THE BAR to Free Admission TO THE LORDS-SUPPER REMOVED: OR, A Vindication of Mr. Humfreys Free Admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
Wherein the most material Exceptions and Objections of Doctor Drake against it in his Book called A Bar to Free Admission, etc. are taken off and answered.  
Whereunto is annexed an expostulatory Speech unto them of the congregational way: And also an Examination of the Book called A Scripture Rail to the Communion Table, by some Ministers in Gloucester shire.  
By JOHN TIMSON a private Christian of Great Bowden in Leicester-shire.  JOH. 15.14. 
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  
London, Printed by E. Cotes and are to be sold by Will. Tompson Bookseller in harbour, 1654.   

To the Reader.  
COURTEOUS READER,  
I Am necessitated not only to give thee some advertisement concerning the following discourse, but also to make some Apology for myself in this my so bold undertaking, as this will be thought to be; and that perhaps even by some truly godly sober Christians and reverend Ministers of the Gospel; to whom it may seem unfit that such a one as I should interpose in this Controversy concerning Admission to the Lords Supper, and that I should undertake to make answer to a Reverend Doctor about these things. And therefore let me entreat thy patience, though I seem somewhat tedious in this Epistle by reason of the length of it. I trust it will not be impertinent nor unprofitable, but helping to the following discourse, to free myself from blame, and to help thee in the right understanding of what thou shalt read, and of my end and aim therein.  
The truth is, these few sheets were not at first intended for public view, but only to be sent privately to the reverend Doctor, that by the answer which I hoped he would return, myself and some friends of mine might receive some satisfaction: but through the importunity of some others, to whom I imparted my thoughts herein, I am now overcome & persuaded to make them public; but with great disadvantage, not having time to perfect and amplify things suitable to so different an end from what I first intended. And I confess I have not so heedfully kept to the Doctor's expressions, nor written arguments with that latitude or fullness, nor kept to his method orderly as he goes on in answering Mr. Humphrey, as I should and would have done, if my intent at first had been to appear in public. But yet I have been as careful as I could in taking his sense, and have not omitted any thing of moment, which I had occasion to insert and answer in my own method and way which I propounded to myself at first.  
And for Mr. Humfreys arguments, I have made but little use of them, more out of haste then out of any dissenting from him; and choosing rather to add to what he hath asserted and strongly evinced, then to repeat his own: because I have an earnest desire that this controversy may be better sifted and more throughly searched into; it being of greater concernment than most even of those that are godly have or do judge it to be, for the ending of the present distractions and divisions in this unsettled Church. Our being dissatisfied about Sacramental communion, hath been the great occasion and instrumental cause of our confusions and disorders tending to the Church's destruction. If satisfaction can but be given in the warrant of free Admissions, I conceive the only instrumental cause of the Church's unsettledness will be removed; and nothing will much hinder the falling in of Presbyterians and Independents into one way of communion and discipline, especially the orthodox party of both. And as for those that deny our Baptism, Church and Ministry, as Antichristian, there is little hope of gaining their return. I desire it may be put to some solemn and serious debate impartially; For although the principles committed to consideration in the ensuing discourse, be somewhat against the common stream, yet I have some hope they may be a means to discover some common mistakes, with such glimmering of rational and Scripture light, as better heads may make to shine more bright in the Christian world. I look to be censured for this my presumption in dissenting from the common interpretations of several Scriptures; and asserting some things against the judgement of many or most Divines and godly Christians, who will be ready to object against me and charge me with a fault herein; against which give me leave to make some defence.  
First, by confessing that this very thing of dissenting from so many learned and godly, hath been a greater bar in my way, than any ground of Scripture or strength of argument I ever heard or have seen from any godly man. And were the Church in a well ordered settled state, I had rather chosen in some lesser things to err with the Church, then dare to do any thing that m●ght break the peace and order of the same. But in an unsettled disorderly condition of the Church as it is now with us; all things in the Church being now upon the brinck of confusion and ruin; it concerns even every private member to show himself, and to contribute his mite toward the conservation of the whole. In vain do we look to have the effects and consequences, our divisions, break and separations to cease, while the most sober and godly nourish them in their rise and cause. The same principles maintained by the godly in the Bishop's times, would as necessarily have run us into the same separations and divisions, had not the severity of discipline put a restraint to our excess from the same or like mistakes.  
Secondly, I deny that this free admission pleaded for, is altogether novel or a new thing. For did not our first reformers maintain a free Admission, nay command a general observance of the Supper of the Lord three times in the year at least, under some punishment to be inflicted for unnecessary neglect; grounded (I conceive) from the equity of the Law of the Passeover, Numb. 9 and the command of Jesus Christ: Do this in remembrance of me. And will any say that our first reformers were not godly and learned men? It's true they urged it not till Church members were of years of discretion, and not under Church censure; and required that all should learn the Lords Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments, etc. which would be now easily yielded to, in order to the Sacrament.  
Thirdly, do not Protestant godly writers, in all reformed Churches, maintain infant Baptism upon Covenant relation, in that the children of Christians by birth privilege, are really members of the Church; and so esteemed to be as truly as those that by nature are aliens, and admitted upon their profession of faith? And is not there the same reason for the enjoyment of the other Sacrament of the Supper, being of years, and already admitted members? should not these have as much privilege as those that come in as proselytes or Disciples by preaching of the Word? Where do we find that any were received to Baptism, and yet denied the Supper? or what essential difference is there between Baptism and the holy Supper, that the same profession that fits for the one, will not serve for the other, being persons of years? The Blood of Christ crucified is represented in both for remission of sins, Act. 2.37. And by consent of all, both seal to the same Covenant, in which the unregenerate, as well as the regenerate, are included and concerned; and that as well when grown to years, as in their minority: they adhering to the ordinary means of grace as well as others, that they may obtain the blessings of the Covenant promised and sealed by the Sacrament. And I think the woeful consequences, and run out into such exorbitances amongst the godly in these times, may make intelligent and sober men sensible of their own inconsistences and interfeering in things concerning the Sacraments. Suppose the unregenerate in the Church not baptised till grown to years, could that discovenant or dismember them, it not being their own fault, but the fault of their parents? might not such challenge their privilege of that Church in which they were born members, by virtue of that membership merely? their membership not being an effect or consequent of Baptism, but Baptism a consequent privilege of membership: though I confess it's true of aliens, they are formally installed into membership in the Church by Baptism upon their profession of faith.  
Fourthly, did not all godly Ministers in the Bishop's time, that were for conformity, administer the Sacrament to all, without excluding any? and shall we judge that they practised against their judgement and conscience?  
Mistake me not, good Reader, whosoever thou art, as if I did indulge, or labour to foster any in their gross ignorance, by the following discourse or any thing therein; or the sloth and not profiting under the means; or that I plead for a dispensation for the profane and scandalous in the Church: poor creatures! they shall know it one day to their cost (if they repent not) what it is to abuse the grace of holy administrations, and to neglect the means of their salvation. God will be sanctified by or in all he admits to come near him; and all his holy ordinances are a sweet savour to him, in them that perish as well as in them that are saved in the use thereof.  
Most terrible things are written of them that have the light and walk in darkness; that have the means to know and do, and yet will not, but remain both ignorant and disobedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Dreadful will be the doom of all those that have had their residence at the feast of fat things of the Gospel, and shall be found without the wedding garment at the last. Therefore I shall desire and entreat all to take heed of this, and to submit themselves to those that are over them in the Lord; as to them that are appointed by Jesus Christ to watch over their souls, as they that must give account thereof. I say, let me persuade you to be willing to be instructed, catechised and tried: refuse no means that tends to your edification, instruction and salvation, I beseech you: I know your ignorance and unanswerable walking to the rules of the Gospel is such, that most are unwilling to go to their Minister to be examined and admonished in private, in order to the Sacrament. I, but remember you must be brought to a stricter search and account before you can be saved: And if you be unwilling to give an account of your faith and hope that is in you to your Minister, that would encourage you in your Christian profession; and take such advantages to instruct you and confirm you in the grounds and practice of Christianity; what would you do, if a persecuting enemy to the Protestant Religion should put you upon the renouncing of the true Religion, and turning Turk or Papist; or else be put to death; as hath been a common lot of the professors of the Christian Religion in most ages since the coming of Christ? Oh be not such strangers to your Pastors that labour among you; what shall they be appointed to bring your souls to heaven, and will you not acquaint them with your ignorance and other wants and doubts which are impediments in your way? Would you be more frequent, friendly and familiar with your Pastors, you would not be afraid to have conference with them in things concerning God's Kingdom and the good of your own souls. Let not (good Reader) shame of thy ignorance, hinder thee from presenting thyself to be proved and taught in order to the Sacrament. For ignorance continued in under the means of knowledge is damnable. Barren branches of the true vine shall be cut off and burned. Remember the barren figtree. Though as yet thy profiting hath not been answerable to the cost and charge God hath been at, or his grace, mercy, goodness and patience toward thee do require; yet now let the patience and goodness of God, so long abused, lead thee to repentance, and enquiring after him. Let not sense of thine own ignorance make thee rather forbear the Sacrament, then go to thy Minister to be better informed: but rather implead thy right, and come and do thy homage and service as well as thou canst, though not so well as thou shouldst. Put case thou be judged unfit to come to the Sacrament; yet follow on, doubling thy desires and endeavours to receive as fare as thou canst. If thou be desired to forbear until the next Sacrament, let it humble thee, but not discourage thee; that being better prepared, thou mayest expect a greater blessing. But if thou art beat off with delays, wait and be aspectator of thy bleeding Saviour, set forth crucified before thine eyes by instituted signs of Bread and Wine: and if thou mayst not take and eat in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for many for remission of sins, and to save sinners by giving them grace and glory; yet let me persuade thee to give thy presence, to hear and see in that remembrance: thou knowest not but that the sight of such an object, the effect of love and bleeding bowels may melt thy heart, and draw thy soul after him thy merciful Redeemer, it not being thy fault thou dost not actually receive. Be it so that thou art still repulsed, as like to eat and drink judgement to thyself; yet let not that affright thee from the ordinance of Christ, so long as thou art art a visible subject in his Kingdom. Plead thy duty and homage, how thou art obliged to Christ in this observance: and say, thou art so well persuaded of the goodness of Christ in all that he commands his subjects, that thou wilt humbly venture upon his mercy, in doing thy duty as thou art able. But I shall commend thee to the ensuing discourse for further knowledge of thy duty, and pleading thy right, during thy privilege of positive Church membership.  
And in the last place I shall in all humility offer a few words to the reverend Ministers of God, as a means to quench the present flames that are in the Church of Christ in England.  
First, let me beseech you not to urge upon your people any practice under necessity of duties of worship, either public or private, that is not evidently commanded, or at least deducted from the clear and genuine sense of holy Scripture by necessary, consequence.  
Secondly, labour so to agree among yourselves in the main essentials of Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, that in every place there may be a preaching and holding forth of the same things in all.  
Thirdly, condescend to the meanest of your people, with an equal respect in all your ministerial administrations, both public and private, that none may be discouraged, nor any indulged in an evil way.  
Fourthly, be as watchful of those that are inclined to an inordinate zeal in the smaller matters of Religion, as of those that express but little zeal at all in God's worship.  
Fifthly, allow the worst of your people the title of Christians, believers, members, and allow them all other external privileges which of right are theirs in regard of their relative state, as they are such: yet deal faithfully with them, as touching their real state in order to their eternal weal or woe.  
Sixthly, decline (as much as may be) novelty and variety in profession, catechisms, and all essentials of public worship; that your people may more willingly adhere to you, and give you the greater advantage to advance the Christian Religion among them.  
Lastly, What in you lies restore with the spirit of meekness, in your private admonitions, weak brethren, that through infirmity fall; & do not exasperate any with pulpit invections, unless it be in case of known obstinacy. But I shall leave all to your charitable construction and sober apprehension of what I do here offer to your consideration. I am a poor worm, and look to be despised for meddling with things out of my sphere: but I see it's the common lot of the most learned in these times to be reproached, and therefore I shall the better bear it; though for this my vindicating of Mr. Humphrey from reproach, I be the more reproached: I am sorry his principles be not vindicated from the reverend Doctor's exceptions and objections by a better pen than his,  
Who is thy humble servant, breathing after the simplicity of truth, John Timson.   

The Bar to free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER removed.  
MEEting with a Book called A Bar to free Admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, written by Doctor Drake, in answer to Mr. Humphrey, and having diligently read both, I find that even good men are too apt to reprove one another in things controverted betwixt them; which ought not so to be. As for Mr. Humphreys vindication of free admission (as he states, bounds and handles it) it seems to me more rational and clear, then to deserve so many harsh expressions from the reverend Doctor, as he hath let slip; whether in haste, or more deliberately, I leave to himself to consider. Sure I am, some words might better have been spared, then so published in print to the world, it being not yet determined whether Mr. Humphreys discourse be untrue or no, though disputable with the Doctor (it seems) whether it be more full of words or untruths, which is very uncharitable and unbrotherly dealing; but I forbear. Both the reverend Doctor and Mr. Humprey are Gentlemen I am altogether unacquainted with, whose gifts & learned abilities I yet much reverence, and wish this poor distracted Church may never want such officers to rule and feed her in the Lord, as the meanest of them be. It's an unhappy controversy I confess, and little cause there is to take content in these debates: yet as times are, it hath need of scanning and sifting; because much of the unity and wellbeing of the national Church depends upon the right stating and clearing of this Question; our doubts and scruples concerning the holy Supper, having upon the matter unsettled all. Some mistakes about admission thereto, have run thousands into faction, schism, and separation, under a zeal of separating the Precious from the Vile, of withholding the children's bread from dogs, of preserving the Ordinances pure, etc. The premises are good, conducing much to reformation, were they not misapplyed in respect of persons, and in respect of the right way, and means of putting them in execution, as things now stand, as I believe it will appear they are, by this following discourse; wherein I shall endeavour to vindicate that little Tract of Mr. Humphrey from the Doctors unbrotherly dealing with him, according to my measure and meanness. Not that I intent an orderly and exact reply to every particular (which neither my capacity nor occasions of my laborious calling will bear) but to undermine his chiefest strength, passing by the rest.  
And first of all, for the Text which Mr. Humphrey delivers his discourse upon, though he may be thought not so happy in his choice of it in order to what he insisteth on, (as having rather a sound then a true and full sense of the question and point concluded) yet I doubt not but the discourse will (as to the substance thereof) be warranted by other Scriptures.  
And for Judas his receiving or not receiving, I look not upon it as clearly argumentative one way or other. Neither do I think that first precedent, without the supply of other Scriptures, would make much for or against us in this matter, they being Apostles only that then received, whose office in the Church is now ceased.  
In short, I shall not go about to defend every quotation or assertion in Mr. H. Book, nor to clear him from some inconsistences pointed out by the reverend Doctor; it's sufficient that he hath made good the main thing asserted: namely, That all Church members of years, and under Church indulgence (not rightly excommunicated) may come freely to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
His free Admission is limited with exceptions of infants, distracted, the excommunicated, and he might say, the drunk.  
Now the Doctor saith, That by the same reason that he excepts these, we may may except the grossly ignorant and scandalous in the Church.  
Concerning which this twofold inquiry is made.  
1. Whether Church members of years, having the exercise of reason, being ignorant, be as uncapable of the Sacrament as Infants or distraught?  
2. Whether scandalous members under Church indulgence, may be equally debarred this Church privilege with the regularly excommunicated?  
To the former of these the Doctor saith, That the grossly ignorant are as uncapable to examine themselves, and discern the Lords body as Infants, and therefore as justly to be excepted against: nay more, because Infants and distraught may have the grace of the covenant really, the other not.  
To which I answer; what the secret working of the Spirit may be in such comes not within the Church's cognisance to inquire, but what is agreeable to the revealed will of God; and than if any of years, being baptised & professing the true religion be in the same incapacity as Infants or distracted; it's true there is the same exception against them, otherwise not. For mine own part, I never knew any of years but could take and eat and drink of the consecrated signs reverently and orderly according to the institution, as to the externals of that service, which the state of Infants is uncapable of.  
And mad men would endanger the abuse of the holy signs, by their undecent and unreverent demeanour in those necessary acts of communion and worship. And it must be granted that persons at years are not under that natural incapacity that infants are, in order to the outward form of worship, Neither are Infants as such under the obligation of precepts of worship, as grown persons in the Church are. Nor can it be reasonably imagined, that such a state of persons in the Church should be admitted actually to receive, that in the discretion of the Church are no proper objects of Church censures, in point of offending, which grown persons in the Church are though never so ignorant. And what though the Doctor say, he can teach a child of three or four years old, as much or more than some of our people at years have learned all their life time? A Parrot may be taught to speak words: but can he make such children rationally understand what they are taught, and exercise devotion from a principle of conscience, in reference to religious worship? as in charity we may hope of grown ones according to that little they know; which may be conceived by their desires after it, and their demeanour in the Sacramental actions. Moreover, I doubt not but the Doctor or any other Minister of the Gospel, may in a short time, inform the ignorant among their people, so as to make them capable of discerning the Lords body; and to eat and drink lawfully, in the Apostles sense, though not in the sense I shall give account of hereafter. All which being laid together, I conceive that Church members of years most ignorant are not so uncapable of the Sacrament, as Infants or mad men are: and therefore the same or like ground of excepting against the one, will not equally reach the other. And then the Doctors often retorting Mr. H. exception, doth rather discover weakness, then add any strength to the cause. This to the first inquiry.  
As for the other, namely, whether the scandalous members under Church indulgence, may be equally debarred this Church privilege with the regularly excommunicated, I do not find the Doctor's judgement so expressly delivered: but he seems to debar such from the Sacrament. But sure to debar Church members scandalous their external privilege during Church indulgence, and toleration, they being under trial or otherwise, is contrary to the judgement and practice of the independent Churches, and seems irrational and unjust to execute before a judicial trial and sentence.  
I confess I am unsatisfied with their proceed (as Presbytered) toward Church members of years admitted.  
1. They set up an Eldership whose office is very doubtful, too doubtful to assume and exercise the keys of Christ's Kingdom (especially where there is no association of Churches) so that upon the matter the power of sentence is in the Pastor alone, or in those whom Jesus Christ never impowered with the keys at all to bind and lose authoratively.  
2. They set up such a way of trial and Church examination of native Church members in order to the Sacrament (the observance whereof is both their duty and their privilege) as no word doth warrant, discouraging the most from endeavouring after their duty and privilege; so that upon the matter they are left out without any regular casting out.  
3. They cause a careless forbearance of the Sacrament; and make their suspension and excommunication upon the matter all one; and the Doctor allows all presence at every ordinance, denying only the act of receiving to the worst.  
4. They positively suspend Church members for ignorance and such like wants and come short of what they should be to God; for which there is not the least warrant, either of rule or precedent, in divine writ.  
5. They make excommunication less than it is indeed, in allowing the excommunicate presence in the congregation at every ordinance: and make it more than indeed it is, in dismembering Church members by it, it being appointed as the last remedy to heal diseased members, not to destroy them. They are not thereby dismembered, but to be looked upon (saith Mr. Cawdry) as diseased members under cure.  
6. No more privilege is allowed to Church members not approved of by the eldership (though not yet under any positive sentence) then is allowed to Heathens: and to the excommunicate as much of privilege in the ordinances of the Church is allowed as to Heathens. All which upon trial will be found to be beside the rule, I think: and yet such are the consequences that flow from the Doctors own principles and premises, in his Bar to free admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
In the next place, the Doctor declares his judgement concerning a scandalous member of a congregation impresbytered presuming to receive: what is to be done in such a case: As first, the Minister is to tell him of the sin, and desire him to forbear; if that will not do, then to show him the present danger of murdering Christ, and eating and drinking judgement to himself, and he hath done his duty.  
But than it may be inquired, whether he mean only in case of common fame, the scandal having been public: otherwise, I suppose it will not be a time to nominate any members sin, or person in public first.  
Then secondly, I question whether a scandalous member doth necessarily murder Christ, and eat and drink judgement to himself in the Scripture sense, whether the person be regenerate or unregenerate: For he may be Scandalous, and yet knowing, and able to put a difference between common bread and the instituted signs, in order to their end. He might be drunk the week before, and yet sober, scrious and reverend in the act of receiving, and not guilty of the body and blood of Christ, nor eat and drink judgement to himself in the Doctor's sense.  
He often distinguishes of worthy Church members and unworthy, according to the judgement of visibility; accounting the regenerate in the Church only worthy of admittance, but not the other, they not having a personal worthiness, must necessarily eat and drink unworthily, and so judgement to themselves in the Apostles sense, etc.  
