SUSPENSION REVIEWED, STATED, CLEARED AND SETTLED UPON PLAIN Scripture-Proof.  
Agreeable to the former and late Constitutions of the Protestant Church of England AND OTHER REFORM CHURCHES.  
Wherein (Defending a private sheet occasionally written by the Author upon this subject, against a public pretended Refutation of the same, by Mr W. in his book, entitled, Suspension discussed.)  
Many important points are handled; sundry whereof are shortly mentioned in the following Page.  
Together with a Discourse concerning private Baptism, inserted in the Epistle Dedicatory.  
By SAMUEL LANGLEY, R. S. in the County Palatine of Chester.  
LONDON; Printed by J. Hayes for Thomas Underhill at the Anchor and Bible in Paul's Churchyard. 1658.   

The following Discourse containeth these things (among others.)  

HOw far prudentials are to be admitted in Church-Government, Changed 2. §. 2.  
A strict consideration of the Scripture Texts, whence the doctrine of Excommunication is to be gathered; and deductions therefrom, Changed 3. §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  
Excommunication cuts not off Chruch-membership, Changed 3. §. 6.  
Degrees of Excommunication; greater and lesser; manifested by Scripture light, Ch: 3. §. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.  
How far the Presbyterian suspension, is suitable to the Rules appointed under the late Episcopal Government, Changed 4. §. 3, 4, 5, 6. Ch: 14. §. 1. Digress. 3.  
The distinction of negative and positive Believers considered; and how far it's of use in this Controversy, Changed 5. §. 3, 4, 5, 6.  
A justified Believer as easily discovered to, and known by others, as a dogmatical Believer, Changed 5. §. 5.  
The maïne conclusion, viz. that the Lords Supper ought not to be administered to unbelievers who are such, in respect of actual notorious disobedience to the Gospel, Changed 5. §. 2. Proved from Mr. W. his concession, §. 7. From the suspension of some from the Passeover, not ceremonially unclean. §. 8. From parallel Cases, §. 9 From the form of administering; Eat this in remembrance Christ died for thee, §. 10, 11, 12. From the consideration of the qualifications required in the adult, as necessary conditions of their admission to Baptism, Changed 6. throughout.  
The main conclusion aforesaid cautioned, Changed 7. wherein especially is showed, how an habitual sincere believer, may be unpardoned and so liable to condemnation for actual wickedness not yet repent of, §. 2.  
The great and strongest objection, against the foresaid Conclusion, taken from the supposed general admission to the Passeover, considered and answered, Changed 8. §. 4, 5. Ch: 9 Ch: 10.  
Particular scruples and objections answered, and mistakes removed, Changed 11.  
Rom. 4.11. strictly considered, Changed 12. §. 6. etc. Where is proved that the Sacraments are seals of the mutual Covenant, i. e. on God's part, and man's part also.  
Exceptions answered in the following Chapters.  
Notorious wickedness visibly continued in, without repentance, is (and aught) to be taken (in the judgement of the Governing Church, or where there is no Governing Church, in the judgement of the Minister officiating) as equivalent to word-rejecting of Christ; and therefore equally renders a person uncapable of having the Lords Supper administered to him, Ch. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.  
By immediate though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate parents, a right may be conveyed for the Baptism of their Infants, Changed 19 §. 4, 5, 6, 7.  
A discourse about Examination, or taking an account of persons confession of the faith, before their first admission to the Lords Supper, Digress. 3.  
An observation concerning the name Antichrist, Digress 12.  
The right mean betwixt unwarrantable separation from and undue admission to, the Sacrament, Digress. 14.  
Rom. 3.19. opened and vindicated, Digress. 19, 20.  
An Argument from Act. 15. proving that select Brethren (not Ministers) may authoritatively act in Ecclesiastical Government, Digress. 22.    

