A SECOND VINDICATION Of a Disciplinary, Anti- Erastian, Orthodox Free-admission to the LORDS-SUPPER; OR, The State of this Controversy revised and proposed: For the fuller understanding of the most, as to the grounds whereon it stands; and more especially for the case, and clearer proceeding of those, that shall write about it, whether for it, or against it.  
By John Humf●●y, Min: of F●oome.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Ignatii Epist ad Philadelph. 
Nos à communione quamquam prohibere non possumus, nisi sponte confessum, aut in aliquo Judicio ecclesiastico vel seculari nominatum atque convictum.  Austin. Tom 9 lib. De Medicine. Poe●●tentiae, cap. 3. Ex Aquino. 
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you,  Exo. 24.8. 
They all drank of that spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ.  1 Cor. 10.4. 
LONDON, Printed by F. L. for E. Blackmore at the Angel in Paul's Churchyard, 1656.   

Reader,  
IF thou hast a desire to see briefly the state of my Opinion, but thinkest that these few sheets are something too long for thee to read over at once, which I would have thee to do when thou takest it in hand; thou mayest be pleased if thou wilt, at thy first view, to wave or pass over (with the Epistles wholly) the Second, Fifth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Sections, (which are more particularly polemical and the longest) and so both the matter will lie more round in its self, and thou have thy end in a trice. Only let me persuade thee afterwards, to read the rest in the whole together, at thy leisure, with more deliberation.  
J. H.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
WHereas I understand by my Bookseller, that many do call upon him for more copies of my first little book, (which hath been so much oppugned) about Free-admission to the Sacrament, there being now 3. or 4. Impressions out of it already, and notwithstanding my advice to the contrary, he is resolved to make his advantage; I have thought good to take this course, which seems to me best; to wit, to set myself (upon so much longer study on my own thoughts) to write again about as many sheets as at first, and propose the same, as a second Vindication of this Subject, in stead of the former; to the end, both that the Friends of my Opinion, may see more clearly into its foundations, whereon it is to be defended; and those that will oppose it, may go about their work more dextrously and perspicuously, having no need to use any bitterness or personal reflections in the doing.  
It must be acknowledged that my first Discourse about this matter being prepared in two Sermons to the people, is written suitably, that is, more popularly, and so the arguments may not seem to be so full and convincing, as might be expected in a more large, or in a more close and dry dispute: and therefore having an occasion something too tetrically given me by Dr. Drake, a man otherwise reverend, pious and learned, I thought it fit in another book, being A rejoinder to him, to do my endeavour for the strengthening and confirming what I had written, amplifying my conceptions all along, as the matter leads me on. And this book I perceive hath gained so much with some, even of my Presbyterian friends, that though they thought the first piece not so cogent, as many were apt to speak thereof, yet they think that there is some strength put to it herein, and many particulars not unworthy consideration.  
However this be, having since read Erastus, and some of his opposers, with a few others about this matter, I find it to be necessary that I should deliver my mind more fully and openly as to the state of the Question, for the avoiding of that prejudice, which I see else by one Mr. Collings, is like to be fastened on me; which person speaks of me every where in his late book about Suspension, as Erastus' disciple, and as if I had all out of him, which is no ways ingenuously done, seeing I must profess really, I never once saw Erastus, until I had printed both my Vindication, and my rejoinder.  
And since I have seen him, I find the ground Erastus goes upon, by his first Theses, lies thus, There is none ought (says he, as a thing he counts should be granted) to be kept from communion in other Ordinances, being the ordinary means to work grace in them; and for an exclusion from the Sacrament only, he shows there is no proof at all in Scripture, and so he quite takes away all Church-punishments. Now Dr. Drake, and those that contend for a bare exclusion from actual receiving (as if Excommunication were nothing else) do manifestly herein become semi- Erastian, yielding to him his very foundation, which Dr. Hammond hath observed before me, Power of the Keys, cap. 4. sect. 43. whereas we that do acknowledge indeed that there is no command for exclusion from the Sacrament alone, yet that the Scripture is clear for an exclusion from society in general, by censure, and so from the Sacrament as a part thereof, do plainly stand at the greatest elongation from Erastus here, and nearest to the truth otherwhere (we conceive) of any. Nos (says Bullinger to the point) nunquam concedere anabaptistis voluimus, ut disciplinam et coenam commiscerent. Coenam (docemus) esse publicam et laetam gratiarum actionem, et non poenam. Disciplinam vero comprehendere monitionem et correptionem, adeoque poenam, Epist. 2. ad Erast.  
Besides Mr. Collins, I know there are some others that have written against me, and it may be expected happily by some, that I should give a particular answer to my several brethren, as I have to Mr. Drake; and I must confess I have had some temptations thereunto, insomuch that I had done something herein at my first meeting with some of them: But when I understood, that one whom I never knew, before I saw his first book, John Timson, had undertaken such a task, I was soon willing to cease myself; for that man having given such good satisfaction to Dr. Drake and the Gloucester-shire Ministers, in his first work, The Bar removed, which to my knowledge was much taking with many plain judicious men, and more, I suppose to some, than my own; I did not doubt but we should have many more good things from him in his second work also (which hath been a while come forth,) in answer to Mr. Collings and Mr. Saunders. If there be any therefore who are weakened by what is said in particular by any of those aforesaid opposers, I refer them to this Author; Of whom I shall think fit, in the way to say thus much, as what is just to him. He is a man, as I understand, pious and sober; One belike, that is no other for his condition, than a plain husbandman, but exemplarily studious for the time he can spare from his daily and necessary labours. He was, it seems, bred up under the famous Robert Bolton, and so one of the old Puritans, who using often with some of his neighbours to seek God together in the holy duty of religious conference, (Mal. 3.16.) and being deeply affected (as I suppose) with the evil of the neglect in many places of the Sacrament, (himself being one that received the first impression of that grace which is in him, at this Ordinance) they were in the end convinced wholly of this opinion, and satisfied their Minister about the same. After a while Doctor Drakes book coming out, it pleased God to raise up the spirit of this serious man, like another Amoz, as it were from the flocks, the plough and the herds, to publish his thoughts about this business. I know well, that many kind of spirits cannot choose but be ready to despise such a one; How knoweth this man letters? but others, happily, that are more humble and ingenuous, and no less understanding, will rather be ready to bless God (Mat. 12.26.) to see what solidity, clearness of expression, and eminency of gifts and piety, he is graciously pleased to should oftentimes, in some very mean and plain persons.  
As for myself, I have no desire to draw the Saw any more hand to hand with any in these personal contestations; I have thought it necessary to answer the chief and first of them that came out against me, and for the rest, I do humbly conceive, that when the state of my question is well read over in these few sheets, than my rejoinder to Dr. Drake, adding those few things, if you please, in the Postscript Epistle adjoined, will be enough to answer all (as to the main) that any other hath said after him. Only it is my desire, that those who shall think fit to write against me for the future, will be pleased to deal principally with this last work, which is more digested and ordered for dispute, and then to take in what I have written in my other two books (especially in my rejoinder, wherein is most) as it will fall in for confirmation and farther probation of what here is proposed as the standard to them; which if they will do candidly, as it lies in its full strength, and deal with me fairly without invectives and impertinencies, they shall do well. For my part I have so prepared these sheets, as nothing else may prevail, but plainness of truth and strength of argument. If any shall come with expectation of expressions to please the fancy, they will be frustrated; The author desires here both to appear himself without affectation, and to leave his matter wholly upon the test of the judgement, without any insinuation by the affection.  
There is one thing yet I have to add upon advice, and it is this; that, Forasmuch as many good men; that are remote, have entertained some prejudicated thoughts of my person, (very likely for my judgements sake) whom they have not known; which hath made them weight the less formerly what I have said, and so may still: I have thought good for the satisfying and un-bending such of my Brethren, having had some occasions lately to desire the testimonial of my reverend neighbours in the Ministry to the Commissioners for approbation of public Preachers about matters of my living, to subscribe here their certificate; which I doubt not but they will own, to this effect. Only with this caution, that it be not understood, as given with any reference in particular to this controversy, wherein they and I do leave one another to our own opinions.  
THese are to certify whom it may concern, that we whose names are hereunder written, upon our personal acquaintance with Mr John Humphrey Minister of Froome, do know him to be a man Orthodox in doctrine, and Pious in his conversation.  

Richard Allen, Min: of Batcomb.  
Christoph: Read, Min: of Wanstrow,  
Rich: Fairclough, Min: of Mells,  
Will: Thomson, Min: of Laverton,  
John Geree, Min: of Freshford,  
John After, Min: of Beckington,  
William Parker, Min: of Bruton.    

Mr. HUMFREY'S FREE-ADMISSION STATED.  

SECTION 1.  
IT has ever been the gracious appointment and will of God, to have a Church upon earth, or a certain number of men and women to be in covenant-relation with him, in opposition to others, who are said to be without God, and without Christ in the world.  
Under the Old Testament it pleased the Lord to choose out Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their posterity, to be the lot of his inheritance, Deut. 9.26, 27. and 32.8, 9 and his peculiar people, Deut. 7.6. & 14.2. Ps. 135.4. Under the New Testament he hath enlarged the tents, and lengthened the cords: so that herein now is his glory shown in having multitudes, people, nations, languages, to flow in to him, Dan. 7.14. Is. 2.2, 3, 4. Behold, thou shalt call a nation which thou knewest not, and nations which knew thee not shall run unto thee, Is. 55.5. there is Gods call of a Nation, and the Nations answer to that call, which being spoken of Christ under the Gospel, Rom. 9.26. Rom. 10.19. is manifest proof for our national Churches, as others have observed.  
For as the whole people of the Jews were the Church of God, and so accounted a holy seed, a chosen generation, a sanctified people, Ezra 9.2. Deut. 14.3. Dan. 8.24. God's vine, the daughter of his people, his children, Deut. 14.1. insomuch that every man, woman and child of them, without exception, are taken into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. There were many of them ignorant persons, Is. 1.3. Is. 5.13. many of them wicked persons, Ps. 81.11. Amos 3.2. Yet are they owned of God for his people, and so called his people, children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. children of the covenant, Acts 3.25. Deut. 32.6. in reference to this covenant-relation. Hear O my people, and I will testify against thee, I am God, even thy God, Psal. 50.7. I entered covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine, Ez. 16.8. He came to his own, and his own received him not, Jo. 1.11. they are called his own still, though they refused him.  
So is it now with all those Nations that having had the Gospel preached, and answering to that Gospel have received the doctrine of Christ, submitting to his Ordinances in profession of his name, they are hereby engrafted into the Jews olive or covenant, Rom. 11.17. with Rom. 2.26. and so to be reckoned, as they were, the people of God, 1 Pet. 2.10. Believers, Acts 8.12, 13. Disciples, Jo. 6.66. Christians, Acts 11.26. Saints by calling, 1 Cor. 1.2. the Church of the Gentiles, and Kingdom of Christ. Mat. 13.41.  
And to this purpose do such texts as these, Mi. 4.2. Jer. 4.2. Zach. 2.11. Is. 65. 1. Rom. 4.17. Matt. 21.43. Ps. 86.9. Is. 25.6. Ps. 22.27. Ps. 2.8. Zach. 14.9. etc. (See Mr. hudson's Vind. p. 16. and Mr. Baxt. Inf: Bap: p. 339, 340. Edit. 3.) speak of the Church very largely and magnificently under the Gospel. The same covenant, says Rutherford (Treat. Cou. p. 73. & 343.) that was made with Abraham, is made with the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 6.16. I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And as that is extended to the whole Jews, Leu. 26.12, 13. So are the whole Gentiles, Is. 55.4, 5. Is. 11.10. Is. 60.1, 2. All Nations, Isa. 2.1, 2. All flesh, Is. 66.23. Is. 40.5. Psal. 65.2. All the kindreds of the earth, Ps. 22.26, 27. The Kingdoms of the world, Rev. 11.15. From the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof, Mal. 1.11. (to wit, even as many of them as the Lord our God shall call, Act. 2.39.) said to become the people of God under the New Testament.   

SECT. 2.  
I Know indeed, for all these many and arge expressions every where in Scripture, some eminent Divines do conceive the Church and Covenant ought to be restrained to the regenerate only, and that none else are really, but nominally & aequivocally Church-members. And so I remember Arminius expresses it for them, Disp. pub. Thes. 18. Sec. 15. Vocati, et non electi, ad ecclesiam visibilem pertinere judicantur, quanquam Aequivocè, quum ad invisibilem non pertine an't.  
This doctrine enforces them to distinguish, between what gives right as to a man's own part unto Church-membership and the Ordinances, and that which gives right to be admitted; whereas the truth is, these are Relata, quorum posito & sublato uno, ponitur & tollitur alterum; Besides, there is this grievous inconvenience it runs downright into, that the Minister shall be bound to administer the Ordinances (particularly the Sacrament) unto people, when they are bound upon pain of damnation not to take them. Upon this arises inextricable difficulties which as they incline men to separations, so they leave the doubtful Christian in such a case, that he can hardly ever act in faith upon such foundations.  
It is my opinion therefore, that the Covenant may be considered in the special grace thereof and in ernal administration, and thus it belongs only to the elect and regenerate: Or in the general grace and external administration of the Ordinances, and thus it belongs to the whole Church as visible, and to the several members alike, whether regenerate or not.  
My reasons for this latitude are these:  

