TO RECEIVE THE LORDS SUPPER, The Actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of Years not EXCOMMUNICATE. MADE GOOD Against Mr. COLLINS his Exceptions against The Bar Removed, written by the Author. And what Right the ignorant and scandalous tolerated in the Church have to the Lords Supper declared. Many things belonging to that Controversy more fully discussed, tending much to the peace and settlement of the Church. AND ALSO A full Answer to what Mr. COLLINS hath written in defence of Juridical Suspension, wherein his pretended arguments from Scripture are examined and confuted. To which is also annexed A brief Answer to the Antidiatribe written by Mr. Saunders. By JOHN TIMSON, a private Christian of Great Bowdon in Leicestershire. Those members of the body which we think less honourable, upon those we bestow more abundant honour,— That there should be no Schism in the Body, 1 Cor. 12, 23, 25. London, Printed by E. C. for Tho. Williams at the Bible in Little-Britain, and Will. Tomson at harbour in Leicestershire. 1655. The Author to the Reader. HOw weak and unable I am for the managing of the least truth, and how unfit to appear in public in its defence, I am very sensible and filled with fears and perplexing thoughts in my very soul, lest I should do any thing but for the Truth, and for the peace of our unsettled Church; or should be injurious to so good a cause, which I am drawn out (I do not well know how) to vindicate. Who is sufficient to defend the Truth! I tremble to think how many precious and choice Servants of the Lord, and faithful Labourers in his Vineyard, are against me in what I publish. I reverence and esteem those of the Presbyterian judgement above others in some considerable respects, and verily judge them conscientious men, and such as I look upon as best qualified, for promoting the Gospel truth, and the Church's peace. And although my returns to Mr. Collins be somewhat round, yet I hope I do not much reflect upon most of the Presbyterian judgement, notwithstanding his seeming to write in the name of all of that persuasion. I do profess my study was to speak my very heart in this Controversy, and to provoke different minds to give some stronger grounds for their opinion and practice; assuring myself, that a great deal more must be said against that Free Admission to the Sacrament, which I plead for, than any of late have said, before either Mr. Humphrey or myself will be answered, and many thousands in the Nation, (which I hope fear God) will be satisfied. I may safely say, with a good conscience, it is more the clear conviction of my judgement and conscience, that persuades me to appear in this controversy, than any private interest or affectation of opinion, or spirit of contradiction, or baseness of that spirit either ●o humour or flatter the common multitude. I am persuaded it is the very simplicity of holy Truth which I have undertaken to defend, leading directly to the Church's Peace and Reformation. Truth seeks no corners, but is invincible, and entire in itself; it may be overborn at a push, but will recover again, and vanquish all the dark parts of man. O that we had such impartial and unbyased spirits, as to receive all truth in the love of it! Let me entreat my Reader to weigh things met with in this controversy deliberately; and then I doubt not, but of whatsoever judgement he be, he will confess my principles and arguments are rational, and much the drift and scope of plain Scriptures: And if he will but grant me Infant Baptism, he will find it a hard task to overthrow any of my building, as it is stated. He may see with what clearness and ease I have answered to what is excepted against my first book, in the reading of this; and also to what is brought in defence of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication, as it is stated by Mr. Collins. Indeed he pleaseth himself with telling his Reader my principles are both large and rotten, but if he think to go but an inch narrower, he will find it a most difficult task to free himself of that charge laid against the Pharisees, the making void the Commandments of God by their Traditions: He cannot go a jot narrower, but he must uncovenant, undisciple, and unduty those which he calls Church members; the doing of which plucks up all that the Church stands upon, and levels Christians not Excommunicate with the Pagan world, in point of right and actual duty of receiving. This is so irrational that it stands Mr. Collins upon to do his utmost to give some satisfaction therein; which if he do, he must make good from the Scriptures those things which he so often begs; As 1. That the Lords Supper is strong meat only. 2. A seal to justifying faith only. 3 And that every unregenerate person in the Church that receives, eats judgement to himself more than in any other Ordinances of Word and Prayer, he doing in each what he can to decline and avoid profaneness. 4. That a Church-member of years, under Toleration of the Church, is no believer or disciple under actual duty, as a Christian. 5. That to the different state of the Church, as consisting of regenerate and unregenerate, is under different rules and duties, as to public worship. 6. That more knowledge and holiness is required to the Lords Supper, then to Baptism in persons of years. 7. He must prove Suspension distinct from Excommunication a Church censure, and for what sins. 8. That some baptised of years mentioned in the Scripture have been denied the Sacrament of the Supper for ignorance, or for not having fruits of holiness answerable to the Christian Profession; and yet allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members. 9 He must prove a Pastoral or Church trial by examination of Church-members fitness or unfitness necessary to admitting to the Sacrament, and more such like things, before he can justly debar any from the Sacrament, more than from the rest of Church privileges and duties: If he can make good all or any of these things by the Scriptures, so as to take off what we have excepted against them; then he may do something towards giving satisfaction in this Controversy: otherwise in plain terms, I would have him to sit still, and let others (who may think to do somewhat in order to it) put forth their strength. For I am willing my grounds and principles should be tried to the utmost. I had rather be put to shame a thousand times, then upon mistake in any thing I should descent from godly men, and draw any into error. But yet I would have you to know, that these grounds and principles, on which my judgement is built, have been so long received and chewed upon, and examined and tried by general rules of Scripture and Reason, that I shall not easily be removed. For I dare boldly say, the substance of what I writ, I received not from Erastus, Mr. Prinne, nor Mr. Humphrey; my judgement was settled and satisfied in these things long before I heard of these Authors. And besides what reason hath Mr. Collins to charge us with this, that we are Erastus his scholars, when he finds us so point blank against him, in defending the Juridical censures of the Church? I cannot say that ever I read any Author that came up to my opinion or judgement in these things in any measure, till now of late I saw Mr. Humfreys Vindication of free Admission. So that whether my grounds be new or old, I have made but little acquiry in respect of humane authority; this I am satisfied in, that my grounds are such as accord with the Gospel Covenant, and the state of the Visible Church of Christ, as it is constituted in Parents and children, good and bad, called and chosen. And I find that men of different judgements run themselves upon dangerous rocks of Schisms, Separations, and needless divisions in the Church; besides their interferings, contradictions of themselves, and detracting unworthily from Covenant-relation, Church-membership, Sacraments, signs, and pledges of Covenant love to the whole Church in general. And therefore I hope, though I have endeavoured to remove an unnecessary Bar, yet it will appear that I am not guilty of that sin and curse that Mr. Collins intimates, in saying, Was it our grief formerly, that we had no Bar, and is it our work now to remove the Bars? yea, the Lords and the Churches ancient Landmarks? But who are most faulty in this? they that plead for the Church's Landmarks and rights, or they that unjustly defraud the Church thereof, laying the Church common with the world; judge ye: or who are most for Reformation according unto Scripture Canon; they that press to all Scripture obedience, or they that exempt Christians from some necessary duties of Worship; they that would have all in the Church dealt with as members, in a Juridical way, to their amendment; or they that unchurch them, undisciple them, and so unduty them, and levelly them with the Pagan World. Mr. Collins pretends much zeal in his Epistle prefixed to his Book; but I could wish he had more sound judgement and knowledge in these things, to abate the inconsiderate noise he makes, and the passion which he shows therein. First, he tells us that it was a burden that lay upon our souls, that in the Prelate's days there was no bar but one which Suspecion made. And then about six lines after, he saith, the Prelatical party may rise up in judgement against us, and say, Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for notorious sins; etc. First, he saith, there was no Bar, and then he saith that there was a Bar; and such a one as I thinks might have satisfied men of his persuasion. The truth is, both Presbyterian and Brownists make such a slender thing of Covenant relation, the ground of baptism in the Church, that it will not bear up what they should build upon it afterwards; for they make it upon the matter but a mere titular or nominal thing; restraining the Gospel Covenant to believers only in a strict sense, making Sacramental Seals invalid, if they do not so believe, conceiving that if persons in the Church by their actual offending discover themselves to be in an unregenerate state after baptism, that then they are out of Covenant, and so by consequence have forfeited their actual right to Sacramental seals thereof; making no difference between such and the Pagan world. But if we hold to the Covenant made to the Church and their seed, as it was published and declared to Abraham, and all along to the Church of the Jews, and look upon the Christian Church as graffed into them, and equally children of Abraham by profession of faith and Baptism, as the Jew by nature and Circumcsiion, press all to walk up to their profession as Christians according to Gospel observances, being bound to observe all things as the Jews were, than should we build upon such a foundation of truth that would be , and bear up as much as we now plead for. But I have expressed myself more largely in this ensuing discourse, and may not now insist upon the largeness of the Gospel Covenant. In short then I conceive, that it is a very great mistake to narrow the Gospel Covenant unto this, He that believes shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned. I grant, 1. That this is a truth as taken in the usual sense, but then I deny that it is the whole Covenant of grace made unto the Church and their seed. 2. I grant it a conditional proposition, used in the first tender of the Gospel unto Infidels, to move them to accept of Christ, and so to bring them into the visible Church; but I deny that this in like manner was, or is to be preached unto the visible Church, that profess their acceptance of Christ, and all observances appointed by him. 3. I grant that actual believing and profession of faith, was the only thing that fitted a Pagan for Baptism, and graffing into the Gospel Church, in which the promises of grace and glory belong to the whole indefinitely; but yet I deny that there is any promise of grace in those words, He that believes shall be saved; it is true, there is the promise of being saved upon condition of sincere believing; but there is no promise in that to give a sinner grace to believe. So that this conditional part of the Covenant in a strict sense, as it is usually urged alone without the absolute, renders unregenerate sinners, uncapable of any good news by the Gospel, it not being in the power of any of himself so to believe. And to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm this conditional part of the Covenant only (as being that which the Sacraments hold forth) is to make the death of Christ a seal to confirm a Covenant of works in the Church derogatory to the Gospel mercy and grace. Therefore we are to conceive of the Covenant, as it's held out to the Church by the Prophets and Apostles, the Church being built upon both. Gen. 17. Jerem. 31. Ezek. 36. it is largely laid down, and applied by the Apostles to the Church in Gospel times, Act, 2.39. Heb. 8. Act. 3.25, 26. & 5.31. Rom. 15.8, 9 2 Cor. 6.16.18. & 7.1. compared. These Scriptures prove that the Apostles did usually apply those old free grace promises, (with the end of Christ coming into the world to confirm them) to the Gospel Church. But if any please to enter their exceptions against these my notions about the Covenant, I shall be glad both of an occasion and opportunity to insist more largely upon them. For I must confess, I think there are not many that are very right about the nature and largeness of the Gospel Covenant made to the Church; and that straightening the Covenant too much occasions very much division and schism in the Church. But Reader, I will detain thee no longer in the porch; only let me entreat a candid and charitable conceiving of my sense, drift and end in what I have written: I would provoke none, but leave the probability of what I have asserted from Scripture and reason, to the consideration of all. Only this let me tell thee by the way, That Suspension, as it's stated by Mr. Collins, I judge to be sufficiently confuted in the latter part of this Book. What himself or any other may do further in stating it, and proving it by Scripture or reason deduced thence, I know not; I think whosoever undertakes it, will find it a hard task to make this good; That some Church-members of years, and endued with reason, shall and aught to be denied the Communion of the Lords Supper, and yet be allowed the liberty of all other Communion in acts of worship as Church members at that present. And though I do not in plain terms prove it an invention of men, yet I conceive I have so removed the arguments and reasons it's pretended to be built upon, that it doth not yet appear to be the Ordinance of Christ, and so by consequence, that it is but a Tradition of men. Jesus Christ commands all that are Disciples, Church-members, to observe all his commands, from which none that are baptised can be excluded without equal authority to that of Christ. Suspension from the Sacrament only, must first be proved an Ordinance of Christ, before any may be suspended from it. For no authority on earth can disoblige from actual duty, but the same that doth oblige to duty; I mean no authority can do it but that of Christ, in giving the power of the keys of the Church, to bind and lose authoritatively. To conclude, let none deceive themselves in reading this Book, as if it were intended for defence of promiscuous Communion; for what I intent therein is to justify a lawful Communion in the Lord's Supper according unto the rules of the Law and Gospel; and sure that is the most pure Communion that is most agreeable to rule, as the case now stands in our Church. Mixed Communion properly is to admit an Infidel, Jew, or Pagan unbaptised to the Sacrament, that denies or knows not that Christ is come in the flesh; or to admit the Excommunicate, before they have given satisfaction to the Church by their repentance and amendment of life: If I should plead for such a Communion, than it would reflect upon me to my reproach & shame. But I plead not for this, but for Church discipline to reform the disorderly in the Church Juridically. I would have the Church still to preserve the form of all necessary duties of worship, though they cannot bring up all to the power of godliness, as is desirable. Better to keep up Religion, though but in the right form, than not at all. What reason can any have to discourage from any religious form of true worship, under this pretence, that they come not up to the inward power, which is undiscernible for the most part? Form and power are inseparable in the true Religion, where the Lord gives his blessing. That place of Timothy is usually misunderstood in our times: for it is clear they had not so much as the external form of true Christian Doctrine and Worship, but such a form of godliness as Heathens have or may have: for it was spoken of false teachers and seducers, that usually make pretences of a form of godliness of their own devising, and deny or be enemies to the form of godliness, which is according to truth commanded of God; for they are such as resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the doctrine of faith. God never blesses false forms of worship with his powerful presence, working grace in them that out of strong delusion have invented those forms: but forms of his own prescribed worship, are the power of God to salvation to whom he will. Now I crave pard●n of all sober men for this my so bold attempt, to clash with so many able solid Divines, as I shall be judged to do. I reverence all, and should patiently wait, and without contending submit to all, were the Church in a settled state: but we having run into such endless divisions and separations, it concerns every one to study and endeavour the regaining of the settlement, peace, and edification of the whole. And I could wish that men of ●ober principles, who have an eye at the same end, would be more serious in weighing the grounds we build upon, and the weapons we fight with in managing this controversy. I could wish that able and learned men would throughly search and more deeply dive into this controversy; for I know that unless a great deal more can be said against Free Admission as it is stated than I could as yet ever hear of, contrary minds will be forced either to yield, or else they will run themselves upon such rocks as will quite break the constitution of our Church. But prove all things, and impartially incline to own and embrace that which brings the fullest and nearest evidence of truth and solid reason to thy understanding. And the Lord give us at least to see where the truth and the Church's peace lies, and establish the same among us, which is and shall be the prayer of him that longs to see that day, John Timson. The most principal things handled in this Controversy are contained in these few questions. 1. WHether all Church-members of years not Excommunicate have a true right to the Lords Supper or no. 2. Whether any Church-members may lawfully be denied the Lords Supper for ignorance, and state of unregeneracy according unto Gospel rule. 3. Whether Church-members as such in relation to the Covenant, be not personally worthy during their abode in the Church, and in that sense worthy receivers, though otherwise they be actually unworthy. 4. Whether it is the duty of all Church-members of years to receive the Lords Supper, as to hear, pray, read, sing, etc. 5. Whether the promises of first grace be not included in the Gospel Covenant, which Sacraments seal: And the unregenerate in the Church be the only objects of those promises. 6. Whether the Church is to judge of her members worthiness or unworthiness in order to admitting to the Lords Supper more than to all other acts of public worship. 7. Whether the Sacrament can be denied to be a converting Ordinance in the Church. 8. Whether Juridical Suspension be an Ordinance of Christ or an invention of man. ERRATA. Reader among many lesser faults which have escaped in the printing by reason of the Author's absence, there is one great fault, pag. 143. in. 12, 13, 14. The distinction there mentioned is this, Hearing of faith preached was, and is the ordinary means of the faith of Heathens, but the whole work of the Ministry is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church. And p. 239. l. 10. after probable, supply means of instructing them in the. PAg. 4 lin. 7. read unto, p. 13. l. 27. r. privative. p. 1●. l 6. r. reaching. p. 29. l. 8. for i'll. r for it. p. 31. l. 12. r. Vzzahs. p. 31. l. 14. r. answer. p. 50. l. 10. r. undvoidable. p. 64. l. 15. r. examen. p. 71. l. 1 3. r. a knowledge. p 89. l. 14. r. propositions. p. 98. l. 12. r. leavened. p. 99 l. 21. r. chain. p. 100 l. 27. r. visible. p. 116. l. 2. r. adjourned. pag. 138. l. 28. supply in, after doth. p. 156. l. 9 r. uneldered. l. 30. supply of the whole Church, after settlement, p. 161. l. 9 r. privative. p. 166. l. 2. f. examination r. argument. p. 170. l. 2. r. irreproveable. p. 189. l. 7. supply, an ordinance of, after give. p. 199. l. 6 deal it. p. 216. l. 3. f. first r. fift. p. 249. l. 15. f. power r. prevalency. p. 275. l. 21. r. suspicion. p. 280. l. 1. f. know r. how. p. 286. l. 27. f. which r. when. p. 298. l. 32. r. to persecutions. p. 312. l. 29. r. think. p. 327. l. 8. put in profitable, after that is, & l. 16. r. themselves. To Receive the Lords Supper, the actual Right and Duty of all Church-Members of years not Excommunicate. BEloved Christian friends, Although I judge that I am not as yet answered by Mr. Collings, (there being enough in my Book to answer him and vindicate itself from whatsoever is as yet objected against it, to the Judicious and impartial Reader) yet with respect unto Mr. Collings, who is esteemed a Gentleman learned and worthy according unto his title, and some profitable labours for the Churches good. And also for the further satisfying both of the weak and plain minded Christians: As also the confirming of those my friends, that cordially embrace my Book, and adhere to the truth asserted therein: And that the controversy itself may come to some clearer issue; and something more may be discovered in order unto peace and truth, and reformation in the Church of God: in all humility and respect unto different minds. I crave leave once more soberly and freely to present my thoughts unto further consideration, for I judge that Mr. Collings hath been too hasty in concluding that my main principles are rotten that I have made the ground of my discourse, by what he hath said in answer thereunto: for the truth is, he hath not in the least disabled any one main thing I have asserted, nor is willing to keep to the question as it's stated, nor answer to any purpose, where the main stress of Controversy lies; but trifles about Infants, and distracted, and Pagans, and the excommunicate, the admitting of which, a● such, not any in our times plead for. And therefore he might have said less to these; and more to those that the thing in controversy concerns: namely, Whether the unregenerate, or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church, being baptised, and of years, not excommunicate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, they expressing their desires to receive and proffering themselves. I answer in the negative all along, that they may not be put by Mr. Collings seems to be offended with my charging the Reverend Doctor with unbrotherly dealing. A thing, saith he, that myself am more guilty of; which I think is hardly so, unless the worthiness of the person my opinion strikes at doth so much the more aggravate the thing. As for my not taking notice of Mr. Humfreys reflections as he calls them: it may be better excused as to myself and friend, than the other can. 1. Because that part of the Book which concerned the Doctor, was finished and gone from me towards the Press, before ever I knew of Mr. Humfreys rejoinder. 2. When I did read it over, I thought his returns (to such bitter censures and invectives against him) were very pathetical, yet humble and melting, and well becoming a sober charitable Christian, and fellow-labourer with the other in the holy Gospel. 3. I have heard many godly and learned in the Ministry acknowledge that his returns are humble and charitable, and yet quick and rational. As to Mr. Collings quotation of the two last pages of his rejoinder; I conceive that Mr. Humphrey little thought that any would be so uncharitable as to take his Allegorical reproof and caution in that unfeemly sense that Mr. Collings will force upon it; there being not any Scripture uncapable of a rational application: And those that are impartial and sober, can judge no less of that. And for those six or seven dissatisfactions of mine concerning the practice of some Presbyterians unassociated, I know not how I should have expressed myself more modestly, then by professing myself unsatisfied, giving so many hints as I have clearly done against those things I charge them with. And I am sure if the main principles in my Book stand firm, (as I think they will for any thing yet said against me) Mr. Collings will not be very zealous for ruling Elders, nor Suspension distinct from Excommunication, Church examination of her members into actual receiving, nor leaving out without any judicial proceed. But to the matter itself, let us see what he hath said against that. First his demand is, What it is that gives one right to the Sacrament of the Supper, he knows the answer will be Church membership; either this alone, or something else; if this alone, than Infants and mad men, and drunkards must come say what they can, if they say not Church-membership alone doth give a full right, than many of their arguments fail 1. Answ. That Church membership alone gives one a legal right to the Lords Supper, according unto Gospel rules, the which right is a true right, and that sufficient unto free admission of all in the Church: but then this right is to be distinguished into a real right in point of title, and a right of actual possession and enjoyment: the former right respects all Infants born of Christian Parents, the latter right belongs unto all Church-members of years, that are baptised, and in a rational and Church capacity actually to enjoy their right. An heir in his infancy hath as true a right unto his Father's land he being dead, as an heir at full age: but yet it doth not follow that a child under age shall be left actually to manage his right himself in that state, as an heir at one and twenty. We know the Apostle saith it, An heir under age differs not from a servant though he be Lord of all. Yet such is the the consequence of Mr. Collings touching Infant Communion; if we grant them a true right as members in point of title, and a remote right actually to enjoy assoon as they are in a natural and rational capacity, then saith he, they as members must come, say what we can to the contrary. Although Mr. Humphrey and myself have showed a clear difference between Infants and distracted, and the ignorant at age in several particulars. The one 1. not in a natural capacity, as the other is. Nor 2. in a rational capacity, as the other is. 3. The one not so under the obligation of precepts of public actual worship, as the other are. 4. The one not at all under the censures of the Church, as the other are: Nay although Mr. Humphrey in his rejoinder tells them, that there is as wide a difference between Infants and Ignorants, as between a do not, and a cannot, (speaking of Examination, and discerning the Lords Body,) the Ignorant they do not, but yet they ought to do, but Infants and distracted cannot, and are excused; yet notwithstanding all this wideness in the premises, Mr. Collings without an answer unto ours, most peremptorily enters his consent unto the Doctor's weakness, and tells us the Doctor saith right, that by the same reason we except against Infants, etc. we may except against the ignorant and scandalous. Thus you may see, let the premises be never so different, they must hold to their conclusion, be it never so absurd and irrational: and I would have them to take notice that, We do not except against Infants and distracted, as a punishment or censure (as they) of the ignorant and scandalous: but rather we wave them as such that are under a state of weakness and impotency (by the wisdom and providence of God) inevitable. We do not except against Infants as not having a true right, but out of the consideration of their natural and rational incapacity actually to enjoy their right. We do not except against Infants and distracted, because they cannot examine themselves, discern the Lords Body, (as Mr. Collings would have it) But because self examination, and discerning the Lords Body, coming to receive, are not their actual duties; but we judge all these are the actual duties of ignorants, and of the scandalous in the Church, until they be excommunicate. And assoon as Infants are grown past childhood, and come under the actual obligations of precepts and worship, our principles incline us to as timely an admittance of youths, that shall voluntarily desire it, and proffer themselves, as those that oppose us. 'Tis certain that children in the Church, 1. Come under family instruction and correction before they come under the Ministerial instructions, admonitions, corrections, either of Church or State. 2. That children come sooner under negative precepts, then affirmative acts of worship; it may be a sin for that child to lie, swear, curse, steal, when at that age it is no sin to omit public prayers, and the Lords Supper. Divines say affirmatives always bind, but not to all, at all times; in many cases God will have mercy rather than sacrifice, as is supposed to the case in hand. But I could wish we might keep close to the thing in controversy. Infant Communion is not a thing controverted in our Church. In the next place in answer to his. Church-membership 'tis very comprehensive, importing no less than Believer, Saint, Disciple, Christian, etc. and therefore needs nothing else to give a true legal right (according unto the rule) unto the Lord's Supper: for all Believers, Disciples, Saints by calling and profession, when, and whilst they were within, were never denied the Lords Supper. It's true a Church-Member may come under divers considerations. 1. As an heir at age, or in his minority, or under distraction is still an heir, and his right to be conceived of as before. 2. So, it is in the Commonwealth, an● evil and a hurtful subject is a subject, and hath the benefit of the laws thereof, as any other subjects of the same kind, though never so good and profitable: so it is in the Church; the most uncomely members are members, and have as true a legal right to the external privileges of the Church, as any other members of the same kind, though never so good and holy. A difference in the degrees altars not the kind, for that whatever belongs unto a Church-member as such, belongs unto all of the same kind, is with out doubt. We do not find a different rule to Church-members of the same kind; if good or bad openly offend, they ought to be proceeded against accordingly; and neither the one nor the other should be denied an actual external privilege of the Church, until the Church hath given out judgement against them by excommunication authoritatively; and we are not to make any difference in the Church about members in respect of externals, the rule being only one, and the same unto all. Members, believers, disciples, brethren, in a large sense are as truly such in a true sense, as those are such indeed, in a strict sense. Hence Mr. Collings his demand, What it is added unto Church-membership entitles to this Sacrament? is both frivolous and improper, because Church-membership includes as much as can be added unto it, and yet doth not exclude the worst born in the Church, and under her toleration. Nor did I ever think that any man would be so perverse (as he) to make reason and age, additions to membership, they being but essentials to the more perfect being of a man: for that is supposed of all that come under actual precepts of worship, that they are reasonable men, and of years. There is the Church-membership of Infants, and of men, and of women, yet all is but Church-membership; age, sex, and reason, etc. are not additions unto membership: but a Church-member is the same with all these: Yet it's true too, that unto all actual observances in the Church, age, and reason must necessarily be presupposed. So again, knowledge, faith, and obedience are not additions to membership, but a Church-member comprehends all these, in his sense, degree or kind. And while they will acknowledge persons in the Church Church-members, believers, disciples, etc. they must conclude with me that Church-membership alone gives a true legal right to the holy Supper, say what they can to the contrary: so that the vanity of this superadding unto membership unto Sacramental right, is nothing else but a raising a dust to blind our eyes. What Church either in the Old or New Testament required more than membership unto this Sacrament? all that came under Circumcision or Baptism, stood engaged to keep the Passeover and the holy Supper. When Mr. Collings can give a clear instance otherwise, I shall think myself bound to return him thanks. If any make enquiry what Church-membership in its rise and nature is, It's a relative state of persons only that have entered Covenant with God, Answ. professing either expressly or implicitly their voluntary submitting to the whole administration of the Covenant. And this entering into Covenant is either personal, or parental: Personal, of those that are Pagans born, but parental in the Church who by birth-priviledge have entered Covenant with their parents. And this I call a relative state, because it hath its privilege merely from the Covenant which God through Christ hath freely made unto some of mankind and their seed, whom he is pleased to own and make his people, and to be unto them a God, in a more peculiar relation, then to all others of mankind; for those whom God chooseth to approach near unto him in his own appointments, have the promise of being satisfied with the fatness of his house. Now than I judge, so long as Covenant relation holds, membership holds, and so long as membership holds, the privileges of that estate holds. It must be an authority equivalent to the ground of membership, that can dismember, or dispossess them of their right as members, which nothing but renouncing the Covenant, or obstinacy continued in, under the Church's censures, can do it. But he goes on in his mistake, and tells his Reader, That I hold, it's only the exercise of reason conjoined unto Church-membership gives all a right to the Sacrament, than it follows saith he, That all such who are able to exercise their reason ought to come, and be admitted. And then asks us why are drunkards excepted against, pag. 22. Here is but the same again which is already answered, only he saith, Answ. why are drunkards excepted against, for they are Church-members, and can exercise reason? In stating the question Mr. Humphrey hath it, he might say the drunk, meaning the actual drunk, as void of reason, conscience, and devotion for that present, as being more fit to be thrust among Swine, than suffered to come unto any sacred Ordinance of Worship, in that profane sordid brutishness, not denying but the same man at another time when he is sober and in his serious mind to serve God as a Christian, he being not excommunicated may and aught to partake of every Ordinance in the Church● a member. Saith, Mr. Coll. If he can but show him the least shadow of Scripture to prove that a capacity to exerce reason is that other thing which added unto Church-membership gives one an actual right, we will be 〈◊〉 bondmen. Membership alone in its own latitude comprehends as much as he himself wi●● have added unto it to give a true actual righ● as is made out above. Answ. 1 And then 2. I hope Mr. Collings will allo● men and women that are baptised and continue to adhere to the true Religion to b● Church-members, and if so, himself do● grant their right, which is as much as h● would have me prove; unless he think that Church-membership of persons grow● up to years of discretion, is a mere not● onal thing, an empty nothing, levelling Church-members to the Pagan world, as 〈◊〉 may well suspect him for several things me● withal hereafter; his often urging of something to be added to give one of years right to the Sacrament, as knowledge, faith, and the fruits of holiness, strongly implies that to be a Church-member, disciple, is nothing, to give a right. It's the things he superadds that gives the right to the Supper; whereas to Church-membership I know, and so may be, that his superadding are not proper, nor indeed sense; for add those things to a Pagan, and they will give him right unto Sacraments, ●hereas a Church-member imports the same, ●e they ignorant, or scandalous, during that privileged estate. Doth the Scriptures speak 〈◊〉 any such additions to a Jew unto his observing the Passeover in its season? Let it 〈◊〉 proved that an ignorant Jew lost his actual right as a Jew, or Church-member, or ●at an ignorant Christian in the Apostles ●ayes, that was baptised and within had no ●ight to the Lords Supper. Will you not allow as much of Church privilege to a baptised Christian now, as was allowed then? Are the privileges of the same Church diminished ●o her members? Wherein will you have a Church-member not excommunicate differ from a Heathen, or the excommunicate? You allow all other Ordinances in the Church to a Heathen, the suspended, Excommunicate, and just so much you allow to a Church-member tolerated, and no more, how do you confound things that differ! What difference do you make between the excommunicable, and the excommunicate, the ignorant, and such as offend out of weakness that are not excommunicate? The Primitive and Positive suspension as you call them, the proper and improper, etc. the punishment de facto in its execution, is all the very same, deny them the Sacrament only, that's the least, and that's the greatest. Whether it be done by a Classes, or Presbytery, or a single Minister, or by the discouragement of some private Christians, or 〈◊〉 of people's own carelessness. The only po● of reformation and end of Discipline is m● that great design of keeping Church-members of years from the Sacrament, slight● their Covenant, relation, obligation unactual observances as members, disciples, 〈◊〉 lievers, etc. as if they were no more un● the duties of Gospel worship than Turk's a● Pagans. If Church-membership with u● judged the same with those were added 〈◊〉 to the Chdrch in the Apostles days; w● should we question the duty & privilege ●●ours, more than they of those times? I wo● have Mr. Collings either show me a differed state of Church-membership; or else sh● me a different rule for the same Church 〈◊〉 walk by, either let him do the one or 〈◊〉 other, or else be so ingenuous to yield 〈◊〉 every member his right, until the Chur● have legally dispossessed them of it. At the latter end of the 22 page, Mr. Coll. he draw● up the question between both, and wou● have it put to trial; but indeed the questi● is so wide from the question in controvers● and so much said already to clear the question in hand, that I may well pass it b● and see what we can find in page 23. whe● he is still upon the same thing; and plea● against me thus. If a mere capacity to exercise reason entitled 〈◊〉 Church-member to the Sacrament, than every Church-member in such a capacity hath an undoubted right. I grant that every Church-member of years of discretion hath an undoubted right. Answ. I utterly disown his antecedent, as not reckoning the question as it's stated: he should have put in this proviso, Church-members that are professing the true religion, not under the Churches just censure. And had he done so he might have assumed what he could, but he willing to leave so much out of his antecedent as would have spoilt his consequence, ●nd prevented him in urging those inconsequences that follow upon it in the whole page: although I must confess the cases he instances in, have need to be spoken unto with wisdom and tenderness; so that the truth be not prejudiced. As to the case of members that are so notoriously scandalous that of right aught to be excommunicate, but are not, as he instances in incest and adultery immediately before a Sacrament, he sees I have large principles if I would admit such a one. 1. Answ. Either such are under the suspicion of these sins; Or 2. are under evident conviction. A suspicion is not sufficient to ground Church censures upon, if this be clear upon sufficient proof, the Christian Magistrate hath to do with them, those things being punishable by death in our Law. And such malefactors cannot ordinarily escape the penalty of the Law, if the Magistrate will n● do his duty. The Church may assoon judicially excommunicate, as suspend su●. And it's a question that wiser men than I ha● need to answer. Whether such scandalo● sinners as Mr. Collings speaks of, ought no● most properly to be punished by the Judge in a Christian Commonwealth? according to the penalties, the Law of God directs i● such cases? And whether the Church has 〈◊〉 do at all with such or no in point of censures is a question; as for other forts of sinners that the Laws of this Commonwealth doth more indulge: the Church's cognisance in point of discipline may reach, 〈◊〉 she be in that capacity, otherwise she ca● but instruct the ignorant, warn the unruly, re●buke in public the open offender, admonish all: an● have patience towards all men. Every Christian in his place to do what in them lies to reform themselves: and not suffer sin to lie upon their brother. But as for that knack of excommunicable and merely upon that account keep members back, without any trial, whether their offendings b● out of weakness or wilfulness; or without any legal proceed in order to their amendment, is a very bold part. Such precedents are of pernicious consequence in these times, where we have none to make our appeal unto: knowing how that Brownism hath too much leavened the greatest part of the most knowing men, Ministers, and others, in the Church of England. Well, let not any presume upon sin themselves, in pretence of punishing sin in others. If you cannot act orderly according to clear rule, make not such haste to reform as to go about it in an unwarrantable way: as for Church-members that are in possession of their right according to law, do not dispossess them, until the Church authoritatively hath given out judgement against them. Let not our Churchmen be more irrational than our Lawyers for subjects in the Commonwealth. And as for that, he saith, Church-members not knowing whether Christ were a man or a woman. I am sorry that any should be so grossly ignorant. I thank God I never have known any such; if Mr. Collings have, I hope not in his Parish. And I cannot but judge it a reproach of our Church and Ministry, if any such can be found amongst us. But it's a lamentable thing notwithstanding our scruples about Sacramental Communion so many years together, but few that have prepared their people ever the more by doubling their diligence in catechising of them plainly and familiarly, in public and private. Which I fear, some that appear forward for a purer Communion, in seven years' time never did so much as in a friendly way spend so much as an hour with their poor ignorant people in private, to inform them better, and to know their conditions, and encourage them to learn the things of God, in order to their better profiting in public administrations. How long is it that we have been excepting against poor ignorant brethren, and yet not ordinary means used to prevent it more than heretofore; if so much: for in the Bishop's times care was taken that all did learn the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the ten Commandments; with the explanations of them, and other parts of the Churches Catechising; we had our set Prayers, that people were apt to learn; but now in many places people never hear the Lords Prayer, Creed, nor Commands, scarce in the year: nor have in use any common plain Catechism, etc. Ah, poor souls, that care is not towards them (I verily judge) as good Shepherds have of their Masters dumb sheep, who will see to every particular one that it be kept in order, and that nothing obstruct its growth and feeding; and if any sheep go astray he diligently seeks it, and bringeth it to his fellows; and when either fly or scab doth hinder its prosperity, he will not let it alone until the poor sheep come to him, (though he should call it) but he will go to it, and gently catch it, (although its so silly to flee from him) and mercifully help it: he will not let them go till they be infectious, and then separate the broken from the whole; but endeavour to keep every one in that order that all may fold together. Act. 20.28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all, over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. If you have that love to your Lord and Master as you should, you will feed his sheep and lambs, that they may fold together. Reverend Elders we are fallen into careless times, in respect of the Worship of God; little or no care is taken that our people constantly frequent the public assemblies: ignorant persons are left to watch to themselves; you have the more cause to apply yourselves to them in private even from house to house, and be tender unto them as a nurse cherisheth her children: to insinuate yourselves in a friendly familiar way into them, will gain in them a reverend esteem of you in their hearts, which will give you the advantage of persuading them to receive instruction from you, both in public and private: It's an easy business to make a separation in your flocks; and to cast off the relation of Pastor and people, and to neglect relative duties, and to fill your people with prejudices, divisions, and discontents, and to break the peace and union of the whole: but a work of commendable difficulty, when with care, prudence, and diligence you so apply yourselves unto all, as they that must give an account unto God of every particular soul committed to your charge. Remember the blood of souls; and judge yourselves bound to deal with the worst of your people as members of the body of Christ, while they remain children of the Kingdom, and not reckon them dogs and Swine, until they be legally put out of Church-Communion, and hate to be reform by the Church's censures. Mr. Pag. 24. Collings urgeth against my principles, thus; He must be able to discern the Lords Body from comm●n bread. But many men may be Church members and rational, and yet not able to do this, therefore something else must he added. The Minor wants prof, Answ. and so is but a reproach to Church-members, reflecting upon our Teachers that have opportunity enough to inform the meanest capacity of years more than so. And that reverend and trembling approaching generally every where, doth prove that they judge otherwise of the consecrated signs then of common bread: why should Mr. Collings be so uncharitable to any that profess their desires, and offer themselves reverently in conscience of this service; he knowing that there is enough in the words of institution, consecration by Word and Prayer, the words used in the act of giving and receiving, sufficiently to inform the meanest person that the elements are signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that they eat and drink in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins, etc. His Conclusion is false, because his Minor wants proof. Again, He brings in a child of five or six years old as able to exercise reason, and so is a Church-member (if baptised) and if these two things give a plenary right, such aught to be admitted. Children mind childish things ordinarily and nothing else: Answ. and they come not under the obligation of worship as men of age that have put away childish things. And what if it be granted him, that they have some childish reason, doth it follow, that they have religious devotion from a principle of conscience, as men of age ordinarily express in most solemn sacred worship? Let him answer to what hath been said already, as to this particular, before he concludes as he doth; That what he hath said is sufficient to show the vanity of this conceit, as he is pleaseed to call it, that mere Church membership with years of discretion gives one a full right to the Lords Supper. What he means by full right, he may do well to explain himself, I have told him plainly enough, that Church-membership having its rise from Covenant relation, gives a true right unto all external Church-priviledges during that relative state of actual membership. I know that their real state of spiritual interest in Christ, doth put members into a higher capacity to improve their right for their spiritual advantage, than those that are but in that relative state only, of visible members in a large sense. Yet the good improvement of the one, doth not hinder nor take away the just right of the other. An ill husband's right in law is as good as the best husbands in the world, until by law his right be taken away. And an evil member in the Commonwealth hath as much privilege in respect of the benefit of the law while he is a member, as any other of the same kind, though never so good. The best subject is but a subject; and the worst subject is a subject until he be outlawed, or convicted of treason. So I say, in the Church, the best and holiest man that lives, is but a Church-member; and the worst that lives, (he being baptised, and adhering to the true religion, and under Church indulgence) is a member also of the same visible Church, and in respect of his relative state, his right is as good to the Sacrament as the other in a legal sense, for the one is as much under observance as the other, all are Covenanters, and have entered it at least, and hence stand bound to the terms of Christian obedience. There is but one Law and rule for good and bad: the one hath received the Spirit of the Covenant, that makes his service sweet and easy; the other is notwithstanding under the letter of administrations in a waiting for a blessing, and may not be released. Such have the right of precept, which is a sufficient warranty for their observance of the Supper. The other not only that, but the right of spiritual privilege and blessing through the real union and communion with Jesus Christ. And Mr. Collings his superadded qualifications to membership, or Covenanters to give a right to precepts of worship, is so flat by this time (he urging it so often) that I shall trouble my reader with it no more; only take notice, that upon the matter he makes membership a mere nothing: for do but superadd a knowledge of the things of God, conjoined with faith in Christ, evidenced by the fruits of holiness, unto a Turk, or any other Pagan, or Jew, in the Infidel world, it would give them the right of membership and Sacraments; and therefore at once you may see what clear conceptions Mr. Collings hath of the privileges of Church-membership. In this page Mr. Collings conceives, Pag. 25. That I have dealt more unbrotherly with the friends of Presbyterian Discipline, even some hundreds of them, both learned and reverend men, as I charge the Doctor to have done with Mr. Humphrey; and that by entering some exceptions against that discipline. Bar removed, pag. 8, 9, 10. I have spoke to this already, Answ. I am sorry that such groundless consequences I observed from the reverend Doctor, should reflect upon some hundreds of learned reverend friends to the Presbyterian discipline. I had thought the most of the things I am unsatisfied in, as being merely groundless, would not have been owned by some hundreds of such learned men. I spoke chief of them that are Congregations unassociated, and when Mr. Collings, or any other can clear themselves of what I charge them with, I shall either make good my charge (if you take it so) or else submit unto you, and acknowledge it my weakness to be unsatisfied of the truth of what I pointed at in those 8, 9, 10 pages of my Book: In the mean time Mr. Collings being the first that I have heard of, that hath put so hard a sense of my dissatisfactions, notwithstanding I have many Presbyterian friends, learned and reverend, it makes me something question whether many will charge it on me for unbrotherly dealing or no. I being but a private Christian might do it in order to my own and divers others satisfaction, that are in no such way, nor dare attempt any such practices, although we have made after the search of warrant for those ways as well as other men, we not knowing how to know the mind of Christ better than by his Word in these things, nor how to know the simplicity of truth, then by seeking of God by prayer and humiliation for guidance and direction in our free and serious debates in the presence of the Lord, amongst ourselves in order unto practice, the which we of great Bowden have carefully done, even a considerable number of us with our Minister, before we did communicate together in the holy Supper: And we hope the Lord was with us in the whole, we are fully satisfied, and not ashamed to publish unto others of our Christian brethren, the grounds and principles we act from. Our greatest grief is, that we observe too great a carelessness in our people to worship God with us in this great engaging Ordinance of holy Communion in the Sacrament of the holy Supper. And this we shall further declare, that although our Minister were, and is, one of our old Non conformists, and did endeavour to draw us into another way of Communion; yet such was our answers and grounds, that he was satisfied therewith. And doth administer Sacraments freely with a settled satisfied judgement: we bless and praise our God for it. Let others judge of us what they please; we judge that we act according to the mind of Christ, considering that present capacity we are in. In this 26. page, he is pleased to examine my queries upon 1 Cor. 11. and that the rather it seems, because, as he says, all my superstructure stands upon the foundation that I have there laid, page 23. at latter end. I confess I judge the stress of all the controversy hath been occasioned upon mistake of the Apostles scope & sense in that chapter and therefore have endeavoured by severa queries upon the place, Answ. with my answer to them conjoined, pag. 14, 15, 16, 17. of my Book, to give you the sense of the place Which I hope hath, and will satisfy many distressed consciences, which have bee● perplexed too much through some mistake of our latter Divines; former ages an● Churches, (as some of my friends have tok● me since), do much favour the sense that have given of the place. And it seems t● me, that Mr. Collings is put to a stand wh●● to say to it, as for that great thing of applying the danger to unworthiness of persons, Mr. Coll. whi●● troubled us all, he confesses he sees no great han● is like to come of it, if it be granted that th● Apostle there doth not primarily speak of person● unworthiness, but actual. And again, he saith, 'Tis not much material to dispute, whether th● Apostle there spoke of habitual unworthiness, ● only actual. That there is a personal unworthiness himself must grant he saith, or else Turks, an excommunicated persons cannot be excluded. Here you may see a very fair concession from Mr. Answ. Collings, I would we had found him as ingenuous in other things, that we might have been all of a mind, but though thi● place doth not prove it, he would have u● conceive that some other places do in order to the Sacrament. And it is a thing that I must grant, else Turks, and the excommunicate cannot be excluded. I will examine his Scriptures anon, and shall first deny that which he will force me to grant, his reason is worth nothing, or else Turks, etc. I grant that there is a personal unworthiness in Turks and Pagans, and in the excommunicate also conditionally, but doth it therefore follow that there is a personal unworthiness in the Church, that profess themselves a people in Covenant with God, and have the Lord for their God? Here you may observe again, how Mr. Collings is levelling Church-members with the infidel world; it's strange to me, that a Bachelor of Divinity, should not be able to make difference between a Pagan and a Christian. What, 1 Cor. 7.14. did he forget that foederal holiness that differenceth the clean from the unclean? He queries, Whether every unregenerate man as such, be personally unworthy; he believes he is. I seem to doubt, he saith. Without doubting that there is no personal unworthiness in the unregenerate in the Church, simply considered in itself, Answ. for all such are in Covenant relation, the which relation is personal, they are a consecrate people to the Lord, and are in that sense holy (in opposition to the infidel world, that still lies in profaneness) those whom God hath chosen to bear his name, and are entered into Covenant with God Let no man account common and unclea● commonizing such a called professing people with the Pagan world, etc. (as is the humour and sin of these times:) for person● unworthiness cannot be in the Church, 〈◊〉 long as a persons relative worthiness remains. Indeed we may distinguish of a persons worthiness in the Church: it is either relative merely, or else real and relative together. The former is sufficient for th● acceptance of the Church unto all Gospel Ordinances; the latter is that which hat● its praise of God, it being called the ci● cumcision of the heart, etc. the other but o● the letter only, Rom. 2.20. But Mr. Colling saith, there is no need of disputing this. Although I know the main cause of this con● troversie occasioned by this very thing. T● what end is your Bar, but to exclude the unworthy? Why have you devised such strange things, as to make it strong meat, 〈◊〉 seal to faith, a strengthening and a nourishing Ordinance, etc. contradistinct from all: the rest in the Church, excluding it from being a means of conversion, which you allow to all the other Ordinances in the Church. To what end is your suspension, and hindering persons more from this then any other? To what end are your proving and trying of such that generally profess the same religion yourselves preach, though harmless and honest as to men, yet may not be admitted? I say to what end is all this, but that you are afraid of personal unworthiness? And it is the only thing to be disputed: for we are all agreed about actual unworthiness, that let a man be a godly man, yet if he sin scandalously he is to be censured it, and so of the unregenerate, if they be obstinate; our difference about actual unworthiness, will be in what cases the Church may exercise the rod, for what sins: but he tells us, pag 27. That every Church member is by us to be looked upon as habitually worthy, unless by some actual miscarriage he declares himself actually unworthy. But the question is, Answ. whether Mr. Collings will grant that those in the Church, that they find by their miscarriages to be actually unworthy, they judge to be habitually worthy; and let him tell us plainly, that they keep back no man from the Sacrament for habitual unworthiness, if he can, and say truth, but for actual miscarriages only. Let him plainly answer me in that, and then I may tell him more of my mind: in the mean time let me tell him, that I much fear his charity to Church-members savours of excess, and exceeds all due bounds. Take habitual worthiness in his own sense, as he expresses himself in the same thing thus, Yet we believe their Church-membership is not that which makes them thus worthy; but their into est in Christ, which charity obligeth them thus believe, until by some fruits they discover the o● trary. Then it will follow, Answ. That all Infants born in the Church a habitually worthy, not from their Covena● holiness that gives them the privilege 〈◊〉 membership, but from their interest in Chr● as believers. Let him try if he can convince the Antipaedobaptist of that. That charity which obligeth us thus 〈◊〉 believe of all Church-members, is true, 〈◊〉 charity obligeth no man to believe that whi● is false. Then it follows, that those that are ha● tually worthy from their interest in Chris● may fall away from that habitual wo● thinnessthinness they have from their interest 〈◊〉 Christ. This strongly implies that they hold th● no one should be continued a member of th● visible Church, but such that are habitual worthy from an interest in Christ. An● thus you may see how their extremity o● charity runs them into an extremity of rigour and censorious dealing with Church members at length. Let the impartial Reader judge how true it is, that Mr. Colling hath said. 'Tis not much material to dispute whether the Apostle spoke of habitual unworthiness o● actual, when all he drives at is nothing else unto his admitting to the Sacrament. If I can but undermine him in that one prop, his whole building will fall, and the controversy come to some good issue, for what Mr. Collings can do in it, let him do the best can. In the next place he saith, he dares not deny but the disorderly eating in the Church of Corinth, was an unworthy eating; and might be a cause of their punishment, vers. 30. We know God is very tender of his own order and brings that instance of Uzziahs' case, etc. This I take to be a good concession to my answer of the 3. & 4. query, pag. 16, 17, 18. Answ. The Bar removed: But I see he is very unwilling to come off clearly in it; mark, he doth but say, their unworthy eating might be a cause of their punishment. The holy Apostle saith plainly, for this cause many are weak and sick, some dead. That is, the cause is plain, vers. 29. Their not discerning was more out of carelessness and profaneness then simply out of ignorance. their eating and drinking unworthily, which he further explains to be their not discerning the Lords body, but used the bare elements as common bread, not discerning the body and blood of the Lord they were consecrated to represent, with other particular miscarriages in the time of administration, for this cause, saith our Apostle, they were punished; this were a cause, saith our Author, but not all the cause, for which they were punished with death. Who shall carry the sense now of these two competitors, our Apostle, or Mr. Collings. I need not again urge what have formerly spoke to this Scripture, 〈◊〉 Mr. Collings or any other first answer 〈◊〉 what I have done in clearing the set of the place, and let them prove that were for personal unworthiness if th● can, or for any other sins that they w● guilty of before they met together for t● time of administration, etc. Let them g●● us some clear demonstrations of it, if they c●● if they cannot, let them be so ingenue as to give us their consent, and trouble se●ful consciences no longer with such kind trifling uncertainties that here follow 〈◊〉 our Author. Mr. Collings hath given us three argument to show us why ●e cannot digest the se● that I have given of the 1 Cor. 11.20. to● end. He saith, because the Apostle, chap. 5. had them of Corinth, that they could not keep 〈◊〉 feast with the old leaven of malice and wickedness And bidden them purge out the old leaven, verse 7. And not eat with one called a brother who sh● be a fornicator, or idolater, etc. And again chap. 10.21. had told them they could 〈◊〉 drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup devils. What then, why did he not mal● his conclusion, that we might have clear● understood to what end he quotes tho● Scriptures as a reason? But let us a little follow him in these Scriptures, and examine what they will make to prove these two things: 1. That the Lord punished the Corinthians for personal unworthiness. 