TO THE REVEREND LEARNED & GODLY Dispensers' of the Mysteries of God (and more especially those of the Classical Association in the Eastern parts) of the County Palatine of Chester: Together with the Reverend and most endeared Mr Simeon Ash Minister in the City of LONDON.  
As also To the truly judicious and experienced Physician, his highly honoured Friend Mr WILLIAM BENTLEY. The Author wisheth all grace and peace to be multiplied.  
WORTHY SIRS;  
IT's no intent of mine in prefixing your Names to the ensuing Treatise, to engage you in the patronage thereof. Let it stand or fall at the bar of right Reason. What the Learned Wotton, in his Epistle before his accurate book the Reconcil. peccat. saith to King's College, that do I mean to you in this thing; Reum apud vos agere (viri ornatissimi) non clientem, & vos mihi non patronos qui pro me dicant comparandos, sed qui de me sententiam ferant, judices constituendos esse decrevi. Nor do I think so low of you, or so highly of my discourse, as to judge it deserving of this joint dedication. But considering I am not likely to appear again in print, I judged it honest, to divide these my goods (though never so small) among you, rather than to appropriate them to any of you singly; having cogent Reasons for this Address to you all in this business.  
To you the Renowned Aesculapius of our County, that I might hereby publicly testify the engagements of myself and family to you both as a Friend and Physician; more especially that I might signify a grateful sense and remembrance of your long continued, successful and careful (though unfeed) Advice for the health of him whom I was indebted to for my being and well-being. And your urging me to this service had no small influence upon me, so that you may rightfully challenge a share in the fruit of my pains therein.  
And you dear Sir, a bright Star of the first magnitude in the Metropolitan firmament, may not be excluded hence. For when I call to mind your former Respects to me in both Universities; the precious precepts and fervent prayers you favoured me with, at and in mine Ordination; And the most endeared, cordial, long continued intimacy which you had with my Father (of blessed memory) who ever bore you upon his heart with the greatest tenderness; and who before he was taken from us, in commending the service of this book to me, forcibly commanded me the same: (These things, I say, considered, not to mention other,) I find myself deeply engaged, as the heir of your most loving Friend, as well as upon my own account otherways, to testify here my singular gratitude to you, with submission of these my studies to your grave, quick and judicious, yet most candid Censure.  
And ye my Bosom Friends and Brethren of that Classical Association, wherein my lot is fallen (at present) to make up a number, are not only concerned in my cause, but injuries also. Would it be believed if I should tell you the Gentleman I have to deal with, intends you the contemptuous language he bestows on me? Yet such is his brow, that he hath taken up a conceit, (ask me not whence, I am not of Council with him who taught him it,) That my Associated Brethren were accessary to the paper he endeavoured to disgrace. These are his words to me; Your notes (probably) were not of such private concealment, as you would make us believe; but were showed to divers Divines of your own party, for advice and approbation. Thus it is reported. And there is strong probability for the truth of this report. For it's not likely, you would pass a business of that nature to a professed Antagonist, without consultation first with your Associates, whom the grand design of your notes concerned as intrinsically as yourself. The falseness of which his self magnifying and insolent conjecture, is known to yourselves, and may appear to others by the Account given, Digress 21.  
And truly, Gentlemen, As this his affront to you, ministered just cause of a greater indignation against his incivilities, so the publishing that he intended you as well as me, I account a sufficient disparagement to his calumnies; which will not be fastened on your Names, how ever they might more easily have stained mine, if I had been singly bespattered by him. Yet in making this advantage of your company under his abuses, I do not in the least attempt, to shelter the weaknesses and defects of my paper, or its defence, under the covert of your protection. The interpellation of you in these lines, designeth only a public testimony of the precious esteem I have of you, whose unanimous and studious persevering in the work of the Lord (notwithstanding the sad and never too much lamented loss we have lately sustained in the decease of that pair of most grave, venerable and unblemished Divines, as also of a third, though not so ancient, yet very useful and able Minister, who were lately the strength and ornament. the Horsemen and Chariots, not only of our Classis, but County and Province also; I say, notwithstanding this discouragement, your continued pious endeavours together and apart) are and shall be no less the joy of many, than they seem to be the envy of some.  
And you my much honoured Fathers and Brethren in the Ministry of this County, I cannot omit in this Dedication, as having been moved by many of you to the work here undertaken, which now I humbly lay at your feet; obliging myself to be thankful for any of your learned faithful Animadversions, you may be pleased to afford me, in what I may be conceived by any of you to have erred: assuring you that such oil (if not inflamed with passion) shall be of most precious account with me for the healing the wounds you may discern in my head.  
This Controversy which some have enlarged by the introducing of many things not conclusive herein, is here reduced to this point; wherein, indeed the stress lies, viz. Whether the word of God gives any warrant to administer either to such as are visibly in the ways of wickedness, inconsistent with the exercise of justifying faith? Or to such as have not in their own persons understandingly, and before competent witnesses, professed their owning of their baptismal engagements, which in their infancy were laid upon them? In this the whole controversy is contained; the former being asserted and proved establisheth suspension, the latter non-Admission, as is showed in the third Digression about Examination. All acknowledge believers only have right to the Lords Supper. But then the Question will be, whether all believers who are so called in any sense, particularly in regard of their having been baptised, and positively engaged to believe? This cannot be granted, for then no Apostate, though excommunicate, could be debarred of necessity, therefore we must allow some qualifications necessary, to make one capable of the Sacrament, over and besides his baptism, and having been positively engaged to the Christian faith. And this the Brethren for general admission seem to confess, when they in stating the Question still limit it to persons adult and intelligent, and that in respect of the usual exercise of understanding, and actual freedom from drunknnesse, etc. which should make them uncapable of exercising reason during their intoxication. Their Antagonists have often urged them to give a Reason, why these may be debarred who have not the foresaid qualifications, and not the notoriously profane? It hath been answered: 1. In respect of the drunk, that they are fit for no ordinance, and so not for the Lords Supper; which is a satisfactory Answer in itself. But not upon their principles, who 1 plead for an actual right in all to receive whose duty it is to receive; and 2. that Church-membership entitles (or proves a title) to all Ordinances in the Church. For the drunken Christian is not disobliged from his duty in reference to this or other ordinance, nor dismembered, by his drunkenness at present. 2. In reference to Minors, and the unintelligent, as to the ordinary exercise of Reason; it is answered, that they come not under the command to receive, as being innocently unable to examine themselves; but the profane are unfit only through their own fault: and so they say, there is as much difference between these, as betwixt [will not] and [cannot]; the latter excuseth, not the former. This I confess is somewhat, but it reacheth not the matter wherein the knot lies. For the Question is not intended only, why Minors and the unintelligent are secluded from the Lords Supper? (to which the Reason given is an Answer.) But also, why they are secluded from the Lords Supper, when they are not secluded from other ordinances of public prayers and preaching in the Church? And this the foresaid Reason toucheth not. For if innocent incapacity as such, excuseth and so secludes from the Sacrament, it would according to our brethren's principles excuse and seclude from other ordinances of equal sanctity (as they speak) and wherein as much knowledge and other graces (they say) are necessary to be exercised to an acceptable performance, as in celebrating the Lords Supper. And therefore the Reason of excluding the innocently uncapable from the Sacrament, will lie in this, because they are visibly uncapable, in general, as some profane persons may be; not in this in particular, that they are innocently uncapable; And then the exception stands still in force, viz. that they produce no Reason for debarring the unintelligent from the Sacrament, whiles they are admitted to other Ordinances, which will not serve us for debarring the profane from the Sacrament, though they are not debarred the prayers and hearing the word in the Church. But the Gentleman I have to deal with in this reply, seems more liberal in this matter. For he describes his positive believer, that is, one who is positively obliged to Christianity, who is with him capable of the Sacrament, by many other qualifications, p. 50, 51, 57 which I have mentioned in the Treatise following, Ch. 8. §. 3. As 1. that he is one who is professedly of the Christian persuasion. (But what if he be an Arrian, is he no Christian? then he is no heretic? so we are at a loss, how far this qualification will be extended, to be professedly of the Christian persuasion.) 2. That he frequent our Assemblies. 3. Hear our doctrine with reverence and attention. 4. Visibly submit to the outward means of reformation and amendment. 5. Not justifying his miscarriages. 6 One who gives us visible testimony of his assent to our doctrine. Now if the absence of these render a person debarrable; It will not sink into my dull head, that Mr. W. or any one else can gratify us with any scriptural Reason, for the same; (as to debar him who comes not to Church ordinarily,) which will not debar any profane swearer, drunkard or unclean person, notoriously appearing so to be. And if any would favour me with a clear Reason from Scripture, why an unintelligent person (though baptised adult, etc.) may be debarred the Sacrament, as they hold he may, although not debarred other ordinances: I say if any would give me a proof of this, without manifestly overturning thereby, the main props of that structure, which the Brethren for general Admission have laid, I shall pawn my promise before you, to be much engaged for such a discovery; which I must profess is not within the reach of my present understanding.  
There hath been much spoken in the discussion of this subject, about polluting holy things, casting pearls to swine, not distinguishing betwixt the precious and the vile, etc. which the other party will I think yield are pertinent, if first it be proved, that the persons pleaded for are unwarrantably admitted. And unless this be sound evinced, they who use those passages must acknowledge they have no edge against their Antagonists. For certainly to dispense Ordinances to them whom the word warrants us to dispense them to, cannot justly be loaded with any of those aggravations. For Scripture is the Rule of purity. And so, on the other hand, the Arguments for the general admission contended for, taken from Christ's command to administer to Disciples, Believers, that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance (in some sense) etc. will, I suppose, be granted by those who make use of them, to have no force against us, if this be once cleared to them, that the Disciples and Believers to whom the Lords Supper belongs, are not all such Disciples or Believers, as are so called in respect of their professed entrance into Christ's school, and positive engagement to believe in him, (which no Apostate Arrian, nor Mahometan can lose or put off from him) but those only who are such visibly in regard of serving Christ and abiding in his ways: the proving hereof is the design of a main part of the Treatise following. And though herein I may seem too strict; it may be I shall be censured on the other hand, by some when they read how favourable my judgement is in the judging and discerning who are visibly in a way of disobedience inconsistent with the exercise of justifying faith. For there I think charity hath its place; not in widening the Rule, but in application of the Rule to particular persons. But I shall not anticipate your perusing the book, (as you may have leisure) by a tumultuary mentioning of the contents thereof here. But I most earnestly desire your serious studying the Question, which is weighty and of practical continual importance. And this I crave, not only in reference to yourselves, and those to whom you are guides in your particular Congregations, but also with some respect to myself, who may hope to receive benefit by the imparting your digested apprehensions concerning this Argument. For by a brotherly, private, impartial discussion of a controverted point, I should think peaceable Dissenters from each other, may most probably and effectually receive satisfaction; which then might be made public (if they saw cause) by mutual consent of both parties, all impertinencies and mistakes on each hand discovered, being first lopped off. Whereas Disceptations in print at the first dash, are usually full of mistakes, and great Temptations to the Authors thereof.  
From you therefore, my much honoured Fathers and Brethren, wherein any of you do or may descent from me, I shall readily receive rational correction. And if I approve myself to you truly studious of truth (without bitterness to such as may be of different judgement from me herein;) I shall have little cause to be solicitous about the rejoinder to me, which my Gentleman Publisher hath already talked of, in his printed Apology. If he rationally convince me of the faultiness of the main parts of my discourse, I shall endeavour to let you and others know my sense thereof: if not, you may conjecture by my silence. Controversies must not be endless; and I will not contend with him for a scowlds prize, to have the last word.  
Some of you and others may (perhaps) think this Treatise too long ere it came, and now too long when it is come forth.  
In reference to the latter, I desire the weightiness of the subject, which in the main is treated upon, may be considered, and the necessity of taking in some extravagancies mine Antagonist had with much noise cast in my way. At least comparatively, I hope I shall be excused. For since Mr. W. spent 9 sheets in answering my one; If I had taken a proportionable liberty, I should have taken up 9 times 9 (81) in a reply to his. The like may be considered for some satisfaction to the former complaint. If those months he had for his answer to my sheet, be multiplied by 9 times so many months, due to me for returning a reply to his nine, I shall be found much to have prevented the day I might have taken on that account. But it's known to Divers, that I was long before I could be persuaded to entertain a resolution for such a business, considering how unhandsomely he had proceeded. And when I began to look more seriously on it, I must acknowledge it was not quickly, that I could read his book without disturbance; which necessitated me to lay it aside, till I perceived myself composed to peruse it calmly, as if I felt not myself scarce at all personally concerned therein. And then the heavy affliction which befell me June 1. 1657. (which I doubt not, many of you had a share in) will easily be supposed by you a great discomposure of my studies for such a service as this. I mention not my other employments, ordinary and extraordinary. The Treatise was ready before Michaelmas, and sent up to London the week following. Let the rest be imputed to my dulness and slowness, and if you will to (that Mr. W. hath spied in me) my timorousness.  
I deferred the dispatch of this Epistle till I saw some sheets of the book printed, which I did not till the last week.  
¶ And now you will expect I should cease to be further troublesome to you. And such of you as are already tired, have the law in your own hands to help yourselves by leaving off here if you please. But presuming that some of you will afford me your patience a little longer, I shall make bold (at the urgent request of some whose judgement is not to be slighted) here to annex a short discourse concerning the privacy or publicness of administering the other Sacrament, viz. of Baptism, which will not be unsutably joined with the main subject of the discourse following. And this challengeth its place here, because it so particularly concerns the Ministry, and is therefore to be submissively presented to your serious consideration, and candid censure. Let this then be the Question to be discussed before you, viz.  
Whether (or if at all in what cases) Baptism may be now administered privately not publicly?  
To public is sometimes opposed in Scripture that which we render, from house to house, especially in that text, Act. 20.20. But I humbly conceive the phrase so rendered, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not equivalent to private or per singulas demos, as Erasmus in Act. 2.46. renders the phrase, for which he is justly blamed by the Learned Beza. The phrase and the importance thereof is worth a strict enquiry. In Paul's farewell speech to the Elders or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus, Act. 20. (for to them only he there speaks, and if [from house to house] be to be understood of private houses, its manifest it must relate only to the private houses of the said Bishops, not the private houses of the people) he avoucheth his integrity in the discharge of his Apostolical Ministry, as in other Instances thereof, so especially in that he saith, ver. 20. I have kept back nothing from you that was profitable for you; But have showed and taught you publicly and from house to house, (or at the houses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) testifying both to Jews and also to the Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. This adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) seems to signify not only publicly but openly, popularly, and agrees to an action exposed to open view and cognizance of the people and multitude, without distinction of Christians from Jews or Heathens (and that with or pretending to the State authority, Act. 5.18.) the word is translated openly, Act. 16.37. They have (saith Paul) beaten us openly, i. e. exposed us to open shame before the promiscuous multitude, Act. 18.28. Apollo's mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly (in their Synagogue, vers. 26.) that Jesus was the Christ. And being here opposed to the Christian houses, it denotes, the Temple, Synagogue, Market places, or such open conventions, to which persecutors and enemies as well as Christians had a free access; and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not mere private houses, but the Church Assemblies which used to convene in several houses appointed for that purpose; which are therefore opposed to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] because they were not built nor appointed by any public act of the State; and 2. because here was not a reception of the people, friends & foes promiscuously (at least not at all times) but of the brethren joined together in ecclesiastical Christian society. For the clearing hereof I shall show, 1. that this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the N. T. (though sundry times there used) is ever appropriated to the signifying of the Church meetings in their houses; 2. And always (I take it) some other phrase is used to denote such as are in a mere private house. This latter may be seen in Act. 16.32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 11.34. & 14.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The former I shall more insist upon; for the demonstration whereof I shall produce all the places of the N. T. where the phrase is used. Rom. 16.5. Greet the Church in their house, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 16.19. Aquila and Priscilla salute you with the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Col. 4.15. Salute— Nymphas and the Church which is at his house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philemon vers. 2. to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That this phrase in these Texts signifies the Church meetings, and Christian Assemblies is demonstrated already by the learned Mr. Mede above all contradiction. I shall only quote one passage or two of his for this, which he hath in his discourse called Churches, i. e. appropriate places for Christian worship, p. 22. Unless (saith he) this should be the meaning, why should this appendent be so singularly mentioned, in the salutation of some and not of others? and that not once but again, if the same names be again remembered, as of Aquila and Priscilla. Had none in those catalogues of salutation christian families, but some only who are thus remembered! It is very improbable; nay if peruse them well, we shall find they had, but otherwise expressed, as in that prolix catalogue, Rom. 16. we find Aristobulus and Narcissus saluted, with their household; Asyncritus, Phlegon, etc. with the brethren which are with them, etc. Others with the Saints which are with them, 2 Tim. 4.19. the household of Onesiphorus; this therefore so singular an appendix must mean some singular thing, not common to them with the rest, but peculiar to them alone: And what should this be, but what I have showed; thus that happy Interpreter. There are only two more places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the N. T. both which comply with the forementioned sense of Church meetings in houses, Act. 2.46. Breaking bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (compared with ver. 42.) referring to the love-feasts which they had in common, (to which the celebration of the Lords Supper was sometimes annexed) in several houses appointed among them for that purpose; see Beza on the place. Act. 5.42. the Apostles daily in the Temple and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceased not to teach & preach Jesus Christ; where preaching in the Temple promiscuously is opposed to the preaching in Church meetings of the Christian brethren, as it was in the text last quoted, and therefore is fairly interpreted to the same sense here as it was there. I shall only add one thing more, which makes it probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 20.20. should denote the Church Assemblies, rather than the private houses of the Ephesian Elders as such; One design of Paul's speech appears to be the confirming the Ephesian Elders by his example of constancy and boldness in the Christian faith, and his function, notwithstanding all persecutions, v. 19 Yet saith he, v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I have not through fear or cowardice withdrawn in any thing needful (see the importance of the word as it's used elsewhere, Gal. 2.12. Heb. 10.23, 25. comp: with ver. 38.) his boldness is instanced in preaching both publicly or openly, before friends and foes, and at their Church Assemblies, notwithstanding the danger of coming thither; which made some to withdraw themselves, Heb. 10.25. Now to instruct privately in Christian families, was no such instance of boldness, as this was.— The perusal of this phrase may be otherways useful, (which hath invited me to this strict consideration of it.) At present this use is to be made hereof, that when we speak of private Baptism in private houses, it is not to be understood according to the sense of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it's used, Act. 20.20. though it seem there to be according to our translation opposed to publicly.  
But as public baptism is that which is now performed in the public place, where public ordinances are usually administered, the accustomed signs being given for the assembling of the Congregation there, at such time when it is to be celebrated; so private baptism on the contrary, is that which is done either in the place of public Assembly, when no public notice is duly given for the Congregation to resort thither, or in a private house, where although many are present, yet it is not free, or at least its generally supposed it would not be civil, for any Christian that will, though uninvited, to come to the ordinance of Baptism there administered.  
Now that we may better discern what is incumbent upon us in reference to this circumstance of administering Baptism, we shall peruse Scripture instances, and see what direction they may afford us herein, in these following Theses.  