1. It is manifest that the whole Nation of the Jews, Deut. 29. were Gods peculiar people, in covenant with him, by the texts forequoted; and this is amply proved by Mr. Blake, Treat. Cou. p. 189, 190. but that most of them were only aequivocally so, is by others assumed gratis.  
2. It is plain, that the Gentiles are engrafted into the Olive of the Jews, Rom. 11.24. that is, into their external covenant, which covenant must be the covenant of grace, for else it could be no prejudice for any of them to be broken off, nor privilege for any of us to be engrafted in. And it must be as to the external administratiò, for else neither could any of them be broken off, not any of us engrafted in.  
3. It appears, that the Promise or covenant of Grace in the external administration belongs to all that the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2.39. To those that are afar off, (that is, the Gentiles) and their children, when the Lord should call any of their parents, as it did for the present to the Jews, and theirs.  
4. The called, no doubt, are many more than the elect; many are called, but few chosen. The called are such, as Mr. Blake phrases it, as are brought in covenant, The chosen, such as are brought up to the terms of it. Now it is to be considered, The called contain the chosen. As there is an outward vocation, and an effectual vocation, yet that outward is real as well as the other; So there is an outward being in covenant, and effectual, (as we speak for distinctions sake,) Yet that outward is real, not aequivocally only.  
5. The Scripture puts a real difference between the Nation of the Jews, as being in covenant, Rom. 3.1. and 9.4. and others that were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel, without hope, without God in the world, Eph. 2.12. but if none but the regenerate are in covenant, there is no such difference externally between a Jew and Gentile, Christian and Heathen, but aequivocally only, in which manner methinks the Scripture should not be made to speak so abundantly.  
6. For this latitude, as to Obligation and privilege of Ordinances, it is evident, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant ye shall keep between me and you, every manchild among you shall be circumcised. Here I note, that the waiting on God's ordinance, is the keeping the covenant itself, in the external administration; And surely there is so much plain strength in the instance of circumcision, Gen. 17. Jud. 5. from this large right of Ordinances from covenant-relation, that it alone will hold against all can be said against it.  
7. Excellent Mr. Baxter in his Inf: Bap: p. 224. mihi Ed. 3. highly commending Mr. Blakes opening of the conditional covenant, and affirming that he hath fully proved, that the reprobate (meaning of professors) is within the verge of it, he adds, And doubtless this imerest in the covenant is afruit of Christ's death. Now if it be so, how can it be aequivocal only? that is, an interect or privilege, which will become a lie, and dissimulation for those that have it, to assume; and can that be a fruit of Christ's death?  
8. If no unregenerate Christian be in covenant but aequivocally, then must not such a one bring his child to baptism, nor partake himself of Christian communion, but it is a mere mockery of Christ (as some seem to me here to speak harshly) to avoid which, he must tenounce his profession, and never come to the Supper, and to the other Ordinances, but only as an Heathen and Infidel.  
9 Then those that are disciples of Christ (for so was Judas) must not be caught to do all things Christ hath commanded, Mat. 28.20.  
10. The Scripture (as Mr. Blake urges) speaks of dealing falsely in covenant, breaking, and not being steadfast in it: but if the regenerate only be in covenant, there can be no such thing really, but nominally only.  
11. Christ said expressly to the twelve, Do this, Drink you all of it, that was a command, and yet one of them was unregenerate; From whence it follows, that receiving the Sacrament is a duty of a disciple, though unregenerate, and so the covenant, as to privilege of ordinances, belonging to such. For my part, I cannot but think those titles of Disciples, Believers, Christians, Saints by calling, and the like, given to all within the Church, are titles of right, and not nominal only. We must distinguish (says Timson) of believing in a large sense, and of believing in a strict sense, both to be accounted true believing in Scripture sense: The denomination of a believer, (and so Saint, Christian,) is as well derived from a right object believed on, as from the holiness of the subject believing. (Answ. to Mr. Col: p. 153.) It is in my apprehension appositely spoken.  
12. The covenant is founded upon grace. Gratia (says Bullinger, Decad. 5. Ser: 6.) est favor numinis, quo Deus pater, nos propter Christum complectitur, et donis instruct. Now in the Scripture there is twofold grace; General grace, and Special grace; God is said to love all, (that he would have all to be saved) yet elect some; Christ is said to die for all, and to die for his sheep; Both these are true, whatsoever men contend, the Scripture must be believed, and we must not argue from the one to the destruction of the other. To define this sense orthodoxly how both are reconciled, who is so wise to undertake? One Cottier, a grave French-Protestant Divine, in an Epistle of his to one of their Provincial Assemblies, and well approved of by them, having studied this point long, says thus. Ad haec respondemus, non esse asystata, quia gradu & modo differunt. Deum putamus posse magìs et minùs velle. Par est majora magìs, minora minùs velle. Quod verò de Deo dicitur, Christo etiam convenit, Pro omnibus mortuus, magis vero pro Electis. Doctor Twisse says thus often, Fatemur et nos Christum-mortuum esse pro: omnibus et singulis, hoc sensu, nempe ut inomnes & singulos per mortem ejus redundet salus, modò in ipsum credant. Lib. 2. Crim. 4. Sect. 6. For my part, I dare not be peremptory in determining this sense of General grace, it suffices me that there is some sense thereof according to the word of truth, and I shall only observe this one thing, that in the Scripture this General grace belonging to all in some Orthodox sense whatsoever it be, is often appropriated to the visible Church, who are said to be redeemed, to be in Christ, and sanctified with his blood: in way of distinction from the world; when some of them are reprobates, and perish with it, 2 Pet. 2.1. Jo. 15.2. Heb. 10.29. And herein I do conceive we may see how the covenant of grace in this latitude to the whole Church may stand upon a real, and not an aequivocal foundation; and that will be, if we do not reckon the unregenerate and non-elect to be in covenant in reference to special grace, as Christ is said to die for his sheep and elect, whereof these cannot partake indeed, only in the account of men, which is nominally only; but in reference to General grace, as Christ is said to die for all (and that not nominally, aequivocally, in the account of men only; but really, so that the tender and offer of Christ to all is serious and real) as it is appropriated to the Church that receives it, with distinction of privilege from the heathen or world, that do not receive this grace and Gospel, but deny it. And this by the way I shall humbly offer, for the removing some grand objections which stick with many. For instance, The Sacraments are signs of grace, instituted to testify the being and having the thing, says. Gillespie, Aar: rod blos. B. 3. c. 13. Therefore they belong to the regenerate only. Again, It is not credible that Christ should say, This is my body broken for you, and my blood shed for you, if Judas were amongst the other disciples. B. 3. c. 8. Again, The Sacrament is the communion of the body & blood of Christ, with the like. I answer, The Sacraments are signs directly of this general Grace, as it is appropriated in Scripture to the Church and they do testify to every nember the being and their having thereof, by way of advantage and distinction from the world; And thus, as it is credible that Christ should say there are some branches in him that yet are fruitless; that Peter should say, some are bought by the Lord, that deny him; and Paul, that some are sanctined by the blood of the covenant, that trample upon it, according to the texts forequoted; So is it credibse that Christ should say these words, This is my body broken for you, to Judas among the rest, and in the same sense is there a communion of Christ's body and blood to all within the Church, (even as Moses says to all the people. Rehold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. Ex. 24.8. Heb. 9.19.20.) though some of them be professors only. Two things here may be demanded, 1. How can this General grace of the covenant be appropriated to the Church, which belongs to all the world? I answer. It belongs to the world only in regard of publication, tender, and a kind of potential interest if they come in; but it belongs to the Church by way of actual interest, as already come in (See my rejoined. p. 202.) so that one is said to be in covenant, and the others yet aliens, from it, Eph. 2. 12.2ly. What is that than which brings a man into this outward actual interest in the covenant, whereby this General grace thereof belongs to him by way of privilege now, when as yet he is no more partaker of the Special grace thereof than before? I answer with Mr. Hudson, Vind. p. 8. There are two Sieves which God useth, the first is to sift the world into a visible ecclesiastical body; The second is to sift this visible ecclesiastical body, into a spiritual invisible body. The one Sieve is managed by the hands of the Minister, the other is in the hands of God only: Into the one a man is brought by the outward call of the Minister, and his own answering that call in receiving the doctrine of Christ, and subjection to the Ordinances; Into the other a man is brought only by election and regeneration.  
13. Lastly, The covenant under the New Testament is said to be better than under the Old, Heb. 7.22. & 8.6. But to account this privilege of Ordinances which was in common to the Jews (as is proved before) to belong now only to the regenerate, is to make it worse under the New testament than under the Old, which is injurious to do. Arbitrari (says Calvin, Inst. l. 4. c. 16. Sec. 6.) Christum adventu sno patris gratiam immiovisse, aut decurtasse, execrabili blasphemia non vacat. I know some do make this difference between the New and Old Testament, that the Jews were all called God's people, and reckoned in covenant, though many of them were wicked; but it is not so now (say they) under the New. Against these I shall oppose only those two plain texts, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12. there are scandalous persons enumerated, a Fornicator, covetous, drunkard, yet within, (that is, within the Church and covenant) yet a brother. So 2 Thess. 3.15. There is the disorderly person, yet count him not as an enemy; that is happily (considering the word in other places, as Rom. 11.28. Eph. 2.16.) count him not as one out of the Church, an Unbeliever or Heathen, but admonish him as a brother. And indeed, unless such be looked on as brethren, and as within, how can there be any excommunication, for what have we to do to judge those that are without? I know that Cameroes' authority is here quoted, but that grave and pious man Mr. Blake hath made it his business to confute this difference, in the 27, 28, and 29 Chapters of his Treatise of the Covenant; wherein as I find Mr. Anthony Burgess particularly in this point commending that Tract as solid and judicious, in his second part of Justif: after he had seen what hath been put in against it; likewise Mr. Vines, and others; So do I humbly judge his labours therein are worthy to be attested, as very serviceable to the Church's peace.    

SECT. 3.  
Unto the Church, under that notion, as his Church, or people, the Lord hath vouchsafed his ordinances by way of privilege and distinction from the world. He shown his word to Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Israel, he hath not done so to any nation, as for his judgements they have not known them, Ps. 147.19, 20. Ps. 78.5, 6, 7. What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way, chief because that unto them were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3.12. To them pertaineth the adoption, the convenants and the service of God, Rom. 8.4. with Eph. 2.12. Upon this account, do our Divines solidly (as I think) make the Ordinances, the right administration of the Word and Sacraments (under which, a profession of the doctrine of Christ, prayer, and other worship is comprehended) to be the notes or marks of the visible Church. It is true indeed, that the Gospel is to be preached unto every creature to bring men in unto the Church, as the Jew's no doubt might use the Word to make proselytes, nevertheless the word of God as other ordinances, cannot be said to pertain unto any out of the Church, in the sense of the Scriptures now mentioned, until they receive the doctrine thereof, and externally subject themselves to the same. For this same privilege of ordinances, or this donation of ordinances by way of privilege to the Church, in distinction from others, is a thing to be stood upon as a matter very considerable, both because, if we let this advantage fall, we shall presently levelly a Christian with an Heathen, the Church of Christ, with the Pagan world: and also because the Lord hath appointed these his ordinances (whereby the advantage of them does appear) to be the ordinary means of bestowing his effectual grace, which he hath indefinitely promised in the use thereof.   

SECT. 4.  
Upon this latitude of the convenant, and this privilege of ordinances belonging thus to the Church, as a proprium quarto modo, or an essential mark thereof, it must follow, that every member in statu quo, must have a right ●evolved on him, or flowing to him from that relation as a member. Only here we must observe two distinctions.  

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

SECT. 5.  
FRom this concession of mine about Infants and the Distracted, it cannot be argued, à pari, by my opposers, for an exclusion of all ignorant, unregenerate, and scandalous persons.  
1. Because in the one they stand wholly on the point of Right, but in the other we look only on the use of that tied. The unregenerate (say they) have no right to the Sacrament, and if they be visibly so, through ignorance or scandal, they must be excluded: We say Infants and the distracted, have a right, but only they have not reason to manage their right, as the other have; so here is no parity. The truth is, it is membership (as before) that alone gives right, so that though a person be unregenerate he may have a right to the ordinance, and whether he be Infant, Distracted, Ignorant or Scandalous, it is all one for that, if he be a member, this external right is the same in the one as in the other; Now the right being the same, in the use of the right must lie all the difference; which between these is plain enough; the one have the exercise of reason, and are thereby able to act from a principle of reverence towards God, the other have not. The Corinth's sin of not discerning the Lords body, was more of carelessness or profaneness, than bare ignorance; there is as much difference between Infants and Ignorants, (as I have said otherwhere) as between a Do not, and a Cannot, if the one does not, it is their fault; but the other cannot, and are excused.  
2. Because there is yet a farther thing here, most considerable, and that is this. The very ground upon which we are to do any thing, or leave it undone, is the consideration of duty; The command of God, as it is our rule, so it must be the reason of our actions. Now there is a difference in the very point of obligation or duty, between Infants and Distracted persons, and Ignorant and Scandalous persons. The command of the Apostle is this, 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, discerning the Lord's body; Now as for Infants, and the Distracted, they are not bound to this command, it is impossible for such to examine themselves, and discern the Lords body; and there can be no obligation to that which is naturally impossible: But as for. Scandalous and Ignorant persons, they are bound to examine themselves, they are of capacity, and are bound to get knowledge, and discern the Lords body, Who can deny that they are bound to do this, and that if they do it not, it is their sin? It is true, an ignorant person cannot examine himself, as well as a knowing Christian; but he can examine himself though so far that he is bound to it: He cannot hear and apply the Word, as a man of more knowledge; but he can hear and apply the Word after a sort, though as an ignorant man, which he is bound unto; and so far as he can apply the word, he can examine himself, the doing of one, is a doing of the other. Likewise, an unregenerate man cannot discern the Lord's body with that faith and love as the regenerate do; but yet nevertheless, in point of duty, the case is plain, every man must do still what he can, that God may help him to do what he cannot. That which is a sin to neglect or leave undone, is a duty to be done; but it is a sin in Ignorant and Scandalous persons not to examine themselves and discern the Lords body, and no fin in Infant and Distracted persons; and therefore it is a duty in the one, and not in the other. And if it be a duty, here comes in then this rule, which can never be taken off, that Man's impotency in the manner of performance of a duty, must not make void God's authority in the substance; and so I close up this, if there be a duty incumbent upon Ignorant and Scandalous members in respect of this Sacrament, which is not on Infants, and those which have not the use of reason, then can there be no argument here from the non-admission of the one, to the exclusion of the other. And this might suffice, but I will add.  
3. It cannot be reasonably imagined that such a state of persons (as Infants and Idiots) in the Church should be admitted to actual receiving, that in the discretion of the Church are no proper objects of Church-censures in point of offending, which grown persons in the Church are, though never so ignorant. As John Timson hath put in to my assistance in his Bar removed, p. 6. I will add, it is as unreasonable likewise that such a state of men in the Church as ignorant persons, should not be capable of a right of receiving the Sacrament, who are upon their misdemeanour liable to a censure of exlusion from it. Eadem est ratio contrariorum.  
4. The non-admission of Infants, and Distracted or Idiots, is the office of every single Minister, belonging only to the right administering of the ordinance; so that the precept alone, Let a man examine himself, and discern the Lords bodies, does suffice for the doing thereof: But exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons is an act of Jurisdiction, and belonging (according to the Presbyterians) to the Elders: so that there are other texts required, upon the account whereof that is to be done, to wit, those texts which concern discipline, as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Put away from among you such a person. There is not therefore the same reason for the one, as for the other, as may be gathered farther from what will follow. There is more required, and another ground, to an act which is ecclesiastically inflictive of punishment, than to a bare act of pastoral discretion.  
5. The Ordinances all are to be used only for edification: Now the work of the Sacrament on the receiver being only by way of sign, as the understanding is exercised thereon, it is not possible, that those who have not the use of reason to discern any meaning here of can be edified, or have any real grace wrought on them by it. But for such as are of years & understanding, though spiritually ignorant and scandalous, though unregenerate (for the regenerate may sometimes be such) I do conceive they are capable through the grace of God to receive good by it, as by the word; the Sacrament being nothing else but a visible word, or an appendix to the Gospel.  
As for the ignorant in the first place, I suppose such as are of age and reason, let the Minister speak of Man's misery, redemption by Christ, and tell the people plainly the meaning of the Sacrament they come unto, in as few plain words as they can and aught, who can deny that they may not receive instruction) and with instruction, conviction) now at this time they are here, as at another? If they do not, the fault will be their Ministers or their own. The Sacrament, mediante verbo, through the word, will be granted a teaching ordinance, but the Word does accompany the Sacrament, and is indeed a part of it. The Novices of the Jews were instructed in the meaning of the Passeover and some mysteries of their Religion; at their eating the Passeover (Godwin, Jewish Antiq. l. 3. c. 4.) the Paschal Lamb was appointed for a teaching sign, and memorial in their generations, Exod. 12.26, 27. So doubtless is the Sacrament a teaching sign also. I must confess, if you will say that some are so grossly ignorant that they are not capable for the present to learn, or be instructed by public teaching, then may you have the liberty for me to number them amongst Idiots, and such as have not the use of reason, and so deal with them accordingly; and if indeed there be such, we had best happily, for avoiding cavil, to distinguish between these (excepting them, together with Infants and the Distracted) and those whom I speak of, that though they be ignorant, are of discretion and capacity to edify by the public ordinances; and as for such, it seems to me against sense to deny that they may not receive instruction and edification by the Word that accompanies the Sacrament, (especially in things of the Sacrament) as well as by that which goes before, or after it. And by the way, as for the younger sort come out of their childhood, my judgement is with Aquinas, Quando pueri incipiunt aliqualem usum rationis habere, ut possint devotionem hujus Sacramenti concipere, tunc potest eis hoc Sacramentum conferri, Part 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 4.  
For the Scandalous in the next place, I would have some to know or consider that the Sacrament is an ordinance wherein the curse and wrath of God against sin is held forth in the sufferings of Christ, as well as pardon upon repentance, Herein is the joint strength of the Law and Gospel applied in power to the understanding, and a most high-aggravating of sin upon the conscience, says Mr. Blake, in his late Book, called The Covenant sealed, in reference to his former, The Covenant opened, ch. 7. Sect. 13. Arg. 3. & 4. A sin-aggravating, heart-breaking, soul-humbling ordinance (as he calls it) is a means to reclaim even a scandalous sinner.  
Reader, I speak not these things on the one hand, to hinder Catechism, Examination, and any means of private conference for the bringing our people unto knowledge; Nay, I am not against a prudential making use of this season to this end; but only in regard that few Ministers do or can go to all their people, and their people will not come to them, I do conceive it may be satisfactory to their spirits in doing their office, that though some persons be ignorant, yet coming to the Supper, and hearing the nature and use of the Sacrament laid open, there is hope through God's grace, that they may receive at the very time competent information to be edified and wrought on by it. I will speak plainly, they may receive instruction for the knowing (according to their model) the wretchedness of sin, that Christ is the Son of God, through whose name alone we can be saved, and that he is held forth as crucified in the elements, and tendered to believers, which is as much as Mr. Blake says, he dares require to admittance, Cou. Seal. p. 233. Again on the other hand, I speak not neither to favour the scandalous, my doctrine is rather too harsh in the casting them out, yet am I not so far gone, as to think that it is not possible for such a person (not yet under censure) to be wrought on, or edified by this ordinance. No, let but a right application of what is held forth herein be made by every receiver, according to the state of his soul, and what can be more effectual through the word to break his heart? Let the man which is most keen against sin, consider what I have proposed in my rejoinder, p. 37, 39, 40, 75, 76. 112, 113.235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 255. and he will see this is no lose doctrine I have taught.  
Neither may they say this is no means to work grace or repentance, but confirm it; this is not an ordinance for conversion; but for edification▪ For I say otherwise, It is a means of edification and salvation, and therefore unto some likewise of conversion. The whole exercise of Christ's officers in dispensing the word, seals, and all other ordinances of Christ, say the London Divines, (in their Jus Divin. Reg. Ec. p. 36.) is for the edifying the Church of Christ, or the visible body, Eph: 4.11, 12. with v. 4, 5, 6. & 1 Cor. 12.11, 12. From hence then I argue, If the Lord hath appointed all his ordinances within the Church for the edification of the whole, and there be some unregenerate within the Church, then is the Sacrament appointed for some unregenerate men's edification, and consequently their conversion, for otherwise such cannot at all be edified unto salvation. But the former is true, therefore the latter. Again, The solemn application of the covenant to a man's self, according to his estate, to wit, of salvation through Christ, if he will believe and repent, and of judgement from Christ, if he continues in his sins, and does not turn effectually to him, is the very only way whereby the Spirit usually worketh conviction and sincere conversion: But actual receiving of the Sacrament is a solemn means of such an application. Ergo. I pray see what I have written in the forequoted places for the clearing of this, and compare it with the substance of what Mr. Blake hath put in since (and, it may be, more cautiously expressed) in the said place of his Cov: Seal. p. 204. & 240. which hath much confirmed me; and I am persuaded, when this matter is a little more laid to heart, that many will not only be ready to confess with him, (ibid. p. 240.) that there is more weight herein, than personally hath been acknowledged; but also, that though it be objected against my doctrine, that it strengthens the hands of the wicked, Ez. 13.22. yet shall the godly find here a sword put in their hands for the smiting the wicked, the secure, and hypocrite, up to the heart, with this Sacrament itself; while they are but taught to apply what is held forth to them according to their condition.  
Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes for all this may be piously advised upon the account of prudence, and the solemnity of the ordinance, to do more good by it; (which I shall speak something of in the end, to yield what may be, to the satisfying the pious) but this will not come up to a necessity. All the disciples of Christ were ignorant in the fundamentals of Christ's death and resurrection, and Judas was scandalous (See my rejoined. page 15.) yet Christ excluded neither of them at his Supper.   