Now because all his conclusions seem to be deducted from mere mistakes and misapplying of the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 11.20, to the 34. to the great peril and danger of the visible Church of Christ, as causing rents and divisions therein, I shall therefore make bold to present to consideration these necessary queries in reference to a discovery of the most probable sense of the place, humbly praying the Reader (when ever he think of me) to think seriously and impartially of them.  
1. Enquiry is to be made whether the Apostle intends any such thing as personal worthiness, or unworthiness in order to the Sacrament.  
2. Whether the unworthiness the Apostle speaks to, were not merely their miscarriages and actual offending in or about the externals of Sacramental actions and order.  
3. What were those sins that provoked the Lord so immediately to punish them for the present, and made them liable to be further punished for the future.  
4. Whether they were chastised for unworthiness of person or other sins they were guilty of, before they came together to celebrate the holy Supper.  
5. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to prevent future judgement, and to enjoy present benefit.  
6. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person professing and owning the true Religion among them, were not in a capacity so to use the remedy, as to prevent the judgement and receive benefit by the ordinance where God gave a blessing.  
7. Whether the duty of self-examination in order to the Sacrament is not to be restrained to the premises treated on in the context.  
8. Whether a careless neglect or incapacity of this duty of self-examination before, do excuse and give a writ of ease from that precept of public duty and service, Do this in remembrance of me.  
9 Whether there be any thing in the institution, nature, end, language, action of the Sacrament in the context, or elsewhere, incongruous to the receiving of the unregenerate in the Church.  
I doubt not but an ingenuous answer to these Queries would much moderate the unchristian rigour of these times about Sacramental communion, if not to make the controversy to cease among sober godly men. And therefore pardon my boldness in adventuring to present to public view my confused apprehensions in answer to these queries, and that with as much brevity as I can. Something must be done; and if I can discover the truth or give occasion unto some more able to do it, I shall bless God, and think my labour well bestowed.  
For the first, I conceive there is not the least hint or sound of unworthiness of persons in the Church of Corinth spoken to by the Apostle, in reference to the Sacrament, nor are they blamed or punished for their real unworthiness as to God, visible to the Church, though it's probable they had such amongst them in that communion. For in the beginning of this Epistle, the Apostle gives them the titles of the Church of God, sanctified in Christ Jusus, called to be Saints, etc. And of those that were punished for profaning the ordinance, the Apostle speaks very hopefully, nay confidently, that their persons were justified; they were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the world.  
But it may be said, Object. The Church of Corinth were all of them, at least visibly, worthy in respect of their persons; and therefore their free admission is no warrant for us, seeing many of ours want that visible worthiness. And if those that were visibly worthy, did through their miscarriage eat judgement to themselves, what may we think of ours, that have not so much as that visible worthiness which they had?  
1. I answer, Solution. If there be nothing against personal unworthiness in persons professing the true religion, in the context, in order to the Sacrament, than unworthiness of person in such can be no bar against them: but the former is true, therefore the latter is true also.  
2. If the Apostle upon so weighty occasion meddle not with their unworthiness of person, in reference to their receiving, than neither need we to meddle with it: it is sufficient that those we admit be baptised, and of the true Religion, under Church indulgence, to entitle them to all the ordinances which they are to use as means of their spiritual good; they being given to the visible Church to that very end.  
3. If our Baptism were rightly administered according to the Word, then ours of years that are of the same with them of the Church of Corinth, have as much external privilege in the Church, as they had, till either by Apostasy they fall off, or by the right exercise of Discipline they be put out. And had we the same charity the Apostle had, we would allow them the title of Saints, believers, brethren by profession and calling, as they did all along.  
For the second and third Quere, I am sure the Text is clear for the affirmative, namely, that their unworthiness was merely their miscarriages and actual offending about the externals of Sacramental actions and order.  
And they did eat and drink unworthily, not discerning the Lords body, and they profaned the holy Ordinance, in that they put no difference between their own supper and the Lords Supper; their own bread and the instituted signs: And for persons to make the consecrated signs, appointed by Jesus Christ to spiritual ends (as in the institution) a common or civil thing, to please and satisfy the outward man, must needs be a great evil; and was that high and provoking sin for which they are there punished, as well they might. For indeed it was a sin worse than carrying the Ark of the Covenant contrary to order; and yet for that the Lord made a breach upon them. And Nadab and Abihu were destroyed for offering strange fire which the Lord commanded not: so dangerous a thing it is not to come up to, or to add to, or to profane divine institutions. Doubtless the Corinthians were very rude, unreverent and disorderly in the present observance; some were hungry, and some drunk; some had too much, and others could get none, or but little, as is intimated in the remedy or direction given to that particular case: To tarry one for another (as to order) and if any hunger, let him eat at home, & not make the holy Supper a mere business of eating and drinking; that they come not together to condemnation, for time to come, as they had done before.  
To the fourth Query, I answer, They were not chastened for unworthiness of person, or for any other sins they were guilty of before, but for unworthy actings in the act of receiving, or at that time. For this cause some are weak, and some are sick, and some are fallen asleep, that is, for eating and drinking unworthily, contrary to order and decency: the which word unworthily, respects their manner of doing, not their persons. It's no were said, Whoso eateth and drinketh being unworthy, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And I think it is not where else the language of Scripture to require real worthiness of person, before they be sit to come under precepts of duty and service. Doth not Baptism lay engagements upon all to observe all the commands of Christ? 
Mat 28.19, 20.  And do this in remembrance of me, is a precept for the baptised of years to observe (they being under Church indulgence) otherwise we shall be driven to question our Baptism, and then our Church ministry; and run mad to the separations, or begin again if we could tell how.  
In the mean time, how injurious to Church members doth our ungrounded rigour, and private interpretations cause us to be!  
To the fift Querie, I say, The remedy is both by instruction and direction, by these ways the Apostle applies himself to them for the cure of their malady. He repeats the first institution, comments upon it, the better to give them to understand the nature, end and use of the ordinance, which before they were ignorant of, or did not well consider. And having taught them the mind of Christ, in what was necessary to that service, than he gives direction what they must do. First to examine themselves, whether they understand what these things of God did mean, as they had been taught; and then to tarry one for another, that the ordinance may be carried on with order, decency and reverence, becoming worship, and then he assures them they shall not be judged of the Lord.  
To the sixth Querie, I answer, The Apostle intends the remedy to the good of the whole Church, which comprehends every particular member of years that did actually receive, and offend therein. And he taught them not any thing, but what was easy to be understood by any reasonable man owning the true Religion among them. He directed them not to do any thing, but what was easy for them to do externally. And their offending was so obvious and apparent, that they were easily convinced, and yielded to the reproof, God's blessing concurring with the means: and indeed we read no more of their offending in that manner afterwards; nor any other Christian Church.  
But they were a Church consisting of members under better qualifications than ours; Object. therefore the same remedy which was sufficient for them, is not sufficient for most of ours.  
1. Solution. I answer, The Apostle writing to them, That if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such they should not eat; intimates, that there were such among them that were as bad as ours.  
But secondly, if we be a true Church, & our members we admit true Church members, even as theirs, than ours come under the same rules with them; unless we can find different rules for the same Church in the same things and respects: if not, then ours are under the same rule in reference to the Sacrament (until they be legally ejected and cast out) and are bound to act according to those rules, and that order prescribed, in hope of a blessing, even the worst member among us.  
To the seventh Querie, whether the duty of self-examination in order to the sacrament be not properly to be restrained to the premises treated on in the context; I answer, That whether it be to be extended in this place so fare as most do urge, in respect of their real state unto God, competent measure of knowledge in the many fundamentals of Religion, the having and acting every grace necessary to salvation, etc. or to be restrained to the particulars there mentioned; I dare not peremptorily determine, though strongly inclined to believe the latter. Not because I think self-examination touching the former may carelessly be neglected by any; but I question whether the Apostle had any respect thereto in this place, in reference to the Sacrament: because I conceive the Apostle here suits the remedy to the malady; and that unworthiness of person was not any part of malady nor ignorance in the fundamentals of Religion; but their not discerning the Lords body, and that put them upon other unworthy carriages, as is showed before. And therefore as examination is part of the remedy prescribed, it seems to me, most probable, that it properly refers to the rule of institution, and those other directions given in the context.  
The eighth Querie is, whether a careless neglect of this private duty of self-examination before, do give a writ of ease, and excuse such negligent persons from the precept of public duty and service, Do this in remembrance of me?  
To this I say, I cannot conceive how the neglect of a private duty, can excuse any in the neglect of public worship, that are Church members of years, under the obligation of all that Christ commands. The Apostles being sent to preach and baptise those that received their Doctrine (the Doctrine of the Gospel) and came under the baptism of Christ, were bound to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded; and in so doing they had a promise of his presence, and blessing upon their endeavours, And lo I am with you always to the end of the world, Mat. 28.19, 20. What can be more plain, except we shall say the observance of the holy Supper, is none of his commands?  
I think Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects, they observing it according to their present capacity. Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament, of any that came under Circumcision or Baptism, whether proselyte or native of years, that as private members were admitted to all other ordinances in the Church; and yet were forbidden the use of the other Sacrament, the Passover or the Lord's Supper? There is but one Law for the stranger and home-born. If our Baptism be the Baptism of Christ, I say, if it be the baptism of Christ, by which we are consecrated to Christ, why should any be exempted from any obedience and privilege, being of years, and under Church indulgence at least, more than the circumcised under Moses, or the Baptised under the Apostles? Our not acting according to Scripture precedents in this particular, will (I fear) in time unchurch us. We blame the Separations, when we ourselves maintain the first principles of setting up distinctions and separations in the Church: But it is dangerous to be partial in the laws of Christ. Why may not the woeful neglect of Sacraments, visible pledges of divine love; be one thing that makes ministers be so contemptible and vile in the eyes of many as they are?  
Well, but to return, I say this coming to the Sacrament is one of Christ's commands, and he that breaks the least of his commands, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God. But I think Mr. H. hath said enough to this to satisfy any sober impartial Christian, to whom I must still refer the reader for further satisfaction herein. The Doctor hath many quillets about this particular, which are more like to puzzle then to satisfy the reader. He strives to put an enclosure to some duties, as not common to all, and he instances in relations and sex that come under the obligations of the second Table; the which duties are common and universal to all of the same relations and sex. And what though it be not the duty of all Church members to preach and administer Sacraments; yet it is the duty of all Ministers what ever so to do. But Mr. H. argument is, If all other service lie in common, it is an entrenchment upon the common liberty, to put an enclosure upon the Sacraments. And if the Sacrament come under the obligation of the first Table, as a part of God's worship, it is equally binding to all, and so in common with the rest of worship, notwithstanding any thing yet made out to the contrary.  
It is true, affirmative precepts do not bind to every moment of time; but that will not justify a careless and wilful neglect at any time. And whereas it is said, that Church members are not bid absolutely to come, but so to come, it seems strange to me: I had thought that all precepts of worship had been absolute to persons of years, in the Church of Christ. And do this in remembrance of me is absolute, and the principal duty, however the Doctor is pleased to call it carnal Divinity, and a setting up the form above the power of worship. For in every duty there is a form, which is heedfully to be observed; and it's impossible there should be the power of godliness without the form. To obey the voice of God in regard of the matter enjoined, seems to be the main, as respecting reasonable man: and when there is an external conformity to the commands of the Lord, such are said to walk in the ways of the Lord, failings in the manner there will still be; both good and bad are under a necessity of failings and miscarriages in every thing, which is to be imputed to the common frailty of man fallen But not 〈◊〉 what God commands at all is voluntary rebellion, and that which the Scriptures most usually threaten severe judgements unto. But I hope the Doctor doth not mean that the celebration of the Lords Supper is the form, and self-examination the power; which yet he seems to do by his exceptions against making receiving to be the principal, the other but an accessary.  
To which exceptions, I say, First, that this duty of examination of ourselves is a private duty, and the private is subordinate to the public. Secondly, This duty was prescribed occasionally, as a remedy to that particular case of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and order; and therefore a means to further them in the right observance of the Supper: and we may most safely say, the end is most principal, the means less. Besides, where the duty ceaseth in some respects, it is not to be urged in those respects; but it's clear there is not the same reason, for point of offending in the Church of England, as there was at Corinth, about the Administration of the Sacrament; the work of our congregations demeaning themselves more reverently and orderly in a way suitable to the carrying on of that service in regard of the external part, according to the rule of institution.  
And therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily, as to the Church of Corinth. It is true, their ignorance, and not discerning of the Lords body represented by the instituted signs, was the cause of all their other miscarriages.  
But some may say, Object. Doth it not therefore follow, that the ignorant amongst us do necessarily run upon the same danger of miscarriage?  
I answer, Solut. we know they do not: for ours many of them rather err on the other hand, by putting too much holiness in the consecrated elements, then by using them as common things: such hath been the education of the most every where, that they conceive this Sacrament to be a most holy ordinance of God, appointed for the good of their souls. And therefore out of fear and reverence they do demean themselves orderly, and regularly conform to the externals of the institution. Had the Corinthians come up to that conformity of Sacramental actions, and order that ours generally do, we should not have read of their punishment for unworthy receiving (as I humbly conceive) nor of their being urged so to come: for that principal duty is not to be neglected, though through carelessness the other be.  
But then (saith the Doctor) It is a sen to dissuade men from doing their duty, Object. be they never so vile.  
To which I say, Solut. the Doctor knows there be other ways to reform such enormities. He instances in persuading to forbear duties of homage and worship; but not only Mr. H. but many other sober Christians, Ministers, and others, judge that all the visible subjects of Christ's Kingdom, are under the obligation of his commands? And do this in remembrance of me, is one not to be restrained to sex, function or any particular relations; but to be observed in common by all the baptised of years under Church indulgence. And if the Doctor hath any thing further to say, that may give satisfaction in that point, myself and others will be very thankful.  
9 And so I come to the last Querie propounded; namely, whether there be any thing in the nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament, in that place of the Corinth's, or elsewhere, incongruous to the actual receiving of the unregenerate in the Church.  
Before I come to answer directly to the Querie, I shall lay down these six propositions.  
1. I conceive that Sacraments in general, and this in particular were instituted for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ comprehensively taken, in which every particular member is included.  
2. That the visible Church of Christ consists of persons regenerate and unregenerate, professing the true religion, and their seed.  
3. That the unregenerate in the Church are the only proper and immediate objects of the most fundamental promises in the Gospel's Covenant, of the giving the first grace.  
4. That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in the Church, that are the immediate objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant; they being of years of discretion to use the same, in order to the Lords putting the promises into execution and performance.  
5. That whom the promises of grace do respect, to them the use of the Sacraments do belong; Sacraments being visible representations of the death and blood of Christ, on which those promises of grace are founded, and by which they are confirmed.  
6. That those in the Church and of years, whom we cannot exclude from covenant relation, we may not exclude from the Sacraments, they being visible seals and pledges of Covenant love to that people that are in possession of Covenant administrations, of divine Ordinances, of worship, as ours are.  
These being truths (as I conceive they all are) I think it will follow, that there is nothing in the Word against the receiving of the unregenerate in the Church, being of years of discretion, and professing the true Religion  
The Doctor hath written very understandingly and informingly concerning the Covenant, and the manner how it is sealed; and yet he falls off in his conclusions and applications, excluding the unregenerate in the Church from the Sacramental seals, whom yet he allows to be objects of Covenant grace, saying that only the elect and persons effectually called are the objects; and yet he intimates that the elect unregenerate are the object of initial grace; and that grace and faith be a part of the Covenant sealed by the Sacrament: and yet he would not have those receive that have not this faith and grace, though promised in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacrament.  
But if the elect before conversion be in the writing, and in the Church, than Sacraments seal to them: but doubtless God hath his elect to call in the Church, else we cannot tell where they are; if not under the ordinary means of their calling. And therefore there can be no danger in sealing that part of the Covenant to such. And doth not the Doctor himself and others act accordingly in administering the seal in Baptism? Are they within the Covenant then by virtue of a visible profession in their parents, and upon that account sealed with the Sacrament of Baptism; and yet grown to years denied the same seal of the Supper? If they had right then; how comes it to pass they have none now? The Doctor saith, Because of their antifederall wickedness, they prejudice themselves, and deprive themselves of covenant right: and that those that are in the state of nature, are out of the Covenant, and the grossly ignorant are such, etc. And therefore to be denied the sacramental Seal.  
To which I answer, It's hard to such, that any born in the Church of Christian Parents, they continuing to uphold an external profession of the true Religion, are out of the Covenant, how ignorant or wicked so ever they be. For if there be a more immediate object of those promises of giving the first grace, in the Church, where the ordinary means of working that grace are, than persons in the state of nature, and unregenerate in the Church are the immediate object of those promises before others out of the Church. But there is a present and immediate object of those promises in the Church, that are under covenant ordinances; except the day of Gods giving the first grace be passed in the Church. Therefore those in the State of nature and unregenerate in the Church, are the present and most immediate object of those promises in the Covenant of Gods giving the first grace. As for those in the Church that have the first grace already, they cannot be the proper objects of it in the promise: and those that are out of the Church, not having the ordinary means of putting those promises into performance, cannot be the present and most immediate, or most likely objects.  
For as touching the state of Paganism, the Apostle intimates plainly, That they are strangers from the Covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2.12. Therefore the unregenerate in the Church, are the present and most proper objects of those promises, and consequently of Sacraments that seal to the truth of those promises. And for those that will not allow men in the state of nature and unregenerate, to be of the Church, they will allow the Covenant a full object in the Church. And for particular sins and personal miscarriages in the Church, we are to make no difference in the regenerate and unregenerate, there being the same rule to guide us in dealing with both. But let none mistake me, when I say the unregenerate in the Church are the immediate and proper objects of the promises of the first grace, I do not mean that all such in the Church must necessarily have that grace given them; but such there are in the visible Church, which by nature are as bad as any others, and in no consideration differ from the worst of men considered in themselves; but are simple sinners wholly lost with the rest of fallen mankind: That which makes the difference is out of themselves; it's the mere good will and pleasure of him that worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; giving grace to whom he will, of those that in all respects are equal in sin and misery. So that when we shall come to judge of persons in the Church, under the most evident characters of unregeneracy; yet we may not exclude them from being objects of covenant grace and mercy; nor from the seals and pledges of that grace and mercy, during their abode in the Church, and the Church's indulgence toward them. In a word, nothing excludes from covenant relation, but the sin against the Holy Ghost (which I fear many of our blasphemous Sectaries are guilty of) and positive unbelief, such as was in the hardened and obstinate Jews; who denied the holy One, and true Messiah sent among them; obstinacy and Apostasy in the justly excommunicated, renouncing the Christian Religion, hating to be reform by the Church's censures; these things exclude, and nothing else. And this might suffice for answer to the Querie, but I shall add two or three arguments more.  
1. The very nature of the Sacrament of the Supper is a visible Gospel, representing Christ crucified to sight and all the other senses, by instituted signs, which more ordinarily is carried to the ear by the word: but in this all the senses are made the inlets to the soul, carrying the knowledge of Christ crucified to the understanding heart and conscience. And I think the unregenerate in the Church, have as much need of being taught Christ crucified, by the visible signs, as any others: and they have as much need of the benefit and advantage of their outward senses, as the regenerate, and more, they being more dull and slow of spirit to understand or to be affected with the meaning and end of this service than they are.  
2. The main end of this service, is to keep a continual fresh remembrance of the death of Christ, and that satisfaction made by him; by which all the same blessings of the Covenant are procured to fallen man: Christ's blood was shed for many, for remission of sins; that he might gather into one the children of God, scattered abroad in all the world, and in all ages of the world, is the end of his death, Joh. 11.52. And the Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of that by all those that profess hope of being saved through the merits of his death; which the unregenerate in the Church do, and cannot be excluded from the number of those many Christ shed his blood for: and therefore it is proper for such to remember the death of Christ, in order to their spiritual good, whom we cannot exclude from being the sheep he died for.  
3. The actions of taking, eating and drinking are natural actions of the body, in reference to those spiritual ends the institution directs us to, the which actions the unregenerate are in a natural and rational capacity to perform externally as the Word requires. Though the Doctor be pleased to judge them altogether uncapable, as not having a hand to take, he making faith the hand, which he saith they have not; which indeed is true of the unregenerate: but is he able to prove, that by the act of taking and eating expressed in the institution is meant the act of faith? I rather conceive it one thing among many others he takes for granted, which would give better satisfaction, to hear sound proved by the Word, then to leave us merely to credit the dictates of men.  
4. The language of Sacraments runs in general and indefinite terms, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, drink ye all of it; so saith Matthew and Mark; indeed Luke and Paul restrain the word many, to you, as being a part of that many in the judgement of charity; and so Paul judges of the Corinthians.  
