Agnum conver­sionis dederit peccator, admitti vult Christus ad reconciliationens, [Page 64]ne repulsae fractus deficiat. Now he who hath taken away my goods, and saith he repents, and yet will not, having them in his hand, restore them to me; by his wicked and wilfull de­tention, overthrowes the credibleness of his verball profession; and his saying, I repent, obligeth to this sort of private forgive­nesse I have mentioned, no otherwise, then as it is a probable token of his serious repentance. Nay, though he is a wise son (as the proverb goes) who knows his own father, yet is every child obliged to honor both his parents. So manifest is it, that we may be, and are obliged in severall duties to those persons as so and so qualified, whom we cannot certainly know to be such, under the notion whereof we tender those respects to them. But as our Saviour saith, He that receiveth a Prophet, or Disciple, in the name of such (that is, who probably appeares to be such) shall have his reward: so here in these and such like cases. But when persons appear to be in a way visibly contrary to these qualifications on which is founded any of­fices in sundry respects, who doubts that our obligation to perform such offices to them, then ceaseth? When therefore such as by baptisme have bound themselves to believe, that is, to receive and obey the Gospel, do yet notoriously appeare to be unbelievers in respect of their actuall disobedience to the Gospel, we are not obliged to administer the Sacrament to as believers: As on the contrary, when baptized persons own­ing their baptismes, appeare not to be in a way of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, we are bound to administer to them as believers, whether they are really and inwardly so or no.

§. 10.

4. A fourth argument may be grounded on the forme of administration, wherein the Minister saith to the Communi­cants according to 1 Cor. 11.24. Take, eat, this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you. So Luke 22.19, 20. And this Cup is the New Testament in Christs blood which is shed for you. In the Common-prayer book it is, Take, eat this, in remem­brance that Christ died for thee. Drink this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for thee. The Directory saith in Pauls words, This is the body of Christ, which is broken for you. Whence I argue, The Lords Supper ought not to be admini­stred to them to whom these words may not be spoken particu­larly in the administration of it. But to such unbelievers as are such in respect of their notorious visible disobedience to [Page 65]the Gospel, these words may not be spoken particularly in the administration of the Sacrament: Therefore to them the Lords Supper ought not to be administred. The Major is a­bove exception: For those ought not to be admitted, to whom the Minister may not say what he ought to apply to the com­municants. The Minor I shall further insist upon, and la­bour to clear. In order whereto I must enquire into the mea­ning of the foresaid words to be used in the form of admini­stration.

It must be acknowledged, that these words considered ab­solutely and in themselves, may be interpreted more generally either, 1. of Christs being sacrificed for the redemption of all the world of mankind, the genus humanum; and that not onely sufficienter (for that which is paid for the redemption of persons, is not strictly a price, because it is sufficient in its own nature to be a worthy and valuable consideration to re­deem them) but conditionally by way of Christs intention also to redeem mankind, that is, upon the condition of believing: So that this Gospel may be preached to every humane creature (not so to any lapsed Angel) He that believeth and is bapti­zed shal be saved. God so loved the world, &c. Or, 2. (if this please not, the fuller explication whereof may be seen in lear­ned Camero, and the larger disquisition of it in the acute A­myraldus) Christ dyed for all, in that he bought all, to be Lord and Ruler over them, as Mediator in the Kingdome he hath received by dispensation from the Father to be Lord of all. Or, 3. as he procured some common benefits for all. But I conceive it's manifest, these words of administration conside­red as words of administration in the Sacrament, and so with speciall relation to the Sacrament, cannot be understood in so large a sense, q d. Christ died for thee if thou will believe, or on condition of thy faith; or Christ died for thee, or was broken for thee, that he might have power over thee as Lord and Judge, or to purchase some common benefits for thee, as he did for all mankind. For so they might be applyed to heathens, yea to the most wicked of heathens, and such as are visibly in the most nototious opposition of, and apostasie from the very name of Christianity; and so this should be no more an application of comfort to the visibly most worthy receiver, then is applicable to the vilest Mahumetan on the face of the earth.

§. 11.

There is another as narrow a sense put on the words, as the former is large, and that is to restrain them, to the applicati­on of the benefits of Christs death absolutely to every receiver. q. d. This is the body of Christ, in which thou hast saving inte­rest. As surely as thou receivest the outward signes, so certainly is the inward grace there also. But this cannot be the mea­ning here, because no Church nor Minister can certainly tell who those are who are sincere believers, who onely are par­takers absolutely of the remission of sins purchased by Christs broken body, and his blood made over unto them. There re­mains onely a third sense (that I know of) which is a mean betwixt the two former. And this is to be founded on the ma­nifest sense of other such like passages in Scripture, and the nature of the Lords Supper it self. Paul saith to the Corin­thians, 1 Cor. 5.11. But ye are washed, but ye are are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spi­rit of our God. And to the Ephesians, Eph. 2.1, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22. You hath he qu ekned who were dead in trespasses and sins; by grace ye are saved through faith, chap. 5.8. Ye were some­times darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord. Abundance of such passages there be in Scripture, where it is manifest the Apostle applies to them the comforts and benefits of sincere believers, as theirs; and yet he knew not their sincerity abso­lutely. It must needs then be, that according to his knowledge of their sincerity, so was the application he makes to them of the priviledges annexed onely to sincerity, that is, according to the judgement of the Church which received them as such probably. If they were such as Ecclesiastieally they appeared to be, then all these benefits were really theirs. And hence the baptized are said to be illuminated and sanctified, because in the judgement of the Church they were such, who were ad­mitted to baptisme, who if they were really what they were by the Church esteemed to be, were certainly sanctified and en­lightned. so I humbly conceive the meaning of these words, This is the body of Christ which is broken for you, is this. q. d. If thou be really what the Church taking thee into her fel­lowship judgeth thee to be (whiles it being in a capacity to judge, hath not judged thee contrary) then thou art certainly partaker of the inward grace of this Sacrament. All the sa­ving benefits flowing from Christs blood, are thine. If thou art sincere, as the Church or Minister hopes and judgeth of [Page 67]thee in admitting thee, then Christ is thine really. Not if thou wilt believe Christ is thine; but if thou now dost sincerely be­lieve as thou now appearest to do; which supposeth that he is taken for one who doth sincerely believe by them who regu­larly admit him, (the governing Church or Minister alone in some cases.) How incongruous would it be to say to a re­bell who was erewhile visibly in Armes, and was breathing out treason against his Soveraign, and hath not yet visibly recan­ted the same, and therefore is still visibly in the way of trea­son, how incongruous would it be to say to such a one, If thou art a good subject, the King is thy friend? And it is ma­nifest in part by what hath been before quoted from the Com­mon-prayer book, and Canons, that the Church of England, which used that form of administration, Christ died for thee, understood it as to be applied onely to the visibly justified be­lievers, because they excluded the notoriously disobedient (though not fully excommunicated) and warned all to re­frain who lived and allowed themselves wilfully in secret sins, which the governors of the Church could take no cognizance of. Thus in the third Exhortation, after the warning of the wicked persons, that they come not to the Lords Table. In the invitation following, those onely are called who are truly pe­nitent. To them it's said, Draw neer and take this holy Sacra­ment to your comfort. They never seemed to call or encourage the prophane to come to be converted from that their wic­kednesse, although God may work such an effect by the Sacrament, even in an heathen if he were (though finfully) admitted.

§. 12.

All Divines, I think, have held, that in the Sacrament there is an application of comfort to the communicants parti­cularly. As the Minister is to give each their portion in due season, and so is prudently to hold forth and apply the promises to those he judgeth humbled, and capable of having them fitly and sately applyed to them; and not to the visibly impe­nitent in that stare (except so as to encourage them to re­pent, that they may be capable of them.) So in the ministrati­on of the Sacrament, comfort is applied to the communicants, upon supposition of their being in such a capacity for it really, as to the Church they are apparently

In short, if the delivering the Sacrament to a communicant in this form, Christ dyed for thee, or the like words, be an [Page 68]application of the richest Gospel-promise to him, at that instant for him to lay hold upon for his present comfort, and is so intended by the ministrator of the Sacrament to him, then he is supposed in the judgment of the Church which receives him, or in the prudentiall judgement of the Mini­ster (where there is no governing Church to involve his particular judgement in theirs) that he is one who at present is in a capacity to believe that he hath saving inrerest in Christs body and blood exhibited there unto him sacramen­tally and signally, which they must judge of, not by his being a Church-member in the largest sense, (from which excommunication doth not simply cut him off) but by his being visibly (to them) in the way of actuall obedience to the Gospel he professeth. So much for this Argument.

Before we passe to the next, it will not be amisse to take a little repose in the fifth part of the 119 Psalm.

§. 1.

I Proceed to my fifth and chiefe Argument, in the manage­ment whereof we shall derive cleere light from the holy Scriptures. And it may be thus framed; The Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them who do visibly and noto­riously want that faith which is necessarily required to be visi­bly present in them who may be lawfully admitted thereunto. But such as are unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith, &c. Therefore the Lords Supper ought not to be administred to them. The Major is un­deniable: The Minor I thus confirme. Such as visibly want that faith which is necessarily required, to be visibly pre­sent in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Baptisme, do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper. But such as are unbeleevers by notorious dis­obedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith which is ne­cessarily required to be visibly present in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Baptisme. Therefore unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper.

§. 2.

The major proposition here is proved by the analogy (which divers have shewed) betwixt the two Sacraments; there is the same Covenant sealed in both, and the same benefits confer­red (at least) on the adult in both. And if any make any difference herein, the advantage is given to the Lords Supper, and so our argument is more strong, a minori ad ma­jus. But I shall not siay on this; since the learned and inge­nuous Mt. Humphreys (the strongest opposer of the suspension our controversie is now about, that I have seene) hath granted that Adult is eadem est ratio utrius (que) sacramenti. And in his ex­plication of that Rule (that it may suit with his own hypo­theses the better), and explicating himselfe thereupon, Re­joynd. sect. 5. p. 65. he saith; ‘You must take the meaning thus: There is cadem ratio, but not in omnibus. It holds in the maine, that the same saith which will admit one of age to be baptized, will also admit him to the Lords Supper; and that [Page 70]is an historical faith only in profession; yet as for making that confession, though it be needful in Baptisme, in admit­ting them to be Church-members, seeing we have Scripture for it; yet not at this Supper, where we have none. For when men are Church members already, their very coming is their profession. So he.’

§. 3.

Here are indeed some passages I am far from consenting to; as that Baptisme admits persons to be Church-members, when as the great argument for the Baptisme of children goes upon a contrary position, viz. That Church-members (whom no bar­ring crime is charged upon) may be baptized. Therefore they are Church-members before Baptisme; though in that their Church-membership is solemnly signified and publiquely ac­knowledged. And his concluding it not needful to have this confession made before a person be (first) admitted to the Lords Supper, as it was before persons adult were admitted to Baptisme, will not hold: unlesse he could shew, where persons baptized in infancy, were (or ought to be) in Scripture ad­mitted to the Lords Supper, without a personal recognition of the Christian faith. But because this is not particularly deter­mined in any Scripture example, we must needs argue by ana­logy to Baptisme about it. There is the same reason for re­quiring a profession of faith from one baptized in infancy, be­fore he is first admitted to the Lords Supper, as there is for re­quiring it from the adult for their Baptisme; especially such as Augustine and others, who were many years Christians in profession before they came to be baptized; and the Jewes, who were Church-members before their being baptized. But to let these things passe here. Mr. Humphreys grants the Rule, so far as I intend now to make use of it, viz. that it holds in the maine, that profession of faith (historical saith he, but most la­mentably wrong) is the Rule for admission to both Sacraments; only in the baptisme of the adult it was verbal profession, and at receiving, he saith, their very coming to receive is their profession. Though he maketh the manner of testifying the faith required in adult persons to be baptized, different from the manner requisite for testifying the faith required in him who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper; yet he grants (if I understand him) that what faith was the condition of applying Baptisme, is the condition of admitting to the Com­munion; which is all I require. And therefore the visible want [Page 71]of that faith is a bar to his receiving, which would be a bar to the baptisme of the adult.

§. 4.

It now remaines that I prove the Minor which was this: Unbeleevers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel do visi­bly want that faith, which is necessarily required to be visibly present, in them who may be lawfully admitted to Baptisme; and the truth of it, is thus made out; If it were a visibly actu­all justifying and saving faith, which was necessarily reqired in Scripture as the condition of persons adult, their admission to Baptisme, then the last recited minor proposition is true. But the Antecedent is evident, therefore the Consequent must be granted. I suspect not that any will deny the consequence; my work will lye in demonstrating the Antecedent; the which I shall thus endeavour.

1. Such a visible faith as is joyned with a true and saving vi­sible repentance, is an actual justifying faith visibly. But the Apostles so required such a visible faith as is joyned with a true and saving visible repentance. Therefore they required a vi­sibly actual justifying faith, necessarily as the condition of ad­mission to Baptisme. Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins; that was the condition Peter tendred to them; and that it was visibly closed with by them is manifest, upon which they were baptized. ver. 41. Then they who gladly received his word (especially the doctrine of repentance he had preached to them, for their crucifying Christ, and of faith in Christ as the true Messias) were baptized. Here is the appli­cation of Baptisme to them, upon that condition supposed to be visibly performed by them; which therefore excludes them who close not visibly with this condition. If any say (as its usually said) who can know a sincere beleever? Let them say how Peter could tell who repented, yea and not only who re­ceived the word, but gladly received it; such as visibly did so, he must take for such, or deal with as such; who can honour a godly man to love him; or who repents to forgive him? Those who are such apparently, must be treated as such really, as hath been before said.

§. 5.

2. That which Philip required in the Eunuch as a necessary prerequisite for his admission to baptisme, is the necessary con­dition of persons adult their admission to Baptisme. But a visi­bly actual justifying faith, was required by Philip to be in the [Page 72]Eunuch as a necessary prerequisite for his admission to Bap­tisme, see Acts 8. where an express account is given us of the baptismal termes, ver. 35, 36. Philip preached unto him Jesus; and as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the Eunach said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou maist. And he answered and said, I beleeve that Je­sus Christ is the Son of God—and so he baptized him. A reverend Divine hath objected two things; ‘1. that Philip required more then was necessary to Baptisme; As we require all graces to be acted in Communicants, though yet we can­not deny them for coming short in some things they-ought to do. And (saith he) we require in persons to be marryed, that they give up themselves to the Lord, and marry in the Lord; yet cannot deny marriage to them for want of saving grace. And 2. that the Eunuchs answer, in which Philip ac­quiesced, shews it was but a dogmatical saith, which might be short of justifying.’

§. 6.

To these I answer: 1. joyntly; That one of them destroys the other. For if it were only dogmatical faith, the same Di­vine pleads, that that is necessary for admission to Baptisme, And then Philip required not accessories besides necessaries; of necessity therefore he must renounce one of his exceptions before he can rationally pitch upon the other positively. Yet 2. I shall answer severally to them. And first of the latter. Exc. 1. If thou beleeve with all thy heart, i. e. visibly professest so to do [the heart was not searched into by Philip]. The meaning of this should be according to this grave Divine (in one of his exceptions) q. d. if thou beleeve with all thy under­standing, with whole assent, as he (explicating himselfe) saith the Divels do beleeve, really, upon cleere convictions.

I shall consider the like phrase used elswhere, whereby we may most certainly discerne, whether it is to have that sense or no. Math. 22.37. Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind; which is interpreted (and must needs be so) with the will, aftections, and under­standing. Here the whole heart, denotes the whol will, distin­guished from the whole understanding. The same we have, Mark. 12.30. Love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This last clause being added to what was in Matthew, denoting the out­ward [Page 73]endeavours in testification, and as a fruit of the inward bent and energy of the whol inward man, denoted by the three former. Here then againe the phrase with all thy heart, denotes with all thy will, and distinguished from the phrase, with all thy mind, denoting with all thy understanding. So also vers. 33. the same phrase is in like manner used for the whole will; only in that verse, theres some alteration of the order be­fore used; in stead of [...], we have here [...]; but that is all one as to my present pur­pose, for which the text is quoted. In the same signification is the phrase with all the heart, repeated Luke 10.27. And these are all the places, I take it, where the phrase is used in the new Testament do a thing with all the heart, besides the text under consideration. Therefore (sure) it must be taken so here, un­lesse there be some manifest Reason in the context, to with­draw it from its usuall, (and alwayes elswhere used) signifi­cation; which is not produced, nor I beleeve can be.

§. 7.

Besides, If we look back to the original of the old Testa­ment, from whence this phrase in the new Testament is fetch­ed; It will further appear, that to beleeve with the whole heart, is most fitly interpreted of beleeving sincerely and affectionat­ly. The text the Gospel refers to is Deut. 6.5. In vers. 4. Heare O Israel, &c. Ajin the last letter of the first word, and Daleth the last letter of the last word in the verse, are extra­ordinary great letters in the Hebrew, to cause heed and atten­tion to the Commandement following, which is that called in the Gospel the great Commandement; as noted by its great let­ters: and thence (by the way) most fitly Christ represents the less Commandements in the esteem of the Jewes by pricks or tittles, & least peices of letters. But the Hebrew phrase here used answering to [...], or [...], is [...] Becol leb. which is ordinarily, if not constant­ly, applyed to the doing of a thing affectionatly, unfeinedly, willingly, &c. Deut. 13.13. That he may try you whether ye love the Lord with all your heart and soul. The latine Interpre­tation of the Arabick version in our London Bibles saith; [...] appareat utrum vos sitis amici sui sinceri, ex cordibus et ani [...]abus vestris, Deut. 26.16. & 30.6. Josh. 25.5. 1 Sam. 12.20. Scrve the Lord with all your heart; further explained, verse 4. Serve him in truth with your whole heart. So to do any thing with the whole heart; is to do it willingly and sincerely; and ap­plyed [Page 74]to duties, it denotes the doing them, in a right manner, as to praise the Lord with the whol heart, Psal. 86.12. to sweare with the whole heart, 2 Chron. 15.12. To seek God with all the heart, 2 Chron. 15.12. & 22.9. To turne to the Lord with all the heart. Deut. 16.10. 1 King. 8.48. Jocl. 2.12. To follow the Lord with all the heart, 1 King. 2.4. and such like. Now if the phrase in the Hebrew used there, do relate to the whole soul, and therein especially to the will, and the Greek phrase coming from thence, not used in the new Testament elswhere, but manifestly in this sense, then according to the safe Rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we must take it here, to denote, sincere, affectionate beleeving, in a right or acceptable manner, which was required visibly in the Eunuch, as a neces­sary prerequisite to his Baptisme. And that the rather, because of the Apostles explication of beleeving with, or in the heart, Rom. 10.8, 9, 10. of an undoubted saving faith.

§. 8.

Having thus shewed (I thinke convincingly) that Philips proposal of beleeving with all the heart, as a condition of Bap­tisme, did intend more then a bare historical, dogmatical faith, which may be, and is in Divels. Now, I thinke, it will not be bogled at, That the Eunuch his profession of faith, was appre­hended by Philip as coming up to that demand, and though the Divels often said the same or like words, as the Eunuch here expresseth his faith by, and wherein Peter made that glorious confession, which Christ so much magnifies, Math. 16.16, 17, 18. and on which Christ will build his Church; Yet theres no doubt Peters faith in that, was more than dogmatical, and what might be in Divels: and the acknowledging of the (then) hardest Article of the Christian faith, to wit, that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah, was a probable testimony, that the men who professed this, would not stick at taking him for their Sa­viour. And therefore such assent to Christianity is spoken of in Scripture to denote, that intire faith which is justifying and saving, as in the Epistles of John and elswhere.

§. 9.

Thus much for answer to one of the exceptions made against the force of our present argument; The other is, that Philip re­quires more then was necessary to his admission to baptisme, as hath been before explained. To this I answer. There are cleare testimonies that Philip required this beleeving with all the heart, as a necessary prerequisite condition of the Eunuchs [Page 75]admission to baptisme, if we will but allow Philips and the Eu­nuchs words to be the Interpreters of their own minds, with­out miserable torturing and forcing of them to abuse their Masters. For,

1. The Eunuch saith, What hinders me to be baptized? To this Question Philip answers, If thou beleevest with all thine heart, thou mayst: Therefore in answer to the Question is im­plyed, If thou dost not beleeve with all thy heart, thou mayst not; and then no more but necessaries are here required. (I have often enough explained this to be meant of visible beleeving with all his heart.)

2. The Eunuch saith, Here is water, what hinders me to be baptized? He enquites therefore, if there were nay such de­fect now as should so bar his being baptized, as the want of water would have done, if that had not been there then; therefore the Eunuch enquires, If there were any effectual bar now against his baptisme.

3. To which Philip answers as we have heard; If thou be­leevest with all thy heart, thou mayst, viz. be baptized: now there is water at hand, and Philip an Evangelist, (no doubt Commissioned to dispence this Sacrament) Theres nothing now to hinder, except there should be a want of a visible sincere and hearty beleeving, and that should hinder thee. If this do not (but rather thou by thy profession approvest thy selfe thus to beleeve) thou mayst. I appeal to any Judicious Reader; whether this be not the genuine, fairest and easiest sense of the words; and how tortured & strained is that the Exception puts upon them. As if a man coming to one authorized to marry people, should say; Sir, heres a fit match for me, what hinders me to be marryed; and then the Commissioner should say, If yee both are agreed with all your hearts yee may. Is not this their appearing serious agreement, signified (whether they do inwardly and sincerely so agree or no, the marrier looks not after,) the necessary prerequisite condition, which being visibly wanting, would hinder his attompt to marry them. And if he should say, (as the Reverend Objector supposeth, paralel to this text) If ye feare the Lord, ye may marry; how unsutable would it be to the Question proposed by them?

4. If such plaine words as these [What hinders me to be bap­tized? If thou beleevest with all thy heart, thou mayst] may be expounded, q. d. [To that Question of thine, What hinders me to be baptized? I answer, Though thou do not visibly beleeve [Page 76]sincerely, thou mayst]. I know not what security we shall have for the sense of almost any Scripture; especially where no ab­surdity forceth us to depart from the manifest genuine usuall proper sense of the words.

I shall leave it to the Readers serious thoughts, whether I have not proved, that Philip required a visible (beleeving with all the heart, or) justifying faith, as the necessary condi­tion of the Eunuchs admission to Baptisme; and then it fol­lows that a persons beleeving in respect of such a faith as con­notes visible obedience to the Gospel, is the Rule of admission of the adult to Baptisme, and by consequence of such only to the Lords Supper, as are visibly so qualified. One thing more I shall observe, before I pass this, viz. that the Eunuchs Que­stion was (as seemes) directly and primarily an enquiry, upon what termes Philip would baptize him, and so refers to his right to baptisme in soro ecclesiae; and therefore I have inter­preted the beleeving with all the heart in Philips answer, to be meant of a visibly sincere beleeving, according to the Rules Philip was to judge by, who were to be treated as sincere belee­vers. And to refer it to the forum Dei, as distinguished from the sorum ecclesiae, is not (so far as I can discerne) proved nor encouraged by the context.

§. 10.

When I had dispatched thus much of this argument, and had considered several other texts to be annexed, proving the same thing, as Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.11, 12, 13. Gal. 3.27. &c. upon which I should and intended to have argued; At this time (I say) there came to my hands M^r Richard Baxter his late learned and accurate booke, containing five Disputations about right to the Sacraments. Upon the perusall whereof, I per­ceived he hath so plenteously by many arguments proved the visibility of saving faith to be the title on which only Baptisme and the Lords Supper too may be administred, That I shall spare the labour of adding any more here, but refer the Rea­der to receive (thankfully) that plentifull harvest, there pre­pared for his further satisfaction in this thing. I found indeed, he also had the texts I have made use of here, viz. Act. 2.38. & 8.35, 36. Yet I let them stand still; hoping that my im­provement and management of them, somewhat differing (though not dissenting) from that Reverend Author, may be no prejudice to the cause, nor imputed for presumption and ar­rogance to my selfe.

I shall now hasten to the third task I undertook in the me­thod above proposed, for the evincing that such Christians as are unbeleevers in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel, ought not to have the Lords Supper administred to them. And that was to annex some Cautions for the further cleering and preventing mistake in this doctrine; but this may have a distinct Chapter; and because the matter is difficult let us pawse upon it, and crave divine assistance in the ejacu­lations of

§. 1.

CAution 1. When I speake of visible saving faith, which I explaine to be a visible conformity or obedience to the Gospel, I do not refer (primarily) to the habit of saving faith, but the actual exercise thereof. And the visible unbeleefe, on the contrary, refers not to the habit of it, but the prevailing present actings and fruits thereof. For we cannot judge every one hath not the habit of saving or justifying faith, who is at present visibly in a way inconsistent with the exercise thereof. [Page 78]But as in the Sacraments, especially remission of sins is sealed: so those are supposed at present capable of it, who are admitted unto them. Now as Remission of sins is promised to us, (to us I say, not now considering what is promised to Christ for us) only on the condition of faith and repentance; so the continu­ance of remission or justification, may be expected only, on the same termes, According to our continued Petition, Math. 6.12. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive our debiers. Which our Saviour reiterates, positively, v. 14. If ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father will forgive you: and negatively, v. 15. But if yee (yee my Disciples, though at present justified ones) forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you. So that judicious grave Divine Musculus saith, loc. com. de remissione. p. (mihi) 26.2. Ut remissio peccatorum sine verâ resipiscentiâ non obtinetur, ita obtenta sine constanti illius custodiâ non retinetur: and frustrâ remittitur quod post remissio­nem iteratur.

§. 2.

I confess upon this doctrine here occurres a great Question; Whether David whiles actually impenitent under his gross sins, was unpardoned, and so unjustifyed? since all pardon and the continuance thereof is to be expected only on the condition of faith and repentance. It must be acknowledged, this is a point of great difficulty, to speak to it clearly and consistently: The obscurity whereof hath occasioned different thoughts in the godly learned for the explication of the same.

Some have said, those gross sins do extinguish grace, and are inconsistent with the very habit of faith, and so null pardon; which they apply to the case of Peter and David, till they did repent, and so the work of regeneration was begun anew again in them, as it was in their first conversion. To which they think that passage, Psalm 51.10. affords some illu­stration. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. but although it may be so to their sense, and the same omnipotent power of Gods grace is to be put forth for their recovery, as was for their first conversion: (Which two reasons may be some account of the Psalmists expressions;) yet I conceive, it's plain, that the feed of grace is never to­tally destroyed in them, but is immortall, although it may as winter-corn, lye (we know not how) long under the clod. Others say, all the sins of the godly are sins of infirmity (the persons committing them, being not dead in sin, as an unro­generate [Page 79]man is, but onely diseased and wounded, and be­cause they are not committed with full consent; The habi­tuall resolution and frame of their souls, being against those sins which they are sometimes over-born with. But this seems contrary to many plain Scriptures, Ezek. 18.24, 26. Matth. 18.3. Rom. 8.13. 1 John 1.6, &c.

§. 3.

Between these two extreams some have laboured to find a middle way more safe. I shall also adjoyn my poor endeavours in the following particulars.

1. I take it for certain, that there is in the godly a seed, or habit of sanctifying grace, which (when they are at the lowest ebb, in regard of the fruits and acts of it) is never totally extinguished, Iohn 10.28. & 17.20, 21. Luke 22.32. And this is an active principle, ready to put them on to actuall faith, repentance, love, and obedience. In regard whereof, the habitual frame of Davids heart was fot God more then for sin, even when his sin hindred the actings of grace, therefore he never ceased altogether to be a penitent and be­liever; and therefore was never altogether cast out of the state of pardon and justification by those sins (though hai­nous) which he did not finally continue in.

2. Notwithstanding this their state of justification and pardon continued, yet the godly may fall, and be under actuall guilt by gross sins whiles not particularly repented of. And that not onely such guilt as may oblige them to temporal judgements, (which often are for the same inflicted on them, 1 Cor. 11.29, 30, 31. 2 Sam. 12.14.) But also the present actuall guilt of eternall wrath and damnation. For he may fall into such sins, wherein if he finally continue, he cannot expect to be saved, but is bound to think he shall perish con­tinuing therein, Matth. 18.3. and 2. wherein, afterward he repenting, acknowledgeth God might justly have cast him off in his sin, and damned him for it; notwithstanding his for­mer interest in Christ. Now these accusations of Conscience are true, grounded upon the threatnings of the word of God against such as are (any while) particularly impenitent under such sins. Therefore the guilt of conscience charged on him, was really on him at that time.

3. And he may fall into such sins, as the Church may justly retain and bind (as it is conceived the incestuous Corinthian was godly before,) and these are bound in heaven: therefore [Page 80]their sins at that present are not remitted in heaven.

§. 4.

3. How these positions (both which seem manifest in Scrip­ture) should agree together, and not contradict one another, is the great difficulty. That learned Divine (before named) most happy in solving of difficulties, though he ingenuously confesse himselfe much in the dark here; yet inclines to this answer, viz. That pardon belongs not onely to actuall re­pentance and faith, but to habituall. And so David was actually pardoned on the condition performed of his habituall faith and repentance, which kept the interest of Christ, most prevailingly in his soul, when he was so foiled by actuall wic­kedness. Which he is driven to hold, as he saith, because he supposeth a godly man may die in gross sins not particularly repented of. But then methinks, it would follow hereupon, that David after his rising again by actuall repentance, was pardoned onely as to his sense, being really and actually par­doned before (even in the committing the crimes) on the condition of his habituall faith: which yet I think that Mallcus, and happy confuter of the Antinomians, will not grant.

4. Some distinguish of habituall and actuall pardon, accor­ding to their habituall and actuall faith and repentance. And so David should have the former before he was recovered by re­pentance, not the later. But this distinction may not be gran­ted, because though there be habits of sanctifying grace insused into, and inherent in us, distinguished from the actuall exer­cise thereof, yet grace justifying and pardoning, is wholly with­out us, and is Gods act; and therefore I see not how any can be said to have habitual pardon.

