THE GREAT question So much now insisted on by Some TOUCHING Scandalous Christians as yet not legally convicted: Whether, or no, They may be lawfully admitted by the Minister, or communicated with by the People, at the Lords Table? THE AFFIRMATIVE MAINTAINED By way of Answer to a Discourse of Mr. B. cox. By Martin black B. D. and U. of B. in Devon. in the behalf of himself, and his Parishioners, whom Mr. B. cox hath secretly laboured with, to draw them to the contrary Opinion. ROM. 16.17. Now I beseech you, Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by Charles Green, at his shop in ivy Lane, at the sign of the Gun. 1645. To the Reader. CVrteous Reader, take notice that this Answer to Mr. cox hath been finished at the press above a year since, only a small parcel of Copy by negligence of the Printer was lost; the Author dwelling far distant, and the ways so troublesone, it could not sooner bee supplied, and so now it appears to thy view. God give a blessing to it. Vale. A Table of the Contents. THe Preface, declaring the occasion of this Discourse: together with a true copy of Mr. cox his Writing, to which this Answer was fitted. The Answer itself distinguished into several Chapters, the sum whereof may be thus reduced. CHAP. I. An examination of the Title, which Mr. C. prefixeth to his discourse: as also his manner of stating the Question, by the way of Proposition, and Explication. pag. 1. CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his confidence in his own arguments, together with the several branches of his Assertion: the first whereof concerns the Minister, and the pretended unlawfulness of his act in admitting scandalous livers( not legally convicted) to the Communion. His first proof scanned, being 1 Cor. 5.11. p. 8. CHAP. III. An answer to Mr. C. his second proof, grounded upon 1 Cor. 10.16.17. p. 30. CHAP. IV. Of three other places alleged by Mr. C. toward the proving of this first part of his assertion, viz. Gal. 5.19.20, 21.] 2 Thess. 3.6.14.] 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5. p. 39. CHAP. V. Of Mr. C. his four aggravating circumstances, whereby to prove the act of the Minister in admitting such persons to the Communion, to be not a sin only, but a very grievous and hateful sin: With a brief censure upon them all. p. 46. CHAP. VI. The second part of Mr. C. his Assertion, affirming it to be unlawful for the People of God to communicate at the Lords Table with scandalous livers: with a just examination of the places which he brings to prove the same; as namely, Ephes. 5.11. Lev. 19.17. 1 Thess. 5.22. Act. 2.40. 1 Cor. 6.17. p. 60. CHAP. VII. Of Mr. C. his undertaking to answer objections made against his Tenet: With a vindication of the said objections from his exceptions. p. 75. The Conclusion, exhorting Mr. C. to ingenuity and humility for the preservation of the Churches Peace. p. 119 John 7.24. Judge not according to the appearance: but judge righteous judgement. 1 Cor. 11.16. But, if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. 2 Cor. 13.11. Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall he with you. Rom. 14.13. Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall, in his Brothers way. Hebr. 10 24 25. Let us consider one another, to provok● unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is: but exhorting one another, and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. The Preface to the Reader. SOmewhat less than a year since, The occasion of this Discourse. two of my Parishioners( not unjustly well reported of by the neighbourhood, as for their moral honesty, so for their integrity and zeal in matters of Religion) came one evening to my house, and acquainted me with some scruples, which Mr. B. Cox not long before had( at a private meeting) assayed to cast into their mindes, especially concerning the promiscuous manner of our communicating at the Lords Table. Some opposition( as they told me) they then made to his discourse: enough( it seemeth) to preserve themselves from being lead captive into his opinion. nevertheless, for their own more ample satisfaction, and in part also to re-settle the judgments of others, whom Mr. Cox by his words had put into a wavering condition, they entreated me to consider of some fit time& place, when and where he and I might freely in their hearing confer and reason upon these matters. I heard them, and indeed was much grieved at the report of this so unhappy an attempt: the more, because I found such unworthy carriage where I was fairly promised better things. For, though I had formerly understood by good intelligence, that Mr. Cox was far gone in this opinion: yet upon some conference with him thereabout( wherein, as it became me and the love I bare him, I did the office of a friend in seeking to reduce him) so plausible were his replies, and his pretended lothnesse to disturb the mindes of others so guilded over with faire semblances, that I believed not he would ever so far have vi●lated, I say not only the laws of amity, but of Christian modesty, as thus in a creeping and close way to endeavour the undermining both of the Peoples Devotion in frequenting, and his friends comfort in administering this holy Sacrament. But sorrow, if not seconded with some endeavour of redress, is a fruitless Passion. And therefore, foreseing the ill effects which this dealing( if not seasonably prevented) might produce, I fell into a discourse with the foresaid Parties touching Mr. Cox his grounds, so far as their memories did then serve them to repeat the same unto me: and in the end told them, that for the fuller evidencing of the Truth, I would gladly reason with Mr. C. about these his new-taken fancies, whether by word or writing, but rather by writing: first, because( as I conceived) that way of reasoning would be more safe for me, and more satisfactory to them. They liked my motion well, and told me that Mr. Cox had already put his mind in writing, with his name subscribed thereunto, and that this writing was extant in some hands, from whom peradventure they might procure it, or else obtain the like from Mr. Cox himself. I wished them so to do, and withall promised( upon receipt thereof from them) to apply myself with all the speed I could to furnish them with an answer thereunto. This is summarily the truth of that which then passed betwixt my foresaid Parishioners and myself. Not long after, A true copy of M. Cox his writing to which this answer was 〈◇〉. one of them came again unto me, and justly, according to his promise) brought me a Copy of Mr. Cox his Tenet with his arguments annexed thereunto, being written and subscribed with his own hand. And the writing( word for word) was thus. A Thesis or Position concerning the administering and receiving of the Lords Supper, cleared and confirmed by B. C. Preacher of Gods Word. THESIS. HE that administereth the Lords Supper to one that is a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, doth therein commit a very grievous and hateful sin: and the children of God must have no fellowship at all with this sin; but reprove it. This is meant onely of such a one, as is known to have been either a fornicator or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; and hath given no sufficient evidence for a judgement of charity to be satisfied with, of his turning from this wickedness in the exercise of true repentance. The position or Thesis, specially as touching the first part of the same, is certainly confirmed by the saying of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5.11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat. Touching the meaning and force of this place, I desire that these ensuing propositions may be weighed. 1. No man may be admitted to the Lords Supper, unless he be called a Brother according to the meaning of the Apostles phrase in this place: for he that is not a Brother in this sense, doth remain without, 1 Cor. 5.12. 2. The Apostles meaning in this place is, that it is more tolerable and safe to keep company with fornicators, covetous persons, extortioners, Idolaters, that are out of the Church, than with those that are such wicked ones as are here name, and yet are called brethren. We must farther estrange ourselves from these, than from those that are without. The truth of this will presently appear unto you, if you do but look back to 1 Cor. 5.9, 10. How then may we safely administer the Lords Supper to these; or communicate with them? 3. The word here translated, to keep company, doth properly signify, to be mingled with. And he that administers the Lords Supper to others, and they also that communicate, are in that action mingled one with another. 4. The meaning of the Apostles charge concerning the sinners here mentioned is, That with such wee should not so much as eat. Doth not the Minister eat at the Lords Table with those to whom he administers the Sacrament? do not Communicants there eat and drink with those with whom they do communicate? and if wee must shun communion with such at a common table, should we not much more shun to communicate with them at the Lords Table? It was the use of Christians in the Apostles dayes, to have their Love-feasts, even then when they met together for the receiving of the Sacrament, as appears in 1 Cor. 11. They did not then hold it lawful to receive the Sacrament with those, touching whom they were charged, no not to eat with them. 5. The Apostle having laid this ground in 1 Cor. 5.11. doth in verse 13. add this inference; Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person: Thereby meaning, not only that the incestuous person should be repelled from the Sacrament, but also that he should be cast out of the Church by the sentence of Excommunication. He meant not then, that these offenders should only be shunned in respect of private and common familiarity, but that they should be repelled from the Sacrament, and that their Communion at the Lords Table should be shunned. That the force of this which hath been spoken, may yet more clearly appear, consider what the Apostle saith concerning the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For, we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. This text assures us of the truth of these Propositions. 1. True believers rightly receiving this holy Sacrament, are thereby assured of their partaking of the benefits of Christs death. 2. All they that do outwardly receive this Sacrament, do therein make an outward profession of receiving Christ crucified, and partaking of the benefits of Christs death. 3. This Sacrament doth teach and assure all true believing communicants, that they being many persons, are yet one myst●call body, because they are all partakers o● one and the same Jesus Christ, of whose body the bread in this Sacrament is an ordained token and pledge. 4. They that join together in outward receiving of this Sacrament, do both join together in the profession of the same faith in Christ, and also do profess themselves to be( in the judgement of charity, which they now mutually profess concerning each other) fellow members of the same mystical body, as being all fed with the same spiritual food. Judge then with what good conscience a Minister may give this Sacrament to those with whom, for their open wickedness, we are charged not to be mingled; yea, not so much as to eat with them? consider also with what comfort a Christian may communicate with such. Now, howsoever in my Thesis and in 1 Cor. 5.11. there is express mention made onely of him that is a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; yet what is there expressly said of these, is also to be understood of every other that is called a Brother, and yet is known to live under the reign of any other like sin. For the truth and soundness of this, see and consider these places; Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. 2 Thess. 3.6.14. 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5. Whereas I say of the evil that I have reproved, not only that it is a sin, but also a very grievous and hateful sin; that I may not seem to charge it too heavily, consider, 1. That these persons thus admitted by the Minister to the receiving of the Sacrament, and outwardly joined with by the rest of the Communicants, are by this means hardened in their security and cursed presumption: and thus the devil is exceedingly aided to carry them easily to Hell. And whatsoever fig-leaves we now make use of to cover this shameful evil, their blood will cry loud against us at the day of judgement. 2. That these persons thus communicating must needs abuse Gods ordinance in a high degree, thereby most fearfully increasing both their own sin, and their damnation hereafter. 3. That this admitting of such persons to the Sacrament makes the whole lump to be soured with their leaven, 1 Cor. 5.6. 4. That this admitting of such persons to the Sacrament, and communicating with them, makes their wickedness to redound to the shane and dishonour of the Faith and Religion which we profess. I shall not need now to insist on any farther proof of the latter part of my Thesis, viz. The children of God must have no fellowship at all with this sin, but reprove it. But only to press the consideration of these places. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them, Ephes. 5.11. Thou shalt in any wife rebuk thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him, Levit. 19.17. Abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22. To which you may add, Act. 2.40. Save yourselves from this untoward generation. And 2 Cor. 6.17. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing. Against the application of this last place, it will be objected, that it is to be understood of separation from wicked ones that are yet without. But then let it be remembered, that we must estrange ourselves more from known wicked persons that would seem to be within, than from open wicked persons that are manifestly without. For, so much we have learned from 1 Cor. 5.9.10.11. Whereas in public a filly objection hath been made from 1 Cor. 11.29. let it be considered, 1. That the Apostle speaks that with an intended application to the Corinthians, who received the Sacrament unworthily( that is, after an unmeet and irreverent manner) only in a measure, not being under the reign of this sin, as the unregenerate are. The word there translated[ damnation] doth signify only judgement: and is there to be understood only of such judgements, as God laid upon the Corinthians for their correction in that respect. This the verses there following do make manifest. 2. That this inference,— He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, Therefore his sin cannot hurt any other,— Or, Therefore no man else ought to restrain him from his sin,— Or, Therefore no man else needeth to refuse to communicate with him. That this inference, I say, is so alogical, false, and senseless, as that a man which regards his credit, will be ashamed to own it. It is every mans duty to keep himself unspotted from the world, Jam. 1.27. Doth it therefore follow, that a man is not bound to regard his Brother? or, that a Christian needs not to turn away from those that deny the power of godliness? Who will stick to say, that Achan by his sin did draw down judgement upon himself? will any man of understanding conceive such a saying to imply, that his sin did hurt no body but himself? As touching those many that were weak and sickly among the Corinthians, and those many among them that were smitten with death; doth the Text imply, that none of these felt this affliction for their sinful fellowship with the sin of others that did communicate unworthily? When the Apostle saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself; his meaning is plainly this; He draws misery upon himself by his own sin in communicating unworthily. If it be farther objected, that the Apostle doth not here give order for the repelling of any from the Communion, or for refusing to communicate with them: It is answered, That the persons, touching whom he now speaks, were either indeed, or at the least in the Churches judgement of charity, in some measure fit for the receiving of the Sacrament, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. Touching wicked persons, appearing to be such, he had already taken order in chap. 5. and needed not now to repeat it again. Whereas there hath been also some nibbling at these words of the Apostle, Let a man examine himself. Consider; 1. That the emphasis there lies, not in the word, himself; but in the verb, examine. 2. That no man in his right wits will from thence infer, that a man should not examine those of his own charge. 3. That our present question is not concerning persons, whose unfitnes is to be sifted out by examination; but concerning persons, whose unfitnes and wickedness doth already manifestly appear. Whereas a like poor objection hath been publicly made from Mat. 22.11.12. For answer thereto, consider, That by persons called, spoken of in vers. 14. of that chapter, are meant such persons, as have not only been invited to faith and repentance by the preaching of the Gospel, but also in outward profession have seemed to answer that call. Accordingly, by the man not having on a wedding garment, are meant such as in Gods sight were found to come short both of sanctification and justification, notwithstanding their faire outward profession by which they had deceived the eyes of men. What is this to the admitting of open wicked persons to the Communion, or communicating with them? Whereas it is farther objected by some well-meaning Christians, deceived by the error of their own judgement, and by the false suggestion of others, That it is their duty to receive the Sacrament; and they cannot be persuaded, that by the performing of their required duty, they should make themselves guilty of hardening others in their sin, or of any such like offence against God: To this I answer, That men must take heed that they perform required duties in the right order and manner, not transgressing the rule of Gods word in the pretended performance of a duty. Otherwise, they will be found not so much to p●rforme a duty, as to provoke God to anger by a great sin. It was the duty of David to bring the Ark to Jerusalem: yet because the Ark was then set upon a cart, and not born by the Priests, the Lord was provoked to anger; see 1 Chron. 15.13. It was the duty of the Jews, in the dayes of Zerubbabel, to build the Temple: yet might they not suffer the samaritans to build with them; Ezra 4.2.3. It was the duty of the Jews to eat the Passeover: yet might the● not eat it in Babylon, though they were enforced to tarry there 70 yeers, because their eating the Passeover there would not have been according to the rule of Gods word. It was the duty of the Priests to offer Sacrifices: yet they that offered Sacrifice, not in the Temple at Jerusalem, but on the High-places, did in so doing sin greatly against the Lord. Though it were the duty of all the Israelites to eat the Passeover▪ yet might they not eat the same, either 〈◇〉 th●●r own uncleanness, or with 〈…〉 were uncircumcised, or unclean. So, though it be the duty of Christians to receive the Sacrament, viz. when they may do the same in a right manner and order: yet it doth not follow, that they may safely receive the same with those, touching whom they are charged, no not so much as to eat with them. If any shall be pleased to own any other Objections against my Thesis or any part of the same, he shall, God willing, speedily receive a satisfactory answer thereunto. But I would now desire, not to be put off with mere objections: but either to have a punctual and clear Answer to the ground that I have now laid, and to the several parts of the same; or, if the same shall be found unanswerable( as indeed it is) then to have the truth thereof ingenuously acknowledged So I rest Haec scripsi April. 6. 1642. A true lover of the Truth, and sincerely set for the Defence of the same, BENJAMIN cox. This is really and entirely that whole discourse, which by the foresaid party was brought unto me, subscribed with Mr. cox his own hand: and I have been the more careful thus to transcribe it, without any either Addition, Diminution, or Alteration, first for the Readers sake, that, having all under one view, he might be the more enabled to judge betwixt us; secondly for M●. cox his sake, that he may see himself to be fairly dealt with, and not have any just cause to complain of wrong in this regard. This writing I received the very next day after the date thereof, and accordingly, as I could gain time from my constant weekly employments otherways( which they that know me and the place I live in will readily aclowledge are enough for one man) I applied myself to give as speedy and as satisfactory an Answer thereunto, as my weakness was able: hoping, that in the mean time( till the cause betwixt us might be farther tried) Mr cox in modesty would have desisted from his unpeaceable proceedings. But, my Charity in this also was deceived. For, besides that he went on still in a private way to add unto the number of his Disciples, he was now come to that excess of boldness, that openly in the Pulpit( where he could find admittance) he durst proclaim and venditate his fancies to whole Congregations; and that, not in this point onely, but in sundry others of no less concernment to the Churches Peace. In a word, by his demeanour now he seemed such a one, as had given himself over to the strength of his own misguided and deluded passions I must confess, the report of these exorbitancies did at once work in me both indignation and compassion. The one, with respect unto the things: the other, out of well-wishing to the man. And truly, this was it that moved me( while I was meditating an Answer to his Thesis) to disburden myself sometimes in such a mixture of expression, as the Answer itself declares. Wherein( yet) if I have said ought, either for matter or manner, which( in a just construction of my words) may not beseem the cause and him, I shall( upon due notice thereof given unto me) no sooner see my error, than retract it. It is not needful I should say more, and I hold it not sitting to say less. Well then, that I may set a period to this Proëme. Thou mayest be pleased, good Reader, to understand, that as I was drawn on to this task by the motion and desire of my Parishioners, so for their sakes mainly I undertook it, that they might be provided with some de●ence against these dangerous assaults. And accordingly, having done in it what I judged needful for the time, I called some five or six of them to take a copy of my Answer, and desired them that they would communicate it to such of their neighbours, as they thought in danger of seduction. After this, I caused another copy thereof to be delivered into Mr. C. his own hands, as an answer not only from myself, but in the behalf also of divers my good friends, whom Mr. cox had laboured to seduce. he received it, as with some scorn, so with a great deal of impatience, and in that mood threatened( superciliously enough) a very quick reply. But ever since, even from July the 5th 1642. having waited his leisure, and sometimes also called on him to make some performance one way or other, it hath pleased him to hold me in suspense, without doing any thing in that kind. I say, in that kind; for otherwise, as he could find means, he hath been but too active in his endeavours to gain a party to himself: which underhand dealing, how inconsistent it is with an ingenuous disposition, let the impartial Reader judge. mean while, because those few Copies, which I had caused to be transcribed and sent abroad, were indeed too few to prevent that mischief which I saw was coming on, I judged it very reasonable that the result of my endeavours for the common good should be made more common. And so, chiefly for that end, and in part also to avo●d the tediousness of much writing( which my daily attendance upon other things will not allow) I have so far yielded to the importunity of my friends as to sand it forth into more public view. God Almighty so bless it in the desired issue, that his People may therehence reap some answerable satisfaction! and even now, in these distracted and sad times, so enlighten our minds, and sway our hearts, that all humour of contention laid aside, both in this and every other thing, we may with all sincerity apply ourselves, as to learn and love his Truth, so to regain and bring back his Peace, that it may dwell among us! And let all, that bear good will to Sion, say, Amen. An Answer to Mr. B. C. his Thesis, about the refusal of scandalous Christians( as yet unconvicted) at the Lords Table. By M. B. Vicar of Barum, in the behalf of himself and his Parishioners, whom Mr. C. had secretly laboured with, to draw them into his opinion. CHAP. I. An Examination of the Title, which Mr. C. prefixeth to his Discourse: as also his manner of stating the Question, by way of Proposition and Explication. SECT. I. THE first thing that I meet with in this Paper, is the Title. You say, it is A Thesis or Position, touching the administering and receiving of the Lords Supper. A Title too general for your Text. For, the administering and receiving of the Lords Supper extendeth a great deal farther than you either mention or mean in this Discourse. And therefore( in discretion) you might well have restrained it to the proper subject, about which the controversy is. But, to make amends for this error, you forthwith add, and so I will take it as a promise from you, that you will both clear it and confirm it. The one( I suppose) to our capacities: the other, to our belief. 