(Thesis 1.)  
The Baptism of John was not privately administered, according to the senses of private before mentioned, Matth. 3.5, 6. Then went out unto him (viz. to the wilderness of Judea) Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him in Jordan confessing their sins. So saith Mark. 1.5. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptised of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And v. 7. And he preached, saying, there cometh one after me mightier than I, etc. Ver. 8. I indeed baptise you with water, but he with the holy Ghost Luke saith, Changed 3. ver. 2, 3. The word of God came to John in the wilderness, And he came into all the Country round about Jordan, preaching the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And v. 7. Then saith he to the multitude (which Matthew saith he said to the Pharisees and Sadduces that came forth to be baptised of him, Mat 3.7.) O generation of Vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? It's related, Joh. 1.25, 28. They asked him why baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet; John answered, I baptise you with water, etc.— These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptising, etc. From this harmony we may observe, 1. That he baptised where he preached ordinarily, and as openly. 2. That multitudes came to him to be baptised, to whom he preached, expostulating with them; and they confessed their sins, when (probably before) they were baptised. Now this was not confession before John alone, as our Divines show against the Papists, who would hence infer auricular confession; but it rather was an open renouncing of former wickedness, as those did, Act. 19.18, 19 who being converted to the christian faith, confessed & shown their deeds, and some brought their books of curious arts, and burned them before all men. There is no other passage concerning John's Baptism which seems to intimate privacy, or that it was not done according to the tenor of the former Scriptures; but rather comply therewith, Luk. 3.12. Mark 11.30. Joh. 3.23. & 4.1. Luk. 7.29 Act. 1.21, 22. Act. 10.37. Peter in this last Scripture speaking of the Gospel, saith it was that word which you know was published throughout all Judea, & began from Galilee, after the Baptism which John preached. Which phrase further clears it to us, that John first preached to the people concerning the nature & use of his baptism, before he baptised them; which hints his baptism as public as his preaching. There is only one instance more to be considered concerning John's Baptism, & that is his baptising Christ. Mat. 3.13. Mark 1.9. In this, 1. there's nothing against the publiqueness of it, and therefore it may fairly be supposed to be administered as publicly as in the former Instances. 2. Yea there's probable proof of the publiqueness of it. For 1. Christ was pleased to come to John at Jordan, Mat. 3.13. (at which place John was preaching to, and baptising the multitudes spoken of in ver. 5, 6. of that same chap.) Christ did not send for John to some private place (as some now would have Ministers come to their houses) and Luk. 3.21. relates Christ's & the people's baptism as done together. 2. At this time Christ was to be solemnly inaugurated unto the manifestation of his office (as our Divines say) and that declared by a voice from heaven. Now it was of infinite concernment and use, that his baptism should be public, and that there should be many witnesses thereof; whereby also it might publicly appear that Christ approved of John's Baptism, that by his example others might be moved to submit thereunto.   

(2)  
The baptism administered by Christ's disciples before Christ's death, seems rather to have been public as their preaching was, then private. Job. 3.22. After these things came Jesus & his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptised (although Jesus baptised not but his disciples, Ch. 4.2.) whereupon Ch. 3.26. John's disciples tell John of it, that Jesus baptizeth, and all men come unto him.   

(3)  
The examples after Christ's ascension are divided, some administered in public, some privately, and one doubtful to which sort it is to be referred. I shall begin with the public. We have a notable example of public baptism, Act. 2.41. when the same day (that they had heard Peter's Sermon, and probably of other Apostles) there were added 3000 souls who were baptised. Act 8.12. When they (viz. of Samaria) believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women. Here baptising was as public as preaching. Now the preaching was public where all had free admission, ver. 5, 6. At this same time one is particularly mentioned, ver. 13. Simon, who believed Philip's preaching and miracles, as the former persons did, and was baptised at the same time, so Act. 18.8. Another example occurs, Act. 10.44, 47, 48. in like manner described. That's a notable one, Act. 16.13, 14. On the Sabbath (saith the text) we went out of the City by a river side, and we sat down and spoke to the women, which resorted thither, and v. 14, 15. Lydia was there converted, and its probable, baptised and her household. For after she & her household was baptised, she invited the Apostles home to her private house, ver. 15. Now if it had been the use to baptise ordinarily in private, its likely she would have invited them to her house before, that she and her household might there have been baptised.   

(4)  
There are two manifest Instances of private baptism, the one of the Eunuch, Act. 8.35, 36. the other of the Jailor and his household, Act. 16.33.   