SECT. 6.  
WEll now, let thus much be considered, that the Lord hath his Church in such a latitude, to take into it whole Nations, regenerate and unregenerate; That the privilege of ordinances belongs to this Church by way of distinction of it from the world▪ That every member thereof therefore hath a right unto the ordinances devolved on him from this Church-covenant-relation: While yet it is confessed, that there are some which through their incapacity of reason cannot use the same. The result of all will come to this, that there is no person of discretion within the Church can be debarred any public ordinance, particularly the Sacrament, before he be turned out of the Church, with which, this privilege of ordinances is convertible, and from it inseparable. The Sacrament is the communion, or token of our communion in Jesus Christ; But every Church-member in statu quo, is in Christ, Jo. 15.2. and in some sense partaker of his blood, so as to sanctify him, Heb. 10 29. and redeem him, 2 Pet. 2.1. and therefore his right is good to that which is in the same sense the token hereof; So long as he is in communion, how can he be debarred the communion? while he is in the body, he may partake of the body; The Church is the body of Christ, and so long as we are one body, we are one bread, and partakers of that one bread.  
I must yet follow moreover, if it cannot be proved that Jesus Christ hath given order for the casting out some from the Church, so far that for the present they are thereby cut off their external covenant-Church-relation, we must maintain a promiscuous communion, in the largest way, as learned Musculus, and others before Erastus have done; which yet I dare in no wise approve, so far as it opposes an Ecclesiastical government distinct from the Civil within the Church. It is my opinion therefore, that the Lord Jesus hath set up a power of the Keys under the Gospel, distinct from the Magistrate, whereby he hath taken order, that if there be any persons within the Church that are scandalous, and remain obstinate after due admonition, that they are to be cast out by the censure of Excommunication, which being such as turns them out from the Church (Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor, 5.7, 13. Io. 9.22.3. Io. 10.) their right unto the ordinances must needs fall together with their Church-relation, and then they are justly to be kept from the Sacrament. So that I herein declare against an Erastian indisciplinary promiscuous communion, though I stand for an orthodox disciplinary Free-admission.  
And here I will advance this one argument against Erastus, which will stand, I suppose, when others will not; and it is this. If the Scripture does allow an exclusion of some from the Church in general, or from her society and communion in general, then may some be excluded from the Sacrament, because the Sacrament is a part of that communion. But the Scripture does allow and command this, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Purge out the old leven; Keep no company; Put away jrom among you such a person; Let him be to thee as, an heathen. Therefore an exclusion from the Sacrament upon those grounds as do respect it only as a part of Church-society in general, is to be maintained against the Erastian by excommunication; as an exclusion upon other grounds, as particularly from the distinct nature of the ordinance is to be opposed against others that would have it without excommunication.   

SECT. 7:  
FOr the Excommunicate, there is a received distinction of such that are so, Either Ipso jure, or De facto; Those are accounted ipso jure excommunicate, whose scandal and impenitency is evident to the Church, that there need no trial for their conviction. Those are de facto excommunicate who have farther a legal sentence passed on them. It must be acknowledged that many Divines and Churches of God have allowed the Minister a liberty to withhold the Sacrament from persons Excommunicate ipso jure, before sentence; unto whose reverend authority, I have ever judged with due limitation much is to be submitted; so that upon their score I have expressed myself in my rejoined. p. 21, 26. so fare, that supposing there are scandals, 1. Notorious, that they offend the Congregation. 2. Open, that they need no proof or debate. 3. Actual, or in the present fact, that no repentance can be pleaded, it may not matter much, if you deal with such as excommunicate, when you judge it like to do good. In extraordinary cases, some extraordinary proceed break no squares. Nevertheless (ordinarily) upon my farthest consideration, I do believe it a thing more consonant to the scope of the Scripture, and less liable to opposition, to resolve that an ecclesiastical judgement first pass upon a person, before he be excluded any part of our Churches public communion: and therefore I do own here that thing (as fit and good) which is noted by Mr. Collings, Vind. Suspens: & Presb: p. 36. That though I grant to the Minister thus much upon a pinch, in case of some intolerable evil, yet as to what is ordinarily to be done, all my arguments are so framed, as to conclude, that a person must not be only de jure, but also the facto excommunicate, before he be debarred his admission.  
My reasons are, 1 Because the Apostle commanding the Corinth's, 1 Cor. 5. Not to keep company nor eat with those brethren, that were fornicators, drunkards, railers, and the like, lays down expressly this proceeding, For do not ye judge those that are within? v. 12. that is, this not keeping company is intended no otherwise, than upon a judgement foregoing. This refusing to eat with such a one, was by virtue of a judicial sentence (says Gillespie, Aar. rod. bloss. p. 430.) past against the scandalous person. And Beza, De Presb. p. 57 So in 2 Thess. 3.14. If any obey not, note that man, and have no company with him. The disorderly person is first to be noted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, according to our chief Anti- Erastian Divines, Beza, Hammond, Rutherford, Gillespy. Set a mark upon him, or a censure, and then withdraw from him. Indeed it is a question whether this Note or Judging, in these texts be authoritative, or private only; I must confess if they be not authoritative, but of private discretion, as Erastus holds, than this will not reach the purpose, nor this Have no company, I suppose then, reach to the Sacrament.  
2. Because it seems not reasonable, that a penalty should be inflicted on a person before a judgement be given. I will express this in the words of Reverend Bowls, quoted by another out of his Evangelical Pastor. Qui omnium pessimi, usque dum ecclesia suâ sententiâ decretoriâ pro canibus et porcis habendos declaraverit, non mihi cum illis ut canibus & porcis agendum est. Latronem, qui mortem commeruit, nullus jure de vitâ tollat usque dum judex et reum declaraverit et sententiam tulerit.  
3. Because there are like to follow many flippery and dangerous inconveniences upon the allowing the Minister power of doing otherwise: insomuch as I find Beza in his book against Erastus, very often, and very earnestly methinks, speaking to this purpose. Etiamsi suis oculis minister quempiam viderit aliquid agentem, quod coenae exclusionem mereatur, jure tamen nec debeat nec possit, nisi vocatum, convictum, legitimè denique secundum constitutum in ecclesia ordinem, damnatum, à mensa domini, cum authoritate prohibere. See p. 26. 23. 75, etc.  
4. Because Exclusion from the Sacrament, according to my judgement, is not to be allowed by any means upon those reasons which are most stood upon from the nature of the ordinance itself, as distinct herein from others, but upon the account of discipline only. To exclude from the Lords Supper (says Scholastical Mr. Jeanes as the subject of his discourse upon this question, which he hath strongly carried) is a kind of Ecclesiastical punishment, and therefore presupposeth an Ecclesiastical censure; though men have deserved such a punishment, yet it is not to be inflicted on them, until they be legally censured, p. 118. Ed. 2.   

SECT. 8.  
THat my mind here may be clearly understood, the controversy between me and those that oppose me be more fully stated, and some prejudice avoided, I must crave pardon to use some more words, it may be some more than enough, upon this particular.  
In my Vindication of Free-admission (my first little book, p. 33.) for the explaining my conceptions, I have laid down a distinction between discipline and worship. The exercise of the keys, as acts of discipline, I would have accounted one thing, and the use of the ordinances, as acts of worship, to be another. Discipline to be in one element, Worship in another. I know, if some list to be contentious, they may confound these, but docendi gratiâ at least, for the expressing myself, no equitable man can deny me thus to distinguish for my purpose. Now there are two extremes, I conceive, concerning Free-admission to the Lords Supper; On the one hand, of such who are too large for it, and the other of such as are too strict against it.  
There are some then, as hath been touched before, that plead for free admission, not only in regard of Worship, but also in regard of Discipline; disclaiming all exclusion from any of the public Ordinances of God by the censures of the Church, and indeed denying all Ecclesiastical government, distinct from the civil, where the Magistrate is Christian. There are others that plead against free admission, not only in point of Discipline, but also in point of Worship, herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances, that those who have a granted right to all other parts of God's worship and Church-communion as baptised members, are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament, though they be yet under Church-indulgence, and not censured. The Sacrament (say they) requires truth of grace in the receivers; unless a man be regenerate on his own part, he is forbidden to come, and consequently, unless upon trial and examination there be some evidence that he is visibly or probably such, on the Church's part, he must not be admitted. In the middle, between these extremes, my opinion (and the truth, as I think, without engaging others) does lie; Affirming against the former, who are the Erastians', that the Lord Jesus Christ, hath set up a power of the keys in the Church, (as I have said before) and that the Scripture is manifest for an exclusion of some persons (to wit, the scandalous and obstinate) from Christian communion in general, and so consequently from the Lord's Supper, as a part thereof. Nevertheless I do assert likewise against the latter, that there is no Scripture for the exclusion of any from this Sacrament without discipline, but that administering and receiving the Lords Supper, is as free and universal (in the nature thereof to our members) as other parts of Church-communion.  
The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer, and other parts of God's worship, as to the Sacrament; and as the want hereof puts no bar to the one, no more does it to the other. It shall never be proved, I believe, that the Scripture hath advanced this difference between the Sacrament and other ordinances, that herein alone it must be better to omit the matter and manner both, than to do the matter, if it be not done in such manner as it ought, directly contrary to all other duty. In short then, neither the Erastian, nor rigid Suspensioner must have their wills; In point of Discipline, Free-admission is to be denied against the one; In point of worship, Free-admission is to be maintained against the other.  
It is a thing very considerable in the holding any point, upon what grounds it is we hold it; Those that oppose me in my opinion, are very hot for an exclusion from the Sacrament, and I for my own part do allow and uphold the same. An exclusion itself, neither of us do deny, the very difference between us is, upon what grounds or arguments we hold it. Now all those arguments for this exclusion against Free-admission may be reduced to these two heads; Either to such as do arise from the nature of the Sacrament, as distinct herein from all other parts of Church-communion; Or to such as do arise from the nature of discipline, that respects the communion of the Church in general, and so this Sacrament in common with the other parts thereof.  
Arguments of the latter sort are those, and those only which are from such texts. Let him be to thee as an heathen. Keep no company with such. Pu●ge out the old leven. Avoid, withdraw from them. Put away from yourselves such a person; with the like. The sum whereof comes to this briefly. The Scripture commands Excommunication, that is, an exclusion from the Church, and society in general; therefore from the Sacrament also. These arguments now, I conceive, are firm; Free-admission, as Erastus holds it, I maintain not.  
Arguments of the former sort, are such as these. The Sacrament is appointed only for the regenerate. It is a seal of Faith, and set to a blank, if given to any others. Every one else does but necessarily eat and drink damnation in the Apostles sense, with the like. Now these arguments, I conceive, are to be satisfied, & taken off as such as are both invalid, and do hurt. Free-admission will stand for all them. Alas! were all such arguments conclusive and true, what will become of the poor doubtful Christian? How shall he act in faith? How shall the Minister himself act? What will become of the Church's unity and peace, the command of Christ, and the foundation of discipline? If it be from the nature of the Sacrament, and these grounds, upon which men are to be excluded, then must they be excluded if there were no discipline; then must the keeping away of such not be an act of vindicative but distributive Justice. As a godly Father shuts his stubborn son from prayers in his family, and from his presence: So does the Church (as I conceive) exclude her refractory children. It is not because the coming to prayer is not the duty of such a child, and is not a means to do him good; No; but because indeed it is so, the Father would make him sensible hereby how highly he hath offended him, and how much the more heinous is his evil, to reclaim him. A man hath enjoyed those privileges and means of grace which should have done him good, so long, and he grows but the worse: Well now, the Church in her exclusion, does as it were say thus to him, I will teach you Friend (1 Tim. 1.20.) to make better use hereof when I again admit you to them. If the Sacrament were not a man's privilege before, and for his benefit, than could not (as I say) Suspension be a judicial proceeding; It were not a punishment, but a deliverance; That cannot be in way of punishment, that is only to preserve a person from that which is noxious, and can be no ways any good to him. It is not upon such grounds therefore we must stand; the Scripture knows no such advancement (whatsoever humane prudence may make) of this Ordinance above her fellows in point of duty; but for aught I know, leaves every man free in the use of this, as well as all other of his outward privileges, until he be legally deprived of the same by a juridical censure,  
To this purpose (farther) It is a question, Whether the debarring of persons from the Sacrament, be an act specialis muneris, of the power of order, belonging to the Minister singly; or of the power of Jurisdiction, not belonging to him alone, but in common with others, that are rulers in the Church The Schoolmen (as Mr. Jeanes tells us p. 95.) are of the former opinion, who affirm, that this denegation of the Sacrament if not to be considered as a judicial action, or inflictive of punishment, but only as a prudent and faithful administering of the ordinance; (Suarez. in part. 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 67. Sect. 3. p. 856.) and so belonging to every private Minister alone, by virtue of his office. Now let this be well considered, and if any of the arguments of the former sort (last mentioned) be binding, that is, if it can be proved that the nature of the Sacrament be such, that those who have a full right, and are in actual possession of all other parts of Church-communion, have yet no right hereunto, and upon this account are to keep, and be kept away from it, then must these Schoolmen in all reason be in the right, and the denegation thereof to such, be requisite to the faithful administering the ordinance, which is the office no doubt of the single Minister; But the reverend Presbyterians, generally disliking that such a power should be left to every single Minister, wisely considering the dangerous consequents thereof also determine, that this same excl●… from the Sacrament, does belong to the power of Jurisdiction, and consequently, if they will be consonant to themselves, they should deny that any of those arguments which arise from the nature of the ordinances alone, as distinct from others, are cogent, and stand upon those only that arise from discipline.  
As for the Schoolmen, by the way, it will be no wonder if they stand u●… those arguments from the nature of the Sacrament, as herein transcending all other ordinances, whose superstitious conceit of Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament, could not choose but induce them to it; as may appear upon their solutions of such questions as these, Utrum peccator sumens corpus Christi Sacramentalitèr peccet? Videtur quod non; Quia, Sicut hoc Sacramentum semitur gustu & tactu, ita & visu; At peccator non peccat videndo. Respondeo, Quòd per visum non accipitur ipsum corpus Christi, sed solum Sacramentum ejus. Sed ille qui manducat, non solum sumit species Sacramentales, sed etiam ipsum Christum qui est sub eyes. Aquinas Part 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 4. Upon such answers as these, I am the ●●…e moved with their thoughts about this matter; as also with some passages often quoted out of some of the Fathers. Of whom I do observe, that those out of whose writings the Papists usually have most for them, are most harsh, and high flown in their expressions about keeping of sinners from the Sacrament, as chrysostom (a man of a hot spirit, according to his life, Soc: Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14 & 16.) and those, whose writings are quoted as most clear on our side, (as Augustine) are more solute and open in their speeches about admission.   

SECT. 9  
THese things laid down, the substance of the controversy between me and others, about Free-admission, will amount to these two questions.  