§. 5.

I shall now cast in my Mite for explicating this matter, by propounding, explaining, and applying these two distinctions.

4. Distinguish betwixt virtuall pardon, and the formall ap­plication of pardon. The terms of the distinction (after I had in my thoughts pitched on them) I found in Ames, Medul. lib. 1. c. 27. though he explain them in a sense different from what I intend to signifie thereby. Per formalem applicationem (saith he) remittuntur peccata praeterita, sutura autem virtua­ilter. Praeterita in se, futura in subjecto vel personâ peccante. The fore-praised Mr. Baxter also, in his Method for setling Peace of Conscience, p. 266. speaks of virtuall justification, [Page 81]which David did not lose, and actual, which he did at pre­sent lose by his sin. And of (which comes to the same effect) imperfect and more prefect justification. But I mean by virtuall pardon, and the formal application of pardon, an actual and potential pardon, not onely in potentiâ remotâ, but proxima. As the fruit is virtually contained in the seed: so where there is a seed of habituall faith, there is a principle certainly (through Gods grace promised) productive of actual particular repentance for particular gross sins, in due time. The king­dom of heaven (true grace) is thus compared to a grain of Mustard seed.

The virtuall or potentiall pardon is acquitting from sin on such a condition, which is inchoatly in the sinner, viz. in re­gard of the seed of it, certainly productive of actuall particu­lar repentance for those gross sins: not onely as what shall be in respect of Gods Decree (which hath no condition) to which Ames seems to referre, (if there were such a pardon or justifica­tion in respect of Gods decree to pardon, a man might be said to be justified before he is born) but especially, in that, there is that habituall faith and repentance in the sinner, which will certainly produce actuall before death. And thus David was virtually or potentially inchoatly pardoned, as to those gross sins not yet particularly and actually repented of; and so he was not out of the state of justification then (as out Divines express it.) But yet he was not formally pardoned, till upon actuall repentance he had attained actuall recon­ciliation with God, especially in reference to those parti­cular sins, whereby he was disobliged from Gods wrath due to him for the same. For this forgivenesse is not to be expected but upon actuall repentance, 1 John 1.7, 9. Prov. 28.13. And if it were otherwise, a godly man could not presume.

§. 6.

2. Distinguish the way God hath confined us to, wherein on­ly we may expect pardon, from the way God out of his Royall prerogative may take for pardoning a sinner. The way prescribed in the word, wherein onely we may expect pardon through Christ, is in performance of the Gospel-condition of actuall faith and repentance, for all sins in general, for more particu­lar gross sins particularly; and in the continuance hereof Now God ties us, not himselfe: If any of the elect should die before actuall particular repentance, they having not oppo­tunity [Page 82]for such repentance, as in the case of self-murder up­on a violent temptation, or the like, God may acquit them from the guilt of that particular sin upon their habituall repen­tance for it. But this we cannot expect, nor build upon, ha­ving no Rule for it, that God will do so, though we cannot say he never will. Besides, we know not what actuall repen­tance God may give to such in the instant before death, such secret things belong not to us. And therefore as we can­not judge others, as to this, so neither may we vary from the Rule of actuall faith and repentance, in order to our expect­ing the obtaining and continuance of pardon and justification unto life and salvation.

The Reader will (perhaps) say, To what purpose hath this perplexed question about the state of a Christian, under some notorious sins, been here spoken of? I answer. Because it is, as I suppose, much conducing to the clearing of the caution we have in hand, that it is not the visibility or probable ap­pearance of habitual faith primarily that is requited, which should authorize the Church or Ministers to admit a person to the Sacraments, but a visible actuall faith shewed (proba­bly) in a present conformity and obedience to the Gospel. For since habitual faith & repentance cannot (according to the rule we must expect to be ordered by) entitle a person to actuall pardon, or the formal application of pardon; it followes that that habitual faith isnot enquired for primarily, in order to ad­mission to the Sacraments, which are instituted to seal actu­all remission of sin, and are so designed by the ministrators thereof. It is true, where we require actuall faith, habituall is supposed: but habituall is not sufficient, though we could be assured thereof, being not sufficient (in its kind as a con­dition) for the obtaining of pardon of sins. And this leads us to the second Caution, which is this.

§. 7.

2. That a person is not judged by the Church, or Minister, to be destitute of grace, no not visibly and apparenter, necessa­rily upon the account of their debarring him from the Sacra­ment; but onely that he doth not live in the visible actuall exercise of faith, but walketh in wayes inconsistent therewith: And which therefore bring him under guilt at present; so that his sins are retained in heaven, that is, unpardoned as well as on earth in the Church. As by the preaching of the word they are retained in soro interno, or poenitentiali; so by the Church­censures, [Page 83]in foro externo & juridicali, Matth. 16.19. & 18.18. As in preaching (I say) the threatnings or comforts, mens conditions are manifested to their own consciences; so in Church-censures inflicted on offenders, and in Ecclesiasticall restoring of them, there is a solemn application of the threats or promises of comforts to particular persons, upon credible evidence of their states, being such as may require the same respectively, either the one or the other. Now a godly man may have need of having the threatnings applied to him, supposing his fall into any gross sin not particularly repented of. And so may have his sins retained by the Church, not onely he who hath the habit of saving faith inwardly (and undis­cernably, as to others;) but also he of whose habituall justi­fying or sincere faith, the Church or Ministers have probable hopes at that very time. As suppose in Davids case, one who had long known his former upright life, might by that have had more probable grounds whereupon to judge and esteem him habitually holy, then from his present crimes to judge or esteem him destitute of true holiness. The like is the case of some few of the Quakers, and such notorious heretickes in our dayes, who upon the account of their former holy con­versation a long time, are hoped to have a seed of grace in them, which will in due time (through Gods mercy) exert it selfe, for their conversion from their present blasphe­mies (as it hath done in some.) Yet what sober person can doubt that at present they are in such wayes of actuall infidelity and wickedness, as to be rejected (as they are) by our Churches.

§. 8.

The third Caution that must be here remembred, which was hinted before, viz. That it belongs primarily to the go­verning Church to judge what persons are so unbelievers, in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel, as that the Lords Supper may not be administred to them; this being confessed by all to be one instance of Ecclesiastical punishment, or rather castigation; viz. in exclusion from the Sacrament. And then (where the Church is in such a capacity to judge) I humbly conceive the Minister (while he is their Minister) is to administer according to their judgement, yea although their publick judgement thwart his own opinion. For in such a case the question is not, whether unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, should be admitted; that he can­not [Page 84]recede from to gratifie any: but whether this or that per­son be such an unbleliever, which is regularly in a Church under Ecclesiasticall government to be determined by a pub­lick judgement, wherein particular persons are (and an Of­ficer considered as a single person is) concluded, so as it may not be resisted by him alone, (though he hath the liberty of appeal as opportunity is offered.) As when a Judge acquits one upon the verdict of the Jury whom he thinkes ought not to be acquitted. The question there is not, whether the guilty should be acquitted, that may not be done by him upon any terms, but whether that person is guilty; and here without any injustice he submits his own opinion to the publick judge­ment of them whom the Law makes Judges (in some sort) of the fact in such cases. I said while the Minister continueth to be their Minister, he is obliged thus to comply; but in some gross and palpable male-administrations, it is thought the Minister (and so the Judge in the former instance) should leave his place, rather then continue to execute the wicked determinations of the publick judgement aforesaid; As Hooker in the Preface to his Ecclesiasticall Polity sayes, Calvin did in such a case; preaching his farewell Sermon upon such a wrong judgement passed by the Consistory of Geneva for the admission of a notorious offender to the Sacrament.

§. 9.

4. But when the Church is not in that capacity, there be­ing not a governing Church, nor can be procured, I suppose it is devolved to the diseretion and prudence of the Minister for suspending his own act of delivering the Sacrament to such as are openly wicked and profane, and (as it were) ipso jure excommunicate. For the proving hereof, or what is tan­tamount, that reverend Divine Mr. Blake hath given us his ren reasons in his Covenant sealed, ch. 7. §. 16. well worthy of consideration, and answered objections made by Mr. Jeanes against the same. To which, (if it would not be counted too much presumption) I would add. There is no one (I think) doubts, but a Minister, if cast among heathens, to whom he preacheth the Gospel, and they tender themselves to baptisin, might make use of his prudence and judgement of discretion to direct him in administring or not administring baptism to those he discerns capable or incapable, who are fit Catechu­mens, and who not; who seem to professe the Christian faith seriously, and who saying the same words, do yet manifestly [Page 85]scorn what in words they profess. And where he hath no go­verning Church, to whose publick judgment he should have re­course; I see not but the case as to this, is of the same exigence: either he is to administer to all that come, or he must discern and judge who are to be refused and who embraced. Now there is no publick judgement for him to be guided by. But none (sure) will say the former. The Minister is greatly concerned to do his endeavour in keeping the manifestly un­capable from participating even where there is a governing Church, much more where there is not, and so agreater bur­den is cast upon him. Cyprian in his 54. Epistle Cornelio fra­tri, after advising him to admit the penitent to the communi­on, saith, ‘Si autem (quod Dominus avertat à fratribus nostris) aliquis lapsorum fefellerit, ut pacem subdole petat, & impendentis praelii tempore communicationem, non praeliaturus accipiat, seipsum fallit ac decipit, qui aliud corde occultat & aliud voce pronunciat. Nos in quantum nobis & videre & judicare conceditur faciem singulorum videmus, cor scrutari, & mentem perspicere non possumus. De his judicat occul­torum scrutator & cognitor, citò venturus, &c.’ And that by accipere communicationem, he means to receive the Lords Supper, is evident by his words a little before, where he ur­geth to entertain the lapsed penitents, ‘Cum ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, ut possit accipientibus esse tutela — Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis sanguinem fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem de­negamus? Aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus se non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus?’

And in his 61 Epistle Euchratio Fratri. ‘To him who had enquired his judgement de histrione an talis debeat communi­care nobiscum?’ Cyrian answers; ‘Puto nee majestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor Ecclesiae, tam turpi et infamî contagione soedetur.’ And Chrysoslom, ‘Ad populum Antiochen. hom. 60. de sumentibus indigne divina et sancta mysteria: saith, Nos ministrorum tenemus locum, qui ver ô sanctificat ea et immutat, ipse est nullus ita (que) Judas assi­stat, nullus avarus; si quis est discipulus adsit. Nam tales men­sa non sascipit; ait enim, Cum discipulis me is pascha facio, &c.’ And thats a famous place in Justin Martyr, in his second de­fence of the Christians, ad Antonium pium. (Johanne Lang q Interprete) where about a little after the middle, relating the [Page 86]manner and order of the Christians service, and divine worship or Liturgy; he saith, ‘Porro, alimentum hoc, apud nos ap­pellatur Eucharistia, quod nulli alij participare licitum est ( [...]) quam veram esse doctrinam nostram credenti, et lavacro propter remissionem pec­catorum, & regenerationem abluto, & ita ut Christus tradidit viventi.’—And then that the Lords Supper be not admi­nistred to the appatently scandalous, (as these quotations say it ought not) should be the special care of them who are to dispence the same. Let a Minister thinke with himselfe, if he shall neglect to reprove a wicked man appearing such, whether he thinke he may safely excuse himselfe before the Lord with saying, There was no governing Church where I was Minister, by whose sentence he might have been declared a wicked man, If there had, I would have reproved him as such? and then see whether the using a notorious wicked person in the Sacrament as if he were an orderly Christian, will be excused with, saying, I wanted Prelates, or a Classis, or an Eldership, by any of whose authoritative judgement he should have been declared a wicked liver? And if this were well weighed, what a mighty burthen lyes on the Minister in this thing, where there are no Church-governours besides; I thinke it would quicken Mini­sters in more serious labouring for assistance in the work.

§. 10.

5. Lastly. I would by way of caution note, that though the Rule for non-admission or suspension before asserted may not be infringed; yet there ought to be much charitable candor, rendernesse, and wisdome in the application of it to particu­lar persons.

I shall not take upon me to give particular Directions in this matter, what crimes may now denominate one scandalously prophane, that is, in wayes of wickedness and unbeliefe, incon­sistent visibly, with any exercise of saving faith. Only in gene­rall I shall say, It is my opinion. 1. That such miscarriages as are not more hainous and scandalous, than those are which are generally acknowledged to be incident to the godly, (I mean to them who walk godly) will not be marks to us of any particular persons unbeliefe in the sense aforesaid. I will not be particular here in making comparisons betwixt neglect of ad­menition, and neglect of ordinary family duty, betwixt back­biting censoriousness, and some vaine words, containing in them an unnecessary attestation, by faith, truth, and the like. [Page 87]But the judicious Reader may (if he please easily) bethinke himselfe of many such Instances to be compared. 2. Those crimes which are visibly inconsistent with the exercise of faith at sometimes, may not be so at other times; as polygamy in the old Testament, compared with the New Testament times. 3. The like variation may be rationall in respect of persons, considering the difference betwixt one and another, in respect of temptations, helps, warnings, convictions, company, and the like. 4. Where a multitude are enwrapped in some crime, commonly the Ringleaders are much more deeply guilty than the rest, drawn in by the company, example, perswasions of their leader.

§. 11.

5. To conclude, in point of ignorance I thinke few can be thus judged of, where the Ministers do what they may for their instruction. Fundamentalls are very few and plaine. And I hope upon good encouragement in sundry Parishes in my neighbourhood, we shall not have one debarrable upon the account of ignorance, as indeed I thinke there are few, very few (comparatively) already, through Gods blessing upon our endeavours for private and personal instruction; which oh that all Ministers would set upon! We finde great encouragement, even among those aged people we suspected would have been most averse. They generally thanke us, when we come to their houses, or elswhere conferre with them. Which I mention that none may discourage themselves with supposed feares of the untractableness of any, whom they have not first tryed, af­ter a loving, tender, and gentle application of themselves to them for their instruction. Much wisdome is needfull, herein (oh that God would give us a greater measure of it!) but the designe is of noble tendency; and I hope many a soule will and doth bless God for the zeale of that Worcestershire burning and shining light, and his Associates, which have provoked ma­ny to this unquestionable good work. And in point of practi­cal miscarriages, we have Directions given us in the Ordinance of Lords and Commons, after advice had with the Assembly; which may justly beare some sway with us, as to the discerning what persons are debarrable upon their notorious miscarriages visibly inconsistent with the exercise of sincere faith.

§. 12.

Upon the whole matter I conclude that there are few (com­paratively) in the Parishes I am acquainted with, who may [Page 88]lawfully be judged by us, to be in such wayes of wickedness, as are inconsistent with the exercise of godliness; either because (through Gods mercy) such wickednesses do not notoriously appeare, (and de occultis non judicat ecclesia) or because, upon their being admonished thereof, they are ready to condemn themselves, and professing repentance to promise reformation. The maine obstacle lying in this is that some notoriously guil­ty of wickedness publiquely known (through the nature of the crime it selfe they have committed) are unwilling to profess publiquely their repentance for the same. And yet in my expe­rience this doth rarely happen. And I humbly conceive, that learned Gentleman M^r Maurice, hath done an acceptable ser­vice to the Church of God, in opposing the practices of some Ministers in his neighbourhood, who associated with some few of their members in one Church, to administer the Sacrament there; neglecting it wholly in their own proper Churches. Its better to be too charitable (if I may so speake) in judging them capable who are not, then too censorious in judging them not capable who are so. Better it were that some have what belongs not to them, than any should be deprived of their due. I conjecture by the places I know, that there are few places in England, where a Minister can sufficiently excuse himself in neglect of administring the Sacrament to his charge; by the pretence of want of a competent number of visibly ca­pable Communicants. And that the want of Elders is no plea sufficient, hath been proved by many pens, which I heartily assent unto; and therefore would earnestly desire Ministers not to neglect the celebration of the Sacrament in their owne places, upon such pretences, although in such want of govern­ment a greater burthen must needs lye upon their own shoul­ders. In short, I would be as charitable as might be in judging and discerning who are in wayes of wickedness, visibly inconsi­stent with any exercise of faith, (And yet to prevent abuse of this doctrine, it must be remembred, that we are to judge our selves by a stricter Rule in discerning of our conditions, than others may make use of in probable discerning concerning us. And 2. we may have strong suspitions and jealousies concern­ing others, (so as to admonish them sharply) whom yet we can­not judge ecclesiastically (and use) as such whom we feare them to be. But that such as are notoriously thus wicked, have any right, or may be regularly admitted to the Sacrament, I flatly d [...]ny, upon the Grounds and Reasons before memioned.

But its now high time to take our refreshing.

§. 1.

THese three last Chapters being duely weighed by the at­tentive Reader, and compared with M^r W. his discourse from pag. 47. to 62. I hope he shall not want an answer for most there alledged, pertinently to the matter we are upon. Extravagancies we shall not now deale with. Yet some more particular Answer shall be given to what remaines any thing considerable in those pages of his.

He often harps upon one base. You mis-judge (saith he) in judging the morbid members of our parochial Assemblies to be In­fidels and unbeleevers positively as Pagans, p. 50. Give over your herterodoxall brownisme (such words as this and mormo, and mormonize, fill his mouth compleatly) and honour the Christian Religion, by putting a divinely positive difference, between the un­beleevers among us, and the unbeleevers of Pagans, p. 53. And (I know not how) many times over doth he in such like ex­pressions informe our dulnesse, that there is a difference be­twixt [Page 90]our unbeleevers; and Pagans; and with great vehemen­cy perswades us to beleeve that Pagans were not baptized, nor do they professe the Christian faith as ours do. As Augustine said to Cresconius, l. 2. ‘contra Cresconium Grammaticum, ne quisquam vel nimis acutus, id quod semel breviter (que) dixisses interpretari aliter conaretur: etiam obtusis auribus et cordibus tuam curasti immergere at (que) inculcare sententiam.’ One would be apt to thinke I had denied this which he urgeth so hotly; or els that he hath such a stomack to confute me, he will beat a brat that no body owns on my back. Did ever any one de­ny to put a difference betwixt baptized persons, and unbapti­zed, yea those who are but catechumens? But if the Question be whether Unbeleever, is a name applicable (by Scripture warrant) to some baptized persons, I have answered it alrea­dy, (when I routed his sorry distinction) and shewed that it is, in divers Instances. And if further the Question be, what kinde of beleeving is the condition of visible title to sacra­mental admission? I have shewed that it is that beleeving which doth connote visible actual saving faith and repentance. And that the due administration of the Sacraments doth ne­cessarily suppose in the judgement of the Church or Minister, that the person to whom they are dispensed is a sincere belee­ver, and a converted person, is a position wherein I thinke I shall never see M^r Baxter answered; though he have so grave and learned an Antagonist engaged against him therein. And indeed M^r W. and I might well have been silent, to have heard our Betters argue the matter. Thats my opinion, I cannot say it was his.

§. 2.

P. 50. M^r W. will needs shew us how they who are igno­rant and disorderly can be beleevers; and saith, The very best of us are sinners and Saints but in a diverse respect; sinners ex peccato remanenti, Saints ex gratiâ renovantis; or sinners quoad reliquias vetustatis, Saints quoad primitias spiritus. i. e. (if I may english his latine, because he doth not) to this sense; we are sinners because of sin in us, and Saints because of grace in us.

Well now, what will he do with this distinction? he tells us; So our morbid Church members are in a divers respect beleevers and unbeleevers. Beleevers positively, as soederally and professed­ly of the Christian perswasion. Unbeleevers negatively, as in works they practically deny the faith under which they positively [Page 91]and professedly stand by baptisme, and visible submission to the outward meanes of faith and reformation, not as aliens, but as of the houshold of faith, putting themselves under the Churches cure, not justifying their miscarriages, but coming to our solemnities as to the meanes of better carriage, professedly hoping in Christ for salvation, and in no other. And then he shews how some of the children of Israel were Rulers of Sodom by their sinful practice, yet children of God, and of the Prophets, and the Church, a seve­red and holy people, by the holiness of the Covenant under which they professedly stood.

First, for the similitude of one to the other compared. As we are sinners because we have sin in us, and Saints because of grace; so some are Saints, or an holy people, though they have no holiness in them, but only engaged positively to be holy. Wherein is the likeness? As some having learning are learned, so some engaged or professing to be learned are learned. Is not this good?

And then againe. As we are Saints and sinners in divers re­spects, so are persons beleevers and unbeleevers in divers respects. The comparison should have been, of some who are Saints and no Saints, to have fitted beleevers and unbeleevers; the denomination is taken from the prevailing or predominant part.

§. 3.

Then for the thing it selfe. First, he describes positively be­leevers, such who are soederally and professedly of the Christian perswasion. Well, and are not all the excommunicate, or most of them so? have not they a dogmatical faith? And 2. are they not foederally, positively engaged; no time nor condition can take off, or free them from their baptismal engagements.

Well, but in his explanation of his unbeleevers negatively, he addes more to the description of his positively beleevers; as namely; 1. Visible submission to the outward meanes of faith and reformation, not as aliens but of the houshold of faith. 2. Not justifying their miscarriages. 3. But coming to our solemnities. 4. Professedly hoping in Christ for salvation; and 5. in no other Saviour. And p. 57. he further describes them thus. The baptized among us that frequent our Assemblies, heare our doctrine with reverence and attention, joyne with us in our solemnities, give us visible testimony of their assent to our do­ctrine, to such we are to administer as beleevers, &c.

Now 1. I would know what Reason Mr. W. can produce for [Page 92]putting in these qualifications, into the description of his po­sitively beleever, rather than, that he should in generall, walk according to his profession, which makes a visible Saint, or justified beleever? 2. If all these be necessary to make up his positive beleever, who must have the Sacrament then, if these or any of these be wanting visibly, in a baptized person adult, and not excommunicate, he is not (or not enough) a positive beleever, and so must not be admitted to the Sacrament. It should seeme then, its Mr. W. his doctrine, that if a person bap­tized and adult, either will not be reproved, is a desperate swearer, who as the dog turns againe to rent him, that (though never so prudently and meekly) casts the pearles of admonition before him; or if he frequent not (come not above twice or thrice a yeare to any publique, religious solemnities) or if he do justifie and plead for his miscarriages; or if he know not whether Christ be God or no, whom he saith he hopes in; or whether Christ be man too and dyed; yea or if he do not heare the word with reverence and attention, and give us visible testi­mony of his assent thereunto. In any of these cases (much more where all concurre) suspension is allowed of; and I presume Mr. W. would not have this person for any one of these offences excommunicated in his sense, viz. excluded all publique Ordi­nances. And yet whiles he grants all this, he pretends to ju­stifie the position I opposed, viz. that no ignorant or scandalous baptized adult, and not excommunicated person should be de­bared the Sacrament; our Gentleman who is so impatient of being contradicted by me, can calmly and contentedly contra­dict himselfe, and that in so many instances altogether.

3. I would demand, where God hath promised to him that beleeves dogmatically only, and professeth so, and that he is willing to receive, &c. that he shall have the Sacrament, ei­ther the bare signes, or the thing signified thereby? If he will forbeare to answer these scriblings (as his severity calls my writings) till he have some cleere proofe for that, I thinke we shall be no more honoured with his publique assaults. But I may not impose such hard conditions on him; his tongue and pen are his own.

4. But if his positive beleever do truly profess the whole Christian perswasion, that is, to assent to the doctrine of the Gospel understandingly (for a man cannot be perswaded of what he understands not) and that he hopes in Christ, that is, in Christs way; he is a justified beleever. If he do but credi­bly [Page 93]profess the same, no one doubts of his admission to the Sa­crament. But then the Question will be, whether this word profession is credible, when his deeds do notoriously contradict the same; of which we must speake beneath.

§. 4.

Mr. W. addes, p. 51. And we read not of any debarring this had people (the Israelites) from the solemnity of the Passeover. There were no such imperious Masters of Reformation in those dayes, which gathered proselytes of the better sort into a faction, and excluded all the rest from Church fellowship, as the world, aliens, unbeleevers, and no Church members.—Likewise the Apostle saith, We are Jewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles; so our people are Christians by nature and birth, and not sinners of the Pagans, positively by the proper Rules of their very profession.

This latter assertion of our being Christians by birth, as the Jewes were Church members borne I deny not. But thats no medium to prove the general admission he pleads for. The for­mer words of his are argumentative after a fashion. The argu­ment is gathered from comparing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, with the Passeover among the Jewes, and our Mini­sters with the Jewish Governours then.

And here first we have the flowers of his argument, Imperi­ous Masters of Reformation; faction. He should remember he was to dispute not revile now. But some mens mouthes do so abound with the distillation of reproachfull termes, that they can hardly speake vehemently, without spitting abusively. 2. We have his false intimations, that we gather proselytes into a fa­ction, excluding all the rest, &c. This falshood runs almost through his book; that we gather new Churches, and dis­claime the old constitution as null, lay another in examinati­on: notorious untruths! I shall say no more to them now, but demand, whether the Constitutions and Cannons ecclesiasticall, primo Jacobi, which Can. 27. enjoyned that all should kneel at the Communion, and that the Minister should not deliver it to any if they did not kneele; were intended by the Imposers thereof (or did it amount in the nature of the thing it selfe) to a new constitution of the Church? Did they gather the kneelers into a faction as their proselytes. Mr. W. I thinke, will hereby cross his affection to the Prelatical Government, hinted in his p. 73.) so as to say that was a factious designe. And then all excluding some-from the Communion in our [Page 94]Churches (without excommunicating them from all Ordi­nances) yea though upon unscriptural grounds (for I am of opinion, their kneeling was not jure divino, no more than bow­ing at the name of Jesus) is not a demolishing of the former constitution of the Church, and erecting a new one in a fa­ction. And I might ask, whether every time the people of the Jewes, were by their godly Magistrates called to renew their Covenant with God, and sometimes so strictly enjoyned here­unto, that he that refused should be severely punished, yea se­parated from the Congregation. (2 Chron. 15.9, 12, 13. & 34.29, 31, 32. Ezra 10.3, 5, 7, 8.11, 12.19.) Whether (I say) then they pulled down the old constitution of their Church, and made a new one in a faction?

But I keepe the Reader too long from the argument, the strength whereof I shall neither conceal nor decline, though its but sorrily here hinted by Mr. W. And because this objecti­on against suspension is the strongest that I know of, I shall take the occasion here offered to speake more closely, and yet largely unto it. But of this in the two following Chapters. Now to our Crums of comfort.

§. 1.

THe passage wherein Mr. W. is pleased to insinuate the ar­gument against suspension, is this; We read not of any de­barring this bad people (the Israelites) from the solemnity of the Passeover. The argument here intimated is this; All the people circumcised, though never so bad, were admitted to the Passeover, therefore so must all the baptized adult, &c. be ad­mitted to the Lords Supper.

1. I deny the consequence as its here propounded, (and yet it is most strictly propounded, according to the fore-mention­ed passage of our Friend, from which its framed) because it proceeds from fact to right, which is not valid; if it were, he might by like reason prove polygamy lawfull, because it was in so many ages, and by the best sort of men in those ages practi­sed in the old Testament.

2. And if in stead of [admitted] we put [rightfully ad­mitted] to the Passeover: yet the consequence is not cleere enough to determine our controversie. Because the Ordinances of the Old Testament are not without limitations, Rules for the New, in these things. We grant an argument may be drawn from Analogy in some cases, viz. where we can prove the Analogy it selfe by Scripture, or at least that the ground of the Analogy is of equall concernment and latitude to us now, as to them in the old Testament, and that too not retrenched by any particular Institution in the New.

§. 2.

The strength of that Argument from infant-circumcision for pedobaptism, lies not in this immediately, that because their children were circumcised ours must be baptized; but because it's evident by their circumcision, that they were Church-members: therefore our children are Church-members. Which consequence holds firmly, unlesse it could be shewed, either that their Church-membership was typicall, and so concerns not us, or else that that priviledge of Church-membership belonging to the children of the believing Jewes then, is now reversed in the New Testament, which we put the Ana­baptists or Antipedobaptists to prove if they can. And then because they (or most of them) grant, that all Church-mem­bers (not forfeiting their priviledges as infan [...] cannot) may be [Page 96]baptized, hence we conclude Infant-baptism. But now in this Argument from the Passeover to the Lords Supper, (sup­posing at present but not granting the rightfull generall ad­mssion there pretended) there is not the like ground of Ana­logy to go upon. For we grant not to Mr. W. that all Church-members (whereof many forfeit their priviledges) may be admitted to the Lords Supper. This is the thing in question between us. If he would have argued to purpose, he should have given in his Medium, whereby he would evince the like generality of the subjects recipient of the Lords Supper as of the Passeover. Whether from the identity of nature, use, and signification of the Passeover and the Lords Supper, or from what else, and then it would be considered.

§. 3.