(5)  
That of Paul's baptism is more doubtful, Act. 9, 11, 17, 18. & 22.16. The probabilities ●●me rather to cast it among the Instances of public baptism, according to the opportunities of those times; which appear by laying these circumstances together. 1. Paul was miraculously converted in his going to Damascus, & struck blind near to Damascus, to which place he was led. 2. In Damascus there was a brotherhood of Christians, (a Church) at this time, Act. 9.19. 3. This miraculous conversion of Paul could not be concealed from these brethren there; For there were divers with Paul, when he was miraculously converted, who heard the voice from heaven, who were likely to speak of it: the very novelty and wonder of the matter would make them divulge it: besides also they being Paul's companions on his journey, and probably assisting to him in his persecuting design, could not be insensible of their concernment, in the voice speaking, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? which would be an obligation on them to give God the glory of the vision by declaring it. And what story could they make in Damascus to satisfy them who should inquire concerning Paul's blindness who was led by them; but they must tell the truth? the weightiness and strong influence of the present providence, not permitting a dissimulation of the matter. And the same may be said over again, much more to show that Paul himself was not likely to conceal this thing. 4. Paul was three days blind at Damascus before Ananias came to him. 5. It's very probable Paul after his conversion being now under the terror of his former cruelty against Christ in his members, and at present blind, would desire to be conducted to the house of some disciple at Damascus, or at least send for some disciples to him. 6. And as probable it is, that many disciples would flock in to him, hearing of the mighty work of God done on him. 7. It's also noted that he fasted the three days and three nights of his blindness; and that (likely) for a religious end, and then he would join solemn prayer therewith, (to which I suppose the voice speaking to Ananias especially refers, which saith of Paul, Behold he prays, i.e. now he is praying or joining in prayer, having set himself seriously to be humbled for his former sin.) 8. And now it's not likely he spent 3 days in prayer all alone, It's probable therefore there were the Disciples in Damascus gathered to him, into the house of Judas, whither Ananias was instructed to go to Paul, and where he baptised him. Neither may it be forcibly objected, that because of his former rage against Christianity, the disciples in Damascus would not so soon trust him as to come unto him. Upon which account, some time after, the Church at Jerusalem durst not receive him into their company. For these at Damascus who heard of his vision, & might see him humbled under his blindness, would hereby be made fearless of receiving hurt from him. And yet the Disciples at Jerusalem, who wanted those advantages of confidence, might prudently scruple at a sudden admission of him into their society. If all these taken together will not amount to a probability, that here were with Paul a considerable number of Christians, and a free invitation of them hither (which in those times might be such an assembly as used there solemnly to join in public ordinances) who might be present when Paul was baptised by Ananias, yet I think more will hardly be said for a probability of the contrary; and so I leave it.   

(6)  
It appears then, that in all cases it was not unfit, much less unlawful to administer Baptism privately; yet there seem to be but two clear undoubted examples thereof in Scripture, when as all the persons baptised by John, and so probably those baptised by Christ's Disciples before Christ's death, seem to have been openly baptised. And we have perused 5 Scriptures which speak of many, multitudes, thousands, baptised after Christ's ascension, whose baptism, was as publicly administered, as was the preaching of the word ordinarily in the Christian Churches. Hence I think I may reasonably conclude,   

(7)  
That public baptism is according to the ordinary common Rule, & private is the Anomalon, or an exception in some peculiar extraordinary Cases. These two conclusions are to be handled distinctly; and first of the first.   

(8)  
It's according to the ordinary common Rule of the N. T. that baptism be administered publicly, i e. as is aforesaid, according to the opportunity of the times, and so that it be as public as ordinary preaching in the Church assemblies is. This I shall further illustrate and show in these Reasons hereof ensuing.  
1. The nature of this ordinance, is a public seal of the covenant of grace, and so annexed to the Gospel; therefore it's fit it should be annexed to the preaching of the Gospel, and be as public, as that is ordinarily, Matth. 28.19, 20. 2. One effect of Baptism, is the solemn admission of Christians into the visible Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. Therefore its fit to be done ordinarily in the face of a Congregation. I say solemn admission, (for they are Christians before) now the solemnity requires publicness so far as may ●●e. 3. The great use and benefit of having this ordinance publicly, pleads against the private administration thereof, where it may be public. (1) In ●egard of the person baptised, to have the prayers of 〈◊〉 Congregation. (2) With respect to the parents, that they may be more quickened by the solemnity of the ordinance, in renewing their covenant with God on this occasion. (3) For the whole Congregation to be minded of the nature of this ordinance, and the engagements which have been laid upon them herein, for themselves and their children they have formerly in baptism devoted to God. (4) And last, the Minister herein hath opportunity to approve himself publicly in the administration hereof, in a right manner, and to subjects capable of the same according to Gospel Rule. 4. The horrible abuse formerly and now in some places, making many baptisms private transactions (with a few women only present besides the Minister & Father of the infant baptised;) as also the observation that this is generally the employment of scandalous Ministers; should make us less free in complying with them herein; lest we bring contempt on our persons, function, and Ministry. 5. The contempt in our days cast on this sacred ordinance by many, and the aptness we see in divers of our people to make it a matter of state & formality for the entertainment of friends, not regarding the prayers of the Congregation, rather than a business of serious devotion, should provoke us to labour after a greater solemnity in the administration hereof. 6. The exceeeding great snares and inconveniences which private baptism brings on the Minister, when he baptizeth some privately and not others, may dissuade us from gratifying any herein, unless we would comply with all who may desire it; and then I think (in some places) we should have few baptised in the public Congregation. What grudges and surmises of partiality this may beget, we cannot be ignorant. 7. Either baptism is a private or public ordinance; If private, than it needs not at all to be administered publicly. If public, than it ought not to be administered privately, where it may be publicly and that fitly. I say fitly, for sometimes even solemn preaching may be in private places, but not when it may fitly be in public: so is the case here. 8. If private baptisms be admitted, I see not how private communions in the Lord's Supper will be rationally avoided: which yet are now exploded, and I think justly according to 1 Cor. 11.22. For which see also Mr Medes discourse of Churches for Christian worship in the primitive times, p. 4.9. Private baptism would be too near a symbolising, with the Papists, who lay the stress of salvation upon baptism, Necessitate medij; and with the Separatists, who leave our public Assemblies & retire into corners for the performing of public ordinances. 10. Lastly, The judgement of the Churches of God, especially the Church of England, may dissuade from private baptism. Zepperus de polit. eccls. l. 1. c. 12. saith; Baptismum in primitiuâ ecclesiâ Catechumenis adultis qui e gentilismo vel Judaismo ad christum transibant— non nisi ferijs paschalibus, pentecostes & natalitijs Domini administrari solitum, idque magno cum apparatu, & solenni omnium piorum laetitiâ, ex illorum temporum monumentis manifestum est. Nunc quia alia ecclesiae ratio est, illaque ex christianorum parentum liberis ferè constat & colligitur, quotiescunque publici ecclesiae Caetus ordinariè habentur, christianorum parvuli testimonio & sigillo Baptismi, christo ejusque ecclesiae inferentur, & quidem patre ipso ad Infantis sui baptismum praesente atque astante. This is evidenced by the ancient custom of sponsors, who were to make promise before the Church for the instruction of the baptised in the christian faith; Fideijussionem (saith he) & sponsionem, susceptores apud baptismum coram Dei & ecclesiae ipsius facie sacrosanctè praestant. The learned Beza in libello Quaestionum & Responsionum christianorum, speaks home to this business; Q. An de loco baptismi nihil statuendum putas. R. Imo, quum omnia decenter & ordine fieri in ecclesiâ oporteat, sit autem evangelici Ministerij pars Baptismus, eundem locum & verbi & sacramentorum ministerio attribuendum censeo, ut in coetu Ecclesiae, & communibus precibus adjunctis Baptismus administretur, neque istos nescio quos necessitatis casus temerè admiser●.  
I shall only hereunto add the determinations of the English Liturgy, and the Directory. Though in some cases of great necessity (as the Common prayer book speaks) it permit private baptism, yet if the child live, it is to be brought to the Congregation, where the Sponsors shall make solemn professions, as in the order for public baptism; and the Congregation being so satisfied, the child is publicly to be declared solemnly received into the Church. Now how shamefully do many of our corner Baptizers, who pretend much for the Episcopal Government and Common prayer book, offend against this Direction?  
The Directory (which I suppose is owned as a considerable Authority humane, especially in a doubtful case, in this County, most of the Ministers names whereof then resident here when the Presbyterial Government was first commended to us by the Parliament, I have by me, subscribed with their own hands, to a profession of their judgement for that way, and resolution to put the same in practice) it order expressly thus: Baptism is not to be administered in private places, nor privately, but in the place of the public worship, and in the face of the Congregation. There is but one, I know of, professing the Congregational way, who comes to private houses in the Country, and with the parents and a few women, baptizeth, and this I think is offensive to the Ministers of the same way he professeth, as well as to others of us his neighbours. Now we all profess to be studious of peace. But how shall we make it appear, if in such a thing which all I think acknowledge lawful, we comply not with the Directions of the former constitutions of the State and Church of England, and the present Rules commended to us by the Parliament, with the assistance of so Reverend an Assembly, as they had herein? which yet respect only our uniform practice, and tie us not to an opinion of necessity, that Baptism should be ever administered thus publicly. Should not those Scriptures, Rom. 14.19. Phillip 3.15, 16. and such like, have some impression upon us, as to this matter? I leave it to the consideration of the peaceably Judicious. Now I come to my second Conclusion I deduced probably from the perusal of the forementioned examples of Baptism, viz. That   

(9)  
From the ordinary Rule of public Baptism, there is some exception in some special cases. That there is such an exception is already proved, by the Scriptures produced. But to set down a perfect enumeration of such cases wherein that exception hath place, I dare not profess ability to undertake; but I shall endeavour somewhat herein according to my poor measure, 1 Negatively. 2. Affirmatively.   