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

SECT. 10.  
FOr the former of these questions, It seems to me, (as is before said) that were the Presbyterian judgement right and uniform to its self, I should not need to have any dispute with them; for, if Suspension, or exclusion from the Sacrament, be no other than a juridical action, which those that are for Ruling Elders do, and aught to maintain, then can no argument from the distinct nature of this ordinance, that would conclude this exclusion, though there were no discipline, be of sufficient force for it. It there be one such, then is this exclusion thereby proved to belong to the Ministers office in his faithful administration of the Ordinance (as before) and not to the power of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, for aught I see, when they come to dispute, it is these arguments mainly they stand upon. And therefore, for my own part, upon consideration of those perplexities which arise from hence on tender consciences, together with the injury that is hereby offered to the Church in laying the ground of all her divisions and separations (and upon no other interest of parties I profecie in the world) I have thought good to do my endeavour for the answering and taking off those arguments, in what I have formerly written, and I hope I have in some measure done it, especially in my rejoinder, to some men's satisfaction.  
For 1. let but a candid interpretation, be given on that Chapter, 1 Cor. 11. laying no more stress on the words, than the purport of the contents will bear, and so those objections that arise from thence be allayed, which sink deepest; For which, I humbly offer that 4th Section in my rejoinder, p. 29. to 44.2. Let the covenant be laid down in that latitude as the Scripture does, and so those objections from the Sacrament being a seal, be satisfied, seeing the seal (Quoad jus) must be as large as the covenant; For which read p. 170. to 180. 3. Let the Sacrament with all the ordinances be looked upon, as instituted for the visible Church, which consists of the unregenerate as well as the regenerate, and consequently, that it is both the duty and a means (subordinate to the word) for edification of the one as well as the other; whereby that objection, that the Sacrament is for confirmation, and not conversion, is taken off, For, though this ordinance is no converting ordinance to the Heathen, it hinders not, but it may beget grace in a Christian. And I must confess, I sometimes wonder, to see how this sticks upon the spirits of most at their first thoughts: The Sacrament is no ordinance (say they) for the Heathen to convert them; therefore it is no means of conversion: whereas indeed the Sacrament is no ordinance for the Heathen, not because it is not converting, but because God hath appointed it only for his Church. The Sacrament is no confirming ordinance to the Heathen; therefore is it not confirming ordinance? There is the same arguing in both: It is neither a converting nor confirming ordinance to the Heathen, because it is no ordinance at all for them. Notwithstanding, That it is a means for edification of the Church, (as I say, and choose to lay it down so) whether her Members be regenerate or not, I humbly tender my rejoinder, p. 206. to 241. and likewise what learned Mr. Blake hath put in more lately, Cou. Seal. chap. 7. sect. 13 and 14. who doth fully agree with me in this point, and hath easily answered Mr. Gillespyes twenty arguments, which have been stood upon so much by many.  
Let these three things, now I say, be done, as I think they are, and there will be nothing left, as I suppose, that can hold considerable against the negative of the former question; for which, it shall suffice me to produce the judgement of my reverend and pious, though harsh adversary, Doctor Drake himself. Let Mr. Humphrey (says he, p. 116.) prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, and we shall be far enough of hindering any the payment of their debts. Now this is proved in the third particular; The Sacrament is appointed for the Church, the Church consists of unregenerate, as well as others, which is a firm and solid probation; and is indeed that strong bottom (as Mr. Blake acknowledges it, Cou. Seal. p. 247. whatsoever others have said hereof) on which not only my book, but both his too, so far as concerns this matter, are founded.  
And as for that instance of Judas joined by me to the precept, Do this. Drink ye all of it. And they all drank of it. (in the choice of that text, Mark 14.23.) it does add much strength hereunto, let it be taken directly, not on the part of the admitters, as it is usually urged, but on the part of the receivers; Thus. That these words Do this, Drink ye all of it, was spoken to All present, it will be granted. That Judas was present, the Evangelists do as it were command, at least allow us to believe, while they tell us he sat down with the rest, and his hand was at table. Now supposing him present, Christ bids Judas expressly to receive, (to Take) amongst the rest; From whence, actual receiving is irrefragably proved the duty of a disciple, though unregenerate, or in his natural estate. And then you see what Mr. Drake yields me, and what would be won, though he should not; for this foundation, as to the main, must hold so long as the precepts of God can be preserved from being made void by man's tradition. Go and disciple all Nations, says Christ, baptising them, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, Mat. 28.19, 20. From hence we collect, that those who are discipled by baptism, that is, are baptised members, must be taught to observe all the commands of Christ. But the Sacrament is one of Christ's commandments.  
I will only urge here farther one argument, which I must confess, sinks deep into me, as that which is not merely fetched from the brain, but from the hearts of many that are wounded by it. That doctrine which cuts off every doubtful Christian from the Sacrament, is harsh doctrine and not to be endured: (By the Doubtful Christian, I understand a man in doubt of his regeneration, a man that is indeed truly gracious, but doubts so, that he is inclined rather to think he is not.) But this doctrine that holds it not the duty, but unlawful for every unregenerate man to receive, does cut off every doubtful Christian from receiving; Therefore this doctrine is not to be endured. The Major I hope will not be denied, the Minor I prove, That doctrine which concludes it to be sin in the doubtful Christian to receive the Sacrament, cuts off the doubtful Christian from receiving. This is manifest. But this doctrine concludes it to be sin in the doubtful Christian to receive. Probo. That which a man is not fully persuaded in his conscience is lawful to be done, it is sin if it be done: This is the very direct meaning of those words, Rom. 14.23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But if it be not the duty, or it be not lawful, according to this doctrine, for any man which is not regenerate, to receive the Sacrament, then cannot the doubtful Christian, that is in doubt whether he be regenerate or not, be fully persuaded in his conscience, that it is his duty, or that it is lawful for him to receive; and consequently, if he receives, he sins. If he eateth and doubteth, he is damned if he eat. This I humbly conceive is convincing. The argument I presume is strong as it is urged by others on the part of the admitters. If truth of grace be necessarily required to receiving, how shall the Minister act in faith, that cannot be assured of the truth of grace in an other? But as I do urge it thus, on the part of the doubtful receiver himself, I think it is irrefragable. And as it is that, which hath wrought much with me in my rejoined. p. 30, 31. So hath it with pious Timson, who agrees with me in it, Ans. to Mr. Col. p. 51. and likewise Mr. Blake, Cou. Seal. p. 192. wherein you may see a sympathy of our very souls and spirits in this point. I shall not need therefore to say any more of this former question, but refer to what is already written.   

SECT. 11.  
FOr the later question; Were the former granted, that Exclusion from the Sacrament, does indeed belong only to the power of jurisdiction, which the Presbyterians grant; and consequently that no arguments from the nature of this ordinance barely, as distinct from all others, without discipline are firm and cogent for it; which they should grant likewise. Then will the whole dispute between me and them, come to this issue, that they must prove, Either, that there is a power in the Ministers to set up a discipline, or a part of discipline which is not prescribed in the Scripture, a thing which none of them I think will maintain: Or that there is such a part of discipline prescribed, in Scripture, as exclusion from the Sacrament, distinct from exclusion from the Church; that is, Suspension, defined to be, a juridical act of the Officers of the Church; whereby upon their having had due cognizance of such, as are unworthy the Lord's Supper, they deny the Ordinance to them, as a censure, distinct from, and in order to Excommunication.  
And here, that the whole difference between me and the moderate Presbyterian (unless where they fall from their own principles) does indeed come to this only, I shall produce one testimony that may suffice. Reverend Beza, De Presb: & Excom. p. 23. lays down, or yields to us these three things. 

1. That the Supper is instituted for disciples.  
2. That all such as profess Christ, though hypocrites, are disciples. Quales fateor quidem generaliter omnes censeri, qui se tales esse testentur, etiamsi reipsâ nihil minùs sunt quam Christiani.  
3. That they are so to be accounted of, in regard of admission, until they are orderly convicted and sentenced.   Deinde pro non detectis haberi, qui tales esse non fuerint, eo, quem Deus in ecclesiâ constituit ordine, convicti, & pro rebellibus damnati. So pag. 27. Christus, inquit D. Erastus, jussit omnes edere illum panem, et ex poculo illo bibere; Ergo neminem vult excludi qui se suum discipulum profiteatur. Id verò concedimus, adeò quidem ut ipsos etiam hypocritas, quamdiu vel penitus sunt tecti, vel neque authoritate publico convicti, et damnati inter discipulos numeremus. I know some of our Divines of late, but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza (as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gillespy, Mr. D. and others) are more bold with the command of Christ, and taking up Beza for granting thus much, do restrain it to the regenerate only. But this reverend man, who is much rather to be heard, durst not do so, but is plain you see and clear in these concessions,, upon which, the substance of my whole opinion (at least, as to the Ministers part) will stand. For if the Sacrament be instituted for disciples; and all that profess Christ are to be accounted such; and none of them to be excluded, until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed, (as he affirms) then must that disciplinary Free-admission which hold before excommunication, be good, unless it can be proud that there is some other censure in the order God hath appointed, whereby the said rebels are to be condemned, besides excommunication, which I deny. And so you see to what a little point our difference draws. Beza says, they must be convict and sentenced first, before they be excluded, as well as I; only he conceives there is a lesser censure to be first inflicted, before the greater; which I must confess I find not. And herein likewise Beza himself acknowledges thus far, that there is seldom mention in the Scripture of any such lesser censure, but the greater only. Tantum abest ut major excommunicatio censeri possit praeter Dei verbum invecta, ut contra rara sint in ipso verbo Dei expressa minoris excommunicationis exempla; majoris autem multa, p. 11. Now if here instead of rara, he had said nulla, I think he had delivered the very truth.  
My reasons against the affirmative of this question, are these.  
1. Because the Lord Jesus in that primitive institution under the Gospel, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. hath prescribed no other parts or order in discipline, than admonition and excommunication. After the offending party is admonished privately, then publicly, If he will not hear the Church, (says Christ) let him be as an Heathen, that is, let him be excommunicate, according to those that oppose Erastus. Now if the Apostles have prescribed any other order of discipline, than what is prescribed in this original pattern, let it be produced; If not, then may this text be sufficient, that there is no such middle thing in the order Christ hath appointed, as Suspension, between admonition, and excommunication.  
2. Because the power of the Keys are given for binding and losing, which I conceive is done, not in regard of a persons being debarred or admitted any ordinance; The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleanness, yet were not their sins bound thereby; for many times they might become unclean without sin, Leu. 21.3. Numb. 19.8. But in regard of that state and relation men have to the Church outwardly, and Christ, as visible members, from which, while they are excluded, their sins are accordingly, and no otherwise bound or retained (because there is no remission out of the Church, or out of Christ, the visible herein, clavae non errante, presenting the invisible) as they are loosed by being received, in again through repentance. From whence I argue, where the sins of men are not bound or retained, there is no Church-censure, Mat. 16.19. Io. 20.23. But it is not excluding men from the Sacrament, but the excluding them from the Church, and so Relatively from all its benefits, in that sense as we say, Extra quam, non est salus aut remissio, that does bind the sins of men upon earth. Therefore suspension can be no Church-censure distinct from excommunication. See my rejoined. p. 145, 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a state, whereby every member, Relatively, though a Reprobate, is said in Scripture to be in Christ, redeemed, sanctified, to have communion of his body and blood, with the like; so does the casting them out of the Church put them likewise into a contrary state or condition, whereby they are Relatively to be said without Christ, without God in the world, without redemption, remission, salvation.  
3. Because the Scriptures wheresoever they speak of exclusion in point of discipline, do still speak in general. Purge out the old leven. Have no company. Put away from among yourselves such a person, etc. From whence my argument will be framed thus. If there be no place in Scripture to prove any exclusion at all, but such as speaks of exclusion from the Church, the whole lump, society in general, or the like; then is it not possible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental exclusion, as distinct from Church-exclusion. Or, If there be no other medium in Scripture-discipline (I speak of the word Discipline all the way restrainedly, as to this part of censure) but excommunication itself, for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanness from any public ordinance (as may appear by any thing of weight in Gillespyes 14 Arguments for exclusion from the Passeover. B. 1. c. 12.) then cannot suspension be proved, as distinct from, but only as conjunct with excommunication. The consequence here is apparent; But the former is true, therefore the latter. In a word, the Scripture knows no other exclusion that is disciplinary, but a casting out of the Church, and so from the Sacrament only, as included in it.   

SECT. 12:  
ANd this I take to be so true, full, and convincing, that I should hardly need any thing more for the answering even the whole of those arguments for juridical suspension, which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll: in that book of his upon this subject, wherein I may truly say there is bestowed a good deal of reading, only as it were to discover how little there is to be found in others, and nothing from himself (besides humane authority) for his opinion.  
I must confess there are here Certain Scriptures and Reasons urged by him, with so much pedantry, that is more than enough; and it will be necessary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures, though for what is mere formality, ostentation, or personal abuse, it may pass. I pray God teach that author, and all of us, to become a little more vile in our own eyes, that we may learn to vilify others less. The Scriptures are four or five.  
The first is Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, nor cast ye your pearls before Swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and rend you. For my judgement on this text, I conceive,  

1. That this speech was proverbial among the Jews; and I think I have read or heard it is in the Talmud.  
2. That the purport or meaning, not the letter, is to be attended.  
3. That this meaning or sense hereof tends unto prudence, or a prudential managing of such things as are designed to a good end.  
4. That these holy things and pearls, (though they may more specially in the coherence, and in the thing, agree with admonition) are to be taken in general for all such things as have a subserviency to holy uses. 1. Because the text limits them not. And 2. Because there is no necessity for us to do it.  
5. That these dogs and swine are not to be taken in general for all sorts of sinners, for the same reasons on the contrary. 

1. Because the text itself does describe them, to wit, to be such as will trample the holy things under their feet, and turn again and rend us.  
2. Because there is likewise necessity so to do. For no holy thing or pearl can be given to dogs or swine by this precept, it being boldness to limit what Christ hath not limited.   But some holy things (as the word, or admonition) may be given, and was given by Christ himself unto such as are dogs and swine in general in other texts, as suppose ignorant and scandalous persons; therefore must not the sense of these dogs and Swine, be of all ignorant and scandalous sinners in general; but on necessity be confined to the text in hand, in which sense it is true, that no holy thing at all is to be given to such.  
6. By these holy things then and pearls, I understand all things, whether matters of Religion, which are more properly the holy things, (as wholesome counsels in Scripture, pious conferences, opening our experiences, and in general, the ordinances;) or matters of morality, which may be more properly the pearls (as precious say, wise serious contrivances, advice, actions) so far as they are either appointed of God, or made use of by reason for the Edification of others. And by dogs and swine I understand all persons, whether ignorant, or not ignorant, scandalous or not scandalous otherwise, that are but like in the use hereof towards them, to trample on) he things, and rear the givers, that is both to contemn the one, and despite the other.   
The substance then of this precept or counsel of Christ, as I am fully persuaded, without binding others, comes to this, that every man in the managing of good things, should be prudent, so far, as to have a care, and such regard to the persons (with other circumstances) to whom he dispenses them, that we are to forbear, when we shall but exasperate, give occasion of contempt, and do no good by them.  
For instance, suppose a man (otherwise godly) is in a passion, so that I see reproof, (which is a pearl and good thing in its season) would be surely contemned, if I should give it him at the present, and make him fly upon me, in this case now, under this dogged humour, this rule of Christ commands me in prudence to forbear, and take another opportunity to do my duty.  
This foundation being laid, I shall here propose these two questions.  

1. How can our delivering the Sacrament to our intelligent & unexcommunicate members, be a giving thereof unto dogs, seeing we are sure they will not turn again upon us, and rend us for that; Or swine (which some distinguish) seeing they do not trample thereupon, by neglect, vilipending, despising or rejecting of it (for that is trampling the holy things in the text) but so far as we can possibly see, do reverently receive it?  
2. Whereas if we with old the Sacrament from them, unless we could have a fair proceeding unto censure, which would stop their mouths, they on the contrary will turn upon us and rend us; withal trampling thereupon, by not caring at all for it: Whether or no is not this rather a plain breach (in the want of prudence) of this rule, seeing suspension of them is supposed to be a holy thing and pearl, and these persons in this case, unless we could take farther order, we are sure are dogs and swine in reference thereunto, in the very sense of the text. Let those tender Ministers that have been so much scrupled about this business, lay this consideration well to their hearts, together with the wisdom and sweetness of their Saviour, whose commands are not grievous, and they may happily find satisfaction, even in this very text, from which they may have likely received at first the deepest impressions towards the ensnaring of their consciences.   
The second Scripture is 1 Cor. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and the table of Devils.  
For the sense of these words, I judge there is no difficulty. Many of the Corinth's being brought over from Heathenism to Christianity, and so members of that Church, made nevertheless but little conscience (as if it were a lawful thing) of going to the temple of Idols, & eating there, of those things that were sacrificed to Devils; Now to reclaim them from this, and prove that they ought not so to do, the Apostle uses this argument; I speak to you, says he, as wise, that is, as rational men, Judge ye what I say; Do not you know that the Sacrament which we celebrate is the communion of the body & blood of Jesus Christ, so that all that partake thereof are visibly professors of communion with him? So all that partake of those meats sacrificed to Idols, are visible professors of communion with these Devils. Now there is no agreement between Christ and these Idols, such things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you cannot partake of the table of Lord, and the table of Devils.  
In which words we are to understand by this Cannot, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Logical cannot, that is, in reason you cannot; this is manifest, because he lays it down by way of argument, which the more you consider, will be the less denied; and by these words, the cup and table of the Lord, and the cup and table of Devils, we must understand the outward elements in both, that is, the bread and wine in the Sacrament, and that meat offered to Devils in their Idol-temple, the reason being open, because the Apostle argues from their partaking of the one, against their partaking of the other.  
For those Commentators (as Pareus) that restrain the sense to inward spiritual communion, because we Can (say they) partake of the outward things in both, they go but on a slight foundation; for this Cannot, we say, is not a natural cannot, but a logical cannot, A cannot argumentative. Ye cannot partake of this Sacrament (says the Apostle) and of those meats sacrificed to Idols, because there is no agreement between these things (he explains his own cannot) there is a plain inconsistency in reason between them; for by the one we profess communion with Christ, by the other with devils; and I would not have you (says he, v. 20.) have communion with devils.  
To this purpose, that Note from Beza upon the word cup is pertinent, that it is not said, you cannot partake of the body and blood of Christ, which would rather express this inward communion, but you cannot partake of the cup and table, which must intent the outward elements, and not the things signified only, the very drift, reason, and matter of the Apostle else is evacuated. Not as Mr. Col. urges, because Paul's argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulness of their coming to this table, while they were guilty of such sins, which is indeed a plain untruth, but because his argument is from their partaking of the Lords table as their duty, being Christians, to disprove their partaking of the meats offered to Idols with the Heathens.  
I know some interpret this Cannot morally, Id possumus solùm quod jure possumus, You cannot, that is, in few words, you ought not; which might be admitted, if they will apply it right, to wit, thus; You cannot, that is, you ought not, to go to the Idol-temples, who are according to your profession to be partakers of the Lords table. But for them to apply it quite contrary, you go to the temple of Idols, and so you cannot, that is, you ought not, come to the Sacrament; This I must tell them cannot be admitted, Cannot, in the sense of the Texts cannot, that is, cannot in any reason.  
Let this cannot then here be understood, not of a physical cannot, nor a bare moral cannot, but a logical cannot, grounded if you will on a moral cannot on the one side, yet so long as you shall not be able to deny the moral Can, which the whole former part of the chapter enforces, on the other, here will be nothing at all for the adversary. The Apostle does not say any where before, You partake of the table of Idols, or have eaten of those meats, & I would not have you have fellowship with Christ; But he says plainly, you partake of the Lords Table, you are in communion with Christ, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.  
Thus than the main being clear, I shall propose here four things.  