'tis well: but then, I pray, observe your promise, least for want of clearing, your Thesis be as full of confusion as the Title; and through default of confirmation, we be occasioned rather to pitty your mistakes, than to embrace your opinions. But that which in this Title most amuseth me, is, that B. C. or( in plain english) M. Benjamin cox( for so the subscription to this Paper tells me) should be the Author of this Position. Mr. cox is a man, whom I have long known, and whom( for his good parts) I thought I had deservedly esteemed, as both judicious and ingenuous: and consequently, could not easily have believed, that either upon so weak grounds he would have receded from his own station in the Church; or by his so secret conferences and writings( privily spread among the people) would have gone about to entangle the tender-hearted, especially under the charge of his ancient well-wishing& familiar Friend; I say not only without his notice, but even against an outward plausible and fair-seeming carriage to the contrary; that so, after he had abandoned his own lawful Flock, he might surreptitiously gather to himself another Congregation ( exempt and independent) out of another mans Cure. Surely, this course was neither friendly, nor ministerial, nor beseeming a Preacher of Gods Word( which is now the only Title you assume unto yourself; for, a Minister at large, viz. in all the branches of that holy Office, as in use with us, you refuse to be, as if it were Babylonish: look you to it, for so the voice is gone out) much less doth it become such a one, as, in the close of all you subscribe yourself, A true Lover of the Truth, and sincerely set for the defence of the same. SECT. II. THE next thing that comes in view, is, the Thesis itself: which you propound in these terms. He that administereth the Lords Supper to one that is a fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a drunkard, or an Extortioner, doth therein commit a very grievous and hateful sin; and the Children of God must have no fellowship at all with this sin, but reprove it. In which words, the subject matter, where-about your Position turns, is a wicked liver with respect to any the particular sins by you here name: which indeed are bad enough, and such as do render the party that is tainted with them deservedly odious in the sight of God and Man. The enumeration of these( as I find afterwards) you take out of 1 Cor. 5.11. where they are all reckoned up as you repeat them: of which, and what you infer thence, I shall consider more at large in the due place. Mean while, as touching a man that is openly scandalous in regard of all or any of these evils, you resolutely tell us for the present, that neither the Minister may admit him to the Lords Supper, nor the Children of God communicate with him therein: or, if they do, they shall both draw sin upon themselves. The Minister, by a personal commission of his own, for he shall therein commit a very grievous and hateful sin. The Congregation, by a necessary and unavoidable association or fellowship in sin, either with the Minister admitting, or the Party admitted, or both; which the Children of God should be so far from, that they should reprove it rather. I think, I have rightly guessed at your meaning. If I have not, the fault is yours: especially in the last clause of your Thesis, wherein your expression is so confused and involved, that I can but guess at your intention. But, in the next words you will give us some farther light. SECT. III. WEll then, the third thing that occurs, is, your Explanation of the Thesis. And here, because( before) you had indefinitely pronounced, that neither a fornicator, nor Covetous▪ nor an Idolater, nor a Railer, nor a Drunkard, nor an Extortioner, should be either admitted by the Minister, or communicated with by the godly, in the celebration of the Lords Supper: now, to prevent mistakes, you tell us, that this is meant of such a one, as is 1. known to have been wicked in any of these kindes; and 2. hath given no sufficient evidence for a judgement of Charity to be satisfied with of his turning from this wickedness in the exercise of true Repentance. Answ. Peradventure you may think now, that you have said well, and said all, towards the cleared and stating of this question: but you come short in both. For, First, to let pass the antecedent part of this limitation, the other thing which you add,( though concurring with the former) is not here of so great validity, as to make a man repellable from the Communion. Suppose a man to have been wicked, and to have been known for such( for so you speak in the preterperfect tense:) yet unless we know him to be such also for the present, his not having given a sufficient evidence( as you mean it) for a judgement of charity to be satisfied with of his turning from this wickedness, is a weak ground, whereupon to refuse him at the Lords Table. Peradventure he hath repented, though I know it not: and in charity I may hope, that he, being a reasonable Creature, and hearing himself so often and so severely admonished, not to presume to meddle with these holy things, unless he be repentant, hath taken to himself a right Christian resolution in that regard. In this case, whatsoever he hath been in former times, yet if he do not give us some positive and certain evidence against his Repentance, the privative( which you insist on) is not ground enough for our rejection of him. Towards our satisfaction in this point( if indeed we will be satisfied) our duty is in private to deal seriously with the party; and so, having used all the means in our power( thus far) to win him, to make our charitable trial and construction of him. It may be, you will say, this course is not denied, but intentionally supposed and granted by you in your assertion. When I hear you say it, I will believe you: but then, why did you not in plain words so express yourself? especially, seeing by promise you had engaged yourself to deal clearly. SECT. IV. BUT secondly, for discourse sake let it be admitted, that these things( thus presupposed) do make a man( potentially) repellable from the Communion: yet, here-hence it doth not follow, that presently, without any farther expectation of some judicial intervening act of lawful Authority, the said party should actually be repelled. Though such a man be notorious enough in Fact, and so in himself unworthy to communicate: yet, if he be not thereof legally convicted, and so made notorious in Law too,& so consequently cast out or suspended for that unworthiness, I see not how( by the Word of God) either the Minister may repel him, or the rest refuse to communicate with him, if he shall offer himself unto the Sacrament. Such a man, till he be convicted and cast out by lawful censure, remaines still an actual member of the visible Church, and so( by virtue of his baptismal profession and admission to the outward Covenant, as it hath been well observed by some) retaineth his right still to this Sacrament, in regard of us. To this Sacrament, I say, though not as to a seal exhibiting grace, M. Rob. Abbot in trial of Church-forsakers. sect. 11. passim. whereby he may be fed unto eternal Life( for there is a bar that lies between God and him by reason of his impurity and unbelief:) yet to it, as to a sign offering grace( on Gods part) to them that will receive it on Gods conditions, and according to their Profession. Well then, by this time( I hope) it doth appear, that, as in the former respect you said nor well, so neither in this latter respect have you reflected upon all, that was meet to be considered by us in this controversy. Though you have said somewhat to serve your own turn, yet you have concealed a great part of that, which was needful to the cleared of the Truth. And so you come short still of your Promise. CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his confidence in his own arguments, together with the several branches of his assertion: the first whereof concerns the Minister, and the pretended unlawfulness of his act, in admitting scandalous Livers( not legally convicted) to the Communion. His first proof scanned, being 1 Cor. 5.11. SECT. I. HAving thus far proceeded in the examination of your Thesis, and the Explanation thereunto annexed: I come now to scan your confirmation of the same; which, if your own words may be taken for it, is already boasted to be indeed unanswerable. I do not fain this; it is your own confident expression in the close of your discourse. And truly, if in the issue it so prove, it is most agreeable both to Reason and Religion, that( as you there add) the truth of your Position, and the ground which you have laid( in way of confirmation) should be ingenuously acknowledged. For my part, I am altogether of that mind, as one that hath learned from S. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.32.33. that the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets: and, that God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace, in all the Churches of the Saints. How you may stand affencted to this rule of modesty, I will not censure: but your words( to my seeming) do imply a resolution in yourself of nothing less. For, though you cannot be ignorant, that this hath been a controverted point, wherein many both judicious and gracious men have embraced contrary opinions: yet you, in the height of your confidence( as a man, now altogether on a sudden, superlatively illuminated above your Brethren) do seem to judge of yourself, as if, even here in this so questionable a subject, you were infallible. And hence it is( as I suppose) that you have not only pronounced the ground which you have here laid, to be unanswerable; but also made a Challenge to all Opponents( none excepted) that if any shall be pleased to own any other objections( sc: than you have now reflected on) against your Thesis, or any part of the same, he shall God willing speedily receive a satisfactory answer thereunto. Bravely crowed, even with clapping of the wings. He shal not only receive an answer, but that answer shall be satisfactory; and for this too he shall not wait long, but he shall have it speedily. I must confess, I have no great leisure to writ much in points of controversy: my constant weekly employments otherways do forbid it. Howbeit, because, by your unkind and clancular attempts to draw my Flock into a dangerous schism, you have so much provoked me, I shall( by Gods help) notwithstanding your big words adventure to make some trial of your strength. SECT. II. TWo things you have undertaken to demonstrate as matter of duty in this point: one is, concerning the Minister his not admitting; another is, concerning the People their not communicating with wicked livers at the Lords Table. And of both these you will give us a sufficient proof. First then, as touching the Minister, you say, If he admit such persons to the Lords Supper, he commits a sin: and that also, a very grievous and hateful sin. A sin, because he goes against the Command of God. A very grievous and hateful sin, because of the aggravating circumstances, and dangerous consequences, which you will infer thereupon. That it is against the command of God, you assay to prove out of 1 Cor. 5.11. a place, by which your Thesis or Position is most certainly confirmed, specially as touching the first part of the same. Answ. If as touching the first part, which concerns the act of the Minister in repelling: why not also, as touching the second part, which concerns the act of the People in refusing such wicked company at the Communion? The Apostle directs his charge to both, even to the one, as well as to the other: you cannot fairly deny that. And from this place likewise you afterwards reason, as if you would willingly have it to conclude for both. This off and on bewrays a shrewd distrust in you of obtaining your purpose from this place. But, let us see the words. I have written to you, saith the Apostle, not to keep company: If any man who is called a Brother, be a fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner: with such a one, no, not to eat. SECT. III. BEfore I come to consider what you infer from hence, there is one thing which I am willing to premise: and that is touching the twofold reading of the middle clause in this Text. You know, Pro prima lect. vide Irenaeum l. 4. cap. 46. Origen. homil. 5. supper Levit.& Cyprian. de Aleatoribus apud Estium. Ambros. de poenit. lib. 1 ca. ult. August homil. 50.& contr. Parmen. l. 3. c. 2. Photium apud Bezam. Occumer. in locum. that word for word( according to the original) it runs thus. If any Brother called either a Fornicator, or Covetous, &c. where, as good Expositors have observed, the participle [ called] is set down in the Greek without a verb, and may indifferently be referred, either to the word[ Brother] which goes afore, or to the words[ fornicator, &c.] which follow after. And so, from this shortness of expression, it is come to pass, that the Text hath been red two divers ways: Some,& among them S. Augustine is neither last nor least, do red them thus. If any man, that is a Brother, be called a fornicator, &c. Others, whom our Translations do more follow, render them thus: If any man, that is called a Brother, be a fornicator, &c. If after the first way you red the words, then the meaning is, that if a man who is a Brother[ .i. a christian by profession, and so a member of the visible Church] be called[ .i. defamed and branded, and by a judicial act of lawful authority pronounced and declared] either a Fornicator, 〈…〉. or a Covetous, &c.[ .i. such a one, not in fact only, but in obstinacy too, and so be justly for his wickedness either ejected or suspended] then according to S. Pauls charge, we may not keep company or be mingled with, nay, we may not eat with such a one. And, if thus the Apostle be to be understood, then the controversy betwixt us is at an end: for, who in his right wits ever thought, that a man legally convicted, and thereupon excommunicated or suspended, ought not( while he so remains) to be repelled, I say not only from our private consortship and familiarity, but from communicating with us at the Lords Table? But secondly, if we red the words after the other way, then the meaning of them is this: That, if any man, who is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, or Covetous, &c.[ .i. be such a one in himself, and peradventure also be known for such to many others, but as yet is not convicted or censured by authority, as afore] then our duty is, so far as we may, and as it lieth in our power, to estrange ourselves from him, not keeping company, no, nor so much as eating with him. This reading( it seems) you rather follow, and I will not now contend with you about it: though( as I have intimated) the former hath many very grave and great abettors, both ancient and modern. But then, reading the text this way, it is meet wee understand it in the Apostles own sense, which, in the judgement of more than a few both wise& learned in their generations, doth properly and directly require no more than a forbearance of social familiarity with such a Brother in way of private conversation, until some farther intervening act of lawful authority shall enable to do more: Thus they. But you are of another mind: how truly and justly, let us see. SECT. IV. UPon allegation of this Text, I looked that you should have brought some solid and convincing argument, towards the strengthening of your opinion: especially, because you tell us in the preface to it, that your Thesis is thereby certainly confirmed. And indeed, me thinks, a man that is a scholar and a Logician, should be ashamed to allege a place of Scripture, without so much as assaying to draw from thence any formal argument at all, whereby to justify the point for which it is alleged. At least, if you would have done any thing, you should have done it so, that your Reader might fairly have seen your scope and meaning, and not be left unto his own conjectures, as here I am. For, I profess ingenuously, that in the reading of your Commentary upon this Text, I have been more puzzled to find out what you would have me answer to, than to answer what I find. But your Will must be a Law, and( of necessity) I must follow you in your own tract: for so you say, you would have a punctual and clear answer to the ground that you have laid, and to the several parts of the same. Well, be it so: let us hear( then) what you say. SECT. V. FOr our better understanding of the meaning and force of this place, you lay before us certain Propositions, together with some short confused snatches here and there annexed to the same: and concerning them you tell us your desire is, that they may be weighed. I will not stick to gratify you in this thing, but shall weigh them severally, as they come, and as I can. Propound therefore. Proposit. 1. No man may be admitted to the Lords Supper, unless he be called a Brother, according to the meaning of the Apostles phrase in this place: for he that is not a Brother in this sense, doth remain without, 1 Cor. 5.12. Answ. A proposition not denied by any that I know: though yet, I see not how you can deduce it from this Text, so immediately and properly, as you pretend. For, S. Paul here hath no particular discourse of the Lords Supper. SECT. VI. PRoposit. 2. The Apostles meaning in this place is, that it is more tolerable and safe to keep company with fornicators, &c. that are out of the Church, than with those that are such wicked ones as are here name,& yet are called Brethren. We must farther estrange ourselves from these, than from those that are without. The truth of this will presently appear, if we do but look back to 1 Cor. 5 9.10. Answ. This Poposition, in S. Pauls sense, is undeniable. For, in point of private consortship and familiar conversation( which is the thing in this place aimed at) the scripture is plain, wee must more withdraw ourselves from such a Brother, than from a man that is without. Compare this Text with that other in 1. Cor. 10.27. and you shall find, that the same Authority, which forbids us in such manner as hath been declared to eat with a scandalous misliving Christian, doth yet on the other side allow us( being first invited) to sit at feast with an unbelieving Pagan. And hereof our Divines do render many reasons, which I am not now at leisure to relate: So then, if in this sense you understand the proposition, I have nothing to oppose. But, it seemeth by that which follows, you have another meaning, and would willingly extend the proposition further, than the Apostle did intend, even to eating and drinking in the Sacrament; for, thus you infer: How then may we safely admin ster the Lords Supper to these, or communicate with them? meaning scandalous Brethren. I have thought much upon the logic of this, How then? And let any man judge, whether you have spoken herein clearly, as you promised in the Title. It may be your meaning is( if I do rightly riddle) that seeing an Alien may not be admitted to this Sacrament, therefore a scandalous Brother( from whom we must more estrange ourselves than from an Alien) may much less be admitted. The argument( as I conceive) may be thus formed. A man, from whom we must more estrange ourselves than from an Alien, may not be administered to, or communicated with, at the Lords Table. But a scandalous Brother( though as yet not censured by lawful Authority) is a man from whom we must estrange ourselves more than from an Alien. Ergo, A scandalous Brother( though as yet not censured by lawful Authority) may not be administered to, or communicated with, at the Lords Table. A stark fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: which also yourself will quickly see, if I should counterbuffe you with another such like syllogism; as thus— He that hath denied the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel, may not be admitted as a Preacher in the Congregation. But, a man that provides not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, hath denied the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel. 1 Tim. 5.8. Ergo, a man that provides not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, may not be admitted as a Preacher in the Congregation. Or thus: They who are of that sort from whom we must turn away, may not be administered to, or communicated with, in the Lords Supper. But, such as creep into houses, and led captive silly women laden with sins, &c. are of that sort from whom we must turn away, 2 Tim. 3.5, 6. Ergo, such as creep into houses and led cative silly women laden with sins, &c. may not be administered to, or communicated with, in the Lords supper. I suppose, you will not allow me thus to reason: and peradventure it may touch too near. But why then do you applaud such kind of reasoning in yourself, as if it were unanswerable? But, a little farther yet to show the vanity of your argument, let us consider the ambiguity of your middle term, viz. the estranging of ourselves from a Brother more than from an Alien. To estrange ourselves from another man, is to withhold from him our wonted fellowship and society, either in the things of men, or in the things of God: that is, either more privately, in our social and civill conversations; or more publicly, in our solemn and sacred conventions, particularly at the Lords Table. Now, if you take the word at large, as it includes both these, I grant your mayor, but deny your minor; for, a Brother that is not legally convicted,& so either cast out, or( at the least) suspended, by an act of lawful authority, may not be to me as an Heathen man or a Publican( as many do interpret that place, Mat. 18.17.) much less in your sense must I estrange myself from him more than from an Alien. But, if you take the word more restrainedly, as the Apostle doth, importing only an estrangement in respect of private consortship and familiar conversation: then, I grant your minor, but your mayor is miserable false, and so( while you play thus with ambiguities) your syllogism too, as consisting of four terms; which is against the rules of logic. I say no more. SECT. VII. PRoposit. 