1. That the Passeover was a Sacrifice as well as a Sacra­ment. Mark 14.12. The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passeover. [...], quando pascha immolabant, Deut. 16.2. thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover un­to the Lord thy God of the Flock and of the Herd. By the way we may note, that this translation in the last words mentio­ned [of the Flock and of the Herd] seems to contradict Exod. 12.3. and other places, which say it must be a Lamb onely or a Kid, how then of the Herd?. The most learned Dr. Ralph Cudworth (the now worthy Professor of Hebrew, and the great ornament of the University of Cambridge, and the Ma­ster of that flourishing Colledge there, to which I am most ob­liged to wish happinesse) in his discourse called the true notion of the Lords Supper, p. 38.39. gives us this solution. ‘The words (saith he) in the Hebrew, according to a severall punctation, and supplying of something that must be un­derstood, may be expounded divers wayes, any whereof is far better then that which our English translators pitch up­on. Onkelos reads it, Thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover be­fore the Lord thy God, of the sons of the Flock, and the Peace offerings thereof of Oxen. Which may be confirmed from that of Josiahs Passeover, 2 Chron. 35, 7. And Josiah gave to the people of the Flock, Lambs and Kids, all for the Passe­over-offerings, to the number of 30000, and 3000 Bullocks; Where the Bullocks, or the Herd, are divided from the Passe-over-offerings. So vers. 13. these were rosted.— but the other sod in pots. So that forenamed place, Deut. 16.2. is to be read thus: Thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover [Page 97]to the Lord thy God (and then the Verb being again repea­ted) thou shalt sacrifi [...]e sheep & oxen, or thè stock and the herd, that is, one in the Passeover, the other in Peace offerings.’ But I quoted the text onely to shew that the Passeover was a Sacrifice. It was indeed kild by the people, or might be. Exod. 12.6. Though the Levites kild it, 2 Chron. 30.17. that was because the people were unclean, and so might not come into the Court to kill it. Which speciall and peculiar reason so ren­dred, shewes that except in such a case of uncleannesse, the people themselves had kild the Passeover. The same reason is rendred for the like purpose, Ezra 6. But this makes it not no Sacrifice properly so called: For the people might kill other Sacrifices, as the Burnt-offerings, Levit, 1.4, 5. Peace­offerings, Levit. 3.2. and Sin-offerings, Levit. 4.24.

The Passeover likewise was brought to the Tabernacle­dore, as Sacrifices were Deut. 16.2. compared with chap. 12.5. Numb. 9.7, 13.. compared with Exod. 29.42. It also agreed with the Sacrifices, in that the blood of the Passeover was to be sprinkled by the Priest, and the fat to be burnt on the Al­tar, Exod. 23.18. & 34.23, 25. 2 Chron. 30.16. & 35.11. Now the skilfull Jewes tell us, that the sprinkling of blood is the essence of the Sacrifice. At the first institution in Egypt there is some difference, for it was there kild in every private house; but then also Sacrifices were not appointed to be offered by a peculiar order of men, as they were afterwards.

§. 4.

2. Again, concerning the thing signified in the Passeover, we may consider, In the first celebration of it, according to the institution, Exod. 12.17, 27. & 34.18. Deut. 16.1. Two things are represented therin as it was a token, 1. of Gods mer­cifull passing over their houses, when the first born of the Ae­gyptians were slain in each of their houses. 2. Their passing out of Aegypt. Some speak of another Transitus denoted, viz, their passage through the red Sea. But I find no Scrip­ture-ground for this in particular; onely as it was a part of their bringing out of Egypt, it was not excluded; yet not speci­ally referred to, as the two former were; & yet of these one (the later) seems to be more intended then the other (the former.) My reason is, because there was another ordinance instituted particularly, referring to this, viz. the giving up the first born to God, Exod. 13.2, 13, 15. So there was not of that. No doubt too the Passeover was a type of Christ, (as the [Page 98]Manna and water of the Rock were, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4.) by the right use wherof the godly were to be led to the meditation of the Messias to be rested on. But as the Manna & Water were communicated to them who were not capable of recei­ving a Sacrament as such, so might the Passeover also. Be­cause there were other ends and reasons of it, besides what were sacramentall. And then our Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be parallel'd with them in this generall ad­mission; where the receiving the Bread and Wine delive­red, is meerly sacramentall (not at all intended as a Meale for the body as those were) referring onely to Christ, and sal­vation by him; not as theirs which was a commemoration of a temporall deliverance, which wicked men had a share in, as wel (and as to the deliverance considered in it self as much) as the best had. Nor is our Sacrament a Sacrifice, as their Passe­over was. A Sacrament and a Sacrifice thus differing, saith the renowned Bp. Usher (P. M.) ‘In the former there is an offer made by God to us, in the later there is an offering to God. In the sacrifices Christ was signified as given for us, in the Sacrament as given to us. The Sacrifices only as signes, the Sacraments seals also.’ So he in his Body of Divinity, p. 404,

§. 5.

3. Furthermore, if we have clear grounds in the New Te­stament to deny the generall admission (pleaded for) to the Lords Supper, whatsoever is urged from the old Testament, will have no consequence in it to the New. But we have given some reasons before, to prove that in the New Testament such believing as connotes visible actuall obedience to the Gospel, is the onely rule for admission to the New Testament Sacra­ments. And as learned Mr. Baxter saith in his third Disputi­on about right to the Sacraments. pag. 303. ‘It is certain that the fabrick of the Jewish Politie, especially the grounds and reasons of all Gods institutions of those times are so im­perfectly known to us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel-arguments to one dark one from those Lawes. For 'tis a most necessary Rule, that in all our Disputations we must reduce uncertainties to certainties. Our Arguments must be A notioribus ad minus nota. Mr. Blake consesseth it very dangerous to argue from meer Analogie, and professeth he doth not so but from the ground of the institution. And how dark are those grounds in some cases to us?’ So he.

It is certainly a most hard thing to give any consistent ac­count about many concernments of the Passeover, How all the Paschal Lambs should be kild (in the place where the Lord should choose) Deut. 16.5, 6. and the blood of each sprink­led on one Altar: And as some say, the fat sacrificed on the Altar too. How all these (many hundreds) could be so kild in one place, in one evening (or betwixt the two evenings, as they called it) in a few hours space, is a thing to me hugely difficult to conceive. And whether Capellus his distinction of a private and publick immolation of the Passeover, doth avail here, I dare not determine. How difficult is it to shew how the Jewes might certainly know the Even of the fourteenth day (which some accounted to be the beginning of the fif­teenth) after the Moon had changed; especially when the change of the Moon happened to be neer the end of one day, and beginning of another? And from this uncertainty most probably came the variation of dayes, wherein Christ and the Jewes celebrated his last Passeover; if there were such a dif­ference, which is (as I remember) denied by Tolet and Baro­nius, whom Cloppenburgius defends; but asserted by the illu­strious Scaliger and Causabon. The Arguments of both parties are marshalled by Capellus in his [...] ad amicam inter se & Johannem Cloppenburgium epistolicam collationem de ultimo Christi Paschate. But if the Jewes, or at least some of them, va­ried from the day Christ observed for celebration of the Passeover, whether it was on the account of a Tradition which should be observed by the Jewes, that when the Passe­over fell on the day before a Sabbath, they might put it off till the Sabbath; that the inconvenience of two Sabbaths coming together might be avoided, and then that Christ would not comply with them in this their frugality, or rather niggardliness in Gods service? But this Reason, though asser­ted by many, is confuted by the most learned Doctor Cud­worth before praised, in his discourse concerning the true notion of the Lords Supper, who shewes that the Jewes had no such custome in our Saviours time, and that Kalender which now they use according to the Talmud, was not compleatly fi­nished till about the five hundredth year of the Christian Aera. Or whether the variation of dayes was from the un­certainty of knowing the right day, when the [...], or ap­pearance of the Moon was not soon discerned after the change; which might occasion the observation of divers dayes, accor­ding [Page 100]to severall persons their perswasion about the time of the Change, and as some say, Observare duos dies propter dubium? And whether Christs Passeover ws a true Legall Passeover, or onely a Feast of unleavened bread, in a pri­vate imitation of the Passeover? According to which the learned Hugo Grotius in Annot. ad Matth. 26. gives this di­stinction of the [...], and saith, this was not [...], but [...], such as the Jewes celebrate at this day; because the Temple being down, all sacrifices are ceased. But this distinction is denied by others, and especially assaulted by the fore praised Capellus.

Divers other difficulties there are about the Passeover, which with the former mentioned, may confirm what Mr. Baxter so reasonably asserted, viz. That it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel-Arguments to one dark one from those Ordinances about the Passeover, if there were such an one. I shall add also, That there is no small dif­ficulty in clearing who were the subjects to be partakers of the Passeover, particularly whether children so soon as they were capable of eating flesh, did not partake? I shall not discuss the point, it would be too long; onely I must crave liberty to say, that I see no convincing-proofs of their exclusion, nor any absurdity following upon their reception; whiles I consider the Passeover (as was before hinted) was not wholly and onely sacramentall; though I believe it was a Sacra­ment (as the Manna was also to some:) and the Scripture probabilities of their partaking, are more then I can finde alledged for the contrary. And if this Argument be further urged for admission of all such to the Lords Table, as were admitted, (or are supposed by some to have been admitted) to the Passeover. It may be it will occasion a further and more exact consideration of that point, concerning their In­fants partaking of the Passeover: Which. yet if asserted, will not (I think) inferre; that such children now must partake of the Lords Supper: But will most effectually over­throw the consequence of the argument I am now answe­ring to.

I should now proceed to a second answer to be given to this argument; which I shall forthwith endeavour as soon as I have taken my Cordiall following.

§. 1.

THe last Chapter presented what I judged sufficient (at present) to answer to the consequence of this argument, viz. If all the people of the Jewes circumcised, though never so bad, were admitted to the Passeover, then all such baptized, must now be admitted to the Lords Supper. The Antecedent assumed is: But all the people (circumcised) were admitted to the Passeover. Concerning which this Chapter will give an account of my apprehensions.

This generall admission (much more this rightfull generall admission) to the Passeover, here asserted, is denyed not with­out many reasons given of the deniall of it by the learned M^r Gillespy, in his Aarons Rod blossoming, l. 1. c. 9, 10. which I refer to the diligent perusall of the judicious Reader who hath not read him already.

I shall also humbly offer somewhat in the following parti­culars, whereby the foresaid assumption may be disproved. I shall meet with and solve the most colourable pretensions that (I have seen) undertaking its protection.

(1) The command of celebrating the Passeover is delivered in general termes, Exod. 12.3, 6, 43, 44, 45, 47. &c. All the Cngregation of Israel shall keep it. And this reacheth cleerely thus far; that they all there spoken of were obliged to this as their duty, viz. to celebrate the Passeover according to the or­dinances of it. But hence it follows not, that there might be no hindrances (and that through their own fault,) which might debar them in statu quo from doing what they were ob­liged unto. The obligation to a duty doth not ever warrant the performing of it, when theres a present incapacity and un­preparedness for it; but it should put on ever and provoke to a preparation and performance both.

And so I should thinke all Christian adult professors bapti­zed, are obliged to celebrate the Lords Supper, yea even the most prophane, (shall I adde, the justly excommunicate also who are not disobliged from, though debar'd from the Sacra­ment through their own default). A drunken professor of Christianity, whiles drunk at the time of divine service, is not sure disobliged from Gods publique service, no not from the Lords Supper, but yet, none doubts, he is then justly debarr'd and excluded from the same. There are two sorts of hin­drances from the Sacrament. 1. When the persons hindred are wilfully accessory to their own hindrance. 2. When they are hindred without their own fault. The first hinders but doth not excuse; the latter both hinders and excuseth: of the former sort we had an instance in the man who neglected to circumcise his males, in which default, he was debarred, yet not excused from celebrating the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. Of the latter sort seeme those mentioned, Numb. 9. in case of ceremonial uncleaneness. And yet if any did unnecessarily and wilfully touch a dead body, or take a journey fifteene miles from the camp, or from Hierusalem (as the Jewes interpret [a farr off] though they were hereby hindred, they were not excused before God for their neglect.)

(2) But in reference to these persons hindred from the Passeover, Numb. 9. I shall observe these things.

§. 2.

1. That there was no express exception of them in the for­mer generall commands, Exod. 12. That all Israel should doe the Passeover. For then there could have been no doubt about these in their case; at least Moses would not have been at a stand about it, as he seemes to be, vers. 8.2. That yet it was [Page 103]not thought (notwithstanding that general command without exception expressed) that all might keep the Passeover with­out limitation of some preparednesse for the same. 3. That there was then an order, and care had, for keeping back some (even of the Israelites) from the Passeover. These two last observations are evident in vers. 6, 7. Those defiled say to Moses and Aaron, Wherefore are we kept backe; that we may not offer—among the children of Israel? Which implyes that they tendred themselves to partake, and complained that they were by some kept back. 4. That its manifest here is not in­tended an enumeration of all impediments, no not of all those impediments which excused from doing the Passeover, (as sickness, &c. not here mentioned) how much less of those which excused not; which I thinke this text doth not refer to. And therefore notwithstanding this place, the Jewes thought other things barrs of their celebrating the Passeover. John 18.20. They went not themselves into the Judgement hall, least they should be defiled, but that they might keep the Passeover. They judged preparation for the Passeover (for which they had a so­lemne day) antecedently necessary to the doing of the Passe­over. And probably, in their judgement, a litigious action on an holy day, was accounted a moral sin, which they pretended to make scruple of. There is little doubt, they hold excom­munication for moral sins, as Mr. Gelaspy hath copiously shew­ed. And yet neither are their excommunicates expresly ex­cepted in this text; so that it should make against their ex­cluding the de facto, as well as the ipso jure excommunicate. It cannot therefore be inferred from this text, that all did par­take of the Passeover, except those in a journey, or polluted by a dead body.

§. 3.

(3) It may further be considered, that there were those se­vere lawes against sin, as required the cutting off such as were notorious and scandalous offenders. I confesse its a mighty dif­ficult thing cleerly to determine the importance of that phrase; Its applyed so variously; sometimes as a punishment for small offences, the neglecting some ceremony, or the like. Exod. 30.38. Levit. 7.18, 20, 21, 26, 27. Numb. 19.13, 20. And sometimes for notorious wickednesse. Exod. 31.14, 15. Levit. 20.6, 17. as for incest. Divers texts, particularly, the last men­tioned, seeme to evince that it was putting one to death, which cutting off imported. And yet some of these sins to be thus pu­nished, [Page 104]might be private, and not juridically or otherwise no­toriously known; and therefore could not be punished by man, with the cutting off by death. Ainsworth saith on Gen. 17.14. ‘It is sometimes spoken of Gods cutting off men by death for their sins. Levit. 17.10. & 20.3, 5, 6. And so the Hebrewes understand it here, and in all other like places, that for wil­ling transgression in secret God would cut them off by untimely death.’ (Which may be thus expounded, that the offender might expect Gods immediate vengeance in such cases, though the Lord had not (by his threatnings) tyed up himselfe from exercising patience and long-suffering towards them.) ‘And if there be witnesses of it, the Magistrate is to punish or kill them. But for ignorant transgressions, they were to bring the appoin­ted sacrifices;’ so he. Now the notorious obstinate offenders were adjudged by Gods Law, in that Theocracy of the Jewes, to be cut off, as appeares by many texts; see such as these; Exod chapt. 21. vers. 15, 16, 17. & 22.18, 19, 20. & 31.14, 15. & 32.26, 27, 28. & 35.2. Levit. 24.15, 16, 23. & 20.9 10. Deut. 13.5. & 17.5, 6. & 22.21. More gene­ral texts adjudging this cutting off to all manner of notorious wickednesse are, Deut. 17.12. & 2 Chron. 15.12, 13. Now if this were so, Its supposed that the Magistrate doing his duty (or if it referred to ecclesiastical cutting off, those entrusted in that, doing their duty) there should be none to partake of the Passeover who were notoriously scandalous. And its the lesse strange, if exceptions against such are not particularly and ex­presly mentioned, although they might have no right to the Passeover.

§ 4.

4. Againe. If we peruse all the examples of their celebra­ting the Passeover in the old Testament; therein we finde not any (I thinke) admitted under such notorious wickednesse as should then be judged visibly inconsistent with true actual faith.

We may soone view the places, they are not many. After the first celebration upon the Institution, Exod. 12. when they were under those miraculous dispensations which were apt to dispose the very wicked (in heart) and much more others to an out­ward good conformity.

The next and only Instance while they were in the Wilder­nesse, was that of Numb. 9. which hath been already perused by us. And then soone after their entrance into Canaan, the Passe­over [Page 105]was celebrated, Josh. 5.10. immediatly after the circum­cision of the adult, not circumcised in the Wildernesse before; which its no way probable they were compelled to receive, without being acquainted with, and having respect to the Co­venant they entred with God, and God with them, whereof circumcision was a seale. And that the people (indefinitely) were then in a visible beleeeving frame and obediential po­sture, is gatherable from Chap. 1.16, 17, 18. which the mira­culous bringing them through Jordan also, (immediately be­fore this their celebration of the Passeover) was apt to con­firme and establish them in, Chap. 3. and Chap. 4.

During the time of the Judges we read of no Passeover kept (I do not say there was none). And in the time of the Kings there are but two Passeovers recorded in holy Scripture, viz. one during the reigne of Hezekiah, and the other of Josiah, those two good Kings. Hezekiahs we have 2 Chron. 30. where is mentioned (according to our translation) the long inter­ruption of it, v. 6. That they had not done it of a long time, in such sort as it was written. (In stead whereof both the Syriack and Arabick versions have, Because their riches were much en­creased). And there are here, not only no intimations of the visible prophanenesse of any who did partake, but great testi­mony is given to the contrary. They were indefinitly called by the King and Princes to turne againe to the Lord, and that they should not be stiffaecked, v. 6, 7. and they answered that call, v. 11. Of some its said, that they humbled themselves, (they were confounded, saith the LXX, acquiescentes consilio, saith the vulgar Latine: they were contrite in heart, saith the Syriack, or they trembled in heart, as the Arabick) and they came to Hie­rusalem. And of others its said, v. 12. God gave them one heart to do the commandment of the King and Princes by the word of the Lord; which was to turne to the Lord, as before. And that this was manifested in deeds and notable instances of real re­formation is shewed v. 13. And then Hezekiah begged pardon, or acceptance for them (only) who had prepared their hearts to seek God, v. 19. Which implyes that he took them (all inde­finitly) for sincere beleevers. The Syriack version hath it thus; The good God expiate for the whole people of Israel, seeing that we have prepared our hearts to pray to God, &c. And the A­rabick saith; The God of goodnesse spare the Isralitish nation, see­ing that he hath prepared our hearts to pray to God, &c. And then v. 21. they kept the feast of unleavened bread with gladnesse, [Page 106]and the whole assembly took counsel & kept other seven dayes with gladnesse, v. 23, 26.

§. 5.

The other Passeover was in the time of Josiah, recorded 2 King. 23.22, 23. & 2 Chron. 35.1, 2. &c. where is to be observed, that things being much out of order by the ill go­vernment of his Grand-father Manasseh, and his Father Amon, Josiah doth endeavour a reformation before its story'd that he called the people to a Passeover; In the twelfth yeare of his reigne, he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, groves, and Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And then it followes, v. 8. Now in the 18th yeare of his reigne, when he had purged the Land and the house, he took order to repaire the house of God: and having found the book of the Law, he caused it to be read to all the people, great and small, v. 30. he himselfe being greatly humbled by the contents thereof; He v. 31. made a Covenant before the Lord, to walk af­ter the Lord, and to keep his Commandments, and testimonies, and statutes, with all his heart and soul, to performe the words of the Covenant which are written in this book. And v. 32, 33. he cau­set [...] all present in Jerusalem and Judah (all the people, v. 30.) to stand to it. And the Inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the Covenant of God, the God of their Fathers. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of the Countryes that pertained to the children of Israel; and made all that were present in Israel, to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his dayes they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their Fathers. And now having thus prepared the people (in this same 18th yeare of his reigne, 2 King. 23.23. 2 Chron. 35.19.) he com­manded the people to keepe the Passeover there recorded. What footsteps are there here of any visible prophane persons partaking of the Passeover?

There is only one more example in the old Testament sto­ry'd, Ezra 6. It pleased God after a long captivity for the humbling Judah, to stir up Cyrus to proclaime liberty of their returne to build the Temple, he encouraging and assisting them therein. Those of them whose spirit God raysed to goe, Ezra 1.5. Closed with the designe, attempted it, and pursued it, with a visible frame of great humility, feare of the Lord, zeale for his service; and to the utmost layd out themselves in the same. Chap. 1.5. Chap. 2.68, 69. the whole third Chap. Chap. 5.5-11. (1 Esdras 5.44, 45, 53, 61, 63, 65.) Ezra 6.14, [Page 107]15, 16, 17, &c. And then is related their keeping the Passeover, v. 19. viz. as is shewed, v. 21. The children of Is­rael which were come againe out of captivity; and all such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of the heathen of the Land, to sock the Lord God of Israel, did eat and kept the feast of unleavened bread seven dayes with joy, &c. The Syriack ver­sion, hath it thus; And the Israelites eat it, who came up from the Babylonian Captivity (viz.) all those who were separated from the filthiness of the Land. And so it is also in 1 Esdras 7.13. making that separation to be the preparative qualification of all who did partake of the Passeover. But if we take it as re­ferring to the Proselytes, it supposeth the children of Israel, to whom the Proselytes were so joyned, were in like manner separated from the filthiness of the nations. Upon a strict view of all these examples; It appeares not, that any did partake un­der a visible prophanenesse, inconsistent with visible actual faith and obedience; but the contrary.

§. 6.

(5) Let me adde, That when the people generally did keep the Passeover, although some might be notoriously wicked at home, it is not easie to conceive how those who admitted their paschal Lambs, and offered part thereof for them, and who had the charge of the holy things, could know their particular scandalous sins, so as thereupon to debar them. How could they know who was ceremonially uncleane by touch of a dead body, or who had not circumcised his males, and so was mo­rally uncapable in that state? Yea though many thus obnoxi­ous might be knowne so to be at home, yet it being not mani­fest to those Governours, they could take no notice thereof. And yet hence it follows not, that they who thus thrust in themselves had a proper right to actual present participation of the Passeover; as elswhere is shewed by us. But the case is otherwise now, as to the Lords Supper; when Christian people are gathered into particular Churches, under the Inspection of Guides and Officers, in a special manner appropriated and designed to watch over them in the Lord.

However, this seemes evident, that on the same Reason whereby they did gather the exclusion of those otherwise cere­monially uncleane, from the particular expresse prohibition of the uncleane by a dead body: they might also inferre the right­full exclusion or abstension of all notoriously prophane and breakers of Gods Covenant, from the particular expresse pro­hibition [Page 108]of him who circumcised not his males, Exod. 12.48, 49.

§. 7.

(6) To conclude (at last) this pont. The general com­mand for celebration of the Passeover, is no larger then for circumcision: now as this supposed the Covenant to be visibly entred into, with understanding, as Ainsworth shews on Gen. 17. So that must suppose their continuance in that Covenant, as necessary to enright them in a sacramental partaking of the Passeover.

But its high time for me to crave the Readers pardon for so long detaining him upon, and hindering his Transitus from this argument of the Passeover. But if he thinke (as I doe) that its the strongest objection, and that answering it, will e­nervate divers others (as that fetcht from 1 Cor. 10. concern­ing the Manna and rock, though indeed its much more easie to answer those, and they have been cleerly answered by others, and therefore I pass them) If my Reader (I say) consider the importance of this argument, I trust he shal not complaine, I have provoked his patience, or abused his leasure herein. If any will needs be passionate, I have Davids remedy for an ill spirit.

§. 1.

THe great quarrell he hath about Examination is cast in my way, p. 54. and often elswhere. But though it ju­stles uncivilly, and as a bold intruder absurdly presseth in, when we are busie about other matters, I am resolved it shall stay for its answer, till its turne come among the Digressions, and then I shall deal candidly with it.

At p. 58. Mr. W. brings in this syllogisme, as if it contained my sense, and were some part of my argument, viz. Such as by Scripture characters are to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers, are unbeleevers. But all men baptized, adult, and of the Christian perswasion (if irregular in their conversations) are by Scripture characters to be judged and taken to be unbeleevers. Ergo, all men baptized, and adult, and of the Christian perswasion (if irre­gular in their conversations) are unbeleevers.

He quarreld ere while with my inserting parenthesis in a syllogisme, but if I had put in such a parenthesis as he here hath in his minor and conclusion, which being taken out, the sense is destroyed in both propositions; I might have well de­served his censure, which yet I list not to returne upon himselfe here. But to the matter I answer. Did ever any one say, that any irregularities in conversation, were Scripture characters whereby we might judge of persons as unbeleevers? I asserted only that there are some such as would amount thereto. What those are, was not our businesse to enumerate. If I say some irregular in their conversations are to be excommunicated, will it hence follow, that all irregular persons (in any respect such) are to be excommunicated? What coherence is here? And yet this toy seemes to tickle his phansie, and he plays with it againe and againe, p. 58, 59, &c. And gravely as if in so­ber sadness, thus delivers himselfe; Some irregularities in mens lives we hold not unreconcilable with a true doctrinal perswasion, nor with the habit of saving faith neither. When such irregulari­ties become notorious, publique and scandalous, the parties so of­fending are legally to be proceeded against. But for every private miscarriage, a Pastor is not to debar a man at his pleasure, upon the verbal information of some few in private; but deal gently by private conference with the party informed against, as a Father with his child.—And then he points his tale on me in these [Page 110]words; This were more Christian-like than your rash frequent and rigorous suspensions.

In answer whereto I say.

1. Neither the habit of saving faith in persons, nor of dog­matical faith (as I have already shewed) is directly enquired after by us, in order to administring the Sacraments to them; but the visible exercise thereof, which an habitually godly man may be destitute of for a time.

2. Who said any irregularities might debar one, except no­torious publique or scandalous?

3. Some notorious miscarriages need not any tryall for the proving them to be such as deserve excommunication. But the offenders are ipso jure excommunicate, having manifestly and publiquely lost their right at present of actual admission to some Church Communion. 2 Epist. John, v. 10, 11. If there come any to your house and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor bid him God speed. Where particular private Christians as well as others were commanded, to deale with such as excommunicate in law; whether the governing Church upon a juridical tryall had declared them to be such or no. What need is there of witnesses to prove an unmarryed woman who hath borne a childe is a fornicatresse, or of Judges to try and discerne whether this sin (without repentance manifested for it) deserve excommunication. Is not 1 Cor. 5.11. a sure Rule, unless pronounced by the Church-Governours, or any other?

4. Yet its not unlawfull to take juridical cognizance of such plaine cases. (Abundans cautela non nocet) And upon good reason it may be judged meet and most orderly where it may be.

5. What meanes he by a Pastors debarring any at their pleasure? Is not this an odious insinuation? Do we pretend to arbitrary Government?

6. Did any ever say that for any private miscarriage one might be debarred?

7. What quarrel hath he against verbal information? Is it unsufficient on that account? or must it needs be written?

8. May not some private miscarriage, that is, some grievous wickednesse privately committed, and known to two or three only, yet persisted in, after the procedure mentioned Math. 18. be a cause of excommunication, as well as a publique offence notorious in its own nature, without all such previous admoni­tion, according to 1 Cor. 5.

9. What means he by [the information of some few in pri­vate?] Is the information taken before persons chosen by the Parish for the congregationall government thereof, an in­formation taken before some few in private? What, would he have it before all the Congregation? or before how many of them? What rambling exceptions are here?

10. I doe hereby provoke M^r W. to prove that any have been suspended or excommunicated in the Parish I minister to, except for grosse offences, notorious through the nature of their crimes, or the publickness of their committing them, or by a juridicall receiving the testimony of sufficient wit­nesses thereupon. And those offences too visibly continued in without repentance after admonition. And these Cases have been very rare with us: not so many I think, as the years have been of my serving the Church here. And then commonly the issue hath been comfortable, and upon their profession of repentance they have been restored with great joy, and that shortly; we administring the Sacramens in a constant fre­quent course. I confesse some few have been desired to refrain for one time, or perhaps two upon severall grounds respecting themselves and others), when yet it hath been then signified to them that they were not suspended, nor should be debarred by us. And yet Mr. W. (so far is he from the timerousness he censures me for) dare tell the world in print of my rash, fre­quent, and rigorous suspensions.

§. 2.

At p. 60. M^r W. is pleased to add, By our administring to believers is meant to such believers as we may have certainty that they are believers. But of mens faving faith (which lies invisi­bly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture or charitable hope, of their baptisme, and of their true doctrinall confession of saith, we may have certainty. And their visible conformity to the means of faith, & solemnities of the Christian Religion, with their brethren in the publick ordinances of worship, is a visible testimony of their owning the Christian Religion. And the outward administration to them as to visible believers, is equally their outward right, with the strictest livers. For Ministers are but the outward ministrators of the elements in the Lords Supper; the Spirit is the inward administrator of the invisible grace.

Whereunto I return, 1. That we must have a certainty those are believers (that is, visibly such) to whom we admini­ster, [Page 112]I readily grant. 2. That we can have any more certain­ty of a persons dogmaticall faith, then of his justifying faith, I have before denied, and do still; upon the grounds above mentioned. He that pretends to know who is really a dog­maticall believer, must pretend to know the heart immediatly. Mens dogmatical, or doctrinal. as wel as their saving or justify­ing faith, (which lies invisibly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture, or charitable hope of. Yea, let me add, It is as difficult (if not more) for a Christian to discern in himself, whether he hath a true dogmaticall faith. i. e. whether he doth assent to the truths he professeth, as to know whether he consents to the same, receiving them in love. And who that hath been acquainted with the troubled spirits of the godly, and their temptations, hath not had ex­perience of those dangerous doubtings about believing or as­senting to the great points of Christianity, concerning Christ, the Scriptures, &c. I know a Minister would give much to be constantly assured that he believes the doctrines he preach­eth concerning those common and great points of the last judgement, heaven and hell, and the like. Yea, do not all doubts about our justifying faith, recurr to the doubting about our doctrinall faith, as the ground thereof? Doth not the soul thus argue? Could I love God so little, and the World so much, be so mindless of Gods service, so sluggish, so care­less of my soul, if I did really believe the truth of Gods pro­mises, the immortality and pretiousness of my soul, the va­nity of the world, the danger of Gods displeasure, and that now is the day of grace offered to me, the continuance where­of I have no assurance for an houre longer? If a man pro­mise to poor beggars, that if they will but come to such a Prince a few miles off, they shall there have great riches, &c. and yet they sit still and stirre not, would not another suspect, and may not they suspect themselves, that they believe not there is truth in the proposition and motion made unto them? Quis enim Domino mente credit, & facultate non credit? Quis Deo animam suam mane pat, & pecuniam negat? Quis pro­missis coelestibus fidem commodat, & non agit ut esse possit parti­ceps promissionum? Et ideo cum videamus homines haec non a­gere, cogimur non credentes palam & evidenter agnoscere. Salvian ad Eccl. Cathol. l. 2.