1. Whether it can be denied that this action of these Corinth's, in partaking of these Idol-tables, was scandalous? Scandalum being dictum vel factum minùs rectum praebens atteri occasionem ruinae.  
2. If it cannot, how then can any man gather an argument from this place (whatsoever they may do from others) for the keeping away persons from the Sacrament for scandal, when the Apostle himself pleads the general privilege of these persons coming to the Sacrament, as an argument to reclaim them from their scandal?  
3. Whether this argument here may not be irrefragably advanced; Those that were by the A ostles reasoning engaged from partaking of the table of Idols, partook of the Lords Supper (for this is the ground upon which he proves they might not partake thereof) But not only those Corinth's that were more pious, but those scandalous patricularly, were hereby engaged, and warned from partaking of those tables of devils; Ergo, these Corinth's, though scandalous, were admitted to the Sacrament. Thus much is not to be gain aid they were. I add, and they ought to be (tid excommunicate) upon the same consideration, because else you make a sinful medium in the Apostles Argument.  
4. Whether many of our godly brethren that take occasion from these words, to separate from us in our mixed communions, are not a little mistaken in them, seeing the Apostle here pleads not against the coming of divers persons (good and bad) to the same table, but against the same persons, going to divers tables.   
The third Scripture is, 1 Cor. 5.8. Therefore let us keep the feast not with the old leaven, etc.  
For the meaning of these words, we find in the beginning of the chapter, the Apostle is speaking to these Corinth's about their gathering together in an ecclesiastical way, for the excommunicating the incestuous person, as appears especially from the last verse, unto which with v. 7. and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 5. what Erastus opposes I judge is strained and insufficient, though what he urges upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were plausible otherwise. For this now St. Paul gives his plain reason, which yet he expresses metaphorically, Know ye not that a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump? that is, one such evil example tolerated, will bring a blot or infamy upon the whole Church, besides the hurt it may do through imitation. Purge out therefore the old leaven that you may be a new lump, that is, Cast our of your society therefore this person; For Christ our  is sacrificed for us, that is, as to the sense and matter agreeable to Tit. 3.14. Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity, and to be a peculiar people zealous of good works: so that Christ being sacrificed for us, is an argument to us, as to purge out sin in ourselves, so to purge out the old leaven from the Church. The word Old, happily may signify, not every fresh sinner for one lapse, or so, but the veterate, and obstinate therein. For the manner of the expression, it is plainly brought in by way of elegancy, in pursuance of the Metaphor, as likewise the text that follows, therefore let us keep the feast. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Igitur epulemur, as the olo translation; that is, Itaque solennitèr vivamus; or, vitam presentem transeamus; Let us live festival: or as the Margin of our English Bibles, most properly, Let us keep holy day, to wit, in our communion together as Christians. Let us lead or pass our life, which ought to be a perpetual celebration of our redemption, Not with the old leaven, or the leven of malice or wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth; that is, what the Israelites did typically for 7 days, let us perform in the truth and thing signified, all the days of our lives, to wit, purging out the leven both of imbred corruption, and scandal from amongst us. So that to make here a solemn enquiry what is this feast we are to keep in the text, seems to me, an injudicious and needless trouble, the substantive Feast being not in the text, but the Metaphor expressed only in one verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifestly borrowed to follow the allusion, or to suit with the rest in the sense I have spoken according to Athanasius, chrysostom, Theophilact, Lyra, Calvin, Beza, ' Diodate, our Assemblies annotations, with the most upon the place. From all which, it will appear, that though this text may be well urged, as it is by Beza and his followers against Erastus, to prove Excommunication, yet here is nothing against me, to prove Suspension as distinct from Excommunication: which Mr. Rutherford acknowledges in his Divine right of Ch: Gov: p. 349. We contend not (says he) that the debarring of men from any one Ordinance, was signified by the putting away of the leaven, but the putting a wicked person out of the church 1 Cor. 2. with v. 5, 6, 7, 13.  
The Fourth Scripture is 1 Cor. 5.11. which with the words before is this, I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, for than must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have wrote to you not to keep company, If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, with such a one no not to eat.  
In this text there is only one difficulty to our purpose, and that is, what is meant by this Company and Eating? Dr. Hammond in his Power of the Keys, is something willing to take it of sacred communion only, as others both of sacred & civil upon the censure of excommunication; Unto which, as I have ever confessed myself inclining, so am I now no less than ever. Notwithstanding there are these reasons may be produced for the contrary, that it is to be taken only of common eating and ordinary familiarity, without censure.  

1. Because the Apostle seems to bring in this as a new matter from that before (which is more manifestly about excommunication) though suitable to it. I wrote to you in an epistle, etc.  
2. Such as is the communion with these we are to avoid, such is the eating, because the one explains the extent of the other; But that seems to be of ordinary familiarity, Keep not company with them.  
3. That company and eating is permitted in this place to an heathen fornicator, which is not to such a one called a brother; But Sacramental eating or communion was not permitted to an Heathen; therefore it is not Sacramental eating, of which the place speaks.  
4. The manner of expression, which is, by way of explanation, as to the extent, how fare this not keeping company reaches; with such keep no company, no not to eat, as it shows this eating to be of the same kind with companying, so it seems plainly to hold it forth, as a thing the most common, or dinary, and the least matter amongst them to be admitted to, of any, No not to eat. But my opposers will hardly sure conceive thus of this sacred and solemn eating at the Sacrament. If they will, (it being of old in common with their love-feasts, and and mingled with them) why should they scruple at free-admission as to this ordinance, above other parts of Christian communion, from which they exclude none before excommunication?  
5. There may be clear reason for a man to eat at the ordinance with such a person, whom yet he is to avoid in his common familiarity, because the one is necessary, which he is bound to observe as part of the service of God; but the other (at least as to the nature of the thing in its self) is arbitrary, at his own liberty.  
6. This may be exemplified in the Pharisees, who would not eat at their common table with any of the Publicans, whom yet they could not debar the Sacrifices, Passeover, or service of the temple, many of them being not only Jews; but devout men.  
7. There may very probably be a difference between this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 11. and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 13. & 2. It may be one thing to withdraw ourselves from such a man, and another to remove such a man from amongst us. The one may respect Church-censure, and not the other.   
Upon these reasons I confess for my own part, before I read Erastus, (which to say the truth I had not done, nor yet seen him, till after my rejoinder was abroad) I have been swayed to this opinion But since I have read him and some of hi● opposers, I am more indifferent ●oward the other.  

1. Because the most Commentators I see, and the ablest of Erastus antagonists, do go that way, making these verses, as the rest of the Chapter, serve for excommunication, and I have no mind to approve of the taking away of Church-censure, which this text as well as others, may help to maintain.  
2. Because the Apostle speaks of keeping company in general, and eating in general, and I begin to fear a man may be too bold to limit it to common familiarity only, as to sacred only; Yet as to the limitations of that old verse, Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse. I count these words in v. 10. will bear them out by way of proportion, to wit, Yet not altogether, for than must you needs go out of the world.  
3. Because these reasons I have laid down do indeed seem to me cogent (at least some of them) for the proving that common society and eating must be understood here inclusively; but I think them not so cogent to prove it exclusively, that sacred communion and eating may not be meant here also.  
4. Because I question whether a man be bound to avoid every scandalous sinner in civil communion, or ordinary eating, unle●●e in case of partaking in their sins, by acting with them, connivance or the like, until he is censured by the Church, and so this precept may be perhaps to be understood only upon supposition, that there is a precedent ecclesiastical judging, and declaring him to be avoided; for it seems a grievous thing to think, I may not eat with a covetous person, or the like, in our neighbouring invitations; yet indeed I may be bound not to choose such for my Companions in intimate familiarity.   
However, as  herein, and not more peremptory than the matter will afford; It shall suffice me to speak to the text so far as it concerns myself; To do which partially we must have recourse to the following verse, ver. 12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without, do not ye judge them that are within? The Illative, for, plainly brings the matter before to be concerned here, and the meaning of the words I take to be this; The Apostle may be said to judge such by prescribing rules, or giving precepts concerning avoiding them, and the Church may be said to judge them by doing answerable to his prescriptions; Whether that must be necessarily understood in their Elders meeting together according to Order for the excluding such by ecclesiastical censure; Or the people only every one avoiding such by a judgement of private discretion, I cannot determine; but rather doubt, whether any reasons can be so manifestly laid down on the one side, but that there will be reason lest like wise for the other.  
If this judging then, Do not ye judge those that are within? be meant of ecclesiastical censure, upon which, such men are to be avoided, then must this censure be the censure of excommunication. For, That censure by which men are excluded Christian Society in general, and not the Sacrament only, is the censure of excommunication. But such is this, in the express words, Keep not company with such. It is not said only, Eat not with such, but Keep not company, no not to eat, explaining as I have said, the extent thereof; And than you may have still a text here, if you will, against Erastus, to prove excommunication; but here is nothing against me to prove Suspension as distinct from Excommunication.  
If by judging (Do not ye judge, etc.) be meant only a judgement of private discretion, and no Church-censure, then must this keeping company and eating, be meant only of common familiarity, and those reasons before mentioned will certainly evince it upon that supposition; For it is a most grievous and unreasonable thing, that one private brother should avoid another in any one of the public Ordinances or worship of God upon his own private judgement. Privato cujusquam ar bitrio hunc vel illum defugiendum relinquere nihil aliud est quam schismatibus & infinitis offendiculis januam aperire, says Beza De Presb. p. 91. and so Gillespie, and others; and then this text makes nothing for Suspension nor Excommunication neither.  
There is but one thing here, which all have, can be urged: and that is this, If we must avoid such a person at our own table in common familiarity, then much more at the Lords table. But this objection is sufficiently met withal in the laying down my matter. It is true, if this avoiding such, be upon a Church-censure (which then I say is excommunication, not suspension) the argument, à minori ad majus, may hold. That censure, that excludes a man from common eating, does much more exclude him from the Lords table; if from common familiarity, then much more from sacred communion. But if this avoiding such (which is supposed in the pleading hereof) be upon private discretion, the argument is no ways valid, because the denial of common eating at our own table is in every man's private hands, but the denial of eating at the Sacrament is in the Church's hands, and for one private brother to take upon him to avoid another at the public ordinance, before Church-censure, will not I hope be maintained, by any that are not in love with Schism and separation.  
Unto this text I might add a fifth, 2 Thess. 3.14. which is a parallel to it. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, Note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.  
Here we have the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I conceive the same difficulty. For some do look on this Note here as private, civil, common only; and some do take it to be Ecclesianical, authoritative, a Note of censure, for which Austin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, are quoted among the Fathers, and the learned Anti- Erastians' of late, do all go this way.  
For my part therefore (without determining that which is dubious, and having no need to determine it) I should answer to this text as to the last. If this Noting be private only, then does the Apostle command us only not to keep common company or familiarity with disorderly persons, and so the text concerns not the Sacrament at all. If this Note be Ecclesiastical, then does the Apostle command us to excommunicate such persons, and so the texts concerns the Sacrament as a part of company in general, and no otherwise, which is most plain and undeniable, in that there is not a tittle in the chapter to point out to us this Sacrament in particular.  
For the former interpretation there may be these reasons, 1. The persons to be noted are the disorderly in the verses before, that went about idle, and would not work for their living; Now the bare denying such person's entertainment in their houses, and not keeping them company, seems a direct and sufficient course alone to reclaim them herein, and set them to work, especially when they knew the Apostles precept, That if any would not labour, neither should he eat, v. 10.2. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and be thus construed, Hunc notum facite per epistolam, signify that man by an epistle, to wit, that he may be censured if the case require, and not to be understood as already under censure. 3. The person that is under censure, is to be accounted as an Heathen, Matt. 18.17. but this person here is not to be accounted as an Heathen, (for so the word Enemy probably signifies, as in Rom. 11.28. Eph. 2.16.) but admonished as a brother, v. 15.  
For the other interpretation there may be these reason. 

1. The person to be noted, is not only disorderly, v. 11 but seems here also to be refractory; If any man obey nor, or will not obey.  
2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is judged more than a bare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed signifies barely indigo, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, notam imprimo.  
3. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which I desire may be most observed) Keep not company (as in the text before) is general, and indefinite, comprehending all society, both sacred and civil, and there is nothing to limit the same in the text. Now to avoid a person so far, as to have no company in general with him, is not to be supposed, but upon an ecclesiastical censure.  
4. The end wherefore the person is Noted, is the same with excommunication, to wit, that the man be brought to shame or repentance.    
I must confess, to deal ingenuously, If I were to choose out an argument to prove Suspension, I should pick out this text chief, which yet Mr. Coll: forequoted, hath not produced for one amongst these others. And I would urge it thus, Here is a Noting of a person to this end, that he may be ashamed, which is probably a Church-censure. But this censure is not excommunication, because the excommunicate is to be counted as an heathen, Mat. 18. but this person is still to be accounted as a brother, v. 15. (which reason is not the least amongst the rest now mentioned) therefore must this censure be an Exclusion from the Sacrament only, or Suspension. And this argument, I suppose, were more to the point, than any of those I read in this reverend Brother, which generally do labour still in this one fault, that they prove Suspension by Excommunication, when they should prove the same as distinct from it.  
Yet were not this argument neither to be thought sufficient and convincing, 

1. Because the ground on which it stands, is at most but probable; We are not sure this Noting here is ecclesiastical.  
2. Because those Divines that do understand this text, as well as Mat. 18. of Excommunication, do reconcile them both pretty well together.   Some say the Excommunicate is not as a man quite dismembered, but as a diseased member under cure. It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some say he is cast out, quoad us in se, not quoad jus ad rem. Others say he is indeed cast hereby out of the Church, but this is conditionally, he is not as an heathen absolutely, but that such an expression may be used. I will add, A man may be Relatively put into the state of a heathen, through some misdemeanour, when yet Really he may be a Saint and a true child of God. 3. If this does not satisfy, but that you think here is a censure, and that not so high as excommunication, it will not follow for all this, that it must be necessarily this suspension, because it may be any thing else as well, unless there was something in the place, to discover that the Apostle had some aim here in particular at the Sacrament; which being a vain thing to affirm, if you should frame twenty kinds of keeping not company, or exclusions, as well as from the Sacrament, and should say the Text means one of them, you would have quite as much from the place to prove the one as well as the other.  
To conclude then these Scriptures, (about which I have been something long) Mr. Col. argues thus still in the main (and in particular p. 87.) It is the duty of Church Officers to keep the fellowship of the Church pure, for to this end is the rod of Discipline put into their hands, Therefore must such and such persons be excluded the Sacrament. But he should say therefore they should be excluded Church-fellowship; for to plead for suspension from this Ordinance only, instead of casting them out of fellowship in general, to this end that it may be kept pure, is nothing else but to yield openly, that Church-fellowship in other parts of it should remain polluted and impure. And then will all these texts return most forcibly on himself, and overwhelm him. Christ does not say, keep the Sacrament only from Dogs and swine, but give no holy things at all to them. Paul does not say, Purge out the leaven from this ordinance only, but from the lump. He does not say, Keep not company only in the Sacrament; but Keep no company, Put such a one from amongst you; Let him be as an Heathen. The sum than is this, according to what hath been before. If these very Scriptures which are alleged for suspension, do respect the Sacrament no otherwise but as a part of Church-communion, that is, if they do not prove a man is to be excluded from communion in the Sacrament at all, but only that they prove he is to be excluded communion in general, we shall not need any stronger proof against Suspension, then that there is not such a censure in Scripture, as distinct from Excommunication.   