I doubt not but if the Doctor examine the institution well, he may find enough to warrant a forbearance of that particular application in the delivery of the Sacrament, which he so much urges in his Book. I cannot find in Scripture language any such thing as he makes giving and receiving to be. 
Pag 4●2.  What danger is there of confirming the unregenerate in presumption, if they take and cat in remembrance of Christ's death? Who have more need of remembering the death of Christ, than they that must perish for ever, dying without the saving benefits thereof? Who have more need of those gracious tenders of life & favour, than such in the Church? For is not regenerating grace a benefit that comes by the death of Christ? And is not remission of sins a benefit that comes by the death of Christ? And is not Christ and all his benefits exhibited by those outward signs? And doth not that include or suppose a proper subject of those benefits present; which the unregenerate and unpardoned in the Church are? What incongruity is there in all this? Besides, it sounds very harsh in the Church, to exclude this ordinance of Christ from being a renewing and a converting ordinance, or a means of renewing and converting grace to the unregenerate, they being the most proper objects of that grace, as it is held forth in the promises, for the putting of which into execution, all the ordinances seem to be subservient.  
Again, that one main end of the work of the Ministry is the conversion of souls, none will deny; and I think none can exempt any essential part of that work from being a means subservient to this end; and if no essential part can be exempted, than not this of administering this Sacrament of the Supper, which none can deny to be an essential or necessary part of the Ministers work in reference to the good of souls. That ordinance in the Church that was instituted to show forth the death of Christ till he come, is a means of conversion. But the Sacrament is an ordinance in the Church instituted to show forth the death of Christ till he come. Therefore the Sacrament is a means of conversion. What may more strongly move a sinner to convert then the death of Christ, which sets forth the heinousness of sin, the wretched condition of the sinner in himself, without Christ, and yet a possibility of salvation by Christ?  
Thirdly, The word and prayer (confessedly means of conversion) are so necessary to the right administration of the instituted signs, that without them there is no Sacrament; and therefore to deny the Sacrament to be a means of conversion, is to deny the Word and Prayer to be a means of conversion; unless we shall say that the adding of the instituted signs to the Word and Prayer hinders the power and efficacy of them from their intended end; so that though the Word and Prayer be means of conversion out of the administration of the Sacrament, yet in it they are not.  
And whereas the Doctor saith, There is no promise made to that Ordinance, in that respect: it is easily answered: for there is a promise of Christ's presence in every ordinance, Mat. 28.20. Besides, Precepts and Promises are relatives; in Precepts we are to understand Promises included, and in Promises Precepts are understood. As sinners are to seek God while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near; so they must seek him where he will be found. As we may not exclude the merciful presence of Christ from the Sacrament; so neither may we exclude sinners in the Church from seeking Christ there. We know not but that a wilful or careless neglect of this one duty of worship and homage, may hinder a blessing from all the rest: as he that turns his ear from the Law, his prayer shall be abominable.  
But when the Doctor cannot with any clearness answer the argument to satisfaction, he would evade it, by allowing all presence at the administration which he saith is profitable, and answers the end pleaded for, etc.  
1. And indeed in that his device Church members of years are beholding to him for his charity in allowing them as much privilege in order to the Sacrament, as he allows to infidels, and the excommunicated.  
2. If that bare presence answer that end, then much more actual receiving, having the advantage of more of their bodily senses, then merely to be spectators: and I think that in yielding this he hath granted the argument; and his putting the question to actual receiving, is not to any purpose; because the act of receiving abstracted from word and prayer, necessary essentials to the very being of the ordinance, is but a civil thing only: And therefore the whole must go together to make up that service; and his question is beside the question. It is sufficient to prove the argument, that the whole administration be blessed to that end; as Mr. H. states the question. But what devices do men find out in pretence of advancing Sacraments? Some exclude all Infants, others some Infants in the Church. The papists will give the Sacrament but in one kind; many among us in neither kind. The Doctor will allow all presence at the Sacrament: they may hear and see, but they may not taste; they may not take and eat according to the Commandment.  
But why will he allow all to be present? Why, because presence may convert, but actual receiving not, because natural men being present, may get good without that sin which they are in danger of by unworthy receiving; but by their receiving they can receive no benefit; but do prejudice themselves by their unworthy receiving, besides their being guilty of murdering Christ. And shall we think, that that act, wherein they eat and drink judgement to themselves, shall be so blessed of God, as to become a means of conversion to them, etc. And besides, because the committing of some gross and scandalous sin, is made by God an occasion of conversion; shall any take warrant therefrom to commit scandalous sins, etc.  
To all which I answer, That all which he hath to that purpose is argued from mere mistakes, he taking for granted all along, that the unregenerate in the Church, do necessarily eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense; whereas I conceive the contrary hath been already fully declared. And therefore it would be well, if he would see his mistake, and alter his judgement, that others might not be in danger of being misled by him. In the mean time what he hath charged Mr. H. with in point of excommunication untruly, may be retorted upon himself justly, It is a cruel assertion, a bloody tenant, etc. And that not only in his depriving many souls of the benefit and spiritual good of so blessed an ordinance; but in his detracting also from the goodness, grace and power of God in that ordinance; as if Christ had appointed it in the Church, rather for the hurt, then for the spiritual good of his visible subjects, they partaking thereof conformly according to their present capacity.  
Object. But then (saith the Doctor) If it be a convering ordinance, we may administer the Sacrament to the Heathen to convert them to Christianity; for if it will convert those in the Church that have but the form, to the power of Religion, than it will sure convert the Heathen (at least) to the form: if it will do the greater, much more the lesser.  
To this I answer, Solution. That an argument drawn from the greater to the lesser, must be of things of the same kind, and so of men under an equal capacity, else it will not hold. I can throw a stone over a house, can I therefore throw a feather: this is less than the other, and yet though the same arm and strength be put forth, it will not do it. The fallacy of the argument lies in this, That there is not the same capacity of receiving good by the Sacrament in both: the formal professing Christian is not in such an incapacity of receiving good by that ordinance as the Heathen are? We know that to Heathens, that never heard of Christ, or at least do not acknowledge him their redeeming Lord, so as to come under his Laws, no not so much as Baptism, the outward elements are but mere civil things. And they might be easily persuaded to take and eat of those elements of Bread and Wine, in order to the good of their bodies, but not for the good of their souls, before they own Christ to be their Lord, Redeemer and Saviour; till than they know not what these things mean. But those among us, educated in the true Religion, do acknowledge Christ their redeeming Lord; and they do know in some measure what these things of God mean: so that the Sacrament in an ordinary way, may work some proper effect upon the one, but can have none upon the other without a miracle. Besides, it is clear enough, that as no uncircumcised persons were to enter into the Sanctuary, or to eat of the Passeover; so no unbaptized person is to partake of the holy Supper in that Communion. Were there the like ground of denying the Sacrament to the ignorant and scandalous persons under Church indulgence, that there is of denying it to infidels; this controversy had been at an end before this time. It cannot be denied, but excommunication is appointed in the Church, to convert and reduce the obstinate and wilful sinners therein: doth it therefore follow, that we may exercise this means of conversion to Heathens out of the Church? What can be more absurd? Nay, what have we to do to judge them that are without? 1 Cor. 5.12. The Doctor knows well enough, that different premises will not bear the same conclusions: and the truth is, for want of making premises equal, according to Scripture precedents, we have run upon false conclusions: to instance in some.  
1. Because we find in Scripture the distinction of believer and unbeliever, used to distinguish the Church from the World, how commonly is the same used to make a distinction in the Church amongst us who in Scripture sense are all believers: for it is evident, that an unbeliever? in the Scripture sense, is either a Pagan infidel, or an unbelieving Jew that absolutely renounces Christ, under the notion of a false Christ, a deceiver, a devil, etc. refusing to obey his Laws, or to expect salvation by him.  
2. Because we find that these unbelievers are under wrath, Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the Covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world. Ephes. 2.12. Which was true of the Ephesians before they received the Gospel; that therefore the unregenerate in the Church, are under the same condition, though they believe in a true sense (though not sincerely) and are under the Covenant; and persons to whom the adoption, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God pertains, as once to the Jews, Rom. 9.4, 34. finding warrant in the word to separate from the Infidel and idolatrous world (especially in matter of worship) therefore they conclude, we must separate ourselves from the unregenerate in the Church.  
4. Because we find, that some believers have by their unworthy and undecent behaviour, in time of administration, profaned the Sacrament to their own peril and judgement; therefore we conclude, First, That those whose persons are unworthy (as not being regenerate) eat and drink unworthily. Secondly, That some other unworthy actions of Christians committed before their coming to the Sacrament, renders them uncapable of worthy receiving; and consequently renders them liable to judgement therein.  
5. Because we find in the Scripture, some excommunicated for foul and scandalous sins, and blasphemous opinions; therefore we conclude we may exercise Church censures for any sin, even for omission of such duties as are dubious whether enjoined in the word or no; but I have done with these false conclusions.  
There is one objection more which the Doctor makes against Mr. H. Free Admission; to which I desire to speak something.  
The objection is this. Object. That Mr. H. Free Admission strengthens the hands of the wicked, by promising them lies in the Name of the Lord: and makes sad the hearts of the righteous, whom God would not have made sad, by their profaning the ordinance, etc. And this he endeavours to back with the language of the Sacrament, or words which the Minister uses in the delivering of the Sacrament to particular persons: by his words and action, giving and tendering Christ and all his benefits of grace and glory to the wicked, as well as to the godly; the which grace and glory the Sacraments are appointed to assure and confirm, etc. When as in the preaching of the word it is fare otherwise; the Minister therein not dispensing the same to all alike; but preaching comfort to whom comfort belongs, and terror to whom terror belongs, etc.  
I shall in answer to this objection, Solut. promise several things.  
1. That Sacraments are of no other signification then what they are appointed to signify by the Word.  
2. That what Sacraments signify, that only they do necessarily teach, and nothing else.  
3. That the subject of Sacramental teaching, or that which they chief teach, is Christ crucified, together with all the benefits that come thereby to the visible Church, included in that particular blessing of remission of sins.  
4. That the main end of the whole service, is to bear in our minds a continual remembrance of the death of Christ; the meriting and procuring cause of all grace and glory bestowed upon baptised man.  
5. That the Administration of the Sacrament, is appointed in the Church as well to be a means of grace, as a pledge to assure thereof.  
To all this add what hath been said before concerning the unregenerate, in order to the Sacrament; and then make it out he that can, that the language or administration of the Sacrament, to the wicked or unregenerate, remaining in the Church, doth strengthen the hands of the wicked more than the Word may do; or promise them lies in the name of the Lord. I grant that false conclusions and applications may be drawn from the truest premises in the Word: and so likewise from the use of the Sacrament, through mistake of ourselves: but it doth not therefore follow, that the Word or Sacrament promiseth lies to the hearer or receiver; when through an ignorant deceitful heart, they misapply the Word or Sacrament. For there are general truths held forth indefinitely to all in both, though all do not rightly apply the same. And the very same that is said of the Sacrament, may be truly said of the Word, as to the particular in hand, when rightly dispensed to men in the Church.  
Is not this the great, and most true assertion of the Gospel, worthy to be received of all men, That Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1.15. And also to seek and to save that which is lost, to call to repentance, to justify the ungodly, and to die for enemies, who yet in other places are called sheep, his Church and friends, according to God's electing love and gracious purpose? And is not this Gospel to be preached to every creature, in order to the working and effecting these ends of grace and salvation in such as are sinners absolutely, and lost in themselves, and simply ungodly? And dare any say, this is to promise lies to the ungodly and sinners in the Church, and so to strengthen the hands of the wicked, that they may not return from their wickedness? And what is the Sacrament given and received, but a visible representation of the death of Christ, and satisfaction made by him for sinners, to put us in remembrance of all this; and which opens a door of hope to all in general, and a peculiar comfort to them that can from their experience of grace received (with Paul) apply this to themselves: Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. I know what is usually put in against this general assertion of the Gospel, limiting the same to penitent sinners, sensible of their being lost, and of being enemies, etc. But doubtless out of some mistake; and such as doth reflect somewhat upon the public Ministry (to which I would not be any way in the least degree injurious) but because such like quotations in Mr. H. are excepted against by the reverend Doctor; I shall crave leave to express some of my thoughts in vindication of him.  
The Doctor saith, Christ came not to call the righteous, that is, such as think themselves so, but sinners to repentance, that is, saith he, such sinners that are sensible of their sinfulness, sick and lost, etc. But will not this then follow, that all natural men, dead in trespasses and sins, thinking themselves righteous, whole, and in the right way, and that they have need of nothing (with the Laodiceans) not knowing that they are wretched and miserable, poor, and blind, and naked, are out of the number Christ came to call; and so by consequence he came to call none at all; because all by nature are sinners under the forementioned Characters and black qualification of insensibleness of sin and misery, and high thoughts of themselves. And therefore the Doctor's sense is not like to be the true sense and meaning. For we know what counsel Christ gives to the Laodiceans, who were such conceited senseless sinners, Rev. 3.18. And how that he gives life to quicken them that are dead in sins and trespasses, Ephes. 2.1. And is sent to give repentance to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and remission of sins, Act. 5.31. For to say he gives repentance to the penitent, and life to the living, (as he doth if the Doctor's sense be right) is not the sense of the Gospel, nor indeed a truth in its proper sense, without the advancing of the power of nature too high. And therefore such supernatural conditions or qualifications are not required to put persons into a capacity of receiving the benefits of the Gospel's Covenant: it being the supernatural benefits and blessings of the Covenant that make any to be such. It's true, supernatural grace precedes glory; and the first grace precedes the growth and increase therein: but it is natural depravity, sinfulness and misery that necessarily precedes the first saving grace; so that that cannot be a condition of the first grace, that is either the first grace itself, or growth therein. The Covenant in this case is absolute and inconditionall: but then I conceive the Covenant to be conditional in other respects, in an easy and favourable sense thus. The tenor of the Gospel, to people that never yet embraced nor owned the Doctrine and ordinances of the Gospel, runs thus, He that believes shall be saved; but the wrath of God abides upon those nations, people and persons, that either have not the Gospel in the tender of it, or being tendered receive it not. But those that upon the tender receive the Gospel, so as to credit the truth thereof, and willingly come under the laws and worship enjoined, forsaking all false religions, and join with the professors of the true, such are reckoned for believers, and come under the promises of grace and glory upon that account. And therefore the Apostle sends salutations to all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord, both theirs and ours; and he applies that of the Prophet in this case, Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord, shall be saved, 1 Cor. 1.2. Rom. 10.13. That is, such people are under the promises of salvation, in opposition to those that call not upon the Name of Christ Jesus the Lord at all; as Jer. 10.25. Pour out thy fury upon the Heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy Name. I look upon belief of the truth as the only means of engraffing the unbelieving Jew or Gentile into the true Olive or visible Church of Christ, out of which is no salvation; because they have not the ordinary means of attaining the same. And where the means is, the Word profits not, when it is not mixed with faith in them that hear it. The Jew believed not the truth of the Gospel at all: And he that comes to God must believe in the first place, 
Heb. 11.6.  that God is, and then, that he is a bountiful rewarder of them that diligently seek him.  
And that leads me to the next thing, namely, to conceive of all those that are in external convenant with God, in regard of their being in possession of the Divine oracles and ordinances, precepts and promises, that all such are under all the commands of Jesus Christ: and the observance of those commands seems to me to be the condition of the Gospel, and the grace thereof to be attained unto in the use of instituted means, and ways appointed by Jesus Christ in order to that end. And I do also conceive that not only half promises, and it may bees, but whole promises seem to respect persons in the Church, doing but the moral, reasonable and external duties. Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you, seek and ye shall find. If you that are evil know how to give good things to your children, much more will your heavenly Father give the Spirit to them that ask it, even to them that have it not? Hear ye deaf, and see ye blind, that ye may see. Isa. 42.18. And again, hear and thy soul shall live. Isa. 55.3. Cease to do evil, learn to do well; and then come and let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isa. 1.16, 17, 18. And after the Lord was pleased to express the greatest freeness of his grace to the house of Israel, in promising to give to them a new heart, and to put his spirit in them, and to make them his people, he adds, yet will I be required of for this by the house of Israel to do it for them, Ezek. 36, 26, 27, 28, 37.  
And as the Lord hath made many promises to the use of means, so the use of means is ordinarily successful and blessed to attainment of grace. I do not say, that any by the use of means deserve grace, or that God is bound to give grace to all use of means, or that he gives grace to any for the use of means and reasonable serving of God. The blessing of grace is promised and also given freely according to the good pleasure of Gods own will. And both the means & the blessing upon the means is a fruit of Christ's purchase by his blood.  
The like may be said of those in whom the promises of the first grace are performed: they ought diligently to apply themselves to the use of all good means, and walk in all holy ways of Christian obedience, for further growth and increase therein. All men stand bound to employ all their abilities, and to put forth themselves in all real endeavours to improve their talents, either of common or general endowments, or more peculiar blessings of supernatural grace, according to the advantages and opportunities given them, and shall be accountable to their Lord for them: this is the tenor of Scripture, and thus man is bound to do, whether God give the blessing or no: duties belong to man, the issue is the Lords: man is bound to him, but he is free to do whatsoever he pleaseth in heaven and in earth. And yet it's true also that the promises of eternal glory and blessedness, belong only to those that are actually justified and sanctified; and do patiently continue in welldoing, Rom. 2.7. And this I think is neither Antinomianism nor Pelagianism; but the tenor and scope of the Covenant of grace to man. So then if we consider men under sin and misery, being in the Church, they are under the commands of the Gospel, which justifies their observance of those commands, in hope of a blessing. And according to promises in that particular case, the unworthy guess in the parable, was not sentenced for his being unworthy, and without the wedding garment when he was commanded to come to the feast (for so were all that were bidden as well as he) but his partaking of the Gospel, and having liberty to sit down, and eat of every dish of that feast of fat things, and yet at the end of the feast, being found to be one not having a wedding garment; this was damning; and for this he was sentenced to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into utter darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Mat. 22.11, 12, 13. This is a place usually misapplyed: for it proves no more than this, That of those that have the advantage of Gospel administrations, some may and do perish, for not having the grace of the Gospel. Many are called, but few are chosen. But this by the way; I will return to the other part of the objection made by the Doctor against Mr. H. free admission, which is this, namely, That it makes sad the hearts of the godly, to see the ordinance profaned, etc.  
To which I answer, Why should the hearts of the godly be made sad, because unregenerate persons join with them in duties of homage and worship, and are willing to join with them in the use of the Word and Prayer as well as the Sacrament, as means of a blessing? Why should any be grieved that wicked men and sinners are objects of Redemption, Covenant blessings and mercy? shall the eye of any be evil, because God is good, in sending Christ into the world to save sinners? Should not all remember that they themselves were such, though now through free grace they be washed, and sanctified and justified. Christians that are partakers of this grace, are all this by virtue of Electing love, Redemption and Covenant grace. None of us by nature, were any better than our fellow sinners. It was the mere good pleasure of God in Christ, that hath made us to differ. And what have any that they have not received, and that in the use of the same ordinary means, you stomach at in others your fellow sinners? Where would you have sinners to seek Christ Jesus but in the Temple? Where shall they find him, but where he is? Christ bids all that will come and take of the true bread and water of life freely, Rev. 22.17. He doth no where discourage any from coming to him. O that Ministers would rather woe sinners, and seek by all fairness and love to draw them to wait upon Christ in the way of all his ordinances, in order to blessing; then causelessly, upon mistake, to discourage them, and take them off from endeavouring after their duty of remembering the love of Christ, in his laying down his life for sinners! but I must contract.  
But than says the Doctor, If this be so, Object. let all come pellmell, and then where is the reformation so much endeavoured after of late?  
To this I answer, Solut. That if by coming all pellmell, be meant all, though they come to mock at, or openly to abuse the ordinance, I say it doth no way follow from what I have asserted, nor from any thing Mr. H. hath said. For he hath very well stated the question, and excepted infants, distracted and justly excommunicated persons; and these being excepted, if he or I say, let all come that will, I think it neither to be absurd nor dangerous; seeing that Christ, when he offers himself, and the thing signified in the Sacrament, saith, Let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely, Rev. 22.17. Why may not we say of all of years, under Church indulgence (whether Presbytered or not Presbytered) they offering themselves to receive, are not to be denied the Sacrament for supposed incapacity or unworthiness? Besides, Mr. H. hath given a rational account of his own practice, to acquit himself from such reproachful expressions, as are used against him, namely, That he hath done his utmost (de jure) that all come prepared: And that none may charge him with arrogance, he modestly and humbly breaks out into this pathetical expression.  