And I think the great (Physical if I may so call it) work of conversion, lies in illumination of the understanding, [Page 113] Eph. 1.17, 18, 19, 20. And the will is sweetly moved, accor­ding to the nature of such a faculty (yet necessarily in respect of the event) to close with such through convictions. A man may profess a dogmaticall faith, (and so also a justifying faith) who hath it not. And we must believe his credible pro­fession. But I think that man whose understanding is so farre enlightned with Gospel-truth as a sincere believers is, is a sin­cere and justified believer; that predominat assent being inse­parably joyned with consent also.

This consideration I have the more insisted on, that it might be an answer to that Objection, viz. If justifying faith onely intitle to the Sacrament, then none may receive who want assu­rance. Let those who hold dogmaticall faith intitles to the Sacrament, answer, and say, what he must do who doubts (and wants assurance) of his dogmaticall faith; and it will serve to direct him, who doubts concerning his justifying faith: the case is the same in both.

3. Mr. W. here insinuates (if I understand him) how we must have a certainty of their being believers, whom we admi­nister to, viz. by our having a certainty of their baptisme, and their true doctrinall consession of the Faith. This will ratio­nally put an end to the Controversie about (that which is cal­led) Examination before admission to the Sacrament. But that is not now to be insisted on.

4. I grant, after they have once given a certainty that they have in their own persons made a true doctrinall confession of the Faith, with professed consent thereunto, their right to the Lords Supper is not to be denied, till they do by notori­ous wickedness (as before hath been declared) incurre Ecclesi­asticall censure.

§. 3.

5. I know not well what Mr. W. means by visible confor­mity to the means of Faith, and solemnities of publick worship, which he saith, is a visible testimony of their owning the Chri­stian Religion. If he mean that their conversations are not notoriously opposite to the faith they have professed, I con­curre. If their coming to Church, what ever their lives be o­therwise, then I demand whether a Christian may be censu­red for no misdemeanour, unless he neglect coming to Church? And if he may, then his coming to Church is not a sufficient testimony that he is such a visible believer who hath right to the Sacrament,

6. That should seem to be intended as an argument which Mr. W. adds, viz. [For Ministers are but the outward Ministra­tors of the Elements,] and then it would be to this purpose, If Ministers are but outward Ministrators of the Elements in the Lords Supper, then the outward administration to them who are baptized and come to Church, though notoriously pro­phane in their lives, is equally their outward right, with the strictest livers. But, Ergo. I deny the consequence, nei­ther is there any semblance of connexion in it. If the gover­ning Church do retain prophane persons in their sacramen­tall communion, that might have some more probability of inferring the Ministers duty to administer to them. But what is that to our case?

§. 4.

7. Whereas Mr. W. further adds, therefore as long as the Church holds [men baptized and grown to years] in her out­ward communion, in other ordinances, so long doth she hold them in the outward worship of celebrating the Lords Supper with her members as their due and duty.

I answer, Nay rather from what was before asserted, whence this is inferred by Mr. W. viz. That Ministers are but Ministra­tors, it follows, that they are to minister and officiate to them as in the Churches communion only so far as the Church retains them in her communion. And therefore if the go­verning Church exclude any from the Sacrament, though not some other Ordinances; the Minister answerably may of­ficiat to them in other ordinances, but not in that.

8. Whether the governing Church may exclude some from communion in the Lords Supper, who are retained in other Ordinances, I know is questioned; and perhaps Mr. W. may aim at such a thing here. But I see not how his words do sig­nifie it; I shall not therefore here stand upon it, having laid down those grounds before, upon which the question may be determined in the affirmative.

And thus have I adventured, more particularly than other­wise I should have thought needfull to answer Mr. W. his Pre­tensions in this thing; because that in his confidence of my weakness, he here so vauntingly vapours and concludes in these words, p. 62. In your next let me understand what you can pro­duce and offer for refutation hereof, which I believe you neither will do, nor can do.

§. 1.

HAving cleared and confirmed, that those who are visibly in a notorious way of wickedness inconsistent with the exercise of true faith, are on that account such unbelievers vi­sibly, as have no immediate right to the Lords Supper, and so ought not to have it administred unto them. The Assumpti­on follows at numb. 25. in my M. S. That those who by word openly refuse the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such unbelievers, and therefore they are such visibly to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administred. This assumption I thus confir­med (numb. 27.) hecause to profess to renounce Christ, is to profess not to believe; now he who seems seriously to pro­fesse his not believing, that is, his renouncing Christianity, cannot be by any (rightly) judged and taken to be a believer. that is, such a believer as aforesaid.

I here gave an instance of one uncapable of rightfull admis­sion to the Sacrament, and therefore not to be admitted, though he be baptized, adult, and on whom the sentence of [Page 116]the Church may not (perhaps) have passed for excommuni­cation. (The Instance was of one who doth in words renounce Christianity. I added [seriously] not in opposition to madness or distraction, (as M^r W. trifles, p. 63.) For then the Instance would not have fitted the Question; Mr. W. himselfe excludes the unintelligent, p. 34. but in opposition to both. 1. Ironicall uttering of words, which then signifie not what otherwise they would; as those words are usually interpreted, Gen. 3.22, Behold he is become like one of us. And 2. a questioning or doubt­ing uttering of words, which though in forme assertive, yet are otherwayes manifest to be intended not as assertive but proba­tional. So Josephs speech is fairely interpreted, Gen. 42.9, 16. By the life of Pharaoh, yee are all spyes. So Psal. 73.13. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vaine, but after he cleeres his mean­ing, was only a questioning or doubting of it, v. 15. If I should say thus, I should offend against the generation of the just.

Now such an one as thus in words significative of a renoun­cing of Christianity (where the circumstances of uttering them, declare the meaning of the speaker is not ironical, nor proba­tional only) doth profess to renounce Christianity, I said, is not in a capacity of rightful admission to the Sacrament. And by this one Affirmative, I overthrew their universal negative; they say none adult baptized, not put off from other ordinances, may be suspended or debarr'd the Sacrament: I say, such an one as we have mentioned may; therefore their universal ne­gative proposition is false except further limited.

§. 2.

I thinke now, there are few who understand any thing con­cerning disputation. but would expect, Mr. W. should have an­swered, either by affirming that this word renouncer of Chri­stianity should be admitted to the Sacrament, if he tender him­selfe to partake; or els by distinction, have put some limitation on the universal negative I assault, whereby it might have ap­peared, that such an instance as this was not comprehended in it. But (to admiration) he can answer (and doubts not to refute mee) without denying or distinguishing: as followes.

1. He saith; The whole depends upon a meere supposition. It is rather a thing imagined, than a cause likely to happen in the Church. This exception I made my selfe, and answered it, which answer of mine Mr. W. endeavours to take off beneath; where I shall make my reply.

2. He saith; But if such a case should fall out, viz. That a [Page 117]man in the Church should professedly renounce Christianity, then he renounceth the Lords Supper too. And so your suspension in this case would be needlesse.—There is no need of suspending or excommunicating, such a wilfull renouncer of Christianity.

I answer, by distinguishing, 1. Betwixt renouncing of all the essential parts, and some essential part of Christianity. 2. Between his renouncing the Lords Supper in particular, as to his using it for the end and use Christ hath appointed it for; and, renouncing it altogether, upon all accounts whatsoever. And 2. now I say. 1. To renounce an essential part of Chri­stianity, is to renounce Christianity, though a man profess not to renounce all the essential parts of Christianity. It is essen­tial to Christianity, that Christ be accepted, embraced and submitted to, as Lord and Saviour; to save us from sin, Math. 1.21. as well as from punishment; therefore to reject Christ as Lord, is to reject Christianity. He that saith, I beleeve Christ dyed for me to redeeme me from hell, &c. But I will not obey him, he shall not reigne over me, I neither will nor can spare my lusts (at least not yet) &c. doth renounce an essential part of Christia­nity, and so by Consequence, Christianity it selfe. For any essenti­al parr of a thing being removed, the thing it selfe is removed. I may say of our accepting Christ as King and Saviour, as the Epigrammatist spake of his two poysons; Dividat haec si quis, faciunt discreta venenum: Antidotum sumet, qui sociata bibet.

2. He who thus renounceth Christianity, renounceth also (expresly or by consequence) the Lords Supper, as to a maine end and use Christ hath appointed it, viz. for the en­gaging the soul neerer to Christ, and resigning it up, in grate­ful and holy obedience to him, who is the author of salvation to them who obey him. But yet he may not renounce it, as to all other respects; he would do as others do in the outward work, &c.

And therefore there is need, yea a necessity of suspending or excommunicating such a wilful renouncer of Christianity.

§. 3.

3. Mr. W. tells us, this (supposed renouncing Christianity) cannot abolish his positive estate, which stands on the free grace of God by Baptisme—and so he is a beleever for his positive estate in point of Religion, by vertue of his consecration, unto the Christian faith in Baptisme—and God will judge him as a Christian, if he continue in his revolt till death; not as a Pagan Infidel, p. 63, 64, 65.

Ans. 1. Who ever said his wickedness disobliged him from his baptismall engagements? 2. Mr. W. confesseth, that this renouncer of Christianity, is a Christian and beleever (by ver­tue of his Baptisme) at the day of Judgement, when condem­ned. And doth he thinke such a Christianity as is in hell, gives right to the Sacraments here? Who then can be exclu­ded? A damned Christian is a baptized person, consecrated to Christian duties, and not wholly disobliged from the same. 3. And yet Mr. W. saith, p. 63. I should judge of him rather by his continuance, or non-continuance in this supposed abrenuncia­tion. What would he judge of him? to be a Pagan Infidel [...]e So he is not when damned, therefore cannot so be judged of by his foresaid abrenunciation here and continuance therein, or will he judge him to be an unbeleever as destitute of habi­tual saving grace? that belongs not to us to judge of, but to God alone who knows the heart; or must he be judged an un­beleever, as lying under notorious wickedness, inconsistent with the exercise of faith? that indeed we may judge of; But then to what purpose doth he thus judge of him, in reference to his sacramental claime? If to allow it, and admit him, then its all one as to this, as if he were not so judged of. If to exclude him; then I have what I contend for; unless there be no judging of a man till he be dead, and then no man can be excommu­nicated for any crime whatsoever. For (I am of opinion) there is no need of excommunicating or suspending a man after he is dead, nor of judging of him in order thereunto.

§. 4.

4. Mr. W. tells us, Papists are Christians — But we need not suspend them from the Lords Supper; their phansie of tran­substantiation, and other heretical Mormoes, save us the labour. I know not why Papists may not without destroying their principles tender themselves to receive with us, unless the ne­cessity of their obedience to the Popes prohibition, hinder them; and yet that is not a principle to the French Papists. But if a Papist remaining such, and owning transubstantiation, Popish Indulgencies, merit in the Jesuits sense, prayers to Saints, religious adoration, or worshipping of Images, &c. tender himselfe to receive, will Mr. W. admit him? why them doth he not plainly say he would? as indeed his doctrine leads him to admit him, if the Papist be not excommunicated in such sense as I thinke none in England are. But those words of his [save us the labour] I suppose intimate, that if they did not [Page 119]withdraw themselves from our Communion, but should ten­der themselves to receive, we should be at the labour of sus­pending them. And yet Papists are not forbidden to come to Church, nor separated from all other Ordinances in the Church. And then the universal negative Mr. W. pretends to defend [that no baptized person adult, intelligent, not excom­municated, may be debarred the Lords Supper, if he tender himselfe] is againe battered by another Instance which his own pen hath afforded. May not a Papist be baptized adult, intelligent, and not excommunicated the publique Congrega­tions, if he exclude not himselfe, (as some others doe). And yet I thinke Mr. W. grants he may be kept back from the Lords Supper, whiles he professedly remaines a Papist: and its to my admiration, that this Gentleman can so confidently defend the said universal negative before mentioned, and yet overthrow it by divers such concessions, as this in his booke.

§. 5.

5. Mr. W. tells me, I delude men with the contracted notion of saving faith; and I may tell him, 1. that he doth as much de­lude men with the contracted notion of doctrinal or dogmati­cal faith. 2. And that its not the notion of saving faith, but the resting in a common verbal profession of Christianity, cry­ing, Lord, Lord, which will be found to be the great deluder of men, when the day of trying all things shall come. And then he informes us, that Sacraments are not seales of a personal and inward faith only. They are visible scales of the righteousnes of faith. i. e. of the doctrine of faith in Christ, unto justification in the sight of God, without the workes of the Law. From whence he inferres; And why should not all baptized persons, adult, and not excommunicated, personally testifie their assent to this doctrine, by taking the consecrated bread and wine into their hands, as the visible similitudes of the body of Christ sacrificed for us? &c. To which I reply; Who hath said that they are seales of a personal faith only? But doth not Mr. W. here grant (as well he may) that they are seales of a personal inward faith, though not only? Sacraments are considered; 1. in respect of the Institutor and Author; 2. of the Receiver; both wayes they are seales, In respect of the Author they seale his tender of the Covenant of grace, wherein salvation is freely promised to all that beleeve: In respect of the Receivers, they are insti­tuted and appointed by God for their solemn sealing or testify­ing their beleeving, and obediential embracing of the Cove­nant [Page 120]of grace in the blood of Christ. And as the Administrator is to attend both; so in subserviency to his Master, both these are to be designed by him in the celebration of the holy my­steries. The seales (as is often said) are commensurate with the Covenant sealed. If a single covenant or meere promise tende­red to all who will beleeve, that they shall be saved, might be sea­led with the Sacraments, there were nothing in the nature of the Sacraments, which should hinder the administring of them to heathens remaining such; to whom this Gospel is to be preached, Mark. 16.15. John 3.16. But its manifest, these seales can be administred only where there is visibly a mutual covenant, viz. God promising justification on the condition of faith, to the Communicant, and the Communicant visibly clo­sing with that condition of beleeving to justification. This is manifest in that famous text Mr. W. relates to; which is, Rom. 4.11. concerning Abraham his receiving Circumcision, as a seale of the righteousness of faith.

§. 6.

This text requires our most serious perusall. And here I shall observe; That though Gods sealing or confirming his promise or single covenant of grace is not excluded, yet this text doth very eminently refer to the sealing or confirming of Abrahams personal faith; and that not only a dogmatical, but justifying and saving faith, professed by him in receiving Circumcision. The Question Paul disputes in the context is, whether a man may be justified without the works of the Mosaical Law as such? and he proves our affirmative in the example of Abra­ham. Abraham was a righteous person, and justified by faith, his faith was imputed to him for righteousness; that is, God dealt with him, and accepted of him through Christ, as if he had been perfectly righteous in himselfe. (having pardoned his sins, as the phrase is explicated, v. 6, 7, 8.) That this is the cleere and easie importance of the phrase of imputing a thing to another, I thinke I first learned from our learned Wotton, on John 1.12. (a notion much better than fine gold) which is demonstrated by two places of this Epistle, where the same manner of speech is used; Rom. 2.26. If the uncircumcision keep the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum­cision. [...]; that is, he shall fare no worse than if circumcised; so Rom. 9, 8. Now that Abraham was thus justified without those Mosaicall works, the Apostle proves; 1. In that he was justified before the workes of the [Page 121]Law as such, were in force. For he was justified before he re­ceived Circumcision (one use whereof afterwards was to en­gage the receivers thereof to all the Mosaical Law, Gal. 5.3.) 2. In that Circumcision in its designe and intendment (and to Abraham effectually) was to be a seale of the righteousness of faith before received: and hence (as well as from other texts) Divines so unanimously conclude, that the Sacraments are not instituted for the unconverted, but converted. (I say institu­ted. For its vaine to speake of the possibility of conversion in the event, by or at the Sacrament, as thence to inferre the manifestly prophane and unconverted may be admitted. For no one can say of an heathen or excommunicated person, if he be sinfully present and partake, that he shall not, may not be converted at, or by that sinfull partaking. The spirit bloweth where it listeth.) The concurrent judgement of Divines, Eng­lish and Forreine, Episcopal and Presbyterian, herein; that man of vast and digested reading, the learned Baxter, hath de­monstrated at large in sixty Testimonies, produced in the se­cond of his five disputations concerning Right to the Sacraments. Sundry of which Testimonies have many in them, being the judgement of many Churches, and many learned men therein. And many more might be easily brought forth. I shall take leave to mention only two or three in reference to this text in special, not cited by him.

Oecumenius in locum, (Maximo Florentino Interp.) saith; ‘Nullam aliam ob rem, circumcisus suit (Abraham) quam ut pro signo ac demonstratione ipsam circumserret circumcisionem ju­stitiae illius, quae in praeputio substitit ipsi Abrahae. Si verò signo­rum ac sigilli loeo accepit circumcisionem, nihil ipsi ad justitiam prosuit, sed hâc solumodo ratione justificatum esse significavit, hoc est, quod cum in praeputio esset, adhuc justitiâ dignus habi­tus fuit. Arctins in loc: saith, [...] autem (circumcisio) proprie fuit respectu electorum, nam in his geminum usum reti­nuit, scilicet, obsignare justitiam eis collatam. Pareus quotes Lyra expounding it thus; Accepit signaculum justitiae fidei, hoc est, ut esset signaculum justitiae fidei latentis in mente. When the Rhemists on this place had said; the heretiques (that is, the Protestants in their language) would hereby shew, that the Sacraments of the Church, give no grace or justice of faith; but that they be notes, markes and badges only of our remission of sins had by faith before, because A­braham was just before, and took this Sacrament for a seale [Page 122]thereof only, &c. These Rhemists are thus answered here­in by our learned Cartwright: S^t Paul (saith he) doth not only call Circumcision a signe but a seale, whereby it is evident, that God so wrought by this signe, that thereby he came to a further assurance of his righteousnesse, which he had before the setting to of the seale.—And whereas they (the Papists) would have this righteousnesse, which was before the seale thereof, to be peculiar unto Abraham; and that in others the righteousnesse is not before the seale, but with it! It is directly contrary to the whole discourse of the Apostle—2 Then, It is absurd, that thus the seale is supposed to be put before the ju­stice, whereof it is the seale. And thus the Lord (which for mens better understanding borroweth his Sacraments from the common usage of their compacts and Covenants as neere as may be) is brought first to seale, and then to write that which he sealeth, cleane contrary to that usage of men, from whence he draweth the resemblance of his Sacraments, &c.’

Behold here the old Protestant Doctrine aslerted in opposi­tion to the Papists, viz. that a personal faith or justice is ac­cording to this text sealed or confirmed, and supposed to be ex­istent in one before he comes to partake of the Sacrament. Which designes the sealing of his righteousnesse upon his be­leeving supposed: And that the contrary opinion is absurd. Now alas, what impudent times are we fallen into, when men have the confidence to tell us (against our owne eyes) that It is a novelisme and heterodox upstart doctrine, now among us, that Sacraments are instituted and designed only for the converted, and for the confirming (not working of faith); when as I thinke, it will be hard for them to produce so much as a Protestant Catechisme which asserts not the same. This booke of Cartwrights I have quoted so largely, was written (as the Title and Preface shew) by order of the chiefe Instruments of Queene Elizabeth, and the State, at the special Request of many most famous and eminent Divines, Goad, Whitaker, Fulk, and sundry others.

Furthermore, that this text doth point to Abrahams faith, as that which was sealed by the Sacrament, (and not only Gods promise) may be shewed from severall hints thereof in the text and context: As, 1. It was the seale of the righteous­nesse he had before Circumcision, which (at least according to our translation) denotes an inherent qualification in him, which he received a seale of, by submitting to that ordinance [Page 123]of God, appointed for the testifying of his faith and obedience.

2. That faith was sealed, in respect whereof he is the Father of them who beleeve; now that was a faith inherent in him, and not only the doctrine of faith revealed to him, and others also in common. And they are Abrahams children in the sense of the text, who walk in the steps of our Father Abraham, v. 12. And Christ tells many of the Jewes flatly (who yet had the same doctrine of faith revealed to them as Abraham had) If ye were Abrahams children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John 8.39. Although he acknowledgeth them Abrahams seed too, after the flesh, v. 37.

Let me lastly Insert, D: Hammonds Paraphrafe on the text, Rom. 4.11. ‘And Abraham being justified after this Evangeli­cal manner, upon his saith, without and before Circumcision, he received the Sacrament of Circumcision, for a seale on his part, of his performing those commands of God given him; his walking before him sincerely, Gen. 17.1. (upon which the Covenant is made to him, and thus sealed, v. 2, 4, 10.) and on Gods part—&c.’

I conclude therefore according to this text, the Sacraments are seales of the mutual covenant (which only indeed is a covenant properly and strictly) viz. not only of Gods ten­der of grace to us through Christ upon the condition of faith; but also seales whereby according to Gods institution, we are to ratifie our accepting of those Gospel termes for justification in Christs blood; and in so doing receive a further confirmati­on of Gods love towards us, (in such degree as we are capable of the sense of it). And though God requires all them to whom the Gospel is revealed to seale their acceptance thereof, yet God requires no man to seale he doth what he doth not, nor hath he any proper visible right to the Sacraments, who vi­sibly rejects these Gospel termes.

§. 7.

6. Mr. W. tells us, God makes men beleevers by Baptisme, p. 66. If he meane they are solemnly to signifie the same herein, I grant it. But if that they are not Christians before, I deny it upon evident Reason.

1. For they are baptized because Christians, not forfeiting the priviledges of such, therefore they are Christians before. I shall here only refer to Peter Martyr (the Author Mr. W. so often mentions with honour in his booke, as well he may) loc: com: cl. 4, cap. 8. §. 3. et 7. &c. ‘Where he gives an ac­count [Page 124]of the baptizing Infants of Christian parents, upon the Churches hope of their election, as being the seed of the ho­ly. Neque parvulos baptizaremus, nisi jam eos ad ecclesiam et ad Christum arbitraremur pertinere. And he saith; Those are not to be heeded who move a scruple in this matter, and say, What if the Minister be deceived, what if the child be no son of the promise, nor of the divine election and mercy? For the same cavil may be about the adult; Nam de illis quoque ignoramus ficte necne accedant, an verò credant; an filij praedestinationis an perditionis; An Christi gratiam habe­ant, an illâ sint destituti, et mendaciter dicant se credere. Yet we baptize them upon their external profession (quam si menti­antur (saith he) meâ non refert). And on 1 King. 8. the same Peter Martyr saith; Justificatio ex baptisme non pendet sed antecedit. Obj. Coeterum fortē dixeris, quorsum baptismus ijs traditur, si ante rem baptismi habuerunt? An illis luditur opera? minime; quia deo paremus, qui baptismi opus nobis praeceperit. 2. Deinde promissionem et donum quod accepimus, obsignamus. 3. Praeterea, ibi a spiritu sancto per verbum et externa symbola fides confirmatur.’ In which doctrine of this learned man, may be seene (as the orthodox Protestants ge­nerally I thinke do agree) that all are supposed actually in Gods favour, and made partakers of remission of sins, before they are admitted to Baptisme. And from this and divers such passages in him, may be strongly inferred the doctrine of sus­pension I am treating upon. (Whatsoever Mr. W. pretends of this Authors opinion to the contrary.) For if we baptize men adult, because we beleeve their profession, then we cannot bap­tize them, when either they make no profession, or if a verball one, which is not credible to us; and then we admit men to the Lords Supper, on the same account, viz because we take them to be beleevers, and that non mendaciter dicentes se cre­dere, but as to us and our hope of them, really and savingly.

2. Againe; If Baptisme did make men Christians, it were as necessary to salvation, (not only necessitate praecepti, but medij also) to be baptized, as to be a Christian, and then all un­baptized (at least of the adult) must be damned. For no one can be saved, who is not a Christian, as to the essence of Chri­stianity.

§. 8.

Mr. W. tells us over, and over, and over againe, that they are positive beleevers, who are baptized, whereby they are di­stinguished [Page 125]from the unbaptized, or Pagans, and that their obligation by baptisme, cannot be removed by their personal vitiosities.—And at last concludes in this chiding straine; Who are you then, that deny them the title (being the proper cog­nizance of their obligation to Christ) and discharge them from the visible service of Christ in the celebration of this holy Supper; un­der pretence, that they are no visible beleevers, because of some wants and deformities in their lives? &c. p. 66.

Ans. He said before this title agreed to Papists, and he can­not deny in his sense, it agrees to the greatest Apostates that ever lived upon the earth; they are his positive beleevers, that is, consecrate to the Christian faith in their baptisme, and their baptismal obligations still lye on them, whereby they are di­stinguished from men of other religions, or rather from men who never were engaged in the profession of the Christian Re­ligion. And then I thinke it will be no great honour to have such a title in such a sense only; when the thing of Christiani­ty is wanting. 2. But I have told him before, that I acknow­ledge them Christians and Beleevers in his sense, that is, they are positively obliged to Christ, and to beleeve in Christ: but that alone entitles them not to the Sacrament; for then none might be debarr'd who had ever been baptized. 3. And I ne­ver discharged them from celebrating the Lords Supper, no more then he doth the drunke, who yet are justly hindred from it; they sin in not receiving, because their hindrance is by their own fault, and yet they ought to be debarred, as hath been shewed before. Yea, Its manifest that Heathens to whom the Gospel is preached, are as truly obliged to be baptized as these baptized persons now spoken of, are obliged to receive the Lords Supper. Let Mr. W. answer how a Minister can debar an hea­then coming to baptisme (which he is bound to do) for want of profession of his assent and consent to the doctrines of Chri­stianity, and yet not be guilty of discharging him from his du­ty? And I doubt not the same answer (if opposite to this) will serve to answer that concerning the Lords Supper. The thing hath been explained already, therefore I shall not here repeat it. 4. Mr. W. here againe insinuates, as if I asserted persons vi­sibly such unbeleevers as have no rightful claime of admission to the Sacraments, because of some wants and deformities in their lives: as if any wants or deformities were affirmed by me to be sufficient to prove persons visibly, actual unbeleevers, whereas I say it only of such as are inconsistent with the exercise [Page 126]of faith: Concerning which I have adventured to give in my thoughts, Chap. 7. §. 10. and §. 12.

The sum of the argumentation we have had before us here, is this, Such as in word renounce an essentiall of Christiani­ty, may be debarred the Sacrament though adult baptized, and not by the sentence of the Church excluded other ordi­nances; therefore some baptized persons adult, and not se­cluded from other ordinances, may be debarred the Sacra­ment. Mr W. hath answered hereunto, as you have heard, without denying that such should be debarred, or distin­guishing thereupon. But what he wants in rationall answe­ring, he makes up (as he is wont) in confident concluding, and saith, p. 67. We are rather confirmed than any wayes confu­ted. Proceed to the Exceptions which you seem to alledge as ours against your pretended assertion, and withall let us hear you take them off, and then give us leave to maintain them as far as ours. Such a maintenance will starve the incumbent upon it, unless an augmentation can be procured. But of this in the following Chapters. Here we take up at present, and return to our repast.

§. 1.

THe Reader may be pleased to know, that when I had drawn up the argument before insisted on, I (as my manner is) studied to oppose it my self. And as I know not that the argument hath been thus made use of about admissi­on to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; so I knew no ex­ceptions that any had made against it. But I faithfully set down what in my own thoughts seemed considerable; and therefore alledged them not as my Antagonists exceptions, as M^r W. insinuates. Yet I do not see that he himself hath any thing so materiall to object, as I had before objected to my self in these exceptions, which he labours (but in vain) to make good against my argument.

The first exception was (at numb. 28.) that no baptized person adult and not fully excommunicate, tendring himself to communicate, will, or doth ever so openly in word re­nounce Christ. To which I answered, (at numb. 29) the case may yet be supposed, yea it may happen. And that is a reall power for censure which may be exercised upon an occasion which may possibly occurre, whether it doth actually occurre or no. In reply hereunto, he pretends not to deal with the substance of my answer, but promises to consider it in the fourth Exception. But he hath by businesses enough in the interim, to engage in, whereby the unwary Reader might be drawn away from the poynt we are upon. As the Lapwing makes a great cry to draw the passenger from her nest.

§ 2.

1. He is still angry at the distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate, and saith, You grant a degree of excommunica­tion to lye upon the party debarred by your suspension, and there­fore your suspension is essentially excommunication, for things that differ gradually are essentially the same. p. 69.

1. I do grant a degree of excommunication on him who is properly suspended from the Lords Supper; and therefore I told him, the question ought not so to be stated, Whether one qualified as aforesaid, and not at all excommunicated, may be debarred the Sacrament. For all Divines, I think, who hold [Page 128]suspension, do acknowledge it to be a degree of excommuni­cation: But whether such an one as aforesaid, not debarred all publick ordinances (according to our Antagonists sense of excommunication) may be debarred the Lords Supper. But this plain sense will not sink into his head, and therefore he goes on thus: Your pretended Antagonists propound their case candidly, clearly, and ingenuously (see Mr. W. can give good words when he hath a mind) and say [not excommunicated] removing excommunication altogether from the parties they admit, & look upon them as in Church-fellowship and communion. And do not we do so also to them we admit? The question is not of them we admit, but of those not admitted. But you (saith he) lay down your case obscurely, fraudulently and captiously, as if you meant no fair dealing. And why alas? but because I will not trifle in the question, to enquire whether one not excommunicated may not be suspended, that is in our sense excommunicated? or go from my own principles, and the principles of our reformed Divines, who so generally hold juridicall suspension to be an excommunication.