SECT. 13.  
THere are some other Divines of something more candid spirits, that look upon Suspension only as a prudential, pastoral duty, and no juridical censure, and so labour to maintain it. For such as these, I must acknowledge that those reasons of mine laid down before, do not strictly meddle with them. It may suffice me as for such, that they have Beza with the Presbyterians directly against them, and no Scripture for any Suspension at all (I speak as to the Sacrament) whereon to build such an opinion. And as for that they have to say for it, for that is the whole, that the Apostle commands a man to examine himself, and discern the Lords body, upon which, we granting that infants and distracted persons are not to be admitted by the Minister; therefore say they likewise, neither ignorant nor scandalous persons, I conceive it too insufficient a ground alone, to build a business of so much practical weight and trouble upon. I will add therefore two or three reasons more against this opinion.  
1. A regenerate person that can examine himself, and discern the Lords body in the strictest sense, yet may be scandalous, and for that scandal deserve exclusion, as Theodosius by Ambrose. It is not therefore because the Apostle commands a man to examine himself, and discern the Lords body, that a scandalous person is excluded; but, because the Apostle commands otherwhere, let such be censured, Put away from yourselves such a person. The same ground or reason that will exclude an unregenerate man, will exclude the regenerate, and no other. From whence likewise, I shall take away this argument from the hands of my proper opposers. If the keeping of persons from the Lords Supper upon this ground or account; that the Apostle commands those that come hither should examine themselves and discern the Lords body, be a pastoral duty, as these think, (and indeed so far as it is done barely on this ground in infants and distracted persons (who being not bound hereunto through incapacity of reason are refused) it is no other) Then must not exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons stand upon this ground with the Presbyterians; for that is an act, that cannot be done according to them (as Beza forequoted) but by the power of jurisdiction. This is, what hath at large been said before Suspension from the Sacrament, must not be held upon any argument from the nature of the ordinance, but from discipline.  
2. It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be accepted of God in one part of God's worship, as in another. The Scripture requires us expressly to pray in faith, in love, with understanding, and the like, when it does not expressly but by consequence command us so to receive; and as for due preparation, or self-examination, and a right discernment of the Lord in his worship, who will deny it to be required in every ordinance, by the same consequence as in the Sacrament it is express? It cannot therefore be said, that the debarring of scandalous or ignorant persons from the Sacrament, is a Scripture-result from the nature of that service and the requisites to it (which is the whole can be pleaded to make this a pastoral duty) any more than from prayer and other Ordinances. It is true, we may suppose, according to the ratity & solemnity of an Ordinance, our addresses to it may and aught to be more solemn, but yet is the Ordinance alike otherwise, as to the nature and requisits to it; and not to be preferred before others, to the breeding such a superstitious conceit on the spirits of men, that looks to me, like to bowing at the name of Jesus, and not at the name of Christ, God, and the Holy Ghost.  
3. It is not the part of Pastors to content themselves with keeping men away from the Sacrament without proceeding unto censure and debarring them other communion (at least that of common familiarity) to make them ashamed. I know many happily may be ready to think thus: The Scripture commands such and such should be censured, cast out of the Church and a voided; Now seeing we cannot proceed so fare, it is good to do something towards it, we will keep them from the Sacrament, and that will be well. But under favour, I am persuaded this is a great mistake and evil, in regard that hereby men do place a virtue in a means of their own to convert sinners from their evil ways. It is true, when men are duly admonished, convicted, and censured as they ought, then is there the virtue of an Ordinance which may be expected to reduce them; for God hath appointed his Ordinance of discipline for this purpose to bring men to repentance.  
On the contrary, for men to make a business only of keeping people away from this part of God's service, without discipline, how can any such fruit be expected by it? Can men ordain or set up themselves a reclaiming Ordinance? If they do, How shall they give a power and promise to it for this effect? Let those Ministers consider that have kept never so many away, even whole congregations from the Sacrament for many years together, what are the fruits they have reaped by it. Are their people indeed ever the better for it? Does it not rather serve only to breed indignation to themselves, make their Suspension to be slighted, the Sacrament itself to be neglected; so that the most of their people care not at all to come thither? If this indeed be the fruit, then will I thus argue. The Ordinances of God, as exclusion from the Church and Sacrament is one, are to be used only for Edification, and not destruction. But to exclude men the Sacrament without discipline, without a due legal conviction and authority, does not tend to their edification, but in all this, to their destruction. Or thus, The Lord Jesus commands us expressly not to give holy things to dogs and swine, (as before.) But to use suspension without discipline, or a due authoritative sentence, as should put a reverence on it, is but likely to cast it to such, as will trample upon it, and turn again and rend the doer. And consequently therefore, unless Ministers will purposely go about to make men dogs and swine, that else would not be so in the sense of this text, they are bound directly (at least, when they see plainly this is like to be the issue) by this very precept of Christ (which is that happily scruples them mainly to the contrary) to forbear Suspension, till they can use it to edification.   

SECT. 14.  
THese two questions being laid down, with my judgement thereof, there will remain two things only for the completing my mind in this controversy. The one is, whereas I hold in the first question, that no argument from the nature of the Sacrament alone, without discipline, will be of validity for Suspension, it may be required that something be condescended to the tenderness of most men's spirits and practice herein before censure. The other is, whereas I hold in the second question, that those arguments alone are valid for exclusion from the Sacrament, that respect it only as a part of Church-communion, and consequently that a person must be excommunicate, or excluded Church-communion in general, or else he cannot be legally excluded the Supper, it may be required that there be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some salve found out here also for the abatement of so much rigour in censure, that a person may be permitted some of the Ordinances, as the Word, while he is debarred the Sacrament, and no breach be made on excommunication.  
If these two things can but be done with reasonable satisfaction, I hope it will serve to take away the prejudice of many sober and moderate spirits from my opinion; the drift whereof is not at all to do the pious Ministry any harm (let not my brethren think so) in obstructing their care and inspection over their flocks, but to bind up their broken hearts with a grounded support, that in what they do, and cannot but do, in admission of their people, (the most whereof are unregenerate persons, and so in their sense unworthy) they may do with a sure foot and safe conscience. My great business, I may say truly (with pious Mr. Blake, Cov: Seal. ch. 7. sect. 15. p. 247. in what I have written about this matter together with him) hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance, that their benefiting is possible, that are thus admitted.  
And yet by the way I would not be taxed for the opinion of a promiscuous admittance, which I do not own, without the distinction thereof into Erastian and orthodox, as before; An Erastian promiscuous communion I declare against, as much, and I think something more than Mr. Blake; but for an Orthodox Free-admission, the end whereof is to advance discipline, not depose it, I confess it is what I think should be maintained, being bold to say this one thing in reference to that worthy man now named; that an Anti- Erastian free-admission will be found I believe at last to stand a great deal better, both with the Church's peace and consonancy of Scripture, than a kind of Erastian, indisciplinary Suspension.   

SECT. 15:  
FIrst then for some condescension in the former question, how fare those that are more tender in their spirits and practice may go towards withholding the Sacrament from such they conceive unqualified, as ignorant or scandalous, before censure, I have touched at in my rejoinder, p. 82, 83. 111, 112. where distinguishing between what is to be condescended to as prudential, and what to be yielded as necessary; between what is done by way of advice, and by way of compulsion; between forbearance and exclusion: I do acknowledge it is a rule to be allowed in affirmative precepts, that though they do bind semper, they do not bind ad semper, at all times. Upon which account I take it to be lawful for a man that is obliged, and hath a right to an ordinance, to forbear the same upon a just occasion; which (I think) may be, as upon other matters, Numb. 9.10. so much more upon pious ends regarding preparation, Mat. 5.24. Upon this same ground than I humbly conceive, that a Minister looking into the state of his flock, and finding some ignorant and scandalous amongst them, though he cannot take upon himself to exclude them the Sacrament before censure, he may proceed so far towards it, that besides the rebuking of them sharply, he may admonish or advise them to forbear the ordinance at present, so long as he judges it in prudence to be a means to make them come the more prepared to the next Sacrament; what hinders but the Minister may stretch himself even to the utmost end of his line of doctrine, when he stands there, and knows that he is still without the line of jurisdiction? And this I conceive may satisfy the conscientious in this thing, putting into their hands as much advantage as a single pastor can have to the following them with instruction for the good of their souls, which is that I suppose they only aim at in this matter; and if it were any thing else, it is fit they should never obtain it.  
Only I must add here that I suffer not in my principles; It is not because I think receiving is no duty unto such, for this, I conceive, were evil to hold; Nor because I think it not appointed for edification unto such; for those arguments that reverend Mr. Blake hath put in, to prove the Sacrament a means of grace to the unregenerate within the Church (Cou. Seal. ch. 7. sect. 13.) must needs reach, and be cogent for these also, as they are Church-members, although he would not have them; Nor because I think that such are in an utter incapacity to be edified by it, as infants and the distracted are, (wherein the formentioned learned man places his whole ground of dissent he hath from me in this point) seeing the Sacrament through the word (and the word goes along with it) doth teach as for the one, and convince of sin as for the other, as is said before, and granted by him. That it is a teaching Ordinance, mediante verbo, even at the present for the ignorant; I pray let me but propose this one thing, Were not those words of our Lord to his disciples [This is my body broken for you, This is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for remission of sins] teaching words, informing forming them of his death, and mystery of our redemption? Who can deny this? And were not the disciples ignorant at that time, of his death, and mystery of our redemption? Compare Mar. 9.31, 32. Lu. 9.44, 45. with Lu. 24. 7, 8. Io. 20.9. and what then will follow for the ignorant, is clear. That it is a sin-aggravating Ordinance, and so a soul-humbling, heart-breaking Ordinance for the sinner, Mr. B. and I so well agree, rejoined. p. 235, 236. with Cou. Seal. p. 204. that it needs no argument; and than what follows for the scandalous is as clear likewise. It is not therefore, I say, for these causes, that I allow thus much; but it is indeed, because I think that no less can be denied to belong to the Minister upon the score of prudence only. That there is a possibility (upon what is said) of edification unto all intelligent Church-members, though scandalous, (Cou. Seal. p. 240.) or ignorant (p. 233.) Mr. B. cannot ingenuously deny: and that there is not that moral probability or likelihood hereof, as upon their further instruction and preparation, I do grant; From both which then the plain reason will arise, why such may in prudence be advised to forbear the Sacrament at present, when yet it must be held fast, that there is no necessity on the conscience, simpliciter, for the it exclusion.  
To speak a little more my thoughts freely, I conceive it to be a Magnale in the wisdom of the Church, which hath ever kept up some more solemn times for the putting in mind of her members to shrift or address their souls to God in a more peculiar manner at some seasons above others, to make use of the Sacrament to this end; insomuch, that though the primitive Christians broke bread every week, and sometimes daily, yet hath it been the use of after Ages to celebrate this Ordinance more rarely, that the solemnity and rarity (those expressions in 1 Cor. 11. giving help hereunto) might have this desired work upon the people. Upon this same score I do conceive this condescension may take place in allowing that a forbearance of the Lords Supper be advised many times to unprepared, unfit persons, when we judge it in Christian prudence conducible through a more solemn address thereunto, towards a farther improvement thereof for their souls; And so may the same be asserted happily (as I judge of it) Ex quadam conveniontia, Ob majorem reverentiam, as the Schoolmen speak in some other cases about this Sacrament; When as I am persuaded otherwise there is the same outward privilege, aed the same inward qualifications held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances. And this for my first concession.   

SECT. 16.  
SEcondly then, for some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condescension in the latter question, that the excommunicate person may not be so turned out from all the Ordinances, (though he be turned out from them, and that alike too, from one as well as the other, in a sort) but that he may have admittance to some of them, upon an account which may be justifiable, for the gaining of his soul and yet without the introducing of this lesser censure of suspension, into the discipline of man, which is not in the discipline of Christ, or the Scripture I have spoken more at large in my rejoined. part. 2. sect. 1. See particularly p 87. & 149. Where having shown that Church-censure or Excommunication does reserre to Church-communion in general, and consequently that a person excommunicate is cast out from every part thereof, and so from all the Ordinances as well as the Sacrament, I do humbly offer this distinction, of a Real, and Relative exclusion. A real exclusion is an exclusion of a man from a thing, so that he cannot by any means participate of the thing; A relative exclusion, is the exclusion of a man from his relation to a thing, or his right of privilege in it, whether he yet otherwise possesses the thing or not. Now that which we admit Heathen to, in receiving them into the Church, I think we cast them out from, in excommunicating them; But we admit not persons to an actual hearing the Word, or participating such ordinances as they did, and might attend before; but we admit them into a state and relation, whereby the ordinances belong to them, with a difference of privilege from the world, and as they partook of them while they were without; They were then indeed admitted to the Word, and it may be Prayer, to bring them in, as they ought, yet neither one nor the other Ordinance did belong to them by way of advantage, Rom. 3.2. or propriety, as externally in covenant, in Christ, redeemed sanctified, etc. as they do, being members. Consequently therefore, my thoughts are, that though Excommunication cuts off a person Relatively from all the Ordinances (from one alike as well as the other, in the sense now spoken) and does cut off a man really from that Ordinance, the actual participation whereof is peculiar to that relation, as the Sacrament; Yet this Relative exclusion does not necessarily infer a Real exclusion of a man from those other Ordinances, as the Word and Prayer, which may be partaken of out of that relation. And so here will arise that, which may give contentment; to wit, that upon this it shall be left in the Church's hands by way of Mitigation, to admit the Excommunicate hereunto, whether one or more (or none) of them, as she sees it fit to use severity or indulgence to bring the sinner to repentance.  
It is manifest, that the Primitive Christian Church was wont to permit an Heathen, or those that were without, to be present in their assemblies at the Word if not at Prayer and some other Ordinances, for their conviction, as appears, 1 Cor. 14. According to this precedent, it is my opinion then, in short, that a person excommunicate may be admitted to an Ordinance, or Ordinances, as an Heathen (into which condition he is expressly cast, Mat. 18.) when yet he is cut off from all his privilege and interest in them as a member. And this, I suppose, will even serve the turn of my very adversaries, and yet be no dishight or prejudice to that latitude of Excommunication which the truth dictates, and must be maintained, according to my opinion.  
In fine, two things are objected against me by my Opposers, which methinks do even quite take off one another. In the former question it is objected that my doctrine is lose, in that it admits of every intelligent Church-member to the Sacrament, before censure; To which I answer, That doctrine about admission that maintains Excommunication, in point of offending, cannot be lose towards the offender; and if a man have not offended, I mean so far as to deserve censure, the Minister can but admonish and advise, he can go no further; and here how much I allow upon the score of pastoral discretion is declared, And why should any more be desired? In the second question it is objected, my doctrine is too severe, bloody, and cruel, in that those persons which it cuts off from the Sacrament, it cuts off from all other parts of Church-communion also; To this I answer, It is true, it does do thus indeed according to the Scripture; but let this be understood aright and candidly of this Relative exclusion, (here declared likewise) and then I hope all will be reconciled and satisfied.  
And thus I have now finished my purpose, endeavouring to keep in a way of moderation, that I might avoid the extremities of others. I have not in any thing, I suppose, departed from the Scripture as my Guide; and yet in every thing come up as near as I can to those that are against me, to content them. I do not know how it may be taken, but it shall suffice me that I have in the sincerity of my intention (so far as I can judge of my own heart) proposed my thoughts, leaving others to their own. The Church's peace is the thing I have aimed at, without hindering (but happily furthering) her reformation. If I have done well, and as is fitting to the matter, it is that I desired, if I have done but slenderly and meanly, it is what I could attain unto.  
Deo gloria.  
J. H.  
FINIS.    