But woe is me, if I justify myself, who am a man of unclean lips, and dwell among people of unclean lips, eminent only in failings! By which words he doth not detract what he had said before, but only shows, that though such were his frailty, that he (as all other) failed and came short in every duty, yet he had not willingly neglected or wholly omitted any duty in that respect, which Christ requires of him. And so whether Mr. H. or the Doctor favours most of pride and vanity, let the intelligent and sober judge.  
Now to the other part of the objection, namely, Where is the reformation so long endeavoured after, if we allow of such a free admission.  
I answer,  
1. I would learned men did more study by the right means, and in the right way to reform a true Church labouring under some corruptions in Doctrine, worship and discipline; which is our case.  
2. I would fain know whether the debarring of Church members of years, and not excommunicated from the Sacrament be a means of reforming approved in the Word.  
3. Whether the want of discipline do justify a total neglect or suspension of Sacraments, in order to reformation.  
4. Whether separation in the Church be a good expedient to further the reformation of the whole.  
5. Whether to abolish the essentials of Church discipline, in the use thereof, for some exorbitant abuses, be a good expedient to reform the thing.  
6. Whether denying the Sacrament to those whom the Church cannot justly proceed against, the positive excommunication be any furtherance to reformation.  
7. Whether there can be any reformation of the Church in that respect, until discipline be restored, and uniformly exercised in the same; and if so, whether the Sacrament must be suspended till then, and whether it be any thing towards reformation so to do.  
8. Whether the very nature and being of reformation in the visible Church, stands not only in the external conformity to the indisputable Laws of Christ their head; constraining all to an uniformity thereunto. When these few queries are answered either by the reverend Doctor, or any other that holds the Church of England a true constituted Church, as to its essentials and being; if I live, and God enable me thereto, I may take occasion to make a further and more direct answer to that latter part of the objection concerning reformation.  
In the mean time I shall go on to vindicate Mr. H. in what he asserts touching excommunication, and censures of the Church. For what he hath asserted concerning these, is by the Doctor charged to be false, bloody tenants, etc.  
And here I shall first assert what I conceive is truth, and then answer to what the Doctor hath said.  
1. I conceive that none are proper objects of excommunication, but such as are in the true Church of God, and in fellowship with the Saints in all acts of communication and worship public. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? them God judges, 1 Cor. 5.12.  
2. That no one is to be excommunicated, but in case of violating some manifest and known Law of Christ: and that violation peristed in to obstinacy; after a judicial trial, conviction, and patiented waiting of the Church, for his reformation.  
3. That none may exercise the key of Ecclesiastical Discipline, but such persons in office to whom all the keys of Christ's Kingdom are committed, being appointed by him to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments as well as exercise discipline.  
4. That no single pastor alone, but such as are so in an association, as to derive authority from the whole, can exercise Church censures authoritatively; and that every Presbyter in general is not to have a part in this power, but some in special chosen by the whole Church, which are more eminently qualified and fitted for the exercise of Ecclesiastical rule and government.  
5. That excommunication, when it is just, is a solemn ejecting or putting out of obstinate sinners in the Church, from all acts of communion and worship of God in the public congregation; until by repentance they manifest both their shame and sorrow for their sin; and upon the manifestation of this, and public promise of amendment, the Church ought to be satisfied therewith; and the penitent offender to be restored and regularly admitted to all external Church privileges again.  
6. That those have much to answer for, that were the occasion of laying God's vineyard waste, by throwing down the wall, and plucking up the hedge of discipline established, before they were agreed of another warranted by the Word, to be set up in stead thereof. By this time they may both see their folly and feel the smart of it in the evil effects and consequences.  
Well, having laid down these propositions, let me a little apply them, and show you what will follow upon the truth of them. And first, if the first be true (as I conceive it is) than those that never were admitted to the Lords Supper, are not in a capacity of these censures of the Church; nor to be amended by them, what ever their enormities be. If the second be true, than none in the Church may be censured for ignorance, or for the omitting of doubtful duties; especially that of submitting to Church examination, in order to the Sacrament. If the third be true, than not only the common members, but the ruling Elders will be called in question for usurping the key of Discipline; they not having power to exercise the key of Doctrine and Sacraments. If the fourth be true, than we may take notice how little of true discipline is practised in the Church of England; and in what an incapacity we are (for the present) of any true reformation; whatever some pretend. But the sixth and last I intent more especially to clear up in vindication of Mr. H.  
And take it thus.  
Excommunication is a delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. It's a great thunderbolt & punishment inflicted by the Church, as the last remedy to reduce the obstinate from the way of perishing Calvin saith, As Christ is in the Church, so Satan is out of the Church; to which condition the excommunicated are sentenced: but with a merciful end; to reduce them to Christian obedience, where God gives the blessing. Otherwise it is the very beginning of hell, and eternal wrath; when the sentence is just; it being confirmed in heaven. Put out from among you that wicked person, 1 Cor. 5.13. He must be put out from among themselves, and so out of all communion. The same word seems to be Joh. 9.22. and 12.42. where it is said of some, that they durst not confess Christ for fear of the Jews, for they had a greed, that if any did confess him, they should be put out of the Synagogue. So that if the Apostle Paul in the censure of the incestuous person, have any reference to the practice of the Jews, (as the Doctor seems to hint) why then doubtless he was put out of the Church's assemblies. For it is most certain, the Synagogues were places of case, where the Jews publicly assembled for divine worship, of prayer, reading, preaching, etc. Act. 13, 14, 15, 16. So that I say, if Paul followed the practice of the Jews, or meant that the Corinthians should proceed according to their practice in this; then his meaning was, that they should put out that wicked person from their assemblies for communion and worship I profess I cannot but wonder the Doctor should be so tart with Mr. Humphrey in this thing; he having the very letter of the Text, and the practice of the Jews Church to warrant what he hath asserted in this point. For let me ask the reverend Doctor how he or any other of his opinion will reconcile that delivering to Satan out of the Church, and allowing their presence in the congregation, in all acts of worship and spiritual communion, except actual receiving of the Sacrament of the Supper? To put out that wicked person from among themselves: and at the same time to allow him presence among themselves; and to have communion with them in all acts of worship except the Supper, are altogether inconsistent. Neither doth that any thing at all help, which the Doctor so often urges in his book; Let him be as a Heathen or publican: But Heathens and publicans may be present at all the ordinances, 1 Cor. 14.24. And therefore the excommunicate may; because they are not to be unto the Church worse than a Heathen, etc.  
For to this I have many words to say, which I think will answer the argument.  
1. It will appear that scandalous brethren are in some respect worse than infidels. If any provide not for his own, specially for those of his own house; he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. 5.8. And it had been better for revolting Christians, never to have known the way of righteousness, 2 Pet. 2.21. And there was not such a thing so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife, 1 Cor. 5.1. And when scandalous brethren are worse than Heathens, in sinning under such means of better obedience, that Heathens have not; there is reason they should be denied something of privilege that Heathens may have.  
2. It's clear that scandalous brethren are to be denied that privilege in civil commerce and familiarity that Heathens are allowed to have with Christians, and Christians with them, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 10.27. compared. Liberty is given to Christians to have civil and friendly familiarity with infidels, and fornicators of the world; which yet is absolutely to be denied to scandalous and disorderly brethren; as a means to bring them to shame. And if scandalous brethren under trial or actual censure, are to be debarred of some privilege that heathens are allowed: it will somewhat weaken the strength of the Doctor's argument.  
3. The Apostles had direct and express commission (after Christ's ascension) to preach unto the Heathen; and therefore had warrant to admit of their voluntary presence to hear in any place where opportunity might give the advantage of converting them. But yet upon their rejecting the Gospel when it was faithfully tendered to them; the Apostles might shake off the dust of their feet against them; and leave them deeper under wrath. The unbelieving Jews were within the commission too; but when they rejected the words of eternal life, and abused the messengers of Christ, that preached this to them, it's said, they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life; and upon that account the Apostles forsake them. Most terrible things are written against the disobedient to the Gospel. And I am sure, Christians that reject the Laws of Christ (as the excommunicated are supposed to do) are worse than Infidels, that never had the means of knowing and doing what Christ commands. As in respect of sin and eternal punishment, those that live under the Gospel, but refuse to submit to it, may be said to be worse than Heathens; so why not in point of external Church privilege likewise; they having forfeited all those privileges of word, prayer, Sacraments, engaging all powerful means of their reformation, which heathens never had the advantage of. And it is supposed that Christ is rejected in all the ordinary means appointed to reclaim the scandalous and obstinate in the Church, before this sentence of excommunication is pronounced and put in execution against them. And just it is, that they that obstinately reject all, should be banished from all; that they may either return to their duty by repentance, and thereby give satisfaction to the Church, and be again received into communion: or else add to obstinacy apostasy; also be rejected for ever, that the Name of God be not evil spoken of, because of such scandalous members.  
4. Let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican: that is, let the excommunicated be as odious, and as abominable to thee as a Publican, or Roman officer sitting at the receipt of custom, was to the Jews: or as a Heathen was to the Jews, during the present state of the Jewish Church (with respect to which Christ speaks) when the uncircumcised were an abomination to the Jews; they being forbidden to let any stranger or uncircumcised in the flesh, come into God's Sanctuary, or partake of any privilege of worship, but upon being a Proselyte. And let the excommunicated be as such a one, and then what hath the Doctor and his party gotten?  
Touching the practice of the Greek Churches urged: I say what is that to us, when it is not agreeable to the practice of the first Apostolical Church of Christ? For upon the like ground on which they made four degrees of excommunication, they might have brought in ten. And therefore not so much their practice, as the ground thereof is to be regarded in this point.  
But then the Doctor adds, That if this admitting of the excommunicated to be present at all ordinances be an error, it is out of indulgence, and an error on the right hand: for whereas he excludes from one ordinance, he might exclude from all, according to Mr. H. tenant, etc.  
1. To this I answer; right hand errors are evil as well as left, and to be taken heed of; and therefore not to be pleaded for, but to be reform.  
2. Suspension from the Sacrament only is no legal censure. 1. Because it hath no ground nor footing in the Word. 2. Because it is the same with excommunication, according to the Doctors own principles and practice. For he allows presence at all the ordinances in the Church in both; and his proceed in order to both are the same. And he and the rest of his opinion and way, not coming up to the true nature of Church censures, do as much as in them lies, hinder the end of censures; which is, that the persons censured may either be ashamed and penitent, and so return to Christian obedience; or else renounce their profession, and turn Apostates. Thus I humbly conceive, Mr. H. tenant is no bloody tenant; but a most merciful way and means set up in the Church, and left to be used as the last remedy, for the cure of the most desperate souls: And not to use this remedy according to its nature and true intent of Christ therein, is to deprive, the obstinate offendor of the only means left of his amendment and salvation; and so is indeed far from being an error on the right hand. And yet by the way, to express my thoughts a little further: I hold that all unnecessarily friendly familiarity with scandalous disorderly brethren, that sin out of wilfulness, whether they be under Church induigence, trial, or censure, is to be declined according to that 1 Cor. 5.10, 11. which sense I humbly conceive comes nearer the meaning of the place, then to understand it of, or to infer therefrom a suspension from the Sacrament.  
The last thing that I shall speak to, is the Doctor's exceptions against some of Mr. H. quotations of Scripture, concerning which I say; let him but allow Mr. H. the same liberty he takes himself in some of his own quotations, and then he will have little cause to find fault for his impertinent allegations of Scripture. I have given account of some of the Doctors already: I shall here take notice of two or three more.  
1. He urges many texts of Scripture to prove that some in the Old Testament were debarred the privileges of worship for moral uncleanness: but his proofs in that fall short of what they are brought to prove; being in cases that will not serve his turn. For such persons in the Jewish Church, came under the censure of the Judicial Laws, which were very severe against such offenders: and there is nothing expressed in Moses or the Prophets (that I know of) in reference to excommunication. And in that Church, the porters charge concerning uncleanness is to be understood of ceremonial and Gentile uncleanness.  
Again, for that Tit. 1.15. brought by the Doctor to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated were unclean. I deny that those the Apostle there speaks of, were of the Christian Church. Let him consult with the tenth verse, and he may easily see the Apostle means those vain talkers and deceivers that were especially of the circumcision: they profess they know God, (as other unbelieving Jews did) but in their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate, vers. 16. They were either such as never were of the Christian Church, or if they were once of it, yet now were revolted and become Apostates by their horrid opinions, and abominable impieties. And than what is this to members of a Christian Church, professing Christianity?  
Again, for Church examination in order to the Sacrament, the Doctor alleges, 1 Pet. 3.15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, etc. The scope of the place is to show what a Christians duty is when they are apprehended, and under the terror of persecuting adversaries: which duty is to be so far from being affrighted from their Christian profession; that in such case, they should be always ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them with meekness and fear, etc. And the Apostle urges them to this duty of constancy from a great encouragement, If you suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye, vers. 14. Now how impertinent is this place for Church examination, or examination by the Pastor or Elders before admittance to the Sacrament. If such kind of proofs be sufficient to warrant that practice of examination, and suspension from the ordinance for neglect of it, men may prove any thing they have a mind to; and make every fancy of their own a necessary duty; and so make void the necessary Laws of God by their traditions.  
I shall instance in one quotation more, and then I have done: and it is 2 Pet. 3.5. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, etc. This the Doctor quotes to prove that gross ignorance in Church members is a scandalous sin, for which the Church may proceed to censure them, and to suspend them from the Sacrament: but sure this is not very pertinent to his purpose, as will easily appear, if he consult with the Context. This second Epistle was written to stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance, that they might be mindful of the words spoken before by the holy Prophets, etc. and to arm them against those Scoffers that should come in the last days: 2 Pet. 3.1, 2, 3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last day's scoffers, walking after their own lusts; and saying, Where is the promise of his coming, etc. Scoffers at the Promise; which notes the highest degree of defection from and renouncing of piety, so Psal. 1.1. of the three degrees of ungodly men the scoffers or scorners is the last, as being the worst. And by these are meant such as fell off and joined their selves with the persecuting Jews, complying with them; and falling into all the villainy in the world, expressed here by walking after their own lusts, that is, going on habitually as in a constant course, doing whatsoever seemed right in their own eyes, without any restraint of law, of nature, of Christ, etc. In the second chapter of this second Epistle, they are set forth in their colours; to be such as had escaped the pollutions that are in the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by apostasy were entangled again therein, and overcome, and so their latter end was worse than the beginning. They that have been converted from their heathen sins, by receiving the knowledge and faith of Christ, and then again relapse and turn to them again, this latter estate of theirs, this Christian Heathenism is worse than their bare Heathenism at first. They had knowledge enough to bring in damnable heresies, and wicked lose opinions; to wrest the Scriptures, to trouble the Church, and unsettle many: but they were willingly ignorant of the Word of God; they had the knowledge of Scripture, but against their knowledge did pervert the same, and wrest all the Scriptures to their own destruction; as the learned Papists and our Apostate Sects do. But what is this to the simple ignorant among us, that out of carelessness merely, or incapacity and weakness are so; and yet adhere to the true religion by profession amongst us? These are strange mistakes and applications of Scriptures: but I hope the Doctor is not willingly ignorant. By this he may see how severe he is against that in Mr. H. which he is more guilty of himself. But I have done with this, entreating him and all others into whose hands this shall come, to make a charitable sense and construction of what I have here written, and not to be offended, or prejudiced at the plainness of the matter or rudeness of the expressions and method, because I want those advantages that should help all this.  
The Lord knows that I herein intent plainness, and so far as I know my own heart, I have thus declared my judgement in these things in uprightness and sincerity, hoping they may be a means of the Churches good, tending to her peace and unity; and I am persuaded will be so if prejudice or some other thing do not hinder the serious consideration, right understanding and use of what I have here written. And so I have done with the reverend Doctor.  
And I shall now from the grounds and principles laid down in the foregoing discourse, crave leave to hint a few things to the dissenting brethren of the congregational way: and the rather, because if the Presbyterian way (as some do practise) will not hold and stand good, much less will the Independent novelty in point of separation, and gathering Churches out of Presbyterian congregations or others, and therefore give me leave (you that are for that way) to speak freely unto you in a few words.  
If you judge the Ministry and the ordinances and particular congregations lawful as to the main, why do you separate from them, and gather out their best members from them? would you be content to be so served by other separated Churches? Doth not this sensibly insinuate to the world, that those gathered Churches are the only Churches of Christ, and so all other congregations (not after your moulding) thereby called into question whether they be Churches of Christ or no? Are you for order and edification, and for the peace of the whole, or are you not? Do you intent the reformation of the whole, or of a part only? If you be only for the reformation of a part, and your desire be to draw up some to purity of ordinances and spiritual communion with Christ their head, and one with another, what must become of all the rest that are not of your mind, nor indeed in a capacity of admittance unto you, upon your terms and qualifications of members? what will you make of them that are not so qualified? will you account them members of the true visible Catholic Church, and yet not fit to be of particular congregations, and enjoy communion with Christ in all his holy ordinances?  