3. The word here translated[ to keep company] doth properly signify to bee mingled with. Answ. This explicatorie Proposition is not controverted by me: I embrace it as far forth as you either do or can, if herein you will keep yourself to the scope and meaning of the Apostle. But, I perceive you wander. For, thus you add. And he that administers the Lords Supper to others, and they also that communicate, are in that action one mingled with another. Answ. It is true: they are mingled, in regard of the common place wherein they meet, and in regard of the common employment about which they meet; though yet, in their manner of performance, and in their acceptance with God while they so perform, they are far asunder. But, I beseech you, tell me, is this mingling at the Lords Table the same with that which the Apostle disalloweth in this Text? Is there no difference( think you) between the one and the other? Or, from the prohibition of the one, can your logic consequentially infer a clear and certain inhibition of the other? Your argument from this criticism( if I rightly apprehended you) must be to this purpose. He, who forbiddeth us to be mingled with a scandalous Brother in common conversation, doth also inhibit us to be in any sort mingled with such a one at the holy Communion. But, S. Paul in this place forbiddeth us to be mingled with a scandalous Brother in common conversation. Ergo, S. Paul in this place doth also inhibit us to be in any sort mingled with such a one at the holy Communion. The strength of this Reason, if there be any in it, must depend upon the truth of your mayor: which yet is wholly thereof destitute, nor do you go about to prove it, but leave it( naked as it is) to our credulity. Wherein yet, upon your bare word, we shall not be so easy: it being altogether without ground from the Text, and attended with great absurdity in itself. First, it is without ground from the Text. For( as I have said) the mingling which the Apostle here forbiddeth, is a thing far different from that which you infer. The Apostle speaketh of such a mingling as is in private society, by way of familiar conversation: you, of that which is in public assembly, and by the way of Church-fellowship in the outward acts and services of Religion. The difference betwixt these two you cannot but aclowledge, the one being in itself a matter Arbitrary and in our power to be either vouchsafed or withholden, as a right informed conscience shall suggest, without expecting any farther warrant from the command of authority so to do: the other being not dispensable by us, but lying upon us as a necessary duty, as that whereto we stand obliged by the command of God, where ever we may have the liberty of observing the same, without adulterating his prescribed service in the substance thereof. Now, in regard of the former, it is most just and requisite( and so the Apostle doth declare) that if any man, that is called a Brother, be scandalously evil, we may, nay, we must withdraw ourselves from him in respect of social intimacy. According to this sense, we may not so much as show him a friendly countenance: no, though( perhaps) either through default in Governours, to whom censures belong, or through defect of others, whose duty is to inform; the Discipline of the Church do sleep towards him. This exclusion from private familiarity and consortship, though in propriety of speech it be not that which we call Excommunication: yet( as a late learned man hath observed) in a large sense it may be styled by some such name, because even familiar society with Gods Children in private life, D. S●later alicu●● in Episl●●. ad 〈…〉. is indeed one branch of the Communion of Saints. And who so( according to this sense) doth not withdraw himself from wicked company, doth in that his omission sin against God, against the Party, against himself. Against God, by transgressing his command. Against the Party, by hardening him in his lewd behaviour. Against himself, by blemishing his own famed, by partaking with the sinner in the guilt of his sin, and by hazarding his own ●oule to the danger of infection; for( as in this chapter at the sixth verse we red) a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. All this is most true. But then, from hence to infer( as you do) that therefore also( out of a dislike to their company, though as yet not censured and removed by just authority) we must, for their presence sake, forbear the performance of public holy duties, and such as appertain to the worship of God, in the Congregation( which are things enjoined, and not in our power either to neglect of dispense with) is a matter altogether from the mind and meaning of S. Paul. For, as the same man hath observed, though in evil we may not hold society with any, no, not with the best, but reprove them rather, Ephes. 5.7.11. yet in goodness, specially in sacris, even in the outward prescribed service of God, we must hold a kind of society even with the worst men, rather than neglect the service itself. Secondly, it goes attended with great absurdity. For, if this inference be good; The Apostle in some cases, and in things within our power, forbids all needless intermingling of ourselves with scandalous Brethren; Ergo,( seeing he that adminstreth the Lords Supper to others and they also that communicate, are in that action mingled one with another) it is unlawful to communicate in the Lords Supper with any such: I say, if this inference be good, why may not I by the same reason conclude, that the children of God must withdraw themselves from all promiscuous and mixed assemblies, in respect of all the other parts and branches of Gods public service, as namely, the Hearing of the Word and Prayer▪ as well as in respect of this holy Sacrament? The reason you insist on is the same: for in our hearing we are mingled, and in our praying we are mingled one with another, no less, than we are at the Lords Supper. And therefore, unless you will utterly disclaim our public meetings, and universally forsake us in all our solemn exercises, and so turn downright rigid Separatist, you must needs aclowledge an absurdity in your argumentation. I hope, you are not yet so far gone. But, take heed, Mr. cox: a man that gives way to the Spirit of contradiction and dslusion, knows not where he shall stop. SECT. VIII. PRoposition 4. The meaning of the Apostles charge, concerning the sinners here mentioned, is, That with such we should not so much as eat. Answ. You needed not have made this an explicatory proposition: the Apostle had said it in as plain words, as you have any. But, you go on. Doth not the Minister eat at the Lords Table with those, to whom he administers the Sacrament? do not the Communicants there eat and drink with those, with whom they do communicate? Answ. It is most certain, they do. But, what will you conclude from these premises? The next words tell us. And if( say you) we must shun communion with such at a common table, should we not much more shun to communicate with them at the Lords Table? Answ. Much more? This is too great a stride at once. You should have proved first, that, for the very presence sake of such, we must shun the Sacrament at all. The Sacrament is good, to which our coming is not permitted only, but commanded: and at the Sacrament, if some be profane, yet some are holy. And, I cannot but think it strange, that, in so required a duty, a man of understanding should think himself bound to excommunicate himself from a participation in so much good both real and personal, for the accidental presence of an offensive evil, which is not in his power to remove. As I have said afore, so now I say again, Our private congresses, and our public Church-meetings, are two different things: and these two ought heedfully to be distingushed, as things whereto our power extends not equally and alike. In our private congresses, we have a liberty to refuse, or to admit, as we see cause: but, in our public Church-meetings, that power is limited to the determination of some higher authority. It is( for the most part) in our own power, to keep off such as are offensive to us from our own suppers: but it lieth not in us to debar and shut out whom we please, from communicating with us in the Lords Supper. No, this belongeth to the public officers and Overseers of the Church. For( that I may borrow a similitude from another man) as in a family every one may not be a governor, Attersoll on the Sacraments. l. 3. c. 16. and in a Common-wealth every person may not be a Magistrate: so neither in the Church may every man assume a jurisdiction in this kind to himself. And this( as I conceive) is abundantly sufficient, to show the inconsequence of your argument in this ●●●ce. So then, as the case stands, we cannot conclude the necessity of our abstaining from their company at the Lords Table, whose company we are to avoid at our own table. Yet, you insist still, and will prove it by example. It was( say you) the use of Christians, in the Apostles dayes, to have their Love-feasts, even then when they met together for the receiving of the Sacrament, as appears in 1 Cor. 11. Answ. I grant it: there were such things in use, as with others, so with the Corinthians too, in those primitive times. The ground( it may be) whereupon they introduced such a custom, was plausible enough, and their end answerable: I will not dispute of that now. But, for their manner of performance, the Apostle in the place by you alleged condemns it as faulty. Yea, it was faulty, not only for the manner, which was schismatical and unsober, vers. 21. but also with respect unto the time and place, which were unfitly chosen by them for such an exercise, vers. 22. In which regards, as in S. Pauls daies among the Corinthians, so in after-ages among other Churches, this custom heard ill, and was laid aside. But, that I may proceed unto your inference, how doth the mention of these Love-feasts make for you? Thus, They did not then hold it lawful to receive the Sacrament with those, touching whom they were charged, no, not to eat with them. Answ. I could have wished you had set down your argument in form. But, here again, as hitherto for the most part, you leave me to my own conjectures, as if( notwithstanding you profess clearness) you were unwilling to be plain. Howbeit, that I may not be wanting to the Truth, I shall take some farther pains to search the meaning of this clause, which( if I mistake not) is to this effect. Such, as the Primitive Christians were required to exclude from their Love-feasts, might not lawfully be admitted by them to the Lords Supper. Reason, because these Love-feasts and the Lords Supper were conjunct, and celebrated together at the same time. But, scandalous Brethren( though as yet not censured by an act of lawful Authority) were such as the Primitive Christians were required to exclude from their Love-feasts. Reason, because touching them they had received a charge, no, not to eat with them. Ergo, Scandalous Brethren( though as yet not censured by an act of lawful Authority) might not lawfully be admitted by them to the Lords Supper. Your premises are both faulty: and accordingly, I shall return you a twofold answer; one, to the mayor; another, to the minor of your syllogism. First then, for your mayor, I affirm it to be unsound: and the Reason brought for confirmation of it, is of no validity. For first, there was no necessity, that their Love-feasts should be so conjunct with the Sacrament, as you pretend: yea, there was good reason to the contrary; in which respect, S. Paul condemns this practise, and adviseth( at least impliedly) a Reformation, vers. 22. Secondly, even in their practise( such as it was) their Love-feasts were not so conjunct with the Sacrament, but that there was some interim betwixt them, and some distinction of persons partaking in them, as we may gather from the context of S. Paul. Their Love-feasts were either before the Sacrament, or after: and many were refused to the one, who were yet admitted to the other. You will say, this proceeded from their faction and partiality. Admit that: yet, this is enough to show the weakness of your proposition, which is grounded only upon their fact. Secondly, for your minor, it is all out as infirm as your mayor: neither doth the reason thereunto annexed any way confirm it. For, first it will be hard for you to prove, that the Corinthians at that time, when they thus used( or abused rather) their accustomend Love-feasts, had received such a charge from the Apostle, as you here pretend and take for granted, but without proof. This charge( for ought I yet find) came not till now by this Epistle, and consequently could not be to them as a rule of direction for the ordering of those acts which had passed from them before this Epistle was written, and which( as it is most likely) upon this apostolical admonition they did from thenceforth omit to practise. Secondly, the very charge itself, though in the sense of the Apostle of very necessary observance, is not yet of that nature, that universally and absolutely at all times, and in all places, and upon all occasions, we are indispensably bound to the letter of it. Circumstances do much varie the condition and quality of our performances: and as the circumstances are, the same act( for kind) may be at one time both allowable and good, which at another time is nothing less. Ordinarily, and needlessly, and out of an affencted and familiar intimacy, to converse and eat with scandalous Brethren, is a thing forbidden by the Text. But, that simply& absolutely, without weighing the circumstances, we should utterly forbear all eating and conversing with such persons, it is far from me to think, that either S. Paul intended it, or you believe it. Observe your own practise, and see, whether( for ends best known unto yourself) you do not often contradict it. Neither can you be ignorant, how( many times) either through necessity compelling us, or opportunity( at least, in hope) of doing good, or preventing evil, inviting us, or conscience in observing required duties binding us, we do suffer ourselves to be mingled with such persons, whose company and consortship otherwise we are willing to decline. But, I hold him not worthy to be disputed with, who shall stand in the denial of this so evident and clear a Truth. SECT. IX. PRoposit. 5. The Apostle having laid this ground in 1 Cor. 5.11. doth in vers. 13. add this inference, Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Thereby meaning, not only that the incestuous person should be repelled from the Sacrament, but also that he should be cast out of the Church by the sentence of Excommunication. Answ. Whether those words of the Apostle, vers. 13. be an inference from those other, vers, 11. or rather, a conclusive repetition of that charge, which( with respect to the incestuous person) he had laid upon them, vers. 4.5. I will not now stand to examine: though( with your good leave) I incline rather to believe the latter. And, as for the other branch of your assertion, That hereby the Apostles meaning was, that the incestuous person should be not onely repelled from the Sacrament, but also cast out of the Church by the sentence of Excommunication, I cannot but aclowledge it as most true for the matter, though in your order of setting down the particulars I think you do mistake. You seem to say, that the Apostle had before required, that the incestuous person should be particularly repelled from the Communion, and that now( in way of supplement) he adds, he should not only be so repelled, but also Excommunicated. Whereas it is plain by the context, that S. Paul in all this discourse of his hitherto had not particularly and directly so much as mentioned the holy Communion, or that parties exclusion from the same, but only implyed it, as consequentially and virtually contained in the sentence of Excommunication. Here then I do observe a great disparity betwixt your exposition and S. Pauls expression. You say, the meaning of S. Paul is this, Let the incestuous person be not only repelled from the Communion, but also excommunicated from the Church: as if this( namely, Excommunication) were a thing required and urged by him in the second place. But, S. Paul simply says, and he had said it before in the 4, 5. verses( when as yet he had mentioned nothing touching those other things whereof he treateth in the 9, 10, 11. verses) Let the incestuous person be excommunicated: and so leaves it to the Corinthians to consider, how the person so excommunicated was consequentially secluded also from the Sacrament. But, this inversion of the o●der was only a fetch of yours, to bring about some farther thing which you intended. For, thus you add. He meant not then, that these offenders should only be shunned, in respect of private and common familiarity: but, that they should be repelled from the Sacrament, and that their communion at the Lords Table should be shunned. Answ. Your word[ then] here is a note of inference, and so, argumentative: and your argument is taken à majori, from the greater to the less, thus. If the Apostle would have such offenders to be cast out of the Church by the sentence of Excommunication, it is certain also he would have them to be repelled, not only from common and private familiarity, but also from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. But, the first. Ergo, the latter. I answer, it is true, he would have both: but each in their order. Let the party( if deserving it) be first legally convicted, and formally cast out by lawful authority: CHAP. 3. and then in Gods name, let him be repelled, and kept off from the Communion. The ecclesiastical Magistrate must do the one, at least decree it to be done, as Saint Paul in this Chapter at the 4 and 5 verses: and then the private Minister in his own place, with the consent and approbation of them who are concerned also in the business, may warrantably and safely do the other; but, not before. CHAP. III. An Answer to Mr. cox his second proof, grounded upon 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. SECT. I. HAving thus far considered what( in your opinion) you have so unanswerably pleaded from the allegation of that single passage in 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. let us see now, how by your combined forces, in the superaddition of another place to second it, you go about to overcome us quiter, and so to carry us clearly captive into your opinion. Thus then you go on. That the force of this, which hath been spoken, may yet more clearly appear, consider what the Apostle saith concerning the Sacrament, in 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Answ. So much for the Text. Now, for your gloss upon it: for, I am very attentive to hear what you will say. This Text( say you) assures us of the truth of these Propositions. Answ. Propositions( a good sort) we have had already: but you will gratify us with more, it may be more pertinent to the cause in hand, as also more pungent and pressing upon us. They are in number four, whereof the first two( if I judge rightly) are taken from the 16. verse, and the two latter from the 17. I shall transcribe them in order, as you have set them down. 1 True believers, rightly receiving this holy Sacrament, are thereby assured of their partaking of the benefits of Christs death. 2 All they that do outwardly receive this Sacrament, do therein make an outward profession of receiving Christ crucified, and partaking of the benefits of Christs death. 3 This Sacrament doth teach and assure all true believing Communicants, that they, being many persons, are yet one mystical body: because they are all partakers of one and the same Jesus Christ, of whose body the bread of this Sacrament is an ordained token and pledge. 4. They, that join together in the outward receiving of this Sacrament, do both join together in the profession of the same faith in Christ, and also do profess themselves to be( in the judgement of charity, which they now mutually profess concerning each other) fellow members together of the same mystical body, as being all fed with the same spiritual food. SECT. II. NOt to question your Propositions, either for the matter which they contain, or the manner wherein they are expressed, or the deduction of them from the Text( all which belong unto another disquisition, and are from the subject which we now discourse of) but to take them( at present) for such as you would have them, .i. orthodoxal, logical, and proper: I beseech you, tell us what it is, that from all these premises you would infer? You pretended, that, by the Text alleged, the force of that which you had formerly spoken should yet more clearly appear. In expectation of this, we have considered the Text, and therein what the Apostle saith concerning the Sacrament, subscribing both readily and hearty to the divine light of truth therein appearing, to the comfort of our souls: and yet, where ever the fault be, we cannot discover what it is in the Text, whereby the force of that which you have spoken doth so clearly appear. From the Text, we had recourse to your Propositions: but, as yet, no light of argument appears, whereby your great force so much pretended and spoken of is made apparent to us. The summary of your Propositions, as I conceive, is, that to eat and drink with others at the Lords Table is an act of greatest familiarity, and nearest Communion. And from hence, if you intend any formal argument, I suppose it to be this, That if familiarity and communion with scandalo u Brethren be forbidden at our common tables, then much more at the Lords table: for, he that forbiddeth the less, doth much more forbid the greater. If thus your meaning be( for I can but conjecture) your argument( to my seeming) is very weak and forcelesse: which yet, least I should say only, and not show, it is meet in the first place, that we understand your antecedent, and then weigh your consequent. SECT. III. YOur Antecedent, as you lay it, is very involved, and needs explication. Thus therefore. The Subject whereof your Propositions treat, is the Communion of Saints. How? not at large, but as vouchsafed them of God in the use and exercise of this Sacrament, whether it be a Communion with the Head, of which S. Paul in the place alleged, vers. 16. or among themselves, one with another, vers. 17. Now you know, how with respect unto both these branches) there is in this Sacrament a twofold Communion. The one, outward and symbolical: the other inward and spiritual. The first, in the partaking of visible signs: the second, in the participation of invisible grace. That, is common to the good and bad: this, is proper to the good alone. Of the former you seem to speak in the first and third Propositions: of the latter, in the second and fourth. In the first and third Propositions you tell us, what is the use of this Sacrament to the real members of the Church invisible, who are called of God according to his purpose, viz. a mean of assurance, both of their certain participation in the benefits of Christs death, Proposit. 1. and of their undoubted coalition one with another into the same mystical Body, Proposit. 5. In the second and fourth Propositions you tell us, what is the use of this Sacrament to them, that are only present members of the Church visible, whose calling is onely according to the means, viz. an external sign or token of their outward Profession, both in regard of fellowship with Christ the Head, as if they were his members, Proposit. 2. and in regard of communion with the rest of the Body, as if they were their fellow members, Proposit. 