2. Things which differ Physically onely in degree, may differ Morally in kind; to be adjudged to have a small scarre in the flesh, and to have the head cut off, differ gradually, as a greater or lesser wound: yet they are punishments of a dif­ferent kind and nature; the one capitall, and the other not. The residue of his answer to the exception, is almost all a bundle of untruths: one of the most eminent whereof is this, That none with us are Church members till admitted after our examination and triall of them. And this in sense divers times repeared, p. 70. And he hereupon tells us, how we pre­pare our people for Anabaptisme. Be it known to him; the truly learned M^r Blake and Baxter, are as likely to understand what is of tendency to Anabaptisme as he, (no disparagement to him neither,) and yet they both hold the lawfulness of sus­pension of some of the persons mentioned in our Question. And though they have some differences among themselves, yet they both agree against M^r W. his doctrine.

A second thing I added, was, The case of some such per­sons (qualified as aforesaid) their renouncing Christ, is sup­poseable not onely as possible, but probable to occurre (at numb. 30.) if (as under the Episcopal government) all bap­tized persons adult, should be required under a purse-penalty, to communicate once or twice a yeare: then many open reje­cters [Page 129]of Christianity, and who averre there is no Christ with­out them, might to escape the penalty, tender themselves to receive. The same may be said of hundreds, who account the Sacraments meer carnall things in our times.

To this Mr. W. saith, 1. This is my malicious slander of the Prelaticall government. If it be a slander, doth he know it to be malicious too? Hath he dived into my breast? Good words I pray: Whence is all this heat? He tells us the 21 Canon of the Church of England, (1. Jacobi) enjoyned Ministers so to order matters, that every parishioner might communicate at least thrice in the year; but not a word of forfeiting any sum of money in case they did not. But he tells us not of a 22. Canon next ensuing, which requires all to receive the Sacrament thrice a year, under the penalty and danger of the Law. But wil Mr. W. go about in this age to perswade people, that they were not punished by purse-penalties, when presented in the Prelaticall Courts for not receiving? and accuse them as ma­licious slanderers, who say they were? Mr W. talked of one following truth so close that it dash out his teeth. This is not Mr. W. he hath not lost his teeth, he can bite deep enough I am sure. But I am afraid his forehead is in more danger, when he can set a face on so notorious a bad businesse. Were not they required under a purse-penalty to communicate, who were commanded to receive under the penalty and danger of the Law, and felt that penalty was chargeable to their purses.

§. 3.

2. In an angry dialect he saith, that those instances I men­tioned of such as might deny the essentials of Christianity, and yet probably to avoid an externall penalty, might come to communicate, do no way make for me. But he is too wise to tell us why they do not; Is there not a possibility, yea probabi­lity, such, in such a case would tender themselves to communi­cate? And did not that take off the exception, which said, none such would come to the Sacrament.

3. In the next place he seems to have a mind to extol the Epis­copal government. And it is not my business to disparage it; yet I doubt not the Presbyterian government is lawful according to Scripture. But the Reason he gives for the excellency of the Prelaticall government as it was in England formerly, above the present Ecclesiasticall government (established by the State, Aug. 29. 1648.) because under that government such [Page 130]monsters durst not appear and prosessedly shew themselves, as now swarm every where without controul. I say, this Reason is not valid. For the State-assistance then was afforded, which is not now so effectually, as to the execution of our government. If the State had left men to their liberty then, as much as now, it might have been even in that respect as bad as it is now with us, as in other respects it was far worse.

§. 4.

4. He ends with a continuall strain of provoking lan­guage, which I pass over and neglect, and he concludes all goes on his side, saith, Well, this first exception stands good a­gainst your assertion; and why? Because he saith, Nothing I alledged hath proved, that any will or doth by word renounce Christ, who tenders himself to the Sacrament. But I told him, It was not necessary to destroy the exception, to prove any will or doth; but that it's possible, yea probable, there might be such an one as would perpetrate such wickedness, which can­not be denyed, I would be content to lose my argument that it could. Who can prove that any one wil commit fornicati­on, and continue obstinately under the guilt thereof visibly in some particular Church? And yet it followes not thence, that such wickedness if committed, and be notorious, is not a suffi­cient cause of Ecclesiasticall censure. And our present case, as to the probability of its occurring, is the like.

§. 1.

A Second Exception I laid in against my Argument, was this, (at numb. 32.) That such persons as aforesaid, ten­dring themselves to receive, cannot openly at that time pro­fess their rejecting Christ, because in the tender of them­selves to this Ordinance, they offer to profess the contrary, viz. their owning of Christ.

To the which I answered, 1. That the case under our pre­sent consideration, supposeth him at the same time, when he tenders himself to be admitted to the communion, to profess (being asked) against his owning of Christ, q. d. I desire to do as others do in receiving; but I am resolved at present I will not submit to the commands of Christ, nor part with my lusts which he bids me flye from.

Mr. W. now to take off this answer, besides uncivil chi­dings here both in the Preface and Epilogue, hath onely one thing (which I hope was but a mistake in him) to alledge. Is it your practice (saith he) to provoke men in the open face of the congregation, by asking them questions, when they come hum­bly and reverently to celebrate the Lords Supper with their bre­thren?

It is our practice to know those who communicate before the time of celebration come, and then when they signifie their intention to receive (especially such as have not joyned with us before) is a speciall season we lay hold on, if any notori­ous wickedness in one who tenders himself give occasion, to admonish him concerning the same. And then is the time for suspension if there be just cause, not in the moment of ce­lebration, (there would be the execution of suspension if one suspended should thrust in thither, by refusing to administer to him.) We have no such questioning there; the case had no reference to it. But it was thus, as for example, If a person notoriously known to live in whoredome, and keeping a strumpet in his house, shall tender himself some convenient time before the day of celebration of the Sacrament; and then be asked, Whether he will leave his wanton? and he [Page 132]answer, No, he cannot leave that vice, he hopes God will be mercifull to him notwithstanding, and yet he desires to receive as others do; will Mr. W. say it was unlawfull or unseasonable then to ask him that question? and doth not the said vicious person by professed refusing to repent of, and leave his lust, re­nounce an essentiall of Christianity, and therefore renounceth Christ, notwithstanding his tendring himself to be admitted to the communion drawing on. And was not this according to the order formerly appointed in the Church of England? See the Rubrick before the communion, where it is thus ordered. ‘So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion, shall signifie their Names to the Curate over night, or else in the morning before the beginning of morning Prayer, or imme­diatly after. And if any of those be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbour in word or deed: the Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, in any wise, not to presume to the Lords Table, untill, &c.’

This mistake being discovered, I shall not need to insist on the answering divers other passages Mr W. hath after in his Book, which are grounded on this unreasonable catch.

§. 2.

2. My second answer to this second Exception was, It's not impossible for such a man to profess contradictions, so that you cannot conclude he professeth not against Christ, because he professeth for Christ, at the same time, or in one breath. Mr. W. replie, Yea we can and ought in the judgment of charity so to conclude: and he would put me off with this slurre, should we say it's not impossible for you to professe contradictions, you would rather laugh at our folly, then conceive your selfe guilty. Give us leave then to judge you none of the wisest, for this ridiculous elusion.

Some prove themselves men by their visibility rather than rationality, they will laugh you out an argument of their manhood, sooner then give you a reasonable demonstration of it. What ridi [...]ulous matter our brother hath here got to make himself merry with, I see not, if he keep close to the case we are considering of. If I say I do accept Christ as tendred in the Gospel, and yet in the same breath, say, Christ shall not reign over me, I think I should professe contradictions, and my profession of the former, is no evidence that I do not profess the later. He may turn his tune, change his ha! into [Page 133]ah! and in stead of laughter see just cause of lamentation, that such contradictory professions are too frequent. An Ari­an saith, I believe the Scriptures to be true, yet I believe Christ is but a meer Creature. The Socinian saith, I take him for my Sa­viour and Redeemer, yet in a proper sense he never redeemed me, paid no price, never was accursed sor me, &c. Those mentio­ned by Christ in the Gospel, Matth. 21.38. said, This is the heir, come let us kill him. They acknowledged him heir, and so their Lord and Master, and yet professe they would kill him, was not here a contradiction in one breath professed a­greeable to our present case?

§. 3.

A third answer to this second Exception I suggested thus, (at numb. 34.) he then denies Christ expresly, he professeth to receive Christ onely by consequence, from the nature of the ordinance he desires to joyn in; although perhaps he under­stands it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that conse­quence.

The Exception to which this third answer was fitted, must be remembred to be this, viz. That a person baptized, &c. and tendring himself to receive, cannot openly at that time profess his rejecting Christ, because that in this tender of himself to this ordinance, he offers to profess the contrary, viz. his owning of Christ.

Now in reply to my said third solution of this objection, the less Mr. W. hath of weight and pertinent, the more doth he powre out gall and bitternesse, p. 80, 81, 82, 83. And, 1. He saith; My answer is not so large as the exception. The case is (saith he) concerning a baptized person [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] tendring himselfe to receive the Lords Supper; the Query is this, viz. Whether such a person at that time in the tendring himselfe can be said herein, to reject Christ or Christi­anity.

1. Heres the mistake continued I before discovered, taking the time of actuall celebration of the Sacrament, in stead of the time of tendring himselfe to be admitted to the sacramen-approaching. 2. He seemes to intimate that I had said, the very tendring himselfe to communicate was a renouncing of Christ; which no word of mine ever signified, and I am apt to thinke Mr. W. himselfe hath so much charity towards mee as to hope that absurdity never entred my thoughts. 3. If there were a defect in what I here propounded, it was in delivering [Page 134]of the exception, not in the answer thereunto. The answer is manifestly as large as the exception; and though The exception only mentioned a person baptized, the other limitations of [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] were excluded, according to the former explications given, in stating the Question, not necessary ever and anon to be repeated at large, 4. Yet as to the particular matter we are now upon, Its all one whether all these limitations be taken in or no; our present Query is, whether he that tenders himselfe to be admitted to the Communion, can at that time (not in that act of tendring himselfe, as Mr. W. wildly layes it) professed­ly renounce Christ? The which I say he doth who renounceth professedly any essential of Christianity, notwithstanding his tendring himselfe to receive. And as to this particular, its all one whether he were before excommunicate or not.

And yet Is it not a very good Jest, that whiles Mr. W. thus industriously seekes for flawes where there are none, but what his greedy desire of finding some hath imprinted in his own phansie; he yet here saith, he must winke at small saults in mee. He may winke at my faults, I grant, but I thinke then, he winkes not close, but only contracts his peepers, that his eyes may see, and his eyelids too may try my failings; or if per­haps he winke close, its but with one eye, and that the right, that with the left, he may take a sinister aime at, and more peircingly pry into my supposed defects.

§. 4.

2. Upon my supposition, conceiving the person spoken of, that he doth profess to receive Christ by consequence from the nature of the ordinance which he desires to joyne in; Mr. W. inferres; How then can such an one then and therein be said to deny Christ expressly? Marke those words [then and therein] and see how he abuseth mee; where did I say that not only then but therein (in tendring himselfe to receive) he may be said to deny Christ (at all, much less) expressly? And yet when he hath made to himselfe this man of straw, and scuffled with it a while very valiantly; he insults amaine, and paratragoe­diats wonderfully; and is ill ashamed of his match, he descend­ed to graple with; and is now so very bashfull, that he tells us, he is ashamed that ever a mother in our Israel should breed such a son, as he hath phancy'd me to be; To which I also am asha­med to returne any reply; and so we are both like to be asha­med together. Didicit ille maledicere et ego contemnere, as he said [Page 135]in Tacitus. I despise these his insultations, maledicta haec, quae in me iratior quam consideratior evomuit, as Augustine said of Petilianus, l. 3. contra Ipsius Petiliani scripta perversa. The good man is ashamed of mee; and indeed though I judge his an­swers sufficiently absurd and indiscreet, yet I must confesse I see more reason to be ashamed of my selfe (when I look into my selfe) then of him; though in that inscript, he hath thummed so uncivilly; upon a strict perusall and review of it, I discerne no reason which should invite me to recant the sense of any one sentence therein. The terme [Admissionists] which for brevity sake in that private M S. I had inserted, I could wish had been omitted, and in stead thereof such a peri­phrasis as this, [our brethren for the general admission plead­ed for] had been placed. And some passages besides I thinke might have been more conveniently expressed, and probably would have been, if I had suspected their publication.— But I am afraid it was anger, rather than modesty which brought the red into his face on this occasion; or having en­deavoured to murther my good name, with the blood thereof, he dyes his checkes, and would be accounted shamefast. —

§. 5.

3. He excepts against that clause [though perhaps he un­derstand it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that conse­quence]. The summe of his exception, (laying aside his insi­pid scornes, mingled therewith) is perhaps he well understands, what he goes about, and perhaps he ownes the consequence, and doth not reject it at all. Our [perhaps] is more charitable then yours, and bottom'd upon a better foundation of hoped grace. — When an evill against a man can be but supposed, and good may be hoped, true Christianity will rather hope the best, then suspect the worst.

Let the Reader judge, whose [perhaps] here is more cha­ritable; when he hath well weighed, whether is the less crime in one to profess contradictions not understood so to be, or when he knows they are so, and ownes the same; my [per­haps] was of the former, his was of the latter. And now let the Reader also judge, whether Mr. W. hath in the least inva­lidated my answer, and proved that a man cannot be supposed to profess contradictions, when he professeth one thing in ex­press termes, and the contrary, by necessary consequence, which destroys and contradicts the former; the which if Mr. W. could prove (for his encouragement in such a designe he may be as­sured) [Page 136]it would thence follow, that the most notorious here­tique by tendring himselfe to receive should (ipso facto) become Orthodox this tendring himselfe to receive, should quit him of Arrianisme, or any other blasphemy, which yet on all occasions he professedly asserts and maintaines.

§. 6.

The third Exception I mentioned was this (at numb. 35.) Some may say, that such an one, should be fully excommunica­ted: to which I answer (at numb. 36.) by hinting some Rea­sons to the contrary (which are strengthened and enlarged by the discourse concerning excommunication, and the degrees thereof, which we treated upon above, Chap. 3.) But Mr. W. counts that labour impertinent. It sufficeth him to confute all, by saying I prove not the case but only suppose it: and so he pro­ceeds to the 4^th Exception. This Reply of his, hath twice or thrice already occurred; and yet because Mr. W. in his an­swer to my solution of the first exception, then passed it over with naming it, and promised to speake to it more fully on the 4^th Exception. I have hitherto delayd to confirme my argu­ment against him. But now looking forward into his animad­versions on the 4^th Exception, and finding him speaking little there close to this matter, I shall here take occasion to make my defence in it. But that may furnish another Chapter.

§. 1.

THe Reader may be pleased to remember, that the Questi­on is whether any such qualifi'd, as aforesaid, may be de­barred the Sacrament? I supposed the case of one by word re­nouncing Christianity (or some essential part thereof) who, I said, though so qualified as the Question puts him, (to wit, baptized, adult, intelligent, and not fully excommunicate) may be debarred; and if so, then their universal negative, that none so qualified might be debarred, is manifestly false. Mr. W. often hath answered; that he excepts against the case. I no where finde him saying that in such a case this person should not be debarred; but he saith, p. 83. Our exception lyes a­gainst that very supposition, and you do but repeat your own case, against which we except. And often elswhere, he saith this same thing. But not any where can I see him offering any Reason of that his exception? I shall now offer my reason against it.

If it be a valid exception against an argument which makes supposition of the present case supposed, to say that case ought not to be supposed; It is either because the case supposeth whats impossible, or what never was, is, nor shall be existent; or for some of these, or some other Reason. But as I know no other Reason to be pretended, (when I do, it may be conside­red) so these here enumerated, are either not applicable to our present case, or are not valid against it.

The first is not applicable to it. Its not impossible that a man who tenders himselfe to be admitted to the communion, should professedly in words renounce Christianity, or (which is tan­tamount here) an essential part of Christianity. Its neither im­possible, impossibilitate absolutâ & ex parte rci, quae sita est in implicatione terminorum, qui se mutuò evertunt; ne (que) impossibili­tate relativâ & ex parte at (que) respectu alicujus potentiae. Its not so impossible as it is for God to deny himselfe, or for yesterday to be to day; nor as it may be impossible for some one who is blind to see, (I meane in sensu diviso, for in sensu composito, this is impossible with the absolute impossibility before men­tioned). This therefore is not applicable to our present case supposed. And yet if the latter kinde of impossibility were, it [Page 138]were no valid reason against our argument. For we finde in Scripture arguings upon such things or cases supposed. Its a ra­tional observation which the learned Amyraldus hath, Specim. ‘Animadvers: special: par. 3. erot. 5. Licet (saith he) suppo­nere eum esse fidelem (I may say also infidelem, in the sense op­posite to that wherein he there takes fidelis) qui actu non est talis, ne (que) verô esse potest: nam & Paulus supponit justitiam esse per legem, quod falsum est, & ex eâ suppositione deduxit Christum esse mortuum [...], quod est adhuc falsius; ut o­stenderet, quod est longe verissimum, justificationem non ex le­ge, sed ex evangelio constare: sic Christus dicit, si dixerim me non nosse patrem, mendaxero, &c.’

§. 2.

As for the other Reasons pretended against the validity of my arguing upon the supposition aforesaid, viz because the case supposed, neither hath been, is, nor shall be existent; or because at least some of these may be said of it; I should re­turne as followes. If the non-present existence of the case, were valid against the arguing on it, then we could never prove by argument the Rule in general that any notorious Adulter­er were to be censured, in any particular Church, where there is not such a notorious Adulterer existent among them. And if the non-former existence were valid as aforesaid, then no new kinde of crime could be new censured. The consequence of both these, is manifestly sound and rational. But the conse­quents in both are plainly false, therefore the Antecedents are not true. And the futurition of such crimes cannot certainly be foreknown by natural meanes; therefore if the non futurition were a bar to the supposing such cases, there could be no sup­position of any crime not present or past; which is also most false. For all penal Lawes suppose an offence to be committed, upon which the execution of them takes effect.

§. 3.

2. Againe; If that might not be supposed, which, neither is, was, nor shall be existent, then the holy Scriptures make not right suppositions. For such are frequent there, Gal. 1.8, 9. If we or an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel, let him be accursed. We may make supposition of an Angel from heaven (since the fall of man) preaching a false doctrine, and that he should be accursed; neither of which happen; yet we may argue, if he do so, he is accursed: even as I supposed a bapti­zed person, &c. his word-renouncing of Christianity, and his [Page 139]being suspended: whether either of these happen or no? I might argue, that, if he do so, he is so to be dealt with. Mul­titudes of other such suppositions, of things which never were, nor are, nor shall be, we finde in Scripture, and arguings thereupon; see many together, 1 Cor. 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. so elswhere, Math. 6.15. John 8.39. & 16.7. & 18.23. Gal. 2.21. Ezek. 18.24, 26, &c.

Augustine in his booke de fide et operibus, thus disputeth a­gainst them who would admit notorious unclean persons to Baptisme, Cap. 12. He supposeth to them that an Idolater should come without renouncing his Idolatry, and asks them whether they would admit him to Baptisme, (though perhaps this case never occurred) and thence he argues against their admitting of notorious fornicators, without renouncing that their wickednesse before. ‘Profectò (saith he) dicturi sunt homini, Templum Dei futurus es, cum baptismum acceperis. Dicit autem Apostolus Quae compositio Templi Dei cum Idolis? Quare ergo non vident similiter dicendum, membrum Christi futurus es, cum acceperis baptismum non possunt membra Chri­sti esse membra meretricis—Cur ergo ad baptismum Idolis servientes non admittimus, & fornicatores admit tendos puta­mus. Cur & his & caeteris malis dicat, & haec quidem suistis; sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in no­mine Domini Jesu Christi, & in spiritu Dei nostri? Quid igi­tur causae est, ut cum potestas pateat utrum (que) prohibendi, veni­entem ad baptismum permittam fornicarium permanere, & non permittam Idolis servientem: cum & illis & his dici audiam, & haec quidem suistis sed abluti estis.’ (It should seeme by the way, that those words of 1 Cor. 6.11. were spoken to the bap­tized, which manifests they in those times took all the bapti­zed to be savingly justified persons.) Thus we see how from a case which perhaps never occurred, he argued in reference to a case frequent among them: there being the same Reason of both, in the thing wherein he compares them. Would it not have been a sorry and silly Answer for Caecilianus to have re­turned to this Argument of Austines; Why but none not renoun­cing their Idolatry do, or will desire to be baptized, I except against the case supposed? All know that the truth or falshood of an hypotheticall proposition, depends only on the right or wrong connexion of the parts of it, not on the parts themselves whe­ther one or both of them.

§. 4.

3. Besides the case I supposed, was at least possible to oc­curre, yea probable, as hath been before shewed; and there­fore is further removed from the Exception.

§. 1.

ANd now I shall wait on Mr. W. in his animadversions on the 4^th exception I set down against my Argument, and my solution thereof. The exception was (at numb. 37.) That there is no such instance in our times of a word-renouncer of Christianity, when he tenders himselfe to be admitted to the Communion. And therfore we need not perplex our selves, with forecasting what might be done in such an extraordinary case. But the present controversie is concerning such as in word pro­fess to own Christ, when they tender themselves to cōmunicate, although there be visible testimony that their lives are not hi­therto agreeable to their profession. My solution hereof was (at numb. 38, 39. &c) The summe whereof is; Its no need­lesse point of wisdome, to labour to foresee, the necessary ill [Page 141]consequents. which may ensue upon the receiving a principle, although at present there is not opportunity for the existence of them.—And those evince the principle not sound. If suspension then in the case proposed, cannot be denied, then it must not be universally rejected.

Now Mr. W. in his reply hereto; 1. affixeth on mee, as if I owned what was put in the exception, viz. that the case sup­posed was an extraordinary Instance, and that the present controversie is concerning such as in words profess Christiani­ty: and so he thinkes to beat me with my own concessions. Is not this brave disputing, that what I brought in as an ob­jection against my argument, should be taken for my own as­sertion? Yet this he takes for a confutation of me, p. 86, 87. and doth so far presume on the silliness of his Readers, as to tell them hereupon, that I am in a wood, and know not which way to get out. I came indeed among briars and thornes when I fell into Mr. W. his hands, and I shall hardly get out without receiving some markes of his sharpnesse. But that may seeme to some (especially mine Antagonist) an extraordina­ry Instance, which is not so.

Againe; I would distinguish, a case may be said to be ex­traordinary in a twofold respect; 1. in respect of the rare and seldome occurring of it; so of incest or parricide, the Instances may be extraordinary. Or 2. in respect of the Rule whereby a case is to be discerned and judged of, which may differ from the ordinary Rule. As the ordinary Rule determines incest unlawfull, but an extraordinary temporary Rule made it law­full for Adams immediate children to marry together. And now whereas Mr. W. saith, Extraordinary Instances happening in the course of Gods extraordinary providence, cannot infringe the truth of a general Rule, true in the course of Gods ordinary providence. And addes; This is a Rule that best Divines walk by, notwithstanding your pretended skill in Logick.

What pretended skill in Logick did I ever boast of? What an impotent scoffe is this? how iucoherently and abruptly brought in? If I might answer Mr. W. in his own way I should say, perhaps he may presume of his artificial Logick, especially in the first part, both of the peripatetick, for he is good at such simple termes, as mormo, mormonize, and the like, and the Ra­mistical; one would be apt to thinke his Invention is too great, by the figments he hath published concerning mee. But a lit­tle more natural Logick, its humbly conceived, would not [Page 142]make him (no more then me) an overplus. For I thinke the Preface he printed before his first Errata Table to this booke, argues no overflowing of his discretion; the Preface was this; Christian Reader, my remoteness from London, and the miscarri­age of my Letters by the Post, have caused many oversights to pass (in this impression) without timely correction. And that now I may not be disappointed, I have committed my business to honest Randal Foster, Carrier of Leek, who is sure and trusty, though but slow in his motion. But to the thing I answer, by applying the former distinction, and say the Rule mentioned is true be­ing understood in the latter sense not in the former. Now our case if it may be called extraordinary, its so only in respect of the seldome occurring of it, not in respect of any extraordinary Rule appointed for the judging of it, differing from the ordi­nary Rule, which determines that unbeleevers in the sense a­bove explained, are not to be admitted to the Sacraments.

§. 2.

2. He saith, p. 89, 90 Why must wise men be of such a long proviso, to provide so long before-hand, against supposed evils of future contingency, which haply may never fall out? or if they come to pass, shall it be imputed to their folly, that they had not provided themselves with remedies against unknown evils, which possibly may come to pass? What fools then were the primitive Fa­thers of the Church, that they could not foresee the evil of heresies; but must assemble in Councils after they arose, and had no instan­taneous remedy to put a sudden check thereunto. Nay, what fooles were the very Apostles, that they did not foresee the evill of Ju­daizing, that they must goe up to Jerusalem to consult about a Remedy after the evill arose? Doubtless, all these wanted some of your suspension wisdome. Those old times did not afford men of such a prudential forecast, as the present age doth.—

1. The Ranting Language I'le skip over, as a dirty puddle in my way. 2. The contingency of the offences happening, doth not make that a Rule should not be necessary for the ordering of them. For there is a contingency in the hapning of adultery, drunkenness, or any such offence, for which Ex­communication is to be inflicted on an offender, according to 1 Cor. 5. And these in the nature of the things themselves, are as much contingent and casuall events, as that our present case supposed of a word-renouncing of Christianity. And the Rule for exclusion reacheth this as well as those. 3. Hence it fol­lows, we are to admit no principle contrary to this Rule, in [Page 143]this no more than those. If I hold such a Principle as doth ne­cessarily inferre, That no incestuous person may be debarred, the not occurring of such an offence doth not make the prin­ciple to be true. And therefore I am to renounce that prin­ciple, whether incest be ever committed or no.

4. The examples Mr W. pretends to the contrary, are whol­ly impertinent. They concern either first, the foreseeing of offences which after did occurr, whereas the point we are upon, is the foreseeing an irregularity which would follow upon a principle in case such offences do occurre: the former we are not bound to foresee, the later we are. Or secondly, they con­cern the execution of a Rule before known, in such manner as may be most for the edification of the Church; in reference to which there will be continuall need of new consultations as long as the world stands; because of the varying circum­stances of places, times and persons, and the exigencies there­of. Councils now do not make new principles, when a new case occurres, but consult for the better improvement and ap­plication of principles already received, in reference there­to. The very edge therefore of Mr. W. his Similies turnes, and so will not at all touch the nerves of this my first Solution, given by me to the fourth exception pro­pounded.

§. 3.

My second answer to the exception of the extraordinariness of this case I had supposed (at numb. 39.) was, That though this case seem so rare and extraordinary (which explication of rare by extraordinary, shewed, I meant thereby rarely or seldome occurring as before) yet by necessary consequence it concludes (not includes as Mr. W. prints me) other instances of daily and ordinary incursion. For if he who in words rejects Christ, may be debarred, then he who by some notorious deeds rejects Christ (though not in words) may be debarred, though he be a person baptized, adult, and not fully excommunicate. The further Mr W. goes on, the more doth he go out, and extra­vagate: and where he hath (as appears to me) least colour of argumentation, and least pincheth my papers, there is he most confident and censorious. I shall meddle as little with such stuff as I can, but some is so interwoven with what seems more materiall, that it wil not be sundred. But to the matter I would design my Reply. And

1. He saith, p. 94. Few would have imagined how rare and [Page 144]extraordinary should by necessary consequence have concluded daily and ordinary. This cavill is answered in the last chap­fer, by distinguishing of the word ordinary. From the Rule of some things which seldome occurre, conclusions may be drawn in reference to things which frequently occurre. From Abra­hams being justified in believing that singular promise, that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed, is conclu­ded justification by faith in generall of all them who are ju­stified, Rom. 4. From the promise made to Joshua, to be with him (especially in conquering Canaan, which was an extraor­dinary and rare case, is concluded, that God will be with his people in ordinary cases of daily incursion. Heb. 13.5. compa­red with Josh. 1.5. Divers such examples there are in Scripture. Our Protestant Divines disputing against justification by works in the Popish sense, & their doctrine of Purgatory from the sin­gular instance of the Thief on the Cross, who went immediatly to heaven, Gerrard observes, Harm. Evang. de passione, cap. 15. p. 183. that the Papists would seek such an evasion as Mr W. here doth. ‘Tandem igitur (saith he) eo abeunt, quod privi­legia paucorum non constituunt nec evertunt Regulam. To which he answers, Atqui cum est omnium piorum coram Deo justificatio gratuita, scilicet ex fide in Christum Medin­torem, id quod Apostolus clare ostendit, quando Rom. 4. v. 1. &c. Ex particulari Abrahae justificati exemplo, generalem justificationis formam ac modum probat. Quod ergo anima conversi Latronis sine Purgatorii ignis interventu, rectâ in Pa­radisum est sublata, id non est personale privilegium, sed gene­rale exemplum, &c.’

Yea, let me add further, that it's usuall in Scripture to sup­pose Cases, which (for ought we know) never were nor shall be existent, and from thence to conclude matters of ordi­nary and frequent incursion. Nathan the Prophet, 2 Sam. 12. supposeth the case of a rich man taking the poor mans Ewe for his guest, and the grievousness of that offence so supposed, being granted, he thence concludes the hainousness of Davids wickedness committed by him in the point of Uriah. This was an usuall way of arguing with Christ Jesus, for the conviction of the Jewes: there are many instances thereof in the Gospels: there are two of this nature, Matth. 21. He there supposeth a man who had two sons, and he commanding them to go and work in his vineyard, the one said, I go Sir, and went not; the other said he will not go, and yet went. [Page 145]And thence concludes, that the Publicans and Harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven before many of the Jewes. So likewise he supposeth an Housholder planting a Vineyard, and letting it out to Husbandmen, and how injuriously and trea­cherously they dealt with his servants and son, and how severely they were punished; and thence concludes against the Jewes for their abusing the Prophets, and rejecting Christ himself; as they themselves perceived, verse 45. The force of such arguments lies not in the existence of the case supposed, but in the merits of the cause supposed, and in the parallel and likeness betwixt the case supposed, and their cases whom he deals with. Comparata etiam ficta arguunt fidemque faciunt. as P. Ramus rightly observes, and gives many examples there­of, Dialect. l. 1. c. 18. So here, whether word-renouncer of Christianity be existent or no, if he be to be debarred the Sacrament, and the case of one who in deeds rejects Christ, be parallel to that, as to a visible renouncing of Christ, the Argument is valid from the former to the debarring of the later.