2. That they were punished for some other sins than what they were guilty of in the time of administration: which is the main thing in hand. As for 1 Cor. 5. he tells us, (not the Apostle) that they could not keep the feast with malice, etc. the Apostle exhorts them to purge out the old leaven, meaning that of the incestuous person, speaking by way of an allusion to the law of the Passeover, which were to purge their houses of all leaven against that feast which continued seven days: resemblably he would have them purge themselves of that wicked person whom they had indulged amongst them, and made the name of God to be evil spoken of, by tolerating such sins amongst them, as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife, etc. therefore deliver him to Satan, purge yourselves of your former connivance and indulging such, and then saith he, let us keep the feast, but not with malice and wickedness, etc. but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, meaning that he would have them spend their whole lives so; the Apostle tells them what he would have them do, and how they should keep the feast, Mr. Collins tells us, he told them they could not keep the feast, etc. but he that hath but half an eye may easily discern what this place is for his purpose; This proves that scandalous persons should be cast out of all Christian Communion, for the conclusion of the whole is in the last verse, cast out from amongst yourselves that wicked person, which is the thing that I all along contend for, the just censures of the Church; but I would have none debarred their right till then. But Mr. Collings might have given us some probable grounds to prove that the feast mentioned, was the holy Supper, and not to leave us to such uncertainties; for if it be not meant of the holy Supper, what is this to his purpose? Let him show us where the Supper of the Lord is called a feast, and that this feast must needs be that, but this is but a shift to hold up the old interest. So hard a thing it is to come off from the authority of men, especially, when themselves are engaged in such ways that men have framed. But then he goes on vers. Answ. 11. And not eat with one called a Brother, This Scripture is more fully opened hereafter, as also the 1 Cor. 10.21. who should be a fornicator, an Idolater, etc. Mr. Collings should have cleared unto us what is meant by not eat, whether, not eat, in a civil friendly necessary sense, or not eat, at the holy Supper with such during their actual abode in the Church. If he mean the latter, in reference to the Sacrament, I shall demand of him where that word eat alone is to be taken for the holy Supper; and if it be not meant of the holy Supper, what is this to the thing in hand? The 9, 10. verses do give us some light of the Apostles meaning, He had wrote an Epistle to them, not to keep company with the fornicators of the world. But in this Epistle he mollifies the former with some liberty, else they must go out of the world: his meaning is, not to keep company in a civil friendly sense unnecessarily; but if a brother be such a one, keep no civil friendly company with him at all, no not to eat, upon unnecessary occasion. And so for that 10. chap. 21. They could not drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup Devils too. The main sin the Apostle aims at in this chapter is Idolatry, vers. 14. These Corinthians being grafted into the Christian Church, did bear up themselves upon their Church privileges too high. And hence grew fearless of God's judgements, notwithstanding their manifold sins, as that of Idolatry in this chapter, the Apostle tells them, that the Church of the Jews was invested with the like privileges as they are, and yet for their provoking sins God was not well pleased with them, but destroyed many of them for their murmur, whoredoms, Idolatries, etc. and therefore warns them of the like in general. And then in the 14. verse he applies himself unto them in particular, Wherefore my beloved brethren fly from Idolatry, I speak to wise men, judge what I say, for this is the thing that comes near you, which some of you are guilty of. And that he might throughly convince them of the heinous nature of this sin, he draws an argument from the nature of that holy Communion they had together in the holy Supper, which supposes them to be all of one Christian body, for they all eat of one bread and drink of one cup, etc. Hence he would have them see what an inconsistent thing it were for them to be of this Christian body, and of another Heathenish body too; in point of Communion they could not be of both, of Christ, and Belial, this were a mixture unsufferable, to drink the cup of the Lord at one time in the Church of Christ; and then at another time to drink the cup of Devils, in his Temple, Will you thus provoke the Lord, etc. you must either forbear the one or the other, for you cannot serve God and the Devil. And this he aggravates the more, because it was such an offence and scandal to the weak amongst them, the which they that were the strongest Christians offended in, as the latter end of the chapter doth clearly give it, and that about indifferent things, and it became thus sinful in regard of some evil circumstances. But now what is this to prove, that this sin was in their eating and drinking unworthily in the 11 chap. as Mr. Collins would have it? for here you may conceive, that at most the offenders were but implicitly threatened with punishment: but in the 11. ch. they were already punished when this Epistle was sent unto them, the which will trouble Mr. C. to reconcile. Besides had the Apostle in ch. 11. meant their actual offending in the 5. & 10. ch. than he would have said, for these causes some are punished, or for this and divers other, but as he meant no other, so he writes, and terminates the only cause of their punishment, was their profaning the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, as hath been spoken to, For this cause, etc. His second reason to prove he cannot digest the sense I have given, is, because it seems very absurd to him, that a man who should but offend in a point of order, should be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and so of judgement; and he who comes raking with the guilt of scandalous sins, should not at all be guilty or liable to God's judgements. Why will Mr. Answ. Collins thus mince their sin? Was their being drunk, and their using a sacred Ordinance of Christ appointed for so spiritual an end, but as a civil or common Supper, but offending in a point of order? if this did not strike at the very essence and nature of the Ordinance, I know not what doth; doth not the Apostle tell them plainly, This is not to eat the Lords Supper, but their own, this profanation of the instituted signs rendered them guilty of polluting the very body and blood of Christ, that the signs did represent, and will he say, this were but to offend in a point of order? I might add their offending in point of order to the main. But then to the latter part, Touching them that come in scandalous sins, that they should not at all be guilty or liable to the judgements of God. Who ever said such a word? Answ. Doth it sollow, because the Corinthians were punished for no other cause but their profaning this Ordinance; that therefore I must needs hold that they that come in other scandalous sins, are not liable to any of God's judgements for their other sins? I say, tribulation, anguish, and woe, to every soul that doth evil. And yet I say too, it's possible a scandalous sinner may come to the Sacrament, and not at all be guilty of the Corinthians sinning, nor as to his receiving be liable to the judgements of God; provided he come as prepared, and carry himself as reverently at the administration as he can: for his scandalous life doth not disengage him from Christian observance while he is within, and not under the just censures of the Church to reform him thereby. I know for carnal wretched impenitent sinners, to come carelessly, and customarily, is a great sin, and for them that out of carelessness, and want of affection to it shall neglect it when they are invited to it, is a great sin also, and both punishable by the Lord. I wish all due and lawful means were used for the reforming of both, so might we expect a greater blessing of grace upon all in a holy use of Gods own appointments: in the mean time let us all reform what we regularly can, and mourn for what we are wanting in. Mr. Collings third reason is, because he cannot conceive that God should be so unlike himself, as to look upon one legally unclean, unworthy to eat the Passeover under the Old Testament; and yet look upon one morally unclean as worthy under the New? It is too bold to call the blessed God unto man's bar: Answ. because he is not like to men that are not able to reach the reason of his declared will. God cannot be unlike himself be sure; but it's possible Mr. Collings may be unlike the truth in what he saith pag. 28. how doth he know that God looked upon one that was legally unclean as unworthy to eat the Passeover. We know that that uncleanness was incident to good men as well as others? It will set him hard to prove, (I think) that it took away the habitual worthiness of a godly man, or that relative worthiness of membership, if not, such were not looked upon as unworthy of the Passeover, but were under a contingent necessity by the will of God that they could not observe it, but they should make the sacrifice unclean: for by the will of God it was declared unto them, that whatsoever they touched in their uncleanness should be unclean. And we know it was a case the Lord indulged equally with those that were in a necessary journey, appointing them another day of purpose the next month; nor were they so much denied the benefit of this Ordinance, as of others, that they lost the profit of during their uncleanness, there being not the like provision appointed as to the Passeover. Again, let me ask Mr. Collins, why the whole Church were to observe the Passeover upon their lives; and yet he cannot deny, but in that Church in their best estate, there were many that were morally unclean, in his sense; and what do my principles plead for more in the Christian Church; if I plead but for the same now, that upon their lives was enjoined then, even by the Lord himself. I hope he will not charge it upon me, that I make God unlike himself; but if he will make the New Testament so contrary to the Old, as to say the whole Church may not observe the Lords Supper, his opinion will hardly be reconciled with the unchangeableness of the faithful, true and living Lord God. Thus I have given you to understand, that the legally unclean were not looked upon as unworthy to eat the Passeover at all. And the sense that I have given upon 1 Cor. 11. pleads not otherwise in favour of the morally unclean (as he calls them) than the Old Testament doth enjoin. One hint more: let Mr. Collins prove that the legally unclean were expressly forbidden the Passeover. I am sure Moses knew of no express prohibition and therefore was at a stand when the case was brought before him, and could not tell what to direct, whether the unclean might keep it, or forbear, until he had enquired of the Lord what they should do; Besides when the Passeover was rejourned to the last day, multitudes did eat it, that were not cleansed, and were accepted of: And the Lord said, 2 Chron. 30.15, 17, 18, 19, 20. If any man of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey a far off, yet he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord, Numb. 9.10. here you see is an express command for the unclean man to keep the Passeover. He kept the same Passeover at God's appointed season, as well as the rest of the Congregation, for God appointing and sanctifying another season for them in special made, the service the same in itself, and to them. And yet for all this, what ado have our late Divines made about this? I could wish we might hear no more of it, unless they can make better use of it then Mr. Collins doth. Now I have answered three arguments that made him so hard of digesting this truth, That the Corinthians were not punished for personal unworthiness, but for their actual offendings at the time of administration. For the further helps of this hard digestion and edification and satisfaction of my Christian friends, I she freely speak my heart for the clearing upo● this in question, according to my measure for I know well enough, that our mistake about worthiness and unworthiness of person in the Church hath done more hurt is this Church then all the Bishops ever did. Our holy Apostle in 1 Cor. 7.14. ha● clearly and sully expressed himself about habitual worthiness, that if but one of marrias state were a believer, the other infidel person was sanctified by the believing party and tells us that if it were not so, their children they had between them were unclean but now are holy: meaning, that upon th● faith, and entering into the Covenant of th● one, their children enter covenant with th● parent, and upon that account are a holy feed and federate with their parents in the privileges of the Church, as it was in the state of the Jews Church. Why surely if the branches were holy, than the root was holy also. Now I say, how can it be imagined, that the Apostle will have the children holy even of those persons that in chap. 11. he judged personally unworthy? Sure if the children were federally holy, than their parents were too, for the right of the child is derived from the believing state of the parents; & that was sufficient to free them from unworthy eating in respect of their persons. And therefore the Apostle concludes that all things are sanctified to the Church by the Word and Prayer. To the pure all things are pure, but to the unbelieving and impure is nothing pure. Here is a clear difference between the professing Church and the infidel world: all is clean to the one, but nothing clean to the other. And therefore the Sacrament could not be polluted by the believing Corinth's, in respect of their persons. It will follow then that it was profaned by their evil actions only. The Apostle understood the nature of the Gospel Church better than those I have to deal with in this controversy. He understood the right rule, and accordingly reduced all unto it. He distinguisheth between clean and unclean, believer and infidel: all was clean to the one, and nothing clean to the other, that except the Corinth's had admitted Infidels unto the body and blood of Christ to pollute it, personal unworthiness could not be the sin for which they were punished; Heathenish uncleanness the uncircumcised might not eat thereof. I tell you this is that which hath undone us of late, we make the same difference in the Church, that the Apostle made between the Church and the world. And all those Scriptures on which this difference is declared by the Apostle, our Divines usually apply to the different state of persons in the Church, the regenerate and unregenerate; and accordingly would be dividing their people, an● are as fearful (many of them) to admi● an unsound believer to the Sacrament as a uncircumcised Infidel, but I hope those exorbitant distempers that some desperately plunge themselves into from the same mistakes, will make sober men consider a last. I know no such language used in Scripture concerning persons of the Church, as th● any Church-members should be personally unworthy to use God's Ordinance, and ●serve God in his own appointments. Indeed for persons to reject the tenders and invitations of the Gospel, to oppose and persecute the messengers that publish lise and salvation by Jesus Christ; such are said to be unworthy of eternal life, Act. 13.46. the Apostle Paul again tells the unbelieving Jews, That it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken unto you; but seeing by envy, contradiction, and blaspheming, vers. 45. you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles, for s● hath the Lord commanded. So our blessed Saviour, Matth. 10 11, 12, 13, 14. gave the twelve Commission to Preach, that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, etc. they were rather to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then to the Samaritans. And when they came either into City, Town, or Family, they were to salute it, and preach peace unto them, but if they were not worthy, their peace should return; and to those that would not receive them and hear their words, they were to shake off the dust of their feet against them, vers. 14. with a grievous judgement threatened, vers. 15. against such people that refuse the Gospel when it is tendered unto them. These are said not to be worthy, that reject the Gospel wholly as the unbelieving Jews did; which implies those that receive the Gospel and believe the truth thereof, and profess their subjection unto it, being of no other religion then what the Gospel teacheth, they may be said to be worthy, whatever they are for sincerity and truth: so again Matth. 22. concerning the invited guests to the marriage Supper, (which set forth the fat things of the Gospel administrations, and the grace thereof,) the messengers were sent to call in the guests, that were bidden, but they made light of it, and would not come, and some went to their farms, and others to their merchandise, and others abused the servants that invited them, etc. Then the King was wroth and destroyed those murderers, and said to his servants, The wedding is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy, vers. 8. This was meant of the unbelieving Jews that totally rejected Christ, and would never come under his external administrations set up in his Church, in order to salvation: they are said (you may see) not to be worthy, or unworthy but the Gentiles that came in, though so●● came absurdly, and perished too, at last, y●● there is no such thing said of them, no the were worthy, though they consisted of goo● and bad. The invitation privileged all● come, there is no pleading I am unworth to come, but refusal was that which the unworthiness consisted in only. From the hints of Scriptures we may conceive there no such thing as personal unworthiness ● order to observance and duty of people in Covenant relation, which all are the have entered Covenant, though but in the parents, until they renounce the Covenant or for their hating to be reform by th● Churches just censures they be discovenante● conditionally, that if they never repent 〈◊〉 return to their obedience in a right way, the are gone forever; Now than I say, if t● Scriptures charge not any with unworthiness of person, but such as I have instanced in, who can imagine that the Chur●● of Corinth was punished for that? I would gladly know of Mr. Collings, of any other learned man, where the Scripture● threaten punishment against personal unworthiness simply? Or where can they give an instance that ever any wese punished for habitual unworthiness at all, in the Old or New Testament? If you cannot find such a thing in all the whole Bible, what reason can you have to judge that the Corinth's were punished for personal unworthiness? It's true, the sin of our natures derived from the first man is punished with death: for we all die in Adam, but this natural death is a common lot appointed for all, good and bad, It's appointed for all men once to die, Heb. 9.27. And we see death reigns over Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Rom. 5. but in this both original sin, and death that follows thereupon, is of unavoidable necessity by the decree of God. So likewise as actual sin is the transgression of the law, he that so transgresseth is liable to the punishment of that law. 1 Tim. 1.9, 10. And the whole Law itself is made for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for murderers, for whoremongers, for liars, and for perjured persons, etc. that is, for the punishment of all wilful disobedience of men. And so it is said of the Church, If you will walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to you. You have I known of all the families of the earth, yet the Lord will punish them for their sins. And wherefore doth living man complain for the punishment of his sin? Lam. 3.39. all the punishments threatened in the Word, and inflicted either by God or man, were for actual offendings: but we never read of any coming to the Ordinances that were punished for a mere want of regeneration, circumcision of the heart, an interest in Christ, etc. This is a case the Lord hath always pity and promised the cure of unto his Church forasmuch as no man can convert and rene● his own soul, of himself; nay of thos● that have the means, and use the ordinary means of their salvation, as the Jews di● It's said, not of him that willeth, nor of b● that runneth, but it is God that showeth mercy, R● 9 Habitual unworthiness in that respe● is unavoidable; and is the common state● all by nature, as well them that are born the Church as those that are born out of i● Ephes. 2. but the Covenants of promise a● made to the Church for the cure of this d● praved state. And the Lord hath set up 〈◊〉 Ordinances of Word, Sacraments, and Pray● in the Church, as the ordinary means fo● men to use in their conversion and salvation revealed in the promises of the Covenant the neglect whereof is usually punish with blindness, and profaneness, not diligent frequenting of them. But what i● God doth punish habitual or natural u●● worthiness (it being an effect of Adam's defection) What is that to the Church that i● bounded by a rule? May they contrary t● all rule judge of it, and punish it therefore with suspension from the Sacrament? Our blessed Saviour rebukes this rash humour in men, saying, Judge not, lest you be judged It's clear enough, that we may judge of men's actions, and finding them transgresfors, we may punish their persons; but we have nothing to do to judge of men's persons, let them be good, or bad, as to their persons, that is nothing to us, we must leave them to stand or fall to their own Master, for what have we to do to judge another man's servant. But if either be found transgressors so far as their offendings come within the Church's cognisance to punish, let them impartially do it without respect of persons in the Church. We read that those that are appointed to judge amongst their brethren, Deut. 1, 16, 17. are to judge righteously between every man and his brother, without respect of persons in judgement: to hear the small as well as the great; not fearing the face of any man, for the judgement is the Lords, and the cause that is too hard for man to judge of, was to be brought before the Lord, and he would hear it, there is a rule given to judge of causes and actions between brother and brother. And yet in point of causes and things external, that brethren might differ in, these might be too hard for men to judge of. How much more hard is it to judge of the spirits of men within them, whether they have an interest in Christ or no? surely if in the other, much more in this we are to refer it to the Lord; besides, you may see in judging about things which concerns the Church, Matth. 18. 1. It must be of evil actions only. 2. Upon sufficient proof. 3. And in case of obstinacy, refusing 〈◊〉 hear the Church, etc. before any judgement can issue out against them. Tell me ho● you can apply this rule to personal unwor● thinnessthinness? Can this be attested upon Oath? o● is the Church able to convince any in particular of it? Or is it in the power of a● to reform it? Hence I conclude, that as it● not appliable unto the rules of Church discipline; so it is such an avoidable thing 〈◊〉 Church-members, that not any man of reason will plead the punishing of, with suspect sion from the Lords Supper. If the Apostles meaning 1 Cor. 11. wenthat the Corinth's were punished for habit●● unworthiness, and that whosoever eats as drinks that is personally unworthy is gui●● of the body and blood of the Lord, and 〈◊〉 eating his own damnation, than these se●ral inconveniences and snares must necessarily follow. That there is not any Minister on cancan administer the Sacrament clearly in fai● because he cannot have a clear ground 〈◊〉 faith for him to believe that those he delive, the Sacrament unto, are habitually wort● from their interest in Christ; so that 〈◊〉 must still lie under the bondage of fear a● doubt of his communicating with others 〈◊〉 the murder of Christ, and eating and drinkin their own damnation. That all weak doubting fearful Christian (either Ministers or others) that are not groundedly assured of their interest in Christ for acceptance in this service, cannot come in faith, for he that doubts is damned if he eat, and what ever is not of faith is sin. Such persons that are not upon good ground assured of the truth of their own worthiness, cannot be assured of their eating and drinking worthily, but must of necessity lie under the fear of being guilty of what is threatened; and so eat doubtingly, (if such venture to come,) which is sin, or else they must forbear until they be assured, or are fully persuaded of the truth of their own personal worthiness. And this would be the perplexity of most sincere Christians, there being but few in comparison of those, that arrive to any grounded assurance of their own justification, sanctification, salvation, etc. Hence we may concive, that when Mr. Collins calls the Sacrament strong meat, he means because there is not any but strong Christians that can partake thereof with satisfaction, peace and comfort. And so upon the matter he denies it to be milk for babes, as well as a means of working grace in those that want it. That all blind selfconceited Pharisees, and senseless secure carnal Christians, formal confident hypocrites, that never were acquainted with any saving work of grace upon their spirits may come to the Sacrament boldly, for they doubt not of their good estate before God, and hence they shall be, 1. Either flattered in their gross presumption by the Church's admittance of them. Or 2. They must be bard out by such ban as the Scriptures no where make. That hence Ministers of the Gospel a● forced to detract un worthily from Christ's authority in hiscommanding this observance t● the whole Church, dissuading their people from this service due to Christ more than fro● any other whatsoever, and so will presume t● lose where Christ binds; or else are force● to suspend them illegally, and so presume t● bind where Christ doth lose, & leave at liberty freely to serve him in his own appointments. What a snare doth this kind of unworthy eating bring upon all the unregenerate, and doubting Christians! If they neglect the Sacrament for want of personal worthiness, they sin in omitting so great a duty of public worship; if they observe it as well a they can, yet being unworthy, they eat an● drink their own damnation, by being guilty of the blood of Christ, as some say. What doth more occasion godly and tender consciences to withdraw Communion from our Parochial congregations, & gather Churches out of a Church, then fear of personal unworthy eating and drinking in Sacramental Communion? as for the external action● in the present administration, the deportments of all generally are such as are inoffensive, and they do not separate from us, for the most part, out of any other dislike of public Worship. That hence it is that we make the nature of Sacraments to clash with themselves, in that we will not suffer them to meet in the same subjects, and are afraid to administer the seal to those parents, whose children we freely administer it unto: but the resusal of the o●●e followed home, will soon destroy the administration to the other, for in all Scripture Churches they always meet together in one and the same subject. When Mr. Collins hath chewed well of these several things, I hope he will find in himself a better digesting of that which I have given of the Apostles sense. And therefore in the next place I shall come to touch a little further of actual unworthiness in reference to the Sacrament, having clearly removed that miserable mistake of personal unworthiness in order to unworthy receiving. And indeed the whole controversy will be brought to actual sinning; for that is the very thing the Church of Corinth was blamed and punished for. Then the dispute will lie in these few questions. Whether any unworthy actions of persons in the Church, makes them guilty of unworthy receiving more than of unworthy Communion in other special parts of public worship, or no: Whether the Church be able to judge i● particular, what persons in the Church upon trial, or otherwise, will of necessity be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and ea● judgement to themselves in the Apostle sense. Whether the Church hath power to suspen Church-members from Sacramental Communion, allowing them the privileges of al● the other Ordinances. I shall answer in the negative unto the●● (under favour) to Mr. Collins, or any other that shall endeavour to give further satisfactions to the questions. And to the first I ha● hinted at already in answer to Mr. Colli● quotations, 1 Cor. 5. chap. 10. all that b● hath said from those Scriptures, doth no● amount to eating and drinking unworthily that was punished, chap. 11. I have also in m● Book showed at large, what eating and drinking unworthily it was, that was punished and which made guilty of the body an● blood of Christ; in short, I conceive it we● an open abuse, or a Sacrilegious profaning holy things to common use, with other disorders in the very time of the administering the Lords Supper, practically destroying the very essence, and spiritual ends of Chris●● holy institution. And upon this accounted alone they were guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and of eating judgement to themselves: not for any other cause or sins they lay under; but for this cause some are dead, etc. And whosoever they are that eat and drink the outward signs, set apart by the Word and Prayer to represent the body and blood of Christ unworthily, as the Corinthians did, are guilty of the same sin, and liable to the same judgements, but that all other sinful actions committed before they come, though not repent of, doth make guilty of polluting the body and blood of Christ, and of judgement, they demeaning themselves reverently, and conformly, as to the externals thereof: is to me not only doubtful, but irrational and absurd. And until some better grounds be produced for the satisfaction hereof, then Mr. Collins hath given, I am not like to be answered in this very thing. And let me tell Mr. Collins, and all that are friends to his judgement, that they must make out that very thing by holy Scriptures, or else themselves will be forced to yield the cause, and not so much as threaten their poor people any more with the murder of Christ, and eating and drinking their own damnation: for as to that which is visible, which man is to judge of in the act of public administration, what fault can any of you find? I could wish that in all other public Worship, all persons would carry themselves as reverently, and be as serious and intent in their attendance upon divine appointment. It's a strange thing to me, that although you cannot charge upon your people the profanation of the holy Supper in that way that the Corinth's were punished for, yet you fright them with the same danger, and are more severe in barring them from it, than ever we read of by any Apostles or Elders in Scriptures. In all other duties of public worship, you press your people to be frequent in; and to do their homage to God as well as they can, you will tell them is better than to neglect them. And only touching this public duty of the Sacrament, you tell them they had better to forbear. And it is a less sin not to come, then to come, although they come as prepared as they can. When this is a duty incumbent to all in the Church, that are baptised, and of years sufficient to come under the obligation of positive precepts, as any other is. The usual grounds you have given will never hold, because you have run yourselves upon such mistakes about this main place of 1 Cor. 11. and I verily believe I have made such exceptions against the common interpretations of latter Divines, that you will find it a work of such difficulty to answer to satisfaction; that you will be forced either to deny our Church to be a true Church, or else let the controversy fall; (I mean as it consists of all baptised members in general) and act as true Scripture Churches have done both in the Old and New Testament. I have seen what a deal of pains Mr. Collins hath taken to make good suspension from the Sacrament; I have weighed his scripture arguments as heedfully as I am able, with the judgement of the ancient and modern Divines, and yet I cannot discern the least solid bottom, for all that he hath said in that dispute to rest upon, or trust in, for my own satisfaction, although God knows I have not the least prejudice against any authority he hath made use of, but am willing to try all things. And I purpose God willing to examine the main grounds of Scripture he hath concluded suspension from, if I be not otherwise prevented hereafter: in the mean time I shall go on with this undertaking in hand. I confess were this true, that personal unworthiness in the Church, did of necessity cause persons to eat and drink unworthily, and so bring judgement: or that the ignorant and scandalous amongst us that are actual offenders upon other accounts, must of necessity eat and drink unworthily if they come, and so bring judgement upon themselves for unworthy receiving: there were some colour for to fright men and hinder them from coming to the Sacrament: but if these things will not be sufficiently made good, the ground of all our fears and scruples, and devices is removed and taken away, and we must conclude, that so long as the outward administration is carried on with reverence and external holiness, and go● order, suitable to the institution and rules 〈◊〉 worship; that there is no other unworth communion in this part of God's publi●● worship, then in the other parts thereof, 〈◊〉 so much, for the ignorant unregenerate Christians are more careless, and unreverent, a● sluggish in hearing, praying, singing, the● the Sacrament; I cannot tell what men m● say to this. I find that Mr. Collins h● said but little to it, notwithstanding my ●●ging it so much in my Book, he knowing that if it be not fully answered, all that 〈◊〉 hath said in favour of suspension will fall 〈◊〉 the ground, and his book will be wo●● nothing. I also shall in all humility des●● Mr. Collins, or any of his judgement, to 〈◊〉 if they can make good the affirmative of t●● next question. Whether the Church be able to judge 〈◊〉 particular, Quest. what persons upon trial w●● eat and drink unworthily in the Apostle sense. Answ. I say it's a thing that the best Eldership in the Church of England cannot certainly know of any member beforehand; for s●● they find one very ignorant of God, an● Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and of Sacraments and all other worship; yet 〈◊〉 being a baptised person, and professing 〈◊〉 willingness to learn, and to serve God it his public worship, as well as he can; Upon what account can any dissuade him from it? as I have already proved in my Book, the baptised, as well as the circumcised, come under all observance in the Church. The which I shall have occasion to speak more fully unto hereafter, when I come to that which Mr. Collins hath answered to that particular. If you say, such will eat and drink unworthily in the Apostles sense. You cannot be sure of that, which was seldom or never seen in our Congregations; and for to dissuade from a necessary duty of worship, upon such a fear before hand, that was seldom or never heard of, is not very rational. I shall easily grant that blind obedience and service is sinful obedience. And such lie under an unsuitable frame of spirit to attempt any of the things of God that are holy and sacred. But how doth this impotency and unsuitable frame disengage them from duty and homage: especially their reverential approaches unto Sacramental Communion, being such as bears a good conformity to the main materials prescribed for the carrying on the external part of that service; and men can judge but according to the outward appearance; so that then there being no appearance of any open abuse and profaning holy things, the Church cannot charge them with any other unworthy eating or drinking, then praying, and hearing, and singing, etc. Which not any that are sober doth judge a ground competent to dissuade from those duties. Ignorant Church-members of years, no objects of Church censures, especially when they are willing to learn. Besides, ignorance is rather a mere want, that cannot in many be helped for want of vision: or plain instruction; the which, though it be threatened, and punishable by the Lord: yet comes not within the verge and cognisance of men to punish, otherwise than it is punished in the effects of it, yea even for the actual miscarriage of such, etc. Say again, that some persons are known to be scandalous in some actual offendings, and doth not give such satisfaction of their amendment as is required, shall the Eldership tell such persons they must not come to the Sacrament, for if they do, they will eat and drink their own damnation, be guilty of the blood of Christ in the Apostles sense; when they may be knowing persons and able to discern the Lords body, and to carry themselves conformly, as to the prescription of all Sacramental actions appertaining to that service? it doth not follow. I easily grant in this case, that any sin indulged in a man's self, or in the Church, may hinder God's blessing upon his own Ordinances; For he that regardeth iniquity in his heart, God will not hear his prayers; and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord; but it will not hence follow, that such must not pray, nor offer sacrifice at all; but they ought to reform the evil as well as do the good, if they expect that God should hear them. I grant also, that every scandalous sinner in the Church should be dealt withal according to divine rule, the neglect thereof as it respects private members, or the public Officers either of Church or Commonwealth, doth leaven accordingly: but yet I deny that such sinners are to be debarred their necessary duties of worship, until they be juridically proceeded against by a lawful Court of Judicature. I grant again, that every scandalous sinner in Church is liable to the judgements of God for his sinful enormities: but yet I deny that those sinful enormities of swearing, drunkenness, uncleanness, lying, cozenage, dishonesty, etc. is eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, which the Corinthians were punished for. I grant again, that such scandalous sinners continuing impenitent, cannot communicate in the Supper without sin, and it is unsuitable and inconsistent with their Christian profession, and that which God upbraids sinners oft with in Scriptures; but yet this doth not reach the Corinthians sinning at the time of the administration of the Supper: but is appliable to all other worship as well as to the Sacrament. For my part I cannot yet see one Scripture alleged by any that doth prove, that the moral unclean in the Church were debarred the Passeover, or Supper, more than the other parts of public worship; which is a thing of necessity to be proved by those that venture to debar from the one, and yet allow them the liberty to enjoy the other. What the Doctor hath said as to that, hath been answered, and what Mr. Ward hath said, hath been answered also, and what Mr. Collins hath said, or can say a● to that, I doubt not in the least but will be easily answered too. And to this purpose 〈◊〉 shall take leave to examine some of Mr. Collins quotations, pag. 101. Ezra 6 21. And the children of Israel which were come again out of the captivity; and all such as had separated themselves unto them, from the filthiness of the Heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, di● eat, and kept the feast of unleavened bread seve● days, etc. How this proves that the morally unclean were debarred the Passeover, 〈◊〉 know not, he might have told us how; that all that were returned from their captivity, that were of the true Church, and all such that separated from Heathenish idolatry and mixtures to the Church did eat the Passeover, is true, this implies that those that would not seek the Lord God of Israel, continued in Idolatrous practices, and would not keep the Passeover. Can Mr. Collins prove that some of the children of Israel, that returned from their captivity, was debarred the Passeover for their moral uncleanness; or can he prove hence, that they were all free from that uncleanness? doubtless if he take notice of what follows in the 9.10. chap. he must acknowledge there were many guilty of moral uncleanness; and yet all kept the Passeover: so that you may easily discern how pertinent this is for his purpose. The next quotation is 2 Chron. 23.19. And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which were unclean in any thing should enter in. From this Scripture he cries up a suspension of some from some Ordinances that were not excommunicated, etc. but he cannot tell it seems whether from the Passeover or no, and then what is this for his purpose? I think we never read of any other uncleanness in Scripture, but Heathenish uncleanness, and legal uncleanness, that were not to enter into God's House or Sanctuary; and as for Moral uncleanness, either it was such as was punished by the Judges according to their Judicial laws, or such as they were cleansed from externally by their continual course of Sacrifices and offerings, and hence there was no such thing at all, nor were any ever barred from the Passeover upon any such account, that I could ever find in the Book of God, and well might the Porters charge be, to keep out those that were unclean in any thing, because we know there were several kinds of personal uncleannesses that were legal, besides the uncircumcised Heathen that might not enter into the Sanctuary, Ezek. 44.7, 8. nor eat of the Passeover, Exod. 12. And the main reason why those that were but legally unclean might not eat the Passeover, nor come to the Tabernacle to offer his Sacrifice, as others in their season did and were accepted; was this, because the person that was unclean made every thing he touched unclean too, and he that neglected his time for cleansing and concealing it, that soul was to be cut of from the Congregation, he hath defiled the Lord's Sanctuary, Numb. 19.13, 20. That of Hag. 2.14. proves the same. But I have answered his other quotations in my examine of the Scripture rule. I need not insist upon these any longer, for they are too triflingly urged to require any further answer. Why doth he not show us some Scripture to prove that some have been suspended from the Passeover for moral uncleanness, and allowed the liberty of all other public worship? the which is the whole subject of his great Book almost. Yet I am certain he can find nothing for his turn in Moses and the Prophets: And I think he hath as little from Christ and his Apostles; for the foundation of his suspension from the Sacrament only; which is the question I should speak unto next. But I shall let it alone unill I come in short to examine the quotations alleged in the New Testament, to prove the affirmative by Mr. Collins in the main body of his last Book. I shall now go on with answering to what he saith to mine. My fift and sixth queries are, 1. What is the remedy the Apostle prescribes to that Church to prevent future judgement, and to enjoy present benefit. 2. Whether the unregenerate and most ignorant person, professing and owning the true Religion among them, were not in some capacity so to use the remedy, as to prevent the judgement, and to receive benefit by the Ordinance where God gave a blessing, pag. 13. The Bar removed. I do not find that Mr. Collins hath much to except against, what I have answered to these two queries in my Book, pag. 19, 20. He grants what I have said is true, but yet he says, in case of scandalous sinners in the Church, self examination is not enough, but there is something to be done by the Ministers and officers of the Church, he grants self examination a personal remedy; but there are other Church remedies, which the Apostle commandeth the use of, as well as this, 1 Cor. 5. I am ready to yield it, Answ. that there are Church remedies, and judge that his quotation, 1 Cor. 5. is so, for the reforming scandalous brethren. And that those that are justly delivered up to Satan, or cast out of Christian Communion by the authority of the Church, should not only be debarred the Sacrament, but all public Ordinances, and all civil society, so far as our particular callings will possibly admit of; but yet I am far from thinking, that the Apostle ever meant that delivering unto Satan, and to put from among themselves that wicked person, was no more but exclude him the Sacrament. And I verily believe, that the same censure that was put into execution by the decree of the Apostle, was made a general rule for the Church, touching their dealing with all scandalous brethren in the Church, as plainly appears in the 10, 11, 12. verses of that chapter, the which I shall more clearly speak unto, when I come to examine the grounds of suspension laid down by Mr. Collins. He saith, He cannot subscribe to my inclination, that self examination, mentioned 1 Cor. 11.28. must be limited by the premises in the context, as the institution repeated doth import with some other directions and cautions given in cure of their malady, etc. He might have done it for any strength of reason he can give to the contrary; Answ. for if those two things hold, which I have pinched upon, That the Corinth's were not blamed nor punished for personal unworthiness at all; Nor 2. for any other actual offendings, but merely for their profaning the Ordinance of Christ in the very time of administration; for this cause only some are weak, sick, and some are dead, vers. 30. I say, if this hold, as I believe it will, what reason can any man have to judge, that the Apostle intends more in this place then the reforming of them in those particular sins they were punished for, and blamed for If they were punished for coming to the Sacrament in an unregenerate state, or for want of the knowledge of God in Christ, for want of love of God and of Jesus Christ, & of men, or for any other want, or miscarriage, save only this, so expressed in the context, examination might have been urged accordingly, but they being not so much as blamed for any such things in order to the Sacrament, no not in this chap. or elsewhere, what show of reason can any man have to be so severe in urging of examination as a duty of that necessity, that if they be not able to discern the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, and to approve themselves to God to be sincere as to such particulars, which are only necessary for admittance unto heavenly glory; or else if otherwise they come, they will but eat and drink their own damnation. When in my answer I have limited this duty of self-examination to the context, as if the Apostle had said unto them; You being fully convinced of your former woeful abuse, and profaning this holy Ordinance of Christ, you must now judge and condemn yourselves accordingly: and approve yourselves according unto the right rule prescribed unto you in the institution received from Christ, understanding within yourselves, what this holy observance doth mean, and so come and demean yourselves with reverence and good order, suitable to God's Ordinance, and then he tells them they should not be judged of the Lord. This saith Mr. Collins is short work indeed, pag. 29. What though it be short of the ordinary lasts of some men that will extend this duty to an infinitum; Answ. yet until Mr. Collins, or any other can confute it, I shall judge it right work, and no whit short of the sense o● this place; the which were it justly applied to ours as it ought to be, they being members of the same visible body, and under the same rule and privileges of the Church; and not offenders in that kind, I think a short work would serve, did not men upon mistake affect to make themselves more work the they have warrant for from their Lord. But thus he saith, The wrod in the Greenshield will not be satisfied with such a short and sea● interpretation, Magistrates examine malefactor more strictly, and the Goldsmith's trial of his gold a more searching trial, the Apostle expounds i● 2 Cor. 13.5. You must excuse me as touching the Original, Answ. I am not able to examine it, I wish could, I am afraid the truth will be prejudiced through mine inabilities, yet as I a● informed, this makes but little to his purpose, the same word being so often used i● the New Testament, and that upon differen●● accounts, as Rom. 2.18. chap. 14.18. and the 16.10. 2 Cor. 7.11. & 10.18. the 13.7. Phil. 1.10. 2 Tim. 2.15. by some of these places you may see we are to approve of the things that are excellent, and good, and holy, so as to put forth our endeavours in pursuance of them, and to decline the contrary, which is all one with 1 Cor. 11.28. the Apostle would have the Corinth's to approve themselves to the rules prescribed them, and so come. 2 Cor. 13.5. is a different thing to 1 Cor. 11.28. there the Apostle perceived that they questioned his authority of Apostleship, and required a proof of Christ speaking in him; the which saith the Apostle, they need not go far for a proof of. Christ in accompanying his Word by him towards them is not weak, but mighty, vers. 3. and hence he bids them examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, prove yourselves, that Christ is in you, and that would be a sufficient proof of Christ's speaking in him, and of his Ministerial authority. Thus you may clearly see, although here is the same word, yet it's used upon a far different occasion, and therefore it doth not expound 1 Cor. 11.28. as Mr. Collins would have it. Next he saith, That another kind of examination is here required, hath been the concurrent judgement of all Divines, especially those of the reformed Churches, etc. I hearty reverence the concurrent judgement of all Divines, and it is my grief that I differ from them in some things, I wish that the authority of man do not cloud the truth from some; for my own part, my inabilities are such, that there can be no danger of swaying the judgement of any able Divines by my opinion, wherein I descent from them; it must be the simplicity of truth, and the justness of what I maintain only, that bean me up against those I have to deal with in this controversy. I am a mere naked man that am engaged with men of complete harness and arms, that History, Arts, and Tongue can furnish them withal. I must confess I am strongly persuaded of the truth of what I have writ in this controversy; and that it is the only way to bring the Churcher peace and truth together, and for Zions sake I can have no rest, but am drawn on to do things not so well becoming my rank and calling in the Church. I beg your pardon, I hope some will confess they can see something of God in it, excuse me, for it is not so much the judgement of Divines, as the Scripture grounds that will satisfy my spirit in this thing. Next, pag. 30. Mr. Collins saith, But if they be to examine themselves no more than whether they discern the Lords Body, we conceive it enough, for discerning must imply knowledge. 1. To know the Lords Body Sacramentally. 2. As the Lord's Body. 3. Acknowledge of the sign and thing signified in the Sacrament. 4. Acknowledge of the two natures of Christ, and of what he hath done and suffered for me. 5. And of the nature of the Sacrament, and what is held forth in it to the soul. From hence (he saith) will easily follow an answer to the sixth query, That ignorant persons though by profession they do own the true Religion; yet are not in a capacity to examine themselves so, as to prevent the judgement, etc. I grant that every one that comes to this Ordinance, Answ. 1 should be able to discern the Lords body, at least notionally by the outward signs, and that the thing signified by the instituted signs is the same, and that the bread and wine is to be received in remembrance of the death of Christ, whose blood was shed for remission of sins; but for to know the two natures of Christ, and what he hath done and suffered for me, and to understand the nature of the Sacrament distinctly; and what is held out in it to the soul, is more than the Apostle taught the Church of Corinth in order to their receiving, and therefore these requisites require further proof before he can conclude any thing from them. In charity I judge that there is not any that live under any painful Preachers, but are so well instructed, as to understand that the Sacrament is a holy Ordinance of God appointed for the good of their souls in general. And that accordingly they humbly and reverently make their addresses unto it to receive the outward signs, in remembrance that Christ shed his blood to save sinners, etc. and this is upon the matter as much as the Apostle requires unto worthy receiving, let it be proved that such a receiving was ever blamed or punished in the holy Scriptures: if it cannot be proved, why do men bring such needless troubles and distractions in the Church by their own traditions? It was not so much the ignorance of the Corinth's that was punished, as their profane actions, which they were guilty of in the time of receiving; it's a question whether their ignorance simply were punished at all any otherwise then accompanied with those horrible effects, the which doth very rarely touch the worst of our Congregations in the Church: let Mr. Collins better consider of these things before he answer them: for although many of ours should be more ignorant than they of Corinth, yet so long as they do not openly profane the Ordinance by their actual miscarriages at the time of worship, as the Corinthians did, it doth not follow that they eat and drink unworthily, and so their own damnation, as they of Corinth. It's true also, that the Lord may justly punish persons for their ignorance under the means. But doth it follow, that therefore men may too, with debarring them from the Sacrament? I think not, until by some clear ground of Scripture, Mr. Collins, or some other, can prove, the Eldership may. And I shall entreat them to make it good with the greatest strength they can, for otherwise they must look to be baffled in it, so long as they grant them Church-members. I shall now see what Mr. Collins excepts against my answer to the eight query, that is, Whether a careless incapable neglect of self-examination, doth excuse, and give a writ of ease from that precept, Do this in remembrance of me. He saith, If I can prove this an universal precept, that concerns every individual person, that is baptised, and of years of discretion, he may tell me that such neglect makes them doubly guilty, etc. pag. 31. He saith further, That he conceives that precept only to concern the disciples of Christ, and none but true disciples. I wonder what Mr. Collins will make of ours that are baptised, Answ. and externally at least adhere to the true religion, are they Pagans? If not, than they are disciples and followers of Christ by profession. And upon his own grant come under that precept, Do this in remembrance of me. I am far from going about to divide these duties; I would have them examine and come too; yet the neglect of the one doth not excuse from the other: a man must not only go and be reconciled with his brother; but he must come and offer his gift also. He saith, It will not much trouble him, what I have said from Matth. 28.19, 20. the Apostles were bound to call upon those they preached unto, to observe all Christ's commands, either that proves the they were to call upon Pagans to come to the Sacrament; or else to call upon all to observe such things that he had commanded them respectively, and then it will still remain to prove that Christ hath commanded an ignorant person to come to the Sacrament. It's very true, Answ. 1 for to avoid the trouble, he is not willing to reach the argument, as you may see pag. 23. Bar removed, the argument was drawn from the charge of Christ to his Apostles in order to them, that came under baptism, not to the Pagans they preached unto; but to them that by their preaching were converted and added unto the Church by baptism. Christ chargeth them to teach his Church to observe, and do all whatever he hath commanded them, and lo he will be with them always. Where are the Apostles bid? to teach the Heathen as such? to observe all that he hath commanded? He gives his statutes and his judgements unto Israel, as for the Heathen they have not known his laws. This very charge of Christ is just the language of God to the Church in Moses and the Prophets, upon the like encouragement of a blessing. As Circumcision brought all the uncircumcised under all observances of the old administration, even the Passeover, upon their lives. So baptism lays the same engagement upon all the baptised to come under all observances of the New Testament administration, that of the holy Supper, as well as others; hence the Apostle commends the Church of Corinth for remembering him in all things; and for keeping the Ordinances as he delivered them unto them, 1 Cor. 11.2. and it is not good to distinguish and dispute away duty, where the Scriptures gives such a general warranty. I know not well what he means by Christ's commanding respectively; if he judge that ours are within, as the Church of Corinth were, without doubt they are both under the observance and discipline of the Church. If he judge that ours that are ignorant, and scandalous, are without; then what hath he to do to judge those that are without? there is no hope to amend them by discipline, or ground to baptise their children, or to justify the main foundation of our Church. As I said in my Book, pag. 23. The Bar removed, so I say again, that Jesus Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects, they observing it according to their present capacity: Can an instance be given in the Old or New Testament of any any that came under Circumsion or Baptism, that as private members were admitted to all other Ordinances in the Church, and yet were forbidden the other Sacrament, the Passeover or the Lord's Supper. To this Mr. Collins answers, with a mere trifle, telling us, That it will pose me, to prove that those that had touched the dead body of a man might come at no ordinance, but he can prove they might not come to the Passeover, Numb. 9 Enough hath been said to this already, Answ. I need but repeat Numb. 19.13, 20, 22. The truth is, what ever the unclean did touch, or what ever touched him, were unclean, Hag. 2. Verse. 22 Nay such persons that neglected the Law, for their purification, were to be cut off from the Congregation, because he had defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord. I might run through the several kinds of uncleanness, and show you how they were separated both from civil as well as holy society: but those that are acquainted with Scriptures will be satisfied in this thing. Nay as I have noted before, the Lord appointed and consecrated a season on purpose for the unclean to keep the Passeover, but not so of any other Ordinance: they were deprived of in the time of their uncleanness. Mr. Collins says, Nor is that whimsy of mine, pag. 25. at all better, by which I prove the receiving of the Sacrament a duty incumbent upon all, because included in the first Table, he says it will pose me, to prove that this duty of receiving is commanded in the first Table; if it were, yet he hopes preaching of the Word is so also, which yet is not a duty enjoined to all, but to those only who are appointed thereto. If that of mine must go under the reproach of a whimsy with Mr. Collins, Answ. I know as reverend and as able Divines as Mr. Collins appears to be, that do judge, that the affirmative part of the second Commandment includes all Gods institute worship, which at any time he hath, or shall prescribe to be done. And except Mr. Collins will deny the holy Supper to be a part of Gods instituted worship; it must come under this prescribed worship as well as any other, there being no part expressed in the command more than another, it's enough to prove, that all in the Church come under the precepts of worship; the Sacrament being so, they are bound to that as well as all other: but then he seems to grant the thing, yet he hopes so is preaching of the Word, etc. It's true, and as I had said in my Book, pag. 25, That all Ministers what ever are bound hence to preach etc. And what need we have the same again, but that he had rather puzzle than satisfy the weak? We know that which lays an injunction upon Ministers to preach, or administer, etc. doth also enjoin all their people to hear and receive as private Christians, the Commandment doth not confound relative duties, although Mr. Collins of purpose doth to deceive his Reader. And me thinks it might make him blush to call that a whimsy in me, which is so ordinarily delivered by as reverend men as himself, and a great deal more. But the Judicious Reader may easily judge what poor shifts he is put unto, that excepts against the truth. Let Mr. Collins give us some rational account why persons in the Church are less engaged unto this part of instituted worship then all others, that all of the Jews Church, should come under the Law of the Passeover, without exception, good and bad. And he to plead no duty to the holy Supper of persons in the Church too: they being not worse than the carnal Jew. I see not but upon the same ground he exempts them from this duty, he may exempt them from all others that are essential to a Church state, and so consequently not only unduty them, but unchurch them too. For what he hath said before implies no less, where he is bold to undisciple them, to evade this argument, we draw from the command of Christ, Matth. 28.20. The Doctor was somewhat sharp with my much respected friend Mr. Humphrey, for making the act of receiving, the principal, and examination but an accessary, in my vindicating of him I hinted two or three things. 1. That the duty of self-examination is but a private duty. And the private is to be subordinate to the public. 2. This duty of examination was prescribed occasionally as a remedy to that particular case, of making a breach upon the materials of divine institution and order. And we may safely say, the end is most principal, the means less. 3. Where a true Church doth not so offend as Corinth did, this duty is not so to be urged upon them, as to the Church of Corinth. But it's clear, there is not the same offending in the Church of England, as there was at Corinth. Therefore that duty is not to be urged upon ours with the same necessity of danger of eating and drinking unworthily, as to the Church of Corinth. Unto these Mr. Collins hath some exceptions. 1. Whether it be sense or no, he cannot tell, that I say, self-examination is a private duty, and so subordinate to the public, and then says, who denies it? But yet he questions, whether upon an incapacity, or neglect of the private, the public be a duty; for where a private duty is commanded in order to prepare us for the public, we cannot without sin perform the public before we have performed the private; cleansing were the unclean persons private duty: yet till it was done, he might not come to the Passeover. 1. Answ. Though I grant self-examination a requisite duty unto a profitable receiving, and judge the neglect thereof sinful; yet so long as the public administrations are carried on with reverence and good order, beseeming Gods worship externally; I would gladly know wherein the Eldership is any further concerned. 2. What though an incapable neglect of the private, doth hinder the profitable use of the public, and that it cannot without sin be performed, doth it therefore follow that such persons in the Church may neglect the public worship without sin? if not, whether is the greatest to obey, and do as well as they can with sin; or to cast off all care o● duty wholly? it's easily answered in all other duties, and but a mere begging the question to deny it in this of the Sacrament, a● to that instance of his, Cleansing was the unclean persons private duty, yet till it was done, he might not eat the Passeover. 1. Answ. It's a question whether cleansing were a private duty only, could an unclean per●o● make himself clean? by what law, is a query? Numb. 6.9, 10, 11. & 19.19. speak the contrary. 