4. Now, if your antecedent be understood of the first of these, the Text alleged is fully for you, and accordingly we do and must aclowledge, that so to eat and drink at the Lords Table with such as are fellow-members indeed, is an act of the greatest familiarity and the nearest communion that can be. But then, it maketh little to your purpose. For, our dispute is not about the inward and spiritual, but only about the outward and symbolical Communion, to which even hypocrites and castaways may and do many times presume to come, as well as those that are sincere and approved of God. On the other side, if your Antecedent be understood of the latter sort, then indeed you speak home unto the point, but fall short of the truth in your Assertion. For, I deny, that( in this sense) to eat and drink with others at the Lords Table is an act of the greatest familiarity and nearest Communion. Neither will the Text by you alleged prove the same: that Text being chiefly and( in a manner) only to show the inward and spiritual Communion, which right-believing Christians and worthy Communicants have among themselves in the use of this Sacrament. For, though the Apostle( while he makes mention of the Cup and of the Bread) do indeed glance upon the outward Communion, yet he doth not intentionally insist upon it, as merely s●ch, and so as common both to good and bad: but concomitantly, and so far only, as it leadeth to the inward, and( through the blessing of God upon his own Ordinance) doth therein certainly receive a just accomplishment in the hearts of them, who worthily approach unto the same. You may see this partly in the Apostles manner of expression; for, thus,( if you observe it) the word [ communion] is applied by him. S. Paul doth not say, The Communion of the Cup, and of the Bread: but the Communion of the Blood, and of the Body of ●hrist So then, your Antecendent( as by you applied to ●he point in question) is not sound. A kind ●f familiarity and communion there may be between the good and bad in the outward participating at the Lords Table: but, the one, not so great; and the other, not so close, as you pretend. Yea, where the bad are notorious, and known for such at the present, there is not( upon the matter) any familiarity at all betwixt the good and them. Right Communicants do desire rather their room than their company. They meet them unwillingly at the Lords Table, and with hearts truly saded at their profane approaches. If they had a power in themselves, they would surely keep them off: but, being destitute of that, they will patiently endure whom they cannot remove. And thus, while they gladly exercise communion with the Saints, a matter of duty and enjoined: they do withall grieve at the presumption of gross and known offenders, whose presence though they do not like, yet( seeing they will come) they cannot avoid. So then, as one said well( and you know who) the communion which the faithful have with the scandalously wicked in this Sacrament, is not voluntary, but necessary; not sought, but suffered; not procured, but constrained. SECT. IV. FRom your Antecedent, I go on now to your Consequent, which I find so feeble that it cannot stand, either in its own strength, or in the s●●ength of that which you have added to prop it up. To show this, I must once again remember you of what I said afore upon the like occasion. familiarity or fellowship in private conversation is one thing, and communion or society at the Lords Table is another thing. The first is a matter of choice, and in our own power: the second is a matter of duty, which we cannot dispense with. If we break off fellowship with wicked persons in the one, we offend not in so doing against any precept; nay, we have a warrant so to do. But, if for the very presence sake of such, we go so far as to neglect the other, and so shun Communion with the Church; we do not only proceed without a warrant, but we transgress against the precept of God. Here indeed( as one hath well observed) if a separation must be made, it lieth rather upon them to separate from us, than upon us from them. The reason, because this Sacrament is more ours, than theirs. Theirs it is, no otherwise, than by profession: ours it is, not by profession only, but in power too. And therefore, though they come, yet we may not depart, but abide still in our own right: The argument therefore is of no force; We must separate from ungodly persons in our familiar eating and drinking at home, Ergo we must much more separate from them in our eating and drinking at the Lords Table. For, though this latter be a thing of higher consequence, yet the power of separating is not here so left to us, as in the former. These things should heedfully have been distinguished: but you, I will not say ignorantly, but( I am sure) imprudently confounding them, do thereby both deceive yourself, and endanger others. But enough. Let us see now how you recapitulate. Judge then( say you) withwhat good conscience a Minister may give this Sacrament to those, with whom( for their open wickedness) we are charged not to be mingled, yea, not so much as to eat with them? Consider also with what comfort a Christian may communicate with such. Answ. And in this appeal I join with you. Let the indifferent and ingenuous Reader judge, who hath more Truth and Comfort on his side, You in denying, or I in affirming, what we have hitherto discoursed of. CHAP. IV. Of three other places alleged by Mr. C. toward the proving of this first part of his Assertion: viz. Gal. 5.19.20.21.] 2 Thess. 3.6.14.] 2 Tim. 3. vers. 2.3.4.5. SECT. I. YEt you go on still; and, with some enlargement to your Position, tell us, that Howsoever in your Thesis, and in 1 Cor. 5.11. there is express mention made only of him that is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: yet, what is here expressly said of these, is also to be understood of every other that is called a Brother, and yet is known to live under the reign of any other like sin. And, for the truth and soundness of this also, you bid u● see and consider these places, viz. Gal. 5.19, 20, 21.] 2 Thess. 3.6.14.] 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5. Answ. As for your care of amplifying and extending your Position, I have nothing to except against you for it. With as good warrant you may include these, as any of the former, if so you can make good the point in either. The places you turn us to, are of note all: and, if need were, I could yet supply you with more Texts, which( together with the rest) I do entreat you also to consider, and be reformed by. Among others, these: Rom. 16.17.18.] 1 Tim. 5.8.] 2 Tim. 3.6.7.] a place somewhat warily declined by you in your quotation of the former verses; whether as conscious to yourself of your own guilt, I leave it between God and your soul. As for the Texts by you alleged, I have both seen and considered them: but as yet, find nothing in them, which can stead you. SECT. II. THat in Gal. 5.19.20.21. is altogether impertinent. The Apostle there treats of the works of the flesh. The works of the flesh( saith he) are manifest; and so proceeds to reckon them up, as you may see: and then, in the close of all, says, that they which do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Most true. But, what is all this to the Communion? Your argument from thence, if you have any, must be this. They who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, may not be admitted to the Communion. But, men guilty of the evils here name, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Ergo, men guilty of the evils here name, may not be admitted to the Communion. A very doughty argument! and such, as I think you will be ashamed to own. I am sure, you will never be able to prove your mayor. SECT. III. THat other place in 2 Thess. 3.6.14.( you think, it may be) will come more home unto your purpose. In the examination therefore of this, let us consider three things: first, who it is, of whom the Apostle speaks; secondly, what it is, that he gives in charge concerning him; thirdly, to whom the charge is given. The Person of whom he speaks, is such a one, as by his profession passeth for a Brother, but in carriage and conversation walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which they had received of the Apostle. Now, what was that Tradition? The 10. verse tells us it was this; That if any would not work, neither should he eat. This was the thing, which S. Paul had formerly delivered to them, and now again repeats and presseth on them. And thereupon in the 11. verse, after he had given them to understand that he had heard there were among them some that walked disorderly, he concludes them to be such, as were either idlers, or busy-bodies: the one, as not working at all; the other, as intermeddling with what did not concern them, though to the disturbance and prejudice of others. These are the persons. Now, that which he gives in charge concerning them, is partly in the 6. verse, we must withdraw ourselves from such: and partly in the 14. verse, We must note such men, and have no company with them, that they may be ashamed. This is the charge. They, to whom this charge is given, are diversely conceived. Some think, they are the public Officers and Overseers of the Church: and, if so you understand the Apostle, then the act here given them in charge[ viz. to note these inordinate walkers] is that act of Overseers, whereby, after due trial and conviction, they do inflict upon their persons some public censure, either of ●uspension, or of excommunication; upon which it is consequent, that the other members of the Church should hav● no company with them, but with-draw themselves from them, yea, even at the Lords Table. A thing not controverted betwixt you and me, and consequently your allegation of the words in this sense would be very frivolous. Others think, that the Parties here cha●ged are the Generality or Community of the faithful: and if so you take the Apostle( as it seems you do) then, though your allegation of the place be somewhat more pertinent, yet your argument from thence is not so strong as you imagine. You cannot be ignorant, that this phrase [ to note] as here used by S. Paul, is diversely expounded by grave and learned Authors, in their annotations upon this Text. Some say, it importeth only to notify or to give notice; and their exposition of the Text is this, That if any man obey not the Apostles word, but persist still in his disorderly walking, notwithstanding this admonition to the contrary; then the Thessalonians by some Epistle of theirs should notify or signify that man to the Apostle, that so( according to the power of Discipline committed to him) he might proceed against him somewhat more severely: and in the mean season, they should forbear all unnecessary familiarity with such a person, not keeping him company, but withdrawing themselves from him to their power. But, this exposition maketh not for you. Secondly therefore, there are others, who by this phrase [ to note] do understand as much as[ to observe or mark] or farther yet, and with respect to others as well as to ourselves,[ to set, as I may say, a mark upon such a Party, and to brand him with a note of infam●e, as a public pest, poison, and reproach:] and accordingly, upon this noting, our farther duty is, to with-draw ourselves from such a one, and to have no company with him, more than of necessity we must, that so he( seeing himself neglected and shunned of all) may by this means so far enter into the due consideration of his own demerits, that he may there-hence come to be ashamed, and repent. But neither will this sense and understanding of the words be helpful to you. For, as already hath been declared more than once, from our duty in withdrawing ourselves from lewd company in way of private and familiar conversation, it is grossly alogical to infer a necessity of withdrawing ourselves also from them in public and solemn acts of Devotion. We have a warrant, yea, a command for the one: but no allowance, no, not so much as permission of the other. To conclude then my animadversions upon your allegation of this place; thus you argue. They, whom we must note,& have no company with, but with-draw ourselves from, that they may be ashamed, must not be administered to, or communicated with at the Lords Table. But, Idlers and busy-bodies are such as we must note, and have no company with, but withdraw ourselves from, that they may be ashamed. Ergo, Idlers and busy-bodies must not be administered to, or communicated with, at the Lords Table. Compare your mayor with that which hath been said, and then tell me, whether it bee not as void of truth, as you have left it naked without defence. SECT. II. THe last place, which you require to be considered, is in 2 Tim. 3.2, 3, 4, 5, verses: where the Apostle having reckoned up divers sorts of sinners, doth in the end conclude against them all, thus; From such turn away. Your argument from this place, if I rightly apprehended you, is to this effect. Such, as from whom we must turn away, may not lawfully be administered to in the Lords Supper. But, the sinners here name are such, as from whom we must turn away. Ergo, the sinners here name may not lawfully be administered to in the Lords Supper. Your argument proceeds wholly upon a mistake, at least a misapplying of the Text by you alleged. For, whereas the Apostle, in reference to those many sorts of sinners which he reckons up, intendeth no more than a turning from them in point of life and conversation; you so extend and understand his words, as if he had meant a turning them off also from the holy Communion. Briefly therefore to dispatch this, I deny your mayor. For, though in S Paul's sense we must turn away from all those, whom we may not admit to the Lords Supper: yet it doth nor from thence follow( as you would have it) that we must not admit any of them to the Lords Supper, from whom( in some other respects) we must turn away. To turn from, and to turn off, are not convertible terms: the actions imported by them are very different, neither are they always compatible to the same subject. The first is an act of wisdom and discretion, and belongs to every Christian: the second is an act of power and jurisdiction, and belongeth only to a few. From a scandalous mis-living Christian, it is true, I must turn away, in respect of affection and imitation. I may not suffer myself, by a needless conversing with him, or( which is yet worse) a sinful following of him, to be either endangered or infected. But then, for me, that am not armed with sufficient Authority, to turn off such a one from the Lords Table, or( which is as bad) to turn myself off from thence because he is there, is( at the best) but a zealous presumption, indeed a very sinful usurpation. I may not adventure to go so far, until I have a calling to it. CHAP. V. Of Mr. C. his four aggravating circumstances, whereby to prove the act of the Min●ster in admitting such persons to the Communion, to be not a sin only, but a very grievous and hateful sin. With a brief Censure upon them all. SECT. I. ANd thus, as I could now, I have endeavoured to show the weakness of those grounds, whereby you went about to prove the sinfulness of the Ministers act in admitting scandalous offenders to this holy Sacrament. The next labour is, to consider those aggravating circumstances, which in the second place you urge, to prove the Ministers act in so doing, to be not a sin only, but a very grievous and hateful sin. Thus therefore you say. Whereas I say of the evil that I have reproved, not only that it is a sin, but a very grievous and hateful sin: that I may not seem to charge it too heavily, consider.— Answ. Your advice is good: and accordingly, with the best heed that I can, I shal compose my thoughts to consider with you. Towards the proof of your assertion, there are four arguments which you produce, all of them taken from the evil consequents, which( as you say) must needs attend this act of the Minister, As SECT. II. 1. THat these persons thus admitted by the Minister to the receiving of the Sacrament, and outwardly joined with by the rest of the Communicants, are by this means hardened in their security and c●rsed presumption●: and thus the devil is exceedingly aided to carry them easily to Hell. And whatsoever fig-leaves we now make use of to cover this shameful evil, their blood will cry loud against us at the day of judgement. So you. In answer to all which, that I may prevent exceptions, I must here call upon you to consider, how, on the one side, it is acknowledged, that when scandalous and unrepentant Christians do thus offer themselves to the Communion with all their sins about them, they do in that act of theirs very grievously transgress, and expose themselves much more to the power and malice of the devil, than formerly. On the other side, it is confessed too, that all they, who in word or dead, by open consent or wilful connivance, shall either abet or approve the foresaid Parties in their wicked courses, are justly to be reputed among the number of those men, who do both hearten and harden them in their sin. Thus far I go with you. But then, in the application which you make hereof to us, whether Ministers in admitting, or others in communicating with such kind of sinners, as if we in our so doing were become accessary to their evil, and a means of hardening them in their sin, when●as yet we stick not openly to profess, that we would more gladly either reclaim them, or exclude them, if it lay in our power: your censure is more harsh and hasty than becomes a charitable man. As for the n●cent Parties, if they, under the apprehension of their opus operatum, or the meet outward service performed by them( as if that in itself were of sufficient efficacy to salue up all) will flatter their souls into a fools Paradise, and so harden themselves in their own sinful ways,( and by as good a warrant they m●y do the same in all the other branches of Gods outward Worship:) if, I say, they will thus do, we cannot help it. Howbeit, on our part, whether Ministers or People, there is no ground administered by them to us, whereupon to draw such wicked inferences. It is well known, we do abhor their graceless practices, and accordingly( not seldom) bewray our just dislike of their gross presumption. We bewail, not only their present sin, but their ensuing danger: and in that respect do wish them rather to forbear, than to approach these awful mysteries in so unhallowed a way; protesting in the mean season, that though( for their sakes) we may not decline the performance of our required duty in celebrating this holy memorial of the death of Christ, yet wee are no way delighted with their presence, nor( as the case stands) give them any the least encouragement to be there. More particularly, as concerning them who administer, it is a plain case, that though( through the want of legal conviction, and the consequent thereof, as hath been said) they may not lawfully repel such persons as we now discourse of; yet they are so far from encouraging and inviting them to come, that, on the contrary, they do what in them lies, to keep them off. You might have observed this, as in their Sermons often before the Sacrament; so in their exhortations to the people at the very time of celebration. In their Sermons, how frequently do they apply themselves to distinguish betwixt the precious and the vile? to call the one, and to deter the other, under greatest penalties, assuring the unworthy, that, if they will come, they shall not be welcome, and that, instead of comfort which they presume to find they shall reap nothing but damnation or judgement to themselves? upon this ground, how seriously do they advice, that every man would call himself unto account, and deal truly between God and his own soul, and not presume to approach hither, till, having renewed his faith and repentance, he be in some measure competently fitted for so holy an action or employment? And then, as concerning their exhortations, at the time of celebration, you may see how zealously, even by public warrant, they do therein, not only encourage the worthy, but also fright and fray away the unworthy by the severe and thundering denunciation of Gods heavy judgements to be inflicted, if they so come. Peruse the two last exhortations, together with the form of invitation annexed, and immediately preceding the prayers of the Communion, and you cannot but be convinced of this thing. Now, after all this, if the Minister( notwithstanding his threats and admonitions) shall see these persons to approach, how can he tell, but that even then at least( if not before) they may have been touched in their hearts with true remorse and kindly sorrow for their sins?( you know the words of our Saviour, The wind bloweth where it listeth, &c. joh. 3.8.) But, suppose it be not so, yet the Minister hath done his own duty, and if they( notwithstanding his advice) will presume to come in their unworthiness, they come at their own peril, and their blood will rest upon their own heads. SECT. III. 2. THat these persons thus communicating must needs abuse Gods Ordinance in a high degree, thereby most fearfully increasing, both their own sin, and their damnation hereafter. Answ. I have nothing to say against this assertion. It is the great wickedness of profane persons when they so do. As you have heard now, they are advised to the contrary: but, if against advice they will presume, the fault is their own, and the abuse is to themselves. It is true, this Sacrament is a very sacred thing, and accordingly there lies a charge upon us all to preserve it( as much as may be) from pollution, whether by ourselves or others. But then, having first ordered our own hearts, and afterwards( according to our place and power) done our best also to conform others: if some of those others( notwithstanding) will wickedly rush upon the abuse of this holy Ordinance, we may not justly be reputed acc●ssorie to that abuse. Our grief it must be, but our sin it is not, when we have done what in us lay to prevent it. SECT. IV. 3. THat this admitting of such persons to the Sacrament makes the whole lump to be soured with their le●ven, 1 Cor. 5.6. Answ. I hear what you say. But, first let me ask the question, Doth the Apostle intend here such an absolute necessity, as that indifferently at all times, and without distinction of persons, this sour leaven must needs taint and corrupt all, who( though never so unwillingly) are conjoined in place with unworthy receivers at the Lords Table? If an unworthy person, whom I know to be unworthy, be but present with me at this holy Sacrament, must I needs be soured with his leaven? what, when I have been careful to purge myself? when also( to my power) I have endeavoured, either to purge him, or to keep him off? Indeed, the corporal leaven is of that nature, that it necessary sours the meal, with which it is mingled: but this same spiritual leaven( whereof the Apostle here speaks) is of another kind. It may sour, yea it doth sour many times, when men have been negligent in seeking the reformation of their scandalous brethren: but, necessary, and at all times, it doth not; as namely, when that neglect hath either been prevented, or repented of. In this case, whether be the unworthy Communicant, yet if in some good measure I have discharged my duty towards him, his unworthiness shall not prejudice my comfort. D●. 〈…〉 As a good Man once said, It is most certain, sin infecteth none but the guilty. They which act it, or assent to it, or bear with 〈◇〉, or detest it not, are polluted by it: but, on the other side, they who do mourn for it, and complain of it, though with all their endeavours they cannot redress it, are free from the infection. It is a famous and pregnant Protestation, that of God by his Prophet, Ezek. 18.20. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. But secondly, a little farther to show the invalidity of this allegation, let me ask again, how unwarrantably do you wrest the Text, in the application thereof to the point in hand, when the Apostle intended it another way? The meaning of Saint Paul is plainly this, That notorious offenders( if tolerated by the whole Church, without either sorrow, or reproof, or censure) are thenceforth become unto that Church as a sour leaven, transfusing, or( if you will) reflecting rather, a great guilt of sinful neglect upon the persons of them who so tolerate; especially, if, with the neglect of the foresaid duties, there be joined also that same pride and glorying in themselves, which the Apostle implieth to have been in the Corinthians, vers. 2.6. This is properly the meaning of this place, and upon this ground it is, that in the next verse Saint Paul urgeth the Corinthians to reform themselves, that so they might prevent the evils else likely to light upon them for their negligence. But now, what is all this to the point we have in hand? Saint Paul indeed lays a blame upon the governours of the Church of Corinth, for that they had not cast out the incestuous person, but suffered him to abide still in communion with them. he taxeth also some from among the people, for that, under the apprehension of so foul a sin, they had yet been no more affencted unto godly sorrow and humiliation for the same. And he tells them all, that if they did not speedily reform this neglect of duty, they were in danger to be overrun by the malignity and infection of this sour leaven. All this he doth. But then, as touching the faithful that were among them( and we are not to doubt that there were many such) Saint Paul never blamed them for communicating with the incestuous person before he was cut off; neither did he ever intimate unto them, that, until he did amend, or else should be cut off, they must either absent themselves from the public Assemblies, or depart away being come together, for fear of being soured with that leaven. I find no such thing, either expressed, or intimated. If your quicker sight have made any further discovery, you may do well to inform us. SECT. V. 4. THat this admitting of such persons to the Sacrament, and communicating with them, makes their wickedness to redound to the shane and dishonour of the faith and Religion which we profess. Answ. The matter, which you here insist on, is of highest moment, viz. the honour and credit of Religion: a thing to be regarded more then life, by every cordial son and daughter of God. Against this Religion, and the esteem there should be of it, the wicked life of such as do profess the same is in great opposition. For, as you rightly say, Their wickedness redoundeth to the shane and dishonour thereof. And, albeit this bee too much, yet as you sufficiently intimate, there is somewhat beyond this, which doth render that wickedness( yet) more conspicuous, and so, more scandalous, and consequently also makes it more dishonourable to the gospel. What that thing may bee, is worth our enquiry, that wee may learn to avoid it; because, as you rightly judge, A man, who admitteth that, doth therein not only commit a sin, but a very grievous and hateful sin. Thus far I subscribe. But then, in that which you here adjoin, I must crave leave to dissent and depart from you. For, you say, that the admitting of unworthy persons to the Sacrament, and communicating with them at the Lords Table, makes their wickedness to redound to the shane and dishonour of our Religion. Answ. I conceive what in these words you would have us to aclowledge, viz. that the wickedness itself redounds hither, but this makes it to redound much more. Doth it so? I ask then, how, and after what manner? A needful query, and somewhat further to be insisted on by us. Thus therefore I conceive. A thing may be said to make wickedness redound more to the discredit of Religion, two ways, viz. either really and indeed, when directly or interpretatively it tendeth to the countenancing of a wicked act; or else imaginarily and in appearance only, when, though the thing itself be in itself good, and such as no way tendeth to the countenancing of evil, yet, men of weak( and it may be, perverse) judgements will needs fancy it to be otherwise, whether out of ignorance, or prejudice, or causeless jealously, I leave them to consider of. Of the first kind, there are many things which make wickedness to redound to the dishonour of Religion, and that, not only in the wicked party himself, as, when he justifieth his evil, and glories in it; but also in others, when( as lookers on, and it may be somewhat more) they do either command it, or counsel it, or consent unto it, or defend it, or excuse it, or else( lastly) connive or wink at it, not seeking to reform the wicked-doer, by bringing him under the restraint of Discipline, whether domestical, or political, or ecclesiastical. A man, that countenanceth evil in any of these kindes, doth indeed make that evil( which he so countenanceth) redound more to the stain and blemish of Religion. For, when by this means the world shall see, how, among men which make profession of Religion, there are some who act such heinous wickednesses, and others who( so many ways) do countenance them in it, they will not stick much, but be apt enough to say, Surely this Religion is not right, it hath not the true God for its author, and so by degrees they will grow more and more into a dislike and disrespect both of God, and of his Truth. Now if thus you intend your assertion, it is most false; I mean, in the application of it to the thing wee now discourse of. For, our admission of unworthy persons to the Sacrament( while as yet they are not, either legally convicted, or judicially sentenced) being accompanied( as it is, and ought to be) with so open and hearty a detestation of their lewd courses( which we do mourn for, though we cannot amend) doth no way countenance them in their evil, or give the world any occasion to think of us, as if we pleased ourselves, either in their sin, or in their society. But, for this, I refer you to the reviewing of that, which I have formerly written in way of answer to some of your foregoing passages. In the mean season, I proceed to the second branch of my distinction. And here( indeed) I cannot but aclowledge, that, imaginarily and in appearance, there is some show of scandal against Religion. But then, I add, it is but in appearance only: and so the scandal is not given but taken, which we cannot help. But, you tell us a little after, out of 1 Thess. 5.22. That we must abstain from all appearance of evil. Answ. We must indeed. But then, you must distinguish, or otherwise you will misled us, and yourself too. Appearance of evil relateth, and so in some sort adhereth, to things of a double nature, whereof some are indifferent, and in our choice; others commanded, and so not left to our arbitrary disposing of them. In things indifferent, if we know that by omitting them we shall do good, but on the contrary by doing them we shall( if not do, yet) occasion some hurt, Peccatum est, si fiat; it is a sin, if it be done: here then, we must avoid, even the appearance of evil. But, in things commanded, especially of God, no imaginary appearance or show of evil can warrant us to decline obedience. Here, the Rule holds, Petius scandalum admittatur, quàm veritas deseratur; Let rather scandal be suffered, than the Truth be deserted. No necessary duty may bee omitted by us, for the show of evil( in some weak eyes) adhering to the doing of it. Though( as St. Paul says, Rom. 3.8.) no evil must be done, that good may come of it: yet, on the other side, you may not deny, but that we must do good, although evil( by accident) succeed upon it; much more, when it is only a show, a fancy, an imagination of evil that is annexed thereunto. It was a good observation of one, Dr. Sclater in locum. famous in his time both for Religion and Learning, Our Saviour,( saith he) cured a sick man upon the Sabbath day; here was a show of evil to them that stood by, and he knew they would be offended at it, yet he did not upon this ground, either at that time withhold his operation, or( from thenceforth) afterwards forbear, but did the like again and again, as opportunity presented. Why so? Because he knew, it was a good work to show mercy, even upon the Sabbath day: and, as for the show of evil adhering to it, it was rather fancied by their ignorance, than afforded by his Act. Well then, to apply this. The thing, whereabout we discourse is, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Now, what think you? Is the celebration hereof a duty? Hath God enjoined it, on the one side to the Minister, on the other side to the Receiver? Are we hereunto bound, even by the necessity of Gods own precept? If so; then, supposing we may have this Sacrament entire in the essentialls of it, who dare be so bold, as to sin against God, by omitting this so necessary and comfortable a duty, for the avoiding of a bare show and an appearance of evil, accidentally adhering to the performance thereof? CHA. VI. The second part of Mr. C. his Assertion, affirming it to be unlawful for the People of God to communicate at the Lords Table with scandalous livers; with a just examination of the places which he brings to prove the same, as namely, Ephes. 5.11. Lev. 19.17. 1 Thess. 5.22. Act. 2.40. 1 Cor. 6.17 SECT. I. BY this time, I hope the weakness, of the first part of your Assertion with the ground thereto annexed, doth sufficiently appear. It is time now, that I proceed to examine the other part, and what you do allege for the confirmation of the same. To this you preface in these words. I shall not need now to insist on any farther proof of the latter part of my Thesis, viz. The children of God must have no fellowship at all with this sin, but reprove it; but only to press the consideration of these places. Answ. What need you have of farther proof, let the Reader judge; in the mean season, I shall consider your places. The first in order is that in Eph. 5.11. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Answ. A most sweet and salutary instruction! But, by you how wrested, how misapplied, that you might force it to your own purpose? Those unfruitful works, those works of darkness, issuing from a darkened mind, and leading down to the dark rooms& chambers of death, what are they but the works of sin? These works we must not onely in our own persons forbear to act, but we must have no fellowship with any others, that are employed about the acting of them. Nay, here our abstinence is not enough: there must be somewhat that is positive. S. Paul would have us, not only to decline them, but to reprove them too. And, what now from all this? The Sacrament( I hope) is no work of darkness, either in the outward or the inward part thereof. And, when accidentally we meet with them at the Lords Table, who in their life and carriage are not so lightsome as we wish, and so communicate with them in the out ward signs of grace, and in them only, I trust you will not say, that we do thereby communicate with them in a work of darkness. Though they be evil, yet our action with them is good: and that, wherein we communicate with them, is good too. It is not a seal of darkness, but a symbol of light. If it bee not so to them, it is their own fault: but, through the mercy of God, it is so to us, if competently prepared thereunto. As for them, the darkness that is in them we bewail, and bewailing reprove, and reproving would very willingly expel. A plain argument to prove, that we have therein no society with them at all. For, as the Text here by you alleged doth imply, to reprove them is to have no fellowship with them. So then, as concerning our present point, though they be there, yet seeing we cannot avoid them, we will not( for their sakes) with-draw ourselves from Gods ordinance. The reason, because we are commanded to come, but have no dispensation to stay away. SECT. II. THe next place, which you object, is in Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt in anywise rebuk thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Answ. A wholesome precept for brotherly admonition: the observation whereof is as comfortable, as necessary. For, if we do thus, we shall not only discharge a duty, but procure a blessing. A blessing( it may be) upon the soul of him whom we rebuk: but if not, yet certainly a blessing from God into our own bosom, if we do it in a right manner. This duty then must be performed by us, with a great deal of care, in any wise it must bee done; or, with a great deal of iteration, in rebuking we must rebuk: so it is word for word. It must be done too with strong intention of the mind, it is a rebuking by way of argument, even to conviction, so far as we are able to effect it. And all this, with compassion, and out of the bowels of love, that we may not suffer sin upon him; or, if we will expound this in reference to ourselves, that we may not bear sin for him; for thus also it may be, and by some the words are thus translated. I have said this, not to inform you in the meaning of the Text; peradventure you could have done this better than myself. But my aim was, hereby to let you understand, how fully I do agree with you in the substance of that duty, which is here enjoined. A thing certainly, wherein we are but too defective, and for which we could not answer unto God, but that( in him) we have a good Master, and( in Christ) a complete mediator. Our competency in performance, if it be sincere, he will accept: yea, and our sinful neglect too he will surely pardon, if we do hearty repent. Well then, to come home to that for which you have alleged this present Text; if, from a consideration of mine own failing in thus admonishing my Brother, you would have me to forbear this holy Sacrament, I see not how you can more urge it from this Text, for the presence sake of some ungodly persons, than by the same argument you might also urge it though there were none there to communicate but only Saints, for the cause in me still would be the same. But( it may be) you intend the allegation otherwise. The duty of the Text is, to reprove a sinner. Now, if I see a man that is notorious in that kind, and yet submit myself to communicate with him at the Lords Table, this is not( you say) to reprove him, but to harden him in his sin. I answer: the end of my coming is the glory of God in my own souls comfort, not the hardening of any that is by. What is done by me, I do in obedience to the command of God, and dare not do otherwise. If in the mean time any man be occasionally or accidentally hardened, the fault is in himself, he hath no encouragement thereto from me. But, of this I have said more above, and thither I refer you. SECT. III. THe third place you mention is in 1 Thess. 5.22. abstain from all appearance of evil. Answ. A passage, which in the latter end of the former Chapter I had occasion to reflect upon, and there also vindicated it from your misapplication of the same: and thither, if you will, you may repair for farther satisfaction. SECT. IV. THe fourth place you take out of Act. 2.40. Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Answ. They are the words of Saint Peter, containing a summary of many things which he had before spoken upon the close of that excellent Sermon of his, unto those famous Converts mentioned in the context of this Chapter. For our better understanding of the true meaning of the words, I shall fetch the matter a little higher: It is said before at the 37. verse, that when this people had heard that sharp and cutting Sermon of Saint Peter, ripping up their foul sin in the betraying and killing of the Lord of Life, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and Bretheren, what shall wee do? In answer to this question, it is immediately subjoined, how Peter in his own name, and in the name of all the rest, adviseth them thus. First he lays a charge upon them to repent, i.e. to be touched with true remorse for that which they had done. Secondly, he enjoins them to believe in the name of Christ for the remission of their sins. Thirdly, in testimony of this Faith of theirs, he would have them submit unto the Sacrament of baptism. All these in the 38 verse: whereunto( for their better encouragement) he adds, how ready God is( on his part) to accept them, if they harken to his call, vers. 39. And then lastly, in the fourth place, he earnestly persuades, that to the end they m●ght continue& proceed on in the grace of God, they would not only thus join with the Church of Christ in the Communion of Saints, but also sever themselves from them, who were enemies to the same. And this last thing he urgeth, as with much diligence, even with many other words: so with great authority and ferventnesse of spirit, for he testified and exhorted, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward Generation. This untoward Generation, who are they? More generally, it may comprehend the whole community of the Jewish Nat●on, who most unworthily had shed the blood of Christ, and had not yet repented of that sin. But more specially( as I conceive) it is intended of the Priests, Scribes, and pharisees, great men among the Jews, of high authority, and much prevalency with the People, by whose instigation also the People had done that wicked act. Now, from this untoward, froward, perverse, distorted, crooked generation of open and professed enemies of Christ, whose hands were yet freshly embrewed with his precious blood, and were no way touched with remorse for that their wickedness, S. Peter adviseth these new Converts to save themselves. To save themselves, what's that? To be subservient unto God,& to serve his Providence in the spiritual preservation of themselves, as by submitting to the way and means which he hath ordained, of which afore: so by with-drawing themselves from those wicked and malicious Enemies of Christ and his Religion, who might otherwise, either by their Authority overawe them, or by their subtlety circumvent them, or by their conversation corrupt them. And this( as I conceive) is the meaning of this place, which how it can serve to prove your Tenet, I do not see. Let us make some parallels. The untoward generation here intended by S. Peter( as I find it here observed to my hand) were the open and professed Enemies of Christ: The same Apologist against Brown. u●● supra. but the men, to whom you do apply the words are( although faulty, yet) professed servants and friends of Christ, baptized with us in the same water, and in the same name; maintaining every branch of the same Truth, and using( for substance) the same divine worship, which we do. Surely, the Persons are ill-matched. From the Persons, let us go on to the act of duty, which with respect unto them is enjoined. Saint Peter calls upon these Converts, that, to the end they might the better continue in the Churches Communion, they would sever themselves from these graceless Aliens: You, on the other side, would hence reason, that for the presence sake of some( who yet are no aliens) we must with-draw ourselves from the Churches Communion. To conclude, S. Peter here calls his Auditors to participate in the Sacraments with the rest of Gods People: but you, for an offence conceived, not against all, but only some of the People, would needs persuade us to forsake the rest, even the better part, the right people indeed, the Sacrament, and all. If this be not to wrest, and to pervert the Scripture, then I do very much mistake. SECT. V. THe last place you refer us to, is in 2 Cor. 6.17. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing. Answ. A most divine injunction, and with great care by us to be observed: but then we must take heed we understand it in the right sense, lest otherwise( mistaking) we rather idolize our own fancy, than submit to Gods command. The scope of S. Paul is, in the latter part of this Chapter, to dissuade the Corinthians( who were Saints by calling, 1 Cor. 1.2.) from having any society with such as were without the Pale, whether superstitious Jews, or( which I rather think) idolatrous Heathens. This council or advice he first propoundeth, as just; secondly urgeth, as reasonable; thirdly repeateth, as of very necessary and high concernment. The proposition is set down in the former part of the 14. verse: Be ye not( saith he) unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Christians are of a condition far different from that of Infidels or Unbelievers; and therefore, if they be yoked together with them, they are unequally yoked. As under the Law it was forbidden to plow with an ox and an ass together, Deut. 22.10. Reason, because by the legal constitution the one was a clean beast, the other unclean, and so the yoke unequal in that respect: So even then, and now also, it is forbidden that believers and unbelievers should draw together in one and the same yoke, whether the yoke of Matrimony, or the yoke of near and needless familiarity, or( which I think here the Apostle mainly intends) the yoke of mpiety; Reason, because by means of the Divine calling, the one is holy, the other profane; and so the yoke is unequal also in that respect. Summarily then, the meaning of the Apostles Proposition is, that the Corinthians, being Christians, should not maintain society with Heathens, by communicating with them in their impieties, or( which is all one) by joining themselves to them in their idolatious Assemblies, Temples, Sacrifices, or Feasts, which they celebrated in honour of their Idols. This is the Proposition, which in the following words, viz. to the end of the 16. verse, he doth farther urge by a comparative argument taken from the nature of contraries, thus. As for those Infidels and Pagans, they are utterly estranged from all true righteousness: but ye are the righteousness of God in Christ( 2 Cor. 5.21.) and, what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? They are in a dull and dark condition, yea, they are darkness itself, but ye are light in the Lord: and, what communion hath light with darkness? They are the chi dren of Belial, even of Satan that perverse and disobedient spirit; but ye are the members of Christ: and, what concord hath Christ with Belial? They are Infidels and such as do contemn the gospel; but ye are among the number of Believers: and, what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? Lastly, they are, as the worshippers, so in a sort also the very Temples of Idols; but ye are the Temple of God: and, what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? Thus the Proposition is urged. Lastly, in the 17. verse, the place which here you do allege, he once again repeats it, though in other words, yet in effect tending to the same purpose,& his expression is mostly borrowred from the Prophet Esay, chap. 52.11. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing. In which words, by way of allusion to that place of the Prophet, or( if you will rather) by way of expository application of that unto all Christians, which the Prophet particularly there gave in charge unto the Jews, as a duty to be performed by them in the day of their deliverance from the Babylonish Captivity; the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians, and in them us, that we also being freed by Christ from our spiritual thraldom under Satan, would henceforth( even in memory of so great a benefit, and in very love and reverence to our gracious Redeemer) renounce the wicked conversation of the unchristian, Antichristian world, and not communicate with th●m in their Idolatrous& Superstitious abominations. And this( as I conceive) is properly the meaning of this place. Now, in the application hereof to your present purpose( whether witting, or else out of inadvertencie, I will not determine) let the Reader judge, how far you wander. For, SECT. VI. FIrst, as touching the Persons concerning whom the charge is given, Your application is more general than the Text will bear. S. Paul indeed doth call upon us to with-draw ourselves, and so to make a kind of separation: but, from whom? I trow, not from the Church of Christ, because of some particular mixtures with the world: but from the world of unbelieving men, into the Church of Christ. That is, from Heathens and Aliens, who do not so much as make profession of the name of Christ: and not( as you would have it) from professed Christians, who, though not so fully answering their profession, do yet profess the Christian Religion. The ground of this exception against your manner of proceeding is so evident in the text, that you could not but foresee it, and accordingly have studied to take it off. Against the application( say you) of this last place, it willbe objected, That it is to be understood of separation from wicked ones that are without; But then, let it be remembered, that we must estrange ourselves more from known wicked persons that would seem to be within, than from open wicked persons that are manifestly without: for, so much wee have learned from 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. Answ. Wee have learned indeed somewhat, but not so much as you infer, from that passage. Scandalous Christians, with respect unto their personal society, are in some sort more to be estranged from, than unbelieving Pagans: this is not denied. But, that this estrangement should reach so far, as to make us( for their sakes, and in abhorrency of their presence, when we cannot lawfully prevent it) to forsake the meetings of the Saints, and to desert the performance of holy duties, particularly this duty of coming to the Lords Table, which God requireth at our hands, and with which we have no authority to dispense, is a thing altogether besides truth, and no way countenanced by S. Paul in this place. But, of this I have discoursed more at large above, and thither now I do refer you. SECT. VII. SEcondly, as concerning the thing about which the charge is given, your exposition also is too large. For, suppose here( for discourse sake) that the meaning of S. Paul had been, that we must separate ourselves, as from graceless Heathens, so from scandalous Christians too( which, if soberly performed, is no more than fitting, and wee have other places to confirm it by, though not so properly and directly here intended) yet then, let me ask you, what kind of separation is it, which the Apostle means? For my part, I have both weighed the context, and consulted Expositors upon the place, and in conclusion find, that the separation here spoken of is far different from that which you would have. It differs first in the matter, wherein or whereabout the separation must be made. Our separation( from whomsoever, if it be just) must always be from evil to good: but never from good to evil. We must have no fellowship with Heathens in their Idolatry, or scandalous Christians in their impiety: no, these are things which God hath utterly forbidden, and such as no circumstances can make lawful. But, on the other side, to separate( though but from Heathens) in a known and necessary good, is in no sort allowable: much less may we think ourselves obliged to separate( in such a case) from professed Christians. Now, our coming to the Lords Table( as I have often said) is good, yea, a thing enjoined by Christ to every Christian, and to this injunction there is no such clause of dispensation added, as you pretend, That however, if we see others come and offer themselves( who yet to our seeming are unworthy) it may be lawful for us to stay away. Their presence then is no sufficient plea for us. evil though they be, yet we may not so far separate from that evil, as( upon that ground) to separate also from the good; that is, from communicating with Gods children, in the things of God. To separate from visible evil, so, as to separate also from visible good, is certainly not a good, but an evil separation. Besides, there is a difference too in the manner of separating. The separation which S. Paul intendeth, is not( as you urge) local and corporal, but mental and spiritual. It consisteth not in the withdrawing of our bodies from their personal presence: but, in the with-holding of our affections from their sinful courses. Though the former may be needful at some times, and upon some occasions, which the Scripture elsewhere doth express: yet the latter is the thing which the Apostle in this place doth so indispensably require, as that which may not be omitted or neglected by us, M●scul. in Esa●. c. 52. v. 11. Hyperius in 2 Cor. 6.17. Erasmus Sarcerius in eundem locum Apost upon any occasion, or at any time. For your fuller satisfaction in this point, I refer you to those clear and pregnant testimonies, which I have quoted in the margin from the pens and judgements of no mean or contemptible Authors. To conclude: The separation here urged by S. Paul, I understand not so much of a bodily recession from occasional being in company with wicked men, as of a ghostly cessation from actual communicating with them in their wicked works. This is generally the sum. But then( as Aquinas here notes) there are three degrees of expression in the Text. First( saith he) we must come out from among them: and this is done by a real departing from their sins. Secondly, we must separate ourselves: and this is done by not vouchsafing so much as a consent to their evil. Thirdly, we must not touch the unclean thing: and this is done by a discreet and zealous reproving of their impiety. Shortly, this counsel is in effect the same with that other in Rom. 12.2. Be ye not conformed to this world: but, be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. Or, if you will, with that in Ephes. 5.11. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: but rather reprove them. CHAP. VII. Of Mr. C. his undertaking to answer objections made against his Tenet: with a vindication of the said objections from his exceptions. SECT. I. HItherto you have laid your own grounds, which( as you say) are unanswerable: but, how truly that, indifferent Judges must determine. You proceed now to refel some few objections, which by some have been brought against your Tenet. And here again you go on with such a confidence, and( indeed) so magistrally demean yourself in your definitive expressions, as if your very looks were of sufficient force to blast all arguments that are alleged, or to lay all level to the ground that shall stand in opposition to your will. All pleadings against that which you would have, are( in your wisdom) but presumptions, as being either silly arguments, weak niblings, poor objections, or at the best( if alleged by them, whom it may be to cury favour with, in hope to make them your own proselytes, and by their adherence to extend the bounds and propagate the limits of your new Congregation, you style well-meaning Christians) yet confidently enough you bear them in hand, that while they thus object, they are indeed deceived by the error of their own judgement, and by the false suggestions of others. Superciliously enough, and not without the mixture of much scorn. But, Mr. cox, your big words may not carry it. S●●umes of resolu●ion, unless acc●mpanied with strength of Reas●n, is but poor defence. For my part, I submi● myself unto the judgement of men more learned and better versed in this controversy than either you or I. Mean while, so far as modesty permits, I shall once more make a trial of your strength, and not much fear your violent encounters. Well then, to our task. SECT. II. THe first objection made against your Tenet was grounded upon 1 Cor. 11.29. The words, according to our last and best translation, run thus: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.[ To himself] that is the word upon which the emphasis is set by the objector. He eateth and drinketh damnation: to whom? The Apostle doth not say, to others; but, to himself. An expression very dissonant from your assertion, while you say, that he eateth and drinketh( to wit, unavoidably and at all times) to the prejudice of others, who at the same time communicate with him, though not in his unworthiness, yet in his presence with him at the Table, which is crime enough. This is the sum of the objection. Now, to show the silliness hereof, you require us to consider these ensuing particulars, viz. SECT. III. 1 THat the Apostle speaks this, with an intended application to the Corinthians, who received the Sacrament unworthily( i. e. after an unmeet and irreverent manner) only in a measure, not being under the reign of this sin, as the unregenerate are. And, that the word here translated[ damnation] doth signify only[ judgement] and is hereto be understood only for such judgements, as God laid upon the Corinthians for their correction in that respect. And this the verses following do make manifest. Answ. There are two things here, which I take notice of, viz. your distinctions, and the application of them to the point in hand. You distinguish, first of the Persons, who may be said to come unworthily to this Sacrament. They are either unregenerate, or renewed. The one, such as do remain still under the power and reign of natural corruption, and consequently( for the present) are utterly voided of all true faith and repentance towards God. The other, such, who though repaired in their nature, and so turned to God by faith and repentance in their effectual calling, have yet the remainders of corruption in them, though not reigning as before, yet soliciting and drawing them( not seldom) into the commission of new sins, for which ever and anon their humiliation and repentance ought to be repeated. According to this distinction of the Persons, you distinguish in the nex● place of two degrees of eating and drinking unworthily at the Lords Table. One, total, when there is nothing in the persons that may in any sort answer to the grace of the Sacrament: and this is evermore to be found in the unregenerate, remaining such. Another, partial, or( as you will phrase it) only in a measure, when, though grace be habited in the persons, yet it is not actuated at the time, they being not so careful as they ought so to consider themselves and the actions they go about, as to be in a meet and fit preparation thereunto, by reviving their faith, to the apprehension of the forgiveness of their sins past; also their penitent resolution to live in all things more pleasingly to God for time to come; together with earnest longing after the grace of God in Christ, as for the strengthening of their hearts, so for the increase of their holinesse, in respect of both: and this is incident( indeed too often) to the most renewed Christians at some times. Consequently upon this, distinguish in the third place of two sorts of penalties, which unworthy receiving at the Lords Table doth draw upon the Receivers. They are both styled by one general name, that is, a judgement from God: but this judgement is not all of one kind. To the unregenerate and such as do come totally unworthy, it is a judgement exending to condemnation. But, to the regenerate, who receive unworthily but in part and in a measure only, it reacheth no farther than to their correction: though their sinful neglect, even because it is sinful, do in itself contract a guilt sufficient to condemn them, if God would; yet God, who hath begun a good work in them, and so hath entertained better thoughts towards them, will not take the advantage of that demerit, nor suffer that guilt to redound so far upon their persons, but( overlooking the judgement which is eternal) he inflicteth upon them onely that which is temporal; and this too, not legally, as a severe Judge, in way of satisfaction to his justice, but evangelically, as a wise and loving Father, in way of castigation for their amendment. These are your distinctions. Now, in application of them to the point in hand, you seem to say, that S. Paul in this place is to be understood, not of the first sort of comers, nor of the first degree of unworthiness, and consequently also not of the first kind of penalties: but of the latter only. And so, if I mistake not, even upon this ground you conclude, that this place maketh nothing against you. For, albeit( as the Apostle here says) regenerate persons, receiving sometimes unworthily in some degree, do thereby procure a judgement only to themselves; the reason, because their sin being more in secret betwixt God and their own souls, it doth not so much appear to the offence of others, and consequently cannot have that influence upon others, which else it would, if it were more open and conspicuous: yet here-hence( say you) it doth not follow, at least from S. Pauls words it cannot be concluded, that thus also the case standeth with the unregenerate. Unregenerate persons are more openly wicked, and so more grossly scandalous; and therefore, when they come in their unworthiness, they procure a judgement not only to themselves, but also unto others: the reason, because those other, though they know them so unworthy, will yet needs come and bear them company at the Lords Table. And this( as I think) is the sum and substance of your answer in the words fore-quoted. SECT. IV. NOw, to rejoin a little. As touching your dist nctions, I am so far from opposing them, that I have studied( as you see) to bring them more into the light: all the difference betwixt us will be about the application of them to our present controversy. The main thing you aim at in the application, is, thereby to limit the Apostles words to the regenerate alone: wherein yet, with good authors, and( I trust) upon good grounds, I do wholly dissent from you; and the reason of my dissent is( in the general) this, because the Apostle doth not thus limit and restrain himself, but rather the contrary. The better to demonstrate this, I shall first deliver my own grounds, and then answer your objections. My own grounds I take out of the Text. The words( you see) are indefinitely uttered. S. Paul doth not say, He among you that believes, or, He that is regenerate, but simply and indefinitely, He. As if he had said; He, whosoever he be, that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. A little farther to justify this extensive interpretation of the word, look upward to the two foregoing verses, viz. the 27. and the 28. of this Chapter, upon which this 29. verse hath an immediate and direct dependence. The aim of S. Paul is, in all this discourse, to beat down the sin of unworthy communicating. More particularly, in these three verses, he endeavours to effect this three ways. First by describing the odiousnes of the sin, vers. 27. Secondly by prescribing the means to prevent it, vers. 28. Thirdly by urging the use of this means from the danger of neglect, vers. 29. These three then, tending to one and the same thing, must necessary be understood with the same extent of application, in regard of persons therein concerned. Whence it will clearly follow, that, if the two first branches of the Apostles admonition be indefinitely and universally directed to all, then it cannot be but that this latter branch also must be so intended and directed too. Now, that the former are thus indefinitely aimed, is most apparent. In the 27. verse, describing the odiousness of the sin, Whosoever( saith he) shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shalbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. mark, Whosoever. So( generally) the word is rendered by Expositors, Quisquis, whosoever. And in the 28. verse, prescribing means for the prevention of this sin, Let a man( saith he) examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Observe again, Let a man, that is, every man, without exception, without exemption of any that hath any thing to do in this business. And thus( commonly) we find the Greek word {αβγδ} here used in the Text, to be expressed by the latin Qu●sque, every man, or every one. Examples of the like use of this very word are frequent in the Scripture, whereof you cannot be ignorant. Among others, I refer you to these places, Mat. 16.26. Joh. 3.27.& 7.46. Gal. 6.1. Though these things thus urged may abundantly suffice, yet, to the end the truth of my assertion may yet more appear, let us consider in the next place who they were, to whom all this was written by S. Paul. Without question, this Epistle was intended by him to the whole visible Body of the Church of Corinth, wherein though all were called to be Saints, cap. 1.2. yet, it may justly be conceived, there were too many, who were nothing less than Saints indeed. S. Paul was charitable enough, and yet( without breach of charity) he saw ground sufficient, whereupon not only to suspect, but even to tax them in plain terms, as miserable defective in this kind. And although, with respect unto the better qualified part among them, he did sometimes correct and mitigate his censure; yet upon the bad, who were mingled with them, he lets it rest still in the full weight. You may see to this purpose what he writes in cap. 3. of this Epistle, vers. 1, 2, 3. Now then, he writing to the whole Body of this Church, wherein there was such a mixture of bad with good, and among whom he saw so many base enormities, savouring of nothing less than a regenerate condition; and these also breaking forth, as at other times, so particularly at the time of their solemn Assemblies, even when they met to celebrate this holy Sacrament, as you may see in this very chapter, vers. 17.18.19. &c. is it likely, that in his cautions and directions tending to amendment, in his comminations and threatenings frighting them from evil, he would only reflect upon the good, and not at all upon the bad? Had S. Paul no bowels of compassion in him? was there no longing in his soul after the conversion and reformation of them, who as yet remained in the state of nature? Surely, if these were faulty as well as others, if their amendment were wished together with others, it cannot be, but that the admonitions aimed to the rest, must be extended likewise unto them; and that inclusively with respect to them amongst the rest, the words we now discourse of were intentionally no less extended, than I have said. SECT. II. BUt, you have reasons to object against me. I see it: and the main reason which you urge is taken from the signification of the word {αβγδ} in the original; which word( as you say) though translated[ damnation] doth signify only[ judgement] and is here to be understood onely of such judgement as God laid upon the Corinthians( to wit, the regenerate among them) for their correction, by reason of their unmeet and irreverent coming to the Lords Table. Answ. The word indeed which you insist on doth properly signify[ judgement] and so also our translators have observed in the margin of our Bibles. Judgement I say, not only definitive, in God: but afflictive, on man. Now, this afflictive judgement again is double. It is either the guilt of sin imputed, so the word is taken Rom. 5.16. or the penalty for sin to be endured, and so I understand the application of it in this place. And thus far( for ought I yet know) we do agree. To proceed then. This judgement inflicted as a penalty for sin, and expressly noted by this word, is taken two ways in the Scripture. Sometimes more strictly, and with limitation only to one kind, importing either a fatherly chastisement on the good, 1 Pet. 4.17. or a rigorous and revengeful punishment upon the bad, whither inchoate here, or consummate hereafter, Luke 20.47. Rom. 3.8. 2 Pet. 2.3. And sometimes more largely, as comprehending under it not only one, but all sorts of penalties, though yet not equally and alike, but differently to be inflicted on the menaced parties, as they shall show themselves either penitent or perverse, and so be more or less in Gods esteem, Rom. 33.2. Galat. 5.10. Jam. 3.1. And in this last sense( though you deny it, yet) affirm the word to be here used. And my reason is, because( as hath been said) the Apostle under one word so indefinitely threatening all, both regenerate and unregenerate, that one word of necessi y must be so taken, that to persons so different it may differently represent the penalty peculiar to their condition, that is, a chastisement to the one, but a revenge unto the other. SECT. VI. BUt, you go on still, and will prove the contrary, viz. that the judgements here intended by S. Paul were only temporal chastisements. And this( you say) is manifest by those rehearsed judgements in the verses following, especially verse 30. where he saith, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. And in the two next verses he farther intimates, that the intent of God in that infliction of his, was rather to nurture them, than to revenge himself upon them; for so he adds, If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged: but, when we are judged, wee are ch●stened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the World. Answ. Your instances are all right, as being taken out of the Text: but from thence you can have no sufficient argument to prove what you intend. These instances, if you observe them, are instances onely on one side, brought in by way of example to illustrate( in part) what before he had more generally delivered. The commination at the 29. verse( as I have largely proved) is of the nature of a general rule. Now, the generality of a rule is not infringed by the particularity of an instan●e. In our common discourses you may observe th●s, that when a rule( containing under it more particulars than one) hath been propounded at large, the instancing in one part( for example) do●h not exclude the other: especially, where●t falls out that the instance is given in that part, which in ordinary apprehension is most questionable, and which( if granted) will necessary infer the proof of the other, by an argument from the less unto the greater. A thing, which here is most apparent, as you may see by comparing these places of Scripture, Prov. ●1. 31. Jer. 25.29. Luke 23.31. 