(10)  
Divers things are pretended as of weight, when they occur, to challenge an exception from the common Rule of public Baptism, which I humbly conceive are of no validity for the same. 1. The child's weakness, and danger of death, is no sufficient reason for private Baptism, (this is the only exception allowed by the Common prayer book.) Indeed this seems rather a reason for the denying of private Baptism, then granting it, lest they who demand it should be strengthened hereby in the conceit of the necessity of Baptism for salvation of the infant, ratione medii. They should rather by our preaching and practice be informed in the right doctrine of the Sacraments. It's true some of the Ancients in the heat of their opposition to the Pelagians, who denied original sin, went so far, as to lay stress of salvation upon Baptism. But others were more sound, who teach, that not the defect or want simply, but the neglect of them is the crime. Now there is not a neglect, where the first opportunity is taken for solemn public Baptism, no more than there is a neglect of the Lords Supper, although it be not received by him who cannot come to the Congregation, who yet is ready and desirous to lay hold on the first opportunity he can, to join himself in the public Communion of the Church in that Ordinance. 2. Nor is the gratification of men's (or rather women's) humours, a sufficient reason for private Baptism. For than it should be denied to none who demand it on that account, one man's humour being of as much validity as another's; and this will not weigh down the dissuasives from a private celebration, before rehearsed. And then again, a sick man's desiring the Communion should be a sufficient reason for our private administering of the Lord's Supper unto him in a private house, where the Church hath not free access, of which there is no footsteps (that I know of) in the holy Scriptures. 3. Nor is the pretence of a custom to have feast and entertainments (which may not fitly be on the Lord's day) a sufficient reason for private baptism; for that custom ought rather to be altered, than the ten former inconveniences of private baptism should be admitted. And it is altered easily in some places (by the Minister's persuasion) that they have their feast on a week day (where they are of ability to have them) when the baptism is on the Lord's day. But it's known experimentally, that many invited to such entertainments (in Country Villages) do not use to come to the Church to be present at the baptism, as making this the least part of their business at such a time. And upon the same pretence last mentioned, two or three (perhaps more) Lords days, or other opportunities for public baptism are neglected, till they be prepared for their dinnerings, which I suppose is a fault in the Parents; agreeable to what the fore-praised Zepperus in the Chapter mentioned, quotes out of Augustine, in his Sermon, the immolat. Isaac. Rogo vos fratres, ut quicunque filium aut vernaculum suum baptizari desiderat, jam nunc Ecclesiae eum offerre non differat (that phrase suits best to public baptism) Quia non est justum, ut res quae tam magna, tam praeclara creditur, negligenter aut tardiùs quam expedit, requiratur. I now proceed to speak positively to the point under consideration, by laying down this Rule.   

(11)  
Private baptism than hath place when the case is such as the expediences thereof for the general good of the Church do over-weigh the  inconvenicies. More particularly, as 1. In the first gathering of a Church, since they who are to be members thereof, are to be solemnly made disciples by baptism, there may be a necessity that some who are the first fruits of the place must be baptised privately: for Church order supposeth a Church existing, wherein it should be exercised and observed. But where a Church is constituted, there this hath no place. 2. In times of persecution, when there cannot be set solemn Assemblies, but Christians, as they may catch at an opportunity of convening; It's a greater inconvenience to the Church that Baptism should be omitted, then that it should be celebrated privately. But I did not need to put in this case, unless the persecution be raised against this Ordinance, rather than preaching, for as I have stated the Question, baptism is not to be called private, which is as public as the ordinary preaching in the Church is at that time. 3. A like case hereunto is that, in times of gross defection and Idolatry in the Church, where this ordinance cannot be publicly administered, without superstitious or heretical mixtures, as in Popish Countries. 4. There may possibly occur some Instance, wherein, an eminent respect to God's glory, propagating the Gospel, and the good of the Catholic Church, may warrant private baptism; that being to be preferred to the advantages of a particular Congregation in some respects. This I suppose was the case of the Eunuch, to whom Philip was directed by the extraordinary dictate of the Spirit, who being on his journey to his own (remote) Country, was converted, and then instantly baptised: of whom Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical history. lib. 2. c. 1. (according to Hanmers' translation) saith; He was the first of the Gentiles, which obtained of Philip the holy mysteries, by the inspiration of the heavenly word; he was made the first fruits of the faithful throughout the world. And as it is reported, after his return unto his native soil, he preached the knowledge of the Universal God, which giveth life unto men, and the coming of our Saviour, whereby the prophecy was fulfilled, which said, Aethiopia shall stretch her hand before unto God: so he. And so this instance falls also under the first case for private baptism. That example of the Jailor's baptism and his household, comes under the first and second case; that being a time of persecution, and Paul and Silas then imprisoned, and knew not when they might hope to be released; much less when they should have an opportunity of assembling the Church in that neighbourhood. And it's not altogether improbable that many other Christian prisoners might be there, and then there might be a solemn assembly agreeable to the allowance of those troublesome times. What other cases there may be of like exigence as to private baptism, I refer to the disquisition of better judgements.   

(12)  
None of these singular cases wherein baptism was privately administered, do (for any thing I know) occur in the present times among us. If there be conceived to be some analogical or proportionate to these, as to this matter, it concerns them who think so, to name them, and to prove the same; the three fore pretended ones I have already shown not to be such. And I know none else pretended, except, (1) the gratifying Separatists, some whereof would suffer their children to be baptised at home with a select company of their own only present, but separate from our public Assemblies, as no rightly constituted Churches: (2) And very rarely (perhaps) one convinced of the error of Antipedobaptisme, who hath been tainted therewith before, seems inclinable to have his children baptised at home, but is loath to honour God so far as publicly to appear in the devoting his seed to God in this ordinance. But if we comply with the former we wrong our Churches, and seem to take upon ourselves the disparagement they lay upon us in their unwarrantable separation. And the humouring the latter, seems to be a wrong to baptism itself: the honour whereof had need to be carefully preserved in these times. And the Question in this case seems to be, whether the real honour of Gods holy ordinance, or the imaginary supposed though indeed) false honour and credit of these people should be most respected  
I have now plainly laid down before you my apprehensions in this matter, & shall add nothing more herein, save that upon a review I conceive it may be needful to express myself more fully, in one thing which hath been hinted already, viz. What we shall call public baptism? to which I have answered, that such a place & convention of Christians as is judged meet for the ordinary exercise of ministerial public preaching, is a place and society to administer baptism in, if we would have it to be public baptism. According to which rule, more particularly I say. 1. Baptism in a private house is not public though many be there present, because this would not (in times of freedom) be counted a fit place for ordinary conventions of the Church for preaching. 2. Baptism on the week day, at the place of public assembly, where there is not so considerable a number present, as it would be counted expedient for a public Sermon to be made to, is yet but private baptism. 3. I suppose it also requisite that the Congregation on the Lord's day before have notice of the time of a baptism intended there, the week following (unless there be some known lecture or exercise there at that time, or at least we may probably expect a considerable number of Christians then) that they may freely repair unto the Word and Sacrament then to be dispensed; the usual signs being given for warning a public transaction. 4. Yet if it be judged unfit, frequently to call an assembly of the Church, I suppose at such time when we cannot urge a considerable number of our Congregation to attend in public, nor blame their absence, we may not appoint a public ordinance for them to be present at. For this seems little better than a prevaricating with them. 5. To conclude, Hence it follows, that it's not this or that number present, which is necessary to the making a baptismal administration public in the place of public Church meetings; For than we should be at a loss, what should be the least number necessary: But the administering it at such a time, and in such a place, where and when the Congregation may freely and is obliged to attend. We may (in some Parishes or Chappelries) suspect sometimes on the Lords days, and upon other special and important occasions for preaching on other days, when we call an assembly, that few will be present, yet do we then preach publicly though to never so few, because it's not our fault that the Church is so empty. But if it were our fault that so few are present, by taking inconvenient times, either of the days of the week, when their occasions call them another way; or of the hours of the day, which are not usual nor commodious for an assembly; or lastly, if we should call them to attend preaching so frequently, that we could not reasonably expect the attendance of a considerable Congregation: I suppose in these cases we should offend in pretending to the exercise of public preaching before so small a number. And the same should I say concerning public baptism. For this is my main direction, that these ordinances of public preaching and administering Baptism ought to go parallel one with another, in regard of the publicness of dispencing the same. ¶.  
It remains now, much honoured Sirs, only to crave your pardon for this overtedious interpellation of you, your courteous acceptance of my unfeigned respects to you, and your earnest prayers at the throne of grace for me, the which I hope you will be more fervent in on my behalf, by your observing of the many weaknesses clogging me in this present service. And now it's my humble petition for you who are called to the weighty function of the Ministry, that the Father of mercies may ever direct and prosper your precious labours in his vineyard, for the honour of his name, the edification of his Church, and the joyful refreshment of your own spirits! And for you Sir, who are honoured to be an Instrument for preserving of natural life in many, my hearty request at the throne of grace is; that your soul may live the life of grace here, in the exercise of godliness in the power of it, (which you have seen in a precious instance most nearly related to you, is the sure and unshaken foundation of unspeakable comforts and peace passing all understanding in life and at death) that so you may live the life of glory hereafter.  
In testimony of which my cordial and uncessant prayers for you all, I subscribe myself with all readiness;  
Decemb. 15. 1657. Your assured and affectionate servant in our dear Lord and Saviour, SAMUEL LANGLEY.    