Are they by virtue of the holy Covenant of grace, Church natives and members borne; and declared to be such by public testimony on the Church's part in administering of Baptism unto them, a great Church privilege, of right belonging to none but such as are in external Covenant with God at least, either by profession of faith in themselves, or by their parents, and yet not fit to be owned, or received into communion by any particular congregation? Why, what a case are we in then? Yourselves were equal with the rest in your Baptism, and under the same administration of worship and service that others were: and if you have found a blessing in your regeneration and effectual calling, keeping in that station, why do you forsake it now? Hath the Covenant of grace, in the use of ordinary means, brought quickening grace and life to your souls (which is the main in order to eternal blessedness) whither will you go to mend yourselves? Why should you be so offended at the presence of such as you yourselves once were? Did such kind of persons hinder the power and blessing of ordinances from doing you good before, that you are so zealous in separating from them now? Will not the effects of free grace which you have already received convince you, that it is good for you to keep your former station, and wait upon the same God in covenant for increase and completing of what he hath begun? What fault can you find with Word, Sacraments and Prayer (the main essentials of holy worship) they being the same both with us and you? only you are grieved that sinners should enjoy the benefit of all these, though you as bad as they have found good in the use of all these. Would you have Jesus Christ save no more than those that are already saved, or in a saving state? Would you have the effects of Covenant love, flowing from a bleeding Saviour unto sinners now to cease? Had not mere grace and mercy prevented when you were sinners, you had been impenitent sinners still like to the worst. Will not the remembrance of what you once were beget some bowels of tenderness toward such sinners? Is this your separation the way to draw on others that are weak ones, and to recover offending brethren? Is this the way to do their souls good, to rail and revile them with reproachful speeches and slanders, calling them the World in opposition to the Church, and unbelievers, aliens, profane ones, dogs, and swine, and the like? Nay, is not this the way rather to cast stumbling blocks before the blind, and to destroy many weak brethren whom Christ hath died for, by hardening them in an evil way? Is it not a means to make them apostatise from the true Religion, and turn Papists or any thing, to keep the name of Christians, rather than to be under that reproach of Infidels, Heathens, the profane world, etc. You would have them left to wander in their own ways, and so you make them objects of the threaten, but not of the grace of the Gospel and promises; under the commands, but not under the promises made to Gospel administrations. I wonder at it, that such Ministers would be accounted the only men that patronise free grace, and the only Gospel Preachers; and yet forget that Christ came into the world to save sinners; and to give repentance and remission of sins; to seek and to save that which is lost, as all were and are until he find them and gather them to himself by a blessing of spirit and power in the use of his own ordinances. The Scriptures distinguish indeed between the Church and the World; but these men will be making a world in the Church, and a world out of the Church: and make Infidels of the baptised, and such as were born in the Church, and make a profession of faith, and that truly too an to the object at least, and yield external conformity in the materials of worship and Christian obedience. But you that are so bold to unchurch Christians, and to make spoil in Christ's Kingdom; did you ever read any such thing approved in the Scriptures? I confess these are bold times; but let not men make too bold with Jesus Christ's interest; suffer him to have his full possessions and dominion over all his subjects that profess loyalty and homage unto him in the world. Let us wish grace and peace to all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus both theirs and ours; and let us have union with them and communion too in all the Laws and ordinances of Jesus Christ. He hath spirit and grace sufficient to answer all the wants, to prevent all the evils of all that seek after him according to his own institutes. Oh brethren hinder none in seeking after Jesus: discourage none because they are sinners from coming under the most engaging ordinances to preserve Christian obedience; do not act so contrary to the Apostolical days. The Apostles did what they could to convert the world unto Christiani●● and rejoiced in bringing sinners to the obedience of faith: and were all for the enlarging of Christ's kingdom, for which end they put themselves upon the greatest hazards. And will many of you pervert Christianity into the world, ' Christ into Belial, unchurch and unchristian such as the Apostles did generally embrace, and receive to communion upon as slender grounds as ours are desired to be received? Did you over read that they refused any one that embraced the Doctrine of faith, and was willing to be baptised? Did you ever read that they required more to breaking of bread, than they did to Baptism? Did you ever read, that they called any in the Church Unbelievers, Heathens, Belial, Dogs, etc. Did you ever read of this distinction of Church and World in any of those Churches the Scriptures speak of? I would you would prove a twofold world, one in the Church, another out of the Church: and a twofold Kingdom in the visible Church of Christ, where men and women generally submit to the Laws and Ordinances of Jesus Christ. Will you confound things that so much concern the Lord Christ's interest? can you put no difference between the unregenerate under Covenant lations and administrations, and the infidel world that are left to wander from all these, and to sacrifice to the Devil, and not unto the true God at all? Will you allow them no better titles and privileges than you will allow to Heathens? I wonder what rule you walk by, and judge by, and what spirit it is that you act so vigorously from. Suppose the Indians in America should generally embrace the Christian faith, and disavow their worshipping of Devils, and desire to imbody themselves with those that profess the Christian religion, would you not offer them Baptism, and upon their coming under it, would you not admit them to all the ordinances of Christian profession and communion? Whether you would or no, the Apostles have done it in the like case. Or suppose the infidel Jew's should be convinced of their mistake, and should now confess that Jesus whom their fathers crucified, is the true Messiah and Saviour of the world; and upon that account renounce their error, and desire the Baptism of Christ, professing their resolution to submit unto his administrations, and come under Christian obedience, would you refuse them and not baptise them until they were so qualified as to come up to your terms of communion? I think you would not. And I pray then, why will you separate from the most of ours that are lawfully baptised, and come up to the same profession, and are of no other religion but the Christian religion, and expect salvation by Christ alone? Is it because they have this by education and the helps of tradition, which in the other case is not so? I pray you do not undervalue any benefits and helps that are the consequences of the Covenant of grace. Remember how sadly the Apostle laid it to heart, when the Jews by their infidelity in denying Christ to be the Son of God, did unchurch themselves and apostatise, Rom. 10.1. and the 11. compared. It was not their being carnal and otherwise ignorant and wicked, but their not believing that Christ was the Messiah promised unto their fathers, that did unchurch them and their posterity to this day: for that unbelief was the thing that barred them from his administrations, & so are said to be cut off, although by birth privilege they were the only natural branches or Church members. Were they refused by the Apostles, or cast off, or did they eject & cast out themselves from being branches of the true Olive? Christ's coming in the flesh not discerned by them, was the occasion of their fall from being the Israel of God: he was the stumbling stone and the rock of offence, that made them fall from their Church state and relation. They would not own any other administration but that of Moses; and upon that account undid themselves and perished. What think you would have been the issue, had they owned Jesus Christ to be the true Messiah, and so had come under the Gospel's administrations, as ours are; and would not be under any other, that they should have been refused and separated from, as being none of the Church of Christ? I beseech you consider of it: did not thousands of the Jews come in and offer themselves to Baptism at the preaching of one short word or sermon, Act. 2. And can we imagine that they were all true Converts in your sense? was any refused that desired to be one in the Christian profession? Suppose that all the common people in England were unbaptised (as some reproachfully and slanderously report they are) and were sensible of that condition: and should come and desire Baptism upon no other account then their present capacity would admit of; confessing themselves sinners, and promising obedience to the word of God; professing hope of mercy and happiness through the merits of Jesus Christ (which all that have learned their Creed are capable to do) I would fain know whether you could lawfully refuse to baptise them at the present, without any long deferring of it, although they had been Heathens born. I would I did but understand your answer to this supposition. I conceive that all those that being of years, are in a capacity for Baptism, are in a capacity also of all other Christian communion. I presume the Apostles baptised upon as easy terms, and so might you; except you have a different commission, or understand the Apostles commission in some other sense than they themselves did. But I must contract myself, & ask you once again, whether you ever found any precedent in the Word for what you practise in this point? what Church under the administration of the Gospel will afford a precedent for your practice? Do you separate according to Apostolical order and rule, or by virtue of some new commission or light the Scriptures never taught you? I pray you again consider: you had need be sure of good warrant to bear you out: for you have been the cause and means of our being without discipline, Sacraments, union and communion with other reformed Churches: indulgence to you hath been the occasion of an unlimited Toleration, the misery of all those factions, Schisms, Heresies, Blasphemies now abounding in every corner of the Land. Well, if your foundation be only the wisdom of the flesh, and a worldly interest, time will discover more of the Babel you are building: when the consequences of your principles, practice and design are come to full maturity. It may come to that pass (and it is much to be feared it will) that you would retreat if you could tell how. In the mean time the wild beasts of the wilderness come into God's vineyard, and by heresies destroy the tender grapes: and many follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of. Men arise from among ourselves speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them, 2 Pet. 2.2. Act. 20.30. But mark them thut cause divisions and avoid them, Rom. 16.17.  
But let me speak one word more in order to discipline, which as you were never yet willing to come under as to the reforming of the whole, so have your endeavours been all along most fierce to obstruct and retard the discipline debated on in order to that end.  
Again, when the fittest way in Christian prudence, according to rule was agreed upon as a means to reform the whole; and confirmed by the supreme Authority of this Nation: designs were driven on to obstruct it, and such things attempted, as are the greatest scandals to the Protestant Religion that ever it suffered under.  
And thirdly, notwithstanding many symptoms and sad omens of a carnal design tending to the confusion and ruin of the whole (and those the proper products of your own miscarriages) do already appear; yet you persist in your own contrivances, and will not retract, until not only the Church, but also the flourishing state of the Common wealth be involved in the same confusion and ruin. The very sinews of the Commonwealth are the fear of God, and divine order in carrying on the same in all its parts uniformly: different parties and factions too much indulged do ever beget jealousies and fears, the common nursery of sedition and rebellion: And that which cannot be held without gratifying of all factions and parties, cannot in reason and policy hold long. Why may not men truly fear God, and carry on the power of godliness in their several functions and places, under an establishment of Doctrine, worship and order; the only way to honour God? And the best expedient to preserve the whole uniformity in the Church is a good foundation of peace and tranquillity in the Commonwealth. And that is ever the best policy amongst Christians that is subordinate to true piety: and our greatest freedom desired, will be soon attained in the way of religiousness, when sin will be a snare to any people. I confess it is merely occasionally that some things have dropped from my pen of this nature. I would not offend any, nor have I undertaken to meddle with the Independent way strictly taken; they have been sufficiently answered by divers learned and reverend Gentlemen: and the inconsistences, contradictions, absurdities and mistakes of their way discovered, and not y●t vindicated by any that ever I heard of. I only have hinted some things tending (as I conceive) to the Church's peace and unity in vindicating Church members from reproach and slander, and inference to the preceding discourse. And therefore I shall end with Mr. Humphreys wishes, adding some of mine own.  
1. I wish we had a government established in the Church, the nearest in Christian prudence that may be to the word of God.  
2. I wish the duty of fraternal correption, a watching over, and admonishing one another in love were better known and practised amongst us.  
3. I wish that men would look more to their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, heart and reins alone to the judgement seat of Christ.  
4. I wish, though there may be some judging by the fruits, that wise religious men would be more cautious of countenancing the separations in the visible Church, seeing upon the same ground that you go to gather a Church out of any mixed congregation, another will gather a separation out of your Church; and so continue (as I have intimated from our sad experience) an endless separating, until this first separation shall in a few years be able to take up the saying of that greatest Grandmother, unto those many Schisms she shall see issuing as her natural offspring, out of her own bowels, Rise up daughter, go to thy daughter, for thy daughter's daughter has a daughter; for this separations separation has a separation; so fare Mr. Humphrey: I add.  
1. I wish that the distinction of believers and unbelievers, Church and world, Christ and Belial, holy and profane, worthy Church members, and unworthy, were used in the Church of God according to Scripture meaning, and with due caution, and no otherwise.  
2. I wish that Sacraments were more clearly understood in respect of their nature and end, attributing unto them their due according to the Scripture, avoiding all humane boldness, either in adding to advance them, or in diminishing them so as in the least degree to debase them.  
3. I wish that the Lord Jesus may have the liberty and full scope of his own instituted ordinances given for the spiritual good of his Church; that he may use them as instruments of his Spirit in order to that end, upon the spirits of all his subjects, according to their necessities and spiritual wants.  
4. I wish that a godly care may be taken in the education of all borne in the Church, that being instructed in the plainest way of faith and obedience in the Christian religion, they may be prepared to profit by every ordinance in the Church when they come to years.  
5. I wish that all of years may be made to understand their duties and Church privileges and be encouraged unto Church communion in all the ways of Christ; that so they may come under Church discipline, the best remedy to reclaim the obstinate and wilful offenders.  
6. I wish the gifted brethren were better employed, then in unchurching our Churches, and gathering Churches out of them: it were a work more proper and acceptable, either to be content to exercise their gifts to the edifying and building up of that Church in which they received them; or else to go into the infidel world (as the Apostles did) and preach the Gospel and plant Churches there.   

The Scripture Rail Examined.  
REader, since I parted with what I had written in answer to Doctor Drake in the foregoing discourse; there came to my hand Mr. Humfreys Rejoyner in vindication of himself; a work very well performed by him: wherein the truth formerly by him asserted is better cleared, and confirmed, to the satisfaction of many souls fearing God, and breathing forth their earnest desires after the settlement, reformation and uniformity of the Church of God in England according to the Word of God. Be not prejudiced against his book by other learned men, who have and still do appear with much bitterness and passion against him; more to affright with words and humane dictates merely, then with matter of grounded truth, according to the sense of the holy Scripture: witness that book put forth by some Ministers of , entitled, A Scripture Rail to the Communion Table. I confess the title is good; for we do acknowledge there aught to be such a thing; but not in their sense, as I hope shall appear by the discovery made in this short discourse following, in which I shall wave what hath been already written in answer to D. Drake, by Mr. Humphrey and myself, and take notice only of some things in the Scripture Rail which have not yet been spoken to, that I know of. And this I shall do as briefly as I can, because I would not anticipate him whom it doth more nearly concern.  
And first of all, because I would not leave the weak and incautelous Reader deceived with vain and groundless words in reading this Scripture Rail, let this be noted, that I take Scripture discipline to be the only Rail for the Communion Table; which (I hope) both the Author reproached, and myself earnestly desire may be set up; and all our endeavours tend as conducible means to that end; as being assured that the first stone in the building of the reformation, (as to our case) is holy discipline: And whether their principles or ours tend most to that, I hope to make appear to sober and unprejudiced Christians. And the way I shall take, shall be to discover some of these gentlemen's unbrotherly deal with Mr. Humphrey: first in perverting his sense. Secondly, in setting up a Rail to the Lords Table, by perverting Scripture, and so making that Rail to be a pretended discipline merely.  
1. They have damned and censured his Book to be an ungodly pamphlet, in which is a mass of perverting Scriptures, tending to destroy all Church reformation; little better then carnal and profane reasoning, sophistry, a heterodox piece, abomination, a vile piece, with divers other such hard censures; language enough to affright any from ever looking into it, that have any care of their souls, to avoid their own destruction, in complying with that soul damning practice of maintaining mixed communion, as they call it.  
I must confess these men seem very confident in reproaching and censuring both the Book and the man: but in this their endeavour to make it thus vile and odious to the world, they have not the least evidence of truth or strength of reason to evince it, that I can find in their Book: And it will so appear, if you mind what is Mr. H. scope and end in his discourse, and what are the principles upon which it is founded. As,  
1. That the visible Church of Christ consists of men making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and so are Saints by calling, what ever they are in truth, while they so profess, and adhere to the true worship, the means and matter of which are hearing the word, receiving the Sacrament, and prayer: and of these many are called and few are chosen.  
2. That all of these of years come under the obligation of Christ's commands, and are bound to do their duty & homage to Christ their Lord, as well as they can, according to Mat. 28.19, 20.  
3. That all such aught to submit to Church discipline, and not to be excluded from any observance, nor denied any Church privilege, until they be judicially proceeded against, and debarred by virtue of positive excommunication.  
4. That Ministers by virtue of their function and office may lawfully administer the Sacraments to Church members, though they be ignorant and scandalous, he doing his duty as well as he may in preparing them, in the want of Church discipline. These (I dare boldly affirm) are the main things asserted in that little despised piece; which with a sober spirit, the Author hath soberly discussed and cleared from the common exceptions made against it by men of different minds: for which his pains first and last, I verily believe the Church of God in England have great cause to be thankful to the Lord of the harvest, for sending such a faithful  labourer amongst us: the sweet temperature of his spirit, so adorned with wisdom, charity, and such a peaceable frame, bespeaks him taught of God the true sense of his will in his holy Scriptures, rather than his reproachers.  
1. Touching the visible Church, what evil hath he done in asserting it, to consist of men making a profession of faith in Christ? Wherein doth he descent from the most orthodox writers in all ages, in judging the Church of England a true Church? It is confessed by the adversaries; and also that a parochial congregation where the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administered according to order, being a part of the whole, is a true Church likewise. And this is also confessed by these Gentlemen; for they grant that our parochial Churches are true Churches in a large sense, and that is enough as to this; and so I hope there is no evil in this first position.  
2. For the next thing by him asserted, namely, that all of years in a parish, being baptised, come under the obligation of all Christ's commands; it is proved by the text before cited, Mat. 28.19, 20. And that in order to the Lords Supper, Do this in remembrance of me, is a known duty belonging to every particular member of the Church in common with all other parts of the worship and service of God. And is it then profane reasoning to urge Church members to do their duty and homage, in this particular more than in all others? To this these Gentlemen have said but little (that I can find) to take off what is urged by Mr. H.  
As for that of the Passeover, Mr. H. hath the better end of the staff; it being the duty of all to observe it in the season under penalty of their lives upon wilful neglect. Numb. 9.13. And If any, by reason of legal uncleanness, or being in a journey a far off, could not keep the Passeover the fourteenth day of the first month, they were to keep it the fourteenth day of the second month, and so nothing would excuse any in the not observing that ordinance, see vers. 10.11. And besides, that legal uncleanness did not debar them from the Passeover more than from any other observance of communion sacred or civil.  
It is pity these Gentlemen should be in such haste, that they could not enforce the many places of Scripture which have been brought by others (as they say pag. 28.) to prove that the Jews were kept from the  for moral uncleanness or scandalous sins; which they are confident neither M. H. nor all the world can ever answer. For my part I wonder what Scriptures those are, that I should never see nor read them in the Bible. These Gentlemen quote four texts (as I take it) to prove the same; to which I shall speak something particularly.  
The first text is Numb. 15.30, 31. Where by God's appointment, the soul sinning presumptuously was to be cut off from among his people; namely by death; and so from all other observances as well as the Passeover. And for the unclean person that would not submit to the law of purification, he was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel; and therefore from all communion in worship, Numb. 19, 20.  
And putting out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9.22. was to be put out of the Jews and Gentiles, and so from all ordinances of worship; besides the Synagogues were not the place of keeping the feast of the . And what then is there yet in all this to prove that for moral uncleanness some were to be kept from the Passeover only?  
But let us come to the next place, which is Ezra 10.8. Where (they say) whosoever would not come to build the Temple within three days, should be separated from the congregation, and consequently excluded from the . This place, that it might seem to be for their purpose, is corrupted by them, and falsely alleged. The words are part of that proclamation agreed upon by the heads of the people after their return from captivity to Jerusalem; concerning that great sin of taking strange wives, whosoever would not come within the three days according to the counsel of the Princes and the Elders of the people, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation, etc. Now was this to come to build the Temple? no, it was to confess their sins, and to put away their strange wives, that the wrath of the Lord might be turned away. This Scripture will serve my turn her easter better than theirs now.  
But the next Scripture they allege is Ezek. 22.26. Her Priests have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, the clean and the unclean. Now by holy and profane (we know) is usually meant the circumcised and the uncircumcised; and so clean and unclean is to be taken in a legal sense: and than what is this to debarring from the Passeover for moral uncleanness and scandalous sins, more than from other observances?  
But they say further, that the uncircumcised in heart were not to enter into the Sanctuary to pollute it; and for this they quote Ezek. 44.7, 9 where again they grossly abuse the Text, and that wilfully too, as one may think. And truly I cannot but wonder that men pretending to such purity of worship and discipline, dare make so bold with Scriptures, as purposely to pervert them to blind the eyes of the reader that he may not understand the sense; telling him that such as did manifestly appear to be uncircumcised in heart, though they had received the circumcision of the flesh, might not enter into the Sanctuary; and that the admitting of such into the Sanctuary, was the fault for which the Priests were punished, vers. 13. A most notorious falsehood, and (if they did look upon the text) wilfully asserted to deceive their reader. The thing the Lord complained of in this place, was that they had brought into God's Sanctuary, not Jew's, but strangers or aliens, uncircumcised in heart: and that we might be sure it is meant of Gentiles and not Jew's, there is added uncircumcised in the flesh to pollute the Sanctuary, contrary to the Law; but this these men leave out, and conceal from the reader; which if they could also have dashed out of the Bible, I believe it would be the strongest place in the Bible for their purpose; but being as it is, it makes nothing at all for them or against Mr. H. And we may take notice of the just judgement of God upon these men's spirits, leaving them to miscarry themselves, and that wittingly, in perverting the Scriptures; the thing they unjustly charge that reverend man Mr. H. with.  
But to leave their self glosses on these places and go on; they tell us further pag. 30. That this spoken of the Sanctuary is typical in reference to the spiritual Sanctuary, the Church of Christ in Gospel's times: but how they will prove that the Sanctuary was a type of the Church of God in our times, I confess I know not; because the Jews were a Gospel's Church and under the Gospel's Covenant then, as well as we now. To them was the Gospel preached as well as to us, Heb. 4.2.  
But from those Scriptures they conclude, that the Jews were kept from the Passeover for presumptuous and scandalous sins; for say they, If they were cut off from the congregation, than they came not to the Passeover; And one end of their cutting off was, that they might not defile the Passeover; and thence conclude that Mr. H. hath deluded the reader.  
Answ. Let them for shame be more single hearted hereafter in their conclusions. This is their argument, some Jews were to be cut off from the congregation by death for presumptuous and scandalous sins; therefore some were to be debarred the Passcover for moral uncleanness: is this a good consequence? That by cutting off from the congregation we are (for the most part at least) to understand a cutting off by death, appears, Numb. 15.30, 31. Exod. 31.14. Again, they were cut off, stoned to death for their presumptuous sins; therefore they were cut off that they might not defile the Passeover: This in plain terms is all that they say; and is this good and sound reasoning? Is not this a great discovery of Mr. Humsreys deluding the reader? And let me note further, that if it could be proved that any were excluded the Sanctuary for scandalous sins; the consequence will be no more but this, That for scandalous sins some may be excluded from all the parts of God's worship, which is not denied but granted by Mr. H. provided it be done by the just censures of the Church: so that these Gentlemen may see, what a noise they make about nothing.  
But they go on and tell us what Gelaspy saith on 1 Cor. 10. (in his Book called Aaron's Rod budded) concerning those Israelites that did eat of the Manna, and drank of the Rock that followed them, that they falling into idolatry, whoredoms, murmur, and the like, the wrath of God came upon them; hence they infer, They did not eat of the Manna and drink of the Rock after the committing of those sins, and so were excluded for moral uncleanness; as good a consequence as the former.  
For first, I deny that all that were guilty of those sins were cut off from the congregation: for the whole congregation murmured, etc. yet were they not all destroyed; their carcases fell in the wilderness not all at once in one day, but by degrees for many years: and yet those that were spared did eat Manna, otherwise they must needs have perished with hunger.  
Secondly, For those that were destroyed and cut off, was it that they might not eat Manna any more? What a strange, and absurd consequence is this; They were destroyed for their idolatry, whoredoms and murmur, therefore they were cut off that they might not eat of that Sacramental Manna. What a strange fancy is this? as if a malefactor were put to death, that he might not live to come to the Sacrament any more; me thinks it were more rational to say, they were cut off by death, that they might not dishonour God by the committing of those sins of idolatry, whoredoms and murmur any more.  
In the same page, from the false and absurd premises (as they are already discovered to be) those Gentlemen urge Mr. H. with an argument; but it is so long, flat and false, that I shall pass it by, having already cut the legs it stands upon. And the truth is, the Author whom they reproach, hath said enough concerning this Scripture to stop the mouth of very malice and envy itself, if any thing would do it.  