1 P●t. 4.17 ●8. St. Paul( if it had pleased him) might have instanced tke other way, and so have sent home the threatening in full weight to the hearts of the propha●e: but, partly because this was gatherable from the other, as the fore-quoted places show; and partly( it may be) for other reasons best known unto himself( whether out of modesty, as not willing to exasperate; or, out of tenderness of spirit, as loth to over-fright the weak-hearted; I cannot determine) he waves that, and gives the instance only the milder way. Upon the matter, it is, as if in more words he had thus said. Take heed, O ye Corinthians, how ye approach unworthily to the Lords Table. It is not so slight a matter, as many think. The sin certainly is heinous, and the penalty is grievous to them that do it: for, in stead of eating and drinking to their comfort, as they would; they shall incur a judgement, which they would not. Yea, so incensed will God show himself against all unworthy comers in this kind, that he will execute his judgements, not only upon them, who( under a show of godliness) are godless; but even upon them also( in some kind) who, though believers indeed, as yet now and then but too too careless in preparing themselves for their worthy communicating in these high and holy mysteries of Christ. And, for this, I need not go far to seek examples: you may see it in part by that which hath of late befallen yourselves; for, even for this cause, many a●e weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, &c. SECT. VII. 2. THat this inference, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself; Therefore his sin cannot hurt any other; or, Therefore no man else ought to restrain him from his sin; or, Therefore no man else needeth to refuse to communicate with him: That this inference( I say) it so alogical, false, and senseless, as that a man which regards his credit, will be ashamed to own it. Answ. Good words, I pray you: neither be so angry without a cause. The proposition, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, is of S. Pauls own making; and we have sufficiently asserted that. But then, as for those three inferences which you draw from thence, and so( with fine art) would father them upon others, they are all of them( in your way of understanding) Mr. Coxes own. And therefore, if they be( as you have said) so alogical, false, and senseless, that a man who regards his credit will be ashamed to own them; let Mr. cox look to it, for he must father these his own misshapen brats. The more clearly to evince this, let us consider what you add in the very next words, in way of opposition to the forenamed inferences. It is every mans duty( say you) to keep himself 〈◇〉 sp●●tted from the World, Jam● 1.27. And he de●e●ve●h not( say I) the name of a Christian, that 〈…〉 a Truth. For, as the 〈…〉 This is pu●e Religion and undefiled 〈…〉. So then, about this there 〈…〉 ●●twixt you and me. You confess● th● duty as well as I; yea, and withall you set a specia●l kind of emphasis upon the pronoun, himself. For, though( in this business) a mans self be not the only object of his own care, yet Himself primarily and in the first place must be looked unto. Our charity must begin at h●me, though it must not stay there, but still( as opportunity serveth) walk abroad to others in good performances. All this( I think) is granted upon both hands. Where is then the difference? You will tell us that forthwith in your interrogatory inferences. For, say you, Though it be every mans duty thus to keep himself, yet, Doth it therefore follow, that a man is not to regard his Brother? or, That a Christian needs not to turn away from those, that deny the power of godliness? Answ. I think not: for if I regard not my Brother, I am uncharitable, and keep not him; and if I turn not from those that are unworthy, I am unwise, and keep not myself. And thus, if it may do you any pleasure, you have my answer in plain terms to your interrogatories. But now let me ask you, to what end( having instanced in that passage of S. James) do you propound these quere's? Is it, for that I or any other whom you oppose, did ever draw such inferences from that Text? I hope you have more modesty than to say so. What then? was your meaning hereby to let us know, that those two inferences( the two last of the three above-named) are no more deduceable from the words of S. Paul, than these are from the words of S. James? I suppose indeed that this was your intention. And if so, then it must needs follow, that these two pair of inferences( according to your understanding of them) are equivalent. That is, that, on the one side, Not to regard our Brother, and, Not to restrain him from his sin? and on the other side, Not to turn away from those that deny the power of godliness, and, Not to refuse to commanicate with such; are in effect the same thing. And if thus you mean, as for ought I see you must, then doubtless you do but vainly beat the air, as having no adversary( that I know) which doth gainsay your assertion, delivered to us under that supposition. For, what sober Christian did ever thus argue from the words of S. Paul, that because( as he saith) An unworthy communicant doth eat and drink judgement to himself, Therefore no man else ought to restrain him from his sin, that is( as you interpret) to have any regard towards him in that kind: Or, therefore no man else needeth to refuse to communicate with him, that is( as you expound) to turn away from him, while he thus denies the power of godliness? If you would fasten any such thing upon us, you are manifestly injurious. And, if not: then, on the other side, your argumentation is most ridiculous. At least, if you will justify your reasoning to be good, you must first prove, That to communicate at the Lords Table in the things of G●d, where a wicked man is accidentally present, and we have no lawful power either to with-draw ourselves or to keep him off, is to communicat● with him in his sin, and to deny all good endeavour of restraining him from the same: which( I believe) is more than you can do. SECT. VIII. BUt, what shall wee say now to your third inference, which, though first name, is yet reserved by you to the last place? S. Paul saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. The inference which you would draw hence( according to our opinion, as you pretend) is, that therefore his sin cannot hurt any other, to wit, beside himself. Answ. In a right understanding, I conceive this inference to be justifiable enough. A right Christian, duly prepared in himself( as having bewailed his own sins, and, so far as in him lies, the sins of others) and so coming( in the Gospel-sense) after a worthy manner to this holy Sacrament, is not by his bare communicating with others( whom he suspects to be unworthy) so far hurt, as thereby to bee drawn with them into the society of their sin, or to be made liable( as a malefactor in that regard) to the judgements and plagues of God. This wee constantly maintain, and do believe it follows well from the fore-alleged Text, because S. Paul says, He that eat-th●●d d●inketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh j●●g ment to himself. The Apostle had observed m●ny at uses in the Corinthians, and could not but conceive( yea, it is manifest he did conceive) that too many 'mong them did come very unworthily to the Lords Table: and out of all doubt, if he had been of your opinion, he would thereupon have advis●d the better sort to have with-drawn themselves for the time, even while they saw such unworthy persons to approach, least otherwise, by communicating together with them, they might( in that act) be so far hurt, as to be involved with them under the guilt and punishment of their sin. If S. Paul had seen any such necessity for this advice, here was properly the place wherein to have given it; because here, and not elsewhere( that I can fi●de) in this Epistle, he professedly treateth of this Subject. Yet( here) he is so far off from doing any such thing, that( to my seeming) he doth the contrary. For, having reproved their abuses, and particularly noted the heinousness of this sin which we now discourse of v●z. unworthy receiving, and then applying himself by way of council and advice toward the redressing of the same, He requires them every man apart to look well unto himself, and to see that he be in due preparation. Saith he, Let a man examine himself. Well: and when he hath so done, what must he do next? must he look unto the company that are about him, and if he see there any whom he suspects to be unworthy, must he forbear the action for which he hath so laboured to prepare himself, least, by communicating with him in the outward symbols, he become defiled and unworthy too? The Apostle giveth no such advice, but rather the contrary. Let a man examine himself, and so( ●aith he) let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. He saith not, to Others: but, to himself. SECT. IX. BUt, you will prove notwithstanding, that he eateth and drinketh judgement, not to himself onely, but to others also: for, thus you add. Who will stick to say that Achan by his sin did draw judgement upon himself? will any man of understanding conceive such a saying to imply, that his sin did hurt no body but himself? Answ. As touching A●hans sin, and the punishment thereof( which tu●ned to the destruction, not of him only, but of many others) it is so plain by Scripture, that a man of understanding will not question it. He was in that act the Troubler of Israel, 1 Chron. 2.7. And how far, and after what manner the whole host of Israel was troubled by him, we have the story at large, Josh. 7. and the recapitulation thereof more in brief, Josh. 22.20. But, how unfitly do you allege this to prove your assertion? For, first how can you m ke it good, that, the purpose of God was, in the infliction of that judgement upon the whole Congregation of Israel( some more, some less) by occasion of Achans sin, to make that act of his a common document how he would ordinarily deal both with them and others in the like case? A secret reason of Gods justice( no doubt) there was in the dispensation of that act, the depth whereof we are not able to found, much less may we adventure to declare. Only this I am sure of, and the story of the Church doth make it good, that this was not his ordinary and usual wont. If it had been, the Church and the World both must long ere this have had their fatal periods. For, neither before, nor then, nor since, was there ever in the world a Congregation so pure, wherein some Achan or other hath not lurked, although not in kind, yet in equivalencie. I am not willing to launch farther into this deep. If you desire more, you may peruse what is left unto us by the great S. Augustine in his Questions, as also by Andreas Masius and others in their learned Commentaries upon this book of Joshua: who peradventure may more wise you in this point, than I can presume so much as to attempt. Mean while, that you may not too much triumph in the strength of your argument, I shall endeavour( a little more) to show you the weakness thereof, in the consequent absurdity that must needs follow thereupon. SECT. X. SEcondly therefore, I answer; That, though this instance of yours be nothing at all concerning the Sacrament, yet if by way of analogy you will draw it hither, and make it a ground of separating from wicked persons at the Communion, you must hereby aclowledge yourself obliged to separate, not only from open and notorious Offenders, but also from close and secret Hypocrites, who as yet liethid and undiscerned: for, such a one was Achan, who sinned, and the Congregation knew it not, till afterwards by lot he was found out. And then, what have you gained by this allegation, but to go farther off still, and never( henceforward) to receive the Communion with any, but such only as you know and are infallibly assured of, that they are sanctified and holy, prepared and worthy, accepted ●nd lovely in Gods eyes? which how you can attain unto, but by an extraordinary revelation from God himself, I do not know. And so( for ought I see) you must never more receive this Sacrament as a Communion: unless you will presume( with that late fanatical Sect) to be able, by the very beholding of mens outward countenances and actions, infallibly to discern their Election and Regenerotion. Take heed; I beseech you, take heed. These fancies are dangerous things to be entertained or played with. How many hath the World seen, who by a wanton dalliance with their own petulant wits, have miserable undone themselves in this regard? Be not offended at my plain dealing. I am still among the number of those your friends, who do affectionately wish your welfare in all, but especially in the best things. And, from that affection it comes, that I am so earnest with you. SECT. XI. 3. AS touching those many that were weak and sickly among the Corinthians, and those many among them that were smitten with death; doth the text imply, that none of these felt this affliction for their sinful fell●wship with the sin of others that did communicate unworthily? Answ. If any among the Corinthians, either by counsel, or connivance, or encouragement, &c. had any sinful fellowship with the sin of others, who so unworthily presented themselves to the Lords Supper: no doubt, they smarted justly for their own proper sin in that regard. But, that their very communicating at the Lords Table( where such unworthy persons were present) was a degree of having sinful fellowship with them in their sin, neither doth the Text say it, no, nor imply it, nor do you offer any reason to evince it. If you had had any thing of moment to allege, here was the place, and you might have done well to have produced it. But your silence argues the smallness of your provision in that kind, and consequently the weakness of your cause. And yet, definitively enough, you add: When the Apostle saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself; his meaning is plainly this, he draws misery upon himself by his own sin in communicating unworthily. Answ. By his own sin in communicating unworthily? who ever doubted of this, if rightly understood? But here again you do involve yourself in ambiguities: at least, you do not speak out your full meaning. To communicate unworthily( if we speak in proper terms) is to come to the Lords Table with a personal unworthiness adhering to a mans self, through defect of preparation before, devotion at the time, and the like. But thus you may not understand the phrase here: for, if so, your commentary would be no other than a mere tantologie. That which you aim at, is some farther matter: for, you would needs have us to believe, that our very coming to the Sacrament( where others that are unworthy do offer themselves, doth ipso facto make us also unworthy Communicants, though otherwise( in regard of our own persons) we be never so well fitted by way of preparation, never so much filled with devotion. But, your bare saying is no proof: and the proof you have alleged to bring, is insufficient. SECT. XII. A Second objection which you meet with, is, from the authority of Scripture negative, thus: The Apostle in that 11. cap. of 1 Cor.( where he purposely treateth of abuses in and about the Lords Supper, and giveth Rules of reformation) doth not there take order for the repelling of any from this holy Communion, or for refusing to communicate with them. Ergo. Answ. This argument I find both propounded and prosecuted by a learned neighbour M Nath. Dur●●●. Minister of yours, who undertook some pains for your satisfaction in these points, long before I either knew or suspected you to have been soured with this Leaven; whose animadversions also came accidentally to my view, while I was meditating this answer to your Thesis: and accordingly I shall leave the farther managing thereof to his own pen, who can do it well and worthily enough without my assistance. nevertheless, because you have laid it in my way, and sent me this challenge for a punctual and clear Answer, I shall consider the exceptions which you have against it. Thus then you say, That the persons, touching whom the Apostle in that place speaketh, were either indeed or( at the least) in the Churches judgement of charity in some measure fit for the receiving of the Sacrament, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. Touching wicked persons( appearing to be such) he had already taken order in chapter 5. and needed not now to repeat it again. Answ. As for the fi●st part of your reply, it is true, the Apostle, writing to the general body of this Church, doth give unto them such eulogies as you repeat from 1 Cor. 1.2. the denomination being taken( if in your way to be understood) from the better part. But it doth not from thence follow, that all persons( to whose consideration he recommendeth this part of his Epistle concerning unworthy coming to the Lords Table) were so unspoted in their ways, that( if your Tenet might then have taken place) the rest needed not to have made a scruple of communicating with them in the Sacrament. No: the very Text importeth, that even then, and among these, there were some, who( for many very scandalous, notorious vices) were not only ill-reported of by others, but also reproved by S. Paul himself, as you may see in the 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. verses. Here then, if there had been any such necessity of doing that, which you so press and urge upon us, the Apostle( who was ever careful to keep back nothing, but revealed to the Church the whole counsel of God) would not have been so far wanting either to himself or them, as not to have given them( at the least) some hint of what they ought to have performed in this regard. And whereas, in the second branch of your reply, you tell us, that, as touching wicked persons( appearing to be such) S. Paul had already taken order in chapter 5. and therefore needed not now to repeat the same again: it is an assertion altogether without truth, as I conceive. We have seen that chapter, and cannot find in it any such thing as you pretend. But, these are your sleights to captivated weak minds with over-bold assertions. SECT. XIII. THe third objection, which you are pleased to take notice of, is( as you phrase it) some nibbling at these words of the Apostle, Let a man examine himself. Answ. With scorn enough, this slight and supercilious glance, upon the well-deserving endeavours of the ingenuous author of this allegation! But, I shall leave you( for this also) to his gentle correction, if at the least-wise he shall think it worth his taking notice of it. mean while, I attend to what you add, and call upon us to consider. Consider, you say, 1. That the Emphasis there lies, not in the word[ himself] but in the verb[ examine.] Answ. There is indeed an emphasis in both. In the verb, as pressing an important duty: and in the pronoun, as pointing out the more special object, whereabout that duty in the performance of it must be chiefly conversant. In which regard( I think) the emphasis doth mostly lie in the latter. Neither am I( herein) alone. For though Piscator( whom I suppose you follow) have lead the way to your opinion in this behalf, yet the general current of Expositors do so interpret this clause as I have said. 2. That no man in his right wits will from thence infer, that a man should not examine those of his own charge. Answ. If your meaning be according to your words, I am altogether of your mind. Nay, I go farther yet, and say, that( to the end a man may h●ve whom he may examine) it is fit he should instruct those of his own charge( though as yet but tender in regard of yeers) in the grounds and principles of Religion, in the ways and courses of Christian life: which, whether it cross your practise or opinion, peradventure you will tell me some time hereafter, when you shall find yourself at leisure so to do. 3. That our present question is not concerning persons, whose unfitness is to be sifted out by examination, but concerning persons, whose unfitness and wickedness doth already manifestly appear. Answ. This consideration is cross to both the former. For, in them you pled, that toward the well-discharging of a mans own duty, and to the end he may not be involved in the guilt of other mens sin in coming unworthily to the Lords Table, especially when himself shall come along with them, his duty is to examine, not himself alone, but them too. again, this Position doth not onely contradict your two former considerations, but is also inconsistent in itself, the first part thereof being in opposition to the second: for indeed, unto the second we cannot c●me, but by the first, however you deny it. You say, Our present question is not concerning persons, whose unfitnes is to be sifted out by examination: but concerning persons whose unfitnes& wickedness doth already manifestly appear. Already manifestly appear, how so? You will say, they have been observed to be thus and thus, and you find them to go on still in the same way. But I ask again, how do you find them to got on still in the same way? Have you looked and preached into their present practices, as now they are? Have you conferred and expostulated with them about their evil courses? And, after all your diligence, have they given you an assurance( either by word or actions) that such as they have been, such they are still, without remorse? If in all or any of these ways you have seriously dealt with them, as a Christian ought, then certainly you have passed upon them by way of examination: for, examination( as we now discourse of it) is an act, as much real, as verbal. But, if in none of all these you have had to do with them, nor they with you, then, though your jealousy may peradventure suggest unto you an ill opinion of them, yet their present unfitness and wickedness cannot so manifestly appear, as you pretend. And take heed, lest while you judge without a sufficient ground, you do manifestly break the rule of Charity, and incur the certain judgement of God. To return then to our main question, from which you have wandered, unto which these considerations of yours are nothing pertinent. I have already declared( in my reply upon your answers to the first objection) what I conceive the Apostle chiefly aimed at in this precept of his concerning self-examination: and thither( if you please) you may have recourse for a fuller satisfaction. As for that duty which lies upon us with respect to others, thus I think; That before a man( in himself indeed unworthy) may lawfully be shut out from the Communion, it is needful he should be, not onely suspected, but also known, yea, notoriously known, to bee such a one indeed. And, notoriously known he cannot be, unless he be first of all observed, yea, and sifted too, I say not only in private, by way of friendly admonition; but in public also, by way of legal conviction. As in other cases, so proportionably here, the rule is justifiable and good, A man may not be condemned before he be tried, nor executed before he be condemned. SECT. XIV. THe fourth objection which you encounter, a poor one like the rest( for so you style it) was taken( as you say) out of Mat. 22.11, 12. Answ. To speak rightly, This was not urged as a new objection, but only brought in to illustrate the first, by way of allusion to the Parable concerning him, who sate at the marriage feast of the Kings son, without having on his wedding garment. A high presumption! which when the King espied, he said unto the Party, friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment? The thing here pressed was, that the King said not to his servants, how is it that ye have admitted this man hither? nor, to the rest that sate at Table, why are ye come hither with such a guest? but, to the unworthy man himself, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment? This was the sum. Now you, what? For answer hereunto you will us to consider, That by persons called, spoken of inverse 14. of that chapter, are meant such persons, as have not only been invited to faith and repentance by the preaching of the gospel, but also in outward profession have seemed to answer that call. Accordingly, by the man not having on a wedding garment are meant such, as in Gods sight were found to come short both of sanctification and justification, notwithstanding their faire outward profession by which they h●d deceived the eyes of men. What is this to the admitting of open wicked persons to the Communion, or communicating with them? So you. Answ. To speak the least first, and so to go higher by degrees. If this may not serve us as an argument, to demonstrate: yet as a similitude, to illustrate, it may fit us well enough. And so it hath been by me alleged, and not by me only, but by many other both learned and godly, as I think you will not, you cannot well deny. And this, though I should add no more unto it, would be enough( as I conceive) to take off your exception. nevertheless, to the end you may not think I study rather how to find an evasion, than to give you satisfaction, let us look a little nearer into your words. Secondly therefore, whereas you ask, What is this to the admitting of open wicked persons to the Communion, or communicating with them? I answer, very much. For, even those open wicked persons( as you style them) apprehended and known to have been such by some, perhaps by many, it may be also by the Minister himself, but as yet not legally thereof convicted, nor judicially declared to be such still, are( in this case, namely, when they come and offer themselves to the Communion) to be looked upon by us, not so much with respect to what they have been formerly, as with regard to what they are, or( at the least) seem to be for the present: And so must be reckoned among them, who, being inv ted to Faith and repentance by the preaching of the Gospel, do now in outward profession seem to answer that call. You cannot say, but that they have been told, how great the danger is which men incur and draw upon themselves, by an unworthy coming to these awful mysteries. They have heard the judgments of God no less frequently than severely denounced and threatened against such offenders, as in the Sermons before, so in the prefatorie admonitions red unto them at the time of celebration. Neither will you( I hope) deny, that( all this while) they are reasonable creatures, and such as have in them a desire of selfe-preservation, as well as other men. And therefore( in charity) we have reason to conceive, that( the premises considered) they will not so