To the Reader.  
I Have here in the following discourse endeavoured rightly to state and clear the doctrine and practice of suspending notoriously profane and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper; and to vindicate the same from Misrepresentations and exceptions made against it. And although I could rather have desired to have performed this in my own method, yet I was advised, in reference to these parts, where a book entitled Suspension discussed is spread and taken notice of, to accommodate my discourse in way of refutation of that book, which pretended to answer a private sheet I had occasionally written. (Concerning which an Account is given at the latter end of this my defence.) Yet have I not so confined myself thereunto, as not to take in other things I apprehended of most importance in this subject, especially such as I had seen lest spoken to by others who have owned the same Conclusion with me. And although I have not particularly and expressly answered all the objections I have found in some Authors against me (fearing lest the book should swell too big under my hand, and perceiving the most of them sufficiciently answered already by others,) yet I have (as I humbly conceive) given in those grounds which are fitly applicable for the easy expedite and clear solution of them; as the peaceably judicious I hope will discern. I like Augustine's counsel; contra lit. petil. Don. l. 1. at the conclusion. Diligite homines, interficite errores; sine superbiâ de veritate praesumite; sine saevitia pro veritate certate; orate pro eis quos redarguitis atque convincitis, etc. And before my Reader judge me to have transgressed this Rule in the following sheets, I must desire him to observe, 1. Whether there was any one tart expression in the paper, which the Author of Suspension discussed, answereth? 2. Whether he doth not uncivilly trample upon me in his answer, and not me only, but the Reformed Churches, with the Reverend Assembly, yea and the Parliament, which commended the Presbyterial Government to us? 3. Whether there is not a mean betwixt a sheepish insensibleness (whereby further abuses should be invited) and a passionate return of such calumnies and reproachful revile on my Antagonist, as he hath bestowed on me, (which I have touched upon, Ch. 20. §. 4. and Digress, 12.17?) And then, I trust, the equal Reader will allow me without condemning myself to say to my Answerer, what the formentioned Augustine said to Petilian, l. 3. Si & ego tibi vellem pro maledictis maledicta rependere, quid aliud quam duo maledici essemus, ut ij qui nos legerent, alij detestatos abijcerent sanâ gravitate, alij suaviter haurirent malevolâ voluntate. And because the Gentleman I stand on my defence against, hath told me, that he favoured me sufficiently in concealing my name in his book, setting L for it; I shall not be wanting in retaliation of the like courtesy; and therefore that double letter he hath made the character of himself in his dealing with me, shall still stand for his name in the discourse following. And now Reader, thou mayst next peruse a true Copy of my paper, which he gave thee depraved, with his pretended refutation thereof; and then my defence, which is Christianly submitted to thy impartial judgement. I shall not, in the least, go about to court my Reader into a compliance with me, I wish him not to take one step to accompany me in an error appearing so to be; nor will it be for his advantage to refuse any compliance which the light here offered may rationally require from him. I leave the whole entirely before him, desiring the Father of lights, by his holy Spirit to guide him into, and preserve him in the ways (or rather way) of peace and truth.   