§. 4.

2. Another exception Mr. W. makes against the expression (he saith is mine) of quotidian and ordinary rejectings of Christ. This expression (saith he) is somwhat harsh and rigorous, p. 96. & the like he hath, p. 103. But expressions warranted by Scrip­ture, are not too harsh nor rigorous; but such is this: For the Scripture frequently puts this language on the notorious acts of disobedience, even amongst Gods people by dedication and verball profession, 1 Sam. 8.7. & 10.19. & 15.23, 26. 2 King. 17.15. Jerem. 16.19. & 8.9. Hosea 4.6. And Christ Jesus makes these two phrases of rejecting him, and not receiving his word, of equall importance, John 12.48. And would to God this were not too ordinary and frequent!

3. Mr. W. adds, p. 96, 97. Perhaps some of your reverend Pastors & grave Elders, may possibly be involved in the crime. It is sup­poseable, nay possible (to use your own weapon) that such may be word- or deed-rejecters of Christ in your sense. If such an ex­traordinary emergent as this appears, who then shall suspend the Parish Pope, or his Vestry Cardinals? They will haply have a privat Mass, though none of the Congregation wil joyn with them. In this supposable case which possibly may occur, though it doth never actually occur, what instantaneous Remedy have you? Me­thinks such wise men as you should foresee the evill, and be fur­nished [Page 146]with an instantaneous Remedy against it, when such a case shall occur, though it never actually doth occur. Shall I retort upon you this Counter-buff, viz. That God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church for the instantaneous checking of this supposable evil? or else must you renounce your principle, which upon a close pursuit will cast you on this rock? We onely here improve your Argument to such further usefulnesse as you never expected; and the improvement is rather good against you than against us, because it is your own argument.

Despising his scornfull language, I answer. 1. Mr W. doth here manifestly abuse me. For in his Counter-buffe (as he calls it) he puts this Pofition down in a different Character, as if it had been mine assertion and words, viz. That God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church, for the instanta­neous checking of this supposable evill. The passage of mine he alludes to, was in the beginning of the Argument, where one proposition in my Syllogisme was, Those who are visibly such as the Lord hath in his word, declared to be persons, to whom he would not have the Lords Supper administred, may be suspended from the Lords Supper. And this I said, is clear; because God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church for the managing his Ordinances so, as they may not be dispensed to such as he hath declared in his word, he would not have them administred unto. And I had before limited the Question thus, That we are not now enquiring by what power any may be suspended, but only concerning the lawfulness of the act of sus­pending the persons mentioned in the question, by any per­son or persons whatsoever, in whatsoever capacity they are, or by whatsoever kind of power it may be exerted by them, or any of them. So that if it were lawfull for a Generall Council to suspend, it proved the assertion sufficiently which I undertook. You see then, 1. that the expression of an In­stantaneous remedy he talkes on, was not mine, but his own. 2. Besides, we may distinguish of debarring, 1. by a Rule for debarring: and 2. by the execution of that debarring the Rule appoints. In the former sense, there's an Instantaneous remedy (as he speakes) in the case propounded by him; to keep the ordinances from being dispensed to such as have no actuall right thereunto: For the word of God so debarres them, that they ought not to approach to the seal of the Covenant, without their reall and present accepting of the Covenant-terms, which they cannot do, whiles they lye under notori­ous [Page 147]wickedness unrepented of. In the later sense there may not be ever an instantaneous remedy to execute the Rule effe­ctually. But we are not disputing what men do, but what they ought to do according to Scripture-Rule. He might in the same manner trifle about suspending the unclean from the Passcover, and say, But what if the Priests and Governours were to keep back the Legally unclean, were so unclean them­selves, who must suspend them? and hence argue, that they might not debarre others, because there was none to debarre them, or not instantly; when as yet the Rule debarred them as well as others; and they sinned in not complying with it themselves, as well as in not executing the same for the de­barring of others.

And thus the Reader may perceive our Gentlemans Coun­ter-buffe, is but the blind-mans-buff, and fitter for an hood­winkt boy than a learned censurer of others Logick. But, O my soul, stop here; restrain, yea, extinguish the rise of a see­ming just indignation by attending wholly to the divine and calming meditation of,

§. 1.

THe consequence in my argumentation (at numb. 41.) If word rejecters of Christianity, though baptized, adult, and not fully excommunicate, may be debarred the Sacrament, then also some such deed-rejecters of Christianity may be de­barred, my paper proved (at numb. 42.) as is related by Mr. W. p. 98, 99. Which we shall have occasion anon to repeat.

I shall now gather up the summe of what Mr. W. answers for the enervating thereof, and then having compared my argu­mentations with the pretended solutions he returnes thereun­to, I shall make my Reply to them severally, and then adde more proofe for the confirmation of my Consequence afore­said.

1. Mr. W. saith, p. 99. We begin now to feare the feverity of your Church Officers: But our comfort is, that neither Titus 1.16. nor 1 Cor. 5. nor Math. 18.15, 16. nor Rev. 2.2. doe e­stablish your suspension, nor command us to submit to your Church Officers.

2. That Timson calls them intruded Elders, p. 99, 100.

3. The Question now in agitation with us is, Whether open scandalous and presumptuous offenders in the Church, are to be punished by the discipline of the Church? We affirme positively that they are—such offenders in words or deeds.—The cor­rection of these do fall properly under Ecclesiastical discipline; yet not so as the Christian Magistrate is to be excluded—And yet all this doth not inferre the necessity of your suspension, as a cen­sure distnct from excommunication; viz. that every Parish Priest with his Elders (after his own humour) should be Judge in his own cause, use partiality, exclude men from the Lords ser­vice, meerely at his pleasure, for not submitting to his Examinati­on, though otherwise judicious and of good example, albeit the cry be against men ignorant, and of gross behaviour! — And then tells us, Its fit the correcting discipline should lye in indifferent and impartial hands, more publique then the Parish Priest and his Elders.—And oft-times it will fall out, that a Pastour and his Elders will be Judges in their own cause, and then suspension was become private revenge, and parties will be­come Judges; All this, p. 101, 102.

4. He askes; Is your Parochial suspension with your Classical power in being (by toleration civil) an universal Remedy against all the Errours that belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance? As yet you have no place for publique Judicature allowed by the State, no Power to issue out Warrants for the legall summoning in of offenders. And therefore your proceedings in suspension are with­out all form of Law, p. 103.

5. I see that (ipso facto) men must be suspended (by you) for their former miscarriages, and present words of sorrow, and of promising obedience for the future, must not serve the turne. This he insists on in many words, p. 103, 104, 105, 106, 107. and labours to confute mee by Luk. 17.4. and askes, Whether the Church, (which is coetus misericors, and deales not against men in rigour of Justice, but with bowels of mercy) may not take mens present words of repentance for a reall dissenting from their former evill deeds, and beleeve in charity, that their word-Testi­monies of Repentance are serious Retractations of their former evil deeds?

And now I desire the Reader to do himselfe, Mr. W, and me that right, as to compare these five answers severally and joynt­ly with my argumentation, which should be confuted by them; and let him try his best skill to fit them thereunto. My reason­ing for the confirmation of my Consequence, recited in the be­ginning of this Chapter, (which Mr. W. here assaults) thus proceeded; If the above mentioned Consequence (from the suspension of word-Rejecters of Christ, to the suspension of some deed-Rejecters of Christ) do not hold, it is either because no deed-rejection of Christ is so manifest, visible and hainous a rejection of Christ, as word-rejecting of Christ is; or els be­cause the Officers in the Church, have some good Rule accor­ding to which they may dispense with, or not deny the Sacra­ment for deed-rejecting of Christ, rather then word rejecting of Christ, or for some other Reason. But neither of these do enervate the Consequence, nor any other Reason, therefore its good and valid: not the latter, because no such Rule can be produced, but rather the contrary, Titus 1.16. 1 Cor. 5. Math. 18.15, 16, 17, Rev. 2.2. Not the former, because, &c.— which may be perused (at numb. 44, 45.)

§ 2.

Mr. W. in answering hereof, doth neither assert, that either of the Reasons mentioned, doth enervate my Consequence, nor fault the enumeration of obstructive Reasons which might [Page 150]enervate it, nor assigne any other. And yet his foresaid re­turnes must serve for solutions, and he in the strength of them thus flourisheth it out, and shews his mettle, p. 108. The proofe of your Consequence we have examined at large, we have shewed Causes, why we cannot approve of it; You may take time to con­sider, and reply if you have any stomack to the undertaking. But (I feare me) you will consider of it ten times, before you will un­dertake it once.

Truly I may consider it twenty times, before I can finde any thing herein pertinent, for me to reply unto: such an adver­sary may safely challenge and provoke to Disputation. Did e­ver any Quaker returne a more impertinent pretended solu­tion to an Argument? And yet they will be as bold as Mr. W. himselfe hath attained to be, and tell you, no body dare or can answer them. And under the shelter of that their irrational impudence, they often escape Replyes to them. And so might Mr. W. for mee, if others Judgement had not prevail'd against my owne for this once; hereafter I hope my Friends will not urge me in this kinde any more.

But though these his five Reasons against my Consequence, (so you see he calls them, else I had wanted a name for them; as the Painter that wrote [This is a Lyon] over the picture he had drawne, that no body should take it for a Bull) though I say these his answers are manifestly nihil ad Rhombum, yet be­cause it may be thought, he may, like a squinting Fencer, wound me some where els by them, though he touch not the place he makes a shew to aime at; I shall therefore satisfie his importunity this once, as I have sometimes gratified the Qua­kers, to make some reply to them severally; and then I shall (as I promised) confirme my own argumentation.

§. 3.

To his first; Its plaine I cited not those texts to prove sus­pension immediately; I brought them to prove that Church Officers have no good Rule according to which they may dis­pense with deed rejecting of Christ, any more then with word-rejecting of Christ, in point of sacramental administrations, thus; If there be a deed rejecting of Christ, for which Eccle­siastical Censure is to be inflicted, as wel as for a word reject­ing of Christ; then the Church Officers have no Rule to dis­pense with or not deny the Sacrament for the former rather than the latter. The Antecedent is proved by the texts quo­ted; Titus 1.16. In words they profess Christ, in deeds they [Page 151]deny him: And the other texts proved a deed-rejecting of Christ, (yea when in words Christ is owned) to be causes of Ecclesiastical Censure, and therefore as truly as word rejecting of Christ is.

To his second, I say, Mr. W. it seemes hath found one man, as bold as himselfe, to reproach Elders without offering any Argument against them, or invalidating those produced for them. A confident man as I have lightly met with, who though then a private Christian, as he stiles himselfe, without blushing, tells us in his Epistle to the Reader before his Bar removed; I looke to be censured for this my presumption, in dissenting from the common interpretation of several Scriptures, and asserting some things against the judgement of many, or most Divines and godly Christians, &c.

Assault Humphreys and Timson, crys Mr. W. p. 48. The men like Ingenuous Worthyes appeare in print, &c. Its pitty that such a learned and ingenuous Divine as Mr. Humphreys appeares to be, should be yoakt so unsutably with Mr. Timson. Mr. Hum­phreys wants not assaulting, Mr. Timson (as to our controversie) will not I thinke deserve an assault; untill now (in his pub­lique capacity Mr. W. intimates) he gaine the repute of lesse arrogance and more learning than his former writings (so far as they reach our case) have discovered. If such a man as M^r Humphreys, will pick out that which lookes as considerable in this controversie in Timson, it would sooner be answered. But I wonder not Mr. W. and Timson so well agree; For they are both good at provoking words; and its a jolly Champion whose name Mr. W. hath mentioned 26 times (I take it), in his booke. When I have little els to doe I may perhaps answer him as Mr. W. challengeth mee. But I hope to be better im­ployed. And the truth is, I agree with him and Mr. Humphreys in so many things (they treat of) for substance, that the ser­vice of answering them is not so proper for me as their pecu­liar Antagonists. But see what an answer this is: Timson is against Elders, Ergo theres no consequence from the suspension of word rejecters of Christ, to the suspension of deed-rejecters of Christ. Sampsons new withes will not tye these together. This is to dispute at a low rate indeed.

§. 4.

3. To his third, I say, 1. Our question was not whether open scandalous and presumptuous offenders in the Church are to be punished by the discipline of the Church? I wonder he hath [Page 152]the face to say it was, and tell the Reader so, who hath the Question stated before him otherwise. But whether any of these might be debarred the Sacrament, though not fully ex­communicated. Therefore Mr. W. his debate here is not only impertinent to the present argumentation he pretends to an­swer to, but also to the whole controversie in hand. 2. His o­dious Insinuations of every Parish Priest, after his own hu­mour, using partiality with the rest of that riff raff; have been answered before. 3. But that which ad ravim us (que) he talkes on, is suspending for non-submission to Examination, and that of persons otherwise judicious and of good example. Our Que­stion was, whether for any cause any might be suspended, not for what causes? Yet this Digression I intend to say somewhat to, when it comes among the Digressions at the latter end; to which I refer it. 4. If it were not fit the correcting discipline should lye in the hands he excepts against, because of their co­habitation with them who should be corrected, which may cause partiality; then the Corinthian Officers should not have had in their hands the correcting discipline wherewith to cen­sure the Incestuous person, because (forsooth) he was among them; and they might (if Mr. W. had been their prompter) have evaded the Apostles objurgation for neglect of disciplin­ing him, and have said, It was not fit for us, who live with him, to censure him; some body els more remote, (who might be presumed more impartial) should have taken him in hand. And belike the same Reason would as well perswade Justices of peace, that its not fit for them to take cognizance of offen­ces among their neighbours; they are fit to minister Justice to those who are remote from them, not to them who cohabite with them, in the same Hundred or Parish. And yet though Mr. W. talkes thus consideratly, (as he saith himselfe, p. 103.) yet a while agoe he seemed to have a better mind to exercise discipline among his neighbours, if the State would enough as­sist him therein. For, said he, p. 90. we have ordinary cases e­nough in being for the full exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline, had we power from the Christian Magistrate to convent offenders before us authoritatively, and to inflict punishments upon them (after their legal conviction) according to the quality of their crimes; and should not rather be a ludibrium to bold offenders, then any way reform them.

To the former part whereof I answer; Did he never see the Ordinance of Lords and Commons of March 29, 1648. en­tituled, [Page 153] The Form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland, agreed upon by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, after advice had with the As­sembly of Divines? Is that but a toleration? or was it ever re­pealed? But some Ministers and others pretend ignorance of such an Ordinance, and wonder when its shewed them; and well they may, that they should no more regard the affaires of the Church. Others have pretended, It was but an Ordinance, and therefore not valid after the dissolution of the Parliament who made it, and yet in the meane time, have sued for their tithes upon an Ordinance built upon the same Authority.

To the latter part I returne Cyprians answer, Epist. 55. ad Cornelium; Quod si ita res est, frater charissime, ut nequissimo­rum timeatur audacia; & quod mali jure at (que) aequitate non pos­sunt, temeritate ac desperatione perficiant, actum est de Episcopa­tus vigore, & de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac divinâ potestate; nec Christiani ultrâ aut durare, aut esse jam possumus, si ad hoc ventum est, ut perditorum minas at (que) infidias pertimescamus.— And after, Non id circo frater charissime, relinquenda est ecclesi­astica disciplina, aut sacerdotalis solvenda censura, quoniam con­vitijs infestamu [...], aut terroribus quatimur, &c.

§. 5.

To his fourth, I answer; Its most of it answered in what was lately mentioned, whereby it appeares, if Ministers were not the greatest hinderers of Church Order, they might see that presbyterated Churches have power from the State, authoritative­ly, to send for offenders, yea to give Oath if need require. But as long as the Magistrate doth not compel them to do their duty herein, (by depriving them of their maintenance for neglect hereof, as well as for total neglect of preaching) they cannot see sufficient authority for their acting herein. That Question Mr. W. here propounds, whether Parochial suspension with Classical power in being (by toleration civil) be an univer­sal remedy against all the evils that belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance? Lanswer negatively; Who said it was? But doth Mr. W. thence evince the consequence of my fore-recited argu­ment to be invalid? Good Reader, Respice titulum; Look to what M^r W. is answering to all along, and then judge whether it was handsome, he (of many) should have told the world, how he feares my braines are almost marred, as he doth, p. 89. I am beholding to him for his care of me; But I cannot de­sire he should be fo sollicitous about mine, as so pittifully in the interim to neglect his owne?

§. 6.

His fifth Answer or Reason against my foresaid consequence, is a meere fiction, the product (I thinke) of an extravagant phansie, and too fruitfull an invention, ratified and excited by a passionate heat. I never said that former acts of wickednesse, though amounting to a rejecting of an essential of Christiani­ty, nor yet word-rejecting of Christ, when retracted by a visi­ble repentance, should debar any from the Sacrament. They are then cancelld and blotted out, when repented of, and are no more to be mentioned against the offender. As Cyprian saith, Epist. 55. Cornelio fratri. ‘Primus foelicitatis gradus est non delinquere, secundus delicta cognoscere. Illic currit in­nocentia integra & illibata quae servet, hic succedit medela quae sanet.’ But as in the beginning of the argument I spake all along of a word-rejecting Christ, which a person is found in, when he tenders himselfe to communicate; so here the deed rejecting of Christ was such as he was then visibly still guilty of; which he is not, when he hath seriously retracted it by repen­tance and promise of Reformation. And yet where this Gen­tleman is most amisse, he is usually most confident, and (if I may use Cheshire language) threapes me down thus, p. 104. You cannot say I misconceive your meaning; no, by no meanes. If he say white is black, he must not be contradicted, no not when he pretends to know my thoughts, so infallible is he; the seven Hills aspire not to this Elevation I trow. Marsilius Ficinus, who interprets Plato, saith, Platonis quidam familiaris vir doctus, edidit librum cujus inscriptio fuit Contradicendum non esse, eidem de eo Platonem consulenti, respondit Plato, Cur me consulis, si tibi prohibes contradici. I shall leave him in his confidence, and returne to the Ark of my trust.

§. 1.

ANd now having answered Mr. W. his Reasons (as he cal'd them) The Reader may discerne how my argumentati­on concerning deed-rejecters of Christ their suspension, re­maines untouched by him, much more unwounded and safe. But because the point is of great influence into the present con­troversie, I shall adde somewhat more hereunto, to prove that notorious gross wickednesse (continued in, without visible re­pentance of it) is and ought to be taken (in the judgement of the governing Church, or where there is no governing Church in the judgement of the Minister officiating) as equivalent to word-Rejecting of Christ; and therefore equally renders a person uncapable of having the Lords Supper administred unto him.

The argument I before propounded (at numb. 44, 45) was to this purpose; If words are no otherwise testimonies, then as they signifie the mind of the speaker; then words of profession for owning Christianity, are not significative of the mind in that profession, when there are some such deeds at present owned which do more probably signifie the mind to the con­trary. This consequence is cleere, because the use of words is to be signes of things; when they manifestly are not so, they cease to have the use of signifying the mind in the thing spo­ken of. Verba quid audio facta cum videam? Cyprian de uni­tate ecclesiae catholicae, saith Credere se in Christum quomodo dicit, qui non facit quod Christus sacere praecipit.

The Antecedent also is manifest. For,

§. 2.

1. In other matters some deeds practiced and continued in, render words to the contrary incredible; and there is the same reason of them and this case, as to the thing wherein I now [Page 156]compare them. The command is to Give to him that needeth; but every one who saith he needeth, is not to be taken for a needy person, when as the contrary other wise appeares to us, by his abundance visibly under his hand, and his large and un­necessary expences. So he that repents is to be forgiven, but he that says he repents is not to be beleeved, when actually and vi­sibly he continues in the wickednesse he saith he repents of: Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum, and that before God or men. If a theefe rob me of my purse, and then say he is sorry for my loss, and that he hath so injur'd me, yet will not restore my purse to mee; Is his saying I repent, a probable in­dication of his mind? Is that a credible profession? St John shewes, 1 John 3.17. compared with Chap. 4.20. If a man say he love God, or his neighbour, and yet so manifest his ha­tred, that he will not relieve his brother in distresse, he is a ly­ar; and therefore so must be judged of, by that manifestati­on of his deeds contrary to his words. Was not the enmity of the Jewes Adversaries as to building the Temple, signified by their practising against the same, more then their friendship was by their good words, Ezra 4.2. Let us build with you, for we seeke your God as ye doe, &c. So Jer. 8.8, 9. How do ye say ye are wise — they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdome is in them. 1 John 2.4. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a lyar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 1.6. If we say we have fellowship with him, and walke in darknesse, we lye and doe not the truth. Now sure a lye manifested to be so, is not credible, nor a significative te­stimony of what in words is asserted. When the Pythonisse maide, Act. 16.16, 17, 18. gave testimony to Paul and Sylas verbally, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation: Was that a credible profession or testimony? Augustine libro de Mendacio ad Con­sentium, saith, Ille mentitur, qui aliud habet in animo, & aliud verbis, vel quibuslibet significationibus ennnciat.

§. 3.

2. Words are more apt to be counterfeit then some deeds, therefore some deeds may be more credible testimonies of the mind, then words contrary thereunto. When Saul said to Sa­muel, 1 Samuel 15.13, 14. Blessed be thou of the Lord, I have performed the Commandment of the Lord. Samuel said; But what meaneth this bleating of the sheep in my cares, and the lowing of the oxen which I heare? And Sauls disobedient deeds of spa­ring [Page 157] Agag and the best of the Amalekitish flock, (though pre­tended for sacrifice) was a more credible signe of Sauls diso­bedience, then his word-profession of obedience was to the contrary. Was not Judas his betraying Christ into the hands of the Jewes, a more credible signifier of his treason, then his good words [haile Master] at the same time was of his duti­ful submission? And were it any uncharitablenesse in judging concerning Judas at this time, to take in the cross-witnesse of his deeds, against his words. One would thinke this matter were so plaine, there should be no need of arguments or In­stances to prove it.

3. If some deeds of wickednesse committed after the pro­fession of godliness, do evince that profession to have been false, and so now not credible: then some deeds of wicked­ness committed and visibly continued in at the time of the said profession, do much more invalidate it, and render it non-cre­dibly significative of the mind of the speaker. But the former is true. The Prophet thus convinceth the Jewes of their fals­hood and dissimulation; Jerem. 42.20, 21. Ye have dissem­bled in your hearts, when ye sent mee unto the Lord your God, saying, Pray for us, and according to all the Lord shall say, we will doe. And now I have declared it unto you, but ye have not obeyed, &c.

§. 4.

4. Our Saviour shews the mans unwillingnesse to goe and work in the Vineyard, though he said readily, I go sir, in that he went not, Math. 21. therefore his not going was a more cer­taine signification of his unwillingness to goe, then his verbal profession that he would go, was of willingness to goe. So the Psalmist from the transgression of the wicked (what ever they may professe to the contrary, concludes the feare of God is not before them, Psal. 36.1. Therefore its evident what the lear­ned Mr. Baxter hath 3. disput. about right to the Sacraments, p. 277. viz. That verbal profession, if it be not a probable signe of the thing professed, its not to be taken for a valid profession. But words contradicted by the notorious tenour of the life, are no pro­bable signes, but these workes are a more certaine signe of the con­trary. —If an affirmation presently contradicted by words as express and certaine, be not to be taken for a valid profession, then much lesse is an affirmation more certainly contradicted by the te­nour of the life, yea and too oft by professed impenitency, so he. If Mr. W. be entertained to officiate to a people upon their pro­mising [Page 158]him an honourable maintenance, I would willingly know, whether he will continue his pains among them, upon condition of their promising him his salary, though they do not pay it, or upon the condition of their performing what they promised. If their deed non-payment be not to prevail against their word-paiment, or verball promise of payment, an easie thing will content him.

But I am of opinion, if they should so abuse him, he would tell them (as well he might) that their word-payment stands for nothing, when contradicted by their non-payment in deed; he would not take their being positively his pay-masters suffi­cient to engage him, whiles they are negatively no pay-masters to him; if I may so use the distinction he layes so much weight upon, in this Controversie of positively believers, which should enright them to the Sacraments, though they are nega­tively unbelievers, that is, engaged to believe, though they do not.

I will conclude this with a passage of Salvian. de gubern. Dei l. 4. (p. mihi, 143.) where speaking how Pagans are scan­dalized by the wicked lives of such as professe themselves Chri­stians, he adds, Et cur hoc ita? Cur utique nisi ob eos qui Christiani esse dicuntur, & non sunt, qui per flagitia as turpi­tudines suas, nomen religionis infamant; qui ut scriptum est, Ore fatentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant, cum sint abomina­biles & increduli, ad omne autem opus bonum reprobi, per quos ut legimus via veritatis blasphematur, &c.

§. 1.

ANother Reason my paper added at numb. 46. which Mr. W. sets down, p. 108. and it was thus: Further­more, if the deed-rejecting of Christ were not of as certain credible signification concerning a persons unbelief, as the word-rejecting is; then no person who denies not Christ in words, may be fully excommunicated; especially if he desire to communicate, and that earnestly: which these men say is a testimony of his seriousness, which we may not refuse in his profession to believe. And doubtless, &c.— the rest see at numb. 47, 48. This Mr W. designes to answer and confute, p. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116. In all which, if neither vain confidence (his primum, secundum and ter­tium,) nor calumniating falshoods, nor impertinent digressi­ons may serve for reasons against me, I doubt not my pre­sent argumentation will remain safe enough for ought Mr. W. hath to produce against it. Indeed if a Disputation were to be managed in the passionate mood, and the Crab'd Figure, (such as the Pythagoreans accounted the number 2.) he is hard enough for any man I know, (unlesse the Quakers might go neer to match him.) I must confess I dare not vie scoffs (Iro­ny's I can digest well enough) nor foul language nor falshoods with him. If this be the victory he seeks, he may take it for me. But it may be the Reader who hath not seen his Book, will hardly believe so many pages should be blotted with such stuff; but will expect I should give him a more particular ac­count of them. I am sorry so to spend time, yet if it will not be helpt, I must be content, and he also.

(1. At p. 109. he tells us in 8 or 9 lines, 4 or 5 times over, that his cause is good, and mine bad. In all this (saith he) there's little afforded considerable, that hath not been before an­swered. Here's no convincing new evidence, that any wayes disproves our position. The imbecillity of all your Allegations against us, and the miserable shifts you are put to in colouring ever your own, confirm us the more strongly in what we hold, [Page 160]and against what you pretend to. And the longer you argue, the more apparently do we see your imbecillity, and the goodnesse of our own cause.

Oh expedite and cleaver confutation! But Reader, I am a­fraid he suspects thou wilt scarce believe his tale once told, that he tells it thee so many times over, and that altogether too. But look back and see whether this reason of mine he assaults, was at all mentioned, much lesse answered before in the dis­pute; thy two eyes will give thee better information herein, than his tale twice two times told.

§. 2.

2. In the next place he saith, You know we are not against the excommunicating of scandalous notorious and stubborn delin­quents — but before such excommunication we maintain their externall right unto the Lords Supper, and their right of free accesse thereunto. And a Ministers admission of them is not considerable in the present case. They come not thereunto upon his courtesie (as if he had power to admit or not admit). This is extrinsecal to the matter in hand. But they come upon their own proper and internal right, i. e. their baptismal interest as Chri­stians to perform visible homage to their Lord and Saviour. And he that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances of equal sanctity, is injurious to God and to them also!

1. Reader, suppose all this true, and see whether it wound my Reason he is answering. Will it hence follow, that some deeds of wickedness are not as significative of a persons re­jecting Christ, as words are, (which was the proposition by me to be proved,) or that if this were not so, no man who in words did not renounce Christ, might be fully excommunicated? (which was my Reason to prove the foresaid proposition by.)

20 To the things he mentions, though impertinent to this place, I shall also make some reply. 1. Though mine Antagonists do not simply deny excommunication, yet they (some of them at least) so lay their train, as to deny excommunication among us in England in these times. For they quarrell with any power claiming to manage it. Congre­gational Independent power will not sure be allowed by them; and Classical Presbyterial power is the object of their scorns and contempt. And unless we could have Bishops again, and those assisted by the State, I see not how they would allow of excommunication here in England. In England, I say, [Page 161]For I hope to the reformed Churches beyond Seas they will be more favourable than to deny them the use of Church censures for want of Prelates. But if they are impar­tial, and will take in them too, whose case (to say truth) dif­fers not from ours; then shall excommunication be owned by them in all Europe no where, or onely among the Papists, who still have Prelates. And are not these Gentlemen very libe [...]all now (that they should tell us of it themselves) for granting excommunication on this fashion.

§. 3.

2. I hold also that after a person is regularly admitted to the participation of the Lords Supper (that is after a solemne personall owning of his baptismall engagements) he is not to be debarred the Lords Supper, before he fall under some ex­communication, viz. either jure or facto, less or greater.