2. Grant it were, might they enter into the gates of the Sanctuary to offer unto God any other sacrifice until they were cleansed? In hezekiah's Passeover of the 2. month, many did eat the Passeover that was not clean, and were accepted. We know they might not; for it was accounted a defiling the Sanctuary, a thing threatened with death, or perpetual banishment from the Congregation. His instance doth rather prove, that the justly excommunicate ought not to be admitted to the public Ordinances of Worship, until they be lawfully admitted upon their satisfying the Church by repentance. Then to prove persons in the Church not excommunicate may not take the Sacrament until they have performed that private duty of examination. I have said enough, to prove that the neglect of this private duty of examination in order to receiving, doth not reach the neglect of that duty of cleansing in order unto the whole worship of God. In his 32. pag. he is nibbling at my next thing, wherein I would have this private duty of examination occasionally prescribed as a remedy, or a means to that particular case of offending. And therefore they were to approve themselves according to the rules of institution and good order, and so come in doing the good, and declining the evil they had been punished for, etc. To this purpose, I said the end is more principal, the means less. Unto this Mr. Collins saith, No man can receive the Sacrament without sin, neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver. He had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end. Who will deny what he saith to this? Answ. But what is this to answer the thing? May the main duty of public worship be neglected, unless a man be able to use all due means in order to a more comfortable and profitable receiving? If not, let them so come, as well as they can, rather than the main of God's worship shall be omitted. By this which hath been answered unto Mr. Collins his weak exceptions: I hope the impartial Reader may clearly judge upon what bottom we infer free admission, namely, the authority of Christ's command. Besides, you may take notice of the pitiful shifts that our adversaries are put unto, to dispute against the authority of Christ's commands: Let them consider, He that breaks the least of his commands, and teacheth men so, shall be accounted least in the Kingdom of Heaven; Nay, if they shall wittingly thus offend in one, they are guilty of all. My last query is, Whether there be any thing in the Nature, language, actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenerate receiving in the Church? Mr. Collins saith, Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing or no, he will not dispute, it is enough he finds it elsewhere, and he conceives there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous, which is the question, for the Church judgeth not of secret things. What he hath said to this, Answ. hath been sufficiently answered already: he hath nothing new, but the old taken for granted, which hath been denied according to the stating of the question. I am glad he is so sober, as to say, the Church judgeth not of secrets; then I hope he will not proceed to censure any of his people, but for scandalous sins persisted unto obstinacy, if he, or his Eldership do, they undertake to judge of secrets. But then he comes more particularly to the question. As first, Touching the institution, for saith he, Christ gave it to none such, he means Christ gave it to none that were ignorant or scandalous. 1. Christ gave it to none but the twelve, that were impowered with Commission to Preach and baptise, heal the sick, and to cast out Devils, etc. What then, must none but such be admitted? this would be a good argument to deny not only the cup, but the whole administration from the Laity. But 2. The question is, whether the Apostles in their ordering of particular Congregations, gave any direction to exclude any that came under Baptism from the holy Supper, and yet allowed them the privilege of all other Ordinances in the Church. The Scripture speaks of thousands that submitted unto baptism, and continued steadfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, which are the main essentials of worship: and this is spoken of the whole, assoon as they were baptised. Act. 2.32. And the Church of Corinth's are commended for keeping the Ordinances. It was a profaning of this of the Supper they were blamed and punished for. And for gross ignorance amongst them, we need not doubt of it, and other scandalous and disorderly conversation; but what is this of his, but ●o insinuate unto the world, that the baptised in the Church that are either ignorant, or in some things scandalous are not of the Church: the old road of Brownism. But then he saith secondly, The Sacrament is contrary to such in the nature of it, for it is strong meat, and the seal of the righteousness of faith. That it is strong meat only, Answ. we deny; it remains for him to prove if he can, his say so is no proof, yet that's his great argument. He had need commence Doctor before we credit his bare word; but he gives his reason for it in his Book, pag. 104. Strong meat belongs to men of age, who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discern good and evil, Heb. 5.13, 14. But the Sacrament is strong meat; therefore it doth not belong to those that are babes in knowledge. But I deny his minor; he saith its evident, he gives his reason, That meat which is of hardest digestion and concoction; and which not duly digested, proves most pernicious to the body, is strong meat: but such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I deny his minor again: he proves it, 1 Cor. 11.28 and tells us, This meat is not tasted, nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries of religion in some measure, namely; 1. The union of Christ with the Father. 2. The union of the two natures in the person of Christ. 3. The mystical union of the soul with Christ. 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the soul to the pronise, etc. and this is all his proof, the which amounts just to as much as his say so: as to his quotation, 1 Cor. 11.28. enough hath been spoken already to show the vanity of his high flown conceptions: And indeed a most pernicious perplexing tenant to poor, doubting, weak, unsatisfied Christians, should it be believed. I have always been taught, that Sacraments are the lowest condescensions of the love of Christ to his weakest babes, they being suited so familiarly to our bodily senses, as it were with Thomas, his seeing and feeling the body of Christ was more effectual to make him believe, than the testimony of their word who preached Christ was risen indeed. But the next he saith, The Sacrament is the seal of the righteousness of faith; and hence it seems incongruous to the ignorant and scandalous that have not faith. The question is of the unregenerate in the Church, Answ. the which may be discernible by these Characters of ignorant, and scandalous in part, and know that I have nothing to say in behalf of them that hate instruction, and that persist in their vile abominable do, after admonition and due conviction unto obstinacy. Let such be declined and avoided as unworthy of all Christian Communion, and spare not; but for those that are yielding sinners, and are ready to condemn themselves upon all occasions, if being wisely dealt withal, expressing themselves willing and desirous to amend; these I think should have the benefit of all the Ordinances, as the ordinary means of their salvation. But now to his assertion, That the Sacrament is the seal of the righteousness of faith. We know that Sacraments which had their Original from God unto Abraham, Gen. 17. were tokens of the everlasting Covenant of grace, made with Abraham and his seed, God having deputed him to be a father of many Nations. And that all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him, etc. Circumcision was appointed to be a token unto Abraham in this comprehensive sense, that not only they that were his seed by natural descent, but those also that shall embrace the profession of the faith of Abraham, shall be blessed with him, even they, and their natural issue also. And the Apostle, Rom. 4.4. descants much upon this large Covenant, or promise made unto Abraham, in the warranty of the Gentiles engrafting into the stock of Abraham by faith; the which the Jews stumbled at, and fell into prejudices and discontents upon the Gentiles embracing of the Gospel, concluding it false, because they embraced it, that were always left of God, and so abominable to the Church as naturally descended from Abraham and the Prophets, etc. The Apostle disputes this thing with them, and saith, Is he a God of the Jews only, is he not of the Gentiles also? Yes of the Gentiles also, chap. 3.29. And he tells them their fleshly privileges, according to the Law, will not continue them the people of God without faith in Christ. And by faith in Christ the Gentiles are made the people of God unto Justification, opposing faith unto works chief in point of Justification, as in the beginning of the 4. chapter is expressed in that instance of Abraham and David. It was not works, but faith, that was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousness in his uncircumcised state: and hence he argues Abraham to be a father of the uncircumcision, as well as of the circumcision; because he received the token of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of that faith he had in his uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and a father of the believing circumcision too, etc. Now than what was the main thing that Abraham is thus commended for, and blessed for? Why it's said, He believed God, and that was imputed unto him for righteousness. But then we may inquire, what was the thing he believed God would be as good as his word to him in? Answer. It ' was this, that God had made him a father of many Nations, though he had no child; yet he believed against hope, etc. And this was imputed unto him for righteousness. We know that Abraham after the flesh was not a father of many Nations; that is not the sense, but he is so in a spiritual sense by religion and saith, and that's the thing the Apostle drives at, to prove him a father of all that come in unto his religion and faith; And that all such are of him, and blessed with him. And doubtless Abraham that saw this day of Christ and rejoiced, so understood it, that all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed in him, by faith; and this blessedness to begin in his own natural family; and to be extended unto all Nations in time. And hence that is true, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed in their generations for ever, Gen. 17.7. and that he should be the father of many Nations, and that they should be blest in him, etc. This is the everlasting Covenant of Grace that Abraham believed, and this is the faith that circumcision was a token of, and did confirm the truth of, to him and all that are in him by religion for ever, even to them and theirs: and I doubt not but the Sacrament seals to the same faith still in reference to them that have entered the same Covenant, and profess their subjection to the laws and administration thereof, but I have not expressed myself in this so fully and clearly, as I could wish, I shall have occasion to do more in it hereafter. This by the way to give a hint, what the Apostle means, in calling circumcision a seal of the righteousness of that faith that Abraham yet had in uncircunacision, it being too ambiguously left and applied by Mr. Collins in order unto Church-members unregenerate. Mr. Collins hath two or three things more in the 32. pag. but finding nothing in them that doth trouble us about the question in hand, I pass them by, though it's true, he takes the boldness to deny, yet he doth not give any ground or reason why, but takes all for granted still, though I have rationally cleared the contrary in my answer to the query, pag. 36, 37, 38, 39 Bar removed. I shall now see what he excepts against my 6. proposition, pag. 30. 31. I conceive that Sacraments in general, and this in particular were instituted for the spiritual good of the Church of Christ, comprehensively taken in which every particular member is included. First he grants as much, pag. 33. and then adds, his jus ad rem, and then queries, how this proves that therefore every particular member ought in his present state come to it, and coming aught to be admitted. If the proposition be true, Answ. as is granted it is, than it will follow that all Church-members should be encouraged unto the partaking of that which is for their spiritual good. And it's most injurious for any to deprive any of that spiritual good, that proffer themselves, or discourage them so to do. But he hath two things to except against the consequence. He saith, Was not the Passeover so appointed, yet he thinks unclean persons might not come during their uncleanness? But now there is no such uncleanness in the Gospel Church to hinder any. Answ. 1 They were no more debarred the Passeover then all other public worship, nor so much, for provision was made for them in that case, not in the other. And as that of Moral uncleanness was no hindrance then, so not now, as hath been showed, and hence his first exception is worth nothing. But then 2. he tells us, That some reverend men think the excommunicate person is yet a member of the Catholic Church, and shall not be baptised upon his repentance: and he owning the true religion, and being baptised, his repentance being supposed, the Sacrament is for his good; but it will not therefore follow, he ought in that state of his excommunication to come to the Sacrament. It's not material to the question, Answ. 1 whether the excommunicate be dismembered or not; it's sufficient to my purpose, that he be dispossessed of all external privileges of the Church during his impenitency, in that condition he is justly sentenced unto, to debar him the Sacrament. And I think all parties are agreed in this, and in this case I deny that the Sacrament is for his good, while he is under the last remedy and Ordinance of Christ for his amendment or utter ruin. Then if you suppose his repentance and satisfying the Church, he ought to be loosed from that sentence, and received into Church communion again. That the justly excommunicate are absolutely dismembered is too harsh to affirm, until we be able to judge that he hates to be reform under the Churches just censures, adding unto his incorrigible sinning, not only obstinacy, but Apostasy. And then he is undone for ever. For what the Church binds on earth, is bound in heaven; though the Churches main end is only to reform and heal a diseased member. Therefore though I should grant him not absolutely dismembered, and yet deny him the Sacrament; it doth not follow that Church-members under Church indulgence or forbearance, may be denied the Sacrament. These are two different cases. And therefore doth not in the least hurt my first proposition. My second proposition is, That the Church of Christ consists of good and bad. And this Mr. Collins grants me also. And it having such a dependence on the first, that it completes for my opinion this argument. The holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of every particular member of the Church. But this Church of Christ consists of good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate; therefore the holy Supper is instituted for the spiritual good of good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate, and consequently is to be administered to them in order to that good. I conceive that both propositions bein● granted, the conclusion cannot be denied. My third is, That the unregenerate in th● Church are the only immediate objects of the pr●mise of the first grace. Mr. Collins answers unto this thus, That b● h●d rather say, that the unregenerate are objects 〈◊〉 the first grace, then of the promise of that grace, 〈◊〉 the promises profit not any without faith, and h●● the unregenerate should apply the promise, he ca●not tell. 1. Answ. In granting them objects of the fin● grace, he grants them to be objects of the promise of that grace. Unless the first grace is not at all to be looked for from the promise. 2. Nor promised unto any at all. 3. Or else given to some to whom God never promised it. The which things to affirm would be point blank against the Scriptures. So that the question is, whether Mr. Collins doth own any such thing as promises of giving the first grace at all. For if there be any such promises at all made to the Church in general, they must of necessity immediately respect some proper object that hath not that grace, of, and in itself; it is want and misery that is the proper object of grace and mercy: But why should Mr. Collins express himself thus doubtfully in such a main thing. Doth he not baptise all Infants upon this account chief that the promise is to the Parents and children? surely if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace, the most of ours every where are objects of no promises that Sacraments seal; for it's too certain, that they and theirs have not a true sincere purifying faith to apply the other promises of salvation. This is certain, if they be not objects of the promises of the first grace, they cannot be objects of the promises of crowning that grace with glory: exclude the unregenerate in the Church from the promise of the first grace, and you exclude them from all. And then judge what will follow. And where he saith, The premises profit not any without faith, shall the want of a fincere faith make the faithfulness of God without effect? God forbidden. Let God be true in what he hath promised to the Church in general, and indefinite terms, and every man a liar, Rom. 3.3, 4. We know of the Jews that were the greatest enemies unto Christ, a remnant of them were sanctified and saved, according unto Act. 2.39. Peter tells the wicked Jews that were guilty of the innocent blood of Christ, that the promise is to them and their children, before he knew whether they would repent or no. What faith had they when Peter told them so? not so as much ours have that generally believe that Christ i● the only Saviour of the world. These Jews denied this, yet being of the visible Church as descended from Abraham, the Apostle make● them and their children objects of the promises; and hence persuades them to repent o● what they had done against Christ, & be baptised for remission of sins, etc. And so many 〈◊〉 received his word were baptised indeed, and submitted themselves to the obedience o● faith. What though the unregenerate cannot actually apply those promises by faith unto themselves? Doth it follow that therefore they are not objects, or susceptives of them in a passive sense, God being free in making these promises unto them, and by his Spirit in the use of his own appointments to apply them effectually unto whom he will, of such that have not faith to apply them: Forasmuch as not any can in astrict sense believe, until he be impowered with regenerating grace: No, nor then, without the concurrence of a divine aid to apply the promises made to such a blessed state to their own comfort and salvation. Besides, the promises of the first grace are not only free, but absolute, not so depending upon condition of faith in a strict sense, as many other promises do: yet not so absolute, but that the ordinary means of salvation ought to be observed diligently in order ●o attainment of the first grace: for God will ●e enquired after by the house of Israel, for the grace of the New Covenant, Ezek. 36. My fourth proposition is, That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in he Church, that are the immediate objects of the ●bsolute promises, in order to the Lords putting these promises into execution. Mr. Collin● saith, If the argument be good, it's fetched from the right, which an interest in the Co●enant promises gives one to the seals of it. And ●hen it must hold universally, and if the unregenerate world without be as much objects of the first ●ace, as those within, there is no reason for that astriction. It seems, Mr. Answ. Collins would not have the promises of first grace be limited unto the Church, but would have the unregenerate ●ut of the Church as much objects as those within: for indeed he is ready at every pinch ●o level the unregenerate in the Church to the ●n fidel world. Therefore I shall endeavour to clear unto you the difference in this particular, briefly; ●t may be I may publish more of this hereafter. It is evident, that the whole Covenant of grace is made unto the Church in general terms without any exception of persons in ●t, as is clear, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Ezek. 36. A ●ew Covenant I will make with the house of Judah and Jerusalem: in which Covenant th● promise of the first grace is most express an● full: the state of the Jews Church cons●●ing most of carnal members, that were proper objects of the promises of first grace Why the Gentile world as carnal, and b●miserable, yet this Covenant containing th● first grace was never made to them at all, b● upon condition of faith, and grafting themselves into the same visible body: as they a● Infidels and without, They are aliens from 〈◊〉 Common wealth of Israel, strangers to the Covent of promises, and without all hope: and with●● God in the world, Ephes. 2.12. How can the be said to be as much objects of the promit of the first grace that are without, as the● that are within; when they are alienate from all, during that Infidel state? It's t●● there is a promise, that all the Nations 〈◊〉 the earth shall be blessed in Abraham; but i● runs in conditional terms, as they are i● him, they must first be brought into him and be of the true Church that Abraham wa● father of, before they can be blessed in him and so the Apostle expounds it, They that a●● of faith, are blessed with him, and ye are all, eve● the whole Church, Jews and Gentiles, th● children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus. And not any others in the world that remained in their infidel estate. This difference is clearly intimated by the Apostle Peter, Act. 2.39. when he speaks of the Jews that were of the Church by nature as descended from Abraham, he tells them plainly, The promise is to them and their children, speaking in the present tense. But then speaking of the Gentiles, he saith, the promise is intended unto them also, but with another restriction then to the Jews, even unto as many as it shall please the Lord our God to call of them, at any time for the future, and to none else: they of the infidel world must be externally called at least, and planted into the visible Church of Christ by baptism, before they and theirs can be children of the promise, and in Covenant relation. As the Pagan world is without the promise of the first grace, so we know they are without the ordinary means of working that grace, if they be as much objects of the promise of first grace, as the unregenerate in the Church. What's the reason the Lord denies them the ordinary means of putting them into execution? The Apostle saith, If our Gospel be hid, or withheld from persons or people, it's hid to them that perish. Our own experience will convince us, that those that are without are not so much objects of the promise of first grace as them within: because we see the fruit of it in the Church in every age and time, in the conversion of many; but scarce any age of a hundred generations we have heard of any conversions in some part of the Pagan world. Hence I judge there is a real difference between the Church and the Pagan world; in respect of the one they are objects of the promises, the other without promise and hope, and God in the world; and me thinks Mr. Collins, and the friends of his judgement, (they being godly, sober, Orthodox Divines) should be satisfied with this difference, I have only hinted at in short; for my part, I think there is nothing more clear, and easy to be made out from holy Scriptures, were not men of his judgement too much learned with Brownism, destroying that which our fir● reformers have planted. I must confess it's nothing becoming my calling and abilities to challenge any learned reverend men; yet I doubt not but through the assistance of God's grace, to maintain this difference I have in short laid down, against all the contradiction of sober Orthodox men: provided they will dispute it from the authority of holy Scriptures, and what may be clearly and rationally deducted thence. Next Mr. Collins is pleased to put my proposition into form, pag. 34. Those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong, to those the whole administration of the Covenant; and so the seals belong. But to the unregenerate in the Church, and of years the promises belong. Ergo. He saith, Let but [belong] in each proposition be understood in the same sense, and the answer is easy, and the argument weak, etc. I will yield him that which he desires, Answ. and take it in that sense which is most large, namely, that the promises of first grace belong to the unregenerate in the Church, than he denies the major, and saith, That by this argument Heathens may come to the Sacrament. I say no, unless Mr. Collins can prove that the Heathen are as much objects of the absolute promises in the Covenant, as the unregenerate in the Church. I think when he hath performed that task sound and undeniably, I shall yield the argument weak, and think the worse of my cause: but until then, he must give me leave to think the argument strong, for any thing he hath yet said in answer of it. He only saith it, That no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man, as his portion which he may clear and make use of it in his unregeneracy. What thinks Mr. Collins then of the baptising the Infants of such, Answ. 1 the usual practice of our Church? How can he persuade such to offer their children unto baptism, if no promise belong to him to make use of as his? is not his child's baptism a considerable use? The absolute promise of the first grace to the unregenerate, is the main encouragement to the use of means for the attainment of grace: This is that which opens a door of hope unto all, and as they are sinners destitute of the work of grace, they may rightly go to God and pray for a new heart, and for his Spirit to beget regenerating grace it their graceless spirits. Oh turn thou us Lord, and we shall be converted unto thee, for thou never saidst to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye my face, in vain. And we are the seed of thy Church and people, whom thou hast promised to be a God unto, and to make us thy people, for thy name's sake, forsake us not, but put forth 〈◊〉 work of thy mighty power, to open our hear● to receive the grace of thy promise, we 〈◊〉 objects of, and without which we are undou● I say ask, and you shall have; for the Lor● will give his Spirit to them that ask it. An● this I hope is of good use to the unregenerate it's a special ground to pray for renewing grace themselves; and likewise for other that have grace to pray for them, as Minister for their people, and parents for their children, etc. Exclude them from these promises and you exclude them from your prayers, for we have no warrant to pray for that which God doth not promise to give. My fifth proposition, That the Sacraments being visible representations of Christ's death, on which those promises are founded, and by which they ●ne confirmed, the use of the Sacraments belongs to those whom those promises do immediately respect. Unto this he hath nothing considerable, but what hath been answered already; only he grants the main of this. And yet says, that Sacraments are seals as well as signs. 1. Sacraments are seals as they are signs, Answ. and not otherwise. 2. They are but representatives of the real seal that confirms the absolute promises, namely the death of Christ, and so not seals properly, but by way of resemblance, giving the name to the signs, that is only proper to the thing signified, namely, the death of Christ, it being all one to imagine the Sacraments real seals of the Covenant, with real presence. If I mistake not, hence it will follow, That which the death of Christ is a seal of, Sacraments are seals of: but the death of Christ is a seal of the promises of first grace, which respect the unregenerate in the Church: therefore the use of these seals belong to them. I see not but that the Sacraments, as they are seals to confirm the truth of the Covenant, in which are included promises of first grace to the unregenerate in the Church, the unregenerate may use the seals for their encouragement to wait upon God, in the use of that and all ordinary means, in hope of the blessing of regenerating grace, according to what is promised in the Word, and sealed in the Sacrament; who else should use the seals, if not those that have a right unto what is sealed, should not? But then he saith, It is false, that the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace do respect, for then the use of the Sacrame● belongs to Heathens: but the use of it belongs 〈◊〉 those only who by faith apply the promises. So long as any creatures are without to letter, Answ. and external administration of th● Covenant, and have not so much as accepted of the outward tender, and made entrance therein by baptism; they are strange from the Covenant of promise, and without a literal ground of hope; and without Go● I have showed the difference already: 〈◊〉 though I have granted elsewhere, that th● Heathen are objects of the promise of 〈◊〉 grace in some remote sense, yet it's hard 〈◊〉 say of any Nation in special, so long as th● Lord is pleased to withhold the ordina● means of their conversion from them, th● they are objects of that promise. This is certain truth, where the Lord hath a people to save, he will either send his Word to 〈◊〉 them; or bring them under the Word by so● providence or other to that end: as for tho● that are left to wander in their own Idolitrous ways, there is no hope to such, If 〈◊〉 Gospel be hid, it's hid to them that perish. An● whereas Mr. Collins saith, The Sacrament belongs only to those who by faith apply the promise●. Alas, this he takes for granted, although be knows we have denied it upon considerable ground. Take faith in his sense, can any man imagine that all the people of the Jews were able by faith to apply the promises? yet they were all bound to keep the Passeover: Conceive how improbable it were, that all that submitted unto baptism in the Apostles age, were able by a true saith to apply the promises: yet none were denied the Supper that came under Baptism. Doth Mr. Gollins think, that all in our Church are able by a true sincere faith to apply the promises? Yet we administer baptism unto their children, a seal of the same promises, upon the account of their parents. And I verily judge that the parents are in as good a capacity for the holy Supper, as their children are for holy baptism; If the child's right may be derived more remote, then much more the Parents of that child as being a generation nearer that right. If the promise include the grand child, much more his own child; And wherein is the holy Supper a different seal of the Covenant from baptism? So that in giving Baptism to their child, you clearly yield their right to use the Supper, provided they be not excommunicated. But Mr. Collins argues against me thus, in his late Book, pag. 104. Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptised, though they be baptised, and in the Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But those who are ignorant and scandalous, if they were Heathens, should not be baptised. Ergo, I grant his minor is true, Answ. that ignorant and scandalous Heathens should not be baptised. But I deny his Major, that ignorant and scandalous Christians are Heathens. Suppose them unbaptised, which they are not; for I will suppose that their Covenant relation holds still, though they were unbaptised, they being the issue of persons in the Church, and they never as yet have renounced the Covenant, but adhere to the public administration thereof: which may be the case of some in these exorbitant time for there are many a growing up to year of discretion, that through the delusion 〈◊〉 their parents are unbaptised, the which 〈◊〉 think are no Heathen, being Christians born nor cut off from Covenant relation, no● Church-membership, notwithstanding their parent's wickedness to dispute them ou● of the Covenant, and consequently ou● of the Church, and so from baptism a privilege thereof: but they ought to be baptised when ever themselves, or any other o● their friends desire it for them, upon the account of membership, it not being their fault it hath been neglected so long, but their parents. And I say likewise of the ignorant and scandalous born in the Church, were they unbaptised, the Church ought to use all means possible, to persuade them unto it as their special duty to engage them unto better obedience, and Church discipline for their amendment. The children of Israel were uncircumcised a great many of them while they were in their travel in the Wilderness; their uncircumcision did not discovenant nor unchurch them; but they were all circumcised when they came to Canaan. God was angry with Moses for neglecting the circumcising of his sons, but yet their Covenant relation held, they must be circumcised. And I think here is nothing against reason in all this. But then there is not the like reason for Heathen to be baptised, that are ignorant and scandalous, because they are strangers from the Covenants of promise, have no such privilege as Covenant relation, they are unclean, and until they embrace the faith of the Gospel, and express themselves real in their acceptance of it, and promise to join themselves with the visible professing body of Christ, they may not be received. These are two huge different things, which Mr. Collins all along levels to the same, and therefore his argument falls to nothing. And I would have Mr. Collins, and all others that profess themselves friends to the Church of England, to beware how they maintain that Baptism makes Church-members: it's true of those that are of the Pagan world by nature, they can in no wise be made members of the visible Church of Christ but by lawful baptism: but those in the Church that are born of Christian parents are members born, they being comprehended in the same Covenant with their parents. But Mr. Collins in proof of his major saith, It is against reason to say the contraray. A notable proof indeed! Let him show us wh● reason it's against, to say, that Church-members unbaptised, aught to be baptised up●● lower personal qualifications then Heathen. I come to my next proposition, That the in the Church whom we cannot exclude from C●●venant relation, that are of years, must not be excluded from the Sacrament, because Sacrament are seals of Covenant love to that people the are in possession of Covenant administrations. Mr. Collins in answer to this, is fallen upon the old business again, and wonders her years of discretion comes in, for he saith, the argument is to prove a right to Covenant seals, for s●● as are in Covenant relation. Now children are 〈◊〉 Covenant relation, that exception plainly implies, say he, that Covenant relation is not enough to give right to Covenant seals. And so he says, I have answered myself. Mr. Answ. 1 Collins is more happy than others, i● such an answer be judged a sufficient one, because years of discretion, is no essential o● Covenant relation, but of a man, putting him into an actual capacity to perform acts of worship, the which until then he is not under the obligation of actual observance. I have spoken enough to this already. Why is not Covenant relation enough? I never thought so; but maintain that Covenant relation gives right to Covenant seals unto parents and children. I hope I am as clear in this point as most are. It's an handsome shifting of an answer, to say, I have answered myself: The argument lies to answer still. If Sacraments be seals of covenant love to a people in possession of covenant administrations, than such a people ought to use these seals of Covenant love unto them in remembrance thereof, until they be legally dispossessed of the same. But ours are in Covenant relation, and in possession of the Ordinances of the Covenant. Therefore it belongs to them to make use of the seals of God's love in remembrance of his goodness towards them. Until you can discovenant them it's a weak thing to go about to dispriviledge them in the externals of the Church; especially the Ordinances being the Ordinary way and means of attaining the grace of the Covenant. In his 35. pag. he tells us, That Sacraments are not seals of the everlasting Covenant, but seal to the acceptation of the Covenant to which faith must be supposed. I have always thought that the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, Answ. and so often published and repeated, and explained to the Jews Church, and applied to the Gospel Church, Heb. 8. had been an everlasting Covenant of grace; and that Sacraments seal to this Covenant: And that not only the new Covenant, but the seals thereof belong unto the visible Church. And that the agreement or Covenant between the Father and the Son, for the elect, had been a different thing from the Covenant made unto the Church, which Sacraments seal. If that were not an everlasting Covenant that Circumcision was a fign and seal of, I must confess I am out: but I am sure it's that which I have been always taught, and never heard it denied, but by Anabaptists, and such like Heterodox spirits. It's true, this everlasting Covenant is to be entered into by those the seals are to be applied unto; and this entrance or acceptance is either personal or parental. An alien upon profession of faith, and desiring to join himself to the visible Church of Christ by baptism, and so to come voluntarily under the Laws of Christ, is to be received, he hath accepted of the laws of the Covenant. But for those that are in the Church by nature, and profess no other religion and worship but the true, are all supposed to have such a faith at least as doth argue their acceptance of the Covenant, during their abode in the Church, the which is sufficient to engage them unto Christian obedience, and doth entitle them to external Church privileges; although this is not enough in order to their justification and salvation: but yet the external part is the way prescribed for the attainment of the internal blessings of the everlasting Covenant, even to as many in the Church that Jesus Christ was sent into the world to seek and to save, by giving them repentance and remission of sins. Hence it is very necessary to distinguish of a twofold acceptation; one common that accepts of the external part of the Covenant, which reprobates do with the elect, the other is internal and special, when God by his Spirit opens the heart, and inclines the will to receive the grace of the Covenant unto eternal life: the former is that which gives right to the external privileges of the Church; the other to the internal blessings of grace and glory. The former hath the promise of the first grace, the other the promise of increase in grace, and the reward of glory. If that be true of Mr. Collins, That Sacraments seal to the acceptation of the Covenant which supposes faith: It's sufficient for our opinion, because all in the Church do accept of the Covenant, and have faith. And we do not plead for Heathens until they believe and come under baptism. But surely the death of Christ confirmed the everlasting Covenant, out of which faith with the fruits thereof freely flow. And I think Sacraments are no other ways seals, than they are signs of his death; as it is said, This cup is the new Covenant in my blood, the cup was not really the new Covenant, but a sign thereof, representatively; as I have hinted before: Yet surely, saith Mr. Collins, those that are in a state of unbelief, are not in Covenant, though they may be objects of God's first free grace. Answ. If they be not in the everlasting Covenant, they cannot be said to be objects of God's first free grace: for doubtless God gives grace to none that are out of that Covenant, himself grants that the elect are enrolled in the everlasting Covenant, and many of them may be in the Church, I hope, though in a state of unbelief in his sense; and doubtless it is for the elects sake that we have an external administration, a Church consisting of most bad, that his elect may be gathered out of all sorts of sinners, and others left without excuse, is this wise contrivance of the ever blessed God. And hence this mingled state of good and bad must grow together until the harvest, experience doth tell us what precious wheat hath sprung out of the roots of wicked tares. And wicked tares have sprung out of the roots of the choicest wheat: let that convince us. Mr. Collins saith, That argument about baptism hath been answered again and again. The argument is this, If parents that are ignorant and scandalous in the Church, be so much in Covenant as to give their children right unto holy baptism, a seal of the Covenant, than themselves have right to the holy Supper, it being but the seal of the same Covenant. The antecedent is granted by Mr. Collins, and all that are friends to his judgement, and yet they deny the consequence, because they say more is required to the Lords Supper, then unto Baptism. Unto this I answer. It cannot be proved, that in in the Apostles days more was required unto the Supper then to baptism of persons of years: it's clear enough, that which prepared them for baptism brought them into the Church. And that being once within, they had the privileges of the Church accordingly, is without question. Less is required unto Covenant seals of persons born in the Church, (they being free born to all the privileges of this spiritual Corporation) then of those that are aliens and strangers by birth; these obtain their freedom upon the terms of faith and repentance. The ignorant and scandalous are in as good a capacity of the Supper of the Lord, as their children are of the baptism of the Lord, they being under Church indulgence. First, They are in an active capacity of exercising the understanding heart and conscience, memory, with all the externals required unto that service, their children are merely passive for the other. Secondly, Parents are in possession of the feals of themselves, but their children before baptism are not. Parents in the Church derive as much right from their Ancestors, as their children do until they be discovenanted, if not more, as being a generation nearer that right. If parents Covenant relation be sufficient to give right to the seals for his child, then surely for himself. Besides the contradiction in the other opinion of Mr. Collins; as first, he pleads the Covna●nt for the parents unto their children's baptism; and then disputes them out of Covenant in his admission unto the holy Supper. They shall be accounted believers as to the one, but unbelievers as to the other. The promise is to them and their children in order unto baptism, but then in order to the holy Supper, there is no more promise belongs unto them then unto Pagans. And there is no promise made to any that have not faith to apply them; and so exclude children from the promise too at last, for they have not such a faith as to apply the promises. Thus you may see he is a Presbyterian in practice; and an Anabaptist in opinion. For if his judgement be true about baptism, then it's false about the holy Supper; if his judgement be true about the Supper, then it's false about baptism: for both are the same seal of the same Covenant exhibited, only by different figns. People had need be well settled and satisfied of themselves in these times, that keep their station in the Church, where they have such Teachers, and meet with such opinions that destroy all. The truth is, our straightness in the one, and largeness in the other, doth destroy itself; and doth occasion most intelligent Christians, either to fall off from Infant baptism, or else to restrain it to those that are judged fit to be received into holy Communion in the Lord's Supper. Had it not been for our own scruples about admitting to the Supper, casting off the most of Church-members from Communion, under the notion of ignorant and scandalous, we had never known of these exorbitances in the Church, which now we suffer under by the separations. It is an easy thing for Mr. Collins to say the argument is answered again and again, not telling us by whom; nor how. But if it be not better answered than he hath done it in his answer to Mr. Barksdel, he must answer it again, or else it must be unanswered, and cleave close unto him still as such a Church-rent that he will never free himself of, unless he altar his judgement: which he will find the readiest way of the two. In his 15. pag. to Mr. Barksdels 10. argument for free admission he puts in three exceptions. He grants children are baptised in their parents right; but yet can see no reason, why it should necessarily be the immediate parent. True, for sometimes it may fall out, Answ. that both parents may be excommunicate, or turned Apostates: in these cases it's not necessary; but otherwise being of the true Christian Church and faith, the ignorant and scandalous being in actual Church-membership, and baptised; give as true a legal right to their child's baptism, as any other member what ever: so long as their own right holds, their child's right doth also, and that immediately from them, is to the sober unquestionable. Indeed if parents be never so really godly and unbaptised, their children's right to baptism must either be derived from Ancestors, or else have none at all, a visible peofession of faith in persons baptised gives a true right for their child to the Sacramental seal, and consequently for themselves to the same seal of the Supper; there was the same danger for the neglect of the Passeover, as for circumcision. He saith further, There is no self-examination prerequired unto baptism: but to the Supper a man must examine himself, and so let him come. Philip put it upon the Ethiopian Eunuch, Answ. to examine whether he believed with all his heart or no in order unto baptism. And I think that was more than the other of Paul to the Corinth's. Baptism to men of years was upon the condition of a personal faith, without which they might not be baptised, employed by this, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayst, otherwise not, but there is no such thing in order to the Supper: they were to examine themselves, and so come, it cannot be reasonably conceived of, that if they neglected this private duty, they should not come, for it was their duty to come together to celebrate the Supper, but not to profane it for the worse. Profession of faith was a public duty in order to baptism, without which they could not be baptised: but examination but a private duty left to God and our own consciences, which no public officers have to do with concerning others, but to instruct and to exhort unto the duty, etc. they have not the like warrant to require an account whether the private hath been performed, much less to debar them upon a supposal of non-performance, or prejudge of their incapacity before hand, and so discourage from coming together, for which we have not one syllable of warrant: but I have spoken enough to this already. Remember the abuse of the Brazen Serpent. He saith, The children of the legally unclean were not forbid circumcision, but the unclean man might not eat the Passeover. The unclean during his uncleanness, Answ. 1 might not circumcise his child, circumcision being instituted a token of the Covenant, which an unclean man might no more defile and make unclean, than any other religious service. And what though it were to be done the eight day, it might be rejourned for a week upon the same reason as the Passeover was for a month, and circumcision in another case for forty years: we know the rule in cases of necessity, God will rather have mercy then sacrifice. There is no legal uncleanness in the Church now, and therefore this doth not so much as reach the argument; and indeed his other two, are as little for his turn: he must find a better answer than so, or tell us where to find one, or else the argument will cleave so close that he will be forced to narrow Infant baptism unto the holy Supper, or enlarge the Supper unto Infant Baptism, or be irrational and absurd in so flat a contradiction, as hath been hinted. And to prevent some mistake, let me entreat the Reader carefully to consider, That although I have said, that more is required unto the Supper then unto Baptism. It is to be understood in the Church of persons that are Church-members by nature. But of Aliens, I conceive more is required of them unto baptism, then of Church-members unto the Supper, especially when they were members by birth privilege. The ground is this, because a public profession of faith is necessary for the admitting of a Heathen into the visible Catholic Church, by baptism. And so of his entering the Gospel Covenant for himself and seed: but to them that are in Covenant by birth, it is otherwise, their Covenant right remains until it be forfeited by renouncing the Covenant, or hating to be reform by the Churches just censures. And while they are in the Covenant, and in the Church, they may not be denied the external privileges thereof, although they be transgressors of the Covenant, etc. But to proceed, and come more close to the query in hand, namely, Whether there be any thing in the nature, end, action, language of the Sacrament, incongruous to the unregenerate in the Church receiving, in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere. To which I have in the general, shown a congruity between the Sacrament and the unregenerate in the Church; And have answered unto Mr. Collins exceptions against me. Now we come more directly to the query, and to what is excepted against us. I must confess in pag. 36. Bar removed, there is a great mistake, but who were faulty in it, I cannot well tell, the 19 line is out of place, and is to be prefixed to my three arguments, to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, pag. 40. for that which follows page 36. line 19 is to demonstrate a suitableness or congruity in the Sacrament to the unregenerate man's receiving, where the particulars of the question are examined and cleared. And hence Mr. Collins follows the mistake, and makes himself merry with those three new arguments, as he had thought they were: but he finds the first as old as Paul's steeple. And the third proves a Monkey's right to the Sacrament, in his pag. 35, 36. I confess my nature inclines me too much to give him returns suitable unto his vein of levity, Answ. but I shall rather choose to keep to the question and inform the Reader again, touching this question in hand. I laid down the nature of the Sacrament to be a visible Gospel, representing Christ and him crucified to the outward senses of the body, to that end that they might be the in lets of the soul to give the application of the benefits of Christ's death to the heart and conscience. And I thought the unregenerate in the Church have as much need of the use of all their senses to understand Christ and him crucified, and to apply the benefits that come by him, as the regenerate and more, they being more dull to understand, or to be affected with the benefits and blessings that come to sinners by virtue thereof. Unto this Mr. Collins saith, Bravely concluded! from need to right is wide concluding. I conclude from the nature of the Sacrament, Answ. 1 etc. That therefore the unregenerate in the Church have need to be allowed the use of all their senses, to let in the knowledge of Christ as the regenerate, they being more dull, etc. And hence I conceive a congruity unto such, he says, from need to right is wide concluding. The question is not to prove a right, but a congruity, or rather to free the unregenerate from the charge of incongruity, etc. unto which Mr. Collins excepts nothing against the nature of it. In spiritual things unto the Church, I much question whether it be wide concluding from need to right. I am sure need and wants are the only objects of Gods free bounty in giving Christ, and all he gives with him, With him the fatherless and desolate find mercy. If any want wisdom, let them ask it of God who gives freely. What though from need to right doth not always hold in the Courts of men; it's a good plea in the Court of free grace, and well taken when sinners come off, in the use of Gods own appointments, for the obtaining of a blessing of supply unto their necessities. In the next place, we are to examine what Mr. Collins excepts against the end of the Sacrament, as I have expressed myself, pag. 37. The Bar removed, as touching the query in hand, The end of the Sacrament is to put the Church in mind of the death of Christ, and that satisfaction made by him, by which all the saving blessings of the Covenant are procured unto 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 ages thereof; is the end of his death, Joh. 11.52. And the Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of this, by all in the Church that profess they hope to be saved by the merits of his death; which the unregenrate does whom we cannot exclude from being the sheep Christ died for; and therefore it's as proper and congruous for such to be put in mind of the death of Christ, by the Sacrament, for their spiritual good as others, regenerating grace being a blessing of the Covenant procured by the death of Christ, as well as salvation is. Unto this Mr. Collins answers somewhat feebly, 1. Restraining the benefits that come by the death of Christ, unto those only that have a lively hope, purifying themselves, as God is pure, etc. 2. He queries, How if such be ignorant of what Christ is, and did; how can such do it in remembrance of him? 3. Or how if by bloody Oaths and blasphemies profane his blood. How can they do it in a practical remembrance of him? That the unregenerate as such, Answ. have not a lively hope, etc. I grant, but that they have a warrantable hope, as professing the true Christian Religion, relying upon the mercy of God through the merits of Christ's death, Christ being the right object of all hope; which is a good encouragement for such to use the means in hope of a blessing; forasmuch as not any man in special can exempt himself from the saving benefits of his death, whom they by the outward signs are put in mind of, every Sacrament. As before he would not have them objects of the promises of first grace, because they have not faith to apply the promises, etc. So now he will have none to have any ground of hope to receive the saving benefits that are procured for sinners by the death of Christ, (which Sacraments represent) but those in the Church, that have a lively hope. Doth Mr. Collins think, thas a man may have faith to apply the promise before he hath grace? Or doth he think those promises have no object? Or that any shall have grace to whom it is not promised in the Church? So likewise, if none but those that have a lively hope can receive benefit by the death of Christ; than it will follow, 1. That the first regenerating grace is not a benefit that flows from the death of Christ, except a man can have this lively hope before he be regenerate. 2. That regeneration, as it is a benefit of the death of Christ, belongs to none but regenerate persons that have a lively hope; and then we shall exclude the unregenerate from all benefit or hope by Christ; unless they can convert themselves; which they cannot; and so exclude them from the day of grace and mercy, and make them aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the Covenant of promise, and without hope and God in the world; equal with the Pagan world; which upon gross mistake he hath done all along in this present Controversy. But I hope enough hath been spoke to satisfy my Reader, as to that particular. And therefore the unregenerate being so much concerned in the benefits of the death of Christ, which Sacraments are remembrancers of, it's very meet and suitable they should partake of the signs, that are so much concerned in the thing represented and exhibited thereby. Unto his second I If they be so ignorant, Answ. they ought to be instructed better, which hath been spoken to already. Hardly can any be excepted against for ignorance that are intelligent, if a Minister will do his duty to instruct them in a plain familiar way. And for such as are scandalous, they should be dealt withal in a regular way, for their amendment, that their actual miscarriages indulged do not leaven the whole, and hinder the blessing of every Ordinance from themselves. And although a practical remembrance may be desired of all; yet in the visible Church we shall always meet with many lose carnal wretched sinners, that will offend scandalously, and so abuse the grace of Gospel Ordinances to their utter ruin, if the Lord prevent it not by giving them his grace to repent. The Sacrament is a means to engage unto amendment, as proper as any other Ordinance, until they be Juridically cast out. Nothing else can disoblige them from duties of public worship, as the Sacrament is. I confess it is a sad and a lamentable condition, that such wretched miserable persons are in, that woefully abuse the Grace of the Gospel, and make such desperate returns for such exceeding rich grace and mercy, abusing the patience and long-suffering of God which should lead to repentance. How dare any profane persons bear up themselves upon the name of the Lord, and hope they shall be saved by Jesus Christ, and yet live in licentious courses, and hate instruction, and will not have Christ to rule over them by his Word and Sceptre! Why, consider this, yea that forget God, lest he tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver; do not flatter yourselves the more because you are in the visible Church; for so long as you are but chaff and tares, you are liable every moment to be plucked up and burnt in unquenchable flames. What though thou mayst escape the censures of the Church; be sure thou shall not escape the judgement of God, if thou continuest thy rebellion against him. It may be thou art spared for the sake of some precious wheat of God's Elect, whom he will cause to spring out of thy roots, though a wicked tore thy self, and thy ancestors before thee. Remember Judas that desperate Traitor, and son of perdition that was false to the Lord Jesus: his false heart and unworthy actions to his Lord whom he religiously professed, made him swell until he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out. If thou wilt swear, blaspheme, be drunk, and scoff at godliness, and live an idle filthy voluptuous life, and yet hope to be saved by Christ, and professest thyself a Christian; it may be thou hadst as good have been that Judas, as such a wretch as thou art, adding obstinacy unto thy former rebellion, until the wrath of the Lord and his jealousy smoke against thee, bringing all the plagues written in his Book upon thee, and blot out thy name from under heaven. Either do what in thee lies to walk up to thy profession of the true Religion that Sacraments oblige thee unto; or else be sure thy profession will rather aggravate thy abominable do, and sink thee deeper in the bottomless pit, then be any plea for thee at the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ: for he will say unto all such false hearted profane Christians at the last, Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, etc. In the next place we come to the Sacramental Actions, he says, I have argued learnedly, when I say the unregenerate have a hand to take, and a mouth to eat, which the reverend Doctor denied, because they have not faith, etc. I desired him to prove that faith was that hand, but Mr. Collins hath prevented him, and given his proof of it in John 6.54, 53, 56. compared with vers. 40.35, 50. Ephes. 4.17. Joh. 3.36. The 6. of John doth prove, Answ. that a sincere saving faith in the person of Christ is of absolute necessity unto salvation. Christ is the bread of life, which came down from heaven to give life unto the dead world: he that believes in him shall never hunger and thirst more, but shall have everlasting life, and be raised up at the last day. And the very humane body of Christ, as consisting of flesh and blood, without which he could not have been made a perfect Sacrifice for sin, nor satisfied the justice of God for mankind that had sinned; was this bread of God, which whosoever believed not, hath no part in. But what is this to prove that faith is the only hand to receive the outward signs of the body and blood of our Lord? Doth it follow that the same faith is as necessary to receive an outward sign, as the benefits that come by Christ unto salvation? This chapter proves no such thing, it having no reference at all to the Sacrament of the holy Supper: for these words were spoken long before the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted and ordained. I hope the real flesh and blood of Christ's humane body is not to be received under the forms of bread and wine; nor indeed at all, for it's the Spirit of Christ that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing The words of Christ unto his, they are Spirit, and life. I am sorry the Papists should see our Divines applying this 6. of John to the Sacrament. I say still as before, that taking and eating are bodily actions, and to be understood according to the rules of institution, which the unregenerate Christians are capable to do, and act as well as any. And it remains still to prove, by Mr. Collins favour, that take and eat, etc. is meant of faith to be the hand and mouth to take and eat with; his quotations are drawn too much awry to speak his opinion. I must demand further proof, or else he will not clear the thing I am sure. I grant that unto actual receiving of the signs, there should be in every one both a knowing and a believing that Christ's blood were shed for many, for remission of sins, and that themselves take and eat the outward elements of bread and wine in that remembrance, in hope that they are of that unmber which Christ laid down his life for. I grant it necessary, that every one that comes to the Lords Table, come in the warranty of faith, and to be fully persuaded of the lawfulness of their own receiving, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And hence all the Church as professing themselves Christ's subjects, must plead for their warranty Christ's command, Do this in remembrance of him. I grant it good and lawful for them that truly can, in the act of receiving, to exercise an act of faith in appropriating and applying the true, real, spiritual bread of life, Jesus Christ, himself, with all the saving benefits of his death unto their souls; but yet I deny that this is of necessity required of all that come thither to serve Christ in his own Ordinance. I grant that the outward signs are holy in a relative sense, as respecting their end, and so are objects of faith, and of the mind: but as they are signs simply and elementary, they are only objects of the outward senses, and not of faith properly. I grant that the Sacraments are of fingular use, for the increase and growth in grace of the most eminent Christians in the Church; and yet have their special use for the weakest babes in the Church, for knowledge and Christian obedience, even the worst of members (as it is God's Ordinance) may receive good by it where God is pleased to give his blessing, as in all his other Ordinances set up in his Church for the spiritual good thereof. Mr. Collins had thought the taking, eating, and drinking the outward signs must be spiritual by faith, he says. I think there is but few of his mind in Answ. this: for certainly nothing more clear the● that to take, eat and drink of the signs i● natural and bodily, which is necessary to be done, by every one from the words of institution. And as they are elements or creature fit to eat and drink, they are properly objects of the outward senses, and not of faith, as I said before, which natural actions are appointted unto a spiritual end, which end requires the exercise of the mind, memory, heart and conscience, faith in Christ being supposed in all that are baptised and admitted thither, I mean a profession of faith 〈◊〉 be saved by Jesus Christ at least. And ho● Mr. Collins can prove, that all the actions about giving and receiving must be spiritual by faith I know not, unless he can tell how to make a Sacrament of every action abo●● the Sacramental administration; the which to do will find him some work. Let hi● prove, that take, and eat, is a sign of our spiritual taking and eating by faith, which is more easy to be proved then the other, that to take and eat must be spiritual by faith: for then all natural actions are needless, if faith be all that is meant. And if those actions be significant, and instruct the receiver to receive Christ by a particular applicatory act of faith, I hope the unregenerate have as much need to be taught and encouraged unto this by the Sacrament as any. I know n●● incongruity in this. I said in my Book, pag. 38, 39 The language of the Sacrament was in general and indefinite terms. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, shed for many for remission of sins, etc. Mr. Collins asks, who those many are? and answers himself, and saith, disciples of Christ. It's true, Answ. 1 Christ's Disciples are of those many Christ shed his blood for. And what doth Mr. Collins conceive of Church-members baptised, and not excommunicate? Are not they Christ's disciples? if not, let him prove them Infidels if he can. When the Lord Jesus said he shed his blood for many, he means not only his disciples in present being, that are called and sanctified, but the whole number of his elect in all ages and places of the world, for remission of sins, and the Sacramental cup, is a token and seal thereof, to be received at all times by the Church in that remembrance. And I doubt not but Christ has a great number of his Elect always of the unregenerate in the Church. What incongruity in all this? Besides, some other things, I said, It sounds very harsh in the Church, to exclude this Ordinance of Christ from being a means of converting the unregenerate in the Church, they being the most proper objects of converting grace, as held out in in the promises, for the putting of which into execution, all the Ordinances in the Church seem to be subservient. And I verily believe, this Ordinance of the holy Supper, had never been denied to convert in the Church, had not Divines run themselves upon such great mistake about habitual unworthiness from 1 Cor. 11. That very mistake hath occasioned this: for if the unregenerate eat and drink unworthily as the Corinth's did, and were punished for, of necessity than it were rational to deny it a converting Ordinance: for as the Reverend Doctor argues rationally from that, thus, Natural men are guilty of the blood of Christ, and ea● and drink judgement to themselves, and shall we think, that that sinful act in unworthy receiving shall be so blest of God, as to become a means of conversion to them, etc. This must needs be a consequence of the other mistake, That being removed, men will easily yield the other. Mr. Collins tells us of twenty arguments of Mr. Gillespy, that it is not for conversion, the which he says, I have not yet answered. I must confess it; neither do I know what they are, for I have not his Book. My friend Mr. Humphrey hath promised to answer those arguments: Which I believe will be easy enough to do, unless they be stronger than the strongest of Mr. Collins in his answer to Mr. Barsdale, upon the same argument, pag. 14. the latter end of his Book, the which argument of his I shall examine anon. Let us first see what he hath excepted against mine. Which I think are so much for the probability of the affirmative, that the negative must remain doubtful, unto the impartial intelligent Reader. That one special end of the work of the Ministry in general, is for conversion of the unregenerate in the Church, will hardly be denied. But to the administration of the Sacrament the main essentials of that work of the Ministry in the Church are of necessity, as Word, and Prayer, and breaking of Bread, Act. 2.42. Therefore one special end of the Sacrament, as it is an essential part of that work, is for the converting the unregenerate in the Church. The major proposition is bottomed from Ephes. 4.8, 10, 11, 12, 13 verses. Christ ascended far above the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the gathering of Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come into the union of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man; unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. 1. Here it is plain that God hath ordained the work of the Ministry in the hands of Pastors and Teachers in the Church, to edify the body of Christ, until the whole number of his elect be united to him, and made complete, etc. And we know there is always in the Church, objects of conversion as well as of the promises, to which the work of the Ministry is intended to unite them unto Christ, etc. And this is to be done by the work of the Ministry in general, without any distinction of parts, the whole work together without exception of any part, is for conversion in the Church, as is clear from this place. Now unless Mr. Collins, or any other what ever, can give us some clear Scripture to exclude a part of this work from that end of conversion, they must allow this end of conversion to the work of the Ministry in general, but as that was never performed as yet, so I think never will by any: only men take the boldness to separate that which the holy Ghost doth join together, upon mere mistake about unworthy receiving. And it is a rule that Mr. Collins doth justify from Matth. 7.6. Where the Scriptures d● not distinguish, we must not distinguish. If a principal end of the work of the Ministry in the Church be intended for conversion in general, than the particular parts of that work; for the particulars are included in the general. And the most comprehensive sense i● to be taken of all Scripture-expressions, unless some other Scriptures put some limitations of that sense; and when any man ca● show me a Scripture that excludes the administration of the Sacrament, from this principal end of conversion in the Church, I will have done with this Argument. And until then, the Argument is of more force than all the authority of men (merely) can in the least overthrow. We should distinguish of preaching the Gospel unto Pagans, that are aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel; and of the work of the Ministry consisting of the whole administration of the Gospel, intended only for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ: unto Infidels the preaching of the Gospel is appointed the ordinary way and means to convert them unto the faith, and bring them into the Church; but those that are in the Church as they are objects of the promises, and under the obligation of all observances, which Infidels are not, so they are under greater advantages of converting them unto sincerity of faith, and the power of godliness by the work of the Ministry in general, of which Infidels are allowed but a part. The minor proposition is evident, that to the administration of the Sacrament, it's necessary that the main essentials of the work of the Ministry in the Church be performed, as publishing not only the Word of institution, but the History of Christ's death and passion, with exhortations suitable to the Ordinance in hand, according to the practice and custom of our own Church, with solemn prayers and praises considerably meet for so weighty an Ordinance; unto which are adjoined instituted signs to be given and taken in remembrance of the death of Christ; all which concurring together in the act of administration, doth comprise upon the matter the main essentials of public worship, wherein the work of the Ministry doth chief consist; so that I cannot conceive how the premises can be denied by any: therefore the conclusion doth necessarily follow, That the Sacrament, as it is an essential part of the work of the Ministry, is for conversion in the Church. But Mr. Collins saith, This argument is worth nothing. But why did he not show the weakness of it then, his bare say so is no answer. But he says, Let it be proved that therefore Christ hath appointed it for conversion; if it were, doubtless the excommunicate should not be debarred. I have made good the premises, Answ. 1 the conclusion needs no proof. If the same instruments of the Spirit unto conversion be in the administration of the Sacrament, as at the other parts of the Ministerial work in the Church, than we must allow the fame effect to the one as to the other, both being the Ordinance of God, and performed by persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry. But in the administration of the Sacrament, are the same instruments of the Spirit, unto conversion, as Word, Prayer, etc. Therefore the Sacrament is appointed for conversion in the Church. Whereas he says, Then doubtless the excommunicate should not be debarred, it is no consequence, because converting of sinners, is not all the ground why God commands his Church to observe all things of his prescribing, but his own glory, in commanding what he will, because he will: Besides, 2. Bar removed, pag. 70, 71, 72, 73. The excommunicate should be put out of all Church Communion in all other parts of public worship, as well as from the Sacrament, as I have made it out in my answer unto Doctor Drake, which is not yet answered by any. 3. This implies that the unregenerate are not to do any thing by way of duty, but what is for conversion, not be diligent in their callings, show mercy, and do justly, etc. because these duties are not appointed to convert them. Next, all men confess that the Word and Prayer, as they are public Ordinances of God, are for conversion in the Church. But without the Word and Prayer sanctifying, and setting apart the elements of Bread and Wine, there can be no Sacrament. Therefore the Sacrament, as consisting in Word and Prayer, is converting. This Mr. Collins terms, A threadbare argument that hath a great hole in it. For though the Word and Prayer are means of conversion, and they do constantly attend the Sacrament, yet it doth not follow, that the Sacrament quà Sacrament is so; nor is there any need for conversion, that the unregenerate should be at it, for they may hear, and pray, and not receive. Why did not Mr. Collins really discover a hole in the argument by some solid answer, but fancy a hole before it be made: he confesses the Word and Prayer are means of conversion, and so grants my major: and upon the matter grants my minor, by saying, that Word and Prayer do constantly attend the Sacrament, but yet he is not willing to yield the conclusion; which is not very rational, I concluding no more than what he grants in the propositions. But he saith, It will not follow, that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is converting; either he must mean, that the giving and receiving without word and Prayer, is the Sacrament, quà a Sacrament, or that giving and receiving the signs, in relation to Word & Prayer conjoined, is the Sacrament, quà a Sacrament. If he means the former, let him prove that giving and receiving the signs of Bread and Wine without Word and Prayer is the Sacrament. If the latter, then in his granting the premises he yields the conclusion, and thus you may quickly see what a great hole the hath made in this argument. But then he saith, Nor is there any need for conversion, that the unregenerate should be at it, for they may pray, and hear, and not receive. No! Answ. is there no great need of converting the unregenerate? I had thought they have great need to take the advantage of every Ordinance in the Church, appointed for their spiritual good, and in order to conversion. And have not they as much need to enjoy the benefit of instituted signs, conjoined to the Word and Prayer, to represent the death and passion of Jesus Christ unto the outward senses, which are the inlets to the understanding, heart and conscience, as any others? But then he says, They may hear, and pray, and not receive. It's true, (so may any other) doth it therefore follow, that none may receive? or that hearing and praying in order to receiving, is sufficient without taking, and eating and drinking the institute signs in remembrance of the death of Christ? Or would he have them to hear and pray, in order to receiving, and then turn their backs upon God's holy Ordinance, after they have prayed unto God for his blessing upon it? The Reverend Doctor said, That presence might answer this end, unto which I answered, If bare presence, much more actual receiving. But now Mr. Collins says, That they cannot promise them, that their presence will do them good, but they are sure, he saith, their receiving will not. And hence concludes my consequence is naught. Who can promise beforehand, that any other Ordinance in the Church shall do the unregenerate good by their presence at the time, shall they not therefore give their presence? It's the language of Scripture, that all in the Church are to keep God's statutes and judgements for their good. But he is sure their receiving will do them no good. I wonder how he dare limit the holy One, and detract so injuriously from the wisdom, power, and grace of Christ in his own appointments. He hath confessed before, that the Sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the visible Church of Christ in general, and that this Church consists of good and bad; and now he says the Sacrament will do the unregenerate no good. Doth he think the unregenerate are not of the visible Church, that Sacraments were instituted for the good thereof? The judicious Reader may easily discern how consonant he is to his own judgement, in more things than this. But this antecedent of his, That he is sure their receiving will do them no good, is sufficient to publish to the world, that my consequence is naught, etc. in answer to the Doctor. But why doth Mr. Collins give us his argument for the negative? He turns me over to Mr. Gillespy, that hath twenty arguments. I suppose himself may use some of them in his answer to Mr. Barkesdales' 9 argument, wherein he seems to make a show of silenceing all men, that hold the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, pag. 14. And because the argument which he answers unto, is the same with mine, I shall crave leave of Mr. Barksdale, to examine in brief the strength of his, because he thinks he hath done enough at once to show thevanity of our opinion. 1. He argues from the absurdities that will follow: Then it is as proper to go to the Heathen and call them to a Sacrament, in order to their conversion, as to preach the Gospel unto them. It concerns Mr. Collins to prove that every Ordinance in the Church instituted for the good thereof, Answ. 1 doth belong unto Heathen and such, and may be used for their good. Let him prove that the unbaptized Heathen are as much in Covenant relation, and under the obligation of all Christian observance, as the unregenerate Christian. Let him prove that whatsoever is for conversion in the Church, is for the good of Heathens as well as preaching the Gospel. The exercise of discipline is for converting an offending brother, doth it follow that Church discipline is to convert Heathens, to whom it never was intended or appointed? Besides, we know the unbaptized is not to eat thereof; were there the like ground to the unregenerate Christian, I should be satisfied. Thus you may see even in the very thing wherein he would charge absurdity upon us, it will return upon himself, by putting no difference between the Church of Christ, and the Infidel world. He says, If the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance, there can be no personal unworthiness sufficient to debar any from it, then come Turks, Indians, Papists, excommunicate persons, etc. This is but the same again in other words, Answ. which I have answered again and again all along: here is a plain levelling the Church with the world again, as if the same personal unworthiness were in the Church as is in the world; doth it follow that because no personal unworthiness in the Church is sufficient to debar any from the Sacrament, but only actual, persisted in unto excommunication, that therefore there is no personal unworthiness in the unclean Pagan world, that lies in unbelief? They must first receive the Doctrine of the Gospel, before they can be brought into the Church where the Sacraments are to be administered. And as for those that are in Covenant-relation, and in possession of Church-membership, it's true, personal unworthiness can be no bar, because in a relative sense, there is no such thing in the Church: but I have said enough to this already. He saith, If it be a converting Ordinance, he can see no reason why the Communicant should be bound to examine himself, and so eat, or whether he hath skill to discern the Lords body. The Word and Prayer are converting Ordinances, Answ. and yet he may see reason enough to urge upon such, preparation, and caution, prerequisite and concomitant in those duties of hearing and praying, (if he examine the Scriptures) in order to a blessing; the same may be said of the Sacrament, if Mr. Collins be not too perverse. But then he comes to speak distinctly to the argument. He distinguisheth between converting by accident, or by institution designed unto that end, in an Ordinancel; hearing of the Word is such, faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Hear and your soul shall live, let any show us a Scripture speaking to this purpose concerning the Lord's Supper. 'Tis true, faith comes by hearing, Answ. and hearing by the Word of God. But doth it follow that all other Ordinances are excluded from being a means of working sincere faith in the Church, when they are joined with the Word in the work of the Ministry, as hath been said already? That of Rom. 10. proves, that it is not possible that any should call upon the name of the Lord in whom they have not believed. And how should they believe in him, of whom they have not (so much as) heard of? And how shall they hear without a Preacher, etc. which is spoken to the case of Heathens that never heard of Christ. Such must of necessity hear Christ, before they can believe in him. And this faith comes by hearing, and this hearing by the Word of God, by a Preacher sent. This was the ordinary means of bringing persons into the Church, that were Pagans born; and then being within, they had the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church, for their edification and salvation. What then, will it follow hence, that persons born in the Church, that draw in the knowledge of Christ by education and tradition in their youth, cannot believe or have faith in any other way but by hearing only? The promise is, that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved, in opposition to those that never heard of his Name. Salvation is of the Christian Church, as once of the Jews, unto which promise of Salvation all the Ordinances set up in the Church are subservient. The work of the Ministry was to be carried on by the Pastors and Teachers fixed unto their several flocks in the Church, which they are constantly to attend upon for the spiritual good thereof; as they which must give an account thereof unto their Lord; and it concerns them faithfully to carry on the whole work of their Ministry accordingly towards their whole flock, and not to make Heathens of them, & then content themselves only with preaching unto them on the Lord's day, and the work is done, as if there were no more care to be taken with Church-members, then with Pagans, nor no more means to be used for their spiritual good than they would use unto Heathen, whom the work of the Ministry was never intended for. And whereas Mr. Collins calls for proof, Where are the like Scriptures to prove the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, as is preaching and hearing? I answer him by distinguishing thus, hearing of faith preached was and is the ordinary means of sincere believing in the Church, of which the Sacrament is a special part. Besides, the Sacrament cannot be administered without hearing the Word of God, and prayer, with the use of other senses, as it is the visible compendium of the whole Gospel holding forth Christ crucified for remission of fins. But to speak a little unto his other quotation, Isai. 55. Hear and your souls shall live. This was spoken unto the Church he will say; I grant it was, and more than this too, as that chapter shows. That first they were invited to come unto God in whom all spiritual blessing was to be had, for the satisfying of every empty thirsty soul; and dissuaded from thinking to be satisfied elsewhere- Secondly, exhorted unto several duties. 1. To hearken diligently unto what the Lord had said unto them, and be satisfied with good. Then 2. incline your ear and come unto me, that you may be satisfied with the fatness of my house: They were to hear, and come to God too in all holy obedience; for in the Scriptures men are said not to hear, when they will not regard to do what the Lord hath commanded them, so hear that your souls may live, hear and do is the language of the holy Ghost to the Church usually. 3. Then to seek God while he will be found, and to call upon him him while he is near, seek him in all his own appointments and Ordinances, where he hath promised his presence. 4. Then is subjoined, Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, etc. Therefore you may easily conceive here is not only hear, and your soul shall live, but all other duties of worship and observance are required also in the Church, in order to a blessing of spiritual life, and there are promises of grace and mercy unto the Church in that same chapter upon their doing their duties enjoined: the which doth make good the distinction above; We know in the Church, Not the hearers of the Word, but the doers thereof shall be blesied in their deed; persons in the Church are bound to observe and do all that Christ in his Word hath commanded; upon that account they have the promise of his gracious presence; and if the Sacrament be an Ordinance of Christ for the good of his Church; why may we not expect the presence of Christ, in blessing this for the spiritual good of his Church as all the rest? Mr. Collins must give stronger reasons to deny it a converting Ordinance then these, or else he had better have said nothing: me thinks Mr. Gillespie might have furnished him with a greater strength than so. Next he saith, Either the Word alone (read at the administration) is to convert, or Word and signs making up the Sacrament; if the Word only, he thinks wicked men may stay and hear that, if we say more, we must prove it. This, Answ. as it is no argument to prove the negative, so it need not be answered: for his main thing in this, is to bid us prove that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance in the Church: the which I conceive is clearly done already. And when Mr. Collins is able to exclude the Sacrament from the work of the Ministry in the Church; and exclude Word and Prayer in order to the Sacrament from that work, (and end of converting) in the Church; and can exclude this Ordinance, from being a spiritual instrument in the hand of the Spirit of Christ to quicken whom he will, and can exclude the unregenerate from Covenant relation, and membership, and allow them no other privilege in the Church for their spiritual good, then unto Infidels, etc. I say, when he hath performed this task sound and substantially; it's possible he may make the vanity of our opinion (that are for the affirmative) to appear, and put us upon further proof: until then let the Judiclous Reader judge of the arguments between us, whether ours or his be most rational and satisfactory; as they are deducted from general rules of Scripture and reason. And by this time I have given you an account of all that Mr. Collins hath excepted against the first part of my book. I do not know of any material thing I have omitted to answer in particular: but indeed not so much for any great cause I had thus to do, in what he hath said to loosen the foundations and principles upon which my whole building stands, but from a desire further to clear up the thing in controversy, and to reduce the controversy into a narrower compass. In the close of Mr. Collins answer, he collects about seven rotten pillars, as he calls them, out of the whole of mine, and pens them down as he pleaseth, and then bids others judge of them, taking it for granted that he hath discovered them to be rotten and false, And that my Book hath not much truth in any one page of it. It's possible that there may be some things in my Book, that are doubtful, Answ. 1 and that upon the piercing trial of some grave Divines of deeper Judgements, may be discovered unsound or rendered weak; but I am confident that Mr. Collins hath made no such discovery in any one thing that he hath excepted against. I humbly conceive, that whosoever undertakes to answer the main grounds and principles I build upon for free admission to the Sacrament, they must deny our Church and Baptism, or else destroy themselves by their own inconsistences, let their parts be what they will. And I wonder that any of the Presbyterian judgement, should contend with me, for they do but discover their own nakedness, and give occasion unto Brownists and Anabaptists to reproach us; so that I profess I am afraid to speak what I should in some things. I shall give you a breviate of the principles I build upon in the managing of this in controversy. That the Eternal God hath created all mankind for himself, and hath decreed the blessed and everlasting happiness of some, with all the ways and means for that end, with his eternal purpose not to give special grace unto the rest, but in his wisdom and providence, doth so order and dispose of the means effectually, in respect of sin and the punishment thereof, to the infinite glory of his Justice, in the just condemnation of the wicked world. That for the Elects sake, Christ was promised after the fall, and came into the world, as the only means of Gods putting into execution his eternal purposes concerning their salvation, the whole creation and race of mankind is preserved successively in their generations, for the being and gathering of God's Elect unto grace and glory. That Jesus Christ is the only meriting and procuring cause of the Gospel Covenant, freely made and published unto some of mankind, of free choice. That this Covenant of grace, is of a large comprehensive extent, including the parents, and their children in their generations for ever, to them that have entered into it by profession and baptism, and do not renounce i● or apostate from it. That the Covenant of Grace consists it promises of giving the first regenerating grace. Secondly, in promises of growth in grace. Thirdly, In promises of rewarding graces with comfortable blessings temporal and spiritual in this life, and with eternal glory i● the world to come. That the Church of God on earth, is so constituted by the will and pleasure of God, that in it might always be suitable objects o● those different promises included in the Gospel Covenant, unto which the natural issue of Christians in the visible Church doth well agree. That Sacraments, as they represent the death of Christ, are seals confirming the truth of the whole Covenant of grace made and published to the visible Church only. That Sacraments are instituted and intended only for the Church's use, in order to the spiritual good thereof in general, which includes the use of every one in particular. That all in the Church come under the the obligation of all instituted worship prescribed, of which Sacraments are a principal part. That Covenant relation is either personal, or parental; the former founded upon profession of faith and holy baptism, the later derived really and wholly by succession. That a positive profession of faith explicitly is necessity unto admission unto Church-membership of those that are Heathens born, but Church-membership is the birth privilege of all born of Christian parents in the Church. That to be Saints, Believers, Disciples, a Brother, and within, is understood by Church-membership. That during the state of Church-membership, every member ought to enjoy the external privileges of that Church, whereof he is a member in particular, until he voluntarily fall away by final apostasy, or be justly cast out of all Church Communion by an authoritative act of Church censures. That those that derive their Church-membership from that great Charter of Covenant relation with the Church, and have it confirmed by the authority of the Church, baptising them as members of the visible body of Christ, cannot be legally put out of Church communion, at the pleasure of some few Elders of themselves, unless deligated so to act from a National Assembly of Presbyters. Though the right of discipline may be inherent in every lawful Presbyter, yet the exercise thereof is proper only unto those that are entrusted therewith by the representatives of the whole. Irregular actings and good ends cannot stand together; to do evil that good may come, is not only dangerous but damnable. The state of unregeneracy and personal unworthiness in the Church doth not bar any one from the Sacrament, nor doth come within the verge of the Church to judge of or correct in the least. Actual unworthiness persisted in unto obstinacy, is the only object of Church censures of persons in the Church; yet all actual unworthiness doth not necessarily run persons upon eating and drinking the Lords Supper unworthily, in the Apostles sense. There is no personal unworthiness in the Church, in a relative sense, in reference to the Sacrament, or any uther Ordinance, but the careless neglect thereof is most unworthy and punishable. Not to discern the Lords Body, is, not to put a difference between common bread and the instituted signs, set a part by Word and Prayer, to represent the death of Christ for remission of sins. Examination is a private duty to be performed between God and the conscience unto a profitable receiving, having a special eye to the rules of the whole administration, making their approaches there accordingly, externally at least. There is a real difference to be put between the unregenerate Christian, and an unregenerate Infidel, the Church and the world, believer and unbeliever; the confounding of these hath run us into Brownism of late. The whole Church is in Covenant with God, and are the immediate objects of the promises; but the world lies in wickedness, and under wrath, without the promises of the Covenant and hope and God in the world. The whole Church are under all Gospel observance; the whole work of the Ministry as the ordinary means of their conversion and salvation: The Pagan world for the most part never had the advantage of so much as any part of that work, the Gospel being hid to them that perish. Salvation is of the Christian Church, but no salvation out of it. How can they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And there is salvation in no other Name, whatsoever, save only in Jesus Christ. That the legally unclean were not so much debarred the benefit of the Passeover, as other Sacrifices or spiritual observances in that Church. That the Moral uncleanness then, was no more bar to the Passeover, then unto all other observances in the Church. Nay that was either punished by the Judges, according unto their Judicial proceed, or otherwise cleansed from it, by a continual course of Sacrifices. And therefore no bar at all against any. That no persons in the Church of the Old Testament, or in the Churches of the New, read of in Scriptures, were ever debarred the Passeover, or the Sacrament of the holy Supper, and allowed the benefit of all the other Ordinances in the Church. Hence I cannot but conceive that suspension from the Sacrament alone, usually called the minor Excommunication, is but a humane invention in the Church. More is required to the Lords Supper then to Baptism in the Church, yet less is required to the holy Supper of them that are Church-members, then of Heathens unto Baptism. We must distinguish of real and relative personal worthiness, The whole visible Church not under Church censures are personally worthy in a relative sense. And hence there is no personal unworthiness in the Church. 2. Of believing in a large sense, and of believing in a strict sense; both to be accounted true believers in Scripture sense: The denomination of a Believer is as well derived from a right object believed on, as from the right and holiness of the Subject believing. 3. Of entering into the Covenant, and of continuing in the Covenant. The former is proper for Infidels: the latter concerns the Church; for it is supposed that all in the Church have entered the Gospel Covenant. And in the Church we must distinguish of transgressing the Covenant, and renouncing the Covenant, of breaking, and renewing it; and whosoever is entered into the Covenant, comes under the whole administration thereof, and cannot be disobliged from any observance thereof, but by the binding power of the Keys of Christ's Kingdom exercised Juridically. Beloved Friends, I have now given you an account of the most of my principles that I build upon, and conclude free admission to the holy Supper from. And I judge they are such that have their rise from the holy Scriptures; or are rational deductions drawn from thence, which are not in the least loosened nor shaken by Mr. Collins, nor any other of his judgement; nor I think never will, notwithstanding his forwardness of spirit in the close of his Book, to cry up a victory, when he has not so much as routed me in any one thing in all my Book, which argues a bold conceited vapouring spirit a little too much. Therefore now in short, I shall collect some of his main strength and magisterial principles made use of to undermine the foundations of mine, either expressed or employed. He denies that Church-membership alone doth give a full right to the Sacrament, therefore superadds knowledge, faith, and the fruits of holiness to give one right: all which say I is included in Membership. And his superadding will give a Pagan right. He affirms that he looks upon all Church-members habitually worthy from their interest in Christ, until they discover the contrary by their actual offendings. Then say I, he holds, That all Infants are habitually worthy from their interest in Christ, and commonly fall away from that state of grace. He says, 'Tis not much material, whether the Corinth's were punished for habitual unworthiness or no, and yet upon the matter, that the whole he disputes against. He saith the unregenerate are personally unworthy, and therefore cannot receive. He says there is no promise belongs to the unregenerate in the Church, that have not faith to apply it; and that they are rather objects of the first grace, then of the promise of that grace; and that the Heathen are as much objects of the promises of first grace as the unregenerate part of the Church. And doubts whether any promise belong to men as unregenerate; if so, then Heathen may come to the Sacrament. He puts no difference between the unregenerate in the Church and the Pagan world, in respect of promises, titles, duties, privileges, except it be the baptising their children: he undisciples them, unduties them, uncovenants them, in reference to the holy Supper, and yet will have them Church-members, and present their children unto baptism. He says, That Sacraments are strong meat, which weak Christians are not able to digest, and that they are seals of faith only. He denies the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance, because then Heathens should come, etc. And will not have the unregenerate Christians to come under any duty, but what is converting. He affirms that in an unlearned Congregation, a single Minister may suspend from the Sacrament, he being the ruling part of the Church, etc. And yet in all other thing seem to bear himself much upon the authority of men. With such like things as these he thinks he hath loosened all that I have built upon, and hence thinks that the whole will fall; but he must take a great deal of pains more than yet he hath done, if he think to be the man that must give satisfaction in this Controversy. And I believe he must speak a great deal more than hath been spoken by any, if in the least he can make good suspension from the Sacrament, more than from any other part of holy Communion in sacred worship, I mean of Church-members of years of discretion, as the question is stated. He must not think that the authority of men will carry the thing, it being a business of this consequence, that on which the peace and settlement depends; which can never be as to our condition, so long as men make habitual worthiness in a real sense, that which alone gives one right to the Sacrament. 2. And set up the distinction of Believer and Infidel in the Church. 3. And levelly the unregenerate part of the Church with the world in respect of Covenant relation, promises of first grace, work of the Ministry, feals of the Covenant, etc. Such like interferings in a visible Church doth destroy it, and pluck up the very foundation on which the Church of England stands. My constant prayer to the Lord is, and shall be, that he will so favour us with the blessings of his people, as to give us Magistrates and Ministers, that may be tender in protecting and defending the Vine which himself hath planted. And it's pity that Mr. Collins and divers others of his judgement should not see where truth and the Church's peace lies. I have done with him, as to what he hath excepted against my Book in particular; I shall very briefly examine his strength for Suspension from the Lords Supper. FINIS. I shall in the next place annex a short Answer to, or an Examination of Mr. Collins Quotations and Arguments for that which he calls A Juridical Suspension from the Lords Supper, the main Subject of his late Book. BEloved Friends, I am sorry that our Author should take such a deal of pains, to make good that thing that hath, and doth so much trouble and hinder the edification and peace of the Church; and hath been the occasion of the extirpation of the Church's Discipline; and the main impediment of an establishment of Discipline at the present. And how impossible it is, that the Church of England should be preserved and secured in a Church state, from the common reproaches of adversaries upon his principles, let them that are sober judge; when himself is equalling the most of her members to the Infidel world, disobliging them from duties of instituted worship and observance, under this pretence, that they are unbelievers, and no disciples, nor brethren that are within; and hence he will allow them just as much privilege in the Church, as he doth unto Pagans; except baptising their Infants, which he will hardly do upon their own parents faith, but upon their remote predecessors. And thus he makes a great stir about suspension from the Sacrament; and by this groundless censure, doth hinder or make invalid other necessary commands of Jesus Christ, to the great prejudice of the Church of Christ; As namely, the benefit of God's Ordinance of Sacrament, and just excommunications according to the practice of Apostolical Churches, when this suspension was not known nor heard of. And therefore I having spoke so much already in defence of this privilege and and right of a Church-member, and that being already engaged in this Controversy, give me leave further to answer to what I can find urged against the friends of my judgement that hath not as yet been spoken unto, as may satisfy the plain minded Christian, that is not able to unravel so many subtle needless syllogisms, that Mr. Collins abounds with in his elaborate Book. But I intent brevity; And therefore expect not my answer unto every thing, but to his main grounds he hath laid for suspension. In stating of the question Mr. Collins says; 1. As to suspending of some persons from the Supper; he means no more than a denial of that Ordinance from some, pag. 1. 2. He distinguisheth of Suspension, To be either Juridical, or Pastoral, Positive, or Primitive. 3. Of a Presbytered Church he saith, They finding some of their members grossly ignorant or seandalous, not excommunicated in the Name of the Lord Jesus, are to warn them to forbear coming to the Lords Table for a time, and if they press in to deny it them, declaring the Church hath no Communion with them, pag. 3. I shall speak unto that suspension he calls Juridical and Positive only; Answ. 1 for if I can break him in the proof of that, his other will appear to be a dream. But to the question, 1. He saith, They mean no more by suspension then a denial of that Ordinance of the Supper from them, for a time. Then 2. In case they will come, to deny it them, declaring the Church hath no communion with them. Here you may take notice, how clear Mr. Collins is in stating the question. 1. He makes suspension no more but a denial of the Sacrament from some for a time. And then secondly the Church declares they have no Communion with them: so that he in stating the question lays foundation for a Suspension, and Excommunication both: For if excommunidation consists not in putting out of all Church Communion, I know not what it is. He so confounds these, that I know not how to take him. And therefore I must query him a little further about the question stated. I query whether a Minister with his Parochial Lay Elders be a Presbytery that can saspend their members Juridically. I judge this but the same with a Pastor denying the Sacrament at his private will and pleasure. Such Elders have no more to do with the exercise of discipline then with the administrations of all public worship. They have not so much as a name, nor the lineaments of an Office known in Scripture. And it is a business of the like difficulty to prove lay rulere in the Church, distinct from Ministerial rulers, as to prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament only distinct from Excommunication. I query whether in suspending of members from the Sacrament, their proceed be according to that known rule, Matth. 18.15, 16, 17, etc. and how they can apply that rule unto the ignorant, that are not scandalous, they may do well to tell us. I query what difference they make between a Juridical suspended member, and those that keep away out of carelessness or dislike of their proceeding in order unto receiving. I query again in what relation doth a suspended member stand in reference unto holy Communion in the other parts of God's worship. Has he a Communion with you as a Church-member, upon the account of his duty and Church privilege, or as you will allow the presence of a Heathen in order to conversion? If you say, but as a Heathen, whom you will allow the benefit of converting Ordinances in the Church; then your suspension is the same with excommunication; for you allow an excommunicate person as much benefit of converting Ordinances as a Heathen. And if you say, hearing and praying, etc. You allow as a members duty and privilege, then in those acts of worship you hold communion with them as members of the same body with you, then how is it that you declare unto such in the name of Christ, and the Church, that you have no communion with them, as Mr. Collins hath stated it? If in the third place you say, The Church declares she will have no Communion with such in the Sacrament as a member only; limiting her none Communion to that, and from no other holy Communion in worship as a member, than you will make a disagreement in acts of worship, which are all acts of holy Communion, and make a ren● in that which is uniform in itself; by God● appointment all acts of worship being of Gods own prescribing, and are incumbent unto all that are in Covenant relation with him, as all Church-members are until they be legally dismembered, conditionally; the Church's censures binding persons under wrath, until they penitently return unto Christian obedience. If Church-membership be not a sufficient title to claim the benefit of a Sacrament, as I have stated it, cleared and proved it, we should rather begin the reforming of our Church at membership (if we can tell how) then at the Sacrament, the Sacrament being the undoubted right of every Church-member. If suspension put persons out of all Church Communion in acts of holy worship, than they are considered as in the state of Heathens, which is all one with excommunication. And therefore Mr. Collins hath taken a great deal of pains to prove I know not what, unless it be excommunication under the name of Juridical suspension, and then what will become of suspension? it will fall of its own accord without any further disputing. Doubtless if there be such a Church censure as suspension, distinct from excommunication, than we should find something of it in the Scriptures: And in what cases it should be exercised; if it be a lesser censure, then in reason we should have some hints from Scriptures, for what sins, or for what want of qualifications prerequisite unto the Sacrament more than any other Ordinance of Worship. Now Mr. Collins saith, If he can but prove it in any case how ignorant, heretical or scandalous soever, etc. pag. 4. Mr. Botemans challenge will be answered. True, but that still remains to do; and if Mr. Collins fail in the stating of the question, it's ten to one he is at as great a loss in his proof. Therefore I will suppose, that that suspension which Mr. boatman would have proved, is this, that a Minister with his two Elders have power, in the Name of Christ to deny the Sacrament to those that are Church-members and in possession of the Sacrament, and allow them the privilege of all the other Ordinances of Worship and Communion in the Church, as members of the same Church. And I believe Mr. boatman and I shall never see nor hear that suspension proved by any whatever, from the Scriptures. And I think that the thing he endeavours to prove: either he means this, or else the same with excommunication, if he will allow them no other Communion with the Church then unto Heathens. Now I come to examine his proof: and his principal examination is this. To those whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given, it may lawfully be denied. But there be some baptised persons in the Church, to whom it may not lawfully be given. Ergo, His Major is granted, Answ. let us see how he can prove his Minor; Namely, that there are or may be some baptised persons not excommunicate to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given. His first proof of this is Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, neither cast you your pearls before Swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. He is a great deal more large upon this proof, than he is profitable or pertinent to the business: I shall endtvour first to give the sense; and then to examine the main of his, for he is too large for me to transcribe. I conceive then, That this Text of our blessed Saviour is chief spoken by way of counsel and caution unto his Disciples and followers in general, respecting all that were then present hearers of him at his Sermon upon the Mount, that gave credit unto his Doctrine, and acknowledged his Person: and whereas he would not have them give that which is holy to the dogs, he means private reproofs and admonitions; because those were perilous times in regard of the cruel carping In fidel Pharisees and Jews, that were such deadly enemies unto him, and unto all that should speak on his behalf: therefore in reference to the safety of their persons, he warrants their silence, rather than to put their persons upon such imminent danger of being rend by that untoward generation of malicious enemies of Christ; and especially, Christ knowing that they were given up to a spirit of blindness and hardness of heart, that they should not repent; and therefore whatever Pearls of Divine Truth were cast unto them for their good, were to no purpose, they would but slight and scorn them, and trample them under their feet; so that the reason is double, why he warrants their filence to such dogs; not only the safety of their persons, but the unprofitableness of their reproofs and holy admonitions; they will but trample them under feet, etc. Good reason had our blessed Saviour thus to caution his Disciples; for, if I mistake not, Christ himself not long before was led by such kind of wretched people, unto the brow of a hill, thinking to have thrown him down headlong; but by a divine power escaped through the midst of them. If you compare Matth. 4. with Luke 4. 'tis probable that it was before this Sermon. 1. That it was meant of private admonition or reproof, is clear, because it was before the twelve were so much as all called, much less sent publicly to preach. 2. It cannot be meant of public Ordinances in the Church of Christ, because then the old administrations were in form, which all were enjoined to observe; And the new administrations were not then in being. 3. It could not be meant of the Lords Supper, because it was not instituted then, nor of two or three years after; therefore those whom he preached unto, and meant by the word yea, could not be in a capacity to give that holy thing at all. 4. By Dogs and Swine cannot be meant Disciples, and those that were followers and adherers unto Christ, for to them is this counsel and moderate merciful caution given. I do not deny, but this place is appliable unto all times in the Church upon the same or like reason and occasion, but I think this place is nothing at all to the Controversy in hand, for I know of none that will plead for the admission of such that will rend you for giving them the holy Supper. And as that is no reason why they should deny it to ours, so not the sense of the place, as by dogs were not meant professors and followers of Christ then, so not now; but by dogs must needs be understood cruel persecutors of Christ & the truth of precious doctrine that he taught, and was believed by many. And therefore when he first sent forth his Disciples to preach the Kingdom of heaven only to the Jews, Christ gives them the like counsel, Behold, Matth. 10. I send you as Sheep among Wolves, be ye therefore wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves. And when they persecute you in one City, flee to another. And shake the dust off your feet against those that will not receive you: but are ready rather to rend you. You see our blessed Saviour compares the unbelieving Jews, Scribes and Pharisees, and Priests unto Wolves, which are a kind of wild dogs: the which strengthens the sense I have given. Tell me where the Prophets or Apostles are forbid to warn, reprove, admonish the Church (though never so corrupt) in their public dispensations, or forbidden to administer the holy Sacraments unto them; from the like reasons as in the Text. The Prophets were to give warning, and tell the people of their sins, and of God's judgements for their sins, the Pastors and Elders of their several flocks are to feed the flock of God, and to teach them all observances prescribed by their Lord. And see that their people know, observe, and do all things that Christ commands, ruling over them as the heritage of their Lord, and not as if they were of Belial, Dogs and Swine, whom they may shut out of doors, and starve them at their pleasure. Having given this sense, which I doubt not but is nearer the mark, and less liable unto exceptions then Mr. Collins his sense will appear to be. And is appliable to men of reprovable spirits now, and in the Church too unto private Christians, that upon their necessary journey, or otherwise may possibly meet with such that will not bear reproofs, be it performed with never such wisdom, but will either fly in the face, or reproach and scorn their reprover. In such like cases, Christ doth warrant his people's silence. Indeed Mr. Beteman hath done well upon this text; and although it were not very civil for Mr. Collins to print his brother's Sermon without his consent, and that at second hand too, himself not hearing it at all. Yet I doubt not but his printing of that Sermon hath done much in taking off, what he so freely asperses and reproacheth him with, in his long narrative preface. But in such cases as before the Church, (were she in a capacity) might use her power to reform such railing dogged offenders. Mr. Collins queries 1. What is meant by that which is holy, which was forbid to be given. 2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here spoken of. 3. To whom this precept is directed. His answer to the first is, That all holy things and pearls are here forbidden, etc. which the Scripture doth not elsewhere plainly allow to be given unto Dogs and Swine. Secondly, He says he hopes it will easily be granted to concern such holy things as God hath betrusted us Ministers to give out: His reason is, For is is to men Christ spakes. How can Mr. Collins be assured, Answ. 1 that all holy things are here meant, when Christ saith only to private men that he preached unto; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs? Were private hearers in a capacity to give all holy things? This interpretation will please some men in these exorbitant times, that put no difference between persons in the Office and Function of the Ministry, and private gifted men. Private reproofs, instructions, admonitions, is that which is holy, and answers the Word, for Christ doth not say, give not all holy things (speaking in the plural number) as Mr. Collins doth; nor doth he say, give not that which shall be holy hereafter unto the dogs, within my Church, as Mr. Collins would have it, but he saith, Give not that which is holy, etc. speaking in the present tense; and then judge whether the holy Supper be here meant, that was not yet instituted, nor prophesied of. Nay, see how our Author is intoxicated with his own fancy, that he fetches first such a compass to include it in; and then so narrows the text again, that he excludes all other holy things out of it, and will allow no other thing to be meant but the holy Supper only, which is not to be given unto dogs, saith he; this is a fine fetch to prove suspension indeed, if it would hold, 'tis certain the Sacrament was not spoken of in this text at all. Whereas he saith, He hopes it will be granted him, that the text concerns all such holy things as are betrusted unto Ministers by God himself; for it is men that Christ speaks unto. See his reason, Answ. we must grant him that the text concerns all holy things which Ministers are entrusted with to dispense, because they were men that Christ spoke to, as if all men were entrusted with public Ordinances. And he cannot prove that any of his hearers were in Office to dispense holy things; if he could he would have said Ministers for men, but I shall proceed and come to his second query, What is meant by Dogs and Swine. His answer to this is something large, in giving the opinion of the learned; but I shall not meddle with his authorities; but to what himself saith in his 15, 16. pages, wherein he shows, that the Scriptures call some men dogs in several respects; but I shall only examine those which concern the argument in hand, namely, who are Dogs and Swine in the Church of Christ, whom Ministers are forbid to give the Sacrament unto, and allow them the benefit of all the other Ordinances. To his 1, 2, 3. account, let the indifferent reader look unto his quotations, and he will be satisfied, that they concern not the argument in hand. His 4. is, Wicked men both in the Old Testament, Prov. 26.11. and in the New, 2 Pet. 2.22. are called dogs, because as the dog filthily licks up his vomit again, etc. That of Solomon is this, Answ. As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly. Every fool is not a wicked man, yet every wicked man is a fool in Scripture sense I think: but it doth not follow, that every wicked graceless man is a dog, though he may have some properties like the properties of a dog, but this is a different property from that in the text, and nothing to the purpose. That of Peter is meant of Apostates, falling from the Truth and profession of faith once embraced, like those that St. Paul prophesies of, men shall arise from among yourselves, speaking perverse things, and shall draw disciples after them, such as these Peter speaks of, that turn from the Truth unto Error, and upon that account take upon them to be Teachers, that they may vent their damnable heresies, etc. and so fall away from the true Church, either to their former vomit of Heathenism, or to wallow in the mire of their former sensuality; such need not to be suspended, that fall off from the Church of themselves. This will not reach the argument in hand as to our case. His 5. is, Heathens are called dogs, Mat. 7.27. and we will yield the argument so far. His last is, Sinners in general are called dogs, Phil. 3.2. Beware of dogs, where he means false teachers, rightly called dogs, saith Musculus. This is fine, Answ. false Teachers are rightly called Dogs from his quotation, as he prove● by reverend Musculus; and yet this he quotes to prove that sinners in general are called dogs. What, are all sinners in general false Teachers? Then the grossly ignorant are too; And if false Teachers that pervert and trouble the Church be rightly called dogs, then offending brethren that adhere to the doctrine and profession of the Church are but falsely called dogs; for they are to be admonished as brethren. Let Mr. Collins show us some Scriptures to prove that Church-members, disciples or any one that is called a brother, and within, that is an object of Church-censures, is any where called a dog. Doth not himself say, that one that was excommunicate was to be admonished as a brother, according unto 2 Thes. 3.15? And doth not the Apostle allow a disorderly member the title of a brother? And would not have such counted an en●my, or dog, (which Mr. Collins makes of all sinners in general) as before: And so himself too, if he be a sinner, which I believe he will confess that he is: but me thinks if Mr. Collins will allow a disorderly stubborn sinner under excommunication to be a brother, (for so he takes that quotation) than he hath little reason to count a member under the indulgence of the Church a dog, or a swine. The truth is, he is so miserably out, I think he did not know what he writ; and he had need have a better head than mine to bring all his ends together in this argument, they are so wide one from another; and the Church and World so confounded into one, that I cannot tell what to make of him; For if we say, (saith he) that by dogs are meant the Heathen, as Mark. 7.27. Then either those only, or those amongst others. (2). If we say the latter, than they yield it. What doth he mean by Heathen amongst others, Answ. but the ignorant and offending brethren in the Church? Thus you see they must be the dogs in the text, or else he will make Heathens of professing Christians in the Church to do it. I but if we say that the Heathen are the only dogs to whom only holy things should be denied, then holy things may be given unto Persecutors and the Excommunicate. 1. Answ. I have denied that all holy things are there meant, and given my reasons. 2. That the text is not directed unto Ministers properly, but unto private Believers or hearers of Christ. 3. That which is holy, is to be understood of private reproofs and admonitions, which for the safety of their persons, living amongst such Dogs, and Wolves, as the unbelieving cruel Pharisees, Priests and people of the Jews, than so called by Christ. And here they are cautioned not to meddle with them, etc. 4. This counsel is directed unto the whole Church or Brotherhood touching their dealing with others, that were Persecutors and fierce dogged enemies to the Christian profesfion; and is not at all appliable to persons in the Church, in respect of public administrations, the which all in the Church are commanded to observe; nor is our Saviour's reason of any force for any in the Church, (lest they turn again and rend you) nor appliable to the public Ordinances; for there is not any that will rend you for administering unto them the Word, Sacrament, and prayer, in the Church; if any will do so, let the Church judge them for it. 5. I grant that by dogs is meant cruel persecutors, that at any time shall rend and ruin the persons of those that profess the true Christian Religion. And this may be done by some that are not Heathens, for there are many misbelievers and false teachers, that where they are backed with power, (as in the Papacy) are cruel dogs against the Professors of the true Religion: but yet it does not follow, that any that profeesse themselves members of our Church are the dogs meant in the text. It's true, we have had our differences amongst ourselves, about some circumstances and inconvenient Ceremonies, about the ordering of Worship. And our first Reformers put us in a way for discipline, confirmed by the Supreme Authority of this Nation. And those that had the exercise of the Church's discipline, have been severe in punishing those that have not been obedient unto her commands; and we know they abused their power in some cases too much, under the pretence of singular good ends: Namely, the order, peace, unity, and edification of the whole, to prevent the common mischief of factions, schisin, divisions, erroneous doctrine, and the like, without which, in a Church these evils will abound. Now I say, it is not very handsome for Mr. Collins, that professes himself a younger son of the Church, to account the Rulers of our Church Persecutors; much less the common people for adhering unto their Governors and Teachers: as they shall have better Rulers, and Teachers, I question not but we shall find them better disposed; how ever this is a far different case to the cruel unbelieving Jews, and Heretical bloody Papists, and yet neither of them Pagans. 