desperately rush upon this action( from which, if unworthy, they are so deterred) as wilfully to plunge themselves into those dreadful miseries, which they cannot but apprehended as consequent upon their so high a degree of impiety and profaneness. Besides, we all know that at this Sacrament the whole transaction of the business is so ordered by the wisdom of the Church, even with such solemnity of action, and such variety of divine expression, one while confessing, another while deprecating, then petitioning, thanksgiving, and the like; that men not altogether stupid, and in any competency touched with remorse, are there and then( even in the very act of celebration) abundantly furnished with means, whereby not only to make profession of, but devoutly to be exercised in the acts of faith and repentance. Well then, to apply this to our present purpose. When the Parties you speak of shall present themselves, and make an offer thus to join with the Congregation in the reverend performance of these holy duties, do they not therein profess themselves to be men inwardly touched with remorse for sin, humbly begging mercy at Gods hand for what is past, and unfeignedly resolving by his grace to prevent the like sins and follies for time to come? Etiam,& hoc testantur, eo ipso quòd accedant ad Coenam, as one saith. That is, They do testify so much unto us, even by their very coming and offering themselves to the Lords Table where all things are so solemnly and jointly performed. Peradventure you will say, that all this( yet) may be done in hypocrisy, upon base motives, and to by-ends. It may be so, and by the event of things( heretofore) we have sometimes found, that of many we have had but too just cause to be jealous afterwards, though at the instant of their communicating we durst not but hope them such as they would then seem. If they prove otherwise, the fault is theirs: and let them look to it. For, though by their faire shows they may escape our censures, yet they cannot so elude God. The Master of the feast will surely come, and find them out at length. And thus, as Bullinger says well, Whosoever( having been admonished) doth yet dissemble, 〈…〉 and so come unto these mysteries( indeed) otherwise than he makes a show of, Non Ecclesiam, Dominum, aut Ministrum decipit; se● seipsum,& sibi judicium manducat. i.e. He deceiveth not the Church, the Lord, or the Minister: but he deceiveth his own soul, and eateth judgement to himself. SECT. XV. THe last objection which you meet with, is that, which( as you say) you have taken up from the mouths of some well-meaning Christians, deceived by the error of their own judgement, and by the false suggestions of others. And, the sum of what they do allege( by your report thereof) is this: That it is their duty to receive the Sacrament; and they cannot be persuaded, that by the performing of their required duty, they should make themselves guilty of hardening others in their sin, or of any such like offence against God. Answ. If this be that which they allege, then surely, though for your own ends you have a little glosed and fawned upon them in styling them( as you do) well meaning Christians: yet, in so peremptorily censuring them, as men deceived by the error of their own judgement, and by the false suggestions of others,( whenas yet in this thing they have expressed more true understanding, th●n they seem to do who speak against them) you have done them greater wrong, than that smoothing style can recompense. But, let us see how you will make good what you said concerning them. To this( say you) I answer, that men must take heed that they perform required duties in the right order and manner, not transgressing the rule of Gods word in the pretended performance of a duty. Otherwise, they willbe found, not so much to perform a duty, as to provoke God to anger by a great sin. And, for a proof of this, you add: It was( say you) the duty of David to bring the ark to Jerusalem: yet, because the ark was then set upon a cart, and not born by the Priests, the Lord was provoked to anger, 1 Chron. 15.13. It was the duty of the Jews in the dayes of Zerubbabel to build the Temple: yet might they not suffer the samaritans to build with them, Ezra 4.2.3. It was the duty of the Jews to eat the Passeover: yet might they not eat it in Babylon, though they were enforced to tarry there 70 yeeres, because their eating the Passeover there would not have been according to the rule of Gods word. It was the duty of the Priests to offer Sacrifices: yet they that offered sacrifice, not in the Temple at Jerusalem, but on the high places, did in so doing sin greatly against the Lord. Though it were the duty of all the Israelites to eat the Passeover: yet might they not eat the same, either in their own uncleanness, or with those that were uncircumcised or unclean. Answ. Here is much ado to little purpose, and many words used to prove that which is not controverted. For, SECT. XVI. FIrst, as touching your admonitory assertion, that the performance of required duties, if not done in the right order and manner which God hath prescribed, is so far from finding acceptance at his hands, that on the contrary it provoketh him to anger: who among us ever doubted of the truth thereof? We subscribe unto it most willingly in the general, where God himself doth not dispense with his own positive commands. Nor may you think, that those well-meaning Christians, to whose consideration you propound this, did intend the omission of it in their fore-named allegation. Yea( peradventure) they did express it too, though you were pleased not to mention it till now, as if it had been a new word of caution only from yourself to instruct their ignorance. And then, secondly, as concerning those five instances which you produce, we aclowledge them( for the most part) to be such, as have their warrant from the Scripture, and so not destitute of force or fitness to prove your foresaid Assertion. Yea, we are so far from denying them, that( if need be) we would further clear them to the apprehension of all that will not wilfully shut their eyes against the light. And for this also( it may be) we shall find a fit place, when we have a little farther considered how you apply these passages to our present controversy. SECT. XVII. YOu may not think, but that we would expect your performance this way. And indeed, in the next words, you go about it as you can. So( say you) though it be the duty of Christians to receive the Sacrament, viz. when they may do the same in a right manner and order: yet it doth not follow that they may safely receive the same with those, touching whom they are charged, no, not so much as to eat with them. Answ. No, not so much as to eat with them? what, not in the Sacrament? show me such a charge, and( for my part) I am yours. Indeed, you would fain have proved this from 1 Cor. 5.11. A place, not oftener remembered, than abused by you in the foregoing part of your discourse. That scandalous Christians( being and remaining such) deserve to be excluded from the Lords Supper; that( to the end they may not come unworthily) they ought to be admonished, and( if that serve not) ●o be complained of, and( if yet they persist) to be upon due trial and conviction either suspended or ejected by an act of lawful authority; are things which we have often not only said, but urged in some measure. But that( when, after all our private endeavours, even through a defect in some to whom the power of censure doth belong, these unworthy parties are notwithstanding neither reformed nor kept off) sound Christians, who have studied nothing more than to come worthily, are by divine precept charged to forbear, and not to eat with them at the Lords Table, is a thing which I could never yet find, and I believe you cannot show in all the Scripture. If you can, do: you shall not be more forward to persuade, than we to submit, upon the sight of such a warrantable ground. mean season, till you show that, I commend to your perusal the few but pithy words of a right learned, reverend, and godly D. Hall late B. of Exon, now B. of Norwich, in Apolog. against Brown. Sect. 54. Divine, whose remembrance with me, and( I doubt not) with many others, is dear and precious. Saith he, God bids me come: he hath imposed this necessity, never allowed this excuse. My teeth shall not be set on edge with the sour grapes of others. If the Church cast not out the known unworthy, the sin is hers: if a man will come unworthy, the sin is his: but, if I come not because he comes, the sin is mine. I shall not answer for that others sin; I shall answer for mine own neglect. Another mans fault cannot dispense with my duty. So he. You may consider( to the same purpose) the many weighty passages of the renowned Calvin in the fourth book of his Institutions; also of Bullinger against the Anabaptists; and before them both, of S. Augustine against the Donatists, particularly against Parmenianus and Cresconius. red them, but( take heed) without contempt or scorn, as undervaluing their worth because they are not of your opinion. And, in reading, observe not only what they say, but upon what ground, even from the holy Scripture. If you had done this before, I believe you would not have straggled so far from the path of Truth and Peace: and, if ingenuously you set about it yet, my hope is you are not so far entangled in this broke, but that these worthy hands may help you out again. Suspect yourself a little. Overmuch confidence may do you overmuch wrong. SECT. XVIII. ANd here now I would have ended this answer to your challenge, but that it seemeth you had a mind( in the proposal of your reply to this last objection) to make choice of such instances, as might insinuate more than you express, and point out something which( analogically) might look toward the point in question, but in disfavour of our opinion. I shall therefore review them as I can, and as they lie. The first instance you give is the act of King David in assaying to bring the ark unto Jerusalem, not on the shoulders of the Priest, but on a Cart. A mainfest deviation from the order set by God, as is confessed by himself, 1 Chron. 15.13. and may more largely appear by the very precept, Numb. 4.15. and 7.9. to which the practise of the Church was very conformable, both before, Josh. 3.6. 1 Sam. 14.18. and after, 2 Sam. 15.24. 1 King. 2.26. and 8.3.4. But this instance( as I conceive) is so far from squaring with you, that on the contrary it makes against you. The bearing of the ark( as the places fore-quoted do declare) belonged to the Priests the Levites. Observe, not to the Levites in common, but to the Priests that were among them in special. The other Levites( who were not Priests) had their offices and places to attend about the service of God: but, the Priests only had this office, to bear the Ark. A good instruction( me thinks) ariseth hence to us, viz. how careful wee should be to keep within the lists and limits of our own calling, lest otherwise( transgressing them) we fall into the displeasure of God, as King David and those that were about him did, even at that very time wherein you instance. Private men in the Church may not step up( as you would have them) into the place of public government. And ever we shall find, that, when men have presumed beyond their calling, they have been made to feel the smart of their presumption. And that, not only when they have done it out of ambitious ends, as you may see in Corah and his complices: but also with good intentions, as appeareth by the breach which God made upon Uzza at this very time for his rashness in putting forth his hand unto the ark, 2 Sam. 6.7. and 13.10. The intention of Uzza( I believe) was good: but his action was ill, because it was without a warrant, yea, against the rule; for he, being no Priest, although a Levite, might not touch the Ark, Numb. 4.15. It were well you would consider this a little better, ere you persuade Ministers( under the pretence of a pious end) to adventure upon an act beyond their power, as here you have done. SECT. XIX. YOur second instance was the practise of the Jews, who returning from their Captivity, and applying themselves to the building of the Temple, would not suffer the Samaritans to build with them. It is true indeed, they would not: and( I conceive) justly. For, besides that these Samaritans( who now offered themselves unto the work) were known enemies unto the Jews, and such as tendered their service onely in hypocrisy, that so with more security they might work them the more disturbance: the whole Body of the Samaritans were long since grown a kind of mongrel People, corrupted both in Blood and in Religion, retaining indeed some outward shows of Truth( whereof they boasted) as Circumcision and the like; but in the substance of Truth far deffering from the true Church, witness their general apostasy, professed Idolatry, and many other Heathenish abominations, as you may see them related in 2 Kings 17. throughout. Upon these grounds( as it is there said) God rejected them and all their seed, and cast them out of his sight, cutting them off from being a People to himself, and not receiving them again( as he did the Jews after their Captivity) no, not so much as into the external and outward Covenant, as by the stories of the Church in those dayes doth manifestly appear. This was the state of those Samaritans, and for these causes( among others) the Jews would not endure that they should join with them in the building of the Temple, Ezra. 4.3. Now, if you will infer any thing from hence unto the purpose, you must first show us, that those scandalous Christians of whom you speak, and whom you would have us to refuse communion with at the Lords Table, are in the like condition with these Samaritans, that is, men rejected of God, cast out, and cut off from the Church. show us this, and then we shall be as forward as yourself to keep them off, till they have duly reconciled themselves. mean while, this instance makes nothing for you. SECT. XX. THe third thing you instance in, is another practise of the Jews, in their forbearing to eat the Passeover for 70 yeeres, while they lived as exiles from their own Country, during their captivity in Babylon. It is very probable indeed, that they did thus forbear: and it was most necessary that so they should, because God had laid upon them a strict charge not to celebrate the Passeover any where, saving where the sanctuary was. Indeed at first, when the Passeover was first instituted, they kept it in Egypt: that was the place then. But as for future times, the Law( indispensably from thenceforth) was, that the Passeover should be kept only in the place which the Lord should choose to place his name in, Deut. 16.5.6. This place( at first) was the Tabernacle, but afterwards it was the Temple, as you may see, 2 Chron. 30.1.2. &c. and 2 Chron. 35.1.2. &c. Thither the People were to come, and there the Priests were to slay the Lamb, whence again( at the Priests hands) they did receive it, and so ate it in their private houses, every family apart, as is easily gatherable from those fore-quoted places, and from Exod. 12.3, &c. to which I do refer. Now, by reason of this institution, because the Passeover( by Gods own ordinance) had so necessary relation to the place of the Sanctuary, it came to pass, that( during the time of their Captivity) wherein their Common-wealth failed, and their persons were removed from Jerusalem and the Temple, where this and all other such like solemnities were to be observed, the distressed and exiled Jews did not keep the Passeover, as in former times. And this was indeed the true cause, why they did omit it, during their 70 yeers Captivity in Babylon. So then, here was a command from God to justify their forbearance. yea, they had sinned, if they had not forborn; and all this, by virtue of Gods command. show us the like command for what you urge, and then( as I said before) we will submit. SECT. XXI. THe fourth instance you present us with, is the Priests not offering sacrifice in the high-places, but only in the Temple at Jerusalem. A thing also of very necessary observance, by reason of Gods Law, as hath been partly shewed in my reply to the foregoing instance, ●nd you may yet see it more particularly expressed, Levit. 17.4. compared with Deut. 12.2. &c. to the end of the 14. verse. This was properly the ground of this observance, the like whereto( I believe) you cannot show me in any part of the Bible, towards the justifying of that which you affirm in opposition to our Tenet in this present controversy. Now, what it is, which by this instance you would insinuate on the bye, as contradictory to us, I must confess I do not apprehended. Sure I am, our Communion-Tables are no such high-places as the Scripture doth forbid, nor are they made so( accidentally) by the mixed company which there meet. But, if you would needs have suggested any thing in this kind, me thinks you might much better have applied it against the Founders and Patrons of High-Altars, together with those officious and forward men, who( for ends best known unto themselves) have voluntarily and of their own accord complied with those Altar-services, and other such like Innovations of the time. Wherein if you know any that have been faulty, you may do well( yet) to lay it home unto them( yea, though now biased the other way) that so, ere they busy themselves too much with others, they may see and be ashamed of their own inconstancy. SECT. XXII. THe last instance which you give, is concerning the Israelites their not eating the Passeover either in their own uncleanness, or with those that were uncircumcised or unclean. Answ. Uncircumcised, and unclean persons( though circumcised) were indeed forbidden( for themselves) to eat the Passeover. Concerning the one, you may see Exod. 12.48. Ezek. 44.9. And for the other, compare those passages, Lev. 7.20, 21. Num. 9.6, &c. If, notwithstanding this prohibition, an uncircumcised person should offer to intrude himself, no question the rest( if they knew him to be such) both might and did exclude him from their company, without expecting any farther warrant than that general Law above rehearsed, because( so long as uncircumcised) he was not actually and by solemn admission a member of their Church; no, though in some respects a Proselyte: an uncircumcised person being to the Jews, as an unbaptised man or woman is to us. But, as touching an unclean person that was circumcised, how he was to be dealt with by the rest, in case he made an offer to himself, is a thing that would be somewhat farther scanned. It is agreed upon by all, that these legal Pollutions( whether from within, by Issues and Leprosies; or from without, by touching any uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any unclean thing) did figure out pollution by sin of all sorts: and the act of men( authorised of God) in severing such polluted and unclean persons( known and convicted) from the Sanctuary, and so from the holy things of God( as you may see, 2 Chron. 23.19.) did figure out the removal of unrepentant sinners from Communion with the Church. Now, if this be that whereto you aim in this your argumentative allegation of the thing, I have nothing to except against it or your application of it to the point in hand. For, it is readily acknowledged, even by them whom in this controversy you oppose, that they( in the Church) who have the power of censure ought to suspend and keep off known and convicted unclean persons from coming to the Lords Supper, which is( as I may say) our Evangelicall Passeover: and, if they do not, they do by that omission contract a guilt of sinful negligence upon themselves. But, it seemeth you go farther, and would fain insinuate, that, if any unclean persons came unto the Passeover, and the Priests did not put them by, the rest were to withdraw themselves, lest otherwise they should be polluted by their company. As yet, I see no precept enforcing a necessity of so doing: but( if I mistake not) I find an example to the contrary. What think you of that relation in 2 Chron. 30. where it is more than intimated, that, among them who came and did eat of the Passeover which King Hezekiah caused to be kept, there were many who were legally unclean. In so coming, it is true they faulted, and were accordingly prayed for by the King: but, upon their coming, did any of their Brethren refuse to eat with them? or, did the company of those unclean persons pollute them that were clean? consider well, and see if you can find either of these so much as intimated in the Text. So then, as I conceive, your insinuations against us, under the pretence of this halting instance, is of no validity. Conclusion. Exhorting Mr. C. to ingenuity and humility for the preservation of the Churches Peace. SECT. I. ANd thus, having dispatched what I undertook in way of answer to the ground which you had laid, and every part of the same, as you require: I do now recommend all that I have written to your more serious and second thoughts, beseeching you by all the bonds of duty which you owe both to God and to his Church, that( laying aside all partiality of affection, and heat of discontent) you would regulate yourself both in judgement and practise by the clear light of Truth, so far as it appears unto your Conscience. If you find yourself to have erred, be not ashamed to retract that error: it is one of the greatest honours that you can acquire, to bear witness to the Truth, though against yourself; and in so doing you shall be so far from being foiled, that you shall obtain a noble Conquest. SECT. II. BUt one thing more, and I have done. Master cox, think it not a glory to become the Author of a schism. The peace of the Church, especially in these times, is more worth than our blood: and they that glory in the disturbing of that, let them fear lest God in anger disturb them, when willingly they would be most at rest, and so turn their glory into shane. By-ends, though varnished over with never so fair shows, and seconded( it may be) with some perfomances outwardly specious in the eyes of weak Beholders, are yet discernible enough to God, and will find little acceptance with him, when he shall come to judge the secrets of mens hearts. I am not willing to put the worst interpretation upon that, which may be fairly construed. But surely, I cannot think that the strength of Mr. Coxes parts( if at the leastwise I have rightly judged of him) can be overcome by such weakness, I say not only as I find here, but( as report tells me) his extravagancies otherwise both in speech and action do declare unto the World. Retire a little into yourself; and consider, not only your doings, but your aims, together with the issues of them both. The distractions of the People, the unsettling of their devotion, your endeavours to bring them into an ill opinion of our Church, as if( indeed) no Church at all, because it goeth not the independent way with you; and all this, with such heat of spirit, and height of confidence, as if you and your abettors were the onely wise men of the world, and the most inflamed with holy zeal: whereto( I beseech you) tends all this? Here indeed is a kind of striving, and that for masteries: but woe unto that striving which is destructive to Religion, and can have no better issue than the bringing of Confusion into the Church! If you can please yourself in these courses, and go on, it is a wonder. I can but pity your wanderings, and now( after all my poor endeavours) pray for your return. In the mean season, my desire is, that( all wilfulness and stoutness laid aside) you would consider, not so much how you would answer me in what I writ, as how you can answer God for what you do. I end with those words of the Apostle S. Paul, 2 Tim. 2.7. Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. So I rest, A studios Lover of Truth and Peace, MARTIN black. A copy of this Answer sent, and delivered into Mr. Coxes own hand, Julii 5o. 1642. FINIS.