A POSTSCRIPT.  
Courteous Reader,  
THere are yet some things I shall make, bold to trouble thee to read in this place, because I would not have the Discourse itself to swell any bigger than it has done. If thou thinkest them long, thou mayest let them alone if thou wilt. I know well that this controversy is not about any fundamental, but that, as brethren, we may bear well enough with one another that differ in it, nevertheless, in regard of practice, it is even necessary at least for most that are of the Ministry to be established concerning the same, or else perhaps, it might have been long enough before some should have thought it fit to meddle any more with it. What I have done here in this last book, I offer to them chief, and thee that hast studied the point; what I have done in my first book, to the many.  
[1.] Whereas in my undertaking this Subject, I chose those words, Do this, Drink ye all of it, And they all drank of it, in that text Mar. 14. 23. for my ground, which many think might have been more sound chosen: I desire the strength thereof may be laid in those two things which have been touched Sect. 10. but I am not satisfied without speaking a little farther thereof, with thy leave to have it noted by such. The first is, that we have here, as in the other Evangelists, the institution of the Sacrament, wherein there is a direct precept to the Church, Do this, with the extent thereof expressed, Drink ye all of it. The words are directed in general to the disciples, as disciples, and consequently all that are disciples (suppose them in a capacity of reason to use it) come under a right of Obligation to use the same. It is objected, By all, is meant no more than All present. But this is too overly, the precept I hope, does so concern the disciples present, as that St. Paul makes these very words of the institution obtigatory to the Church of Corinth, and to us all as a standing Ordinance till Christ come, 1 Cor. 11. 26. It is manifest then that these words, as the precept of Christ, are delivered to the disciples in bebalf of the Church, whereof themselves were a representative part. Now than I ask, whether as Representatives of the Church invisible, or visible? if you will say of the Church invisible to make the command only to the regenerate and elect, it is unreasonable; for all the Ordinances are delivered to the Church as visible, Heb. 9.19. Rom. 3.2. and we suppose Judas was amongst them. But if they were here Representatives of the Church, as visible, it must follow, that all those who are of the visible Church, (and in capacity of the obligation) are berchy obliged to this Ordinance. It is not argumentative to say here, none of these disciples were ignorant or scandalous (which yet I think is untrue) because they were representatives of the Church, not as men unspotted with ignorance or scandal, any more than as Apostles, but as they were members thereof, visible members, disciples, Christians. Id veiò concedimus, says Bezs, (De Presb. & Ex. p. 27. with 23.) quòd Christus inter suos discipulos coenam instituens manifestè oftendìt coenae celebrationem illis convenire (which is inciuded in solis illis) qui Christi se discipulos profiteantur; and Mr. Perkins (Case cons. B. 2. c. 10,) lays this down for his first rule, Every man of years living in the Church, and being baptised, is bound in conscience by the commandment to use the Supper. Now whiles my adversaries are forced to fly off here, and confine the precept to the regenerate only, we may easily see both where our bottom lies, and also how firm it is. The second thing I build on in this text, is, That together with the precept, we have the example of judas, who is sat down with the twelve, Mat. 26.20. and his hand at the table, Luke 22.21. It is objected, that Judas was a close hypocrite, his villainy secret and unknown, and so this precedent will make nothing to our purpose. But under favour, such as say so, are mistaken, for though this answer should suffice (which I think it does not) as to the part of the admitters, in regard Christ acting (say they) as a Minister, was not to take notice of what he knew of Judas as he was God: yet it is apparent, that it reaches not the matter at all as to the receivers themselves, who neverthless for all this, as for their own parts, will be bound to receiving. though they be such as Judas was, that is, at least unregenerate, if not scandalous also. It may be replied, as to the part of the admitters, that Christ knew of Judas compact (which no doubt was a high scandal in its self, being inductive of sin and ruin to the Jews, with whom he dealt) not only as God, but as man likewise, because as man, he was a Prophet, Deut. 18, 15. and that Godhead that dwelled in him bodily, revealed this to him; Now I argue, if it was Christ's duty to have excluded Judas from the Passeover, if a man had revealed this to him, how much more must be have done it when the Godhead revealed it to him, whose testimony is above all men's in the world? But I shall choose to lay my strength here (as I say) as to the part of the receivers, & that from Christ's acting, not as a mere man, but as Mediator. As the Lord Jesus does institute the Sacrament, and give the precept, he must do it unquestionably as mediator; It is God only can give laws to bind the conscience: Now in the institution and giving the precept, he directs the same to all present, and so to Judas amongst the rest, from whence arises an obligation from the Lord irrefragably upon Judas, as well as on the others, to actual receiving; what Christ bids him expressly do among them, must be his duty; and consequently, while a man is a disciple, though unregenerate, as Judas was, that does not unduty him to use the Supper. And then let us hear what Dr. Diake himself, who herein throughly looks to the foundation, will tell us. Let but Mr. H. (says be p. 116.) prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, and he will yield the cause to us.  
[2.] Whereas it is denied, notwithstanding this text and others by us alleged, that there is no precept nor precedent in Scripture for the administering the Sacrament to all, (Mr. Coll. ch. 5.) I desire these two Trules may be laid, 1. that Giving and receiving being Relata, all those texts that prove it the duty of any to receive the Sacrament, does eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them, or admit them, because Posito uno relatorum, ponitur alterum. 2. That we are to look upon all the Ordinances of God unto his Church, as universal, obliging every member in particular to wait upon them, unless where the Scripture itself lays some restriction or limitation; the reason is, because it is presumption in any to limit that which Gad hath not restrained. And then I do assert hereupon, that there is as many Scripture-precepts and precedents to deliver the Sacrament to all, as to any, supposing them within the Church, and neither unintelligent, or excommunicate, as we intend the question; for such as are Heathen, Exod. 12.43, 48. or have not reason and discernment, 1 Cor. 11. 28, 29. or are under censure, 1 Cor. 5. 13. are debarred (we all grant) by the Scriptures quoted. There are two instances only, besides the precept and precedent in the former text, I will here mention. The one is, the instance of the Passeover, where all the congregation of Israel, every man, Ex. 12.3, 47, 50. from Dan to Bersheba, 2 Chr. 30.5. all their males every year, Exod. 34.23. Deut. 16. 16. All the children of the captivity, to name that text, Ezra 6.21. because by some it is alleged against us; that is, all the Jews that returned, without exception, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen; that is, all their proselytes also (the filthiness of the heathen was their idols) did eat, and were so commanded. There is nothing, which I would chiefly have observed, that made any Israelite uncapable of partaking thereof, but that which made a godly man uncapable, and such, no more uncapable of this, than of other the holy things. And this was Levitical uncleanness, whereof while the question is proposed to Moses, Num. 9 whether such should eat of it or no, it is plain (in the chapter) that for the rest to eat thereof, was out of question. The other instance is that of 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. as I have pressed it in my first book. They all eat of the Manna, and drank of the rock, which was Christ. The main answer given by Beza, Gillespy, Philip Goodwin, Rutherford, Dr. Drake, and which all have, is, that all the Israclites were admitted here, because this water and manna was their corporal food, without which they could not live. But herein lies the force of what we urge, to wit, Why should the Lord make that ordinary food of theirs, without which they could not live, to be Sacramental, if to eat and drink of Christ sacramentally, was not a privilege in common to the Church? The main thing alleged against Free-admission, is the holiness of that, whereunto Sacramental sigus do relate, and the indisposition of the visibly unworthy to partake thereof; Now says the Apostle, the Israelites all of them, yet many of them unworthy (in our adversaries sense) did drink of the rock, which was Christ, and it was the Lords will they should do so, for therefore he made that food (I say) which all were to live by, Sacramental. Besides, if it were such a grievous sin, as murdering the Lord of glory, or being guilty of his blood, to drink of Christ symholically, without such and such qualifications, as some do still speak, than should these Israelites (as I have said in my rejoined.) have rather samished their bodies, than have eat and drank the damnation of their souls; whereas we find that the sons of Aaron, Leu. 22.23. were not to eat of the holy things during their Levitical uncleanness, though it was their appointed food, which Gillespy himself notes, p. 97. Exemplo Israëlitarum (says Musculus, in Ps. 105. v. 39) Apostolus admonet, usum externorum Sacramentorum, talem esse, ut neminem justificet, possing; ab omnibus promiscuè exerceri.  
[3.] Whereas it is laid down, by my adversaries, as their main hold, that visible worthiness is the rule of admission, as visible unworthiness or unfitness the rule of Suspension; I shall think sit to propose, or oppose these three things. 1. Take all the visible worthiness in the world, it can amount to no more than an external covenant-relation, denominating the subjects quoad homines, Saints, Believers, Christians. Now who shall define us these covenant-relatives, either this judgement of men, or the open plain determination of the Scriptures? 2. If we go on this ground of covenant-relation, we go on a certain judgement, every one knows who are externally in covenant, or Church-members, but if we go on visible worthiness, as a third thing (between this and truth of grace) distinct here from, we must go on continual uncertainty, as without Scripture. 3. This rule of visible worthiness, is bottomed on real worthiness, which it supposeth in the receiver, as necessarily antecedent to the Sacraments. Now than I argue, either the manifestations hereof (for visible fitness or worthiness being their rule of admitting people, that fitness must be tried, and that by evidence) upon which the Sacrament must be administered, are either infallible or certain, and then no hypocrite can ever receive, or be admitted, which is doubtless untrue; Or probable only, and conjectural, and then none can in faith administer to another, because he cannot he assured by all those evidences or manifestations, that the party hath that in him which is necessarily and essentially held pre-requisite to receiving. The Sacraments cannot be administered according to rule, unless they have their necessary pre-requisites, or essentials; nor in faith, unless the Minister be assured they have their essentials. And therefore it is not real worthiness, or truth of grace, as to the receivers own part; or visible worthiness as to the admitters part, but covenant-relation in both, is the very ground indeed both of administering and receiving; always remembering, that our question truly is not concerning what is required of the receiver in order to other ends, that he may be saved (so truth of grace and final perseverance too, is necessary) but what is necessarily antecedent to the obtaining the external Ordinance, and to the validity thereof. I desire the Reader to observe this well, that be may know clearly how to put a sound difference between these two things, to wit, between what is required of the receiver in his coming, or that comes to the Sacrament, and what is so required to receiving, as that else be must not come. As to the former, we are to press upon men all those Sacramental qualifications which are laid down ordinarily by Divines, as being necessary to the obtaining the effectual benefits of Christ held forth in the Sacrament. But as for the latter, we must take heed what we press upon any, lest we press them only to the omission of their duty. Even as we are to press upon men who hear and pray, that they pray and hear with understanding, faith, love, humility, and other graces (as they are to receive) and that if they do not, they sin in their hearing and prayer; Yet must not we press this so, that if they have not these qualifications, they may not hear nor pray; this were to press them to iniquity, for the avoiding of partial, to run into total disobedience. By this distinction than we shall understand, both how to press the Sacrament on our people that neglect it; The man that bringeth not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, shall be cut off, Numb. 9 and how to press our people to a worthy behaviour, that come to it. And both these, I think, aught to be pressed together, the rather, because the Ordinances are the means if any have not these graces, to excite their hearts unto them; for whatsoever some of our late Divines may say, when those two great Reformers Luther and Swinglius met at the Synod of Marparge, however they differed otherwise about the Sacrament, they agreed perfectly in these two things; both that the Sacrament was necessary unto every Christian man; and that the use of it was to the same effect with the Word, ordained of God, that thereby infirm consciences might be stirred to belief, by the holy Ghost. See Book of Martyrs, Vol. 2. p. 87.  
[4.] Whereas there are certain places urged by many for the seclusion of the morally unclean, from the Passeover, which Mr. Coll. hath in part heaped up, p. 101. from Gillespy, B. 1. c. 9 to wit, Isa. 1.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Jer. 7.9, 10, 11. Ps. 50.16. Ps. 118.19, 20. Ps. 15.1. Ezra 6.21.2 Chron. 23.19. Deur. 23.18. Hag. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Ezek. 22.26. Ezek. 44.7, 9 Ezek, 23.39. I shall think fit to speak something briefly to these Scriptures. For the 3 first, Isa. 1.10— 15. Jer. 7.9.— 11. Ps. 50 16. It is plain that these texts speak of Prayer, the Word, and the whole worship of God generally in their solemn assemblies, as well as the Sacrifices, and therefore must be understood so, as that though the manner of their coming be reproved in such a patherical vein, a DESC =" foreign", as it is, the matter nevertheless in the substance was not to be left undone. The rule is this, when an action hath evil in its own substance, it is to be omitted; but when the action is of itself the matter of a precept, and hath evil externally cast on it by the agent that doth it, here the action is not to be omitted, but the agent to be reform. See Reinolds 3 Treat. p. 248. and Mr. Pemble in Fol. Vind. Gou. p. 82. To the two next texts, Ps. 118. 19, 20. Ps. 15.1. I answer, as to the former, that on the contrary hand the righteous here are spoken of as such only that could come to the Lords house with acceptation of their persons in their services, but it does not follow therefore that the unrighteous must not come to do any service at the temple. To argue thus, This is the gate into which the righteous shall enter; therefore the unrighteous were never to come there, is methinks just like the Jews, Mat. 5. who when the Law commanded, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, collected, and hate thine enemy. For the text following, Ezra 6.21. I have mentioned it in the second thing before, as full and plain for us. To the next, 2 Chr. 23.19. I have answered in 4. or 5. particulars, rejoined. p. 45. Only whereas in the last of them I am acquainted from Mr. Coll. (p. ibidem) that though the Passeover was eaten in their houses, yet it was killed in the Temple. I should have thanked him for his learning, if he had not neglected to acquaint me also out of the same Doctor he quotes there, that the Jews being distributed at this solemnitive into their Paschal societies, it was but one only of every society that carried the lamb to the temple to be killed, and then the question, I hope, remains still as for the rest, that is, the generality, how could the setting porters at the gates of the temple be any hindrance to them in eating the Passeover, that was eaten in their private houses? For the text ensuing, Deur. 23.18. I think but few are like to be much moved by it. It follows not, because the hire of a harlot was not to be brought for a vow into the house of the Lord, that therefore the harlot herself might not come thither upon other service. It is plain, that the Pharisees brought the woman taken in adultery to christ in the temple, Jo. 8.2, 3. It is answered, By the temple we must understand the intermural, or outer Court only. But I pray who was there, to say so? Again it is answered, she was brought thither ad poenam, to be judged, well, but I pray then how could the morally unclean be thought to defile the temple, when their place of Judicature unto which they brought their capital offenders, was in the temple? The Priests would not receive back Judas money into the Treasury, but they refused not Judas himself to come to them within the Sanctuary. To the next text, Hag. 2. 11.— 14. I answer, Though moral uncleanness is compared here with levitical, yet did it not defile the holy things, as legal did, nullum simile est idem, but in some other consideration, to wit, every thing is unclean morally to the unclean, according to Tit. 1.15. in this sense, that so long as the best actions proceed not from a sanctified heart, they are sin, there will be sin in dominion as 〈◊〉 the manner of performance of them. See my rejoined. more fully, p. 115, 116. Now in this sense however all the ordinances and all a man's duties become unclean to him, this text forbids not, but they must be done; for else, so long as a man is unsanctified he must do nothing, because all his services, all the works of his hands, as every holy thing, is polluted (as to this sense) and profaned by him. In short, There is a defilement of a man's service, so as to cause them to be omitted, or so as not to cause them to be omitted; Moral uncleanness may be said to defile the Ordinances, as all things are said to be unclean to the wicked, Tit. 1.15. yet so, that these services are not to be omitted, and a man to do nothing. (See Pemble before-quoted.) But it does not defile them so as legal pollution did defile the Sanctuary, that was, so as such might not do their service in the Sanctuary. The Sadduces were grossly wicked persons, as to their opinions, and yet did not the Pharisees ever question their coming to the temple for the service of God; and when the Jews looked on Paul, as a most vile notorious person that did live, yet they find no fault at all with him for his own coming into the temple, Act. 21.24.— 29. (nor could they sure upon this supposition, because it is not likely the Apostles than would have advised him such a way to avoid their fury) while they made such an intolerable stir only upon supposal that he had brought some Greeks' into it. For the two next texts, Ez. 22.26. Ez. 44.7.9. I conceive they are palpably wrested i● Moral uncleanness. By the holy, is meant the Jew, or circumcised, Ezra 9.2. Deut. 14.2. (who are again divided into the clean, and unclean, that is, levitically) and by the profane stranger, the uncircumcised. This stranger was their proselyte of the gate, who might not come into the Temple before his circumcision, and therefore he is called uncircumcised in heart, as well as in flesh, that being yet uncircumcised in flesh he durst offer to do it. I know Gillespy, p. 88 stands much on the word Nor, Ez. 44.9; But what if this ●…sjunctive Nor, prove to be the conjunctive And in the Original (the words directly rendered running thus; Every stranger uncircumcised in flesh, and uncircumcised in Heart, shall not enter, etc.) what then shall we think, to see not only Gillespy, and Rutherford, (Ch. Gou. p. 246.) but even the Provincial Assembly of London (Vind. Presb. Gou. p. 54.) to take up things thus on trust, one after another? For the last text, Ez. 23.38, 39 It seems to me that the defilement in this place (as in the other) was by their legal, not moral uncleanness. For whereas in v. 37. God hath expressed their Idolatry and murder, he adds in v. 38. Moreover (or besides that) this they have done unto me, to wit, defiled my house, that is another crime; then in v. 39 he explains how, For when they had slain their children to their idols, they came the same day into my Sanctuary to defile it. Now it cannot be doubted, but in the slaying their chilrens to their Idols there must necessarily be a touching something that was unclean by the dead, which was Levitical pollution, Num. 22.4. and so herein lay this third crime added to the rest, that being thus unclean, they came nevertheless into God's Sanctuary in the same day, to profane it. That this is the meaning, these words In the same day, make it clear. I pray mark them, they are twice repeated, both verse 38, & 39 that you may not escape the meaning. Moreover they have defiled my Sanctuary by coming into in the same day. Now why the same day? what if it had been the next day, or another after? it had been all one to Moral uncleanness. But because of their Legal uncleanness, the Law in this case expressly commanded, that who so touched any thing that was unclean by the dead, he was to be unclean till the Even, and not to come into the Sanctuary (upon pain of being cut off) before his purification, Leu. 22. v. 4. with v. 6. I will close these texts with an observation here, to avoid misconstruction; It is this, that there are two things seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or incompatible, and are not so, but are both to be held as plainly true. They are these, That a person though he be ungodly or wicked, may and must wait upon the Ordinances, it is his duty that he is bound unto; and yet that such a person too may and must (upon conviction and censure) be excluded; that is; there is nothing in the nature of the Ordinances, but that such may come to them, being appointed of God for the working grace and reformation in the comers; Yet hath the Lord set up a power in the Church, whereby these persons upon a due account, shall by way of punishment be cut off from them: such being the wisdom of God's appointments, that both their commiag before censure, and their exclusion upon censure, are a like means to be used, one after another, for the bringing them to repentance. To this purpose I cannot pass in the way, those Texts which Gillespy mentions, p. 106, 107. to prove that scandalous sins do pollute, not only a man's self, but the people of God that are in fellowship with them, 1 Cor. 5, 6. Heb. 13.15, 16, 2 Pet. 2.13. Judas 13. whereunto I answer, that this pollution, I take it, is not, 1. any kind of outward pollution, as under the Law. 2. Nor any  pollution, which cannot be, while a man's own conscience is not defiled. 3. Nor is it only a bare pollution by evil example, imitation or infection, for so the good are not defiled; though in part indeed, it is this. But 4. under favour, that pollution or defilement wherewith the whole Church and fellowship thereof is said defiled or leavened by a scandalows sinner, insomuch, that he is to be cast out from it (especially in the primitive time, when they had their gathered Churches amidst the heathen) is a pollution of discredit, disgrace, and disreputation which is brought upon the Church; in suffering such among them; In regard of which report (It is commonly reported, 1 Cor. 5.1.) such as these, are leven, spots, blemishes to the whole, besides the evil inclined following their steps. And so though I would maintain the Ordinances free from any such pollution by wicked men (as was by the uncleanness under the Law) that should necessitate all such never to come at them: Yet I do not at all infringe discipline; but in the taking off what opposes Free-admission, I leave the grounds still firm (even this also from the keeping Church-fellowship pure in a right sense) for Excommunication.  