6. I affirm, That as all other Scripture, so this, in special, is written for our learning and use; and it always holds in the same, or like cases, or reason. Whether unto the desperate irreproveable Ruffian in the Church, or of the bloody Persecutors out of the Church, Jews, Turks, or Papists: and yet I say also, that whomsoever upon tasting of them, we find them of peaceable spirits, whether they be in the Church or out of the Church, we should reprove, instruct, admonish and warn every sinner, to fly the wrath to come: And this we ought to do towards all, in our places and callings as private Christians. And hence I conceive that Mr. Collins is hugely mistaken, that stretcheth the metaphor of dogs, to any kind of sinners that the Scriptures compare to dogs, for other kind of properties of dogs, as worthlessness, greediness, barking, or licking up their vomit, etc. the text is of such dogs that will tear and scorn you for the best counsel you can give them for the good of their souls. And me thinks, that the same ground Mr. Collins goes upon to allow all the other holy things unto Heathens, the Excomunicate, etc. might satisfy him, as rationally to allow the Sacrament unto the ignorant and scandalous in the Church: all that he pleads to the other is from some other Scripture warrant; and I appeal unto the Impartial to judge between us, whether Pastors and Teachers of their respective flocks, be not as much bound by Christ's command to administer the holy Supper unto their particular flocks, consisting of Church-members, disciples, baptised and not excommunicated, as to administer the other holy Ordinances unto Heathen, the Excommunicate, etc. I think I have said enough as to the former from Mat. 28.20. to give full satisfaction. Let me tell our Author and the world, that although it be sufficiently taught in the holy Scriptures to deny the unbaptized and Excommunicate the holy Supper; yet this text in debate doth not forbid it at all to those that are without, or under Church censures; much less doth it forbidden the Sacrament to those that are within, which is the thing Mr. Collins quotes it to prove. And thus in short I have answered to the main of Mr. Collins strength, as touching this place. And I humbly conceive have broke his argument drawn from this text to make good his principal Syllogism, pag. 4. That there may be some baptised persons in the Church, not cast out, to whom the Sacrament may not lawfully be given. And he must quit himself a great deal better (than in his book) to make good his two propositions from this text, before he can conclude any thing for his purpose. And truly I think it was an acceptable service (both to God and the poor Church) in Mr. boatman, who so presently addressed himself to redeem a captive text, so woefully wrested to perplex and disturb the poor Church's peace, in setting up an invention of men, which Jesu● Christ commanded not. And for his assumption, That the Sacrament is a holy thing, and a Pearl; and there may be some in the Church not cast out, who in Scripture phrase are Dogs and Swine. Ergo, etc. It's true, Answ. 1 the Sacrament is a holy thing; but it doth not therefore follow, that it i● that which is holy (meant in the Text) nor forbidden to be given upon that reason our Saviour gives, for fear of being rend, etc. And though it be granted that there are some in the Church that are such kind of dogs, that are irreproveable, that will not endure a private reproof, it will not follow that therefore they are not to be reproved Ministerially by persons in Office in their public preaching; nor that they may not authoritatively be reproved and admonished, and censured by the Church Juridically, for their desperate railing dogged miscarriages: if there be any such offending brethren, why are they not dealt withal according unto the right rule, Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. If any persons in the Church be objects of Excommunication, I judge such are; and then judge whether Suspension be sufficient, where Excommunication should and ought to take place, provided they be obstinate: otherwise Church admonition may be a sufficient remedy to reform such scandalous sinners. Hence judge how pertinent this text is made use of to prove suspension of some from the Sacrament, that as members of the Church may be allowed Communion with the Church, in all other spiritual acts of worship! How this proves Suspension of some distinct from Excommunication, I leave to the freedom of your own Judgements to judge of. In the next place (without any wrong to the Author) I shall examine his third Scripture argument deducible from 1 Cor. 5. rather choosing to follow the Apostles order in this Epistle, because by answering of this first, it will save me some labour in my answer to his second, 1 Cor. 10.17. His Argument is this, It is unlawful for the Officers of the Church to give the Sacrament to such with whom it is unlawful for themselves or their brethren to eat. But there may be some in the Church not cast out, with whom it may be unlawful for the Church to eat. Ergo. I question the truth of his first proposition, Answ. 1 by distinguishing of a friendly familiar unnecessary eating, and of a true necessary eating. Now in a civil sense, I may not have friendly unnecessary familiarity with scandalous brethren, though not cast out, but may withdraw from all friendly unnecessary familiarity from such, as a means to bring them to shame; but it does not follow therefore, that I upon my necessary occasions in my Calling must shun such, but that I may set such a one a work, and admit him to my Table he being not cast out, though scandalous, or a poor man may work for a scandalous rich man, and eat at his Table with him, etc. or upon a journey, and divers such cases, with relations, etc. Therefore the same persons that I may not eat with, the same persons I may eat with, so that if the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11. mean but civil eating, his first proposition is not good, nor very clear, which he would have his Reader to believe without any doubt, or proof. If we may eat with a scandalous brother not legally cast out as before, than we may have company, and eat with such at the Sacrament, because giving and receiving at the Sacrament is our necessary duty as professing Christians, and Church-members, which I have sufficiently proved before; the which the worst offenders in the Church may not carelessly neglect, so long as they are in a Church capacity to receive, and that capacity remains until the Church authoritatively have put them out of Church Communion as Members. And then, and not until then, are scandalous brethren, disobliged from public duties of worship: and hence his argument that he draws from the lesser to the greater is fallacious: and that must needs be the bottom of his argument: For there is but few Interpreters otherways expound it, but of a civil eating. And himself seems most confident in that argument in its place. And therefore he should have proved his main proposition; namely, That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those in the Church not Excommunicate, with whom in some cases it is unlawful to eat in a civil sense. And for to take it, for not to eat at the Sacrament only properly, as it's too difficult to prove, so it would follow, that he will prove the same, by the same; for then the sense of his proposition is this: That it is unlawful to give the Sacrament unto such that we may not give the Sacrament unto: but there is some not cast out we may not give the Sacrament unto. Ergo. Take his argument in what sense you can, there is nothing in 1 Cor. 5. to stand upon, or in the least to make it good: his proof of his Minor falls too short. I will grant him, 1. That there may be such in the Church, that the Apostle calls old leaven. 2. That it is unlawful for the Church to connive at their wickedness, that was that old leaven, and keep the Feast of the Lords Supper with them: but what's this for his purpose? himself saith its a plain case, that the Apostle did chide the Corinth's, in that they did not cast out the incestuous person, that leavened their Communion, by Excommunication, pag. 35. in this he says true, and they of Corinth put this Decree into execution, concerning the incestuous person, as the only remedy to purge themselves of that leaven that soured the whole, by their connivance and sinful indulgence. What then? Does it follow because they were chidden for their neglect of exercising Church-censures, therefore they were chidden for admistring the Sacrament unto him before he was Juridically put out of all Communion with them? If the Apostle had understood that suspension from the Sacrament only, had been a sufficient remedy to purge the Church, and reform the sinner, then doubtless he would have blamed them for admitting him to the Sacrament, and he would have given the remedy in prescribing a rule to suspend him from the Sacrament only: but as their whole Communion was leavened by their sinful indulgence, so they were urged to cast that scandalous person out of all Christian Communion, sacred and civil, with such a one, no not eat; but how doth this prove, that there may be some in the Church not excommunicated, with whom its unlawful to eat the Sacrament? But he goes on with his proof of his second thing. That it is not lawful to communicate with scandalous sinners, let us therefore keep the Feast, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness: from hence is easily gathered, saith he, that Christians ought not to keep the feast with scandalous sinners. True, I say so too, Answ. where a Church is in a capacity to deal with the scandalous Juridically, and thereby put them out of all Christian Communion, as the Church of Corinth did. But I deny still, that they were blamed for admitting such unto God's Ordinances before they were Juridically by the censures of the Church separated from the Congregation, Search and see if you can find one syllable of a sentence in this chapter tending that way. Mr. Collins makes a great deal of do about keeping the Feast, but at last I think he fastens upon a good honest safe interpretation, pag. 38. from Isai. 25.6. Where the Lord promiseth to make a feast of fat things unto all people, Gentiles, as well as Jews; by which, saith he, is promised all Gospel Ordinances, and a holy Communion with them, in all his Ordinances, etc. and hence the Sacrament is a part of this Feast, etc. pag. 39 But if that be the sense, Answ. then upon his own confession the Sacrament is but a part of that Feast; Why, how doth this prove then, that we ought not to keep the Feast with scandalous sinners, when Mr. Collins allows scandalous sinners the liberty of all the other dishes and parts of this Feast: but being ware of this, he adds, that the Lord● Supper is the only proper Feast of this Feast, that's his sense; first he will be honest, and let every Gospel Ordinance have a share in this Feast, and then attributes all to this one, and makes it the proper Feast of the Feast they was to keep. And he tells us, Doubtless it must be so, because some Communion with on incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed. Thus you see, let the Scripture say what it will; and although Mr. Collins is forced to confess his assent unto a rational sense, you may see how his private opinion and fancy draws him off again, and makes him venture to give the denomination of this Feast to the Lords Supper only; and it must be so, because against his own reason and sense he will have it so; is that a reason to make it good, for some Communion with an incestuous person in other Ordinances may be allowed, directly contrary to the Apostles decree, and direction, when he commands them, To put out from amongst yourselves that wicked person, verse the last. But still the very main thing of his argument wants proof, That there may be some in the Church, not Excommunicate, with whom it is unlawful for the Church to eat. In his proof of this, he must make good these several things. That in this 5. chap. 1 Cor. the Church was blamed for eating with the scandalous brother before the Church's trial and censure of Excommunication was inflicted. That the Church was not leavened for their careless connivance, and tolerating such a scandalous brother, but only for admitting of him to the Sacrament. That the Church of Corinth had done their duty, if they had only suspended him from the Lords Supper. That we are as much forbidden the company and civil friendly familiarity in eating and drinking with a scandalous brother not cast out, as with an Excommunicate person. I shall refer myself to those that are learned & sober, if it be not of necessity to prove those things, before he can conclude from this Chapter, that there may be some in the Church not cast out, with whom it may be unlawful to eat the Sacrament, or that the unexcommunicate members should be suspended from the Sacrament, and allowed the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members. But Mr. Collins in stead of making good his Argument, he trifles about making that word Feast, to be meant only the Sacrament, after he hath granted it was but a part thereof, as it is one Ordinance with the other of Gospel Worship. He quotes Mr. Gillespy, that tells us this Feast cannot be restrained unto the Lord's Supper only. And Mr. Rutherford, that understands it of Church Communion in the dainties of the Gospel. And Ravenella, that says it is taken for all Gospel Worship, from Zach. 14.16, 17, 18. and yet he will go beyond his own Authors, and prove with reason beyond them all, that by this Feast is meant the Sacrament only. I confess I had thought (to prevent tediousness) to have passed by his reasons; but lest he should be wise in his own conceit, I shall take some notice of them. All he says amounts to this, surely it were not a civil Feast, nor a Mosaical Feast, but meant of some spiritual Gospel Feast; and the Supper is a part of the Gospel Feast, the relation the text hath to the Passeover, and the liberty of Communion with an incestuous person in the other Ordinances. 1. Is he sure that all Mosaical Feasts were then out of use? 2. That their Feasts of Charity may have no reference to this Feast? Judas tells us, that scandalous lose heretical persons in the Church were spots in their Feasts of Charity. And this scandalous person is said to leaven them, and nothing more opposite to their Feasts of Charity then to feast together with malice and wickedness. 3. Is there no difference to be put between that one Sacrifice of Christ himself once for all, and the Paschal Lamb an outward sign thereof, that the Apostles analogy must needs be restrained unto the Sacrament succeeding? The rest have been answered. Let him prove that the Sacrament is any where called a Feast: it doth not become him to give Jesus Christ a nick name. I must confess for my own part, I most incline to those that understand by keeping holy Communion in the Profession of the Gospel thoughout the whole course of our lives, not denying but that the Sacrament is involved in this General of a holy life. And my reasons are these. The Apostles motive thus to keep the Feast, holds unto all holy duties, and to all times: for Christ is always our Passeover that was sacrificed for the Church. We have always cause of purging out the old leaven out of our own hearts and lives, and purging of ourselves from all sinful connivance and indulging of scandalous brethren that leaven the whole, when Church discipline is carelessly out of coldness neglected. The rule or remedy prescribed in the text, as touching scandalous offenders to amend them, is upon that particular occasion, drawn out into a general that holds always, as I shall make good in answer unto his next argument drawn from this text. But what if I should grant him what he can never prove that by Feast is meant the Sacrament only, will it follow that scandalous brethren must only be left out, or barely denied the Sacrament only, when the Apostle chides the Church of Corinth, for not grieving it so, as to provoke them unto zeal, to put away that person from among them, vers. 2. Besides, if such scandalous sinners in the Church, as the Apostle reckons up ver. 11. ought not to be excommunicate, than not any at all, and is it safe for the Church to deny such the Sacrament only, whom they ought to Excommunicate and put out of all Communion whatsoever? Suppose the Church had done no more, but put that wicked person from the Sacrament, do you think they had put that Apostolical sentence into execution, vers. 4.5. Let him prove that ever any Church in the Apostles age suspended their members from the Sacrament only, as he would have it. The truth is, he affects to draw up many syllogisms, but he is not able to prove any one of them. I could wish he would either study his things better, or else give over his writing about this controversy. His second Argument from this text is this, If there be some in the Church not yet cast out by Excommunication, who are Fornicators, or covetous, or Idolaters, or Railers, or Drunkards, or Extortioners, than there may be so●e in the Church with whom a Christian ought not to eat the Lords Supper. But there may be such in the Church.— Ergo, He says the Minor will easily be granted, the Major is grounded on 1 Cor. 5.11. And he further says, all that can be said in this case is, that the eating there forbidden is not eating the Lords Supper: so saith the friends of my opinion. If no more can be said and proved but that, Answ. 1 it's enough to break his argument. But he is a little too confident, and looks too overly upon the Text. For 1. the proof of his major doth not say that in the Church of Corinth there were such. But if a man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, etc. which implies that there may be such in a true Church, as well as a Brother that was an incestuous person. Suppose that there be such in a true Church, doth not the Apostle remind them of the rule, how the Church should deal with such, namely, as with the incestuous person, with such, no, not to eat, vers. 11. and then gives the reason, vers. 12. for what have I to do, to judge them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within; but them that are without God judgeth; therefore put from among yourselves that wicked person. There was one of their Church that was actually guilty, others might be: as any shall be guilty of such and such scandalous sins at any time in the Church, the Church ought to judge them by putting them out of all Communion, as in that particular case of incest. If such as the Apostle nominates for scandalous brethren be not objects of excommunication, not only myself but all reformed Churches in Christendom are hugely out. Can any have the least show of reason to conceive, that the Apostle should be so severe against an incestuous person, and the Church for not putting him away from among them, vers. 2. and say nothing to their conniving and indulging an Adulterer, Idolater, etc. That were then such guilty persons known amongst them, as he for incest; or that suppose there were such, can we imagine that they were suspended from the Sacrament only, as a sufficient punishment for those sins, as Mr. Collins would; And so upon the matter lose this Ordinance of Excommunication, except it be for incest? Beloved Friends, I beseech you mark the Apostles order and scope, and you may easily conceive his sense; he had wrote an Epistle unto them before, not to company with fornicators, covetous, Extortioners, or Idolaters of the world, but upon this occasion of a members miscarriage in the Church, in this Epistle he mollifies with lenity his former Epistle, and tells them now, yet not altogether forbear company with such & such of the world, for than you must go out of the world, but now I have written unto you, not to keep company, not to eat, upon another stricter account, if a Brother be such a one as an Infidel Pagan is, put them out of your Communion altogether. And thus he draws out a general rule from this particular case of the incestuous person; leaving the Infidel world to the judgement of God, but sets up a judging in the Church for the destruction of the flesh, that scandalous Brethren may be reform, and their souls saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; as I have spoke already. And if I mistake not, Reverend Calvin speaks to the same purpose, upon the same place, in his 12. chap. 4. book. 5. Section Of his Institutions. Upon the second end of Excommunication. 'Tis true, he says, in the administration of the Supper choice is greatly requisite, which yet (saith he) cannot be had but by the Jurisdiction of the Church. Then in the second end, lest (as it is wont to come to pass) with the continual company of the evil, the good should be corrupted. This end the Apostle touched, when he commanded the Corinth's to put the incestuous person out of their company. A little leaven (saith he) corrupts the whole. And he foresaw herein so great a danger that he forbade him all fellowship, and so applies the 11. verse to the same with the incestuous person. If any Brother be either a whoremonger, or an Idolater, etc. with such a one I grant you not leave, so much as to eat. Therefore you may clearly conceive that Calvin applies that particular instance to be spoke of all other, the Apostle names in the 11. verse: this Reverend Author would have none debarred the Sacrament, but by the Jurisdiction of the Church, nor have any Excommunicate for lesser sins, when the severity of words authoritatively will amend them: but when they grievously offend the Church; they ought for a time to be deprived of the Communion of the Supper, till they have given assurance of their repentance; his ground is 1 Cor. 5.5. thus explaining himself, for against the Corinthian Paul useth not only rebuking of words, but driveth him out of the Church, etc. What's this but Excommunication? and yet Mr. Collins quotes this very place to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication in his pag. 140, 141. If he deal thus with his authority, he makes such a noise withal, no wonder they be not all of his opinion. Then he quotes Vrsin, which I desire in brief to to give you an account of, he concludes that Vrsin is for suspension. 1. Because he makes Excommunication the last remedy. 2. Because he hath given fourteen reasons to prove that scandalous persons ought to be kept from the holy Supper. 1. He hath not a word of suspension. Answ. 2. Must the last remedy necessarily imply suspension, why not severity of words, private and public admonition, etc. And to his second, he gives fourteen arguments to prove that the Power of the Keys is necessary in the Church. And Mr. Collins tells his Reader they are to keep the scandalous from the Sacrament: but he deals with his Author as he doth with Scriptures. But as touching this Reverend Author, for my purpose; 1. He admits of no other proceed in the discipline of the Church, but according to that known rule Matth. 18.15. and that in all cases of scandal and open ungodliness. 2. Not to proceed unto Excommunication, but in point of obstinacy persisted in. 3. He defines Excommunication to be the banishing of a grievous transgressor, or an open ungodly and obstinate person from the fellowship of the faithful, by the judgement of the Elders, and consent of the Church, and by the Authority of Christ, and by the holy Scriptures, and then says, when the Church pronounceth of any that they are not godly, they must be excommunicated, and not admitted unto the Sacrament, etc. in his 5. question upon the Keys of the Kingdom. Thus you may conceive this quotation of his, directly proves that Excommunication is that which debars scandalous sinners from the Sacrament, and not suspension, as Mr. Collins would falsely have it be. By this time the Reader may easily judge what foundation Mr. Collins hath deducted his argument from: he first mistakes the text, and then raises his argument; and thus he hath built a Castle in the air. And before he can conclude any thing to suspend scandalous brethren from the Sacrament, from 1 Cor. 5.11. he must prove that those that the Apostle speaks of, were not Excommunicate, or that he speaks to the case of scandalous brethren in the Church, in the want of Church Discipline. I must confess with grief of heart, that his Minor is true, that there are such scandalous sinners in o●● Church, that the Apostle doth instance i● 1 Cor. 5.11. and not Excommunicate; but where doth any Scripture forbidden to keep company, not to eat, as in case they were Juridically Excommunicate? A difference must be made between a Brother under Church toleration, and a brother under Church Excommunication, or else Church censures are merely superfluous; and to n● purpose, if we be as much bound to withdraw Communion to the one, as to the other, in respect of holy and civil fellowship together. So that his dispute about not keep company, not to eat, with scandalous Brethren not Excommunicate, is nothing at all to the Text, nor to his Argument, for we are all agreed in this, that the Excommunicate person may not come to the Sacrament, nor during that censure, may we keep company, and as Calvin renders it, the Apostle would not grant them leave so much as to eat with such, (the necessity of relation excepted) but as touching an offender in the Church not Juridically proceeded against, Mr. Collins doubts not, nor any that are sober, but upon our necessary occasions as our several callings lead us unto, we may keep company, we may eat, and take more liberty of familiarity with such then with Heathens, did we live amongst them as the Corinthians did. Yet doubtless all unnecessary intimate friendly familiarity is to be declined with scandalous brethren, the Church not being in a capacity to judge them, or neglects her duty through carelessness: but this is more than this text will bear too, but yet is consonant unto other parts of holy Scriptures, etc. From the Apostles scope in this chapter, I shall assert these things. That Church censures are of such necessity, that without which the well being of a true Church cannot be. If the Church of Corinth were leavened with indulging of one scandalous Brother, what may we judge of ourselves that tolerate and connive at thousands for want of the severity of true discipline? If the Church of Corinth was thus chidden by the Apostle for their neglect of Discipline unto one scandalous member, What chiding deserve they that have plucked up the discipline of the Church, and have laid all waist, and left our offending Brethren to perish in their sinful courses, for want of the right way and remedy to reform them that their souls may be saved? That a true Church of Christ may possibly have such scandalous members in it, as the Apostle enumerates in the 11. verse. That scandalous persons in the Church, aught to have the title of Brethren, and to be differenced from the Infidel world, vers. 11. That less familiarity in civil and sacred Communion is allowed to the Excommunicate, then unto scandalous sinners out of the Church, vers. 10, 11. That the Apostle urgeth a general rule for the excommunicating of all scandalous brethren in the Church, upon that occasion of the incestuous person. That the main and proper end of Excommunication, is the reforming of a sinner, and salvation of his soul. Here is not one word in this Chapter for Suspension from the Sacrament only; Nay, the Church is not blamed for their giving the Sacrament to that incestuous member, but for not punishing him for his sin by excommunication: hence we may do things that are commanded and lawful with scandalous brethren not cast out by Excommunication. Although this incestuous person was in Church Communion and fellowship with them in all the Ordinances, yet the Apostle in the 10. chapter tells them vers. 17. We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, meaning the Sacrament; and the incestuous person was one of that all, and they were commended for keeping the Ordinances of the Church, chap. 11.2. and not blamed nor punished for any such cause, as their admitting of an incestuous person; nor was he punished with others that the Lord was angry with, for the profaning his Ordinance in the very time of that observance; therefore it's not well doing in one that is scandalous and not cast out, that do leaven the whole, but his doing and living in that which is wicked, and being let alone through Church negligence, that leavens the lump. The Apostle no where saith, if one that is called a Brother be an ignorant person or unregenerate, or one that cannot pray ex tempore, etc. with such do not eat, but he instances in scandalous sins only. I confess Mr. Collins hath a great many words about this, no not eat with such, which had he applied to a Brother Excommunicate, it would be yielded him; but his argument is a different thing; for it's of a Brother not cast out by Excommunication. 1. Can any disoblige a brother from his necessary duties of instituted Worship, that is not under the binding power of the keys of Christ's Kingdom? 2. Are we as much to decline friendly familiarity to a scandalous brother within, and not so much as brought to his trial, as to one that is cast out for continuing obstinate in his sin? 3. As the case doth not hold so much as to necessary company, and civil eating, (as hath been hinted) much less will it hold in duties of commanded worship. Christ's commands are of more force to oblige his visible subjects, than the private prohibitions of a single Pastor with his intruded Elders. It's true, they can excommunicate, as well as suspend from the Sacrament; but I humbly desire such to be sure that they are entrusted with the exercise of Church Discipline of binding and losing, before they put it into execution. Now I shall examine what he hath drawn from 1 Cor. 10.21. to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication; his argument is this: It is unlawful to give the Sacrament to those that cannot eat or drink it, but there may be some in the Church (not excommunicated) who cannot drink of the Lords Cup.— Ergo. In his explaining the terms, he understands cannot eat, in a moral sense, and then the sense is, you cannot lawfully and warrantably eat and drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: the sum of all is, 1. Such as God hath forbidden to come to that Ordinance. Or, 2. Such as if they rush upon the Ordinance, yet can have no Communion with Christ, no benefit by it: this he makes to be the sense, and then doubts not but he shall make good his argument, pag. 27, 28, 29. Give me leave to search into the Apostles sense, and then examine how Mr. Answ. 1 Collins and the holy Apostle do agree in the sense of this Text, 1 Cor. 10.21. I have said something unto this already upon another account; I will be as brief as I can. This is the fourth public fault the Apostle deals with the Corinthians about. First, he chides them for their factious respect had about their Ministers, upon which they ran into divisions, and making of parties, chap. 1.3. Secondly, he chides them for indulging and tolerating a known member amongst them in an incestuous marriage, which hath been largely handled, chap. 5. Thirdly, he chides them for their unnecessary suits of Law, Brother with Brother in Infidel Courts before Heathen Judges. Fourthly, he blames them for eating of things offered in Sacrifice unto Idols, at their Idolatrous Festivals in the Idol Temple, chap. 8. And to that end he might reform them, and take them off that were guilty; as in the other different faults, he applied himself unto them with different remedies, and means of reforming, (which would be too tedious to speak unto) so here in this as it is a different fault he deals with the offenders in a different way to the former. His concession with them, that the thing itself (to them that had knowledge) was not simply a sin: for an Idol was nothing, and unto them there was but one God, and meat commends not unto God, though they had this knowledge, and stood upon their liberty, he tells them, If you do eat, you are not the better, if you do not eat, you are never the better, vers. 4.8. But then he tells them that this practice was dangerous and of evil consequence in respect of some circumstances. 1. In respect of the Heathen that out of conscience eat it, as a thing offered unto the Idol, the presence of Christians emboldened them in their Idolatry. 2. In respect of weak Brethren, that have not that clear knowledge in the nature of the thing itself, as some had; which upon such Precedents was ready to venture upon the same practice, and not having knowledge of himself, his conscience were defiled by the liberty and practice of the other, v. 10. and so by consequence it became a sin unto the strong, vers. 12. etc. 3. Then he comes to persuade with them to forbear that practice upon several considerations and reasons. 1. He urges Christian Charity in order unto the edification of others, before knowledge in their liberty, so as to use it to the prejudice of the weak. 2. Tells them his own tenderness in such a case, rather than he by meat should make his brother to offend, he would eat no flesh while the world stands. 3. Then commends unto them himself and Barnabas, for an ensample in another case, ch. 9 That although they had power as well as other Apostles, to marry, & require maintenance from them, which was no more than Christ had ordained and appointed for the Preachers of the Gospel, yet they used not this power, nor required any such maintenance from them: and though he was free from all, yet he became servant unto all, to the Jew he became a Jew, to the weak he became as weak, that he might save some; and this he did for the Gospel sake, etc. and then applies it, Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, even so run that you may obtain; even as himself denied himself in many things (which he might have looked after) for their sakes and the Gospels; looking for a better prize or reward hereafter, so he would have them to deny themselves in some things, that they might do, rather than to cause their Brother to offend so uncharitably, But in the 10. chapter he comes more close, and adds several arguments taken from their relation they had to God, as they were of his Church and people, and invested with such privileges of gifts and graces, and of Church Ordinances, in which they had Communion with Christ, and one with another, as he instances in Sacramental Communion, etc. Well this he yields unto them, and then draws his argument, 1. From the Church of the Jews; they were related unto God as near as we can be, and they had the same Sacraments and other peculiar Ordinances of Gods own prescribing; yet notwithstanding the Lord often punished them for their sins, I and for as small sins as some of them were guilty of; and therefore he would have the Corinthians (and all others) be warned and admonished by such precedents of God's severity towards his own; the particular instances thereof are written for our admonition. Wherefore let him that think he stands, take caution, lest he falls. It's a dangerous thing to go to the outside of your liberty, and to put yourselves upon such dangerous temptations, as to go into the Idol Temple to feast with Idolaters. God's people before time have been drawn into Idolatry by such temptations; and so might they. And yet see the tenderness and the good opinion the Apostle had of them, he mingles his sharp with some sweet, telling them, that although some of them had miscarried, in this very thing, yet there hath no temptation taken you but what is common unto frail imperfect man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, etc. And hence exhorts to decline the temptation, v. 14. Wherefore my beloved Brethren flee from Idolatry: Two things to be noted, 1. He doth not call them Idolaters, but his beloved Brethren that were guilty of this fault. 2. He doth not charge them with flat Idolatry, but is earnest to persuade them to flee the temptations, appearances, occasions of Idolatry. He spoke unto wise men, that as they gave offence this way, so they were able to judge of his arguments and manner of dealing with them; still yielding unto them their deserts, that his arguments might the better take with them to reform them: but still goes on with further considerations, that might further convince them, and be prevailing to reform the evil, by commending unto them the consideration of their Sacramental Communion, vers. 16, 17. comprehending all, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? Doubtless it was unto the whole Church in a Sacramental sense, as follows, For we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, even those that were in fault were a part of that (many) and (all) we are all partakers of that one Sacramental bread, and consequently of Christ Sacramentally; as he gives a proof thereof, vers. 18. Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? this they could not deny, but must yield it, What say I then? that the Idol is any thing? or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any thing? He grants them that still which they so much stood upon, but yet he saith, This is something that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice unto Devils, and not to God; and I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils; That's the consequence; and here lies the argument, If, as you are Christians by eating the instituted bread, you have Communion together, and partake of Christ the end of that bread, then as you eat and partake with the Gentiles in those things that are consecrated and sacrificed to the Devil, you have communion with Devils; or as Israel which eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar were partakers of the Altar; even so Christians with Heathens that eat of the things sacrificed unto Devils, were partakers of Devils. This by consequence was a greater evil than they were ware of; and therefore he tells them, I would not that you should have fellowship with Devils; which had they been ware of, doubtless they would have declined it. The Apostle having thus brought the sin home, by such an argument that could not be evaded, than he concludes from hence, that you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of Devils. Do you provoke the Lord to jealousy, are you stronger than he, etc. vers. 21, 22. Well, now we are come to the place that Mr. Collins makes the very bottom of his argument, You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils, etc. That I conceive is to be understood thus; so long as they professed themselves for Christ, and continued in his visible body the Church, and were partakers of the Sacramental Communion with Christ, they could not without sin drink the cup of Devils, and be partakers of the table of Devils: there was such a direct opposition in these two Tables, that it was a thing inconsistent, or a contradiction for one to partake of both: as a Heathen might not drink the cup of the Lord, so a Christian might not drink the cup of Devils, there was a diametrical opposition in these two, even as much as Christ and Belial. Accordingly our blessed Saviour in another case, No man can serve two Masters, that is, two Masters directly contrary: ye cannot serve God and Mammom. And so Elijah, If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal be God, follow him; they could not follow both: who will or can imagine that our Saviour spoke this to forbid such to serve God? Or that Elijah forbidden the Israelites to follow God, because he said they could not follow both? And yet Mr. Collins strength of fancy hath wried his reason, that he will have the Corinth's forbidden the Sacrament, and their serving of God therein, because they could not do both. The Apostle's end in writing is to reform the evil, by forbidding them the cup of Devils; but Mr. Collins end in writing is to forbid them the cup of the Lord, and that's all the reformation that he drives at. But the Apostle goes on and grants as much at the last as he did at the first, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient, all things are lawful, but all things edify not, vers. 23, 24. meaning the things that were sacrificed unto Idols, upon the same account as at first, that an Idol is nothing in the world, chap. 8. But the thing was inexpedient, and uncharitable, did rather destroy then edify myself or brother, and therefore adviseth not to seek our own, but every man another's wealth, etc. And so he hath done with that, only he hints at another case, upon their civil and necessary occasions, if they bought any such meat at the shambles, they might lawfully eat it without scruple of conscience; nay further, if an unbeliever should bid a Christian to a civil feast, he leaves them to their own liberty to go and eat whatsoever was set before them. But I have been too long already, yet I was willing to search after the true sense of the place, which is not easily discerned, unless we mind heedfully the scope, especially when a thing is in an intricate case, and so much reasoning largely held out, proving that to be evil by consequence, as clothed with some circumstances, which in its self, in its own nature is lawful and good, as here; Now I shall examine Mr. Coll. argument what bottom it stands on, his argument is, It's unlawful to give the Sacrament unto those that cannot eat it, But there may be some in the Church (not Excommunicate) who cannot drink of the Lords cup— Ergo, etc. His Major he saith, is proved, vers. 21. I will confess that in this place we have the Sacrament spoken of, and that those that the Apostle blames for drinking the cup of Devils, were not Excommunicate: but yet I deny that it was unlawful to give the Sacrament to such; For 1. it's a great question, and will require some time for Mr. Collins to prove, That eating of things offered unto Idols, was a sin that came within the verge of the Church to punish with putting such out of Sacramental Communion. In the 5. chapter as I take it, those that the Apostle deals with in the 10. Chapter, are not in that particular list, vers. 11. which the Church was to judge: doubtless if they had been such Idolaters, that in the 5. chap. 11. he speaks of, he would have threatened the rod, and given order unto the Elders of the Church to put out of their Communion such Idolaters: for their connivance at Idolaters would leaven the lump, as well as an incestuous person; but herein not a word of any such thing. But he will be ready to say, The Apostle spoke of putting out of Communion before in the 5. chap. therefore it was not necessary to repeat it again in the 10. I, but how will these things hang together? 1. To give a charge to the Church to cast out Idolaters, and then himself using such mildness of speech, and variety of argumentation, as I have showed, to convince them that it was a sin, granting the thing in itself lawful, but evil in respect of some circumstances. 2. The main argument to prove their eating and drinking in the Idol Temple to be a sin, was drawn from the nature of the Sacrament, in which themselves, as Christians, are said to have Communion with Christ, by being partakers of the cup and bread consicrated for to represent the body and blood of Christ; in like manner they were said to have Communion with Devils, by being partakers of the cup and meat in the Idol Temple, that was consecrated and offered unto Idols: and hence the Apostle would not have them to have Communion with Devils; as all his other reasons, so this tends solely to reform them in that particular of eating in the Idol Temple, and not a word of forbidding any such the Sacrament, as Mr. Collins would have it, when he saith, The sum is, they who cannot drink the cup of the Lord, are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden coming thither. 2. Or those that can have no Communion with Christ, nor benefit by this Ordinance. Those that give credit to that sense, Answ. must be such as adhere more to Mr. Collins fancy, than the sense of holy Scriptures; what are any of those two, to the text in hand? was any forbidden the Sacrament that eat of things offered unto Idols? 2. Doth not the Apostle affirm, that they all had Communion with Christ in partaking of the cup of blessings? Is not that the very medium of his argument? the Apostle argues from their Sacramental Communion as Christians, to decline Communion with Idolaters. Mr. Collins argues from their Communion with Idols, to a none Communion as Christians. And thus the Judicious Reader may easily judge of the soundation of his argument, who out of an inconsiderate rashness most grossly runs upon mistake, and thence forms a silly syllogism, pag. 29. I grant it a sin to deliver the Sacrament to those whom we know God hath forbid it. But I deny that these of Corinth spoken of are in the least, so much as blamed, or in the least tittle forbidden the Sacrament, the Apostle proves they all took it, and had Communion in Christ in it. I wonder that ever a man pretending unto sober principles, should be so fond as to think, (that those that the Apostles writes to as Saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, his dearly beloved Brethren, and writing unto them as wise men, and such that had great gifts, and largeness of knowledge in their liberties by Jesus Christ, that knew an Idol was nothing in the world, and that which was offered was never the worse, every creature of God was good, and not to be resused, etc. as the Apostle yields) I say, how he comes to think that these should be forbidden the Sacrament, and to be such as could not have Communion with Christ, makes me wonder: if Saints, and the Apostles dearly beloved Brethren, whom he argues so friendly with, were not under Christ's command of this necessary observance in the Church, than here is not any that are, but I have said enough to this already, and all that he saith to this text is most irrational and impertinent, to prove that some in the Church not excommunicated, aught to be denied the Sacrament; this place proves that they did all partake of that one Sacramental bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. and puts the thing past questioning. He hath more things in making good his argument, but having plucked up his ground work, it's too tedious both for me to write, and you to read the confutation of the rest; for it will fall of itself, you must grant him what he says to be true, because he says it, for he is not able in the least to bring any one argument from Scripture to prove suspension distinct from Excommunication, as himself states it. I will trouble you but with two things more of his in this argument; for now I intent brevity in all he has further to say in defence of Suspension; for I know not any one thing more much material, that I have not fully answered in the former discourse, in order to his several exceptions against the Bar removed. He says, He hopes we have all too reverend thoughts of the wisdom of God, to think that he should lay an obligation upon his Ministers to give this Ordinance unto them, whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it. What is this but to beg the question, Answ. and thence insinuate upon us an absurdity? let him first prove that a scandalous member not cast out, is warned not to take it upon pain of damnation, I know no such text, and it remains still to prove that the Corinth's were threatened or punished for any scandalous sins committed before they came, or for admitting any scandalous brethren at all; but only for their actual miscarriage in the very act of administration. I have said more for the negative, than Mr. Collins will be able to answer this two days. He saith, None can without sin knowingly expose the Ordinance of God to necessary abuse and profanation: but to administer it to one that cannot have Communion with Christ profanes it.— Ergo. Let him prove the consequence if he can. Answ. 1. The Apostle proves that all the Corinthians that drank of the Lords cup, and eat of that bread, had Communion with Christ, and he says, We that are many are one bread, ch. 10.16, 17. And doubtless those that made divisions, and lived in incest, and eat of things offered unto Idols, and that oppressed one another by needless and scandalous suits at law in the Heathen Courts; and those that were guilty of such great schisms and disorders in the Church, were a part of that many. The very outward actions of eating and drinking according to the institution is a Sacramental Communion, which is a holy Communion in the relation the signs have to the thing signified thereby: And in the relation the receiver hath to the benefit and profit thereof, Sacraments being instituted to that end for the Church; as hath been proved. But he tells us how a thing is abused. 1. When it is not turned to a right use. 2. When no difference is put between the holy and profane, Ezek. 22.26. The first is answered, Answ. his latter I shall speak to, his quotation is meant of the legal clean and unclean, that her Priests through carelessness made no difference, and so profaned the holy things by admitting such to bring their sacrifices, that during their uncleanness made every thing they touched unclean; but there is no such difference to be made in the Gospel Church now; that difference is taken away, Heathen uncleanness remains still, but we do not plead their admittance into Church Communion. He says further, That he cannot see but every scandalous sinner, Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer, etc. hath as great a fellowship with Devils, as the Corinthians had. He must see a great deal more fellowship with devils in such, Answ. then in the Corinthians, or else he can conclude nothing for his purpose; for it's certain the Corinthians were not kept from the Sacrament, nor forbidden it upon that account. His first argument for Suspension is, That nothing is lawful in the worship of God, but what we have precept or precedent for: but to give the Sacrament to such as are visibly scandalous, not Excommunicate, is to do that in the worship of God which neither precept nor example doth justify.— Ergo, Sacraments are parts of institute worship, and in the administrations we are to be guided according to the precepts given, upon the institution of them; and according to the example of the Lord Jesus, who at the first institution of the Supper gave us an example for the perpetual celebration of it, etc. p. 51, 52. His Major is good, Answ. but his Minor is false, and to be denied; matter of scandal doth not disoblige any that are within, and of Christ's family and Kingdom from precepts of institute worship, as the Sacrament is confessed to be; but rather it is thus, that this precept of institute Worship doth oblige all Church-members that are within, to reform their other scandalous actions. 'Tis true Christ gave to none but his Disciples. And the Apostles directed this observance only unto the visible Churches which consisted of visible Saints, by their profession and external calling at least. And who will plead for any but visible Saints, professing the true Religion externally at lest? while they are Church-members and within, we plead the privileges of that estate as all Scripture Churches always practised, and yielded unto their members. And so long as our Antagonists own our Church for the Church of Christ, and our members true members of the Church, they do but discover their own nakedness in all they say against us, and what's this argument in hand but the same with the Anabaptists, if not a great deal less rational, than they use it for? Had we but that clear precept, or precedent for Insant baptism, that we have for baptised members of the visible Church, to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ; I doubt not but there is hundreds of those that would quit the argument, and reform their practice. Christ says to his Disciples when it was first instituted, drink ye all of it. The Apostle Paul understands this precept, as respecting the whole Church of Corinth, for he directs that Church in general to act according to the institution of Christ; for he delivered what he received from the Evangelists that did hear and see the institution. That question about Judas is not very material to the Controversy, whether he did receive the Sacrament or not: 'tis certain he eat the Passeover, and what was the Paschal Lamb, but a sign of the body and blood of Christ? and the Bread and the Wine is no more. Besides he might have taken the Sacrament if he had had a mind to have continued with them during that service, who hindered him or forbade him? if he did not, he had done better to have adhered unto Christ in the observance of his holy Ordinances, (though but a hypocrite,) then by giving way to the Devil's temptation to turn his back upon God's Ordinance, and seek for opportunity how to betray his Lord and Master into the hands of his bloody enemies; but for my own part I incline to believe that Judas did receive the Sacrament, but I need not trouble myself with that dispute. I have said enough as from that of Matth. 28.19, 20. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24. to satisfy any that are impartial. I need add no more in proof of this, that it is a duty incumbent upon all Church-members to observe the Sacrament, as any other public duties of Worship. This we shall with more case and less time make good against all opposition of men, than our adversaries who oppose us, will free themselves from what the Pharises were charged withal, namely, in making void the commands of God, by their own Traditions. As for Precedents, the Analogy of the Passeover, the practice of the Apostolical Churches, which have been urged sufficiently to satisfy any that are sober of the Presbyterians judgement, that have not such clearness of reason from the Analogy of circumcision, nor new Testament Precedents for Infant baptism, as we for free admission of Church-members baptised, and not excommunicated, unto the Supper, and hence were they but as rational in the one as the other, the controversy would cease amongst us that are for a National Church. I proceed unto his sixth Argument, If there may be some in the Church not yet cast out, with whom the Communion of the Church cannot be pure; then there may be some in the Church not Excommunicate whom the Officers may not without sin admit to the Lords Supper. But there may be some such in the Church.— Ergo, His proof of the proposition is, 1. That it is the duty of the Officers of the Church to keep the fellowship of the Church pure. This, he saith, none will deny: but if any be inclined to deny it, he should do well, First, To think to what end the rod of discipline is put into their hands. Secondly, How to expound 1 Cor. 5.7. and those many other Texts that look this way, pag. 86, 87. 2. That it is their special duty to keep the fellowship of the Church pure, as to this Ordinance, as this was proved before from 1 Cor. 5.8. so it's c●ar from reason; it's apparent, that of all other Ordinances, this Ordinance alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them. Answ. 1 I grant that it is the duty of the Rulers of the Church to use all necessary and lawful means to preserve the purity of Church Communion in all acts of public Worship. I grant that they are in a special manner to take care to keep the Communion of the Church pure, as to this Ordinance of the Sacrament; but still I deny that this is to be done by suspension from the Sacrament, and allow them the privileges of all other public Communion in the Worship of God as members. That 1 Cor. 5.7, 8, 13. hath been examined already, and proves no such thing: let it be proved that the Communion of that Church was leavened for admitting one that was scandalous to the Sacrament, or that their Communion is that Ordinance was polluted, by their connivance towards him: or that to deny him the Sacrament was a sufficient remedy both to reform the offender, and to purge out the old leaven wherewith they were leavened: if the Text will bear none of these things, what is it quoted for? The Rod of Discipline it's expressed clearly from the text, was to reform the sinner, with the salvation of his soul, and the Church by doing her duty is correcting, with this merciful end, did clear and purge herself from that sinful connivance and toleration of such a one. And if this purging was not by excommunication, than I am out, if it was, than Mr. Collins is quite out in quoting it, and he hath said nothing in laying the foundation of his argument, as to the keeping of the Sacramental Communion pure by Suspension. I beseech you mark, for in this very argument many are very much perplexed, as if the only end of discipline were to preserve the Communion of the Church pure only at the Sacrament, and as if the greatest impurity of Communion in the Church lay in the admitting of ignorant unregenerate scandalous brethren unto the Sacrament: whereas I dare be bold to affirm, that to receive the Sacrament is as much the duth of any such, as they are Church-members and within, as any other duty of public worship whatever; and their obedience in that observance is as well pleasing and acceptable unto the Lord (they coming as prepared as they can) as any observance in the Church. And if it was not for the correcting of such things that are in their own nature sinful, such as are nominated, 1 Cor. 5.11. there would be no need of Church discipline. The main end of discipline is to reform that which is evil in Church-members, and to encourage unto well doing, that every member may be obedient in all things. And for Mr. Collins to say, that the Sacrament alone is appointed for such as have something of grace in them, is only his bare saying, and doth clash with the command of Christ, as also with the peace, edification, charity, and unity of the Church. But he says further, The Word is called the bread of life, and it is to be offered to dead souls. Heathens were ever admitted to hear, and profane persons are the objects of discipline. The Excommunicate may hear, and aught to be admonished as brethren. That he knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of a Church pure, if not in this Ordinance, a● to this, the Scripture saith it cannot be pertaked of worthily, without examining ourselves and discerning the Lords Body. It's true, Answ. 1 the Word is the Bread of Life, and doth quicken dead souls where God gives the blessing, doth it follow, that the Sacrament the visible Word of Life, is not appointed unto that end, where God gives the same blessing? Heathens may hear; true, What then? therefore Church-members may not receive. Or, 2. Therefore Church-members may hear; but the question is, whether he will allow a Christian to hear as a member, or as a Heathen. The profane are the objects of discipline: What them? Must they not pray, hear, receive, until they be cast out by it? Are they objects of nothing else? How are they objects of discipline that were never admitted unto the Sacrament? Can you suspend them from that they never had? wherein are such more objects of discipline than those that are without; who may hear, and pray, and be present at every Ordinance as well as the other that are within? Then he saith, The Excommunicate may hear, and aught to be admonished as brethren. Very good; it's well the Excommunicate may have the title of Brethren; but as ill that those in the Church whom we cannot charge with obstinacy, until it be Juridically tried, shall have the odious terms of Hogs, and Dogs, profane, etc. He knows not wherein the Officers of a Church, can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure, if not in the Sacrament. What, doth all their work lie, in that? Answ. 1. Is no care to be had how men profane all the other Ordinances by their sleeping, talking, laughing, and disturbing the Minister and others, in holy Worship? 2. Is not care to be had that the doctrine be holy, and sound, even the Word of the Lord, that is taught? That the Worship of Prayer be performed with soundness of words suitable to the necessities of the people, and with such devotion and affection becoming Worship? 3. Is not care to be had that the Sacraments be rightly administered according unto the institution, without superstitious addings unto, or detracting from them? 4. Is not care to be had to admonish, rebuke the unruly, and to excommunicate the obstinate, to reform and amend them in order to their spiritual good? And is this and the former no work, if the Officers may not suspend from the Sacrament only? The truth is, he puts so much in this, that he makes nothing of all other work that the Scriptures clearly teach; allow him but suspension, which he hath unnecessarily engaged himself to prove, and he will give you an acquittance, or a release from Excommunication; keep but from the Sacrament, you need not fear any examination, adomonition, or excommunication; if you can but dispense with your conscience carelessly to neglect this Ordinance, you may freely enjoy all the rest as well as a Heathen, or an Excommunicate person. Nay, it may be, if you will but keep from the Sacrament, he will allow you the title of Brethren, as well as an Excommunicate person: but if you will not be satisfied unless you may receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ for remission of sins, than you must look to be called Hogs, and Dogs, unbelievers, murderers of Christ, the profane world, that are without hope and God in the world. This argument of his doth better become a Brownist, than one that pretends to a friendly owning of our Church; but the poor Church may say; these slanders, divisions, Separations, and confusions, are the wounds that she hath received by the hands of such friends. All that he saith in proof of his Minor hath been sufficiently answered already, both by my learned friend Mr. Humphrey, and myself; I intent brevity, for there is nothing left in his following arguments much considerable. His seventh Argument, Either it's lawful for the Officers to deny the Sacrament to such as they find ignorant, scandalous and impenitent, or they are bound to give into such. But they are not bound to give it to such,— Ergo. His proof of the Minor is, The Officers are not bound to administer the Ordinance to those who they know are not bound to receive it, but the ignorant and scandalous are visibly such as are not bound to receive it.— Ergo. His main proof of this Minor is this, If such be bound to receive, than they are bound to make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and to eat and drink their own damnation, which are strange things for a man to be bound in conscience unto. This argument is wholly founded upon that gross mistake of personal unworthiness, Answ. which I have so clearly confuted at large in its place, where I shall refer the Reader for full satisfaction. His eight Argument, If none may be suspended but those who are excommunicated, than none must be kept away but those that are contumacious. But some may be kept away who are not contumacious.— Ergo. The major is plain, Mat. 18. The minor only needs proof (saith he) 1. Surely those that are under admonition are to be kept away. 2. Suppose one should come to the Minister the morning he were to receive, and blaspheme Christ; and tell him he came for nothing, but to abuse the Church; or suppose a Minister should know one of his people had committed murder, theft, incest, whoredom the night before, etc. shall such be admitted, they not being excommunicate? if not, then there is suspension distinct from Excommunication, pag. 98. The Major admits of some question, Answ. 1 for Matth. 18.15. speaks not very clearly unto all cases; that instance is of particular trespasses between private brethren, which are things of a lesser nature, yet these persisted in unto contumacy after the Church's admonition makes one liable unto Excommunication; but I question whether all public notorious open scandalous sinners in the Church, be thus to be proceeded against, especially when their scandalous sinning is of long continuance, and doth offend the Congregation: the whole Congregation in such a case is to be satisfied, which cannot be by a private repentance (should it be supposed) upon the admonitionof the Church. I think the incestuous Corinth was not dealt withal according to that rule, Matth. 18.15. Public sins should have public shame, that others may fear, and the offender be brought to a serious and notorious repentance, before the Church declare themselves satisfied, and receive them into holy Communion; so that I think for the Church to proceed gradually in some cases, as such as Mr. Collins doth instance in, is not always necessary, nor to wait until the offender appears to be obstinate, but ipso facto to be forthwith censured. But these cases are not to be left to the discretion of every particular Pastor to judge of, but to the discretion and grave judgement of the ruling part of the whole Church. Besides, I question whether one that hath been often reproved in the public Ministry, and yet lives in scandalous sins of whoredom, drunkenness, cursing and swearing, variance and contention, etc. is not to be judged contumacious, and upon that account, the Church being in a capacity, and informed, should upon sufficient proof without delay Excommunicate him. I leave these things to better Judgements, but yet I am inclinable to conceive, that Matth. 