Suspension Reviewed; CLEARED & SETTLED upon plain Scripture-Proof.  
THe Argument Mr W. impugneth was thus managed in my Manuscript.  
It is said by some, that no unregenerate or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church, being baptised and of years, not excommunicate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, they expressing their desires to receive, and proferring themselves. These words Timpson hath in his Answer to Collins, p. 2.  
For the better understanding of this position, according to the mind of the Assertors thereof, it may be noted, That  
1. The Question which is at present under consideration, reacheth to any course which is effectual for debarring of the foresaid persons; whether it be by dissuading them from coming, or by forcing them in a way of Ecclesiastical censure to keep back. Those who defend the forementioned Thesis, hold it unlawful to advice the forementioned persons, to forbear, as well as to hinder them by juridical suspension. I hold the lawfulness of debarring both ways; and the proving of either overthrows the foresaid position, according to the mind of them who assert the same.  
2. Supposing it to be an act of power, whereby they are debarred; yet than the Question is not at present, concerning the subject of that power, whether it belong to the Eldership? and that whether congregational or Classical, & c? or to the community of a particular Congregation? or to one single person? whether a Diocesan Bishop, or a Minister?  
3. Nor yet is the Question, what kind of power that is whereby they may be suspended? whether it may be done by virtue of the power of order inherent in a Minister, as such? or by the power of jurisdiction? etc. But the Question is only concerning the lawfulness of the act of suspending the foresaid persons, by any person or persons whatsoever; in whatsoever capacity they are, or by whatsoever kind of power it may be exerted by them or any of them.  
4. Those who hold the forementioned position, do understand the excommunication which they speak of, to contain in the essence of it, an exclusion from all (or divers) other public Ordinances in the Church, as well as from the Sacrament. So that to them, one not excommunicate, and one not excluded from (or warned to departed) the public Ordinances of hearing and praying and singing in the Church, are of equal importance. Whence it manifestly follows, that if I prove some persons scandalously wicked, who are not kept from all other public Ordinances, may be suspended from the Lords Supper, they must acknowledge their assertion fully overthrown.  
5. They also intent by excommunicate, such as are fully and completely, with solemnity excommunicate. For they cannot be ignorant that our Divines, who hold suspension (when it is a censure) take it to be a degree of excommunication, and therefore call it excommunicatio minor: And it is exclusio sive suspensio, vel abstinentia a coenâ Domini, quâ interdicitur peccator ad tempus coenae participatione, as Trelcatius, 
Trelca. Instit. l. 2. Bucan. loc. come. 44. qu. 10. & 16. Polan. Syntag. Theol. l. 7. c. 18. To the like sense speaks Amesius med. Theol. l. 1. c. 37 & de conscientiâ, l. 4. c. 29.  Bucanus, Polanus, and others express it. Neither doth Aretius deny this for aught I can find: I know in his common places he saith Excommunication is larger than Suspension from the Communion of the Lords Supper, according to the Scriptures. But I suppose he saith not any where (there I am sure he doth not, nor (I think) in his Commentaries) that its unlawful to inflict the censure of excommunication by degrees. Unless therefore our Admissionists do take excommunicate for fully excommunicate, they trifle egregiously. For then the meaning of their Assertion would be; no wicked Church members, not excommunicate, may be excommunicated, and that because they are not excommunicate. But rather they deny all gradual proceed in excommunication, and so reject the distinction of major and minor. If therefore I prove that it is lawful to begin excommunication in suspension for a time, and to stay there some time, before there be a proceeding to a more solemn curting off in the face of the public Congregation, and with their consent, I suppose my Antagonists will acknowledge this a lawful manner of combat against their free admission pleaded for.  
6. That passage in Amesius I judge very remarkable in this Question, which he hath in his de conscientiâ lib. 4. c. 29. Suspensio ab usu coenae & similibus ecclesiae privilegijs, nihil aliud est quam gradus excommunicationis, & ideo vocari solct A Multis excommunicatio minor, quamvis non ex singulari Christi instiruto, ex aequitate tamen et rei ipsius naturâ praecedere debet, & aliquandiu continuari, ubi scandali ratio ferre potest moram. I wish some who have written for suspension, had observed this passage: and if they had attended to it, I think they would have defended their Province never a jot the worse than they have done.  
7. It is not necessary in opposition to my Antagonists Assertion, that I should say all unregenerate, ignorant or scandalous members baptised, etc. may be debarred or suspended the Lords Supper. But it is sufficient to overthrow their opinion if I prove that some may, For their tenant in reference to baptised persons of years not excommunicate, is an universal negative, that none such may be debarred. Now one particular affirmative destroys a universal negative. It belongs not to the present disquisition, for what or how many sins, or in how many and what cases, any person qualified as aforesaid may be debarred; but whether in any case for any sin, he may be debarred. For if in any case it may be lawful to suspend a person not fully excommunicate (and that is, according to the sense of my Antagonists here excluded from all public service in the Church) then that cannot be freed from untruth, which they assert, viz. that there is no such ordinance of suspension in the Church approved by Christ. This caution is not more plain in itself (and what can be plainer?) than it is useful and necessary to be remembered in this dispute. I shall therefore further illustrate it, by a familiar similitude. If one should say that no flagitious Englishman, who is not cut off from the freedom of the Corporation where he is a member, may legally be whipped; I need not to contradict him, prove, that all flagitious English persons not deprived of their freedom aforesaid, may be whipped; but to prove that some may, in some cases, is a sufficient contradiction to him who saith none may in any case: so is the present case in reference to Ecclesiastical polity.  
In opposition therefore to the foresaid position, I assert, That it is lawful for some persons in some cases to debar by dissuasion, suspending their own act of administering, or by Ecclesiastical Censure (I say to debar) some persons from the Lords Supper, who are baptised, and not warned to departed (or kept) from other public Ordinances, of hearing, praying, singing, etc. in the public Congregations of the Church.  
Arg. 1. Those who are visibly such whom the Lord hath in his Word declared to be persons to whom he would not have the Lords Supper administered, may be sulpended from the Lords Supper. But some baptised persons not fully excommunicated, may be visibly such whom the Lord hath in his word declared to be persons to whom he would not have the Lords Supper administered. Ergo some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicate, may be suspended from the Lords Supper.  
The major is clear, if it be understood, that by visibly, I mean such as are proved and appear so to be by Scripture Characters. And now the major is not likely to be denied: Because God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church, for the managing of his Ordinances, so as that they may not be dispensed to such as he hath declared in his word, he would not have them administered unto.  
The minor is thus proved.  
Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom the Lord would not (according to the revelation of his will in his word) have the Lord's Supper administered. But some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicate, may be such as openly by word renounce the Lord Jesus Christ. Ergo some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicate, may be visibly such to whom the Lord would not have the Sacrament administered.  
The major here again I think will not be denied. But lest it should, I thus prove it.  
Those who are visibly unbelievers (I mean who ought to be judged and taken to be unbelievers) are visibly such to whom (according to the word) the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administered. But those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, aught to be judged and taken to be unbelievers. Ergo those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such, to whom (according to the word of God) the Lord's Supper ought not to be administered.  
The first of these is clear. For if the word warrant us to administer the Sacrament only to believers (which none can deny) that is, such as are to be taken for believers, than it excludes all them who are to be judged and taken to be unbelievers. The latter is no less manifest. For to profess to renounce Christ, is to profess not to believe; and he that seems seriously (for so I intent it) to profess his not believing, that is, his renouncing Christianity, cannot be by any warrantably judged or taken to be a believer.  
If to the minor of my second Syllogism (which was this; Some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicate, may be such as openly by word renounce the Lord Jesus Christ) it be answered,  
Excep. 1. That not baptised person at years not fully excommunicate, tendering himself to receive, will or doth ever so openly by word renounce the Lord Jesus Christ. I answer.  
Ans. 1. The case may yet be supposed, yea it may happen; and if in any case supposable which may fall out, suspension as distinct from that full excommunication before mentioned, may have place according to the Rule of the Word, (which shuts out professed open unbelievers from the Sacraments,) than suspension cannot be denied universally, to have any place distinct from that full excommunication. That is really a power for Censure, which may be exerted upon an occasion which may possibly occur, (whether that occasion do ever occur, or not, actually.) So a fuperiour may have power to correct his inferior in such a manner, for such a fault, if he do commit it, though perhaps he never do commit it. 2. Besides the case is supposable, not only as possible, but probable to occur, if that which my Antagonists in this Question so much commend, and which they say was happily exercised under the Episcopal Government in England, should be revived and brought again into practice among us, viz. That all baptised persons of years should be required under a (purse) penalty to communicate once or twice in the year; then many open rejecters of Christianity, and who profess against the same, (and aver there is no Christ without them, etc.) might, to escape the penalty, tender themselves to communicate. I have been credibly informed concerning the Atheism of an eminent person, who not many years ago died in London, who on his deathbed told his friend, who urged him to receive before his death, That to gratify him he was willing to communicate; but yet with all professed he looked for no good from such things. Whereupon the Bishop who was there to have given h●m the Sacrament turned away from him. But what speak I of one? These times declare that there are hundreds, I fear thousands, who are above all Ordinances, and count the Sacraments carnal things, and say so; who yet, its probable, to escape a penalty would come to ask the Sacrament.  
2 Excep. If again it be said, that persons baptised and tendering themselves to receive, cannot openly at that time profess their rejecting Christ: because that in this tender of themselves to this Ordinance they offer to profess the contrary, viz. their owning of Christ.  
Ans. I say, first, the case under our present consideration supposeth him, at the same time, when he tenders himself to be admitted to the Communion, to profess (being asked) against his owning Christ (at least in this Ordinance) q. d. I desire to do as others do in receiving, but I am resolved at present I will not now receive the commands of Christ, nor part with my lusts which Christ bids me fly from. (I would I had not known such a sad case as this occur!) 2. It's not impossible for such a man to profess contradictions; so that you cannot conclude he professeth not against Christ, because he professeth for Christ, at the same time or with one breath. 3. He that openly denies Christ expressly: he professeth to receive Christ only by consequence, from the nature of the Ordinance which he desires to join in; although perhaps he understand it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that Consequence.  
3 Excep. But some will say; Such an one at that time should be fully excommunicated, and may be, as well as suspended.  
Ans. Whereunto I return. But there may not (ordinarily cannot) be power in that particular Congregation, or the Officers thereof, fully to excommunicate him. How should he be excommunicated at that time, when a meeting of other Officers (a Classis) cannot then be had, by whose advice and authority full excommunication should be managed? And other bars besides may sufficiently dissuade from an instantaneous full excommunication, as soon as a person discovers his rejecting of Christ.  
4. Excep. Furthermore, If it be pleaded, That we have no such instance in our times, and therefore it's to little purpose to perplex our thoughts with forecasting what might be done in such an extraordinary case. But the present Controversy is concerning such as in word do profess to own Christ, when they tender themselves to communicate, although there be visible testimony, that their lives are not agreeable (hitherto) to this profession.  
Ans. I answer, It's no needless point of wisdom, to labour to foresee the necessary ill Consequents, which may ensue upon the receiving of a principle, although at present there is no opportunity for the actual existency of them. If a wise man foresee that his principle, if followed close, will in some cases which may occur run him on the rocks, he may justly suspect his principle not to be so good as it should be. If suspension in the case proposed cannot be denied, than it must not be universally rejected as having no place in the Church. 2. But I shall further add, though not for confirmation of the argument, I have already proposed to prove and evince this conclusion, viz. That some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicate may be suspended, for that needs not this addition. But for the improving the argument to further usefulness, I shall (I say) further add, That this case already proposed, though it seem so rare and extraordinary, yet by necessary consequence, it concludes other instances of daily and ordinary incursion. For if he, who in words rejects Christ may be debarred, than he who by some notorious deeds rejects Christ, (though not in words) may be debarred, although he be a person baptised, at years, not fully excommunicate.  
The consequence I prove thus; If this consequence do not hold, it must be, either because no deed-rejection of Christ is so manifest, visible, notorious and heinous a rejecting of Christ, as word rejecting of Christ is; or else because the Officers in the Church have some good Rule, according to which they may dispense with (or not deny the Sacrament for) deed-rejecting of Christ, rather than word rejecting of Christ. But neither of these do enervate the consequence, nor any other Reason. Ergo its good and valid.  
Not the latter, because no such Rule can be produced, but rather the contrary; Titus 1.16. 1 Cor. 5. Math. 18.15, 16, 17. Rev. 2.2. Not the former, Because words are no otherwise Testimonies then as they are signs of a persons rejecting or owning what in and by these words he professeth to own or reject. And some deeds are more satisfactory Testimonies than words. Validior est vox operis quam oris. Where there be two cross-witnesses, the Testimony of the more credible witness justly prevails against the other. So when deeds cross words in the present case, the Deeds may be more credible Testimonies and signs of a persons rejecting Christ, than his words are of the contrary. And therefore this deed-witnesse is to prevail against the word witness. I have heard from a great Lawyer, that in our common Laws, they have this Rule, that Actions speak either assent or descent. And shall not the Church make use of the same means naturally subservient to the discerning of persons, who are to be admitted to, or rejected from the Sacraments?  
Furthermore, If the deed-rejecting of Christ were not of as certain credible signification concerning a persons infidelity, as word rejecting is, Then no person who denies not Christ in words may be fully excommunicated; especially if he desire to commmunicate, and that earnestly, which these men say is a testimony of his seriousness, which we may not refuse in his profession to believe. And doubtless the Church ought not by full excommunication to declare a person to be as an Infidel, and so to be dealt with, who now makes a credibly serious profession of his faith, and willingness to submit himself to the Lord Jesus Christ. But if they do fully excommunicate him, they do declare him in a state, wherein he is to be looked on, and to be dealt with, as with an Heathen, or, by word-professed, Infidel.  
By all this which hath been said as an Appendix to this Argument, (and much more might be added to the same purpose) It may appear, that, If it be granted that one though formerly baptised, and not yet fully excommunicated, yet now being an openly, and by word professed, Infidel, may be suspended in any case when there is a bar against his then full excommunication: then at least in the like case, some scandalous livers in the Church may be suspended. And therefore because so much depends upon the former, I have so largely insisted on the proving and clearing of the same. I remember I have read somewhere in Salvian. Qui Christiani Nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur. And Infidelis sit necesse est, qui fidei commissa non servat. Agreeable whereunto is what I find quoted from Tertull. apolog. cap. 44. who speaking of the Heathens prisons saith, Nemo illic Christianus nisi planè tantum Christianus; aut si & aliud, jam non Christianus.  
¶ There was another argument in my paper for the taking off the imputation of novelty which is charged on suspension. But not above a fourth part of it is printed by Mr. W. & the rest, not answered by him. So I shall not here transcribe it. Perhaps divers things therein will occasionally fall in to be mentioned elsewhere. And I have no such conceit of my writings as to trouble the Reader with any more of them then I am in a manner forced unto. I shall now apply myself to the consideration of Mr. W. his pretended refutation of the argument mentioned; and I shall intent to omit nothing material he hath produced, yea I shall take in much more than I apprehend pertinent alleged by him. But the most of the Digressions as about examination, Elders, and the like, I shall design to speak to by themselves, that the discussion of the argument, be not made too confused by the intermixture of those heterogeneals therein. And there are few things but are mentioned by Mr. W. many times over, and therefore though I sometimes lightly pass over some things he hath in his first or second, perhaps third or fourth speaking of them, I must entreat the Readers patience, and hope before I make an end, he shall find I have not neglected any thing considerable of his allegations. And where I apprehended most need, I have enlarged and confirmed my argument in the most important parts of it. So that the judicious I hope shall discern sundry arguments wrapped up in the prosecution of this one. I have also noted the particulars of the argument as managed in my paper he answers to, with (1) (2) (3) (4) to 50 etc. in the margin, to save the labour of transcribing them again in the following discourse, and that it may not grow too big; I shall easily by help of these numbers refer the Reader to the particulars there, which he may turn back to as there may be occasion all along, at least very frequently. And the discourse following falling into 22 Chapters, I shall for the composing my own spirit the better, annex at the end of each Chapter one part of the 119 Psalm done into English according to the Acrostical conceit of the Original, which I trust will not be altogether ungrateful to the Reader, having been never that I know of done before. And let these be our crumbs of comfort, in stead of Mr. W. his crumbs of merriment which he intimates as needful for our refreshing in so unpleasing an argument.  