[5.] Whereas it is commonly urged by the most from what is spoken, The morally unclean are worse than the levitical, if the one were to be kept from the Passeover, then much more the other, and so from the Sacrament. I do humbly conceive, if I may speak freely, that Erastus hath most elaborately satisfied this argument (Confir. Thes. lib. 2. cap. 1.) for all what Beza, Rutherford, or Gillespy, have replied to him. They indeed do prove, that legal uncleanness was a type of our moral uncleanness, which Erastus denies not, but they do not prove that their exclusion was a type of our Excommunication, which he stands upon, much less of Suspension, as distinct from it, which serves me. The type and the thing typed, are not to be made the same. Quod praecipue intendebamus, says he, est immunditiam legis non ita praefigurasse scelera, ut in his terris, eodem modo, eademque poenâ coercenda esse concludi possit. For my part, I think that this bar of Levitical uncleanness is not to be looked upon as any censure for a crime, (it was a calamity, not a sin to be a leper) but as a Mandate only for the keeping up that ceremonial outward holiness, on things, places, persons, which God was pleased to enjoin under the Law, for what reasons that infinite wisdom only knows best, that hath now abolished the same. That a man who had sworn, lied, deceived, or committed a like sin, might come the same day to the holy things and not defile them, and yet that the most pious Jew that had but touched any thing unclean, could not come without defilement of them; it is to be resolved only into the will of God, that would have it so, and to inquire farther into the reason of this will, (as Mr. Coll. does, p. 100) is not to be wise unto sobriety. The force then of this argument as Erastus has it, will indeed be all one with this, as if a man neatly dressed, should thus argue; A thief or a drunkard is worse than that man who carries lime or coal; but I must take heed of coming near that man, lest he pollute or smut me, therefore I must much less come near a wicked, or scandalous person. It is therefore an ingenuous acknowledgement of that Presbyterian Author, whosoever he be, that wrote the Vindication of the Antiquaerist against Mr. Prynne, p. 7. where confessing some arguments indeed used for suspension to be weak, For instance (says he) those arguments brought from the Ceremonial Law seem to me but Ceremonial, not substantial arguments, and if they prove any thing, I conceive (pace tantorum virorum who make use of them) they evince rather a seclusion from spiritual and eternal privileges, than from outward Gospel-Ordinances. And unto this Dr. Drake himself against me, agrees perfectly, p. 20, which is according to Erastus, & the truth, in this particular.  
[6.] Whereas the foundation I stand upon in the main of this dispute, is duty, which must n needs be a sure bottom, in regard that man's impotency or iniquity cannot evacuate God's authority, but the will of God must stand against all consequence; and hereupon those that writ against me, are necessitated to assert, that it is the duty of none to receive the Sacrament, but the regenerate only, which are happily here and there one in a congregation. I shall appeal to the consciences of those that fear God, to judge between us, with what equity can these men revile me and my opinion for lose, profane and ungodly, whose only design is to set up God's Ordinance amongst us, that men and women may hereby acknowledge themselves professors, and disciples of Christ, as they ought, by observing his institutions, (If you be my disciples, keep my commandments) and in the mean time justify themselves in their own opinions, as most conscientious and godly, that does but directly herein, as to the generality, go about the making void the command of Christ by their tradition. Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. It is strange, & to be admired (says judicious Timson in his latter book, p. 263.) that our pressing to Christian observance, should have such a hard sense put upon it, as to be branded with looseness, when in all other duties, pressing to obedience according to rule, is accounted godliness, and holy strictness. When Erastus (I find) is affirming that legal uncleanness only debarred the Jews from the holy things, and not moral, (which he said was to be punished otherwise, as with prison and death) Beza answers, At iniquissima lex Dei fuisset quod tam severè externum contactum puniret, ad scelera verò manifestè conniveret, as Erastus quotes him with those words following, Exhorrui cum ista tua legi, Conf. Thes. 146. when others with Erastus understand by Cutting off in the Law, an untimely death, to be inflicted by the Magistrate where the crime was open, or by God himself where it was secret, or the Magistrate neglected his duty, Leu. 20.4, 5. Gillespy answers, Then might the Mosaical laws in such texts, as Ex. 30.38. Leu. 7.20. Num. 19.13.20. no less than those of Draco, be said to have been written in blood, p. 53. (whereas indeed by the way, where the escape was so easy, the greater severity threatened herein, shown but the wisdom of God, that none might wilfully ever offer to incur it:) So when I here fix myself on the command of Christ, Do this, to his Church, which consists of regenerate and unregenerate, and my adversaries can come off here no way else, they make no more ado, but deny the command of God to all but the regenerate only. A sad thing in my apprehension, that men so pious, eminent, and worthy, should even be ready rather to fall foul on the very Laws of God himself, than to cross or lay down their own conceptions. And yet I remember when Erastus is showing many plain convincing differences from Scripture, between legal and moral uncleanness in reference to the matter last mentioned; particularly, that legal uncleanness was such, as by the appointment of God should be liable to defile the holy things, & so debarr men from them, but there was no such Law for moral: Mr. Rutherford takes him up thus, often, This is to dispute with God, All this is mere cavilling at the wisdom of God, Ch. Gou. p. 288.283. etc. But whether there be any ingenuity or righteousness in such replies; those that read these contrary passages in his opposers, will judge and see easily (if men may have liberty to speak freely) who they be herein, if there be any, that do but cavil indeed, and dispute with God. As for my part, I conceive that judgement which hath been given long since upon the dispute between Beza and Erastus is good, that neither side is altogether in the right, but that they have divided the truth between them; which truth, so far as concerns me in this controversy, I have endeavoured to find and lay down impartially in the preceding she is, let others do the like in other things that shall concern them.  
[7.] Whereas it is doubted whether Judas was present at the Sacrament, for which there is no argument commonly urged, can be considerable (this being matter of fact) but that only from Jo. 13.30. where it is said he went out, There are two things, I conceive, convenient to be asserted here, in reference to the 6 Ch. of M. Coll. which he rightly styles a digression. The first is, That Jesus Christ according to the received opinion of the Latin Church, did eat his Passeover on the same night with the Jews. This is irrefragably proved by those texts, Mat. 14.12, 14, 15. Mat. 26.14 Lu. 22.7, 9, 11, 12. where I observe, 1. It is said to be the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, which Strictly began the night they kept the Passeover, after Sunset, continuing till Sunset the next day: but Largely in our Saviors time they called the fourteenth day (because it began at the evening thereof ensuing) the first day of the feast, as the disciples speak here. 2. It is likewise said expressly that it was the time the Passover ought to be killed, & was killed, so that there is no room for evasion, whereas those texts then, Io. 18.28. and Io. 19.14. are objected, that Christ was brought under pilate's judgement before the Passeover, there must on necessity be some ambiguity in these Texts or the other; But when Luke tells us it was the time the Passeover ought to be killed, and Mat. and Mat. the time it was killed, there can be no evasion here in the texts. I have quoted, without denial of the truth thereof, and therefore the ambiguity is in the other objected; to wit, the Passover there which they were then preparing, is to be understood of the Passoever of the Herd or Bullock, Deu. 16.2. 2 Chr. 30.24. and 35.7, 8. and not of the Lamb they had already eaten over night. See Lyra on the place, and Dr. Eightfoots Temple Service, Chap. 14. Sect. 1. and Hand Glean. out of Exod. sect. 18.3. It is said, the disciples on this day came to Jesus, saying, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passeover? Now how should this be, if they punctually knew it not to be the day of the Jews? 4. Those disciples he sends to town to prepare it, find a guess chamber already furnished according to Christ's word; Now how should that good man of the house have his room already furnished & prepared for the Passeover, that knew nothing of Christ's coming, if it were not now the time thereof according to the Jews? 5. It is said, At the feast Pilate used to release to them a prisoner, and he asked them, if they would be should release Jesus; therefore it was not before the feast, but at the feast, Mat. 27.15. Lu. 23.17. The second thing is, that this being convinced, it will follow that this Supper in Jo. 13. was not Christ's last Passeover Supper, for these reasons, which I remember Dr. Lightfoot once shown me in part of 0734 0 his Harmony yet in Manuscript, or very much to this effect. 1. Because it is expressly said so, v. 1. Now before the feast of the Passeover. 2. Because when Judas went out here, the disciples thought he had gone out to buy something against the feast, v. 39 and therefore it was not at the feast. 3. Because when the even of that day was come (& it is said to be night here when Judas went out) wherein they eat the Passover it was holy, Ex. 12.16. & there was then nothing to be bought or sold, How then could the disciples think Judas had gone out to buy something against the feast, if it were that night itself wherein nothing could be bought? 4. The devil entered into Judas to set him on his villainy, while the Passeover drew near, Lu. 22.1, 2, 3. that must needs be before the night itself; but the devil entered Judas at the sop in this Supper, Ergo, the Supper in John was before Christ's last Supper. 5. Because there are many different passages (though accounted the same) at this supper in John, and Christ's last Supper in the other Evangelists, which every one may easily multiply, that will be pleased exactly to read them. 6. Because there is not here one syllable mentioned of the institution of the Sacrament which was at Christ's last Passeover Supper. 7. Because the exact reckoning we may find in Scripture of Christ's last week before the Passeover may do much to inform us herein, which I conceive appears thus. Six days before it, Jesus came to Bethany, Jo. 12.1. On the next day, he rides in triumph to Jerusalem, v. 12. and returns to Bethany at night, Mar. 11.11. On the morrow, he went again thither to the Temple, Mar. 11.12, 15. When Even was come, he comes back as before, v. 19 In the morning next, likewise he goes to Jerusalem, v. 20.27. and at night returns to the Mount of Olives, Luk. 21.37. where he lodges, we may conceive, in Bethany, as he was wont, for the next day, being now two days before the Passeover, we find him there, comparing the Text following, Luk. 22.1, 2, 3, 4. with Matt. 26.2— 14. and Mark 14.1, 3. And hereabouts, I conceive, for the two days following he shelters himself, in his addresses for death, having departed purposely from the City to hid himself from them, Joh. 12.36. Now during this time of his retirement, whereof the other Evangelists record nothing, we have the relation of John of this Supper, and many heavenly passages, in no less than 4. or 5. Chapters, which cannot be thought one continued Speech or Sermon, as is commonly said, if the words in ch. 14. v. ult. with ch. 18. v. 1. (likewise ch. 16.20.) be considered. These discourses then, meditations, transactions in ch. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. (to proceed) taking up these two days, the Passeover comes, Christ sends two disciples to the City to prepare it, Luke 22.7. Himself follows with the Twelve, Mar. 14.17. They all eat thereof, v. 20. After the hymn they go out, v. 26. Judas steals away to fetch the Officers, v. 43. Christ is apprehended, v. 46. The Jews sit up all night upon him consulting, (which appears by Peter's Cocks crowing.) Early, as soon as it was light, Mat. 27.1. Jo. 18.28. Pilate is called up. The judgement hastened and dispatched. At 
As for that text, Jo. 19.14. Disertè legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum libello quem scripsit de Paschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nine a clock in the morning he is fastened on the Cross, Mar. 15.25. About twelve there comes the Eclipse, Luke 23.44. After three, he gives up the ghost, Mar. 15.34, 37. is taken down and interred: In the grave he lies the remnant of that day, all the Jewish Sabbath, being the next, and part of the third, which by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, is reckoned 3. days, Mat. 16.21. Then he arises, being their first day of the week, Jo. 20.1. Is seen of his disciples for 40 days, Acts 1.3. and so ascends to heaven, v. 9 Blessed be his name for ever.  
[8.] Whereas I have recorded a certain precedent from a neighbour, (rejoined. p. 240.) in confirmation of that point, whether the Sacrament be a means of conversion, unto which others might be added, of some men eminent for the good they do in their places, who have told myself the l●ke, as to the experiences of their own souls, which is much satisfying: I do think fit to take notice of those two stories which Mr. Coll. mentions in opposition hereunto, p. 14. Of two Women, the one under a Minister of his acquaintance, the other under Mr. simmond's, who dying under carnal security, attributed both their hardening to these men's admitting them to the Sacrament. Now these two stories, and the like, I judge may be worthy very serious consideration, something contrary, and more likely, than that for which he brings them; for these Ministers, I believe, were congregational men, or such at lest who were more strict than others as to their admission, and it is this; (I pray God it may be judiciously laid to heart, whether it be so or no) that, while men pretend to have more pure communion, and so be more careful of separating the vile from the precious, than others ordinarily, especially pressing that this Ordinance belongs only to the regenerate, so that men must think themselves so, when they come thither; It need be no wonder, unto any, that are but little acquainted with the fancies and temper of folk's Spirits, that many weak people should think well of their estates, that they are better than others being under these forms, and so grow secure, and harden, so long as such holy Ministers that refuse others with such cautiousness, do receive them (as worthy persons, and visibly regenerate) to their Communions: whereas our former Ministers, and we that say with Paul, Know ye not that all our Fathers were baptised in the cloud, and drank of the rock, which rock was Christ? Know ye not that there is a common right, as to this outward privilege of Ordinances: so that we esteem none of you better than your neighbours for your partaking hereof, we are of the circumcision that worship God in the spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh, or externals: I say, while we teach thus, we have no occasion to fear that any one should grow spiritually proud, or fall into security, thinking themselves better than others for our admitting them to the Sacrament, any more than to other Ordinances, where we teach, and call upon them alike, to make use thereof unto repentance, & acceptance of Christ, and not suppose them converted already, which lays the groundwork of folks hardening, if herein there be any. Whereas then Mr. Col. from Gillespy would fain know what fruit any godly Ministers found of their former promiscuous administrations? I answer, besides the peace and quiet of their people, which they now may wish, this fruit thereof they might have, that none of their congregations could bless themselves in any supposed condition better than their fellows, for their outward participation of what was to be in common to all of them, the contrary whereof would by these men be fastened on us; Even as all things (say the wise) have two handles, and every reason, a contrary reason.  
[9] Whereas many worthy and pious Ministers do think it would do well to bring their people to the giving some account to them of their faith and knowledge before the Sacrament, as a means for their future reformation; and there are some of their people that have taken, or be ready to take an occasion from my opinion, to oppose their pious endeavours: I shall humbly declare thus much, for the sakes of these people, that, Although I will not justify any of these Ministers that are more tender and fearful about the doing, than neglecting their office, and am persuaded, that there is no Examination but of a man's own self, can be pressed as necessary to the Sacrament, yet do I both allow and reverence the piety, zeal and pains of many Ministers, that prudentially take occasion hereby to look into the state of their flocks, only for their admonition and instruction, without driving them from their duty; And I do bewail the forwardness and offwardness of most unto so easy a submission, utterly disliking at the bottom of my heart the spirits of such Christians, who either out of consciousness of their own ignorance, or haughtiness of their minds, will be contented to be deprived the Sacrament, rather than give an account of their faith to those that ask it in the spirit of meekness, for their edification. Nay I do profess for my part, were I under the Presbytery, I should most freely subject myself to their trial, as being afraid to grieve the spirit of my Pastor, (supposing him to require it merely out of the tenderness of his conscience) and give example of obstinacy to others; As also most easily believing that the people may do ill in refusing examination, when the Minister does but ill too, in refusing them therefore the Lords-Supper. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you. I speak not this for s●tting up any power over men's consciences, that are to be left free; but that I may so plead for Free-admission, that I may not hinder any men's piety or reformation. To this end I could wish, that for the Ignorant, there were Catechists in the Church, and some prudent kind of Law for the bringing all such to submit to be catechised; and for the scandalous, that there were some authoritative way for the exercise of that most yielded, and least practised duty of fraternal correption; let a man be profane, malicious, and injurious, I am persuaded one half hours serious rebuke of him before grave men, that should awe him, would do more towards his repentance, than many years keeping him from the Sacrament. If after this, the party does continue obstinate, let him in the name of God be proceeded against by Church-censure or Excommunication; A thing doubtless, which if the main truth in my books I drive at first, were well established, would have its season to be pressed.  
[10.] Whereas I find that many of the most holy Christians have their faces set against our mixed Communions, and that general way of Unity I look at, the pant and breathe of whose spirits after holiness and purity, I cannot but reverence, though I think them led more by their present affections, than soundess of Judgement, It is my purpose and resolution, having now proposed my thoughts, rather than grieve and exasperate them any more, to leave the Controversy; so that without some more than ordinary urgent reason be to the contrary, which is not live to be, I shall not engage personally with any of them again about the same, but shall commit my cause to the Lord, humbly beseeching him to pardon me all my failings that have been in it, and persuading myself that if there be any thing useful for the Church in what I have written, some one or other that are friends of truth, will stand by her in a time and season fitting for it, And farther by these my Son be admonished, of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness to the flesh; Let us hear the conclusion of the matter, Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man.  
From Froome, May 26. 1656: J. H.  
FINIS.