18. most properly respects private trespasses which are not openly known, and how that rule should hold to be applied in the same manner to open scandals, that cause the name of God, and the true profession of Religion to be blasphemed and reproached, I am not very clear. But now we shall examine his Minor, But some may be kept away from the Sacrament that are not contumacious. So may some be Excommunicate that are not contumacious, as I have hinted at, Answ. which if that be true, than the argument falls to nothing of itself. But he saith surely, Those that are under admonition are to be kept away. This he begs; how will he prove it? For where the offence will admit of hearing the Church's admonition, and upon that give hope or satisfaction of amendment, why should they be kept from the Sacrament more than the other Ordinances? they not being authoritatively put out of Church Communion, is it rational for to execute, before sentence be given? Unto his suppositions, I shall answer him, first they are no proof. If such may be Juridically suspended, than they may be Juridically excommunicated, for it is Juridical Suspension that is now in question. And as it is stated the Church may as well do the one as the other: And the Church need not be long in giving sentence in such cases, if there be clear proof; besides the Sacrament may rather be rejourned for a short time, then that any should justly be offended, or that a single Minister should do that which is not regular. Murder, thest, incest, whoredom is Felony by the civil Law of the Nation, and if any can discover any such, they should attach and put them into the custody of the Civil Officers; these are gaol sins, and to be punished by the Judges. And I know no rule that doth warrant the Church to censure those that are under the penalty of the course of civil Courts of Justice. If one should grant that in an extraordinary case, some extraordinary course at the present might be taken; as suppose some profane abuse at the Sacrament, as to disturb the administration by some disorder, I doubt not but the Churchwardens might thrust them out of the Church, & do the like to any that should come drunk or mad; but what is this to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication, as it's usually practised in some Churches? Indeed Mr. Collins need not have been so hasty in aspersing Mr. boatman, pag. 98. unless he could in some ordinary case prove Juridical Suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication, the which he hath not yet done, and it's a great question whether he ever will or can. It's true, that our Church in prudence left the denying of the Sacrament to some, to the discretion of particular Ministers, as he alleadges; but then let me tell you, this doth not reach the argument. For 1. this was only in case of obstinacy, being dealt with all by the Minister, who was by the Canons and Rubric of the Church authorised thus to do. 2. Such acts of discipline were subject to the Church's judgement and censure afterwards; the persons conceiving themselves wronged might complain, and those Ministers were liable to be censured for going beyond the rule, as some have been suspended from officiating themselves, for putting persons by, upon slender proof, even such as their Ordinary upon hearing did not judge competent. 3. The Church urged the act of receiving as a necessary duty incumbent upon all of years, and upon that ground both earnestly exhorted all to come, and punished those that carelessly neglected it. 4. The Church's Jurisdiction consisted of Excommunication only in case of obstinacy, but in case of penitency, admonition, and public penance, the offender's confession of his sins (humbly in the body of the Church) craving the forgiveness of their sin in particular, both of God and the Church, did free from Excommunication: The obstinate was denied all the Ordinances, except to hear the Sermon at the Church doors, or behind the Font, the penitent not denied any one Ordinance: lay these things together, and then let wise men judge how our Church heretofore doth precedent the Suspension which Mr. Collins contends for; namely, that a Minister by virtue of his Office, with his Elders may, and aught upon Scripture ground to deny some the Sicrament (not obstinate) and allow them the privilege of all other Church Communion as Members. And this he would have Juridical, although the Church be in no capacity to empower them with any acts of discipline at all, nor have the help of appeals to restrain the rash proceed of inconsiderate uncharitable zealous Ministers, whose principles tend too much to division, Separation, and confusion in the Church, who would be more careful to further the edification, peace, and unity of the Church, were themselves under the rod of holy discipline Juridically exercised by grave, learned, experienced precedents, which particular Presbyters in reason will not be very zealous for, so long as themselves are left to themselves to exercise an absolute power, to rule as they please in their own Congregation without control. I wish these petty irregular reformings prove not the greatest remoras that hinder the reformation, peace, and edification of the whole, especially where particular Pastors and Elders are of Mr. Collins opinion. 1. That makes a mere nothing of Church-membership without grace. 2. That will allow them no other Covenant relation then to Heathens. 3. That will not so much as allow them the external titles of Brethren, Saints, Believers, within, but reproach them with the odious names of Hogs and Dogs, unbelievers, and of the Devil, etc. though they he such as never had the benefit and help of holy discipline to amend them, or try whether they sin out of weakness or wilfulness. 4. That will take upon him in his own name to dissolve them from Christ's commands, and threaten them not to do it upon pain of damnation. 5. That will make the Sacrament strong meat, that cannot be digested by weak doubting Christians. 6. That knows not wherein the Officers can have any work to keep the Communion of the Church pure, if not in the Sacrament. 7. That will allow no more privilege in duties of worship to the ignorant and scandalous, then to Heathens out of the Church. 8. That doth insolently affirm that a single Pastor alone, may lawfully suspend from the Sacrament, he being the ruling part of that particular Church. 9 That upon the matter puts the whole of discipline in Suspension from the Lords Supper, either making it the same with Excommunication, or else renders Excommunication needless in the Church. Are men thus leavened with Brownism, fit to be rulers in the Church of God? Or like to preserve the peace, unity, edification, and seek reformation of the whole, according to the general rules and ends prescribed in the Scriptures? I appeal to the standing rule of Scriptures to judge, whether such as himself, or the friends of my judgement and opinions, as to the weal of the Church, (it being judged true by both) be consonant unto it, and whether he or we be guilty of the most folly and filth, and defend such things as is a shame to be named amongst Christians, as himself expresses against our opinion in opposing his, pag. 98. I come to his ninth argument; the sum is, If scandalous persons not excommunicate nor unclean were debarred the Passeover, than such may be suspended from the Lords Supper: but the first is true, therefore the latter. I grant the consequence is good, Answ. but let him prove the antecedent, that scandalous sinners not cut off, nor unclean were debarred some Ordinances, and the Passeover; I dare give him seven years' time to prove that by Scriptures, either by direct text or sound consequence, that cannot rationally be denied: all that hath been said to that thing is, to give us a gloss of moral uncleanness, and thence argue, that if the legal unclean might not eat the Passeover, much less the moral unclean, if the legal unclean defiled holy things, much more moral uncleanness, the consequence is naught. Because 1. The Church of the Jews were in Covenant relation, and holy in a Covenant sense, and no where blamed or debarred the Ordinances of the Church upon any such account. 2. Because it was either punished by their Judicials, or taken away by a continual course of Sacrifices; and therefore could not rest upon them, much less bar them from the Sacrament of the Passeover. 3. Because nothing could excuse from the not observing of that service in its appointed season, but legal uncleanness, and a necessary journey, upon their lives; if nothing else would excuse, than all others were to keep it. 4. It's clear that some did keep the Passeover that were guilty of that which you will say was moral uncleanness. Ezra 9.1. after they had kept the Passeover, complaint was brought unto Ezra, saying, The people of Israel, Priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, of the Canaanites, etc. for they have taken of the daughters for themselves, and for their sons, and the Princes have been chief in this trespass. 5. I say further that in some cases the people of Israel were accepted of, in their keeping the Passeover, although many of them did eat the Passeover otherwise then was written, for some that were unclean did eat thereof, 2 Chron. 30.18, 19, 20. 6. It was the will of God that declared that such things upon a man should be unclean, and all things he touched should be so by his institution only; but there is no such thing declared by the will of God touching moral uncleanness in the Church, as to debar them the Passeover or any other Ordinances all his, and other men's quotations have been sufficiently examined as to this, and fully answered, unless it be one of Mr. Collins, Deut. 23.18. Thou shall not bring the price of a whore, or the price of a Dog into the House of the Lord for any vow, for these are abomination to the Lord, if not the price, than not the Whore or Dog. He argues from the lesser to the greater. Answ. Doth it follow, that because they might not offer any of those two for any vow, that therefore they might not bring their Lamb in its season to the House of the Lord, and offer it before him according to God's command? It was an abomination to do those things that God forbade; therefore it is abomination to do that which God commands; that's all the text will prove, as to debarring of the moral unclean from the Passeover. Away with such trifling and impertinent applications of holy Scriptures. The truth is, men of his judgement must do more than they have yet done; I had almost said more than they can do, or else had better never to have said any thing about this argument drawn from the Analogy of the Passeover: all that man can say against us from that, doth but discover their own weakness in fight against the Truth. His tenth Argument, It's a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible Body, who are not one body with visible Saints; but scandalous sinners are not one body with visible Saints. And be that gives the Lord's Supper, declares those to whom he gives it unto, to be one visible Body.— Ergo. 1. Answ. Is it a sin to say the visible Church is the visible body of Christ, and this visible body consists of good and bad, Wheat and Tares, etc. Is it a sin to declare this? 2. Are not all that are baptised into one Body, of that Body, and are not the scandalous in the Church baptised, and is it a sin for one to declare that the baptised are one visible body with visible Saints? What is a visible Saint, but a baptised visible professing Christian, that is a member of the true visible Church? Is not an offending brother a brother, and within while he is within? If the Sacrament of baptism do initiate into that one body, and the Sacrament of the Supper bespeaks them so too that are baptised: Is it a sin for a Minister to give the Sacrament to such, by declaring that which is true, and which no man can deny that holds our Church a true visible Church? Who can you say is not a real member of Christ in particular? And one that he died not for? The Apostle affirmed it of all in the Church of Corinth, that they were one body. What if Gillespy will not be persuaded the Apostle would say it of all, we find it so written, and I think it safe to be persuaded of the truth of what is written: the authority of Scripture shall persuade with me before the authority of men. His eleventh Argument, The Sacrament is not to be given to any who are not Christ's Disciples, but scandalous sinners are none of his disciples— Ergo. The Major is true, Answ. but the Minor is to be distinguished into scandalous sinners out of the Church, and such like sinners in the Church; to the former it's granted, but to the latter it's denied, What are Church-members but Disciples? What are all that profess the true Christian Religion, and only call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in hope of eternal life by him, but Disciples? if they be not Disciples and within, than they are Heathens and without, whom the Church have nothing to do to judge in order to their amendment; and if they be without, and strangers from the Covenant of promises, why do you baptise their children or press them to any duties of Gospel worship, as incumbent upon them as Christians? If they be Christians, and within, why should they not have their proper titles, and privileges of that estate? If you can make them neither within the Church, nor without, then it's possible you may do something in this argument; and when you have done that, I doubt not but you will be answered. His 12.13. arguments, I have answered in my answer to what he hath excepted against The Bar removed; His fourteenth Argument. It is unlawful to partake of other men's sins, Ephes. 5.7. But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant scandalous person partakes with him in his sin.— Ergo. I grant his Major, Answ. but deny his Minor, because giving and receiving the Sacrament is a most necessary duty of worship, which both Minister and people stand mutually engaged to observe and perform as any other duty of worship in the Church, and the Sacrament being given and received with that reverence and order according to the form of holy institution, there is no sin, as to the matter itself; and as for the manner, as in every thing we fail all, so in this, and if this were sufficient to forbear the Sacrament, than we must give over all worship. In all duties better to do as well as we can, than not at all; so that it follows, that those that deny the Sacrament to those that are bound to receive it are partakers of their sin, in not allowing them to do their duty; for ignorance and other offendings, do not excuse from precepts of institute Worship, and the holy Supper, more than all other Gospel Worship, while persons are within. Shall man's impotency and iniquity pull down God's authority? If in all other duties of Gospel Worship such had better obey as well as they can, then neglect Gods worship altogether, it's but a begging the question to deny it, in the observance of the Sacrament. It's true, a Minister may be guilty of his people's ignorance, and may fear and tremble at that guilt, if he neglect all or any due and probable principles of the true Religion, that may in some measure prepare them to profit by every Ordinance in the Church: But having done his duty, he need not fear to give them the Sacrament, but tremble at the neglect of that administration, and discouraging weak and ignorant Christians from it. True it is also, that a Minister and the Church may make themselves accessary to the sins of offending brethren in the Church, by their careless indulging of them in their evil ways, by not reproving, admonishing, censuring, etc. by which sinners should be reform from their evils; otherways the Minister and Church may partake of those sins, though they never come to the Sacrament; but this is a conceit of some men, that unless a man do what he can to keep such away from the Sacrament, he is a partaker of their sins, whereas the Sacrament is his duty as well as any other Worship, who is not to be blamed for that, but for his sins, such works of darkness that the Apostle doth instance in, Ephes. 5.2, 3, 4. the place that this argument stands upon. We are not to reform such offenders in those lawful things, they are but to reform them from the wicked and ungodly courses that they offend in. I grant that if any in the Church should pollute the holy signs of Bread and Wine to profane ends, in a mere carnal eating and drinking unto excess, as the Corinthians did, and were punished for, or if by any rude profane carriage or misdemeanour, shall be disorderly in the time of administration, the Officers of the Church not doing what in them lies to restrain and prevent it, might be partakers of their sins: but this is a case which was hardly ever known in our Congregations. But as for Church-members that come with reverence, and demean themselves orderly, and conform to the external actions, according to the rules of institution, there can nothing be proved against any for being partakers with other men's sins, as to this particular, so far as I am able to judge. I have now given you an account of Mr. Collins 14. arguments, to prove Suspension from the Sacrament, only distinct from Excommunication. And if I mistake not very much, I have sully answered them by removing all his foundations from Scripture and reason he pretends to deduct them from. What others can do I do not know, I will prejudge none of his persuasion; but yet I am somewhat confident, that the more wise men search into this Controversy, the more they will find it a work of that difficulty to make good Suspension from the Lords Supper only from Scriptures, and allow the liberty of all other Ordinances in the Church as members, that they had need follow no other studies but this that undertake it. Touching that authority brought in proof of Suspension, so largely insisted upon, I cannot examine. And therefore must leave it to those that are in a capacity to search and judge; whether Mr. Collins hath dealt any more impartially with his Authors then with the holy Scriptures. I question, whether any of his quotations, Ancient, or Modern, doth reach Suspension, as, himself hath stated it, and as many practise it: for it was always to be put in execution by the authority of the whole Church, and not left to the liberty of a Pastor and his Elders to deny the Sacrament to whom they please, without any remedy of appeals. Whether they suspended from the Sacrament of the holy Supper only, and allowed the suspended the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as Church-members. Whether their Suspension was gradual and made use of only in order to their proceed unto Excommunication, and so of no longer continuance then to try the offender's obstinacy, or repentance. Whether they grounded Suspension on the Word of God, or on the policy and prudence of the Church: if he say the former, he may do well to show us their grounds; if the latter, then that doth much alter the case: for Mr. Collins doth not urge it upon any such account, nor may the Church's prudence be pleaded, where Christ commands, and the Word doth determine. Whether non-admittance of Penitents, Aliens born, Catechumen, unbaptised, were any thing at all unto suspension from the Lords Supper. I question whether any one instance can be given of any Church or persons that were judged Orthodox, that ever maintained that a Church-member in possession of the Sacrament, was denied the Sacrament by his Minister and Elders, merely for ignorance and for the omitting of some private duties; and allowed the benefit of all other Ordinances in the Church as members, which is the practice of the Presbyterian party that Mr. Collins defends, or that ever any scandalous members were only kept from the Sacrament, without any further Juridical proceed unto Excommunication; or whether any Church ever would suffer their members of years to neglect the Ordinance of the holy Supper year after year through carelessness, or merely leave them out as Heathens, though born in the Church and baptised. Now I say, if that authority which is quoted by Mr. Collins will not reach these cases, they are but little for his purpose, they will not speak to the clearing of the Controversy in hand. Besides humane authority only will not satisfy the conscience of the doubtful; it is only the authority of the holy Scriptures that must satisfy conscience, and be binding unto all. And as it is apparent the ancient Church did err in their extremity of rigour in their censures in respect of length of time, so it's possible enough they might err in their several degrees of censures. Not so much their practice as the ground thereof from Scripture rule will give satisfaction to those that doubt. Besides these, let Mr. Collins give us authority of any Church before these last ages, that ever made a Pastoral examination of Church-members of years, of that necessity unto the holy Supper, without which they would debar them the Sacrament. By these and the like queries, I hope we shall hear by some of the Presbyterian judgement, or others, by what authority they practise so many things, not to be found in the holy Scriptures. But I find Mr. Collins in his Book pag. (157.) making some Apology for themselves. He confesses their present practice doth differ from other reformed settled Churches: as to the suspension of any they admit, they agree with others, and will suspend none but after admonition for some scandalous sin. And indeed saith he this only is properly Suspension. We deny the Sacrament indeed to others, viz. such as will not give account of their faith and submit to the order of the Church, etc. What did Mr. Collins mean in his stating the question to put in ignorant persons, Answ. 1 if none are to be suspended, but after admonition for some scandalous sin? if this indeed be properly suspension, what will he make denying the Sacrament to the ignorant not resusing to learn? and denying it those that are not convinced of submitting to Church examination, and an explicit profession of faith as their duty? What will he call that? If it be not suspension properly, what is it then? the punishment is the same with those that are excommunicate for scandalous sins, or suspended properly: all they do, amounts but to this, to deny them the Sacrament. And yet they would be judged to agree with other reformed Churches, but it was never heard of before these present times, that a Heathen, an excommunicate person, the suspended, or left out, had all equal privilege to all other Ordinances but Sacraments. They agree with other reformed Churches as to suspension properly; as the Brownists and Anabaptists do, all agree in this to suspend scandalous members that will not be resormed by admonition: but what's this to the case in controversy, unless they judge, that not any are members until they be admitted upon profession of faith, etc. as others of the separations judge: if so, what is the Church privilege of one born a Christian and baptised, and of years of discretion to the holy Supper, more than a Pagan, who upon his profession of faith, hath right to Sacraments? What doth admission upon profession of faith imply, but that all in the Church not so admitted, are Heathens and without, making the Lords Supper the initiating Ordinance into Church Communion, and subjection to censures? If of those that are admitted none may be suspended but after admonition for some scandalous sin, and this only is properly suspension; Then let me demand of Mr. Col. what he will make the cause of excommunication. If he say that scandalous sinning is the cause of both, than one of those censures are superfluous; if he say, we must distinguish of scandalous sinning in regard of degrees some deserving the lesser censure, the other the greater Excommunication. Let him make that good from the Scriptures; which concerns him to do before he can prove suspension from the Sacrament distinct from Excommunication: in the mean time what he affirms of proper Suspension, is all one with Excommunication, and upon the same ground, the Church may as well proceed unto Excommunication as Suspension: so that this very concession of his, doth (upon the matter) undermine his chiefest strength, and render all he hath said in proof of Suspension as distinct from Excommunication, frivolous. But in the next place his pleading, That they must be looked upon as now reforming a disordered Church: had former Ministers done their duties they might have saved us this labour of putting our people upon making a profession of faith in order to admittance to the Lords Supper. Answ. 1 1. Me thinks the sad effects of our late reformings might have put a stop to Mr. Col. thus late plead; the issue being little else but either neglect of God's Ordinance, or running Pastors and people into a deluge of division, and confusion. 2. It's granted by all, that our Church in respect of some evil circumstances in doctrine, worship, and discipline, had need of a holy, yet a wary and a wholesome reformation, that might best stand with the health, peace, union, & edification of the whole. 3. That the most godly and knowing part of the Nation, have had the advantage of power and opportunity to reform what ever was amiss, I think cannot be denied. But whether they have sincerely endeavoured it, in that way that might best stand with the health, peace, union, and edification of the whole, doth admit of questioning. 4. 'Tis certain our late reformers found an establishment of the main substantials of Doctrine, Worship, and discipline in the Church. And do they think to advance reformain the removal of the foundations of the Churches well being? 5. Reformation stands in the reducing all Christians to a universal observance of all the known Laws & Ordinances of Jesus Christ uniformly; and not in setting up of humane inventions, that the Church must bow unto, in order to holy worship: and hence Mr. Col. must first make good, that it is the duty of all in the Church to make a public profession of faith, or submit to the examination of his Eldership, in order to the holy Supper, before he tells others what they require now, & suspend for, is to be excused, by their being upon reformation now: A strange reformation that's begun in making void the commands of Jesus Christ, & carried on with prejudices and division, and if persisted in, may end in confusion. Was it ever known before now that Reformation began in admitting to the Passeover or Lords Supper? it's an absurd reforming that will allow those to be Church-members, and yet deny them to do the duty of a Member and Christian. It was more rational and agreeing with Scripture rule, to correct that general careless neglect in Ministers and people in order to reforming, then to devise a novel way in a settled reformed Church to hinder the most of Church-memb. from doing their duty. The care & zeal of our first reformers, was both to exhort and to press all of years to actual receiving, not thinking it sufficient to be present gazing on, or careless in not preparing; and likewise corrected those that neglected this holy observance: how unlike are these men's spirits to our first reformers? It's true, many Ministers than were too careless of their duties in catechising and instructing the younger sort, and so it will be still; but what then? Doth that disoblige Christians from that necessary part of institute Worship? Ministers neglect their duties to their people, therefore the people must not do their duty to their Lord; but must be left out and leveled with the Pagan world! Had our Church been abolished, when they abolished Episcopacy, then in order unto constituting and gathering a new Church, a verbal profession of saith in order unto lawful baptism, had been proper; but to plead it unto reforming but of the same Church already embodied and planted together by baptism, is to be wise beyond what is written. If Mr. Collins plea be good for the Presbyterian persuasion, it holds as good to the Independent practice, for they admit into Communion upon the same principle, But he would not have this looked upon as a standing principle. Answ. (Why,) because it wants a standing rule, that's his reason I judge. But then he tells us, Our former Ministers would admit any one for his two pence. This is somewhat an ignorant slander, Answ. as if it was left to the liberty of a private Minister to admit and refuse at his pleasure, when he might know both the Minister and people were under the precept and penalty of the Church. But what means all this pleading to excuse their rigid practices, but that either they question their warrant, or would have us think the case is extraordinary, and so will warrant their irregular improper proceed in order to admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper; an argument indeed of late, that doth set the whole land at a stand to answer, but not so much for strength of reason that is in it, but for a power out of it, that will make any thing hold that's said. 158. pag. Mr. Collins pleads further, and tells his Reader, That there was no way but this to begin any Reformation amongst us, who by our former way of administration of the holy Supper had made our Churches a reproach to Papists, and a grief to all Protestants, and opened a way for Brownists and Anabaptists to fill their Congregation with our strictest Professors, etc. The substance of this is much to be doubted of, Answ. unless our common people were more ignorant than the common people in Rome or Italy, who are taught that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, and I think the most of Orthodox Protestants were more grieved about the gesture determined by the Church, and those superstitious rails, and turning the Table Altarwise, and the insufficient administrators; then at our free admission of Church-members. Suppose all he saith were true, is there no way to reform, but to remove the foundations of the Churches established doctrine, worship, and discipline, and innovate ways of our own politic choosing, different to all other settled reformed Churches (as himself confesses) Say our malady in a great part was ignorance, could not they begun reformation with a more than ordinary diligence in teaching and instruction, and friendly admonition, in the carrying on all God's ordinances in love, reverence, and unity, taking all advantages to promote knowledge, in which in time we might have hoped to see some good proficiency, in the growing up of the whole together by the goodness and blessing of the Lord. For it's certain, that the Scriptures teach not any thing about the censuring of Church-members for ignorance simply, and to deprive Church-members of the benefit of God's Ordinances, for causes less than the Scriptures do warrant, is no reformation, but rather an usurpation upon the privilege and right of a Church-member. Say again, that lose and scandalous members was another part of our malady, is the denying the Sacrament to a multitude of such sinners, the only way to reform them? What care such for the Sacrament, so long as it's the ordinary case of most, and they may have the liberty of all the other Ordinances in the Church as members? How is this like to reform their persons, when they may be let alone to be lose and profane, if they do but keep away from the Sacraments? Such a kind of reforming that was never read of in holy writ, nor in any Orthodox Authors. Had it not been better to reform according to Scripture rules and precedents, (we judging all in the Church adhering to the Protestant Religion Church-members) to have pressed them unto all Christian observance, and to have dealt with them as those that are within? and to have proceeded against some unto the like admonitions and excommucation Juridically? God's way is always best, and we may groundedly hope to have his way attended with a blessing of success in the amendment of the worst sinners amongst us. It's a pitiful shift to prevent our strictest professors from running into the Brownists Congregations, to practise their principles, and so become like them in making admission to the Lords Supper upon a public profession of faith, the only ground to unite and imbody the visible Church into Ecclesiastical Communion, and so in gratifying some few in their error, require such terms unto actual receiving of necessity, that the baptised in the Church of years are not where bound to submit unto, nor in a capacity to come unto: And yet are under the obligation of actual receiving, unless in plain terms you will unchurch them, and so unduty them, and speak out as the Brownists do. But I think enough hath been said already as to this, and therefore I shall now take my leave of my Reader, having done with the main things in Mr. Collins late Book as it opposes free admission to the Lords Supper. And I hope Mr. Collins may seriously conceive himself soberly and rationally answered, as to Juridical Suspension distinct from Excommunication, as himself hath stated it. He hath taken some pains to prove it in the power of a single Minister to suspend from the Supper, but I think it needless to examine him, or answer him in that; for I know that Mr. Collins will have work enough to maintain that Suspension from the Lords Supper which he calls Juridical; he might first have tried how he could have come off with this, before he had showed himself so forward to go about to prove that which is so denied by all that are Orthodox and sober. And I know were there any thing in what he hath said of private Suspension considerable, and worthy of a consutation; that learned Reverend Gentleman Mr. Joanes, whom he attempts to answer, would call him to an acount of his forwardness of Spirit, to Lord it over God's heritage, and to be a Pope in his own Congregation. FINIS. A BRIEF ANSWER TO THE ANTIDIATRIBE WRITTEN By Mr. Saunders, Minister of Hollesworth in Devonshire. Wherein his chief Strength in Defence of Separation in a Church, and Examination in order to admitting To the LORDS-SUPPER Is Examined, and the way he defends proved to be SCHISMATICAL. LONDON, Printed by E. Cotes, for William Tomson at harbour in Leicestershire, 1655. ABRIEF ANSWER To Mr. SAUNDERS ANTIDIATRIBE. IN the midst of these unhappy and dividing times in the Church of God, I know not how such a worm as I should improve a few hours better, after redious labour in my honest calling, then by remembering the happy and ever to be desired Peace and Reformation of renowned Zion. As it is my daily prayer, so it is a part of my daily care and study to endeavour that the Church's peace and truth may meet in one. And hence it is that I so often appear against those who upon dangerous mistakes destroy and pluck up the main principles and foundations, on which the Church's peace and reformation should stand, and consist in. How sad are our miseries like to be in the end, when those that are our professed friends are ever hatching of new unheard of ways of Separation and Schism? Amongst others this unhappy Author doth bear his share, by defending such a way that is rarely met withal, and yet cried up to be the way of truth and reformation according unto Gospel rule. The way he defends in brief is this, some certain Ministers and Christians have agreed to form up a Church in the choice of a Pastor, Officers and members in some one place: The terms agreed on unto admission to and exclusion from the sacred Communion of this Church, as to the holy Supper, is either a public profession of faith, or submitting to a Church examination in giving an account of their knowledge and faith unto satisfaction, etc. and so likewise, as to practise, they require not only a freedom from things scandalous, but some real demonstrations of the faith of holiness unto admittance. This way it appears hath been rigorously carried on against the consent of some able Ministers in those parts. And something is excepted against their way by a solid reverend Gentleman I judge; with several demands, and queries, and objections for them to answer and clear in defence of their way and practise. Mr. Saunders in behalf of the rest hath taken some pains to give satisfaction unto others, professing himself ready to stand or fall, as the truth is with him or against him in their practice: It's an ingenuous resolution I confess; and if he will but stand to it, I doubt not of the issue, but that it will be worth our labour to dispute it with him according to Scripture and Reason, the only Judge of Truth. Besides, I am the rather inclined to enter the lists with him in this Controversy, because he protests against a rigid separation from a true Church, and declares himself only for a moderate and lawful separation in the Church; not as yet disowning our Churches I take it. Unto this I answer, That Separation that is proper and lawful in the Church, Answ. is either made by Orthodox Doctrine; Or 2. by wholesome Discipline Juridically exercised; Or 3. we may and aught to withdraw all unnecessary friendly and intimate familiarity from scandalous brethren, where the necessary duties of our general and particular callings will permit without prejudice to ourselves. And then the question will be, whether the practice defended in respect of separation be no more but so: if it be but Doctrinal, or putting out of Communion Juridically by Excommunication, or declining all unnecessary familiarity with the scandalous though tolerated: all will be yielded on his side. But if it be found otherwise, I shall deny it as dangerous, and warn all Christians to avoid it, lest they be infected with Schism, a cursed fruit of the flesh; and drawn into such needless separations as can never be warranted. It's one thing to separate from the sinful courses of scandalous brethren, and another thing to separate from the necessary duties of God's Worship, and of our calling, where such are tolerated. It's one thing to exclude the scandalous Juridically, another thing to exclude the ignorant who desire to be learners of wholesome Doctrine; or those that are not satisfied to yield unto their terms, as presented under the necessity of duty, when upon search their terms are but the bold inventions and opinions of strong fancies, and not to be owned upon any such account as is pretended. Yet I shall advise to a condescension to the same terms upon a prudential account, for the help and encouragement of all in saith and knowledge: provided it be used to no such end as to exclude Church-members from that necessary duty of institute worship, Do this in remembrance of me. Christian's ought not to betray their own and their brethren's liberties to those that have the boldness in these exorbitant times to invade them, and bring all into division and confusion. Why should not all that are within, and of the Church, enjoy all external helps and means of their amendment, until the Church hath taken the forfeiture of their offending, and issued out judgement against them? I think I have writ more to this then will be answered in haste. Mr. Saunders would be judged a sober moderate man that still owns our Church, Ministry and members for true. But yet we find him so inconsistent to himself, that upon the matter he unchurches all our Parochial Congregations, that he will not allow them to be Churches, but in an equivocating sense; that is to say, in no sense as a ●●rish in its Precincts; but as a separate Church may be in a Parish, as in the world. We do not say, saith he, that our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes, but that they are Churches in Parishes; and in that sense Parish Churches, pag. 127. and yet he is sharp against rigid separation, and pretends but to Surgery, not to Butchery: but if unchurching of our Parochial Assemblies be not a rigid Butchery, let him tell us what is more rigid. They of the Independent judgement do generally acknowledge our Assemblies to be the Churches of Christ, though out of order. The Anabaptists will confess, a Church may be in a Parish, as well as in a City, Country, and World, and in this sense they may say there are Churches in Parishes, and so Parish Churches. How is our Church beholden to such pretenders that will speak as much in defence of our Parochial Churches, as they state them, as our adversaries will grant? And yet he hath the happiness to be approved of by a learned Gentleman for his recommending to the Church a well tempered Reformation, if love to his person and cause deceive him not: Mr. Manton in his approbational Epistle to this Book. I confess, if those we plead for be not members of true Churches in Scripture account, than all must needs go against us; for it is certain that Heathens, the unbaptized, or such as have renounced the Christian Religion may not eat thereof; our opinion pleads for all Church-members of years baptised and not excommunicated, as knowing not any rule against the admitting of such to the Lords Supper, produced yet by any. And yet Mr. Manton saith peremptorily, amongst all others, none have deserved worse of the Church of God, than those that plead for a lose way (as he calls it) of receiving all sorts of persons to holy things: and by promiscuous administrations prostitute the Ordinance of God to every comer. I confess this passage from so reverend a Minister as he is reputed to be, did enter my very heart at first, and plunged my soul into a greater perplex of passion than is ordinary. Yet not out of any apprehension of guilt, (though I have always cause to flee unto God's mercy for acceptance) but that so good a man, and an eminent Minister of the Gospel should be so inconsiderately rash in his censure of the Church's friends. But to answer directly; 1. Doth not Mr. Manton receive all sorts of Christians unto God's Ordinances of Word, Prayer, singing of Psalms, the administration of holy baptism? Are not these holy things? And is it looseness in himself to admit all sorts of persons in the Church to partake of these? I hope not, and why then not in the other, it being a necessary duty to all in the Church, of years, (as the Ordinances before named:) he might do well to give some better reason than others do. When he can charge us justly with pleading the admission of the unbaptized, Heathens, the Excommunicate; then let him charge us with that odium of looseness, or a lose way, as being against Gospel-rule; but until then his charge and censure is no other than a rash slander unbecoming such a person. It's strange and to be admired, that our pressing unto Christian observance to those that are baptised, professing Christians, and of the visible Church, should have such a hard sense put upon it, as to be branded with looseness; when in all other duties pressing to obedience according to rule is accounted godliness, and holy strictness. But doubtless that way that is the nearest to Gospel rule, is the good way and strait way. However it may have the hap (upon mistake) to be called a lose way. Truly to speak freely, I little value that perverse disputing in most that oppose us, that are forced to uncovenant, unchurch, undisciple, unduty a Christian professing baptised people to make out their argument and own invented way, against such manifest demonstration, which cannot otherwise be answered: and yet for the zeal of the Church's peace and privileges we defend in behalf of her members, we are counted the greatest enemies to the Church; none deserve worse of the Church than we, no not Ranters, Quakers, Antitrinitarians, Anabaptists, Brownists, that destroy all the Church is in possession of, through the gift of his grace; for there are some amongst all others that deserve bad enough sure, but we deserve worse than all these, if this good man say true. As for looking at a worldly interest (he hints at) I have as little cause as ever had any man, I have what I looked for before I engaged, to have many tongues and pens against me, even of them I esteem my very good friends; which thing I have put myself upon with no small reluctancy of spirit; what the Lord intends by it for good or hurt, I am not certain, but content to submit to his pleasure and further guidance in the Controversy, being well assured of this, that I shall not lose my labour of zeal and love for the Church's peace, and edification. I shall speak one word more to vindicate myself and friends from this heavy censure. The question shall be put to the judgement of the learned and sober in the Church of England, Whether Mr. Saunders himself gives approbation of, or Mr. Humphrey, or myself, deserves worse of the Church of God. If we do not deserve worse of the Church than the Author himself approves of, I hope the judicious Reader will forgive us the wrong, and what himself hath published will acquit us. And I doubt not but when our principles and theirs are laid together, and compared impartially, as I have given some discoveries in these followings sheets; it will not be very difficult to judge, whether they or we deserve worse of the Church of God. And so I will leave Mr. Manton's hard censure to himself and others, that shall read both to judge between us. I should hardly have troubled you with these sheets had not that passage much provoked me, nor would I hinder that reverend Gentleman engaged; he may rejoin more deliberately, if he see cause. I think I have done enough to caution the Reader of less judgement from being taken with this Author, with whose smoothness of expression and plausible pretences his Reader may quickly be entangled, and carried away with a sound of enticing words that have no truth nor solid reason in them. I shall now upon the sudden come to examine the main of his Book. And my way will be first to examine what himself relates of their way. Secondly, I shall examine the state of the question, and the proofs urged to defend it, answer his arguments, queries, and motives, and then conclude. Mr. Saunders tells us what their way is: There is a Church form in one of our Congregations according to the rule of the Word. In the choice of a Pastor, Officers, and Members; other Ministers and people are joined to this society, in which we are like to walk till we can see truth or reason against us, pag. 121. To this something may be yielded, Answ. 1 as namely, that where a people is destitute of a faithful Pastor, they may choose one that is qualified for the carrying on the whole work of the Ministry in the Church. And the people to submit unto him as ruling over them in the Lord; I mean so far as his Office and Function doth authorise him according to rule, to admonish, warn, rebuke, and command. Than something is to be denied, until further proof of their practice appear. As namely, 1. That he that is a Pastor of a particular Congregation, and Church, or flock, (unto which he was either lawfully sent, and inducted by the Church, or came in by the consent of the people over whom he is) I say for such a one to join himself to another Church as a common member, and to hold constant Communion in the Sacrament with that Church, and altogether neglect the administering of the Lord's Supper to that people he is Pastor of; I utterly reject as that which the Scripture doth no where allow, but is contrary to reason, order, peace, and edification of his people; if it doth not imply a forsaking his Pastoral relation and duties. 2. I would gladly see it made out by Scripture, that one that is a Pastor of a Church already, may be chosen a Pastor again, either by the people he is Pastor unto, or by others that have lawful Pastors over them already; if this practice be permitted in those that are confessed by the Author to be true Churches, (which they dare not separate from) What a deluge of disorder & confusion must necessarily follow! Can a man be a Pastor of a select company out of several Churches, and a Pastor to his own people in general he was first related unto, denying the Lord's Supper to them that are properly his own flock, & give it as Pastor to other men's flocks and charge? Or can a man be Pastor of a true Church, and an Officer of another? Or a particular private member in constant Communion with another in acts of worship? These things have need of sugared words indeed to make them pass; yet this is represented unto all with the common guise of every Sect, to be according to the rule of the Word; when Mr. Saunders hath given us his proof to make good these paradoxes hinted at, and further declared and explained their way, we may have occasion more strictly to examine it in all the particulars of it. In the mean time I can conceive no less of their way, but that it makes such a rent in their several Congregations that most properly and justly is called Schism; pleading necessity will not help you, especially when it's of your own making, running upon sundry mistakes, and taking principles upon trust for truth, that the holy Scriptures no where teach, brings most knowing men under these straits, overwhelming the Church with distraction, division, and confusion. Besides, there is no necessity to sin upon pretence of reforming, that Reformation that is begun by sinful means is not of God, nor can never tend to the Churches good. Arguments drawn from pretended necessities are of little strength in a sober rational dispute, however prevalent they are conceived to be, when accompanied with the sword. How can those Ministers think they have done their duty in administering the holy Supper to their respective Congregations, by drawing a few of their own members with them to receive it in another man's Congregation? They may as well think they have done their duty in preaching to their own Congregation by a constant drawing a few of their people with them to hear another man preach; and if the other be their Pastor, as to some in the way they are in, cannot be denied, why should not such members constantly attend him in all public administrations, as their duty? And with what conscience can such live upon the Church's maintenance, that forsake their function and duty to their Congregations? And if they make the Sacrament the distinguishing Ordinance between the Church and the world, as the Author calls it some where, than no wonder they are so tender who they admit into the Church; and thus upon the matter they look upon the greatest part of their Congregations as Heathens, unbelievers, whom the duties of Christianity do not concern. In another place he saith, an unregenerate person is far from being a disciple, etc. and therefore not a Christian, for the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. And hence they devise ways and bars to keep them from the Lords Table equal unto a Heathen. But me thinks they might easily perceive their mistake; for baptism of old was accounted the only distinguishing Ordinance; as circumcision between the Church and the world, and the only separating and distinguishing Ordinance in the Church is Juridical Excommunication, which they make no use of, for Mr. Saunders saith they Excommunicate none, if they judge their people Church-members and within, if they have any scandalous crime against them, why do they not begin reformation by casting out the obstinate, according to rule? they are all for admission of members, when they should be for ejecting in the work of reforming. If they be for admission into Church Communion, they must begin with baptism, and I think the terms they stand upon in order to the Supper, will sooner be made good in order to baptism, of grown ones, then to those that are initiated into the Church already by lawful baptism, I have writ enough to this already; the truth is, if my judgement fail not, Mr. Saund. doth but shuffle, when he speaks of our Assemblies to be true Churches some of them, one while they are true Churches, and have both matter and form (which are the main essentials of true Churches) agreed upon by all, only he saith, but not without great disorder at present, (Discipline being interrupted, as I suppose he means). And he must needs speak this in behalf of our Parochial Churches, for he makes mention of the Churches of England, of which some he will undertake to prove to be true Churches, against those that deny all for matter and form to be true, pag. 127. And yet in the very same page he contradicts himself, in saying, We do not say our Assemblies are Churches as Parishes, but that they are Churches in Parishes, and in that sense Parish Churches: and in the page before, he thinks the truth of some of our Churches, (as to their Essence) he can prove. A Church may be in a Parish as well as in a Country, or City, (as Ephesus, Corinth) yea as well as in the World. By this you may conceive what a good friend he is like to be to our Parish Churches, against Anabaptists, and Brownists: that although he accounts them rigid Separatists, they will grant that there are some Parishes in England, that some that are godly and real members of Christ dwell in them, which they will confess are the matter of a true Church. Nay, there may be a rigid separate Church in fellowship and order in a Parish as well as in a Country, City, World. And in this sense they are Parish Churches. What shifts are these? but why doth he not speak plain to the case in question, and clearly speak his judgement of our Parochial Congregations as they are baptised, and adhere to the public Ministry in general, consisting of good and bad, nay the most very ignorant, and in some thing or other either scandalous, offensive, or remiss? Will he prove such Parishes in their Precincts and outward bounds, to have both the matter and form of true Churches? If he would do so, I shall embrace him as friend of the Church. And one would think in his 128. page that is his sense, by what he infers for baptism: saying, That all Infants born in our Churches are to be baptised, for Congregational Churches (as they are called) baptised all their Infants, and then, If it be objected that sundry of the parents are ungodly whose children we baptise, he asks whether they can deny baptism to the child of any member how offensive soever, before the sentence of cutting off pass upon him? So he answers of ours. These supposed wicked ones, whether (as carnal or profane) are not excommunicated, what therefore should hinder their children's baptism? Hence he owns all in our Churches that are baptised members Christians, and within; for I suppose he would not plead the baptising of the children of those that are Infidels and without, that are no objects of Excommunication. And yet in other places they are far from being Disciples, Church-members, etc. Nay, he saith, as to baptism we suppose our Churches to be true, but sick, and corrupt, pag. 126, but wherein corrupt? if all be true you publish (129. pag.), wherein you add to what you said before? Besides the children are not baptised in their Parents right alone, but in the Churches, where the child is born a member, being holy federally by birth, and therefore to be baptised▪ You prove the Subjects of our baptism lawful, the Minist●●, and baptism itself for matter and manner I presume; wherein is it sick and corrupt then? I could wish you were more steady in your judgement & consonant to yourself, and honest to your Reader. But to reply upon your own grants: if all children born in the Church he holy federally by birth; than it follows that all parents in the Church of whom they are so born are believers, for the Apostle affirms that only of the children of believers, 1 Cor. 7.14. And then if all parents in the Church be believers, why do you not administer the Lords Supper to them? for actual receiving is the undoubted duty of all believers; how you will deny the consequence I cannot tell. I pray you consider well of my Answer unto Mr. Collings, for I must be very brief to yours. Again if our Churches be true Churches; and all it consists of lawfully admitted into it, Than it will follow, 1. That while they are within, they are to enjoy all external privileges of our Church according unto Gospel rule, which is one and the same unto all Church-members as such. This is so rational and clear, that all that separate from us, own and practise it; until a member by Apostasy fall off, or be Juridically cast out of Church privileges. 2. That Pastors of true Churches are to attend their several flocks in a constant exercise of the whole ministerial work they are designed unto, by the Church that ordained them such. 3. That forming a Church in the choice of a Pastor and Officers, members, in a true Church already form according unto rule, (as to the essentials thereof, at least) is a work not only superfluous and absurd, but Schismatical and pernicious, breaking the peace and union of that Church they are of by making unnecessary rents and divisions in it. It is not separation from a Church, but separation in a true Church causelessly, that is properly a Schism: absolute separation from a true Church is properly apostasy in an Ecclesiastical sense, I take it. Hence his distinction of separation from a true Church, and separation in a true Church where the ordinary means of salvation is, and the fruits thereof, (as himself confesses of ours) is groundless and wicked. The first sort come under the censure of the Apostles John and Judas, 1 Epistle of John 2.19. Judes general Epistle, vers. 19 The last sort are detected by St. Paul. 1 Cor. 1.10, 11, 12. Chap. 11.18, 19 Rom. 16.7. Act. 20.30. 1 Cor. 12.23, 24, 25. chap. 14.33. Now I shall a little touch upon what this new form Church requires of persons they admit into Sacramental Communion with them. And I will give you the question as themselves have stated it. Whether in the reforming of a long corrupted Church, Mr. Saund. it be necessary that all the members thereof do submit to some examination or trial of their knowledge before they be admitted unto the Lord's Supper. This question they fear not to maintain in the affirmative; Here they suppose corruption in our Churches, and therefore with men well satisfied with their present frame and temper, not looking on them as under any such disorder, as we suppose: with such we desire not much to dispute, we can expect little of reason, or truth from men of that mind. This question is but ambiguously stated, Answ. 1 and should be further explained as to the particular branches of it: for as to our Church in respect of doctrine, it must be spoken with thankfulness, that long hath the light thereof filled our Horizon, as himself confesses pag. 6. and this Examination is only in reference to sound knowledge, the means whereof the Church was not corrupted in, so as to deserve the denomination of a long corrupted Church in that respect. For generally the principles that were taught, and received by the people were Orthodox, that the people cannot in reason generally lie under the Suspension of heretical knowledge, for they have been so long habituated to sound words in respect of several Creeds which very frequently were professed and assented unto in our assemblies, with such plainness of Catechising, etc. that in respect of the ordinary means of the people's knowing in a competent sense (which is the subject matter that examination and trial only relates unto in the question) that the Church cannot be truly said, to have been a long corrupted Church. And then that clause in the question (as to us) is needless, which indeed upon the matter is the very cause of the question, that being taken away makes the question fall, for then the question will be, Whether in a reformed Church, as to knowledge, examination be necessary in all we admit to the Sacrament? And I judge this the most proper question, by what himself hath acknowledged of our Church in respect of purity of Doctrine, the only means of sound knowledge to her members, they being generally educated and trained up therein from their youth; so that as to knowledge the Church was not corrupt; That many of her members have but little knowledge, and are weak in the faith, is confessed, and is their sin, but whether it be such a sin that the Church may chastise with discipline, I very much doubt of: they being otherwise not tainted with scandalous offending. And how a Church-member should be denied a necessary duty of institute worship without some proper act of discipline, I cannot tell. I confess had the generality of our people been poisoned with Popish heretical principles, touching the holy Supper, and all other worship, there had been a rational cause of the question, as he hath stated it, and a ground sufficient to be suspicious of the knowledge of most, whether that little most know were true or false, Orthodox or heretical. And if upon complaint or trial they should be found heretical, and will not be reclaimed, I think such come under the chastisement of the Church; but this is not our case, nor question. If by the word (necessary) in the question, be meant a duty incumbent upon all to submit unto, and that every one must stand to the trial of their Pastor and Officers in respect of their knowledge, before they can lawfully be admitted unto the Lord's Supper; It will be denied, and the Author must give us stronger proofs and arguments for the affirmative than what he hath urged in his Antidiatribe; we shall examine his proofs anon. I should grant him that it might be necessary, in respect of some benefit and help to a more profitable receiving, if people would come off in such a prudential way, only to that end they may be prepared better, but to make use of it to that end, as either to dissuade them from their duty, or exclude them from a necessary duty of solemn worship, out of a persuasion that their knowledge is incompetent, this I utterly dislike as rash and groundless. I grant that the Church actually impowered with the exercise of true discipline, may and aught to convent any of her members, before them complained of or suspected for matter of scandal, and examine them, and finding them guilty and impenitent, may censure them, but the question intends another thing. I grant that self Examination is a necessary duty in order to receiving, and that may satisfy the question as it's stated; for that is (some examination) to receiving as his expression is, when this is endeavoured of professing Christians, although they neglect that which is Pastoral, it's a question whether they deserve to be excluded or no. But to reply. If Church Examination be a necessary duty to all admission: As he would; why not unto every time they come to receive? For that examination that the Apostle enjoins, holds to every time the holy Sacrament is administered; but they require it but once, and that only upon a supposition of a general corruption of our Churches, (p. 22.) But were not the Church of the Jews as generally corrupt as ours at some times, and yet at such a time did not as godly men as yourselves call all to observe the Passeover without such a way of examination you plead for; think of Josiah, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, etc. You confess the Passeover and Supper are the same for substance; and in answer to the first objection, you say Christ had communicated with his Disciples before in the Passeover, therefore he needed not examine those that were admitted before: If your reason be good, I ask what need you examine those that have been admitted to the Louds Supper before? Nay what need you examine those that are admitted unto holy Baptism before, that are of years, not excommunicated? That which was necessary unto Baptism was sufficient to admission into the Church, where Sacramental Communion (only) is: and which none ever was denied in the Apostolical Churches during their abode in those Churches: And to those that judge ours lawfully baptised, and in a true Church, cannot rationally refuse to admit them while they are within. And again if the examination defended be a necessary duty, why not binding unto all Church-members of the same kind? Necessary duties use to be universal. How comes this to be restrained only to such as well may be suspected for incompetent knoweldge? Sure if it be a necessary duty, it is incumbent upon all in the Church, or else to none at all; if a Minister be at liberty to dispense with some, a gift may blind their eyes at length. But what Scriptures determine of the just measure of this competent knowledge that the Ignorant are to be examined of, without which they must be excluded the Sacrament? if no certain rule can be found to satisfy us in this, how can men determine of it? Then it will follow, as in all other doubtful or groundless things; so many men, so many minds, and will but add more fuel to our too many hot divisions already. And know an unquestionable duty of public worship should be made void upon such trifling uncertainties, that not any are able to determine of, seems to me, too great a boldness in man. Thus as briefly as I could, I have not only questioned the question, but have examined it in particulars thereof, by explaining and yielding something, and by denying other things intended by the Author. And I think the true question is this. Whether it be the duty of all professing the true Religion, (and admitted into fellowship and Communion of the Church already by holy baptism, and constantly attend the public Worship of God) to give an account of their knowledge and faith upon the command and examination of their Minister and Officers, and either to be admitted or refused the Lords Supper, as these examiners shall approve, or not approve, of the measure, truth and soundness of the knowledge of all, and whether all that refuse to submit to this duty, are justly to be excluded the Sacrament. I dare say that's the proper question as to our case, and now I come to examine the Scriptures and reasons laid down by Mr. Saunders, to prove the affirmative. Namely, that all are bound to stand to this trial before they can lawfully be admitted to the Lords Supper: His quotations are many, and he is something large upon them, therefore I must desire the Readers patience in my answer; yet I will promise thee I have laboured to avoid all tedious impertinences. Mr. Saunders first proof, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order. This, he saith, is a general rule, serving till the world's end, to direct the Churches in matters of outward worship, whereof this of admission to, and exclusion from the Lords Supper is one. Who knows not that the Apostle as in the 11. chapter, Answ. 1 reproves the Church of Cotinth for her divisions and disorders in their public Assemblies, in the very time of administering the Lords Supper, and prescribes them rules and orders in special as to the reforming of those profane disorders: so in this chapter he takes them up for some other disorders they were guilty of, in the like assemblies in the carrying on of some other exercises of Religion amongst themselves, as verse 26. doth intimate: How is it then brethren when you come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation? let all things be done to edifying. The fault was this, in the exercises of these different gifts by different persons, they observed no order, but made a confusion, all exercising their particular gifts at once, that not any could be edified by another's gift; either for his own, or because so many spoke together, that those that were hearers could not tell which to attend, etc. Therefore after many particular directions prescribed to particular cases, lest the Apostle should omit some other things, that might fall out about the ordering of Worship in the Church of God, he gives them more general rules that might reach all other the like cases. Let all things be done decently, and in order. The Apostle orders speech and silence in their Assemblies so, as all may be edified and comforted, but here is not a word of admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament, nor any other Ordinance in the Church: for they that were received into the Church, were bound as Christians to attend upon all Ordinances of public Worship, while they were within: this rule was given to direct us about some necessary circumstances in the ordering of necessary worship, which other Scriptures enforce upon all in the Church to observe, as time and place, and external order in all parts of institute worship; decent and reverend gesture, silence and watch, authorized administrators, etc. But Mr. Saunders consequence is false, for it is not such a general rule as he would have it, namely to warrant a Minister to receive of his people to duties of necessary worship whom he pleases, and refuse whom he pleases, is this to direct in matters or circumstances of outward worship, to exclude Christians from their necessary duties of worship? If this will warrant his excluding from one Ordinance of worship, then from all at his pleasure; if a persons admission, and exclusion be but a circumstance of outward worship, than our Bishops did well in forbidding preaching and hearing in the afternoon, and punishing those that made conscience of their duty otherwise. By this Church-members are not left at liberty to do what Christ commands, but what the Church commands: we may see how ways of men's own chooseing will warp them. If this consequence had been published by a Bishop in their times, Christians would have startled at it. But he goes on. And supposes, they had no particular warrant in God's Word to bear them out, yet, saith he, if our course be holy and orderly, it hath warrant from that general rule. 1. Answ. That course cannot be holy and orderly that tends to a desperate schism in the Church, as I have hinted already. 