But let us remember what we are upon. These Gentlemen have denied that all the Israelites were admitted to their Sacraments, especially the Passeover: and to prove this, they have brought some Scriptures: I have examined them (you see) and their interences and conclusions drawn from them: and all they have said and make a show of amounts to no more but this; 1. That some were denied the Passeover for a month's space by reason of their legal uncleanness. 2. That some have been cut off by death for moral uncleanness, or that some have otherwise been separated from the congregation, and so from all ordinances of divine worship, for scandalous sins. And all that can possibly be gathered hence, is no more than what Mr. H. hath all along granted: for he excepts the excommunicate in his Free Admission to the Lords Supper: and this is by them yielded unto, if he mean right according to the word, the matter is ended. So that one would think they granted this, and in another place, that our parochial congregations are true Churches in a large sense, that the whole difference between Mr. H. and them were only in point of discipline: And if so, than the fault Mr. H. is chargeable with in this point, is his not setting up discipline, but exercising the ordinances of worship without it. But M. Joanes' hath said enough to take off this, in urging and proving a necessity of administering the Sacrament of the Supper, in congregations not Presbytered. Thus we have considered the admission to the Passeover among the Jews.  
Now seeing there is such analogy between the Passeover and the Lords Supper; the admission to the one seems to be a good rule for admission to the other; and seems to be granted on both sides, in that it is urged by both. And therefore I shall assert some things from the law of the Passeover, for further confirmation and strengthening of the duty of free admission to the Lords Supper.  
1. The Passeover was the same for substance with the holy Supper, signifying the same things.  
2. It was a service commanded the whole Church, that whosoever should neglect it in his season should be cut off from his people.  
3. The people of Israel were a mixed people, and many of them as uncapable of making a spiritual use of the Passeover, as ours of the Supper.  
4. The Church under the Gospel's administration is under the same Covenant, and is but added to or graffed into the Church of the Jews, and their constitution, Rom. 11.18.  
5. The Church of Christ, since the coming of Christ in the flesh, is under the same principles, and in some respects greater than under Moses and the Prophets. And therefore why should not admission to the Lords Supper be as free as the Passeover.  
First I say the Jews Passeover was the same for substance with our Sacrament of the Lords Supper, both signify the same things?  
1. The Paschal Lamb appointed for that holy service, was a lively type of the Lamb of God slain from the beginning of the world, to take away the sins thereof.  
2. The offering of this Lamb whole without dismembering or breaking a bone of him, did show that whole Christ must suffer, that his suffering might be sufficient to satisfy divine justice.  
3. The blood of the lamb was to be stricken on the lintels and side posts of every one's door, as a token upon those houses where the Israelites were; that when the Lord passed through the land of Egypt to destroy the first born both of man and beast, the plague might not smite those houses: which was to instruct them, that this Lamb of God Christ Jesus, whose blood was shed upon the cross, was the only Saviour of his Church and people from the wrath which the Egyptian world lies under: and not having any knowledge of him, nor means of coming unto him, must needs perish. And all this concerning the Passeover was to be observed yearly at the time appointed, through their generations for ever, for a memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt: which though it were but bodily and temporal, yet it was to lead them to the understanding of their spiritual and eternal deliverance by the blood of Christ. And hence it is that the Apostle saith, Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5.7. We in the Supper have the signs of Christ's own death, held out as already accomplished; they in the type had him held forth as decreed and promised to be accomplished; and both to be observed in that remembrance. And as it is well observed, that Christ having kept the last Passeover, did immediately institute the Sacrament of the Supper, that it might succeed in the room and stead of the Passeover. A change in the thing typified (Christ then to come and suffer death, now already come and suffered) was the cause of the change in the externals of this service.  
Secondly, That the Law of the Passeover, was of absolute force in respect of all the congregation of Israel, is so obvious and manifest, that I need not say any thing for proof thereof: Exod. 12. & Numb. 9 is without all gainsaying. And though the end of that observance were spiritual and the service itself mysterious; yet those that were most ignorant and carnal, were as much under the obligation of that holy service, as those that were regenerate and really holy: it concerned them all to conform to the externals of that service upon their lives; no excuse would serve for the omission of it, but that of legal uncleanness and being in a journey, and that but for the present only.  
Thirdly, That the Church of the Jews was a mixed people, in respect of real goodness and badness, even as ours are, I know none will deny; and yet in respect of their relative state, in reference to the Covenant made with their fathers, they were all equals in the enjoyment of the external privileges and observances of the Covenant, and the Church of God, in order to that blessedness promised to all that diligently observed the duties of the Covenant. And no people so happy and prosperous as they, while they adhered to Gods worship prescribed unto them: but when they forsook the ways of God, and followed their own ways, and went after other gods, etc. then it ever went ill with them. I know the Lord required truth and power, as well as external form in worship, yet they are not usually blamed for want of power, but for want of form in not doing what God commanded.  
4. That the several Churches of the Gentiles now, are under the same Covenant of grace, and added to, or graffed into the Church of the Jews and their Church constitution; I think cannot be denied. For though the administration of the Covenant now be different from what it was before Christ was exhibited; yet there is no more change of the Church properly and formally considered, then there is change of the Covenant; or change of the head Christ, the same yesterday, to day and for ever, on whom (as the chief corner stone) the Church in all ages hath been and still is built and founded. The same persons that by birth privilege were born members of the Jews Church, and believing in Christ kept their station, were always members, they and their seed never ceasing so to be, even thousands of the Jews. Jesus Christ had many Disciples, while he himself was a member and a Prophet of that Church, and conformed unto the ceremonial Administration. The twelve whom he chose were before (most of them) members of the Jewish Church: and though not after the order of Aaron, yet after the order of Melchisedech (as being King and Lord of all) he gave them authority to preach and baptise and work miracles in the Jewish Church only, while he was conversant among them. And those that believed in him, and those that believed not, were all one Church, adhering to the same worship and order of that Church until Christ was raised from the dead; and had completed the work of man's redemption: then all those carnal ordinances were abolished; he put an end to them all: and those that never did believe that he was the true Messiah, did then unchurch themselves and their seed. For they still adhering unto Moses, and looking upon Christ as a false Christ, refused to submit to the administration of the Lord Jesus; and so lost their station in the Church: but so many as were convinced that he was the true Messiah, adhered unto the Apostles Doctrine, and came under all Church administrations: so that for a good space of time the Apostles preached the Lord Jesus in Jury only, before they preached to the Gentiles; so that there was I believe many thousands of souls of the newly reformed Church of the Jews, before there were any particular Churches of the Gentiles. And where it is said, they were added to the Church, it is not to be understood, that here was now a new Church constituted where was none before; but still the same Church under a different administration: And the Jews that were of the Church before, believing in Christ, as in him that was promised should come, are now by the preaching of the Apostles convinced, that Jesus whom their Rulers crucified, is the Christ already come. And this believing of theirs was no new faith, but the same which they had before in respect of the object, though under another consideration. And for those Jews which believed and adhered to the Apostles Doctrine, many of them for a great while would not be taken off from their former customs and observations. It is said, that salvation is of the Jews, Joh. 4.22. Out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isa. 2.3. After Christ's ascension, the Apostles were to preach the God to all nations, but beginning first at Jerusalem, Luk. 24.47. And they that were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Venice and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the Word to none but the Jews only, Act. 11.19.  
Certainly the Jew's were the first that came under the Gospel's Ministry; and although some of them did not believe, yet that did not make the faith of God of none effect; that did not deprive the believers of their Church state, nor make void the promises of God made to them, Rom. 3.3. The faithfulness of God appeared in the effects of great Covenant love to that people, in opening the eyes and hearts of so many thousands to receive the Gospel. There were but some of the branches that were broken off, and not all, Rom. 11.17.  
Besides, the Gentiles received all from the Jews; they were the only instruments of their conversion: there being few or none in authority to preach but such as were Jew's by nation at first. All this being so, it must needs follow, that the believing Gentiles were but added to, or graffed into the Church of the Jews; and baptised into the same body, and so made partakers of the same hope and calling, being made the children of the same God; fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with them of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, Ephes. 3.6. Fellow citizens with the Saints (the believing Jews) and of the household of God, Ephes. 2.19.  
And true it is, that the Churches of the Gentiles had a very reverend esteem of the Church of the Jews; and did readily conform to the directions of the Church at Jerusalem: and were careful in their charity, to gather and distribute to their necessity; confessing themselves their debtors, having received from them their spiritual things, and that alone by their means, Rom. 15.26, 27. So that all make up but one Church; and all walk by the same rule; having one faith, one Lord, one Baptism: All submitted themselves to the rule and order of the Apostles, they undertaking the care and order of all Churcher. All the Churches of the Gentiles were not only converted to the faith by the Apostles, but also put into an holy order and way by ordaining them officers to rule and feed them in the Lord. And as it was in the Jews Church under Moses and the Prophets, there was a receiving of Proselytes, aliens converted, and they became Jew's by religion; so it was in the times of the Apostles; they made nations and cities and countries' proselytes, and they became Christians with the Jews, and there was but one law, rule and way for all that w●●e embodied into the Church. And there was gra●●ing into 〈…〉 off from the same Church still all along to this day. I have been too long in this, but I will be shorter in the next.  
Fifthly, that the Church of Christ since the coming of Christ in the flesh is under the same, and in some respects, greater privileges, then under M●ses and the Prophets. This will appear to be a truth., if we con●●der th●● Jesus Christ is and ever was the m●●●ting ●●ule of all blessings and privileges unto the Church in all times and ages of the world, that the Church hath ever been in possession or expectation of. On the account of his transaction with the Father, all the promises of covenant blessings of grace and glory, made to Abraham and his seed, are founded and thereby confirmed; and so consequently to all that are of his faith; for so saith the Apostle, They that are of the faith are blessed with faithful Abraham; even all the Gentiles that receive the Doctrine of faith, so as to initiate them into that Church of which Abraham was the father; it being first form up in his family, and the Covenant freely made with him, and sealed to him by the Sacrament of Circumcision: I say all that are of Abraham's faith are blessed with him. Hence it is that the Apostle to the Ephesians hath many expressions to the same purpose. Chap. 1.3. Blessed be God who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ. And in the second chapter it is clearly intimated, that there was a time, while they were in their state of Paganism. that they were Aliens from the Common wealth of Israel, strangers from the Covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world: But now, saith he, you that were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, Ephes. 2.11, 12, 13. But now in Christ Jesus you are of the Commonwealth of Israel, children of the Covenants and Promises; and have as much interest & hope of good from God through Christ, as the Jews who by descent were the natural seed of Abraham. And therefore were now no more strangers and foreiners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the household of God, vers. 19 The reason of all is, Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for ever in spiritual things, as to the Church and their seed. And therefore he is said to be the Minister of circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercies, Rom. 15.8, 9 as being made sharers in all those promises of free grace made to the fathers and their natural seed. Nay, we may observe, how the Apostles do usually apply the several promises in the Prophets to particular cases in the Churches of Christ in their times.  
But it may be asked, Quest. what were the privileges of the Jews Church under Moses and the Prophets?  
The Law of the Passeover did oblige all the congregation of Israel upon their lives to observe it in the season. Our Supper of the Lord is the same to us that the Passeover was to them, for the substance (as hath been proved) having the same meaning and end. The people of the Jews as mixed as ours are, if not worse in respect of good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate: and so as uncapable to make a spiritual use thereof. The Church under the Law and the Prophets before the coming of Christ in the flesh and since the same; which Jesus Christ and his Apostles only reform in point of external administration, first owned by the Jews: unto which Church so reform, all believing Gentiles are added, and graffed into it as the stock; and so partake of the same spiritual and external privileges with them, they and their seed, so long as they continue to adhere and cleave to the outward means of salvation, in order to that end: and from these premises will follow these conclusions.  
First, that the same obligation lies now upon all Christians to observe the Ordinance of the holy Supper, that did lie upon the whole congregation of Israel to observe the Ordinance of the Passeover; and the Law of the Passeover may teach us so much; and in some respect is still in force. For so long as the equity and reason of a command or law remains, the command and law itself remains for the substance of it: but the equity and reason of that command concerning the Passeover still remains in respect of the Lords Supper succeeding in the room of the Passeover; and therefore should guide and direct us in the administration thereof, as touching the subjects or persons that ought to receive.  
And then secondly, if all that were in the Church of the Jews, came under the obligation of all the commands of God to that Church, respecting the members in common; and that both good and bad; then all that are grass into the same Church, come under the obligation of all the Laws given to the same Church, and respecting the members in common, now as well as then, even all good and bad.  
Thirdly, the same exceptions that which all (as he hath stated the thing) are bound to observe.  
I need not stand upon this, Answ. because I have already been somewhat large upon that Scripture, (where they say the Apostle requires such qualifications) in my former discourse, to which I reserre the reader. Yet because these men have something which the Doctor hath not, I shall hint a little at something of theirs. I must confess I judge the main stress of the controversy to lie in that eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians. And there need be no question but the Corinthians were enjoined by the Apostle to observe this ordinance of the holy Supper in remembrance of Christ: for vers. 2. he commends them for remembering him in all things, and keeping the ordinances as he delivered them to them. So that their keeping and observing of this ordinance, as well as the other (as to the thing itself) was well done by them: but then when he speaks to their miscarriages about the manner of performance, he praises them not, but reproves them, for their woeful abuse of the ordinance in their excess, disorderly and unreverent behaviour in the very act of receiving, or while they were together for that end: They made a breach upon the very externals of that service; using the elements as common things to please the outward man, and not to that end for which the Lord Jesus appointed them. And these men (in a manner) confess as much, that they being newly come out of idolatry, in imitation of their idolatrous feasts had their love-feasts, when they came to the Lords Supper, and that there was excess among them, though not precisely at the Lord's Supper. These men are not willing to yield they were drunk at the administration precisely, but immediately before; or if at the time of receiving, yet not with the wine consecrated for that holy and spiritual end, the remembrance of the death of Christ. And therefore (as most Divines conjecture) their excess was at their love-feast spoken of in Judas. But I conceive it is very uncertain whether they had any such feast or no; that place in Judas doth not determine it; much less the keeping of it immediately before the Lord's Supper, or in the place where they met together for the celebration of that holy service. But whether they came drunk, or eat and drank unto excess of the elements liberally provided, it was such a profaneness that neither 〈…〉 nor Mr. H. I hope shall never 〈…〉: what ever these men charge 〈◊〉 with in this respect, telling the 〈…〉, he 〈…〉 the admission of idolaters, drunkards and impenitents to the Sacrament, pag 32.33, 34. compared. But is this brotherly dealing (think you) to m●ke such a wild in 〈…〉 a Minister show what 〈…〉 was, ●or which God so severely punished the Corinthians, but he must be reproached as ●ne pleading for the admittance of idolaters, drunkards and impenitents to the Sacrament? Hath not Mr. H. said enough in his Book to free himself from this crime? He said indeed there was nothing against their coming; for that was their duty, which these men deny, unless they be so qualisied: but he doth not only say they ought to come, but to come prepared: yet mens impenitency and unpreparedness doth not make void the commandment of God; neither is the principal to be neglected for an 〈…〉 subservient thereto.  
And I pray you, whom doth the Apostle set up to be judge of the●●●●●●●fications in the Church? What 〈…〉 hath he appointed for this? Is it not clear that every man is to examine himself, and judge himself, that he may not be judged of the Lord? Can men devise better ways to carry on God's Ordinances with purity, th●n himself hath prescribed? The Corinthians sinning, was in unworthy actions at the time of the administration: and I pray you who could foresee that to prevent it better than themselves? And as for their persons and real worthiness, the Apostle meddles not with it at all. Neither may we denominate men such in person really, as some unworthy acts done by them do import: for if we do so, we shall condemn the generation of the just; righteous men may be overtaken with some unrighteous actions; for in many things we offend all, Jam. 3.2. And I grant this unworthy receiving was out of weakness and ignorance (as these Gentlemen plead) the Corinthians coming newly out of their heathenism: but what is this to them that are not guilty of their unworthy receiving at all? as for matter of order and reverend decorum in the observances, not one among a thousand offending therein. And for unworthiness of person, there is not one word in the Text, in reference to coming to the Sacrament, and yet that makes all the trouble, and causes many to run into a world of mischief in the Church. Hence they infer that the unregenerate in the Church, receiving, eat and drink judgement to themselves, and therefore teach them to omit the duty; contrary to all rule both in the Old and New Testament and all Scripture Churches. And hence they make schisms and separations in the Church. And hence they make this the highest ordinance, as being a communion for Saints only; and upon the matter the least of all in other respects; detracting from the wisdom, power and goodness of God, in denying it to be a means of regenerating grace unto Church members. And hence they have invented suspension from the Lords Supper, with the loss or neglect of true discipline. And hence these tlemen have commended unto us, as the only expedient for reformation, to begin with the minor part, leaving out the rest (as judged to be excommunicable) without any trial. Hence it is that many are afraid of being guilty in partaking with others in their sins, in unworthy receiving; especially in the sin of murdering Christ. And many other like errors they run into, by reason of this one error in taking that eating and drinking unworthily to be meant of unworthiness of person. The holy Ghost intends the manner of eating, but they will have it to be intended of the worthiness of the man that eats. And upon this error is grounded all that these men have to say against M. H. book. I could wish they would better consider of it. For still I say the Corinthians were commended for keeping this ordinance as well as any other in the Church; and reproved only for some great abuse in their manner of carrying on that service: the which abuse did not lie in coming unworthily, nor in their other miscarriages which were many upon other occasions; but in this, their abusing of the holy signs unto c●●nall and common ends: For this 〈…〉 and sickly amongst them, a 〈…〉. So that this place cannot be urged against any that are Christians, and ex●●nally (at least) comm●● to the holy actions required in this service: but against open abuses of the institution.  
But these men will say of me, Object. as they do of M. H. pag. 88 That I know well enough, but that I would blind poor souls that [Do this in remembrance of me] was spoken to the Disciples, such as were of Christ's family, and not to all, etc.  
I know sure enough, Answ. that this command was spoken to the Disciples of Christ's family, not to all: but then I know also (and so might they) that all that are born in the Church of Christ and baptised, and of years, and under Church indulgence, are Disciples of Christ's family; and therefore that command is spoken to them; and they are bound to observe it, except they can produce some dispensation for the neglect of duty in this, more than in all other observances: for the baptised come under the obligation of doing all that Christ commands, Mat. 28.19, 20. And let the reader than judge, who are most guilty of blinding poor souls; they that teach them to observe and do all that Christ commands, or they that teach men to omit and neglect some necessary duties of homage and service which Christ commands for the good of their souls; as these Gentlemen make very bold to do: but how they will answer it before their Master, I leave to themselves to consider. And when I say all aught to come, I do not mean the justly excommunicated, who while they are so, are out of Christ's family; nor the unbaptized, as being against divine order; nor any that renounce the Christian Religion, casting off the yoke of Christ in defiance of him, or the like.  
In the next place, I shall take notice how the Gentlemen do most notoriously abuse Mr. Humfreys sense in a passage of his Book, telling their reader, That Mr. Humphrey saith, those dreadful expressions of the Apostle of being guilty of the body and blood of Christ; and eating and drinking judgement to themselves, were not to affright any from coming to the Sacrament: pag 39  
But whosoever shall but look into Mr. Humfreys Book, pag. 71. may easily see what design these men have upon Mr. H. The truth is, be it right or wrong, they are resolved (if possible) to render him odious to the inconsiderate, who are apt to believe every thing they hear from men that can but speak smooth words, without further search. And who would think that men of such language, pretending so much to holiness and power of religion, should dare to pervert and tear in pieces sentences, that they might have something to say against the Author, to render him odious to the worst of men. Mr. H. words are these: It is certain those dreadful expressions, of being guilty of the blood of Christ, and eating and drinking damnation; are to make men take heed that they prepare themselves and come worthily: but (saith he) I cannot think they are to affright any from the Sacrament. This is the result of what went before, where he urges both the principal duty and the accessary: we are bound to come; and to come worthily: If a man fail in the one, and be not sufficiently prepared, I dare not say (saith he) that must keep him from the Sacrament: I am sure it will not excuse him from the other that is the principal duty. Besides, they should have remembered what Mr. H. laid down in stating his Free Admission, before they had made such an outcry against him. What not one, say they, what not an idolater, an incestuous person, a hater of the godly, a witch? etc. Why doth not Mr. H. after his urging the necessity of coming (and that with such strength of argument, as I believe will never be taken off by any) distinguish between a profane and presumptuous coming to an ordinance, and a Christian coming in conformity to God's worship? and he saith, Though it be better not to come, then to come in a profane way (that being rebellion and sin in the fact) yet it is better to come in a Christian way, though but in an outward conformity to God's service, than altogether to neglect it: the which being granted, and practised of all, in all other duties; he thinks it but a begging of the question to deny it in the Sacrament, pag. 73, 74.  