3. One while M. W. speaks of their externall right to the Lords Supper, as if he asserted onely their external right. But soon after he saith, They come upon their own proper and inter­nal right, i. e. their baptismall interest, &c. 1. We should here distinguish of, 1. a direct and proper right, they may have by Gods grant to them, to receive the Lords Supper, and the benefits represented therein. 2. an improper right, and colla­teral, by Gods authorizing the Ministers to administer to them, whiles they visibly appear such as have interest in those benefits. Many may have right in the later sense externally, or before the Church (i. e. Ecclesia judice) who have not right in the former sense internally and properly. A man who onely seems to be poor and distressed, may have an external, im­proper collaterall right to my almes before men, as I am bound to relieve him, and sin if I do not, Prov. 3.27. With­hold not good from him to whom it is due, (that is, the Needy, as the LXX. turns it) when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Yet if he do but counterfeit poverty and distress, [...] hath no inward proper right to my almes. These two ther [...] ­fore should not have been confounded and jumbled together, as they are here by our Authour.

4. If such as we have spoken of, have no right to be ad­mitted, and do visibly so appear, I think the Minister is con­cerned in the admission or debarring of them, if he will ap­prove himself a faithfull Steward of the divine Mysteries, & that it lyes wholly in him where there is no governing Church, but [Page 162]where there is, it lies on him joyntly with others instructed by the Church.

As for that passage (often before) of the Ministers courtefie in admission, it hath been once and again repelled as an o­dious and wretched, impertinent and false insinuation: he must admit according to the Rule prescribed him by his master (to whom he must give account) without being swayed awry ei­ther by base fear and passion, or partiall respects. I think Chrysostome was of this mind when in his 60. Homily ad Pop. Antioch. de sumentibus indignè, &c. he saith, Let no cruell un­mercifull man approach, no impure one any way. These things I would have spoken as well to you who communicate, as to you who minister — No small punishment hangs over your head, if ye permit any to partake of this Table whom you know to be held with any wickedness, for his blood shall be required at your hands, &c.

5. Their baptismall engagement to celebrate the Lords Supper, doth not hinder their being justly debarred (in the case under consideration) no more than a Heathen (who hears the Gospel preached to him) his engagement to be bap­tized, doth hinder his being justly debarred baptisme for want of scrious profession of the Christian faith, antecedently ne­cessary to baptisme (as all I think do grant.) Let M^r W. shew the contrary if he can. I say the one is aeque though not aequa­liter engaged as the other; as truly, though not so solemnly, and multifariously. A man is as truly obliged to obey God, who hears his will clearly revealed, as he is who hath by his own profession further positively bound himself to obey.

6. The learned and ingenuous Mr Humphreys (a Gentle­man worthy indeed to be answered) acknowledgeth (as we have seen above) that as an heathen, so an excommunicate may be admitted both to the prayers and hearing of the word prea­ched, in the Church; and the thing is manifest in it selfe, as h [...]th been shewed. And yet saith this our confident Authour, [...]ou hear, He that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances, is injurious to God, and to them also. What he will say he means by visible communion in other ordinances, I know not. But they may be present with them in the Congregation, and that in a con­stant course, and that as doing their dutie there, as well as o­thers; and they may account themselves, and so be lawfully owned by others as Church-members, though suspended or excommunicate.

§. 4.

I know no difficulty here, but that concerning receiving their children to baptism. But that I find not mentioned by Mr W. And if their children should be debarred baptism, that is no argument against debarring them the Lords Supper; Its no good reason that nothing should be done in a business, because all is not done which some think (and suppose rightly) should be done. So far we are satisfied that the parents being so notori­ously wicked as aforesaid, should be debarred the Lords Ta­ble; Whether also their children must be debarred baptism. is another thing to be enquired into. This Controversie is weighty and large, and I shall not presume to designe a just discussion of it here, yet may I not wholly omit it. Concern­ing the baptizing of the children of both parents notori­ously ungodly, and suspended or excommunicate, I would briefly hint these few things.

1. Some solve the difficulty, by saying, We receive their children to baptism on other accounts than on their right from their immediate parents, as Mr Drake answered Mr Hum­phreys on this point.

2. But by the immediate (though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate) parent, I humbly conceive a right is conveighed for the baprism of his infant. (Supposing that the parent desire it; otherwise none can meddle with the dedicating of his Infant, which is parentum juris, at the parents disposal.) For,

§. 5.

1. All Pedobaptists use this Argument, Church-members may be baptized. Some children are Church-members-. Ergo. And doubtless they understand their Major proposition here of Church-members not sinfully debarring themselves. For a son of a believer, who hath not been baptized in infancy, though he be a Church-member, may when he is adult by his scandalous life, hinder himselfe of receiving baprism, as well as one baptized may of the Lords Supper. Now the child of a notoriously ungodly, and suspended or excommunicated pa­rent is a Church-member, and doth not sinfully hinder, or put a bar to his own baptism. That he is a Church-member is proved; If the parent be a Church-member, then so is the infant, (this consequence I think none I have to deal with will deny). But that he is a Church-member still hath been proved above, chap. 3. §. 6.

That this child doth not put a bar to his own baptism, I need not prove. Upon this ground I add,

2. The child is not to be punished for the fathers sin; which yet he were, if he should not be baptized. 1. Admit the pa­rent be visibly a believer when his child is born, or rather when the child is begotten, according to 1 Cor. 7.14. (which is said to describe the childs birth-priviledge, as it is called, though it seems rather to be a generation-priviledge) and that he delay the baptizing his child a month (perhaps longer) and in the mean time he for some notorious wickednesse is suspen­ded or excommunicated. Certainly his infant had a right to baptism (at least coram Ecclesia) and supposing the parent to have true grace (coram Deo too) after it was born, and there­fore it cannot be said, that to deny it baptisme is no punish­ment, as not depriving it of any right it ever had: and there­fore the denying it baptisme now, is to cut it off from what it had, and lost not by its own default.

2. It will not I think be denied, that it is a priviledge and great mercy which the gracious providence of God hath dispo­sed unto this infant, that it hath or had right to baptisme. If it were onely the priviledge of the parent, that he might have his child baptized, it were more imaginable how his child might be debarred upon his forfeiture. But since it is a priviledge to the child, it cannot be debarred, but it must be pu­nished as well as its parent and that for its parents personall miscarriage. He himselfe indeed may keep it from baptisme; but as in that he sins and doth it wrong, so should they who refuse to do their office for the baptizing of it, upon the parents defire.

§. 6.

3. It is not nothing that the Jewish children were to be cir­cumcised the eighth day, although the parents by legall (or moral) uncleanness might be debarred the Passeover, or ex­communicated; which it should seeme would not have been, if the censure upon the parents had reached any further then to the suspension of him from some personal priviledges, where­by he was as an heathen in some respects; and did not extend to make his child as an heathen in any respect; particularly, that it should be debarr'd circumcision as the child of an hea­then should; though the parent were debarr'd the Passcover, and so dealt with in that respect as though he had been an Heathen.

4. He may be admitted to Baptisme who is holy by conse­cration, and being rightly devoted to Christs service, doth no way reject the same. But such is the condition of the child of a notoriously scandalous Christian, yea excommunicated. Ergo, he may be admitted to Baptisme. Of the first there is no que­stion I thinke. The latter proposition is cleere in both its parts. 1. This child is holy by consecration, and being right­ly devoted to God. For when the parent entred, or seemed to enter Covenant with God; as therein God tendered himselfe his God, and the God of his, or his seed; So his restipulation was answerable thereunto. that he and his, his seed should be the Lords people. Whether this parent was sincere in this co­venanting or no; he and his are engaged thereby; and so his seed is a seed holy by consceration, and being rightly devoted to God, and the service of Christ: and as he himselfe is to be ac­counted really justified, or dealt with as such, till he notori­ously contradict his professed engagements to Christs service, (Deut. 26.17.) so also is his seed (which in devoting himselfe he also devoted to God (Deut. 29.11, 12.) to be treated as holy ones, and as justified ones are to be dealt with, till that they by notorious disobedience contradict the engagements which lye on them. And thus the children which some wick­ed Jewes offered to Idols, God claimes as his in a special and peculiar sense, as having been devoted to him, and his service, Ezek. 16.20, 27. & 23.27.

§. 7.

5. Although the learned and worthy Mr. Baxter in his third disputation about Right to the Sacraments; asserts and copi­ously labours to defend that the Infants of notoriously ungodly parents have no right to Baptisme, (In answering of whom, this controversie might have its just disquisition, which it cannot be expected I should undertake) yet in that same disputation, p. 264, 265. he most reasonably asserts; That all God requi­reth in the free universal Covenant of grace, to our participation of his benefits, is our consent. And children do consent by those, whose they are: For they that owe them, or whose they are, have the disposall of them, and so of their wills interpretatively, and may among men make any Covenant for them. which is for their good (at least) and oblige them to a performance of conditions.

Now upon this ground I would propose it to consideration, whether a notoriously ungodly parent, yea excommunicate, (who in words professeth assent to the Christian faith, and [Page 166]knows what the Christian faith is, as to the fundamentalls of it) may not justly and fairly be presumed by the Church and Minister, heartily to consent to dedicate his child to God in Gods way, although he himselfe is so bewitched with and en­slaved to his lusts, that he doth not consent (as it appeares by his contradictory deeds) to give up himselfe to God in his way; For my part I doe verily thinke, many a drunkard would have his child sober and temperate; and many a wanton de­sires his child may be chast, &c. And in general many a wick­ed parent appears cordially to rejoyce in the towardliness and godlinesse of his children, &c. And then according to the fore­said position of this accurate and pious Author, the child of such a wicked parent may be admitted to enter, and therefore to seale his entrance into Covenant with God in Baptisme; he consenting understandingly for him upon Gospel termes, whose he is, and in whose will the childes will is interpretatively invol­ved. Yet because the scandalousnes of the said parent gives just occasion to the Church of suspition, feare and jealousie, least he should alter his will and desire now signified to have his child truly a Christian and godly, and so faile in using necessa­ry meanes for his childes instruction (during its non-age) in the Christian faith; Its but equitable the Church should de­mand sureties for the same; according to Ames ‘his resolution of the case; de conscientiâ lib. 4. qu. 1. Resp. 8. Excommu­nicatorum contumacium liberi, non expedit baptizari nisi spon­sorum idonco [...]um interventu.’ I must beg the Readers pardon for this excursion which I fell into almost unawares; and ha­ving engaged in it, of some I shall have cause to crave their excuse for saying so much, and of others for saying no more; the point indeed deserveth a larger disquisition. But mine apo­logy to the former shall be, that Mr. W. his exception I was answering did in the latitude of it comprehend this, and there­fore I would not wholly pass it by; and to the latter, that his words do not cleerly import he had any special reference to this point, and therefore I thought the less might serve to note concerning it, in my Reply unto him.

§. 1.

I Shall now proceed to what remaines. (3) In the next place Mr. W. answers my forementioned Reason, to this purpose, p. 110, 111. If the man (supposed in the case) comes and de­sires to communicate, and that earnestly, this Mr. W. saith is right­ly affirmed (by mine Antagonists) to be a Testimony of his seri­ousnesse, which we may not, upon his profession thereof, refuse to beleeve. And this Mr. W. proves in these words; For, Sir, if you grant the case, viz. that he desires to communicate, and that ear­nestly; then shew a Reason (if you can) why all godly minded Christians should not (in charity) believe (upon his profession hereof) that this is to us (in foro externo) a credible testimony of his seriousness? Nay, you adde moreover, that [who makes a credible serious profession of his faith and willingness to sub­mit to the Lord Jesus Christ] the Church ought not to excom­municate. Nay, you adde [doubtlesse the Church ought not]. And we adde, that [doubtlesse] the Church ought not to deny such an one the Lords Supper, or suspend him from it. What a schisme will do we know not, &c.

The Reader may be pleased to beare in memory, that after I had evinced that a man baptized at yeares and not fully ex­communicate, might be debarred the Sacrament, if at the time when he tenders himselfe to be admitted (when the time [Page 168]of celebration begins to draw neere) he in words renounce Christ, or an essential of Christianity, (which is not (that I finde) denied by Mr. W.) In the procedure of my argument I added; that if such word rejecting of Christ, as before-said, may debar the person aforesaid, then some deed-rejecting of Christ may also. Because that by some deeds of wickednesse, there is as credibly a signification of a mans rejecting Christ, as in words. And this was proved as by other arguings, so by this under our hand at present, viz. If some deeds do not as credibly signifie a persons rejecting of Christ, as words might doe; then none could be excommunicated for sinfull deeds, whiles they renounce not Christ in words, but in words profess their earnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament. This con­sequence is valid, at least ad hominem, because mine Antagonists intimate, that he who verbally professeth his desire to receive, must be by us accounted a serious professor of faith (what ever his works are.) And I averre that no visibly serious professor of faith is to be excōmunicated. For then one in the way of a visi­ble exercise of faith and true repentance should be excommuni­cated; which none sure will affirme. And this Consequence I cannot see that Mr. W. sticks at. But now whereas I should as­sume; But some may be excommunicated for sinfull deeds, not­withstanding that in words they renounce not Christ, but verbally professe their carnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament.

This I thinke Mr. W. denies; I am not certaine; look over his words thy selfe Reader, and use thine owne judgement to guess what he drives at. But this I am certaine of, either he denies this, or he saith nothing of a contradictory tendency to my argumentation which here he pretends to enervate. And if he do deny the foresaid Assumption, as I conceive his words import taken together, It may be imputed to his hast, that he should hold what is so manifestly false, viz. That none may be excommunicated for sinfull deeds, though never so hainous and notorious, if he renounce not Christ in words, and professe verbally his earnest desire to communicate.

§. 2.

But because M. W. bids me shew a Reason (if I can) for the contrary. I must prove that the Sun shines at noone day. And, 1. If this his assertion be true, then not professing earnest de­sire to communicate, in the only crime sufficient to cause ex­communication. But a man may be excommunicated for other wickedness, without respect to this, 1 Cor. 5.11. A whore mon­ger, [Page 169]or drunkard, &c. notoriously such, may profess his earnest desire to receive, and yet that makes him not, no whoremonger, and no drunkard. 2. Then also, the Church may look for no further satisfaction in order to restoring of an excommunicate, then his verbal profession of earnest desire to receive the Sa­crament. For that which should prevent their excommunica­ting of him, must be avaylable to restore him. But the Church in many ages hath required particular confession of notorious sins, and expresse profession of repentance for them, (and not only profession of earnest desire to receive) as antecedently necessary to the absolution of an excommunicate, in analogy to that, Levit. 5.4, 5, 6. where he who was to bring his tres­pass offering for a false oath (though through ignorance) was to confesse that he had sinned in that thing, and then he is allow­ed to b [...]ing his trespass-offering to the Lord, and the Priest shall make an attonement for him, concerning his sin. So more gene­rally, Numb. 5.7. on which saith Ainsworth out of Maimoni­des; ‘The Hebrewes set down this duty thus — This con­fession is with words: and its commanded to be done. How do they confesse? He saith, Oh God! for I have sinned, I have done perversly, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus; and loe, I repent, and am ashamed of my doings, and I will never do this thing againe. And this is the founda­tion of confession. And who so maketh a large confession, and is long in the thing, he is to be commended. And so the owners of sin-and trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or presumptuous sins; attonement is not made for them by their oblation, untill they have made Repentance and confession, by word of mouth. Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to stripes, no attonement is made for them by their death, or by their stripes, until they have epented and confessed. And, so, he that hurteth his neighbour, [...] doth him damage, though he pay him whatsoever he owe him, illonement is not made for him, til he confess and turn away from doing so againe for ever.’

Now it may be M^r. W. could have taught them a more ex­peite and easie way of satiffactory confession, viz. if the offen­deiprofess verbally, his earnest desire to partake of the Passe­ove, that shall quit all scores.

§. 3.

() Mr. W. further addes; As for your [fully and not fully] excommunicate] wee look not on them as considerable in this pre­sent [Page 170]controversie, they are your own miserable shifts, &c. Whats the conclusion? Ergo, my fore mentioned Reason is not sound? Wonderfull hap he hath, if he can draw this inference from such premises. This distinction of excommunication hath been proved before, (at Chap. 3.) and I wonder not if he would so faine shift it out of his way if he could, it so fully enervates the Reasons of his Champion Mr. Timson, and shewes his miscar­riage in the very stating of the Question. If that third Chap. aforesaid stand good, particularly the sixth §, that excommu­nicates are Church-members, and are not by excommunicati­on cut off from all ordinances, (although accidentally that may sometime coincidere, and often did fall in, in the primitive times.) The title of his booke is blasted, which over each leafe is this, to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right of all Church members; but in the first page, is thus; To receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and duty of all Church members of yeares not excommunicate. Which is sorrily propounded. For 1. here and in his book he confounds Right and duty, as if these were of the same latitude; as if because its an heathens duty to be baptized, or a Christians duty when drunk on the Lords day, to sanctifie the Sabbath in publique Ordinances, yea or an Excommunicats duty to receive, (all which are manifestly their duty, which they are obliged to) that therefore it were the heathens right to be baptized, without any more adoe, or the drunken Christians to be admitted into the Assembly while drunke, or the excommunicate had actual right to the Lord Supper, while excommunicate. 2. And that all excommun­cation turnes our of Church-membership Mr. Humphreys hol­eth, Rejoynd. p. 155. where he saith, Suspension is null withot dismembership. To what purpose then should Mr. Timson hae added [not excommunicate] but to instruct us in this lesso [...]; That to receive the Lords Supper is the actuall right and duty of all Church members (at yeares) who are not no Church member. This is the Warriour whose Herald Mr. W. is pleased to m [...]e himselfe; and he once and againe provokes me to graple with him. But if I have made good this one argument against Mr. W. theres none (I thinke) can reasonably thinke, theres any need of answering Mr. Timson in print. Mr. W. hath much of his sense and language too, where he could bring it in. But his distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate, I suspect the more angers him, because it makes the weapons of his ious brave man, unserviceable in this contest with me in this: gu­ment.

But I have shewed, there is an excommunication by the Of­ficers of the Church, or Minister alone, & by the people alone, though the Officers refuse to joyne: and there is an excommu­nication wherein the Officers and people of the Congregation (and neighbourhood too perhaps though thats not essential) do concurre, which is a fuller excommunication then either of the former.

§. 4.

5. In the 5^th place Mr. W. answers and confutes (as he pretends) my Reason, by saying; As for your Excommunica­tion you give us a very quaint account thereof, and in a taunt he saith, Schollers may do well to furnish their note bookes with it. And in stead of better Answers (furor arma ministrat) he fits downe in the chaire of the scorners, and thus acts his part. It should seeme (saith he) that your [full excommunication] is a very shrewd thing, when you can be at leisure to meet in a full Classis, and so have your severe Rabbies of discipline sit in state, with the rest of your grave Benchers, then the case of a poore sin­ner is put upon the debale, and after that your Elders have well stroaked their beards, and nodded in their votes, the decree is that the sinner arraigned is to be excommunicated fully, and that with full excommunication compleatly. The summe whereof is, that such a man found and judged guilty of such misdemeanours, is de­clared to be as an heathen Infidel, and do such an one to be lookt upon, and dealt with by all our Church members, i. e. to he coun­ted as an enemie, and not to be admonished as a brother.

Here are learned arguments, apodictical demonstrations, but be like all in Bocardo. Here are formulae oratoriae for the cupping crew, who may probably applaud the Author, and quaffe his health round for them. I'le confesse they are not to be answered by me. Ego poenitere tanti non emam, (as Demost­henes said to the Corinthian Lais) I dare not answer accor­ding to this folly. No wonder if he crow over me, as wanting stomack, and not being stomackfull enough (p. 108, 118.) for such doughty disputings. He makes it appeare (though unmannerly) what a full stomack he hath, by his continuall cructations of such putrid and adust choler. For after all this, he is rifting again in this very place, and afterward, as sowrely as if he had had no vent before, and at last (p. 114.) brings up that crude calumny (which he for the once belcheth forth) to besmear me with it, viz. the denying the Pope to be Antichrist.. I see its parlous to be neer a man in his casting [Page 172]fits, or that owing one a spite, hath the trick of the new organon salutis, and can with his provang unload his sto­mack at his pleasure. And this he ushers in with a parturiunt montes, and saith, you know my meaning. I know indeed what followes, and thence conclude, M. W. is content to be a Mouse­trap, that my paper may seeme ridiculous. But if he remember the story Sir Walter Rawleigh hath out of Herodotus, it may lessen his confidence of vanquishing the Mouse he laughs at. ‘The story is thus in History of the world, p. 612. Herodotus saith, Senacheribs great hoast which he had when he threa­ned Hezekia by Rabsheca, was intended against Aegypt; But a great multitude of feild mice entring the Camp of Se­nacherib by night, did so gnaw the bowes, quivers, strings and straps of his mens armour, that they were faine the next day to fly away in all hast, finding themselves disarmed. In memory whereof (saith Herodotus) the statue of this King is set up in the Temple of Vulcan, holding a mouse in his hand, with this Inscription, Let him who beholds mee serve God.’ I'le not apply the particulars, but only thus; The mouse Mr. W. despiseth, if it may have faire play (I doubt not) will disarme this warriour, and cut in sunder the nerves of his arguments. But the [parturiunt montes] I thinke may be more fitly applyed to his [...]ving and groaning to be delivered of that flatulent falshood, that Mola, or monstrous birth of the Antichristian lye, which at last he brings forth, and exposeth to the view of the world. And let the world (at his own in­stance and desire) behold how he travaileth with iniquity, hath conceived mischiefe, and brought forth falshood. But this filth I shall wipe off beneath. For I am afraid of displeasing the Reader, by having too much of these personal fooleries toge­ther. I shall therefore leave them, and speak only to the thing remaining, which Mr. W. hath here touched upon, namely, concerning the description of Excommunication (which he pre­tends to gather out of some expressions of mine) to be a decla­ring of a person to be as an heathen, and so to be dealt with.

If he had perused Math. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an hea­then and publican, sure he durst not have scoft at that. He that is to be to us an heathen, is to be judged as an heathen, and so to be dealt with, that is, in some respects; viz. in those wherein he is to be to us as an heathen. Neither the Scripture, nor my paper here said he was to be judged an heathen simply. But it saith, let him be to thee as an heathen: with which man­ner [Page 173]of expression my scriblings (as Mr. W. fitly calls them) did wholly comply. And what now hath our learned Gentleman to oppose hereunto? that you may seeke for some where else; unlesse this may be allowed the place and honour of an obje­ction in stead of a better, which skulkes in an implicit Ambus­cado, namely, the interpretation he puts on my expressions a­foresaid; that is (saith our learned Expositor) to be counted as an enemy, and not to be admonished as a brother. But if Paul be not against his Master, this will do us no hurt. Even an hea­then, (any neighbour as such) is to be admonished as a Bro­ther, in some sense, and not counted an enemy simply. (Eph. 5.11. Levit. 19.17. & 10.36. Mark 12.33.) And a Christian excommunicate ought to be admonished, though in some re­spects he is to be to us as an Heathen. The reconciliation is easie. Take it in the learned Zanchius his words on 2 Thess. 3. ‘Obj. Videtur sibi contrarius Apostolus; praecipit, ne commercium habeatis cum eo (excommunicato) & tamen habete eum pro fratre. Resp. Prohibet familiaritatem non necessariam pericu­losam, noxiam, quâ indulgeamus eorum vitijs, aut saltem conni­veamus, non edentes ullam significationem odij & improbationis peccatorum, quâ deni (que) in similia peccata induci & ipsorum sca­biae inquinari possimus:’ or as Zepperus thus; Although no one ought to joyne himselfe in stricter familiarity and private offices to the excommunicate; yet charity shall be exercised towards him, in publique and private prayers to God, and frequent admonitions. (de polit. ecclesiâ. p. 164, 165.) But the excommunicate are not to be driven away from the publique Assemblyes of the Church, to heare Gods word, least they should grow hopelesse, and the doores of repentance be shut to them.

§. 5.

6. The Rest Mr. W. hath (besides personal vagaries) is the old business of Examination, p. 113, 114. and his Question what difference we make betwixt suspension and full excom­munication, hath been answer'd before. And now let the Reader use his own eyes and judgement, whether any or all these six answers do in the least infringe my argument he pre­tends to evervate hereby. Which was this, If deed rejecting of Christ may not be a cause of Excommunication, where theres a desire signified to receive the Sacrament; then none who de­sire to receive may be excommunicated. The latter is false, therefore so is the former. Fit now his answers to this mark; and then determine of them as Reason directs. I must crave [Page 174]thy excuse for holding thee so long in the examination of Mr. W. pretensions on this point. Wee will now the more greedily and eagerly drinke of those cordial waters of the Sanctuary.

§. 1.

BE of good cheer (my Reader) Mr. W: now saith, I pray let us come to an end. I hope he is somewhat neer (for this time) an end of his revilings, and impertinencies. How-ever having, tyred thy patience sufficiently whiles I have insisted too long on his extravagancies in the last chapter, I'le promise thee to touch them more lightly here.

That which remains for M^r W. to answer to, is onely a re­collection of the argumentative procedure before had and ma­naged in my paper, which was thus, (as may be seen at numb. 49. If it be granted that one, though formerly baptized, and yet not fully excommunicated, yet now being an openly by word professed Infidel, may be suspended in any case, where there is a bar against his then full excommunication, then, at least in the like case some scandalous livers in the Church [Page 175]may be suspended; and then I concluded with some passages of Salvian and Tertullian thus: I remember I have read somwhere in Salvian, qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Chri­stianus non esse videatur. And Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat. Agreeable whereunto is what I find quo­ted from Tertullian Apol. cap. 44. speaking of the Heathens prisons he saith, Nemo illic Christianus nisi planè tantum Chri­stianus, aut si & aliud jam non Christianus.

To this short repetition of mine argument, Mr W. strenu­ously rambles one continued long chide in nine pages (oh the Art of that man!) without bringing any thing new which hath a colour of reasonable opposition to it; or old which hath not been already answered by me. He talkes of Examination and my patcht piece, and braggs as for a wager, p. 118. in these words: You shall uunderstand how considerable I am, before you and I part, if you have any stomack or courage in the present controversie. He tells us of his call to his place. p. 119. Of his setting Dog once and again and again, p. 120.121. Of our (as he falsly pretends) rejecting the suspended from our Pastoral care. And most audaciously cracks out this notorious calumny, When they are suspended, you look after them no longer, unless it be for your Tythes and Church dues. And talks of Brownisme wildly, p. 122.123. acquaints us (as if he were a professed Quaker, or at least as if he had never writ against the Anabaptists) that he lookes on no deductious from Scripture as obligatory, unless he have some clear revelations for such deductions.— And (which some of the Papists, much more the Protestants wil stick at) that for the sense of obscure places of Scripture, he prefers Catholick expositious before any mans private sense or interpretation. p. 124. he dreams about the fruitlesness of suspension. p. 125. And what not? Truly I do not see how he can be out of his way, whose ordinary road is some digression or other. Some of these may perhaps be considered among the Digressions beneath, at present we shal not stay on them; onely (me thinks) it is not handsome for him to quarrell with a patch, who solemnly thus dates his Epistle to the Reader. Given at my poor house at Leeke, July 25. And it is somewhat suspitious he carries a Dogg set in his bosome, who hath the setting-dogg so often in his mouth. I now wonder not he is so ready in his facundia canina, his currish eloquence. If he have not bos in lingua, be sure he hath canis in lingua, which may keep him from being mute, or [Page 176]meal-mouthed, especially while he sits under the influence of the Canicular and snarling constellation.

§. 2.

But now at the middle of the 125 page he begins to dis­course more soberly, and so holds on too for divers leaves to­gether. And in earnest, I would not have him misse the Rea­ders just commendation for it. It is not so ordinary (for ought I see) with him so to do, as that it should not now be particu­larly observed to his praise. And therefore though it looks nothing like a Refutation of the sum of the argument he should be dealing with, I shall the more willingly touch (but briefly) the main contents thereof.

1. He shewes the excellency of the Lords Supper, as in other respects, so for the ocular instruction of the meanest, and as an effectual means to convince men, and take them off from grossest sins, p. 125, 126.

I suppose in this he aimes at that trite argument against sus­pension, that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance. And I grant it may be so, and hath a probable aptitude as a means (taking the whole celebration together) to convert, even an heathen (or unbaptized Catechumen) who hath some know­ledge of Christianity before, if he should (though sinfully as all grant) be admitted thereunto. No one can say he shall not be converted thereby. But what's that to the purpose? If Gods revealed institution design it not to the notoriously pro­phane, no more than to them, or such as are fully excom­municate? We must not be wiser than God, nor invent means of good to others unwarrantably, we may not do evill that the greatest good may come thereby. Yet because it must be sup­posed, that there will be close hypocrites in the Church, who yet have an improper collaterall right to the Sacrament, in that Ministers may rightfully minister unto them (though they have no proper right directly to the Sacrament.) God in his infinite wisdome and goodnesse hath so ordered it, that it may be hopefully usefull for their conversion to sincerity, and therefore so it may be designed by the ministrator, upon that supposition aforesaid.

2. Mr. W. shewes (and rightly) how the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.14, 15, 16, 17, 21. to take off the Corinthians from Idolatry, alledgeth their use of the Lords Supper,— say­ing, ye cannot partake of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Divels: he doth not herein, and for their evill discharge them from [Page 177]the Lords Supper, but convinceth their reason of the inconsistencie of such criminal liberty with the use of the Lords Supper. And here Mr. W. is pleased to honour the Apostle with his com­mending him for a Rational Churchman, p. 127.

§. 3.

3. And then he shewes (and rightly too) that the Apostle his speech, 1 Cor. 11.28. commands all Church-members a­dult to receive. — And p. 128. answering the objection, that all cannot examine themselves, saith, That such persons are bound in conscience, immediatly to labour for knowledge, and to break off their prophane courses, that they may be able to exa­mine themselves, and to come to the Lords Table. But in the mean while their ignorance and prophanesse takes not off the Di­vine obligation that lies on their consciences. And this he pro­fitably insists upon, p. 128, 129. But at the later end, as if he had wounded our cause to the quick (though alas! he ne­ver toucheth it) he adds, And thus you see what the convi­ction of the double obligation will work men unto, if pursued and followed rigorously. A thing that lies on the Ministers of the Gospel to do, and not to cast off the people by a childish or chur­lish suspension.