2. That tends to their people's hindrance and exclusion from their necessary duties of worship as Christians. 3. That is warranted by no Scripture rule. 4. The discovery of the fallacy of your consequence from this general rule, makes your supposition nothing for your purpose. The Apostle speaks of such a rational prudential decency and order in the Church, that may be necessary and yet no where in the Scriptures determined of, as to particulars, either in commanding or forbidding. And would Ministers take up an order (under the same notion) to instruct, ask questions of their people to that end, they may better profit by every Ordinance, and be encouraged to a more diligent and frequent attendance thereon in hope of a blessing, I conceive were nearer the mind of Christ from this text, than what it is urged for. Next he assumes something from what is granted by Bishop Abbot, but that's nothing to the text, nor proof of his way, pag. 131. The Text he saith will yield us this argument, page. 133. Where is no due order in Sacramental administrations, Mr. Saund. there God's Word is not observed. But where all are admitted there is no order. Therefore in admission of all Gods will is not observed. The major may be yielded, the Minor is to be denied by distinguishing. 1. Answ. Where all are admitted without distinction of Christian and Heathen, baptised or unbaptised, a member in Communion, and one under Excommunication, etc. there is no order, it's true, as being against many Scriptures. But 2. where (all) are admitted that are of a true Orthodox Church, and are baptised professing Christians, under the Church's indulgence, the children of whom himself accounts (holy) federally, of these the Minor is to be denied, and so the argument falls; for pressing of baptised Christians or believers, come under the obligation of this part of institute worship in the Church as of any other the precept is commended to the whole Church, As oft as you do this do it in remembrance of me, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. And if a Minister will be faithful to his charge, he must teach and encourage all of his flock to observe and do (all) that Christ commands, Mat. 28.20. And how can they say as St. Paul did, that they kept back nothing that was necessary for the Church, when they keep back so necessary an Ordinance from their respective flocks? The Lord discover unto his servants their great neglects and error. Mr. Saunders adds in proof of his Minor thus; Where there is mixture and confusion of good and bad, fit and unfit, there is no order. But where all are admitted is this mixture. Ergo. What is an evil mixture, Answ. and against the Word, I have explained above, and to call this mixture of good and bad (as he calls them) evil in the Church in reference to external Ordinances, and duties of worship and homage, is very unsound, and doth accuse the wisdom of God of weakness in constituting his visible Church so, as to consist of good and bad, fit and unfit, but are not all things sanctified by the warrant of the Word to the whole Church? And are not all things clean to them in a federal sense? Is there not grace and mercy enough in the Gospel Covenant made to the professing Church, to cure the worst, God's blessing concurring with the necessary means used to that end? Let not men be dividing where God joins by his own constitution and merciful gift, comprehending the natural children of all parents in the Church with the Church, for the gathering of his elect out of them all. To call this a mixture in an evil sense as corrupting the Church and Ordinances, is a slander and an unjust reproach brought upon the Church by rash and inconsiderate heads, care is to be taken for the exercise of true discipline, for the amendment of the scandalous, as is provided in all my writings. But there is nothing can be said otherwise to exclude any in the Church from necessary duties of institute Worship. And therefore the vanity of that self flattery is discovered in his 134. pag. wherein he applauds their course and way, as tending to advance order and holiness in the Church, which indeed they are guilty of the breach of very great commands of Jesus Christ, in setting up this pretended order and holiness. Let them consider better of it, and free themselves from what I charge them with, if they can tell how, or else make good what they promise in returning from their way of schism, to their Pastoral duties to their respective flocks. His second proof is Jer. 15.19. If thou takest the precious from the vile, then shalt thou be as my mouth. In short to give a few hints of the true sense before I examine his. Answ. The people of Judah and Jerusalem were in a most desperate apostasy in the reign of King Zedekiah, the time of this holy Prophets prophesying, for they had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship, which but a little before godly Josiah had put them in possession of according to the laws of God, left in writing by Moses; but his son being wicked, turned to Idolatry, and all the people with him ran a whoring after strange Gods, insomuch that the Lord complains of them, according to thy Cities are thy Gods oh Judah, for which and many other of their abominable do, the Lord sent his servant Jeremy to denounce God's judgements against them, especially that judgement of their being subdued by the King of Babylon, and carried away captives by him. This message did so vex them, that they wholly set themselves in opposition to the Prophet, insomuch that the good man was so tired out with their revile and threats, that out of his frailty he grew into a passionate discontent, questioning the message that he had received from the mouth of the Lord; and staggering at God's promise of protection made in particular to him, chap. 1.8. here he chargeth God rashly, as if he had been to him as a liar, and as waters that fail, chap. 15.18. this 19 verse is an answer to Jeremiahs' rash charge. Therefore thus saith the Lord, if thou return or repent, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me, if thou take away the precious from the vile, then shalt thou be as my Word, let them return to thee and submit to the truth of that message I have sent by thee. But do not thou return to them by reason of their extreme unreasonable opposition they raise against thee: for I will be as good to thee as ever I promised to be: for I will make thee to this people a strong brazen wall, and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail, etc. v. 20. Jeremiahs' duty was to bear up himself in discharge of the message sent upon with courage, constancy, faithfulness, against all discouragements met with whatever, he was to denounce the judgements of God against them for their provoking sins, to bring them to repentance, or leave them without excuse, and in so doing his duty, the Word of the Lord spoken by him should have an answerable effect upon the spirits of men, some should believe it and reform, and yield themselves voluntarily to the King of Babylon, and so live: others should be hardened and accuse the Prophet of revolting from his own Nation, and holding intelligence with an enemy, and discouraging the people from their arms by persuading them to yield and live, and so set themselves against him, and reject his word and perish. Thus the Word of the Lord made a separation for the saving of some and destruction of others I take it. And so the stream of Interpreters runs, but to this Mr. Saunders answers; If this Text allows only a doctrinal separation, and denies any other, than Excommunication falls. We do not say that this Text denies any other separation, but this we say, Answ. it was but doctrinal of itself, in respect of act, as touching the Prophet; yet in respect of the effect the Word took upon them, it became personal and the instrumental cause of some to separate from that deluge of Idolatry the most were involved in: nor is there any danger that Excommunication should fall, unless it stands upon this text, so long as other texts of holy Writ uphold it: which himself cannot be ignorant of, and this separation of Jurisdical Excommunication we grant, and examination in order unto it. But what is this in favour of the thing in the question, that is only in reference to a persons knowledge, which not being judged competent, should be excluded the Sacrament? these are huge different cases. Takes occasion to speak of separation as Ecclesiastical, Mr. Saund. and that twofold. 1. From an Idolatrous Church, as we from Rome, justly, etc. 2. When a Church doth separate from the scandalous members of her own body; Or separate such as are scandalous from her: this he saith is grounded upon the Text in hand, and 2 Thess. 3.6. This is termed a negative separation in a Church, not from it. This he saith, is their case, they separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully join, pag. 136. The first separation may be lawful when we cannot have communion with them in the main essentials of doctrine and worship, Answ. the whole of these holy things being mingled with the superstitious inventions and heretical doctrines of men; the text in hand doth justify this: For the Church of the Jews was then Idolatrous in their worship, and had forsaken the Lord and his prescribed worship; therefore he denounceth most terrible judgements against them by his Prophet to reform them, which could not be as to particulars without separating from their Idolatrous assemblies of worship. But to say as he, in the next, that this text doth warrant a separation in a Church (where the doctrine and worship is holy, and owned by the presence and blessing of the Lord) as themselves cannot deny of ours, is too impudently asserted. How proper it is for a Church to separate from the scandalous members of her own body, I am yet to learn; that she may separate such as are scandalous from her Juridically is all along granted, but this is nothing to their case, who confess they excommunicate none. But here lies the bottom of all, They separate only in that wherein those separated from cannot lawfully join. Let's examine how the text in hand will warrant them in that, Did Jer. and those that were separated by virtue of God's Word, separate from the other of the Church, because they could not lawfully join with them in Gods own prescribed worship, which all were enjoined by God's command to observe? Then it will be some ground for your way: but as there can be no such thing in the text, so no colour of ground for you to plead hence in defence of your way. Nay, it may rather reflect upon you, thus, As they fell off from that Reformation of Josiah that had reduced the people to a conformity to the Law, and chose to themselves new Idolatrous ways that God commanded not, so you fall off from that Reformation begun according to the Laws of Christ, enjoining all professing baptised Christians to a conformity to all his laws and Ordinances in the Church, and choose to yourselves a way of Schism and separation needlessly, without the least show of solid ground; for if an Israelite, though otherwise ignorant and wicked, was privileged to join with the Church in all holy and commanded worship, then, why not a Christian as well under an equal capacity? If those you separate from in that of the Sacrament be under the obligation of Christ's command, as they are professing baptised Christians, which none can deny upon good ground, than Christ's command is of sufficient warrant to justify their lawful joining with you, as in all other commanded duties of worship you seem to practise; the antecedent hath been proved already from 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. Matth. 28.20. the consequence will be yielded I hope. But to give you the sum of all he draws from the text in hand. That which God commands is our duty; but God requires more than a doctrinal separation in applying the Word. Therefore more is our duty. His Major is undeniable, Answ. 1 his Minor is true also, and therefore Excommunication i● granted, though not from this text, but what's this argument to prove that those that either refuse to be examined by their Minister and Officers, or upon Examination not satisfying their Minister and Officers in respect of knowledge only, aught to be excluded the Sacrament? Indeed all he saith to this, Answ. in order to the text, is but this one slender clause, Now if some separation must be made, than examination, and such like proper means also, pag. 138. Though this may be granted in respect of Excommunication, yet this is more than can be concluded from the text in hand, as I have given sufficient hints of already. His third proof is, 2 Thess. 3.2, 6, 14, 15 verses. Mr. Saunders saith, The Apostle speaks of wicked men, vers. 2. which he will have noted, (vers. 14) that is censured, as is plain, etc. In the 2. vers. he gives a character of some false brethren, unreasonable wicked men; then a command, vers. 6. to withdraw, and after to have no company, vers. 14. which by the following words we are constrained to understand of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances, etc. 1. If those unreasonable wicked men were of the Church and Brethren, Answ. which the Apostle desires the Church to pray that he may be delivered from in respect of his safety, then surely they deserved to be excommunicated and cast out out of all Christian Communion, or else none at all; and if such were the Delinquents writ about, vers. 6.14. Divines need not fear to say that Excommunication is too much at first (as he) pag. 140. and therefore by his own sense from vers. 2. this text will prove no more but what he always granted, namely excommunication. If those unreasonable wicked men, there meant, were not of the Church, but persecutors that absurdly hindered the preaching and profession of the Gospel, as all men where the Apostle came amongst, had not faith, but were either Infidels or Apostates, then to what purpose are those directions given to this Church toward such, that were in no capacity to be dealt withal as members in Communion? for they that are without, God judgeth. Suppose one should grant him, that this withdrawing is to be understood of some exclusion from fellowship in some Ordinances, what can hence be concluded for his way? As to examination in respect of knowledge (only), which is the thing in question, as himself hath stated it, pag. 20. These were not excluded any Communion for ignorance, but for disorderly walking. And we allow some examination to find out offenders in the exercise of discipline; but deny that the Church upon finding her members greatly defective in knowledge; for that she may exclude them from fellowship in some Ordinances, without better proof. But because both reverend and learned Interpreters are uncertain; and in doubt of the practical part of the Apostles directions as touching the offending Brethren, I shall here contribute that little of my dark apprehensions I have at present towards the searching after the sense of the place. And in so doing three things are to be inquired after especially. First, The quality or condition of the person. Secondly, The nature of the sin. Thirdly, The remedy prescribed to reform the sinner. In the first there is no difficulty at all, that the Apostle meant a brother, one that was within, and a Christian, all agree: so as touching the nature of the sin writ about it is clear enough. (How Mr. Saunders should be so wide is to be admired, in applying the remedy to wrong persons, vers. 2.) It's certain the fault or sin intended was this, there was one, or some of that Christian Church that altogether neglected the works of their particular calling, and lived in idleness, not working at all, vers. 11. and not only so, but that such were guilty of that common vice that always attends idle persons, they were (busy bodies) in the same verse, and this is usual when a man's mind is not taken up in some lawful calling, he is subject to those temptations; for want of business of his own, he will busy himself with other men's, and for want of necessaries of his own, which idleness brings upon him, he is ready to thrust in where he can, and backbite, flatter, invent tales, tending to the disquiet and contention of the places where such are, this seems to be intimated, ver. 12. In the first part of the remedy he commanding them in the authority of Christ, that with quietness they work, eating their own bread, yet they might the rather be gently dealt with, because they having newly received the knowledge of Christian hope of eternal life by him, they might be so taken with this mercy, that it might take some off from their necessary occasions, and make them think that they should always be talking and speaking of the things of Christ, they not considering the inconveniences that would follow thereupon, not only the burdening of the Church, but giving an occasion of the growth, and putting forth such vicious corruptions (hinted at before) that the corrupt nature of all men are more or less inclined unto. The remedy prescribed consists of several parts, I shall but touch at things. A command in a double respect. The first was when he was with them in person, vers. 10. and this ran upon a penalty, This we commanded you; that if any would not work, neither should he eat: notwithstanding this charge the Church was careless and remiss in putting this into execution, and did relieve them, and too much countenance them in that disorderly course, insomuch that some complaint was made against the thing. For we hear, saith the Apostle, that there are some that walk disorderly, not working at all, etc. vers. 11. and in order to this sinful connivance of the Church, he lays a strict injunction in the authority of Christ upon the Church to withdraw from such, vers. 6. in respect of civil familiarity and maintenance according to their charge, as before. He repeats the command again in his absence, and that in the authority of Christ, and in positive terms; That with quietness they work, and eat their own bread, vers. 12. and further tells them, if any one shall refuse to be obedient according to this Epistle, the Church should note them, by some sign of distinction, declining that wont and friendly familiarity as to others that lived orderly; and so doing, would be a means to bring them into some shame, and amendment, and clear the Church of the guilt of such disorders; I mean the Church in general. Besides I should have taken notice how the Apostle presseth upon them his own practice when he was amongst them, vers. 7, 8, 9 for the Apostles they wrought with labour, etc. but not because they had not power and liberty to forbear working, but to make themselves an ensample unto all in the Church to follow them: and that they might not be chargeable to any. But last of all, lest the Church should run on the other hand into too much severity, and in stead of healing and amending of the offender, destroy and lose him, by expelling him out of their society, as they would an enemy, the Apostle puts in a moderate caution, yet count him not as an enemy, (or Infidel, as we judge of one that is Excommunicate) but admonish him as a brother, (or one within) under a more gentle cure.) So that I conceive the most severity here intended, was to decline all friendly fellowship with them, by withdrawing their friendly countenance and kindness, and rather to reprove and admonish them, for their amendment; this seems to be but a particular drawn from a more general rule, Ephes. 5.11. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them, nor partake in other men's sins. But Mr. Saunders saith, This sense that I pitch upon in respect of the penalty is too little, as Excommunication is too much: quoting Erasmus, pag. 140. he saith further, it must be such a noting and withdrawing, as tends to the saving and reforming of scandalous and misliving brethren; suspension from eivil society is less shaming. 1. Answ. They may do well to give some reasons, why the declining all friendly familiarity in respect of civil courtesies, and charity, is too little to bring such brethren to shame, considering those times, and of what necessity it was of to have the love and furtherance of the Church; all Christians being so liable persecutors, unless they were such that would revolt from their Christian profession upon the least danger. 2. The punishment in a civil sense was so sharp, that had all in that Church but done their duty, in putting it into execution, the offender must either have reform, or have been pined to death, or forsake the Church; for every member was under an Apostolical command, If any would not work, neither should he eat, had the whole together, or a part made conscience of their duty, they might have humbled the proudest, and brought them under some yoke or other I warrant you. 3. If this was too little for scandalous misliving brethren, as he saith, then why is not suspension from the Lords Supper too little, especially where most in a Church are upon the matter suspended, as with them of their way? many of which are neither ignorant nor scandalous, nor any way of a misliving course, and can it be imagined that any that are scandalous misliving brethren should ever be brought to shame by keeping them from the Sacrament (only), when so many of them that are brethren of honest and good repute are kept away as well as the other. It's both a vain and absurd thing to pretend to the right means to reform, and yet so to use them as to be certainly disappointed of the end. Nay where such reforming as theirs is once in acting, what's the event and end, or fruit that follows, but strife and debate, contention, division, prejudices, backbiting, quarrelling and questioning what such a Minister preaches, with derision and confusion, and such like desperate fruits, as experience doth daily show. 4. If excommunication be too much for scandalous misliving brethren, that would not reform, as is supposed of these in the text, why then it will follow as before, that none ought to be excommunicate at all, for none can be worse in the Church then scandalous misliving brethren, sure, that will not reform. But to come to this argument in the close of this Mr. Saunders forms it up thus; Noting offending brethren so as to shame them, is holy and necessary. But such is our suspension of misliving men. Therefore holy and necessary. How wide his Major is from the text needs no great discovery to the Judicious, Answ. but for the sake of the weak, and less intelligent Reader something should be done. Had the Apostle writ to the Church to take any course they could devise to bring these disorderly brethren unto shame, than his Major had been tolerable, but when the Church is directed to the particular way and means to bring such to shame, as in the text; and the Church to invent some other ways drawing a general from a particular is evil: if any kind of noting will but shame them, (then it's holy and necessary) from this text, it would as well follow, that the stocks or pillory is so to note offending brethren as to shame them, therefore holy and necessary from this text; what may not then be assumed to be holy and necessary, if it will but shame men? But I have shown above that their way brings none to shame, and therefore hath not the least colour of warrant from the text. The Lord give them hearts to consider of it. His fourth proof to prove examination a necessary duty unto admission to the Lords Supper, is 1 Cor. 5.11. If any man that is called a Brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, drunkard, etc. with such one no not to eat. If we take not to eat in a civil sense, than they raise their argument from the lesser to the greater. 2. If we take it for Sacramental eating, than we have an Apostolical injunction against the coming of the ungodly ones to the Lords Table: and by consequence an allowance of separation, as to such, and of trial in order to it, pag. 141, 142. 1. You shall see what himself saith in answer to all this, in that which follows in the some page. 1. The whole chapter concerns Church-fellowship & censures. It is about casting out of the incestuous person, as every one sees: Do not we judge them that are within, put away from among you that (or the like) wicked person. Again, he saith that the nature of the recited sins, vers. 11. show that he intends scandals calling for discipline and coming under the like censure with incest; thus far himself, pag. 143. And therefore from his own sense of the context I conclude that this text allows of no other separation in the Church, but what is made by Juridical Excommunication; for doubtless the incestuous person was only so separated from the fellowship of the Church: and this is the same which I always plead for and would have reformation begin withal. Let him draw what consequence he can from his own sense of the text for their separation, when he confesses in another place that they excommunicate none. By this the intelligent and sober may know what to judge of the way he defends, that is so point blank to his own quotations: for in the text reforming the scandalous in the Church is only by Excommunication; and they excommunicate none, but separate from their Churches, leaving the infectious and diseased to cure themselves, or perish for them, by neglecting those due and necessary Ordinances appointed for their amendment: but in my answer to Mr. Collings I have spoke largely to this Scripture, whither I shall refer you. His fifth proof is Matth. 7.6, but I cannot conceive he doth draw any thing from it at all in proof of the question in hand, and I having largely spoke to it in my answer to Mr. Collings, it's needless to repeat: besides, I have answered to more difficulties from Mr. Collings, then is urged by Mr. Saunders. So also his sixth proof, 1 Cor. 11.27. to the end, is fully answered, no more need be added until what I have writ in my answer to Mr. Collings be throughly answered and confuted. All that I can find of Mr. Saunders, amounts but to this; If self-examination be necessary to go before receiving, than such as do not, or cannot, ought to be excluded. And hence they will enforce it the duty of all to be examined, that they may know who are able to examine themselves; and those that upon this search they find not capable, exclude them. It concerns them, 1. Answ. To prove what every one is to examine himself of from the text. 2. To determine of the lowest degree of what is necessary to receiving or excluding in respect of every member. 3. To prove that unless the private be so done at least the public ceaseth to be their duty; but certainly I judge that those that are under the actual obligation of self-examination are under the actual obligation of receiving; I grant the Word doth justify the necessity of those things he lays down, and are the duties of all Christians. But deny that these things are to be applied to qualifie● persons for the Sacrament. for the Church of Corinth was commanded both: and sure both were the duty of all her members of years: however denied to ours by the Author. The qualifications in order to receiving laid down by Mr. Saunders, pag. 171.172.173. are such, that had he not forsaken his Pastoral charge, and joined himself to another Church, before he had been able to prove the least particular there confidently affirmed; he should never have runned into that needless exorbitant separation while he had lived. But this is that which undoes them, first they fancy to themselves a false sense of some Scriptures, and then draw a multiplication of far fetched consequences from it too, and by this means run themselves into an infinitum of mischievous errors, to the Church's prejudice and trouble. And truly I cannot but admire at the wisdom and providence of God only wise, that hath by strange workings made void from time to time what hath been prepared in order unto the exercise of discipline; I doubt not but when our principles are more the mind of Scriptures in regard of the blessed and privileged state of the whole visible Church in Covenant relation with God, the Lord will favour us in his great kindness, by putting the poor despised Church of the Nation into a possession of that discipline that is most the mind of Jesus Christ revealed in the Word. In the mean time we have all need to pray much, for we are under an hour of temptation, and many are scared by it. I come to his seventh proof, pag. 148. 1 Tim. 5.22. Neither be partakers of other men's sins. The sum of what he saith to this, was not enough for a Minister to give the unworthy warning of the danger, or to reprove and denounce God's judgements against the impenitent to free him from other men's sins. This may clear him as a Preacher, but not as a Ruler or Steward, for if the same Minister shall lose the same men by giving them the seals of the New Covenant, which is to tell them that they are interessed in Gospel privileges and promises, he fears that the guilt that was thrust out of the fore door, comes in again at the back door. 1. The main of the question lies in this, Answ. whether the Minister admits any such who are by the Authority of Scriptures forbidden to come, he not doing what he regularly may to exclude them. I shall easily grant that a Minister through carelessness and unfaithfulness may be involved in the guilt of their people's sins, as touching the Sacrament, but the question is, when a Minister hath laboured to instruct his people, and hath given warning of the danger of eating and drinking unworthily, and hath stirred them up to come reverently and orderly, carrying themselves suitable to the external actions there required, hath not done his duty in an Evangelical sense, as to that of his, that every Minister is a Ruler, and therefore to urge upon them acts of discipline, and Jurisdiction as a Ruler, when the whole Church is without discipline, is such a boldness, that never any pretending to sober principles assumed, (until these exorbitant times we are fallen into) for want of holy discipline. But he grants that in respect of all, the Minister doing his duty as before, is clear as a Preacher. And that is sufficient from his own mouth to justify those that dare assume no other power in the Church at present, but what they have by virtue of their Ministerial Office. And as Stewards they are bound to be faithful in the dispensing of that, leaving the issue to the blessing of their Master. And it concerns Mr. Saunders to prove himself a Ruler, and impowered with the actual exercise of the Keys of Jurisdiction in his Church, before he take upon him to bind and lose at his pleasure; if he be so impowered, why doth he not reform his own Congregation, and administer all the Ordinances in his own Church? Why doth he not by his authority convent the scandalous before him, and admonish, rebuke, Excommunicate, without any fear or scruple, and practise all Church Communion in all the Ordinances to the other not at all under his censure? Will he blame another in that which he neglects himself? If there be none in his Congregation over whom he rules, liable to his censures to amend them, why doth he neglect to administer the holy Sacrament unto them? If there be scandalous members in his Church, why doth he connive at their wickedness, and suffer himself to be leavened by his careless indulgence towards them, partaking of their sins, forasmuch as he neglects the only means to reform them by Juridical Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. If he say, he keeps them from the Sacrament, I answer, But the Church of Corinth were commanded to do more; Was it ever read of in the Scripture, that a Pastor refused to administer the holy Suppe● to his flock to keep the scandalous from communicating with them? What though you plead but for Suspension, ought not that to be Juridical as you are a Ruler impowered so to act? And have you so proceeded with all your people that are excluded the holy Supper? I pray you Sir, satisfy me in these things, either by some Scripture grounds, or by your Reformation as you are a Christian and a Minister of the holy Gospel. As to the rest of this Paragraph, I wish you would better study the nature of the New Covenant, and whom it respects. And how the Sacraments may be said to be seals thereof, and what they seal to in the Covenant, which things I have insisted somewhat upon in my other writings, both in answer to Dr. Drake and Mr. Collins, whither I refer you, intending haste at present. In his next Paragraph he speaks to the text in hand, The Apostle speaks of Ordination of Ministers, wherein by not examining the persons to be ordained guilt is contracted ordaining without proving, as 1 Tim. 3.10. is too sudden so likewise the giving of the Sacrament is sudden and guilty (though but once in a year) where no difference or trial is made of them that come but he that will, though of the basest of the people may be a guest at the Lords Table. Men may put all this off, by thinking the fault is not theirs while the act is others men's, but others men's sins may be ou●s. As incivil Judicatories there are principals and accessories: So before God there will be too: and non-examiners are accessories before the fact: thus far he, p. 150 This text is quoted either for illustration, Answ. or probation of the thing in question: If but for illustration, then it's not argumentative, and the inference but begged. If for proof of the thing in question, the consequence must be this, as the Presbytery is guilty of others men's sins, when they ordain into the Ministry, (suddenly) without trial of their gifts and life, so in like manner those Ministers are guilty of others men's sins that receive all to the Sacrament without Examination. To this I answer, by pleading nonsequitur: it remains for him to prove the necessity of the latter equal with the former; let the like proof and reason be given for the one as the other, they being of themselves things distinct to each other, and different things in the premises will not bear the same conclusions: And therefore that which the text intends I grant; but deny the other until further proof. And for his distinction in principals, and accessories in sin. And non-examiners are accessories before the fact. Still the question is but begged, it's still to prove that examination is the duty of every Minister in order to excluding the ignorant, etc. his distinction holds only in those sins or actions that are absolutely forbid, in that which i● sin in its own nature; but I deny that giving and receiving the Sacrament is so to baptised Christians of years, and of the Church. I have sufficiently proved that to be their necessary duty, which will not be answered these two days. And until that be answered, the argument doth reflect upon themselves, not only by being accessories of their people's neglects of institute worship; but being principals of enforcing those neglects of necessary worship groundlessly hindering those that would. 1. You must prove that the baptised rational members of the Church, if ignorant, and in some things offensive, are forbidden the Lords Supper, and yet stand bound as members to all other observances of worship. 2. That a scandalous member indulged leavens the Church by doing lawful and religious actions commanded. 3. That the prime end in casting out the scandalous & obstinate, is to keep them from the Sacrament mainly; I say that which leavens a Church, is to connive at the scandalous, by not doing what they are in a capacity to do in acts of severe censures to reform them, it being far from my heart to think that the good actions of a scandalous brother indulged doth leaven the whole, but his evil actions not punished with severity of discipline according unto rule. But why the Church should be leavened more by the admission of such to the Sacrament, the● to holy prayer, etc. is to me a mystery, because the Scriptures are clear both in commanding spiritual qualifications in order to prayer, and forbidding the evil; and yet are silent as to these in order to the Sacrament. 2. It cannot be denied but the Sacraments are the most carnal Ordinances in the Gospel Church, consisting of external matter, that more suits with our bodily senses than any other. And lastly the weakness of their argument, that cry up the holy Supper above her fellows in the Church with the mischievous effects that follow thereupon inevitably. Yet notwithstanding (to prevent mistake) I judge the Lords Supper equal in dignity and holiness, with the rest of holy appointments in the Church, as being holy in respect of the holiness of the Author, institution, use, and ends, requiring as much of preparation, reverend approaches, and divine adoration in this part of sacred Worship, as any other part of worship prescribed. His eight and ninth proofs are Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 3.15. pag. 151. Obey them that have the rule over you, etc. be ready to give an answer to every one, that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you. The sum of that in Peter is but this, he saith, If this were to be given before an enemy, then much more, and easier is it to be made before friends, such as desire to be helpers of men's faith, not upbraiders of their weakness. The Author shows some ingenuity upon this text, Answ. as if he were tender of wresting the sense: he yields it concerns Christians under the tyranny of persecutors to be constant in their profession, and therefore waves the consequence he had a mind to. He doth not say, if to enemies, then much more it's your duty as Christians to make profession of your faith and hope before friends as necessary to admission to the Sacrament. Which he should had the text been for his purpose. But he saith, if this were to be given before an enemy, then much more, and easier is it to be made before friends. So that here he insinuates by way of motive as helping their faith, etc. and I dare say it will be sooner yielded unto upon that score, then upon the account of a necessary duty; and I shall highly honour those that are endeavouring to their utmost to draw on all their people to some profession of faith or other, provided they do it to no other ends, but to help forward the weak and ignorant in faith and knowledge, without the least infringement of the privileges of the Ordinances in the Church, they stand bound to observe as they are professing Christians. But for men to urge it as a necessary duty in the name of Christ, when he never commands it at all to any such ●nd, they pretend, that is in order to admission to and exclusion from the Sacrament, is that which I think myself bound to oppose as superstitions, pernicious, and tyrannical in the Church of Christ. And I doubt not but to make it good against all those that will acknowledge the constitution and form of our Church to be true at present, though in some things out of order. I confess my expressions may be judged too harsh, but I hope you will a little bear with my zeal, it being in the behalf of the Church, defending their just rights against those that thing they do well to degrade them of the same. That of Heb. 13.17. doth now come to be spoken to, Mr. Saunders observes; 1. That the people under them must be ruled and governed by them. 2. Ministers must give an account of them, which cannot be well done without taking knowledge of their estates. 3. They must not only preach and exhort, but do all else which may conduce to the people's salvation. 4. If people obey not (their Rulers in the Church) they hurt themselves two ways. 1. By sinning against this command. 2. By sadding their Pastor's hearts, and so lessening their profit by his Ministry. All these are applicable to our purpose urging activity on the Ministers as well in discipline, as in preaching, calling for compliance from the people. To his 1. where a Church is so happy, Answ. 1 as to have regular Rulers, chosen by the whole, and set a part to exercise holy discipline Authoritatively, I grant that not only the people, but every Minister ought to be ruled and governed by them, in all lawful and profitable things; but I deny that in the want of such Rulers and government, any Minister or Ministers, by virtue of that Function alone, may assume to themselves an authoritative power to exercise acts of Jurisdiction over their people, although the people out of ignorance should desire it. I grant that the people should be obedient to their Ministers in the religious carrying of that Ministerial work, accordingto Gospel rule; but I deny that the Apostle intended the people's obedience to every fancy that some have the boldness in these times to urge upon their people, to their great prejudice and spiritual hurt in debarring them some necessary duty and Covenant blessing. Therefore as children unto parents, so people unto their Pastors must be obedient, in all things, but with this restriction, in the Lord, for this is right, Ephes. 6.7. To his second, Ministers must give an account of them, which cannot well be without taking knowledge of their estates. Answ. 1. He doth not keep to the terms of the text. The Apostle doth not say that, Ministers must give an account of their people, (whether they be good or bad, profitable or unprofitable): but he saith, for they watch for your souls as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, etc. The sense is this, they must perform all necessary duties belonging to their Office towards you, as such that must give an account to God of their being diligent and faithful in the work they are sent to perform: therefore he would have the people to be willing and obedient unto them, for their encouragement in the work, that they may do it with joy, etc. 'Tis certain, both Minister and people must give an account to God; The Minister of his faithful discharge of his duties in relation to his people, and the people of theirs accordingly. For if souls miscarry for his unfaithfulness in not warning them of the danger, they make themselves guilty of the blood of souls, otherwise doing their duty faithfully, they are free from the blood of all. But Mr. Saunders would have it thus, That Ministers must give an account of the state and condition of their people, I think; or if he mean, they must take knowledge of their spiritual estates, that they may know how to apply themselves toward them both in private and public with seasonable words, etc. in reference to their own account: I see no great hurt in that; nor doth it prove any such thing the text is quoted for. But if he should argue as some others do from this text, Ministers must give an account to God of their people, therefore the people must give an account of themselves to their Ministers. Answ. 1. As before by denying the antecedent as respecting their personal condition, whether regenerate or not, or whether they have profited or not, but of their own duty in respect of their people's good. 2. Grant it, as themselves would, the consequence is not clear, because a Ministers account unto God, and a people's account to their Minister stand at so great a distance, so wide a difference. But why should this be required of the people more in order to the Sacrament, than Prayer, or in respect of their Salvation? Prove that the Minister is to give an account to God only, how he prepares, and whom he admits to the Sacrament, restraining the Text to that particular only. But the text he saith is for their purpose, Because it urgeth to activity in discipline, as in preaching, a●d calling aloud for compliance from the people. 1. Answ. Grant it true, what he saith, it urgeth to activity in discipline, than it must be supposed that the Church thus writ unto was in actual possession of Ecclesiastical Rulers, and holy discipline. But doth it hence follow, that they themselves are such Rulers, and impowered with the exercise of holy discipline? I think no, without better proof; Try how you can prove, that the exercise of discipline is an inseparable power of every Minister; and that he is as much bound to draw out this power into act at all times, as his preaching power; if so, 1. Then the Church cannot be said to be undisciplined at all, so long as she hath Ministers, but all the fault lies in this, the Minister's negligence in not exercising acts of Jurisdiction, as he is bound to do, and impowered with. 2. Then a Minister is absolute and independent of himself, and not accountable to any Church power in his maladministrations of that power, but to Jesus Christ alone. 3. Then all have this power that are Ministers, and so at liberty to act as their several humours move them, and must be left to this liberty as they are Ministers, being once ordained, but who can be so blind as not to see into what a gulf of division, tyranny, and confusion, that error, if put into practice, would involve the whole? And most miserable is the condition of those people, that are oppressed with Ministers of such impudent insolent principles, when drawn into act. It concerns the Christian Magistrate to relieve such a people. But to proceed to his next, called the 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. proofs, pag. 153. from Levit. 13.5. 2 Chron. 23.19. Joel 3.17. Nahum 1.15. Zach. 14.21. For the two first, he pleads an equity in them, which is argumentative, The three last, he saith, are against the impure and horrid mixtures, which in our days are without sufficient check in most Assemblies. Do but read read over his quotations, Answ. and you will be able to answer him yourselves. His 1. speaks of the uncleanness of Leprofie, and how he was to be shut up seven days, now during this time he could come to no Ordinances, therefore ignorant persons in the Gospel Church must not come to the Sacrament, a goodly equitable consequence indeed. But I have been large in confuting the same in my answer to Mr. Collings, whither I refer the Reader, as also his 2. Is there fully spoken to. His last three are so impertinent, that it is but lost labour to repeat the texts, for they are special promises peculiar to the Jews, upon their return from the Babylonish captivity. 1. The Temple should be built again, and no more be defiled with the uncircumcised Heathen. And this he applies to us, as if the unregenerate, ignorant, and offending brethren that are of the Church were meant to be these uncircumcised Heathens, aliens and strangers, that pollute the Church's Communion now, as they the holy Temple and Sanctuary then: though himself doth grant ours to be within, and of the Gospel Church, and their children (holy federally) by virtue of the Covenant; but this is so absurd that it tires me, I having spoke so much to this already. But he saith, God hath promised this happiness unto his people under the Gospel, that there shall come no more in to them the uncircumcised and unclean. Now if strangers, men of Belial not enduring the yoke of Christ shall still be mixed with God's people; How is this promise made good? he asks. This promise Isai. 52.1. Answ. was made directly to the Jews Church after their return from their captivity, and by the uncircumcised and unclean, is meant Heathenish uncleanness, they should no more invade their land, and defile holy things as before. But I never was acquainted with any such promise as himself tells his Reader of, made to Gospel times, that there should be no strangers in his sense and meaning, that is, no scandalous sinners in the visible Church; no tares among wheat, no mixture of good and bad. I would have him show us such a promise as that, and that it respects the Gospel Church at all times, and in every place where God hath his Church: which is necessary to make good, or else how can our Author apply it to this period of time, and to our Church in particular. Besides 1. How doth it call into question all Churches of the Gospel, that ever were? for there were scandalous and wicked persons in them all. 2. It's inconsistent with the wisdom and pleasure of God, who hath constituted the Church in such mercy and grace, that all that are born in the Church are of the Church; and is it likely that such admission did intent such a purity; all being so corrupt by nature as the Church maintains? 3. The very Ordinances set up in the Church to convert, the promises made to the Church in order to that end: and our own experience of some fruit thereof, may discover the vanity of that conceit, (namely, that there shall be no regenerate or wicked in the Church). And he that shall resist such manifest demonstration, I think he understands but little of the truth and nature of the Gospel Covenant, and the blessings of grace and mercy that are conferred upon sinners in the Church from it. I pray you Sir, why is it not Gospel-like for sinners in the Church, to partake of all Gospel Ordinances of Worship? What is the Gospel itself, but good news to sinners? And what do all the Ordinances tend to, but to bring sinners home to God? And I hope he is no enemy to holiness, as our Author intimates pag. 154. that would have Ministers to allow Jesus Christ the liberty of his own appointments in the Church to unite unto himself all those he dearly loves and died for. But Mr. Saunders tells us, That God looks now for a more real and spiritual people, and will not own such for his people that are graceless, what ever their profession may be, quoting Camero. But what a strange assertion is this, Answ. and how derogatory to the Gospel Covenant, and diminishing the grace and goodness thereof to sinners in the Church who are the people of God, (and holy federally) by birth as himself confesseth! And will God now disown them for his people that are graceless by nature? then we may cast all Infants out of the Church, and so from baptism: For it will hardly be made good that Infants by nature have real inherent grace: then what hope is there left for graceless professing people under the Ordinances? if God will not own such, they are left destitute of all hope; for who can own God, and come to him by the power of Grace, until the Lord own them for his people by giving them that grace first? But what reason can any of sober principles give, that God will not now in the Gospel times own such a graceless professing people for his people, as he hath done before the coming of Christ in the flesh? For 1. Is not Jesus Christ the Author and procurer of all spiritual blessings to fallen man, and always the same, yesterday, to day, and for ever? 2. And was not the Gospel Covenant, (as to the substance of it) always the same to the visible professing Church and to their seed? Is it straightened in respect of grace and mercy towards man since the coming of our Lord, more than before? Or doth it run upon such terms now, as that not any may come under the outward administration that have not real grace? Or will you have none come under Gospel worship and duties, that profess Christianity, that have not real grace? What rocks doth that assertion dash against? 3. Is not the visible Church the same, all being grass into the same Olive and Vine, and planted together into the same body by baptism, as the Jew by circumcision? Do you think that a different administration only made such a different Church, and consequently requires such a different subject in admission into it, as yours imports? What was there in the old administration that should in reason indulge so great a latitude as to the subjects, more than in the new? Those that can tell us wherein the mystery of this lies, should do well to give us the discovery; for my part, I must confess, I judge both the Old and also the New, merely external, as in the letter, both fitted for reasonable man, as instrumental to convey a blessing of grace unto whom the Lord will, of those that in obedience yield what homage they are able unto their Lord. Whosoever entered this great Covenant of grace, that the visible Church always hath, and is in possession of, came always under the restipulation thereof as his duty, which is this, to observe and do all that the Lord requires to be done at that time and age that any person lives in, so shall ye be his people, and the Lord will be your God. The Lord's Covenant with his Church doth always oblige those that have entered into it, to all that obedience that at present is in force by the Lord. A Jew by nature was under all that God commanded them, and a Christian by nature is under all that God commands now. A Jew by nature and profession had all the Church privileges of a Jew. In like manner, a Christian by nature and profession hath all the Church privileges of a Christian, only with greater advantage; forasmuch as the privileges of the Christian Church are more clear and spiritual, tending more unto the spiritual profit and edification of the whole. And what reason, besides the good pleasure of God, can any man give why the Lord should vary in these different administrations? Most certain it is, that since Christ was manifested in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit, and ascended into glory, greater hath been the advantage both of knowing and believing in the Son of God, in comparison of attaining unto knowledge and faith in Christ, by those that had but some dark obscure discoveries of him by types and shadows; for men now to say that God looks for more at our hands then of them, is rational. But to affirm that the Lord in Gospel times will not own a Christ-professing people that have not real grace, is altogethere groundless, and a little too peremptorily spoken, without better proof than Camero. And it's too harsh to affirm that a mere want of real grace doth discovenant a Christian professing people, and that God will disown them for his people upon that account, they being holy federally by birth, and upon that account baptised, and thereby put in possession of the Sacramental Seal, which himself will grant. And would the same men but argue as rationally from the state of the Jews Church, as touching grown one's, as they do of Infants, this Controversy about who shall be admitted to the Sacrament would have been frivolous. But now Mr. Saunders hath done with the texts which he saith Conclude positively for their practice in gathering and distinguishing their Communicants, by examining. What all these lights will do being set up together, who knows? So likewise, Answ. 1 I have now done with examining of what you have concluded from these several texts for your way, and I hope I have given both yourself and every sober unprejudiced reader clear and rational demonstrations, that there is not so much as one of these 15. texts that will prove examnation a necessary duty unto the Lord's Supper, as it's stated. Nor hath Mr. Saunders so much as applied them (for the most part) to prove the question. So little is his own confidence of the pertinentnesse of his own quotations; for some of them he hath applied to prove suspension, and others to prove excommunication, which in order to their way of gathering they meddle not with at all, nor is it proper so to do in the way they have designed, their way being rather to admit unto membership, than the exclusion of Church-members from the privileges of the Church they have form. But Sir, how doubtfully do you express yourself at last, as if yourself were in some doubt whether these texts make for your way or not, What they may do, who knows? and yet in the beginning of the same sentence you say, they conclude positively for your practice. I may well assure you (Sir) that it's a grief to my Spirit, that such sober godly moderate Gentlemen as yourself seems to be, should engage in a practice before you could tell how to make it out by the authority of holy Scriptures against all the world. Had you been so happy as first to have seen an undoubted warrant, before you had engaged in this separation, you should never have been one in that society, whilst you had lived. How an ingenuous and rational head can withstand such plain demonstrations, that by the assistance of the Lord I have expressed myself in, in opposing yours, and endeavouring to give the true sense of the Scriptures in debate, I cannot tell; I must and do commend all that is written to the powerful working of the Spirit of Truth and Grace, to persuade and incline the hearts of the godly, to see where truth and the Church's peace and reformation lies, according to plain and evident rule. I doubt not but your own heart will bear me witness, that I have rationally discovered the most (if not all) your consequences and conclusions as applied to descend your practice, to be mere mistakes and impertinent. I beseech you consider seriously, how ever you will be able to give the Church of God sat is faction, for running into such a needless separation that is altogether without Scripture warrant. Nay, do but think how you will answer your Lord, for breaking the peade and union of your particular Congregations, raising prejudices, bringing your persons and Ministry into contempt, by making such a groundless rent and schism in his Church: and that to the great prejudice of his visible subjects; setting up laws of your own choosing, urging them upon your people as necessary, or else must be excluded, (as to you) the necessary Laws of Jesus Christ their absolute Lord. You say well, (as every conscionable sober serious Christian should) that you are ready to stand or fall, as the authority of Scriptures shall determine. In charity I am bound to believe that you intent no less than what you have soberly published. God's providence hath so overruled the action, (that one that is a mere stranger unto you; I not so much as hearing of your quality, no otherwise then I can gather by your Book) to give you a sudden answer, wherein you are now upon the trial of your ingenuity and honesty, there to make good your practice you are acting vigorously in, or to return to your own flock, and withhold nothing that is from them. If you seriously search into the conditions of your people, I believe you may see cause to confess that you have lost more in your respective flocks, than you are like to recover while you live; at least some of you. Please not yourselves with what is so much pretended in this giddy age; Namely, to act in reforming in some pure and stricter way. For many have run them out of all, under such like pretences. Be holy and strict as it is written according to the known and undoubted rule of Scripture Canon; and be assured that that's the purest way, for you know, not our own way, be it never so specious; but the way of the Lord is the strait way that leads to life in glory, and if you return, and be saithful in dispensing the things of God, as you are obliged by the Word, that's the way that God will own, the way of the Church's peace and edification; the way to make Ministers a blessing to their people, and their people a blessing unto them: and the only way both to unite and to reform the whole. The Lord give you a heart to be serious and searching after the safest way, in the further discharge of those relative duties, as Pastor of a Congregation, whom you are set to watch over, and warn and feed also in the Lord. I must confess unto you, that I have been something more round and rude in my answer then is so well becoming; considering the moderate temper of our Author. But the Lord is my record, that I have not any slight esteem of his person; but am verily persuaded he is a precious, able sober, Divine, that expresses much of true godliness in him. It is partly the want of some easier & smother expression; partly my zeal of the Church's peace, so miserably plunged into divisions and separations, the great impediments to reformation; partly because I would provoke to more searching into this Controversy about admission to & exclusion from the Sacrament, for I see that our over rigid principles in this, do run us upon other dangerous rocks. Partly to vindicate myself, and those of the same persuasion from what we are censured for, by Mr. Manton. But if any thing be inexcusable, that your charitable construction cannot moderate, I beg your pardon, for I affect not to be bitter, nor would I be guilty of any incivility towards any godly Ministers of the Gospel. But I shall go on, and come to examine his convincing arguments, laid down as seconds to the Scriptures alleged, pag. 156. and the first is this, Because the holy Supper belongs to godly ones, real believers men have a right in God's sight only as such: They that have no true grace, have a seal set to a blank. Men stand in the visible Church as they are apprehended to belong to the invisible; all this, he saith, is sound proved by our Saviour adminstring to Disciples only, Matth. 