I profess the Gentlemen in their answer to what Mr. H. hath written, in three or four pages together, have done nothing but trifle; as if they were glad they could but shift their hands of what is urged against them, miserably begging the question in every thing they assert. But pag. 147. they ask if those do not come in a profane way, that come but in an outward conformity; and whether the most profane wretches do not so come, and think they have done enough: and they urge many places of Scripture against this, as Isa. 1.11. & 66.5. Jer. 6. & 7. chap. from whence they infer that the distinction is abhorred of the Lord; and that whosoever comes in an outward conformity only, comes in a presumptuous and profane way.  
I answer, that notwithstanding these Scriptures, Mr. Humsreys' position is still a truth; namely, that it is better to come in a Christian way (though but in outward conformity to God's service) then altogether to neglect it: For (as he saith) it is confessed by all in all other duties, & therefore it is but a begging of the question to deny it in this.  
And besides, these Scriptures do no more respect the Passeover then all other parts of God's worship and service. And I believe these Gentlemen will not deny but in other duties of God's service, as prayer, hearing the Word, and singing of Psalms, etc. external conformity is better and not so abhorred of the Lord who commands these duties, as wholly to neglect them.  
But they say, Object. whosoever comes in a mere outward conformity, comes in a presumptuous and profane way.  
God's commands free such comers from presumption and profaneness in that particular; Solut. as to the matter of obedience: and I know nothing in all the holy Scripture against this; but doubtless the want of outward conformity unto the Laws of God is accounted rebellion, and that which the Lord always complained of in Israel of old, and punished them for too. And they had many promises and encouragements unto external obedience: and it never went ill with them so long as they outwardly conformed to Gods own appointments; nay we know wicked men have been rewarded for outward obedience to the word of the Lord.  
For that first of Isaiah; the scope of the chapter is to demonstrate and show what a most horrible apostasy there was of the whole people of Judah at that time, but especially of the rulers and judges over them, vers. 21, 22, 23. in so much that vers. 10. they are called rulers of Sodom, and princes of Gomorrah, because they were so degenerate from what they should be according to divine appointment: and therefore no wonder if the Lord do upbraid them with their sacrifices, new moons, sabbaths, and solemn meetings; and that the Lord regarded them not; why? their hands were full of oppression and blood; there was no answerableness in other things to the duties of worship they did perform: and yet they thought because they had the worship of God amongst them, they might do all manner of abominations; and that was the use they made of former deliverances. And yet it is hard to say that they had been less sinful if they had altogether omitted the duties of worship, or that they were condemned because they did perform them. The Lord tells them, that if they would put away the evil of their do, and cease to do evil and learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead the cause of the widow (the which things they might do) then the Lord promises grace and favour, pardon of sin, and acceptance in his worship: but the want of obedience in those particulars, made them not accepted in the things of Gods commanded worship: yet they might not leave off the worship of God; neither is here any thing to affright them from it, but motives and argument used to make them more obedient in all other observances answerable to that worship of God, as they expected good from him.  
Now what is all this to them that yield an outward conformity (at least) in all or most things which God requires, to prove that it is no better for them to perform duties of worship then to omit them altogether; or that it is better for all unregenerate persons not to come to the Sacrament, then to come in a Christian way, though but in outward conformity only, which is the main thing now in question.  
And the like may be said of that Isa. 66.3. He that killeth an ox, is as if he slew a man, and he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck, etc. What is the reason of all this? Because they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their own abominations; therefore the Lord will also choose their delusions, and bring their fears upon them, etc. vers. 3.4. The truth is, the fault lay not in doing those things, but in not doing all that the Lord required as well as they could; but they would do some things he commanded, and other things of their own choosing, even their own abominations, like those spoken of Jer. 7. that cry, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord; and yet will steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods; and come and stand before God in his house; and say, We are delivered to commit all these abominations. This is a profane presumptuous coming to an ordinance of God; but to come in a Christian conformity unto duties of worship, in hope of a blessing; being restrained from such enormities as are spoken of in these Scriptures, is a different thing; especially these places respecting national sins rather than of particular private persons.  
But these Gentlemen judge, that this outward consormity in the duties of Christianity, according to the present capacity of persons in the Church, as they are able to perform, is a sweet bit for the Devil, and a means to keep up rotten formality still.  
But I pray you, what is reformation in the Church, but to bring people to yield an outward conformity to the clear and undisputable Laws which Jesus Christ hath set up in the Church? I wish with all my heart, the generality of Christ's subjects in the Church of England, were reduced to that obedience, though but merely external. I should then think we were very happy; and should much rejoice to see such days and times in England: and I must confess my desires and prayers unto the Lord are, that all our exorbitances may be reduced unto uniformity of Christian obedience (though it were but in respect of the outward man) in doctrine, worship and discipline: that all might come under the ordinary means and ways of their salvation: and that we might teach our posterity in the way of holy profession and establishment of the true and lively oracles of God, in respect of which for the present, we are the most unhappy of all the reformed Churches in Christendom. For some men cannot endure to hear of such words as uniformity in Religion, under the establishment of Christian Laws of the nation; nor of a form of godliness, and holy order in the Church of Christ: but in the Kingdom of Christ would (upon the matter) have every one left to his liberty, to do what seems good in his own eyes. But our God is the God of order, and not of confusion. And I doubt not but the Christian Magistrate hath as much power to reform Religion in times of defection and apostasy, according to the manifest Laws of Jesus Christ by whom they rule, as the Kings and rulers of the house of Judah had; and aught to follow those glorious precedents, Josiah, Hezekiah, and Nehemiah who were careful to reform Religion in all things according to the known Laws of God: These examples are recorded for our learning, and for the encouragement of those whose hearts are warmed with the love of God, and zeal for his glory, to improve the advantages of power and opportunity, to bring both Ministers and people to a conformity in the externals of holy worship and order. And the memory of Queen Elizabeth in this Nation is blessed, because of her care to reftrain the Papists from their superstition and cruelty, and to draw on the whole people of the Nation to the Protestant Religion: And the success of this her care in reforming and restoring the true Religion, hath been very glorious in all reformed Churches abroad; and indeed was instrumental of the greatest blessing that ever this nation was possessed of: for being put into a peaceable enjoyment of covenant ordinances and godly order; we are still (by that means) a people in Covenant, and have the Lord for our God, yet not without our fears, lest the lukewarmness of all in the things of our God, especially in the matters of his worship, will in a short time darken all our glory, and render us a people most despicable and odious to God and men, if not utterly unchurch and discovenant us, as some do slanderously report that we are already.  
But I shall now come to the third thing propounded, namely, that all in the Church, and of years, aught to submit themselves to the discipline of the Church, not to be denied any external Church privilege until they be judicially proceeded against, and justly excommunicated. To omit what hath been already said in answer to the Doctor touching excommunication; I shall propose some few things further to be considered for the stating and clearing of the true discipline: and then I shall examine whether that which these Gentlemen commend to their reader, be any thing like the discipline of Christ held forth in Scripture, and practised by the primitive Churches of Christ.  
1. That all that are baptised and of years, must of necessity come under the obligation of all the Laws and Ordinances of Christ, of which Discipline is one, and therefore none may plead exemption from it: whosoever he be that is a brother and within, comes under the Church judgement and censure, Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5.  
2. That although all aught to come under the discipline of that Church of which they are members, yet may not any be denied Church privileges for the state of unregeneracy merely, nor for barrenness and unfruitfulness under the ordinary means of grace; or not coming up to the practice of such duties as are private, and more doubtful than the duties of public worship are. For it is certain that Jesus Christ hath his elect ones, lost sheep, and children of God among the natural seed of Christians, or to come of them, as he had among the Jews: and these elect ones he is pleased more savingly to call, some at the third hour, others not until the eleventh hour of the day of grace vouchsafed to them. And these being the special objects of redemption, included in the Gospel's Covenant, to whom the promises of the first grace do properly belong; we must suffer Jesus Christ to have the liberty of his own appointments in the Church; as the only means of gathering in such unto himself; that they may have life in him, and live unto him according to the grace they have received from him.  
3. That the scandalous in the Church are to be dealt with under the notion of offending brethren, whom they that are spiritual aught by private admonitions, and Christian counsel, and wise and seasonable reproofs, to restore in the spirit of meekness, Gal. 6.1. And the person or sin of any member not to be nominated in public, while there is any reasonable hope (in charity) of amendment by the private means: provided the offence be not already public and infamous to all; in that case, I think, though the offender be penitent and ashamed, yet he ought to be rebuked before all that the rest may fear, and the congregation be satisfied. And that it is only in case of obstinacy, and hating to be reform, notwithstanding all possible means used by the Church for their reformation, that the authoritative act of excommunication is to be issued out against any member. The Apostle did more often threaten and shake the rod then make use of it. The administration of public censures should be carried on with that solemnness and mourning over the offender, that might show a real unwillingness to put the same in execution; if any other means would humble and break the heart of an obstinate transgressor. And though there may be in the Church a readiness to revenge all wilful disobedience, yet a readiness to forgive also, as they shall see cause.  
4. That none ought to usurp the power of the keys of Christ's visible Kingdom, or take upon them the power of stewards, and to be Judges of Christ's subjects, that have not a clear warrant in the Word for the same, lest they be judged. For my part, I must confess, I utterly reject as impious and against all rule and order for the common members to claim an interest in the exercise of the keys, either of Doctrine, Sacraments or Discipline, save only to be obedient in declining familiarity with those that are justly excommunicated, and all communion with them in worship: and to be witnesses to attest what they know against an offending brother, when it is necessary to prove the fact and conviction of his obstinacy. I profess I wonder that any acquainted with the holy Scriptures should plead for any other power to be allowed to any of the common members: I cannot see how this should be, but that some men drive on designs of their own factious framing, rather to hinder the setting up of discipline, than any way to advance it. What dismal divisions, separations and confusions, what prejudices, heart-burnings and bitterness do such practices every where necessarily occasion between Pastors and their people? while the better part must withdraw from the rest, and set up Discipline among themselves; choose their own officers, and use a language beyond the ordinary, and think they are in a fine posture: when (alas) they are out of their station, and all they do is but erecting ways of their own choosing, and setting up altars to sin; some of Jeroboams craft to keep the people from worshipping at Jerusalem. And the truth is, members that separate from the body are not like to live long. What strange exorbitances very often are the consequences of such uncharitable zealous ways? And how can it be avoided, if the power of the keys reside in the common brotherhood, but the major part of a parochial congregation may choose their own officers, set up Discipline, and judge in the Church? and what reformation is then like to follow, may easily be imagined. Doubtless all Church members, as such, stand upon a level in point of external privileges: for we do not find different privileges of those that are members of the same Church, planted together into the same visible body by baptism: and so by consequence women and children, ignorant and scandalous persons shall have power to judge the rest; nay they may create and ordain their own officers, and consequently take upon them all Gospel administrations: for if the keys reside in them originally, so that they may make Ministers etc. then they themselves are much more such, and may do the works they are to do. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.  
But they will say, Object. the power of the keys resides not in all, but in worthy and complete Church-members, or believers that have the spirit of sanctification, etc.  
I know no such distinction in the Word of God. Answ. Look upon the Church of the Jews; they were a holy nation, a kingdom of Priests, a peculiar and royal people in general without distinction of worthy and unworthy, complete and incomplete. And doth not the Apostle Peter use the same words and apply them to the scattered strangers embracing Christianity? 1 Pet. 2.9. And doth not the Apostle give equal titles to all those to whom he writes, and to all in every place that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus? 1 Cor. 1.1, 2, 3. If we never read of any such distinction in Moses and the Prophets; nor find any such used by Christ or his Apostles, why should any plead for it in our congregations, but that they would see more than all that ever were before them?  
But the keys were given to the twelve as believers, Object. and that which is given to them as such, is given to the whole kind of believers in the world. Solut.  
That the twelve were impowered with the keys of Christ's Kingdom, is beyond all dispute, and that they were believers when they received that power, is as certain: but that the Lord Jesus gave the keys to them as such, is denied. And they might as well say, they were given to them as men; for they were men when they received them. But the truth is, that though there were many Disciples and believers beside the twelve; yet of his mere good pleasure, he gave the keys of his Kingdom to the twelve only, not to the rest that believed as well as they. He hath set some in the Church, Apostles, Pastors and Teachers, not all. And we know the twelve, by virtue of that authority received, preached and baptised, and ordered all the affairs of Christ's Kingdom, during their age: they planted several Churches, and ordained them Elders and Deacons; they were the instruments for the propagation of the Gospel in almost all places. Doubtless after Jesus Christ had received all power in heaven and earth, he put the twelve only in commission to build his Church; and they ordained Elders and Deacons, and gave order to some others, as Timothy and Titus to ordain; and directed them also to commit the same power to able and sit men, in after ages to teach others, etc. And in the seven Churches of Asia, the Angel of every Church is writ unto, and blamed or commended according as they demeaned themselves in their places, in opposing error or cleaving to the truth. But we never find that the common brotherhood or membership were impowered with the keys, either by Christ or by his Apostles, or any that drived authority immediately from them: and therefore they have it not at all: and to intrude themselves, and assume unto themselves things of such an high nature, is a most insolent boldness; and they may fear to perish in the gainsaying of Corah and his company.  
5. I cannot conceive how there should be any true discipline practised in our Churches without the special assistance, countenance and power of the civil Magistrate, as the state of things are in England: For almost all of all sorts, are either careless, or impatient, or erroneous, and not willing to come under discipline. And although these Gentlemen say it is our own fault; and why do we not set upon it, beginning with the minor part? yet this is very ill, nay absurdly advised. For as I said before, I believe I shall never see true discipline exercised in the Church of England, until the Lord so move upon the hearts of our Rulers, as to make them instrumental to put the Church into that capacity: which ordinarily cannot be without a national assembly of learned, grave, moderate and godly Divines; chosen (if possible) by the whole; and carried on without tumult. And that a profession of faith (if not already done) may be so clearly drawn up in respect of fundamentals in doctrine and worship, according to evident rules of holy Scripture, as may be established to be the public profession of the Nation; which all whatsoever should with peaceable spirits submit unto. And also that the subjects of the keys in a national Church may be more clearly determined, and liberty of conscience better stated and bounded; that the reformation of the whole may grow up together, at least in all the externals of Christian obedience. Otherwise how shall discipline be practised, if carnal and lose Christians shall be left at liberty, whether they will come under it or no? Now I say, while they are within the visible Church and Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, and profess his Name in hope of eternal life, why should they not submit to all his Laws, as the way and means appointed of that blessed end? And the same grounds that do warrant the restraining offenders from evil, and the forcing of them to do their duty in reference to some of the Laws of Christ, do warrant the doing of the like in reference to all the rest of his royal Laws. What is more suitable, then that they that reign and rule only by Jesus Christ, should put forth their power, and improve all their interest for the advancing of Christ's Sceptre over all?  
I confess these Gentlemen have some unhappy expressions, questioning our Church members; because (as they say) the main instruments of bringing them to the true Religion in England, were such as carried it on by a civil power; when the outward calling ought to be by the word only, which the most of our common people never had, they say.  
Answ. 1. I wish our Governors had that holy and grounded zeal for the reformation of what is amiss now in the Church, that our first reformers expressed in point of reformation in their generation.  
2. We must distinguish of a twofold state of Church membership, or the way of bringing people to be Church members, 1. Aliens of years are to be discipled and called by the Word before they may be baptised and received into the Church: and so it was in the Apostles first planting of Churches. But 2. The seed of persons so called are by virtue of the Gospel's Covenant members borne; and upon that account are baptised: and when they come to years are as much under the obligation of all holy observances, as those that are called by the word: So it was in the Church of the Jews in respect of all that were circumcised: so that Church membership is and may be pleaded from birth privilege, Gal. 2.15. We who are Jew's by nature, etc.  
3. Our first reformers did not force Heathens to receive and profess the Protestant Religion; but reduced baptised erring Christians unto that obedience and reformation which their Baptism and profession did oblige and engage them unto: according to the examples of godly Kings and Prophets amongst the Jews, in case of defection and irregularity. I might produce divers instances of this holy and religious care and zeal in reforming; but those that are acquainted with the Scripture can remember the histories of them. And orthodox Divines do generally hold, that the Baptism of a Papist is valid,, and need not be repeated: And it need not be doubted, but upon that ground, the King of Spain or the French King, if the Lord should give them a heart throughly convinced of, and affected with the truth, might reduce their subjects (if they were able) to that conformity to the Laws of Jesus Christ which their Baptism doth oblige them to. Rome itself upon such a reformation, might become a true visible Church, without any repeating either of the ordination of their Ministers, or their Baptism. Were all that superfluity of naughtiness, from time to time contracted, in Doctrine, worship and discipline purged out; and all administrations made conformable to the Laws of Jesus Christ (as it was with them for some hundreds of years from the Apostles times) we could not tell what to object against them, but might have communion with them. Say that we heretofore were a member of Rome, & received all sacred ordinances from them; having now repent of the evils and abominations which the holy things of Christ were polluted with, and reform them according to the institution; what can be objected against us, though we were put in possession of the ordinances of Christ by means of the civil power?  
4. If an argument drawn from success be of any force in any case, surely in supernatural and spiritual events above any other: and we are not left without innumerable evidences of the divine operations upon the souls of many in our Nation, through the blessing of the Lord upon the use of those holy administrations of the Covenant, which our first reformers with zeal, care and power brought our fathers under; blessed be God for this unspeakable gift.  
This for the fifth thing proposed concerning discipline.  
6. The sixth and last is this, That holy discipline is so to be ordered, that the edification of all may be best furthered and preserved, and the objects of Church censures may be healed rather than hurt by them. Sometimes the Church must rebuke some, that the rest may fear; and sentence some few, most notorious offenders, when many deserve the same punishment, rather than endanger the peace, union and edification of the Church; punish and chastise what they can, with the health and safety of the whole: and with patience bear and forbear, when the remedy is like to prove worse than the disease. Lawful things are not always expedient, nor consist with charity.  
It is a good saying of Cyprian mentioned by Calvin, Let the Church mercifully correct what they can, and what they cannot, let them patiently suffer, and with love groan and lament it: And to the same purpose he brings in the advice of Augustine, touching the abounding of drunkenness in Africa; this and the like evils (according to his judgement) are to be taken away, not roughly, nor after an imperious manner; but more by teaching then commanding; more by admonishing then by threatening; and that is the way to deal with a multitude of sinners; severity must be exercised on the sin of a few, etc. And he concludeth thus; The command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.7. to cast out the wicked, is in no case to be neglected, when it may be done without peril of breaking the peace of the Church, Institut. lib. 4. cap. 12. Sect. 11.13.  
And we may take notice, that where there is mention made of the Apostles exercising of Discipline, it is only upon particular persons, and not upon a multitude: when he finds many guilty of evil practices, he reproves, admonishes, and threatens to come with the rod, 2 Cor. 12.20. & 13.21. 1 Cor. 4.21.  
And truly, as the state of things now stands, I think it will be found a very difficult thing to get into possession of the true way of discipline, and to make that use of it, that the Church's peace and edification may be promoted and not prejudiced by it. For either the supposed unregenerate in the Church shall (on the one hand) be cast off and separated from, as in the Independent way and some others; or else (on the other hand) the dissenting brethren will be judged schismatical, for causing divisions and separations in the Church, contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. And therefore our condition is the more sad, in that Discipline which tends so much to the well-being of the Church can so hardly be attained amongst us. Thus I have given you my judgement and apprehensions in this point.  
Now in the next place, Because these Gentlemen have commended a way of Discipline to the godly, I shall crave leave a little to examine it; whether it be such a one as godly men may safely receive and use as the discipline of Jesus Christ; and not rather reject it, as having nothing of Christ in the rise and root of it, according to holy Scripture: and this I shall do very briefly, because I have said so much to the point already.  
1. It's well they acknowledge our parochial congregations to be true Churches, though it be but in a large sense: for being such, they come under the same laws and privileges externally, which belong to true Churches in the strictest sense; that is, unless they can find a different rule in Scripture for true Churches, though not in the same degree of purity; which I believe they cannot, because I do not find but Laodicea and Philadelphia, as they were both true Churches, so they were both under the same rule, etc.  