4. Then he shews how by baptisme Christians are under this double obligation to examine themselves and to come to the Lords Table, deny it (saith he with vehemency) who will, or can. When alas! I deny it not, nor doth the defence of my hypothe­sis require I should. There are some other passages of his mixt with these I have related, I cannot digest, which have been answered elsewhere; and I am not willing to quarrell with them here, as long as the main of his discourse hereon, seems such as I do comply with. I will not compare with Mr. W. nor any other in rigorous pressing of doctrines, this in speciall for mens conviction and reformation. But I do en­deavour it according to my poor measure; and I think here's nothing for substance of these things, which hath not been heard from me. But the knot lies not here, whether they are obliged both to labour for knowledge, and leave prophanesse, & so to come? But in this, whether they may not be debarred the later, for their visible want of the former? And he may be pleased to remember, that the Fallacia divisionis, is as ill Logick as the Fallacia compositionis, to argue à bene conjunct is ad malè divisa, is as consequent, as à bene divisis ad malè con­juncta, which he minds us of, p. 128. and I have explained [Page 178]my self on this point before, ch. 10. §. 1, 2. and elsewhere. I shewed that obligation to duty doth not ever give or argue a right of admission to the performance thereof simply, without any more a-doe. A drunken Christian is not disobliged from the publick service of God while such, nor doth any excom­munication disoblige from the Lords Supper; they both sin, in both not waiting on God in his ordinances, and hindring themselves by their own default. That divers things debar from the performance of duties, which do not excuse nor dis­oblige from them, is a truth so plain, that he that runs may read it.

§. 4.

5. Mr. W. p. 131.132. answers the Query, how infants are not obliged to receive, 1. By Analogie to the Infants a­mong the Jewes in reference to the Passcover. (but that point deserves a more accurate consideration.) 2. By shewing that his Assertion is consined to baptized persons adult, they are bound immediately to examine themselves, and to come to the Lords Table; and they sin against knowledge and conscience by negle­cting these duties being urged upon them, and made known to them: and they cannot be so urged and made known to infants, by reason of their incapacity, &c. But this last reason is not valid: For if their incapacity of knowing and having Baptisme urged on them, hinders them not from being baptized, why shall this alone hinder them from the Lords Supper? They may be brought to one as well as the other, when two or three years old, and therefore are no more incapable of the one than the other upon this account.

6. Mr. W. shewes the incongruity of denying children their board, and not bed; belike to teach us, that none in the Church should be denied the Sacrament. But that I have re­futed, ch. 3. at the later end of the sixth Section.

These are the Returns he hath given for the confuting the sum of my foresaid argument, which have as much influence into that design, as Tenterton steeple hath for the causing of Goodwin sands; according to the story I remember Father La­timer hath in one of his Sermons.

§. 1.

THere is nothing further to exercise thy patience (good Reader) but some descants on the passages I quoted from Salvian and Tertullian. And first against those of Salvian, Mr W. hath divers Exceptions, as 1, that I tell him not where in Salvian to find them. 2. That I quote a broken piece, con­cealing what follows, adding an &c. as a veil under which to hide his sense. 3. That I quoting two passages in severall books, put them together, which he saith is not fair dealing, p. 134. 4. And lastly, that the thing quoted is perverted to a sense not intended by the Author.—To these his Excep­tions I return, 1. to the first. When I finished that pri­vate paper he hath publickly assaulted, I had not my Salvian with me, else it had been easie to have turned to the Book and page. Every private paper needs not the exactnesse (in these things) of a publick plea. Doth Mr W. in every Sermon or Lecture, when he quotes any passage from an Author, name the Chapter, Book and page? If he do, I think it is a needlesse exactnesse; when as any one who doubts of, or peruseth the quotation, may easily have recourse to him, for the place where it is to be found.

2. His second exception is frivolous, unless the words fol­lowing those I quoted, did turn the sense of the former word: [Page 180]to another intent than that was for which I quoted them; which they do not, but rather confirm it, as shall be shewed in answering his sourth exception.

3. The third exception is removed by what I have said to his first, neither is Salvians sense at all injured; he speakes to the same purpose in both places, as shall appeare immediately. And I did not say they were joyned together in Salvian; but named them as two severall pas­sages, not quoting the book wherein either of them was to be read.

§. 2.

4. To his 4^th Exception, (which is most material, the rest are toyes sutable for him that abounds in leisure for them) I answer. I quoted not Salvian (nor yet Tertullian neither) to prove suspension immediatly, as Mr. W. pretends, p. 136. Your intent (saith he) in alledging his words is to justisie your debarring men from the Lords Table. Mr. W. hath ill hap in tel­ling my intents, and yet he will not adone with it. But (saith he) whether Salvian intended any such thing, let the Reader judge. Reade him againe, he is Minimus patrum, and its no great labour to read him over. If Minimus patrum referre to the qua­lity of his writings, and that he is of least account; how comes Mr. W. to be the Judge and Censor of the Fathers? If to the quantity, as the words following [its no great labour to reade him over] doe intimate, I presume Mr. W. in that hath taken his aime amisse. There are other Fathers of whose workes and writings extant, the quantity is lesse then Salvians; as the Clement about the yeare 93. Polycarpus, Ignatius, Minutius Faelix, &c. I know no such controversie mentioned in Salvian as that is we are now discussing, to wit, about suspension. What he intended or foresaw the arguments and matter he treated upon might reach to, neither Mr. W. nor his reader can judge. But I quoted him, and the other, for illustration (rather then proose) of that which I before most insisted up­on, viz. That meas rejecting of Christ in notorious deeds of wick­edness, was a more credible Testimony and manifestation, that they are not really beleevers or Christians, then their bearing and owning the name of such, is that they are. And hence I inferred, that such are not to have the Sacrament administred to them, which is properly the portion only of reall beleevers and Chri­stians. And now let the Reader judge (at mine as well as Mr. W. his instance and desire) whether my quotations were per­tinent or no.

The first passage I quoted from Salvian was, that l. 4. de gu­bernatione Dei; where he saith; ‘Since that as we have said, this is the faith of a Christian, faithfully to keepe Christs Com­mandments; It is without doubt, that he hath not faith, who is unfaithfull, nor doth he beleeve in Christ, who treads under foot Christs Commandments, and the whole comes to this, that, qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur, nomen enim sine actu at (que) officio nihil est.’ The former clause (which I have Englished he speakes to also in his 3. booke, de gubernat. dei. (p. 67.) ‘Quid est igitur cre­dulitas, seu fides! opinor fideliter hominem Christo credere, id est, fidelem deo esse, hoc est, fideliter Dei mandata servare.’ The latter part of the quotation, containes the matter he much insists upon elswhere, and aggravates it greatly, l. 3. de gub. dei. at the end. ‘Quo sit ut etiam nos qui nos Christianos esse dicimus, perd [...]mus vim tanti nominis, vitio pravitatis. Omninò enim nihil prodest nomen sanctum habere sine moribus; quia vita a professione discordans, abrogat illustris tituli honc­rem, per indignorum actuum vilitatem.—Cum uti (que) hec ipso magis per nomen sacratissimum rei simus, qui a sancto ne­mine discrepamus; nam & ideo plus sub religionis titulo De­um ludimus, quia positi in religione peccamus. & lib. 4. (p. 127. edit. Oxon. 1633.) An meliores sumus barbaris? Jam vide­bimus; Certè quod non est dubium, meliores esse debemus; ex hoc ipso uti (que) deteriores sumus, si meliores non sumus, qui me­liores esse debemus. And after in the same booke. Quae cum ita sint, magna videlicet nobis praerogativa de nomine Christia­nitatis blandiri possumus, qui ita agimus ac vivimus, ut hoc ip­sum, quod Christianus populus esse dicimur, opprobrium Christi esse videatur. And p. 145. Et ideo hoc ipso Christiani dete­riores sunt, qui meliores esse deberent; non enim probant quod fatcntur, & impugnant professionem suam moribus suis; ma­gis enim damnabilis est malitia quam titulus bonitatis accusat; & reatus impij est pium nomen. And in his Epistle to Salo­nius before his, Epist. ad Cathol. Eccles. Parum sunt rerum vocabula ipsas res non habentia, & nihil virtutum verba sine viribus.’

I have mentioned these sayings of his, not only for the ex­cellency of them, but that the Reader may see I catcht not at one passage let fall from Salvian, concerning the meaning whereof there might be some doubt, but that it is agreeable to other places in this zealous Author; wherein he shewes how [Page 182]little account is to be made of mens names, and their words, when they are manifestly contradicted by their notorious wic­kednesse. But I will waite on Mr. W. in his observation upon the passages of Salvian, quoted p. 135, 136, 137.

§. 3.

1. He saith, and observes; That the party he speakes of was a Christian, for he yeilds unto him, nomen Christianum. 1. I grant he may be called a Christian in regard of his positive engagement to Christianity. But thats not the sense we have here to deale with. For so is an excommunicate, yea the most notorious Apostate to Turcisme or Judaisme, a Christian still. 2. But in Salvians sense (which is ours) Mr. W. cannot ga­ther, one is a Christian, because he is named a Christian, as in part appeares from passages before mentioned out of Salvian, de guber. Dei. l. 4. p. 142. Intelligere ergo possumus aut quales esse pagani crediderint Christianos, qui talibus sacrificijs Deum colerent, aut qualem sollicitent Deum ipsum, qui haec sacra d [...] ­cuisset. Et hoc cur ita? Cur uti (que) nisi ob cos qui Christiani esse dicuntur & non sunt, qui per slagitia at turpitudines suas no­men religtonis infamant; qui ut scriptum est, ore fatentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant.

2. Mr. W. his second observation is; That there is opus no­minis Christiani, quod est agendum. An employment prescribed and proper to men of that name and profession, by the exercise whereof, they should make it visibly and really appeare, that they are men of that honourable profession.—As he instanceth in Divines, Physitians, and Lawyers, otherwise they give no visi­ble testimony of their being of such professions.—

Reader, I pray thee, consider for whom this observation makes: wilt thou take him for a Physitian, and make use of him as such, who hath no skill in it, and practiceth no cures? The same may be said of the Lawyer without skill in Law, if that appeare to thee, shall the one be thy Lawyer, or the other thy Physitian, because they have gotten them gownes with great button'd sleeves, and one calls himselfe and is called a Doctor in Physick, and the other a Lawyer? Even so (saith Mr. W.) men of the Christian profession must act accordingly; they must and should, but what if they do not? must not then the Christian without exercising Christianity, be accounted as the Physitian not versed in Physick, or the Lawyer not imploy­ing himselfe in the Law?

3. Mr. W. in the last place observes; He doth say, that [Qui [Page 183]Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videa­tur] and of this negative (which might have been (if Mr. W. had pleased) another observation like the former) he gives this convincing Reason; viz. [Nomen enim sine actu at (que) of­ficio suo nihil est]. He doth not say, that such an one is no Christian; but he cannot be seene of others to be a Christian, nay, nor conclude unto himselfe that he is a real Christian, because he rejects the Christian employment, and doth not act as a man of that holy profession, &c.

Thus Mr. W. expounds Salvian; and truly as much for my advantage as I should have done my selfe. I should have taken [Christianus non esse videatur] to signifie he may seeme to be a Christian; that is, he is no Christian: videtur being usual­ly an expletive word with Tully and other Latinists (according to the usual Hebraisme used in Scripture [to be called] is [to be] (Isa. 9.6. Luk. 1.32, 36. Math. 5.19. Mark. 11.17.); and Salvian himselfe having so expounded himselfe in the point he speakes to elswhere, as we have seene. [Christiani esse dicuntur, & non sunt.] But as Mr. W. takes it, [he may not be seene by others nor himselfe to be a Christian], it well fits our turne, and is according to what Salvian hath, ad eccl. cathol. l. 2. ‘Quis promissis caeleslibus fidem commodat, & non agit ut esse possit particeps promissionum? & ideo Cum videamus ho­mines haec non agere, cogimur non credentes palâm & evidenter agnoscere.’ Doth not this reach to what I had said, viz. That a deed-Testimony may prevaile above a word-Testimony? and therefore if we may debarre him who in words rejects Christ, then also him who by some notorious deeds of wick­ednesse, doth as manifestly reject Christ. Yea doth not M. W. say the same here in effect? Mr. W. before affirmed that we must certainly know those are Christians and beleevers whom we administer to; and here he confesseth (in expounding Salvian) that a notorious scandalous professor of Christianity, who doth not the act and duty of a Christian, cannot be seene of others to be a Christian; how then will he administer to him? he will say, (as I guesse) 1. he sees him to be a word-professor of Christianity; that is, he sees him to lye, and for his lyes sake notoriously appearing to be such, he will admit him. Oh pro­digious termes of admission! or 2. that he is sure he is baptized, and so engaged to Christianity. But if that be sufficient, no A­postate whatsoever may be rejected; as hath been hinted be­fore. And yet the man among all these weaknesses he mani­fests, [Page 184]is strong in uncivil language, and cryes, Abuse not Anti­quity to palliate your follies.

§. 4.

4. His 4^th observation is; That Salvian in another place and book saith, Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat. And here he goes to his Dictionary, to teach us that Infidelis is an Adjective, and then saith; Salvian here takes not the word [Infidelis] in the rigid notion of an [Infidel] for a man with­out the Church, which directly denieth, and utterly rejecteth the principles of Christianity, but for a man untrusty within the Church; unsaithful to him who hath committed the things of Christianity to his trust. And we say so too. And I say so too. ‘Well met then sometime. The place quoted is in l. 3. de guber. Dei. p. 68. Cum ergo ista sint omnia, per quae fides constat, videa­mus, quis tanta haec fidei sacramenta custodiat, ut fidelis esse videatur: (where videatur is only an expletive as I take it in the former quotation) quia Infidelis, ut diximus, s [...], ne­cesse est, qui sidei commissa non servat.’ And so we are to ac­count of him, as to some respects; according to what this Au­thor saith in the place before mentioned, Eccl. Cathol. l. 2. ‘Cum videamus homines haec non agere, cogimur Non Creden­tes paldm & evidenter agnoscere: to which he addes; Non lice! ut cos nos Deo fidem putemus adhibere, cum illi se rebus cla­ment negare.’ Doth not this teach us, that he who saith he beleeves, is not for his saying so, to be taken for a beleever, (or a beleeving person) when his deeds manifest his unfaith­fulness? and then sure its pertinent to my argument prece­ding. But (saith Mr. W.) this proves not that our unfaithfull and earcless Brethren (as Pagan Infidels) are to be kept from the Lords Supper, because of some unfaithfulnesses and negligences, before legally convented and convicted.

1. It proves this as much as, that they are to be debarred, for any wickednesse after legal convention and conviction. I beleeve Salvian had respect to neither. 2. What he meanes by [legal convention and conviction] I know not; but if he referre to what is done by, or before the civil Magistrate, or by his positive directions; 1. there was no legal proceeding un­der heathen Magistrates for some hundreds of yeates after Christs ascension: and 2. he reacheth not us who have the directions of the Magistrate in Church Censures, particularly in this of suspension, as hath been shewed above. 3. It is not every unsaithfulness or negligence Salvian here makes the cha­racter [Page 185]of his unbeleever; no more do we of such unbeleevers as ought to be debarred the Sacrament. This odious infinua­tion hath bin repelled more then once before. 4. The words of Salvian alledged, prove (or rather assert, I brought them not as a proofe) that he appeares to be an unbeleever, who is no­toriously unfaithfull to his baptismal engagements: and from that I had before inferred, that he is not to be admitted, whiles such, to the Lords Supper.

§. 5.

As for the discourse Mr. W. here falls into about the diffe­rence there is betwixt a pagan Infidel unbaptized, and a bap­tized unfaithful Christian, p. 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. It hath nothing in it which colourably makes a­gainst us (save two passages) which hath not been answered before; The description of excommunication he would gather from Tertullian, viz. That it is a banishment of a Delinquent from communication of prayer, Assembly, and of all holy commu­nion with Christians, hath been particularly spoken to, Chap. 3. §. 10. One of Mr. W. his pretentions which beares the shew of an objection is this, (p. 141, 142. where he saith,) In our Ecclesiastical discipline we proceed not against men, as no Christi­ans, as no beleevers, (therein you are mistaken) For what have we to do to judge them that are without? We leave such to Gods own immediate severity and disposal. In our discipline we proceed against men as Christians, and as professed beleevers, as within, as of ours, and of us, which have transgressed the law of faith, or violated the holy Rutes of Christianity, and refuse to submit and make publique satisfaction when legally convented and convicted. Now if you judge and take our men (when you juridically sus­pend) to be no Christians, no beleevers, not within, none of yours, nor of you, what talk you of either of suspending or excommunica­ting of them? of no Christians and no beleevers, they must be made Christians and Beleevers by Baptisme, not your examination and approbation of them.

The ground of this his objection hath been removed in the place last referred unto; and in Chap. 5. §. 6. (and Chap. 19. §. 5, 6.) where hath been acknowledged by us, that not only flagitious baptized persons, but also excommunicates are Church-members, and therefore within, and so are not to be rebaptized when restored. In this the Reader may see whose way is more rigorous, Mr. Ws. or mine. His associates take ex­communicates for no Church-members, so do not I; and yet [Page 186]they restore them not by baptisme, when they alledge against mee, that such as are not within, must be taken in by Baptisme, as we heard Mr. W. speake. According therefore to what we have before delivered, we distinguish with Mr. W. and say; 1. Some persons are, and are called Christians, beleevers, &c. only upon the account of their being positively and solemnly engaged to Christianity, and the Christian faith. And 2. some are, and are called Christians and beleevers, not only on the account of their being so engaged as aforesaid, but of their visible conformity to those Christian engagements. All who are Christians in the former respect, are Church-members, (whiles alive) and [within] in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 5.12. (that phrase [of us] Mr. W. inserts too, if it referre to, 1 John 2.19. is difficult to be understood, and its a great question whether it be equipollent, to the [within, 1 Cor. 5.12.] so I shall omit it here). A disciple or servant is some­times denominated from his being entred into a School, having covenanted with his Master to serve him, and therefore these are lyable to Ecclesiastical Censures. And yet they may be no Christians, nor beleevers visibly, upon the account of the latter respect, and therefore cannot claime the priviledges belonging to disciples who learne, and servants who obey their Masters, whiles they notoriously refuse to learne and obey Christ.

And this mindes me of the second thing Mr. W. hath in the fore-mentioned pages, which seemes to need an answer here. Its page 139. where he saith; A man undeniably without, and utterly uncapable of the Lords Supper, may have the Scripture characters of faith in your sense, i. e. he may be instructed in the Christian faith, be able to give an account (yea a true account) of his faith, submit unto your Church order of examination, and be of Christian behaviour without exception in his private carri­age, and yet be such a visible unbeleever (to us) as the Lord in his word would not have the Lords Supper administred unto.— viz. because not baptized, &c. yea though as he before said, he may be regenerated.

1. Sometimes Mr. W. makes to be within, and to be a Christi­an or beleever of equal latitude; as in his last exception, I have answered. Here he acknowledgeth one not within, to be a true and reall beleever; and therefore I should conclude a true Christian, though not so solemnly. For I am of opinion none can expect to be saved but true Christians; and these Mr. W. [Page 187]saith, may be truly regenerate and goe to heaven. 2. But whereas he tells us this catechumen or heathen Proselyte may be, without exception, of Christian behaviour, in his private car­riage, and yet not be capable of the Lords Supper. I utterly deny this. For if he were of Christian behaviour, without ex­ception, he would submit to Baptisme (the contempt whereof all acknowledge to be a damning sin,) and then in the same day (and houre for ought I know) he might communicate. And if he have opportunity to desire the Communion, he hath opportunity to be baptized, and therefore cannot be excused in the neglect of it, nor then be accounted in that neglect a beleever in respect of visible complyance with and obedience to the Gospel. Who only hath a visible right to the Lords Supper. And now Sir (saith Mr. W. p. 145.) to your Allegation out of Tertullian, viz. [Nemo illic Christianus, &c.].

This also was quoted by mee, for the same purpose as the passages of Salvian were, viz. that the name or word professi­on of Christianity is no argument nor testimony he is a Chri­stian, whose deeds do notoriously contradict the same. And my paper they expressed it (at numb. 50.) [Agreeable whereun­to is what I finde quoted from Tertullian, Apolog. cap. 44. speaking of the Heathens prisons; Nemo illic Christianus nisi planè tantum Christianus, aut si & aliud jam non Christianus.] Now Mr. W. hath left out the word [prisons] in the copy he hath printed as mine, and when he hath so done, takes paines from the context in Tertullian to informe mee, that the Father speakes of the Christians sufferings in prisons; as if I had not understood it before. Is not this a brave confutation to be boasted of? He excuseth his Transcriber of my paper, p. 115. And whether he must take this non-sense to himselfe he hath printed as mine, or on whom else he will lay it, I know not; I list not to upbraid him with frauds, imposture, and cheating, &c. which yet he usually puts on mee, so wonderful civil and well manner'd is hee.

2. Mr. W. addes; But why shall I trouble you with these things, seeing you are so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you act herein but by vertue of another mans Quotation. He had before said to mee, p. 60. I finde no ingenuous dealing in all your pa­per. And here to do me a spite he will contradict himselfe, (like as elswhere he complaines of the obscurity of my paper, p. 80, 82, 88. as if he could not know what I would have; and yet begins his Postscript with these words; Sir, after all this, [Page 188]I returne you thankes for this plaine declaration of your minde in this peice of yours.) But (by his favour) he is too hasty in con­cluding I had not perused Tertullian my selfe (and the same may be said of his censuring my childishnesse for referring to divers Authors as mentioned by Zepperus) because I said [I finde Tertullian thus quoted] there being other causes of such references, viz. 1. When we have perused Authors, not now with us, and so the reference at second hand helps us only to the place where that is, which we would quote. And 2. When the reference to such later learned Writers who have quoted those Authors for the same intents as we would make use of them, doth adde weight to the quotation, by affording a pro­bable proofe, that the passages quoted are rightly understood and interpreted to the true and genuine sense of the original Authors.

3. After his telling us of his favour in mentioning another passage of Tertullian for our advantage, (and his favours are not so ordinary and common, that I should reject any of them, though it shall appeare beneath, I act not by vertue of his quo­tation) He falls foul on Tertullian; and as scoldes when one in any thing displeaseth them, rake in all old fores, and rec­kon-up all the faults they can really, or upon uncharitable sus­pition, charge him with: so because Tertullian hath the hard hap to cross Mr. W. as himselfe conceives, and to favour mee, the world shall now be told what failings he had (or he was thought by some to have had) other wayes: But what if there were some called Tertullianists accounted heretiques (when yet the name heretique was very rife) who denied second marriages, and said that the souls of wicked men became Divels after their departure out of this life, and that the soule is continued by going from one into another, as much as to say by carnal descent and succession, as Doctor Meredith Hanmer in his Ecclesiastical Chronographie, reckons up their tenents out of Augustine? What are any of these to the present controversie betwixt Mr. W. and mee? And what are Montanus, and his two [false] Prophetesses, Priscilla & Maximilla, and their phanatique cour­ses, mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. l. 4. cap. 26. and lib. 5. cap. 3. & 14. (What are these I say) to the point quoted from Tertullian? What if the advise given be commendable; so to read Tertullian, as that bona ejus reci­pientes mala respuamus, we take not in the bad with the good? May not the same counsell be given in reading others of the [Page 189]Fathers also? But are they therefore not to be made use of in any thing? Is Cyprian of no use, because he would have here­tiques rebaptized? nor those of the Fathers, who held the Millenary opinion? nor Augustine, with many others, who held Infants should communicate? nor Origen, who had many errours? All my businesse remaining here is to shew that the passages quoted from Tertullian are not accounted erroneous; That they cannot be reduced to Montanisme, nor Tertullia­nisme, I thinke is manifest already, to which yet Mr. W. should seeme to have respect in his mentioning them here, for the disparagement of Tertullians authority. I press not his au­thority further then the reason and weight of his words them­selves afford us good credentials. But that in this quoted he speaks truth, and is nothing to be blamed I shall shew; 1. from the Notes and Castigations of that learned man Franciscus Ju­nius on Tertullian: 2. From the consent of other Fathers with Tertullian. Junius in his Paraphrase upon Tertullians fifty Apologeticks adversus Gentes; on that passage, Apol. 44. ‘Ait si & aliud jam non Christiani, saith; Nam si quo praeterea eulogio insignirentur, ut furti & homicidij, jam Christiani non sunt, ne (que) hujusmodi homines in talem amplius sectam recen­sentur.’

So upon that in Apol. 46. Sed dicet aliquis, etiam de nostris excedere quosdam à regula disciplinae; desinunt tum Christiani haberi penes nos philosophi vero illi cum talibus factis in nomine & honore sapientiae perseverant. Whereupon the foresaid Paraphrast saith, that Tertullian answers that objection. But some of your Christians do erre from their Rule, as well as some Philosophers. Verum hoc, inquit, est, sed ratio diversa succedit. He answers, this is true, but with much difference from wicked Philosophers. Philosophus enim licet aberravit, ejus nominis autoritatem non amittit. The Philosopher trans­gressing, loseth not the authority of his name. Diogenes enim Zeno, & Aristoteles inter Principes Philosophorum nihilo­minus habentur. Christianus verô, simulac à disciplinâ declinat, ex albo Christianorum eraditur, neque ullo modo eo dignatur no­mine aut censu. But the exorbitant Christian is put out of the catalogue of Christians, nor is he any way accounted wor­thy of that name or estimation. The corrector of Tertullian we see corrects not these passages, but illustrates them with his Cō ­mentary upon them. Yet they need not be understood in the vigorous sense Mr. W. puts upon them, as if these exorbitant [Page 190]or disorderly Christians should in no sense be Christians, nor Church-members, nor as if they might not be restored to the honour and priviledge of orderly Christians upon their repen­tance and reformation. But onely that they are not honoured and respected as Christians whiles vitious, as Tertullian obje­cted to the Heathens, their Philosophers were as chief Philo­sophers, notwithstanding their vitiousness.

2. And such like expressions we find in others of the Fathers, which further demonstrates no singular errour of Tertullian is contained in the passages quoted.

Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. (anno Christi 100.) ‘Solent enim (saith he) nonnulli malo dolo nomen quidem Christi circum­ferre, sed patrant quaedam indigna Deo, quos oportet ut feras evitare. Sunt enim canes rahidi clam mordentes, quos vitare oportet, ut morbo difficulter curobili laborantes.’ Justin. Martyr (A. C. 130.) pro Christianis Defens. 2. ad Antonium pium. (Johanne Lango interprete) a good way from the be­ginning, saith, ‘At enim qui non ita vivere comperiuntur, si­cut ille (Christus) docuit, Certum id documentum est, non esse Christianos, quamvis doctrinam Christi linguâ profi­teantur. Non enim profitentes tantum, sed operibus simul professionem confirmantes salvatos iri dicit. Sic enim dicit, Non quisquis mihi dicet, Domine, Domine, introibit in regnum coelorum. — Caeterum eos qui minus consentaneam preceptis ejus vitam agunt, Christiani (que) tantummodo dicun­tur, à vobis quoque puniri rogamus.’

Origen comra Celsum (A. C. 206.) lib. 4. a good way from the beginning, Sigismundo Geleno interprete) where he answers the reproaches the Jewes cast on the Christians, calling them worms, &c. he saith, ‘Tacco reliqua hominum vitia, à quibus non facile reperias immunes, ne istos quidem qui ha­bentur pro philosophis: sunt enim multi adulterini philos-ophi. Atque his obnoxii sunt homines professione nec Judaei nee Christiani. quae autem Non sunt inter Christianos si pro­priè Christianum accipias, &c.’

In Minutii Felicis Octau (A. C. 212.) post medium, there are found almost Tertullians very words. ‘Denique de nostro numero carcer exaestuat: Christianus ibi nullus, nisi aut reus suae religionis aut profugus.’

Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae cathol. speaking of a Schisma­tick, he saith, ‘Sic se Christianum esse profitetur, quomodo & Christum Diabolus saepe mentitur ipso Domino praemonente & [Page 191]dicente, Multi veniunt in nomine meo dicentes, Ego sum Chri­stus, & multos fallent. Sient ille Christus non est, quamvis fallat in nomine ipsius, ita nec Christianus videri potest, qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus & fidei veritate — And after. Confessor est, sit humilis & quietus, sit in actu suo cum disciplina modestus, ut qui Christi confessor dicitur, Christum quem confitemur, imitemur.’

Now Mr. W. may go on, and talk his pleasure (to his ten­der consciences) of my abusing antiquity to palliate my own fol­lies, p. 137. and he may jumble heaven and earth together in rating Tertullian for Heresie and Schisme, and all upon his saying but this in sense, That whereas heathen Philosophers were honoured though never so vitious, Christians lose the honour and esteem worthy of the Christian name, by their wicked­ness. And let him also make them believe (who will see with his eyes) that my quotations were not pertinent for the illustrating of what I had before otherwise proved (though he insinuates these were all my proofs: and in an exuberancie of wit, cryes, p. 252. Must humane testimonies be all your proofe at last? viz. That a bearing the name (& by word professing of Christianity, or faith is no credible testimony that he is a true Christian believer, whose notorious wicked practises contradict his word-profession. And that the Lords Supper must be ad­ministred to such as appear to be no reall Christians, no true be­lievers. I will believe when he or any else can shew me one Scripture-evidence for it.

Mr. W. now dismisseth me, p. 151 in his proper language, thus, Put up your bagpipes & whistle at home. And let him cry aloud Montibus & sylvis that if there be any idle eccho there, he may procure from it an answer to such another book as his Suspension discussed is. But by his leave I'le take Davids Harp, and on it thus conclude;