26.26. not to Disciples in the largest acceptation, for many professed besides: but to such as were more peculiar was it given. And his practice is to be a rule to the Church. All Mr. Saunders strength in proof of this argument stands in two things. Answ. 1. In his asserting several things that are usually taken for granted, without any special proof. 2. In urging the practice of our Saviour in the first administration, Matth. 26.26. as proving sound all the particulars asserted in the argument, he denying that this was an accidental circumstance, but was foredetermined by Christ so to have it, but his enumeration of particulars are merely begged, and argued against in my answer to Mr. Collings, unless it be this, that men stand in the visible Church as they belong to the invisible. I know not any ground why we should apprehend that all in the visible Church do belong to the invisible of God's Elect: for in the Church amongst them that are called, it's said that many are called, but sew are chosen; though it's true in a negative sense in this respect of particular persons we cannot exclude any one from Election. Mr. Saunders argument in form, as to the substance and sense, is thus. Such only that Christ gave the Sacrament unto, have right to receive it; But he gave it to none but holy ones, Disciples by peculiar choice— Ergo, holy ones, disciples by peculiar choice (only) have right unto it. The argument is so weak and feeble that to the Judicious it needs no answer; Answ. but for the help of the weak something would be said. 1. Were there no other Scripture precedents, Precepts, Intimations, for clearing and warranting the right of those that are to be admitted, but the first precedent argued from; than it would have posed us to answer it; or to prove the continuance of it to the Churches use at all; because at first it was given to extraordinary persons in Office only. But if he will allow the whole of holy Scripture he might see enough to justify the right of all in the Church in general without any peculiar choice, 1 Cor. 10.17. Act. 2.42. ch. 20.7. 2. If this Precedent, Matth. 26.26. were foredetermined by Christ to be an example and rule for the Church; then 1. Who must administer this Ordinance now according to this pattern? Christ himself only blessed, and gave it unto Apostles only. 2. Then it will follow, that none but persons in Office, and of the Ministry should receive it. 3. Then the greatest part of sincere Disciples and followers of Christ should be left out; for without doubt there were many such at that present that were not admitted. Besides the seventy Disciples sometimes sent forth to preach the Gospel, there were other holy persons both men and women; the names that presently met together for religious and divine employments were about an hundred and twenty; of whom some choice persons are named, as Mary the Mother of Jesus, and other women, and Mathias and Barsabas, Act. 1.14, 15, 23. which Christ gave not the Sacrament unto: therefore if this precedent must be our rule, no wonder they refuse as good as they admit, nay better than they admit; for without doubt Christ gave it to some, that afterward discovered great ignorance and unbelief, besides one of them was a Devil. 4. If this precedent must be our rule as it's urged, then there must be a choice of some peculiar holy ones, out of holy ones admitted, and as holy and sincere refused. And yet see how the Author prevaricates and departs from this precedent in another place: where he saith, Our way is only to exclude the visibly unworthy, and no others, pag. 166. 3. If all that Christ gave the Sacrament unto were not holy, than the argument will fall of itself; but Christ gave it unto Judas whom he knew was a Traitor, and had conspired with other of his enemies to destroy him: therefore all that Christ gave it unto were not holy ones, and so the argument ●als. That which is to be made good is the Minor; for indeed some are in doubt whether Judas received the Sacrament or no. And therefore I shall a little touch upon that: and it will be made good from Matth. 26.26. his own quotation: in this text, Christ gave the signs of his body and blood to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body; Judas was one of his Disciples that sat down at the Table, vers. 20. When Even was come, he sat down with the twelve, and one of this twelve should betray him, vers. 21. and that Judas continued at the Supper it evident, vers. 23. He that dippeth with me in the dish, the same is he. And St. Mark 14. chap. of his Gospel, vers. 17.20. relates just the same with St. Matthew, Then come to Saint Luke, chap. 22.14, 21. he agrees with the former, that all the twelve sat down, and he in special speaks of the actions done at the Table the twelve sat down unto. Namely, 1. The eating of the Passeover, vers. 15, 17, 18. Then Christ's celebrating this sacred Ordinance, blessing and breaking bread; to be done in remembrance of Christ, vers. 19.20. And now having related the main actions that were performed thus solemnly at the Table, than he relates what words fell out to be spoken at the Table, vers. 21, 22. notwithstanding Christ's love in this familiar manner expressed to them, and theirs to him both in the Passeover, and holy Supper; yet Christ tells them that one of them should betray him: and Luke you see relates these words as being at the conclusion of those holy appointments of the Passeover, and holy Supper. And thus we may conceive a clear agreement of these three Evangelists, that Judas was at the Lord's Table, and did do as the other did for any thing in the least hinted at by these three, that wrote first of this holy history. And how ever it should come into the head of any so much as to scruple such a thing, whether Judas (one of the twelve that sat and eat at the same Table with Christ and the other,) received the holy Supper or no, especially there being not the least hint of his exclusion or withdrawing more than of the other: is to be admired. Without doubt we may rationally conclude from these three, that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lord, as well as Peter or James, or Thomas, etc. for they are not recorded to have received it by name in particular, but as they were his Disciples, and of the twelve, that sat down at the Table. But than you will say, how comes it to pass, that this of Judas receiving or not, is made such a great controversy in the Church in all ages. Answ. That which hath occasioned this Controversy from the four Evangelists is in Joh. 13.30. Judas having received the Sop, went immediately out, and it was night, hence it's conceived that John hath relation to the Passeover Supper, and this sop was some part of that service, and upon his eating this, the Devil entered, vers. 27. and he went out immediately before the Lord's Supper was instituted and given; and brought about his actual treason in a part of that night. This place and sense hath occasioned the question, and quarrel, as to Judas, so far as ever I could meet with any colour of reason. Therefore now I shall both briefly and plainly give you my thoughts how to reconcile the Evangelists, and to satisfy any that are rational, I hope. 1. It can never be proved, that St. John doth so much as mention, or mean the Passeover Supper in the 13. of John, at all, only he gives a more particular account of that Supper, which Christ and his Disciples had together at Bethany, two days before the feast of the Passeover, in the house of one Simon a Leper, where a woman poured upon Christ's head a box of very costly ointment, etc. all the Evangelists spoke of this Supper, Matth. 26.2, 6, 7. Mark. 14.1, 3. Luk. 21.1, 3. Joh. 13. 1, 2. all the doubt is of this of John, whether it be the same with the other three. Answ. Consult the words and circumstances, v. 1. Now before the Feast of the Passeover, etc. Matthew and Mark hath it, You know that after two days is the Feast of the Passeover. Luke upon the same saith, Now the Feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passeover: thus far you see there is no disagreement; only Matthew and Mark are more punctual for the space of time before (namely) two days, than Luke and John. 2. They all agree in this, that Judas began his treason, made his bargain before the Passeover night or Supper, 1 Joh. 13.1, 2. compared, Now before the Feast of the Passeover, and Supper being ended, the Devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him. Even now before the Passeover came at a private civil Supper in Simon the Lepers house, the Devil first put it into Judas heart to betray him. And then Luke relates the same, chap. 22.3. & 1. put together. Now the Feast of the Passeover drew nigh. Then entered Satan into Judas, one of the twelve, and he went his way and communed with the chief Priests, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad and covenonted to give him money, and he promised and sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the people, vers. 4, 5, 6. Then after this came the Passeover, vers. 7. Thus it is clear the Devil entered into Judas before the Passeover Supper. Now if the sop John spoke of, had been at the Passeover Supper, (which preceded Satan's entering and prevailing, putting Judas upon treason,) then how will Luke be reconciled, and the other, Matthew and Mark, which spoke the very same with Luke, And from that time he sought to betray him, Matth. 26.16. that is, after he had made his bargain for thirty pieces of silver, vers. 15. all this was done before they went into the City, or could tell where to keep the Passeover, vers. 17, 18. The very same is in Mark. 14.10, 11. Thus far we see an agreement of all the Evangelists, that the Devil entered Judas, and he had plotted and contracted the treason before the Passeover Supper, and therefore this of John cannot be meant of the Passeover night. 1. Because the sop preceding Satan's entering was before that night, as Luk. 22.3. is express. 2. Because that Supper, Joh. 13.1, 2. was before the Passeover. 3. Because the sop in Joh. 13.27. was that which did immediately precede Satan's entrance, prevailing with Judas to betray his Master. 4. Because when after the sop our Saviour saith, What thou dost do quickly, the other Disciples not knowing what it meant, thought because it was spoken to Judas, he having the bag, that Jesus had bid him buy those things that they had need of against the Feast, vers. 28, 29. and therefore it was before the Passeover Feast began, there being no lawful buying and selling, when the Feast of the Passeover was begun. If any shall say, that St. Mark, chap. 14.20. speaks the same with John; and it's clear, that of St. Marks was spoken in relation to the Passeover Supper, and therefore the dipping a sop in John was at the Passeover; for they seem both to relate to the same thing. Answ. I grant St. Mark hath relation to the Passeover Supper, but then I deny that both these dippings were the same, and at the same time. Mark saith, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, one of you that eateth with me shall betray me, v. 18. Nay Christ came nearer, and said it was one of the twelve, that dipped with him in the dish; and so left it in the general amongst them, which caused every one to suspect himself: But this in John seems to be a different thing; for this of dipping and giving was occasioned by John's private question, vers. 25. Lord who is it, saith John, leaning on Jesus breast, (being put on by Peter to move the question). Jesus gave this sign privately only in answer to John; He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it, and he gave it to Judas, and said, What thou dost do quickly. This discovered the Traitor unto John only; For no man at the Table knew for what intent Christ spoke thus unto him: this is a far different thing to that of Mark, there one of the twelve, that did eat with him in the same dish which all did, here he it is that Christ gave a sop unto when he had dipped it; there one of the twelve, here which of the twelve; there none could be satisfied who was the Traitor; here John only could tell that it was Judas, and indeed John knew the Traitor, but did not discover him. Many more things might be added, but I have done more than I intended, to clear up the Evangelical Harmony in relation to Judas his receiving the Lords Supper. Matthew, Mark, Luke, are clear for the affirmative, and John you may clearly see in his 13. ch. speaks not at all of the Passeover Supper, but of that Supper at Bethany, which all the other make mention of too as well as he, they larger in relating of some particulars; he of other particulars, for the perfecting of this holy History. Hence it may be clearly concluded that Judas received the Sacrament; And they all drunk of it, Mark. 14.23. And now you may easily see what foundation Mr. Saunders first convincing argument stands upon, to prove that there should be Examination, and differencing of men in order to Reformation, and preventing unworthy receivers. Christ though he knew Judas to be a Devil, and had discovered him to be the Traitor unto John, yet he gives both the Passeover and Sacrament of his body and blood to Judas amongst the rest, without any differencing act of exclusion; yet not without telling him smartly of his sin, and the judgements of God ready to follow thereupon; which left him more without excuse. I come now to his second Argument; The means and the end come under the same command; Now we find the end commanded, unworthy ones are forbidden, and denied. Who will say that Ignorant and scandalous in life are to be admitted? Now this being granted any proper and sufficient way to this end; Namely, the exclusion of the unfit: cannot want a probation from the Word, for the end is attained by means, and is in vain set forth without them, pag. 157. I grant those that are forbidden to come, Answ. there are means to be used to exclude them; but I deny the Minor, that Church-members for ignorance merely, or scandalous lives are forbidden to come, until all due means have been used to reform them; as namely, admonition private, and authoritative Excommunication; until then, I will say all Church-members of years ought to be admitted. That which is the only thing in question, he would have it granted him; as that unworthy ones, (as he calls them) are forbidden: but who in the Church are they? I would gladly know; the Apostle speaks of some that did eat and drink unworthily: but it doth not follow therefore that their persons were unworthy, because some of their actions were. I have insisted largely upon this in answer to Mr. Collins. The truth is, how can they be said to be forbidden, that are of the Church and baptised, and as such are under the command of all institute worship? Nay it's a question whether Excommunication do disoblige from precepts of worship, although the Church may lawfully deny them the benefit of all worship in the punishing of impenitent scandalous sinners for their amendment. A prison doth not excuse a Felon from duties of public worship, when he by his own sinning hath brought himself justly under that restraint. And in his saying, Any proper and sufficient way to the exclusion of the unfit. I know no way but Juridical censures of the Church that is proper according to the Gospel rule, Juridical Admonition and Excommunication the Word hath prescribed directly, and that only is proper and sufficient for the exclusion of the unfit; as for any other way to be proper that is no where to be found in the Scripture, and neglect to do as it is written, is but a raw sancy of a man's own framing, and punishable by the Scriptures, as is clear in the case of Nadab, and Abihu, Levit. 10.1, 2. they invented a proper and a sufficient way in kindling common fire to consume the Sacrifice of Incense, the fire of the Tabernacle being out through their own negligence; but the Lord destroyed them with fire from heaven, for presuming to offer that which the Lord commanded not. For where the Lord himself prescribes a way, the Church is bound only to that way, not any way; but that only of Gods own prescribing will he be pleased with. God will be sanctified in them that come nigh him. Now than I say, when we upon Church reforming, through the subtlety of some, and carelessness of others, have lost the exercise of the Church's discipline: being out of actual possession, through our own default, as to the edification of the whole, shall any be so bold now, as to invade this authoritative power, and assume to themselves without the consent of the Church the exercise of discipline? and under that pretence use any way that is but proper and sufficient to exclude the ignorant and scandalous from the Sacrament? when the Lord hath prescribed a direct way what is to be done with the scandalous in the Church. Again, that the Ark should be fetched unto its proper place, was an (end) commanded, yet any proper and sufficient means subservient thereunto were not warrantable; but that way and means only that God had appointed: and you know David swerved from the prescription in fetching back the Ark, but the Lord made a breach upon them for it, in smiting Vzzah that he died. This way was proper and sufficient to attain the end, yet they were punished for it. The Lord made a breach amongst them, because they carried not the Ark according to that order God had prescribed in the Law. It's a dangerous and desperate attempt to invent ways and means of exclusion of Christ's visible subjects from their native rights otherwise than it is written. There is a clear rule for Juridical Excommunication, and in what cases, and by whom to be exercised; and let that satisfy all, until they can find further order from the Scriptures to warrant their other proceed, under the notion of discipline in this giddy age. The Reader may sufficiently by this see the weakness and vanity of the way and practise defended by the Author. I have fully answered the texts of Scripture and the reasons added as seconds to warrant their way, they must either find out a better warrant than is yet produced; or else as the ten Tribes were jealous of the other two and a half, Josh. 22. when they heard that the two had erected an Altar of their own heads, conceived they were in a superstitious rebellion, in forsakeing the ways of the Lord, and so to provoke the Lord unto anger to punish the whole Congregation, as in the matter of Peor and Achan; so may we be jealous and suspicious of these new invented ways, so vigorously acted in by our brethren, which tend so evidently to make division and schism in the Church, and is such an impediment, that doth obstruct and make void all hopes of attaining unto that discipline, that God hath prescribed for the health and welfare of the whole Church. They cannot say as the two Tribes of their Altar, It is not for sacrifice, but for a witness to the other Tribes that their children had part in the Lord, and in the Altar that he had commanded to be built for sacrifice and worship. For the way that Mr. Saunders defends is for worship, and held forth as necessary, to the prejudice of professing Christians that have any interest in the Lord, and in all his commanded worship that you exclude them from, and upon the matter discovenant them, and their children from having a part in the Lord. Do you think it but a small evil to your professing people to deprive them of the benefit and blessing of Gospel appointments, instituted by the Lord himself for the spiritual good of his visible Church, of which your people are members and within? What know you but it may lie heavy upon your souls, if ever you be reduced into straits and trials, to think of the wrong you have done to your people's souls in withholding that from them, which was necessary? You think (now) the fault is your peoples, and that they keep themselves away from the Sacrament; they may be admitted if they will; for you say it's more for want of a will, then of capacity that they are not admitted. But by your leave Sir, may I presume to speak one word on the people's behalf? you impose such laws and ties upon their consciences in order to admission, that you cannot in the least make good by the authority of your Master, you pretend very much to his authority in those very things, which are merely your own fancies, and inconsistent with your own principles otherways. I dare boldly say that you are in such a way, (and stickle to defend it too) that you will never while you live be able to produce one plain text of Scripture, (allowing it its own sense) to justify either the forming of your Church, or to prove any one thing of what you stand upon as necessary to admission: you have quoted 15. texts to prove examination, and suspension only, and not one will in the least favour you as hath been discovered already, and in your laying down necessary things to qualify unto receiving, you quote about sixty texts, and I have searched after them, I dare say it and justify it too, that there is not one text of all that number in the least pertinent to prove any one of the qualifications, as laid down to be necessary to this end; namely, to admission to the holy Supper. And how would you have your people to come up to your terms, when you so evidently wrest the sense of Scriptures to justify the boldness of venting forth your own fancies in the name of the Lord? This is the way you are agreed of, and you rejoice in your comforts, and applaud it for purity, and you are resolved thus to walk, and you cry up Gospel rule: and yet your actings are not consonant to any rule the Scripture teach; for any thing you have said in defence of your way. May not your comforts be suspected, as well as others, whose ways and courses are dangerous, and to be avoided? I would have you consider of it, for these unnecessary separations in a true Church, (as you confess of ours) are absolutely schismatical: and your people are bound to decline your way, and to keep their station in the Church into which they are embodied, and to use all their endeavours to partake of God's Ordinances where they may, without running themselves into such dangerous schisms that directly tend to the confusion of the whole. And without doubt if you will be as ingenuous as you express, you must either return to your distracted flocks and perform those relative duties you stand bound unto, or persist in ways of your own choosing, merely without the words warranty, which is scandalous in the Church of Christ, so to do and deserves to be censured. Mr. Saunders after his arguments, he gives some motives which he would have his Reader lay to heart the evils following the neglect of them, or the like course. 1. And chief God is provoked to remove our Candlestick, for neglect of Church censures upon scandalous offenders: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. I deny that the way defended hath any thing of the Church censures in it according to that text, Answ. for Mr. Saunders saith, they excommunicate none, and Excommunication (alone) is meant by this Scripture. The Apostle doth not say, Separate the meal from the leaven, but purge out the leaven from the meal, he doth not say, exclude the scandalous. from the Sacrament, but put out from among yourselves such wicked persons: that is, out of all Christian Communion, civil or sacred. What is their course to this Text, when they Juridically censure none, nor indeed are in a capacity so to do? Casting out of the Church, and leaving out from the Sacrament those that are within, are huge different things; the first is lawful and according to Gospel rule, the other unlawful, as being against all Gospel rules or precedents. It's true, the neglect of Church censures where a Church is in such a capacity, is a great evil, that doth much provoke the Lord to punish such neglect, and that we are in this capacity at present, some have more to answer for, than I fear they are sensible of, nor humbled under that direful guilt; my prayer to God is to make us all sensible of our malady, and in his due time restore unto this poor rent and divided Church that remedy of holy discipline. His second evil is, The confusion of souls by ordinary and common profanation; eating and drinking their own damnation. This is high indeed for words, Answ. but hath not that dreadful doom in it as he reports without better proof: ordinary and common profanation in the Scripture sense was never read of. The Church of Corinth lay under the guilt of high profanation, but it was not ordinary or common I think. 'Tis probable they never offended so again, nor any other Church: what their sin was should be enquired after more strictly, and the punishment inflicted, and then judge whether the Sacrament be, for the confusion of souls; it was a temporal chastisement to prevent the damnation of souls. This to the punishment: The sin was a sacrilegious misuse of holy things to carnal and common ends in the very act of administration, which I have largely given my thoughts of, and shown that not any Congregations in our Church did ever or rarely so offend; and what he means by common profanation, must be some other thing, that the Scripture no where condemns, otherwise then in every other Ordinance of God, that is too carelessly performed. As all other Ordinances, so this was instituted for the spiritual good of the Church; Christ commands nothing for the hurt of his visible subjects, they conforming thereunto according to their present capacity: the Lord gives his laws and Ordinances for our good only: Sometimes he permits a people for their punishment to choose Ordinances and statutes of their own making for their hurt, as Israel of old did. I conclude then, that this evil, the confusion of souls, etc. is a slander of God's Ordinance, and an evil of men's own making, when applied to the Sacrament more than to all other Ordinances in the Church.— Next, He saith in his third place, Abuse of the blood of Christ by being too prodigal hereof. 1. Answ. They properly abuse the signs of Christ's blood, that slight Sacraments as too mean and carnal to use to that end they were instituted for. 2. They who admit Heathens and give the holy Supper to persons unbaptised, or excommunicate, or to those that come on purpose to abuse the signs to common ends. But to administer the Sacrament unto serious professing Christians that come reverently, and demean themselves orderly according to the external part of this observance, is that which is according unto Gospel rule, and the administration holy and warrantable; Christ that gave himself for his Church, doth not think much of giving the signs and representations of himself, body and blood to the members thereof. And who will plead for any but Church-members, who are under the obligation of this observance of their Lord? And to deny it to such, is to be more withholding then is meet, and a dishonour to Jesus Christ, who came into the world to save sinners. His fourth is, Obstructing the reformation of the Churches we live in. And what is reformation in the Church, Answ. but to draw on the whole to a conformity to all the Laws of Jesus Christ, externally at lest? For the Church can go no further; it is the only work of God to reform the hearts of men. And the whole Church are as much bound to a conformity to this law of receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ, as to any other act of obedience in the Church. He that commands all the rest of obedience, commands this too: And therefore they understand not what Reformation is, that are busy in such reformings in their Churches, that the greatest part of Christ's subjects are out of carlessenesse neglected and exempted from their duty of obedience; Nay those that would serve their redeeming Lord and Saviour in the command of his own worship, as they are believing Christians, in hope of his mercy and blessing to their souls, are discouraged and hindered by these pretenders to reform: They shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against poor souls, that as sinners would be entering in and adhering to their Saviour. They forbidden whom Christ commands to serve him in this Ordinance, and in reforming of their Churches they make void the commands of Christ by their own traditions; which ways tend more to the destruction and confusion of Churches then in the least the reforming of them. His fifth is, Crossing the desire of the godly in the land, and the actings of the State herein. The desires of the godly were, Answ. and still are for the reformation of the whole, according to the Word of God, and when they see evident demonstrations from the Word to justify a more general admission to the Lords Supper then upon mistake have been thought of; they will be satisfied in their desires, accounting those desires irregular that have been drawn out without Scripture ground. Better such desires should be crossed then attained. His sixth, Degenerating from the Primitive times, and all true antiquity. That the Virgin Primitive times in the Apostolical Churches admitted all to the holy Supper that came under baptism, Answ. and were received into the Church, is so evident, that no sober man will deny, as hath been showed already; and for after times, if they acted otherwise, they are as much to be questioned for swerving from the first precedents, as we. ● As for that Antiquity that is newer than the Scriptures, this Author is no adorer of it, as himself writeth: The Fathers were divided in truth, and united in error. The principle of Antiquity yields but a popular and fallacious argumeent, pag. 6.9. and therefore he might have spared this quotation of Chrysostom in his Homily 83. Let us keep away all without exception, that we see to come unworthily. But what he meant by unworthily who can tell? and what he meant by keeping away; whether as a single Minister, or by the Church's Jurisdiction, is a query. But did ever chrysostom forsake his Church as Pastor, and join himself as an Officer or member to another Pastor and Church? And in stead of administering the holy Supper to his own Congregation, or using any acts of discipline to amend them, leave them out? and separate some few with him to receive the Sacrament in another Church? See whether Christ or his Apostles, or chrysostom, will justify your own practice; all that you have yet pretended from the Scripture, to warrant your way, hath been sufficiently examined and confuted. His last, The want of making some separation, as to the Lords Table, hath given occasion to some to forsake our Congregations. Master Cotton, Bloody Tenent. 1. ● The want of right and solid principles, as touching the constitution and first reforming of our Church, hath given the occasion of the Brownists separation from us, for they in New England do not scruple the administering of the Sacrament to a scandalous member tolerated by the Church, till censured Juridically: and for them that own our Church and Ordinances for true, they might be rationally satisfied upon the same principle. 2. The want of right principles, as to the Sacrament, hath wried more of the godly minded then otherways would be; as men come to embrace truer principles, and conceptions of this holy Ordinance, according to the Scriptures; they will be more tender of making unnecessary separations and rents in the Church. 3. It is a wonder that our common principles in order to the Sacrament, do not hurry all knowing conscientious men into some separations or other, sigh it's said the unregenerate are far from being disciples, believers; and the Sacrament is a cup of poison, and for the confusion and damnation of such souls; they are guilty of the murder of Christ, etc. And that they have nothing to do with the Covenant; and therefore the Sacrament is but a seal to a blank when administered unto them; These erroneous principles do more distract and trouble the poor Church, than men are willing to understand; or decline the unnecessary stirs that follow thereupon. His second motive contains, The great advantages got by acting in some courses of discipline. But he should have told us, what courses of discipline he means, whether any course that men can invent? or that which the Scriptures only teach? What shall we think of that course themselves are acting in? Doth theirs (were it generally taken up) enable us the better to defend the truth of our Churches, as he tells us, pag. 162. Must we run into a schism, Answ. and become like unto our adversaries in unchurching our Parochial Congregations? and gather or form up Churches out of them, as you; to defend the truth of our Churches? what is this but to yield the cause, and betray the Church, to defend the truth of a separate Congregation; and so to end the quarrel in becoming like unto our reproaching adversaries of Brownists and Anabaptists, etc. I doubt not but we shall find friends to defend the truth of our Churches, as to their being, as they are form up already and grafted into the true Olive, root and branch. And I think none are more perfidious to our Churches, than those that forsake their former station in the Church; and form a new with the specious pretences according to Gospel rule. What doth this imply, but that our Churches are false, and not according to Gospel rule? What (beside their own word) can free them from rigid and absolute separation? That which follows; We shall have the better satisfaction in our Consciences, (whilst God is our witness that we have taken pains, drawn loss upon our estates, stirred up the envy of the multitude for his service sake.) And who hath required this at your hands? Answ. Where is it written that you should act as you do? If you meet with sufferings for your irregular actings, what thank have you? It's not the goodness of the men or ends, but the goodness of the cause that makes a Martyr, and brings solid comfort to the souls of God's people; all sects are apt to bless themselves in what they suffer by contrary minds; but this and the rest that follows is but weak and begged too. I come to his answer of objections, pag. 164. 1. Object. The stirs and troubles where any such separation is made. 2. The separation defended is the same with schism, and absolute separation, pag. 165. His answer is, We must follow peace with men, as it may stand with holiness and no otherwise; and indeed from a high, rash or absolute separation there are dangerous consequences; but from that which is moderate and warrantable no such dangers, saith he. To this I reply, 1. That keeping the peace of the Church of Christ is more urged and pressed home amongst Christians, then to other men in the world; Christ came to make division between the Church and the world: but left a legacy of love and peace to his Church only, they are to follow after the things that make for peace and the edification one of another without limitation: but holiness is the boundary of our peace with all other men of the world: there is an absolute injunction to the Church. And have peace amongst yourselves, 1 Thess. 5.13. Mark. 9.50. 2. That to break the Church's peace by an unnecessary Separation is so far from holiness, or losing our blessing, that it's a wicked schism, as I have proved theirs to be; they not being able to warrant the separation they are acting in by any ground of Scripturce or principles of solid reason: And therefore it will reflect upon them to their reproach and shame, until they be able to give satisfaction to the Church in their fuller defence, or reforming, by returning from the schism they have hatched and nourished to the great prejudice of many of their people's souls. I come to his queries, pag. 166. I shall be very brief, and but touch at things, I having done more than was intended. 1. Query. Whether it be not against the Solemn Covenant, not to act in some disciplinary courses, for in this we have swo●n to endeavour Reformation in Discipune according to the Word Hence he assumes when this was taken, either we saw the alteration of corrupt customs to be necessary in the Congregations we live in, or not necessary now; if the latter be true than whosoever so took it he swore not in judgement, and so took God's name in vain for he swore to reform being convinced of no corruptions. But if the 1 be true, than we desire of every Minister and other man, that hath taken it, with what conscience they can oppose ways and courses tending to that sworn end, and bow they dare to withhold their own activity therein? 1. Answ. Without doubt it's against the Solemn National Covenant, not to endeavour in our several places and callings, the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England, and Iteland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and likewise not to endeavour to bring the three Nations to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion, confession of faith, form of Church Government, etc. But then the question is, What our endeavours should be as the case stands, as particular Minisiers or private members? Reformation in Discipline being not yet agreed of by the whole what it is, nor in present exercise and force by virtue of law which was intended in the Covenant. 2 Whether the ways and courses defended by our Author, do not cross and assault the ends of the Covenant, as tending to nothing more than making divisions and several factions & confusions in the Churches of God, which have swore to bring the whole Church of the three Nations to the nearest conjunction & uniformity in Religion, confession of Faith, form of Church-government, etc. That we and our posterity after us, may as Brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us. 3. The Covenant binds us to reform in Discipline according to the Word, and example of best reformed Churches. Mr. Saunders puts in, and practiseth a more general latitude, Whether not to act (in some disciplinary ways) and courses be not against the Covenant; he means some courses or other of men's own inventing, as that of theirs which hath nothing of the particulars in the Covenant, in it, as being not grounded upon the Word (as I have made it manifest) not according to the example of best reformed Churches that have ever abhorred rents & schisms in the Church by unlawful separations, as their is, upon their own principles: for they separate from Churches they confess to be true Churches; and the members thereof they own for believers, brethren, and within, in baptising their children upon the account of federal holiness. In stead of reforming their Churches, as form of old by our first Reformers, they form up a new of the principal part of the old; leaving out of this frame the main matter of the old, so that upon the matter they pull down many Churches to build one, and rather destroy their Churches then reform them by holy Discipline. Discipline is to purge out some few to amend them; but theirs is to separate from the most of their Churches to destroy them, in not using the right means towards them as brethren to encourage them in all Christian obedience, etc. And hence with good conscience I fear not to oppose their way and course, without breach of my Covenant. Nay in the 2. Article of the Covenant we are bound without respect of person to endeavour the extirpation of Superstition and Schism, as well as Popery, Prelacy, and Heresy. The two former may with good conscience be charged upon your way. 1. Superstition, because you urge upon all you admit, duties of necessity that God no where commands, binding the conscience where it is free, and so become Lords of men's faith: and unless Christ's subjects will submit to these superstitious inventions, you have framed, you exclude them from necessary duties of homage and worship enjoined by their Lord. 2. Schism, because you are run into an unnecessary separation in the Church breaking the peace of the Church causelessly, as hath been hinted all along, It being the main I have writ, to discover your way Schismatical. But it seems he thinks that there was nothing corrupt in the Church to be reform by Discipline, but admission so largely to the Sacrament, and that this was the only thing we swore to reform; and therefore must join with them, or else be forsworn, although they have nothing at all of true discipline in exercise: for they excommunicate none himself confesses. And it's clear as the Sun at mid day, that there is no other means to exclude Church-members from the Sacrament, but by casting them out of the Church Juridically, which is a question, whether any at present in our Church be in a capacity so to act; and hence the Covenant binds us to endeavour after such a capacity as to reform all corruptions that are properly reformable by true Discipline. 3. Query. He asks What other way there is to be walked in to keep close to the Word. I have given my thoughts in my answer to Mr. Ward. The Scripture rule examined; Answ. Mr. Joanes is considerable to answer this query, as the state stands with us at present. And if we were in possession of true discipline, we should endeavour so to exercise it, that the worst might be reform by it, not refuse to admit them to the Sacrament, and so exclude them from all discipline, as if they were Heathens: and let not any assume the exercise of discipline, that are not sure of their warrant from the Word. And let them be sure they use no other censures than they have precept or precedent for from the word. And let them be sure they proceed to censures gradually, and for no other cause but for the like sins and scandals that the Word directs in. 4. Query. Whether the Church should own men to be members for a bare profession, etc. I confess I do the more wonder at the query, Answ. because the most of sober Divines are taxed for unsoundness in holding the affirmative, and yet himself saith the children of such are holy federally, and therefore to be baptised, whereas if the parents be not Church members, how come their children to be holy federally, and to have right to baptism, that being spoken of the children of such that were in the Church? And if a remote right may serve to bring in the child of such a bare professor, as he pag 129. then why have not the parents of that child the same remote right as being a generation nearer that right; they being not Excommunicate as is supposed? Is the child a member without so much as a bare profession, and the parents none that profess Christianity externally? A bare profession may be serious in its kind I suppose, though it want the will of holiness. So that if we add to a historical or temporary professor, but to be serious and real in his profession for the present, he may pass for a member with him: and I shall think those men very uncharitable that judge less of ours, generally that frequent Gods Ordinances, and take themselves greatly wronged, when they are deprived of any one, I take it to be a good sign that they are serious in what they profess, and then this is but the same (which in others) he conceives unsound. 2. What shall be done with the children of the most godly when they are grown up, if profession without true holiness doth not continue such members, forasmuch that there is no rule left to dismember for ignorance or want of the work of true holiness, regeneration, etc. members such, are, not only by birth, but formally by the Churches approbational act of baptism, they are so far from renouncing or forsaking their Christian profession, that they adhere to the external part of it, and are not scandalous: They neither fall off, nor are cut off by any rule, or act of censure; what hinders them, but that such remain members of the Church, and have a true right to all the external privileges of membership? 3. If positive unbelief in denying the person and Ordinances of Christ, on whom the Church is built, cut off persons from the Church, as is clearly spoken of the Jews, Rom. 11. then the contrary to that Infidelity, which is a real owning and professing the person and Ordinances of Christ continues those that are members born, to be members so long as they hold to the Christian profession. Excommunication dismembers but conditionally, for in case the offender externally reform, and hold to his profession, and promise amendment, he ought to be loosed from that censure. But I hasten. What shall Ministers do while Government is unsettled, Query 5 and their people opposite to ways of Reformation? 1. Shall they give the Sacrament promiscuously to all? 2. Shall they by their own Antiquity exclude the unfit? 3. Or shall they wholly desist? To the last he answers, that the use of the Ordinance of the Supper is so necessary, as that it may not always nor long be discontinued; the command of Christ (Do this) requires obedience: this (he saith) is well proved by Mr. Joanes, but yet he doth not close with him in another point; namely, that while the Church is undisciplined, the Sacrament may be administered in every Congregation without any separation. But he conceived that the Lords Supper cannot be holily transacted by any unless the scandalous be removed, etc. pag. 169. 1. Answ. It's a question whether their people are opposite to true reformation, or no; because they were never yet tried with it; and therefore who can tell whether they will oppose it or no? That they are opposite to such ways of Reformation as the Author pretends to, and labours to defend, is no great wonder; when Ministers will venture to spoke, and do such things to reform them which are not where to be found in the Scriptures, but in their own wills and fancies, as I have discovered already, it's well he is so sober, as to hold the administering of the Lord's Supper so necessary that it may not long be omitted, and that he assents to that Reverend Minister Mr. Joanes, (who hath done the Church most eminent service in that undertaking of his.) And then if it be a necessary duty requiring obedience, why then this may satisfy him in answer to his first, Shall they give the Sacrament to all? Yeato all that are concerned in Christian obedience and observance, which all in your Parish that are baptised and of years are, as well to this, as to any other part of instituted worship in the Church. And there's no more danger in the word (promiscuous) to this Ordinance then to all others; there being as much to be said for the casting the scandalous out of the Church, as from the Sacrament, and more too; for we have no rule at all to exclude a scandalous member from the Sacrament while he is within, but we have clear rule to cast such out of the Church by Excommunication, and then removal from the Sacrament falls in as a consequence of that Juridical act, and no otherwise. That Ministers are in a very great strait, by reason of the necessity of the one hand to administer (saith he) and yet perchance have a wicked party predominant to hinder any good course of separation. Answ. The strait is not to great more, as in show and conceit, men first receive false principles, and then conclude accordingly from them: and that brings them into straits, whereas if they were rightly informed of their own duties and their people's privileges as Church-members, the case were easy. Christ commands to all his visible subjects, while they are within, is a sufficient warranty, & upon this very ground, you are now in no more straight about the Lord's supper, then in all other worship which many scarce make so much as a scruple of. His saying, that this is against the mind of Christ, he intending it for disciples only, is pitiful weak, when himself grants, the baptising of the children of all as holy federally from their parents, which cannot be true unless their parents be believers or disciples, as hath been showed: and therefore in granting that, it doth necessarily prove the lawful right of all to the holy Supper, Baptism & Lords Supper being but the same seal of the same Covenant, in which both are in eluded and concerned. And doubtless a single Minister is not impowered with authority to excommunicate Juridically, which I suppose he means is Mr. Joanes his advantage upon his adversaries, he holding them strictly to some such Presbyterian principles, as this; which I wonder that any man should dare to assume to do as Mr. Saunders opens his mind in, and hath published it against the learned Assembly, and all sober men; he saith, Thus the Minister by his own authority (without Elders) may put back such as he knows to be unfit. But if by his authority he may put back the unfit, then by the same authority he may as well Excommunicate; if by authority he means the authority of rule in acts of discipline; but if he only understand his Ministerial authority in a case of necessity, I think it not so insolent as the other, although it is a hard task to justify either from the rule or free themselves of doing evil that good may come, etc. And Mr. Saunders will find work enough to justify their own way from Schism: he had not need entice others to as bad. But he saith further, the Minister is impowered and Commissioned as to all Ordinances by Christ, whether to this Sacrament, to act solely, or alone, is a question? Answ. What should hinder, but that one alone may administer the Sacrament by virtue of that Ministerial power as well as in all other Ordinances of Worship? I know not Scripture that requires acts of discipline in order to the Lords Supper more than to the rest of worship in the Church. Those that can find any such Scripture may do well to publish what they know. 6. Query. He asketh who are fit to come to the Lords Table, and what qualifications may be justly required? And gives his answer. 1. Concerning knowledge; he stands not so much upon the muchness as the soundness of it, save this, it must be so much as may let in Christ into the soul, etc. But he is not clear and distinct in prescribing the least measure of such a knowledge, Answ. that lets Christ into the souls of some persons; for it's supposed that some have Christ in their souls in their Infancy. 2. Christ first comes into a dark soul, that hath no other but a passive reception, and he alone brings true and saving light with him. 3. If no more knowledge be required to actual receiving of the Sacrament, then to a passive reception of Christ, where Christ pleaseth by his Spirit. First to take hold on souls, we may consent to this: but if he mean so much light and faith, whereby a man is capable actually to apply some further spiritual blessing by Christ, it requires proof; the bare say of men merely are not competent to weigh with the Church's peace and truth; so much concerned in this practice. 4. How weak is all that they can say in defence of this qualification to admission to the Lords Supper, when ours are all baptised (and within) and therefore under the actual observance of this duty as any other; himself saith well of a wicked man's praying thus. Their presence at the duty can be no sin, while 'tis that they are commanded to do: though at present their own evils make them unable to do as they should, pag. 126. would men say but the same of this of the Sacrament, it's not sin to receive while 'tis that they are commanded to do, though at present they through ignorance and other wants cannot receive as they should. I say would but men thus judge and say of the Sacrament, there being the same reason for it, as is proved clearly in another place: this controversy would be ended, and all parties pleased. Besides there is not any law or rule in Scriptures to warrant the punishing of ignorance, or unregeneracy in the Church with the deprivation of a common privilege belonging to members in common of the same kind: never was such a thing heard of in the Apostolical Churches, that any were censured for ignorance in excluding them from the Lords Table, or from any other Ordinance in the Church. If you judge ours within, and baptised, and of years, and yet exclude them the Sacrament for want of knowledge: I dare be bold to say, that you venture to do that which you have neither Scripture precept, nor counsel, nor precedent for: How you think to be born out in such a bold presumptuous practice against the clear command of Christ, you may do well to consider of it. His quotations are so impertinent for his purpose, that it will be but loss of time and labour to examine them. I admire how men dare so notoriously misapply the holy Scriptures. 2. As to practice he saith, These four qualifications seem necessary to admitting to the Sacrament. 1. They must be no companions of drunkards, or any other wicked livers. 2. They must be such as frequent and delight in the society of godly people. 3. Such as are not known to be guilty of any known sin. 4. Such as perform all religious duties, as well in private as in public, etc. 1. Answ. That these are qualifications or duties required of all professing Christians, is granted. That receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is so also, (it being a public duty of worship incumbent upon all in the Church, and comprehended in his last) cannot be denied. 2. That these qualifications are necessary in order to God's glory and our Salvation is confessed: but that they are necessary in order to receiving to the Sacrament (upon good grounds) is to be denied until better proof. 3. These qualifications are necessary to prove our spiritual states by, and to know in what condition we stand in before the Lord. But the Scriptures quoted do not in the least urge them as prerequisite unto the Lord's Supper, more than to all other worship. They that have this Book, let them search and see if they can find one of these sixty texts, that hath so much as a sound to prove any of these qualifications laid down, pag. 172. necessarily prerequisite in order to the Lords Supper. And if you cannot find one of so great a number for his purpose, had it not been more for his repuration (as he is a Minister) not to have quoted them, than thus absurdly to misapply them to justify a way themselves have inconsiderately chosen? It's the usual road of those that have strong fancies and weak judgements to multiply texts of Scriptures impertinently. If this Author shall think it necessary still to defend their way, I much desire that he may show himself a workman that need not be ashamed by dividing the pure truths of God aright: one clear and rational deduction from the holy Scripture properly applied either for suspension or examination, or excluding the ignorant, would do more to justify the separations that some venture to make amongst their people in order to the Sacrament, than multitude of texts impertinently alleged, as hath been discovered. Nay it's a strange thing, and to be wondered at, that the same men that do satisfy themselves, touching Infant Baptism, upon the Analogy of Circumcision, Covenant relation according to the state of the Jews Church, without any express rule in the New Testament, in respect of precept or precedent. And yet the same men will except against the Analogy of the Passeover, notwithstanding we have clear precept and precedent in the New to warrant the baptised of years to receive the Lords Supper. If the same men should be as exceptions against the Analogy of Circumcision to Baptism, as of the Passeover to the Lords Supper: they would utterly throw away the cause and run to the tents of our adversaries; both weak and worthless is that of Mr. Saunders in reply to Mr. Humphrey, upon the Analogy of the Passeover, pag. 185. The Passeover had an external benefit which all did partake of, therefore a right to that Ordinance so far as external: but the Lord's Supper is a more, spiritual Ordinance, no type. The wicked were termed God's people then, not so in the New. See Camero. 1. Answ. Do not the Anabaptists say the same of Circumcision? it was more carnal than baptism, more typical, and annexed to external promises, and so would spoil the Analogy; and may we not say of this Author, that his hath been sharpened at their forge? 2. It concerns the Author to make good the first thing asserted, That all had an external benefit by it, more than what was eaten and drunk to the satisfying of nature, for all that came under the Law of the Passeover were not in Egypt to partake of that benefit of preservation, when the first born of the Egyptians were slain. What think you of the generations that were then to come successively until Christ? Nor were all the Egyptians smitten with that death, but the first born only. Besides, what external benefit were this to the Aliens and strangers that were Proselytes, and came under Circumcision? they were as much under the Law of the Passeover as the Israelites, and yet did not partake of that external benefit, and therefore that was not the thing that gave them right as he pretends. And whereas he saith, the Lords Supper is more spiritual, it is to be proved, the Passeover having the same Author appointing it for the same spiritual use and ends in the Church with the holy Supper. The external Ceremonial part of the one and of the other both alike carnal: and his granting, that both are the same for substance, as to the use and end, doth cross and contradict this of his here: let it be proved that the unregenerate and wicked in the Church are not to be termed God's people now. Do not the Apostles give equal titles to all in the Church; calling them Saints, and such as were brethren and within, although scandalous and stubborn? and if the unregenerate and wicked in the Church, are not to be termed God's people, how are their children holy federally, that being affirmed only of the children of believers, which himself grants, which is cross to Camero. And the truth is, the arguments we urge from the Passeover, Covenant relation, state of the Jews Church, Gospel precept, and precedents, the right of membership, the love of Christ to sinners, are so solid and full of strength, that all that oppose us will be ashamed at last. There is no need of any further examining of what is writ by this Author in answer to Mr. Humphrey, for had he consulted with what was written of late before his came out, he might have spared that part as unnecessary, he having but little thats new, considerable in the controversy. If the Author want work, let him answer Mr. Humfreys rejoinder, or the last part of my first Book not yet answered, or make good his own so clearly confuted, if he can: Or else return to the Church in feeding his own flock, and be quiet, endeavouring to heal the breach, which by an unnecessary separation he hath sinfully made in his Church. I shall now take my leave of my Reader, and end with some Apologizing reasons, why I have appeared so stiff in opposing of these petty irregular reformings. 1. Because they have no foundation to stand upon from the Scriptures. 2. Because they hinder and obstruct the Reformation of the whole: Who will desire or endeavour after a uniformity of true discipline, if these private petty ways will attain the end without it? 3. Because Suspension and Separation makes void Juridical. Excommunication, the only separating Ordinance in the Church, and now upon the matter is wholly lost in Church. 4. Because these new contrivances tend to wicked division and schism in the Church, and a complying with that wild Principle of tolerating every Sect and way, to the scandal of the whole. 5. Because these groundless partial reformings do make us insensible of our malady, and so careless of the right remedy. 6. Because this groundless pretended discipline runs private Ministers upon intruding the power of Jurisdiction, which as private Ministers they are not impowered with at all, until the Church have chose and designed them unto Ecclesiastical rule and Jurisdiction: for all are not competent for that work, nor is it necessary that all should bear a share in the exercise of Church censures and policies. I confess I judge that not any Minister in the Church can justly assume an authoritative power of Jurisdiction in his Church by virtue of his Ordination and Induction. And lastly, what Reformation can be rationally expected, when those that should be entrusted with the exercise of discipline, are wried in their judgements about the censures of the Church, and in what cases to correct, and who should have the exercise thereof? Whether every Presbyter in general, or some peculiarly chosen, and set apart for Ecclesiastical rule and order only? What work would have been made in the Church by this, if the Presbyterian principles had been put into execution? We should have had but few Communicants in many of our Churches, had that rigid way of Examination and power in the Eldership to suspend upon pleasure gone on. When the Lord of his Church is pleased to bless this poor distracted English Church with so great a blessing, as true and holy discipline is; he will both qualify and furnish us with instruments fit for that work; in the mean time let us pray and wait, and use all good means we can to possess so great a mercy, as may truly tend to the Reformation of the whole, without the hurt or prejudice of any part of Christ's visible Church. FINIS. Books that are to be sold by Thomas Williams at the Bible in Little Britain. A Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Romans Gournment unto the reign of King Charles, containing all passages of Church and State, with all other observations proper for a History: the second Edition enlarged with notes and a large Table. A complete Christian Dictionary showing the Interpretation of the proper names, the several significations, and several acceptations of all the words in the Bible, with the addition of above four thousand words and phrase●, with a description of the properties of Beasts, Fowls, Herbs, Trees, etc. A book of great use unto Ministers, Masters of families, all private Christians; the sixth Edition. The Art of Distillations, with the choicest preparations performed by way of Distillations, with a description of the best Furnaces and vessels, used by ancient and modern Chemists: also divers Spagerical Experiments and Curiosities, the anatomy of gold and silver, with their preparations and virtues; the second Edition, to which is added the London Distiller, showing the way to draw all sorts of Spirits and Strong waters. The New Light of Alchemy, by Sandevogius, with nine Books of Paracelsus of the nature of things, with a Chemical Dictionary. Glaubers Philosophical Furnaces, or a New way of distilling in five parts, with the tincture of Gold, and Aurum Potabile, the first part of his Mineral work. Spots discovery of Witcheraft, showing the power of Witches, contracting with Devils, Spirits, or Familiars, and their power to kill, torment, and consume the bodies of Creatures, with the knavery of Conjurors, Enchanters, Figure-casters, Astrologers, the vanity of dreams, with all tricks of Juggling, and Legerdemain; and many other secrets. Vade Mecum, A companion for a Chirurgeon, showing the use of every instrument belonging to a Chirurgeon, with the cure of all green wounds, the virtue and quality of all medicines useful, with the way to make them; with directions for Crowner's how to make Reports with a treatise of Bleeding. A Vindication of Mr. Humfreys free Admission to the Sacrament, being an answer to Dr. Drakes Bar, done by John Timson.