2. They confess that none but such as are already excommunicated, and such as ought to be excommunicated, are to be kept from the Sacrament: and in this Mr. H. and they seem to be agreed, pag. 27. provided (say they) that Mr. H. mean such as of right aught to be excommunicated by the Church. For his meaning, they may be sure he doth not mean that Church members should be censured without regular trial, and that by a Church that is in a fit capacity to hear and judge, and sentence according to divine rule. But how will these gentlemen prove that the greater part in a parish are such as of right aught to be excommunicated, and never put it to the trial, whether their sinfulness be of that nature, for which excommunication may and aught to be inflicted? It is obstinacy and wilful persisting in gross sins, after private and public admonition, that is to be punished with excommunication; and how can they know that the greater part of a parish do so sin, when they never admonish them, either privately or publicly? Sure there must be a clear conviction of their sins, and all fair and amicable Christian means used to reclaim them, before they can judge any in their parish excommunicable; were they in a capacity thus authoritatively to deal with them, which I think they are not.  
3. But they say, This is a most generally received truth, that every particular congregation hath power in itself to reform itself, according to what shall be practicable to them, pag. 158. To which I shall oppose their own words, pag. 7.10. Where first they say, That the ignorant and profane must be withdrawn from, because it is clear, they cannot be regularly cast out by discipline, neither is there any way how they should be rightly excommunicated; for that the major part of the Church is corrupt; and the same may be well supposed of most of the mixed parochial congregations in England: and will not excommunicate, nor are fit to do so, nor to choose officers to do it, pag. 9, 10.  
Now is not this a strange thing? they condemn Mr. Humphrey for not setting up Discipline in his Church: and strongly assert, That every Congregation hath power to reform itself, and yet they say it is clear, that the ignorant and profane cannot be regularly cast out by Discipline, nor is there any way how they should be rightly excommunicated. Reader, Canst thou desire a better justification of Mr. Humfreys present practice in the matter of the Sacrament, than these men's own words? If he cannot reform in a right way, must he and others undergo reproach, because they dare not exercise discipline in a wrong way, as these gentlemen do? There are many sober and godly Ministers that judge it better not to pretend to discipline at all; then to take up that way to which some give the name, when there is nothing of the nature of true discipline. If we cannot exercise it aright, why should any be censured for not exercising it wrong? To do evil that good may come, the Apostle judges damnable: so rarely it is that good ends and evil means stand together.  
But they say, Object. If they cannot regularly excommunicate the ignorant and scandalous that are excommunicable, than the Minister and those that are convinced of their duty to come up to a more close communion and fellowship in the Gospel, must withdraw from the corrupt majority; and wait for their coming in upon the same terms agreed upon by the minor part; and for this they commend to us Mat. 18.  
1. Answ. It is very harsh to say, that the ignorant in the Church are for that excommunicable; they may express their desires to learn, and use the means appointed to that end; and so not be excommunicable, nor to be separated from. And for the scandalous, they are to be tried, as was hinted before, and then excommunicated if there be just cause: else they shall be deprived of a special ordinance of the Church, intended as the last remedy to convert the obstinate sinner from his evil ways: And as it is a means of conversion (as these Gentlemen do confess) the Magistrate may constrain all in the Church to come under it, and submit to it.  
They say, jesus Christ should rule by the Word of his mouth, and not by the Magistrates compelling edicts: and yet they say, That in bringing all to converting ordinances (they humbly conceive) the Magistrate is to put forth his power, pag. 176. And then will it not hence follow, that as discipline is a means of conversion, the Magistrate is to put forth his power for the bringing of all under it. Yea, doubtless, and to assist the Church in the settling, exercise and execution of it. And to withdraw without a judicial proceeding, neither doth nor can attain the true end; but doth harden and prejudice sinners a great deal more, and so makes them worse in stead of making them better. The end of withdrawing (according to the Scripture) is to bring the persons withdrawn from, to shame and repentance; and is this a likely way to attain that end, for a Minister and some ten or twenty of his people, to withdraw from three or four hundred (as in some places would be the case) they all professing the true Religion? Do these men think the Apostle meant such a withdrawing, to bring sinners in the Church to shame? The rule is in reference to a disorderly brother to bring him to shame; but in our times applied to hundreds at once, by the minor part in a Church; and that very unfitly too; there being many in some such places, that as truly fear God, and live in Christian obedience beyond some of them that withdraw from them; who yet had rather be reckoned among sinners, then to join with them, that by schism break the peace of the Church.  
Besides, grant that many of them should be excommunicable, doth that warrant a separation, when it is not in our power to do it regularly? It is ten to one that those that are so zealous for separating, did never deal with their offending brethren, so far as they lawfully may and aught, to amend them. If we should deal thus in the Kingdom of this world, as they do in the Kingdom of Christ, there would be but a sad account given of many subjects therein. If it were enough to say such are felons and hangable by the Law, and thereupon never bring them to trial, but knock them on the head, and there's an end of them; How long think you would this Commonwealth stand, were such a confusion and barbarism tolerated?  
Suppose these Gentlemen in Glocestershire are run into a dangerous way of schism in the Church, through error and mistake; would they be content (without any ordinary means used to convince them of their error, or warning and admonishing them to retract) to be forthwith sentenced by a Bench of Elders, as schismatical persons, and upon that account suspended from their Ministry? I think they would not. And yet by what they appear by their Book to be, I think they are scarce qualified as Bishops ought to be, that undertake the rule of Christ's Flock; and my prayer is, that their uncharitable practices may not be an occasion of destroying many weak brethren for whom Christ died.  
As for Mat. 18. it comes now to be examined; that we may see how it is appliable to these new found models of Discipline hinted at by these men in the preamble of their Book. And it is most clear and certain that the main scope of our Saviour is to teach us these two things in general.  
First, That the meanest person coming to Christ and professing faith in him, is not to be despised.  
Secondly, That not to deal with offending brethren in the way and order by him there prescribed is to despise them. And then for the way prescribed by our Saviour, it ought to begin with private admonition in case of a brother offending, and if that prevail for his amendment, he is not to be put to public shame: but if that will not work upon him, then upon sufficient proof of the fact, he may and aught to be complained of to the Church, and the Church may convent him before them, admonish to confess and reform his sin. But if out of obstinacy he stubbornly refuse to hear the Church, after first and second admonition, then to be cast out, not otherwise.  
Now what is there in all this to favour or warrant these gentlemen's practice? do they proceed after this manner with every offending brother in their several parishes, before they deny them Christian communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? If not, why will they urge a rule from Jesus Christ to others, which they themselves will not practise? Would they have others do that themselves neither will nor can do, as themselves confess, where the greater part is corrupt? And this being the case of most Parishes in England, how shall we take up an establishment of discipline from this place? Why, they tell us, by withdrawing from the major part of the Church: But than it will be demanded, whether this Scripture do warrant any such practice; and it must needs be granted it doth not. Thus you may see how suitable these new models are to those Scriptures alleged by themselves for proof thereof.  
But to proceed a little further concerning this Scripture, Mat. 18. The greatest difficulty (as I conceive) lies in the word Church, when our Saviour bids tell the Church: I shall give my thoughts concerning that also, and leave them to the intelligent reader to consider.  
1. I conceive our Saviour's rules here given in this case, respected the present state of the Jews Church, as well as the Christian Churches in after times; and was practicable in that present state of the Jews Church.  
2. According to the same rules and order his Disciples and their followers should act in after ages, as vers. 18. doth plainly show.  
Concerning the former of these, as the rule given by our Saviour respected the present state of the Jews, and was practicable in that Church, we are to inquire whether the complaint were to be made to the whole Church consisting of rulers and ruled, assembled together in holy worship; or to the Rulers and Officers of the Church only, assembled in a Court of Judicature, for the hearing of complaints, and trying of offenders, and punishing evil manners.  
To this I answer, That to one it seems very probable, that Church here is to be taken in the latter sense: because the common people among the Jews, never had any such authority in that Church, as to judge of manners, and censure according to the rule given by our Saviour in this Scripture. But it is clear that they had a Council of Elders called the Sanhedrin, Mat. 5.22. that judged of manners, and punished such as reviled their brother, intimated in these words, He that shall say to his Brother, Racha, shall be in danger of the Council or Sanhedrin. The Pharisees and chief Priests were chief in that Council, or it consisted wholly of them; for they undertook to cast out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9 & 12. And when Saul breathed out threaten against the Saints, in zeal of reducing them to the Church from which they were departed and seduced, as he thought, he went to the chief Priests and all the estate of the Elders for his commission, and he received authority from them, to bring both men and women unto Jerusalem to be punished, Act. 22.15. And that estate of Elders in the original is called a Presbytery, which also shows that it was made up of chief Officers of the Church called Presbyters; some of which were chief Priests, the other Pharisees, and some subordinate Presbyters were joined with them to make up that assembly, having authority to judge of manners according to the Laws of God: however upon mistake they punished the true professors of the Christian Religion, yet not under the notion of professors of the true Religion, but out of zeal to reduce the believing Jews to conformity to the old administration, as judging it still in force, as it was delivered by Moses.  
If any make question whether this Presbytery (according to the Text) were the Church to whom complaint was to be made concerning stubborn offenders, I answer, that Council or Presbytery was made up of the chief Officers of the whole Church, and so the Church representative, on whom alone all the authority of the Church was involved, for the punishing of sin, and preserving the peace of the whole. And for the word Church, they that are acquainted with the Original language, know it is used for any assembly, or congregation called together, whether to civil or sacred ends; and so these Elders and Rulers of the Jews assembled together for the ends aforesaid are not unproperly called a Church.  
And for the latter thing propounded before, namely that the Christian Churches in after ages are to proceed by the same rule, and in the same order the Church of the Jews than did, that is to say, by a Presbytery, seems to me very probable. For first of all there were in use in the Christian Church, in reference to the rule and government thereof, the same names that were in the Church of the Jews, which is a sign that there was the same thing. Saint Paul who was well acquainted with the nature of the Presbytery at Jerusalem, from whom he received authority to trouble the believing Jews, calls an assembly of Elders or Church officers a Presbytery, of which what better reason may be conceived then this, the resemblance that was between this Eldership and the great Council in the Church of the Jews? It is clear the Apostles themselves did order all things in the Church; ordained Elders, and authorised them in the Name of Christ to ordain others, etc. And they were as much Rulers and Officers over the Catholic Church, as the chief Priests and Elders were to the Jews. And hence in the Apostolical Churches, Ordination of Ministers was derived from them that were Officers to the whole Church; and in a most immediate manner, by Jesus Christ were constituted so to be: which makes me inclinable to believe, that those still that are ordained Officers for the good and benefit of the whole, should be ordained by such a Presbytery that are entrusted with that power, by the Officers of the whole as much as may be. So fare am I from consenting to these men that take it for granted, that the common members of a particular society, may choose and install their own officers. Now what is there in all this for that pretended way of discipline which these Gentlemen commend to their reader? here is not the least warrant for any to separate from the Church, or withdraw (for all is one) nor for the people to rule, and choose their own Officers, nor for imposing a Church Covenant, explicitly to be professed in the congregation; and those that will not come up to this and such like terms, must not be admitted unto Sacramental communion. Nor is here any warrant for sentencing Church members before a regular trial; nay here is no warrant for any single Minister to set up discipline over his people, without the consent and conjunction of the reverend brethren of the Ministry with them. The key of discipline is not at all in one alone, but rather in the whole together.  
A word more on that Scripture, as it is directed to the Apostles, vers. 18, 19, 20. and so in them to the officers of the Church in succeeding ages to the end of the world. Verily (saith our Saviour there) if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven: for where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. These words seem to have reference unto what was spoken before concerning the authority of the Jews Church Officers; and our Saviour would have his Apostles to know, that though their authority may seem to the world, yea, and to themselves to be weak and contemptible in respect of that great bench of Elders, generally submitted unto by the Jews, yet they should have as great authority to bind and lose as the other; nay two of them by the authority given them by the Lord of the Church, should be equivalent to their great authority: And we know it came so to pass. They had power to work miracles, and were inspired with an extraordinary spirit; and had some special promises peculiar to them alone, as well as gifts. They had power to give the holy Ghost by imposition of hands; and an extraordinary power in prayer, and power to punish and kill the bodies of men for sacrilege and hypocrisy. And we know the very Church itself is said to be built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Now what is this to these Ministers in ? Dare two or three of them assume this power (for I suppose all the Ministers of the County are not of their mind and way) to do as the Apostles did? Suppose they be Ministers of the Gospel, is the Church built upon them, or their Doctrine? Where have they any such promise that they shall not err; and whatsoever they shall agree to ask, shall be done for them of the Father of Jesus Christ? They plead their serious and solemn seeking of God; and commend unto us their model of Discipline, as the result of their serious debates, and returns of their prayers: but that authority will not satisfy judicious Christians, when the thing itself is so inconsistent with the general rules of the Word, as hath been showed. Besides it is well known, that in many places the Ministers of the Gospel have used the like means in behalf of themselves and their people, yet but few have run into their ways, but either fall into some association of Churches and Presbyteries, framing such expedients, as (in a manner) bring in all under a capacity of Sacramental communion and discipline, as in Worcestershire and other places; or else carry on the Ordinances of Jesus Christ by virtue of their office as well as they can without Discipline; as being convinced of their incapacity for the present so attain unto the true end and exercise thereof, notwithstanding all their search, disquisition, and endeavours to satisfy one another therein. And the serious debates and seeking of God concerning this, should move to own and assent to what is concluded thereupon; I conceive it more safe to adhere to the greater part of sober Divines that have been serious in the use of these and all other means, to satisfy themselves and others, as well as those men, and yet dare not in the least degree countenance their way and practise. I would ask them this question, whether they did ever read of any such practice, that a few particular Ministers, by their own authority, have had the boldness to withdraw from the greatest part of their flocks, and set up a way of Discipline of their own framing? and upon the matter unchurch the greatest part of their congregations, allowing them no other privilege in the Church, than they would to Pagans. Did the Apostles ever make so bold with any Christian congregation that adhered to the Gospel's administrations? or did they ever authorise ordinary Presbyters to do so? Nay, did any ordinary Presbyter in the Apostles time, exercise Discipline but upon the command of the Apostles? or do we find them any where blamed because they did not do it? I verily believe these Gentlemen may not assume such an interest in the exercise of the Key of Discipline as the Apostles had, and yet they are more busy with the rod then ever any of the Apostles were. Alas! it's pity some care is not taken to restrain their imperious usurpation over their several flocks. I think, since the ceasing of the Apostles office, it is more suitable to the Scripture alleged, and other Scriptures, to elect such Presbyteries to judge of manners in the Church, as were constituted in the Church of the Jews, which our Saviour approved of; which yet would come short of being equal with the Apostles, in respect of the authority which they had in the Church of Christ; though they were in all places men of the best qualifications for Rule, that any attain to in our times; and so I have done with that Scripture, Mat. 18.  
I will trouble the reader but with two or three passages more about their new model: for I have a good mind to draw to an end; and my other occasions will not permit me to do much in these ways. Pag. 4. they tell us of the drawing up a profession of faith, wherein they acknowledge their former Abominations in worship, professing their repentance before the Lord for them. Concerning which I say, It is a strange expression of Christians, except they were such as came newly out of Paganism, or Popery at least. What abominations of worship have been established or practised in our Church since the reformation of it? Is it not strange that the Ministers of the Church, who should be ready to defend the Church from the wicked slanders and reproaches of Anabaptists and other Separatists, should thus publicly join with them, and that in such a public way before the world too? How many powerful and successful Ministers of the Gospel, now with Jesus Christ in glory, have justified all the ordinary parts of God's worship, as it was practised in our public assemblies all along, and conformed thereunto cheerfully in respect of the substance of our worship? Indeed there were some needless ceremonies used about worship, which were declared by the Church to be no part of the worship: now these were born as burdens which many of the godly desired to be eased of by their removal; but it never came into their thoughts, that they were guilty of abominations in worship because of them. How doth Mr. Hildersham in his Lectures upon Joh. 4. justify the Church of England as a true Church, and the several parts of worship practised therein, as being according to the institution of the Lord? And how doth he from thence blame those that separated, or neglected the public prayers of the Church; and yet himself was one of the old non-conformists? And Mr. Cotton that went into new England, writing an Epistle to that Book, doth therein highly commend the Author for many things; but in a special manner for confuting the separations of the Brownists: and he repeats what another reported of him, styling him the hammer of Schismatics, commonly called Brownists.  
Those Gentlemen talk of the Covenant established in Christ, into which they require a profession to enter, of those they admit to partake of the Seal of that Covenant, pag. 10.  
Concerning this, I say it were well if they would act according to their own words: for 'tis certain all Church communion is sounded upon covenant relation; And those (whose admittance to the Sacrament we plead for) are supposed to have entered Covenant relation, either in their parents, or in their own personal profession of the true Religion that holy Scriptures teach, or both, and their voluntary adhering to the administrations of the Covenant, doth attest their entering the Covenant, and their continuing and abiding in that relation; let them say what they can to the contrary.  
But they say, Object. Persons that have entered Covenant, may back-slide and so that relation cease, (and they instance in Simon Magus) but those that broke bread were such as continued in the Apostles doctrine, Act. 2.42 And backsliders are not to be admitted to surther communion.  
1. Answ. How do they know that Simon Magus fell off rom the Christian profession, when the last we read concerning him, is his retracting his erroneous the uphts, desiring the Apostle to pray for him, that none of those evils might come upon him?  
2. Suppose he did backslide and renounce his Baptism and profession, would he then have desired Christian communion in the Ordinances of Christ? what more absurd?  
3. We only plead for such to break bread, that continue in the Apostles Doctrine; which we say all do, that adhere to the administrations of Jesus Christ, set up in his Church, as the ordinary means of obtaining Covenant grace.  
And for what they say concerning renewing of our Covenant with God after defection from him, we hearty allow of it; provided it be done according to the Scripture, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, etc. N●hem. 10.29. Where in the persons of the chief, the whole engaged to walk in all the ways of the Lord; and to observe and do all his commandments, and his judgement, and his statutes. This is contrary to these men, that would set up a Rail to hinder Christians from observing all God's Commands; nay rather to uncovenant a people in Covenant, then engage them to renew Covenant, and walk worthy their Covenant relation, in their observance of all covenant Ordinances, in hope of blessing. And I wish, that if the Church cannot, the Magistrate would take down the high places, that hinder the Lords people from worshipping at the only place of worship. If some have liberty to worship at Dan and Bethel, why should any be restrained from worshipping at Jerusalem, and doing their homage and service in remembrance of Christ who died for sinners?  
I had thought to have added a word concerning the fourth and last thing proposed in the beginning of this Examination; as it was urged by Mr. Humphrey; namely, that Ministers ought to do their duties as they are Ministers, though Discipline be wanting; and cannot well be attained as things stand: of which duties, the administration of the Sacrament is one, which by their office they are bound to perform; as they will answer the neglect thereof to Jesus Christ himself, who commands the observance of all his holy Ordinances in the Church, for the feeding of his flock: And those that love him will make conscience in their places, to be faithful to him that hath appointed them. But I fear I have been too tedious already. And Mr. Humphrey in his rejoinder to Doctor Drake hath abundantly given satisfaction in the vindication of this and other truths asserted in his former Book: And if he shall think these Gentlemen worthy of any further answer; I shall rather leave it to himself, then do any thing that may hinder the Church of God of the faithful and profitable labours of him or any others.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA  
PAg. 1. line 7. for reprove read reproach, p. 4. l. 24. put out may, p. 12. l. 8. f. when r. what, p. 21. l. 25. f. many r. main, p. 32. l. 12. put out be, p. 33 l. 14 f. such r. say, p. 34. l. 28. r. not allow, p. 35. l. 16. r. simply, p. 39 l. 16. in the margin for 42 2. r. 42. p 49 l. 5. l. 34. r. 3. which should begin the line and sentence, p. 51. l. 3. r. premise, l. 22. f. baptised r. lapsed, p 60. l. 26. r. guest, p. 65. l. 27. f. the r. by, p. 67 l. 8. f. communication r. communion, p. 71. l. 13 put a period after worship. p. 74. l. 25. f. all r. and, p 75. l. 12. f. also r. and so, p. 91. l. 18. r. relation, p. 99 l. 9 r. reference, p. 110. l. 29. f. and Gentiles r. assembilies, p. 116 l. 1, 2. r. Gillespy, p. 117. l. 22. put in the margin 1 Cor. 10.7, 8, 9, 10. p. 120 l. 10. f principles r. privileges, p. 127. l. 5. f. God r. Gospel, p. 151. l. 1. s. no r not, p. 164. l. 14. s drived r. derived, p. 173. l. 7. put out the stop after sense.