CHAP. I.  

§. 1.  
AFter his Preface (the which by parcels is, most of it, sundry times repeated beneath) he thus gins. p. 4. The contents of your paper, I shall now set down in parcels under the letter [L] and mine answers thereunto under the letter [W] And to put the more life into the matter in agitation, I shall call upon you, (as if you were present) to relate your own words, and shall (the Lord assisting) in mine own name subjoin mine Answers thereunto. And now Sir I pray begin.  
I am credibly informed that Mr W: told one who asked him what [L] stood for in his discourse, that it might stand for Libeler. And he himself in his Epistle to the judicious Reader (for to him he directs his book, though his Title-page say it was for the satisfying of weaker consciences) thus speaks concerning my paper. At first, saith he, (there being no name subscribed to it) I put it back as a Libel. And why a Libel? Is every writing a Libel which hath not a name subscribed to it? A great part of holy Scripture and many other most excellent writings shall then fall under the imputation of being Libels. I am sorry to see this Gentleman so transported with passion in the very entrance. This cloud now rising which seems no bigger than a man's hand, I am afraid will grow to such an extension and thickness as to darken his following discourse, and fill it with storms and tempests. When the Staffordshire hills have an angry and gloomy cap or cover on their heads in the morning, we in Cheshire are wont to expect no very fair weather the day following.  
Salvian concealing his name in the Epistle he wrote to the Catholic Church of his time, gives this account of it to Salonius a Bishop. In omni volumine profectus magis quaeritur lectionis, quam nomen auctoris. Et ideo si profectus est in lectione, & habet quisquis illud quod potest instruere lecturos, quid ei cum vocabulo, quod juvare non potest curiosos?— Cum enim nullus profectus sit in nomine, qui profectum in scriptis invenit, superfluê nomen scriptoris inquirit. And after among other things he adds this for the concealing his name in that Book, Scilicet ne auctoritatem salubribus scriptis, personae suae parvitas derogaret: omnia enim admodum dicta tanti existimantur, quantus est ipse qui dixit. Siquidem tans imbecilla sunt judicia hujus temporis, ac penè tam nulla, ut hi qui legunt, non tam considerent quid legunt, quamm cujus legant; nec tam dictionis vim atque virtutem, quam dictatoris cogitent dignitatem. Idcirca scriptor ille abscondi & latitare omnibus modis voluit, ne scripta quae in se habent plurimum salubritatis, minora forsitan fierent per nomen Auctoris. I might have thus excused myself if I had published that paper without adding ●y name to it. But I made no matter of it, he to whom it was ●ritten knew my hand well enough; and when it was showed 〈◊〉 Mr. W. and I heard he excepted against the want of my ●●me being subscribed to it, I gave order to his Parishioner, ●ho by frequent entreaties had extorted that paper from me, ●●at he should (if that would do any good) put my name to it. ●●●t if that be a right Etymology of Libel, that its a , as with ●●bell rung abroad, I think he that hath published sundry notorious untruths and calumnies concerning me, as that I in ●●aching acquitted the Pope from being Antichrist, etc. and ●●th done more against me in that way, then if he had posted 〈◊〉 up, in every Market Town in this, and the neighbour ●…unties, for a Thief; he, I say, who hath thus abused me, 〈◊〉 will appear beneath) will appropriate this brand to him●●●●e, with which he would stigmatize another, yet for my part ●●●orne to put the term upon him. But now to put the more life 〈◊〉 the matter, he will call on me to relate my own words. Such 〈◊〉 abusive piece very fitly fetcheth its life and soul from the 〈◊〉, and it would be very dull indeed if this did not seem a 〈◊〉 to quicken it. And now he calls the parcels of my paper, 〈◊〉 commands them to appear and they appear, to speak 〈◊〉 they speak, and when he pleaseth they are silent; and he 〈◊〉 his business so bravely and imperiously all along, that it can hardly choose but make one merry sometimes, to see (as the gallant that often looked back, and said, do not my spurs jingle) how much he seems to please and applaud himself in his affected triumph and command over the poor paper, he hath captived and detained to be the object of his scorn and indignation. Solusque in siccâ secum spatiatur arenâ.   

§. 2.  
To that noted with number (1) in my paper, he returns, p. 5. Why begin you so abruptly, with an [It is said by some] As if it were rather the verbal saying of some, then grounded upon just warrant. See Reader whether I am like to please this Gentleman? It may be I should have begun thus; Some affirm, hold, maintain and teach, as Mr. W. sounds it out, p. 127. saying, will not serve his turn, he will not be said. If I writ they say this or that, I disparage them, as if they did only say it, and could not prove it; and yet when I had stated the Question I would discuss, and then added (at number (20) I assert that its lawful, etc. he seems angry that I should so much as say what I held, before I proceeded to prove it immediately afterwards; and thus chides me for it, p. 31. And at length as a triumphant opposer of our assertion, you manfully oppose us with an (I Assert:) a pretty charm to delude the simple. But if he had no design to delude the very very simple ones, he needed not to have mentioned Oxford and Accademical and School-order so often; all others know (in their own reason, or by observation of others practice,) that both the Opponent and Respondent declare which part of the Problem each takes, before they proceed to any disputation thereupon.   

§. 3.  
And this leads me to the answering his next exception, p. 6. which is made against my paper at (number 2.) wherein I proposed to note several things for the stating the Question I intended to discuss. He saith, It's not the custom with us at Oxford for the opponent to state the Question. And further adds, Your method is unaccademicall; you might have spared the pains of your needless inventions: your stating the Question we look upon as a declining of the Controversy, as a mudding of the clear water, as consciousness of inability to refute the pretensions of the Assertor. However I must follow you in your Extravagancies, lest any poor soul should be seduced by your noise of words.  
Reader, thou seest the Clouds gather more, I hope thou wilt be armed for foul weather. To his exceptions I reply.  
1. There is nothing more usual in polemic Authors, then in their answering the pretensions of their Antagonists upon any point, to state the Question and set down what is granted and denied, and often to tax their Adversaries with a wrong stating of the point to be discussed. There's none who have read Chamier against the Papists, nor Chemnitius against the Council of Trent, or any such like Authors, but must observe how ordinary this is with them; and yet the Papists were never (that I know of) so silly as to charge them with an unaccademical procedure in their disputations with, and refutations of them.  
2. It was not Mr Timpson only that I assaulted, though I mentioned him rather than others because I heard he was then (as he is since in print) much cried up by Mr. W. And they are not agreed among themselves about the stating of this Question. Some allow a dissuasive debarring of some, who yet, they think, may not juridically be kept off, though notoriously wicked, if not (in their sense) excommunicated. Others granting a debarring of those who are ipso jure, excommunicate, though not ipso facto. And others allow only the debarring of the actually ipso facto excommunicate, and that in their sense of it, as was said, to wit, as it denotes the separation of persons so censured from all public ordinances in the Church, as well as from the Sacraments. And I matter not though it be not concealed, that as I disliked not all in the writings of those who were against suspension, so I could not comply with all I found in the writings of them who were for the suspension pleaded for. Was it not necessary then that I should freely impart my opinion concerning the point which I was desired to give some account of? which indeed is such as partakes of both parties, and is not wholly included in the proposals of either of them. And Mr. W. might easily see by my stating the Question, that though I held a conclusion contrary to the main assertion of those Gentlemen who have written against suspension; yet I have by the putting in of the term fully or not fully excommunicate, altered somewhat of the manner or method necessary for the defending or overthrowing the same.  
3. I wonder not that Mr. W. is so hot against these limitations I gave for our question, since so much he had to say was concerning Examination, Ruling Elders, Prudentials in Government, excluding for ignorance, etc. for these all were by my limitations cashiered the present dispute; one point being enough at one time to handle. It's the known way of the Quakers, and such like people, in their writings or Disputes to jumble many things together, and they will not be gotten to speak closely to one thing by itself. Let the Reader judge whether Mr. W. in his discourse do not by his example too much patronise that their roving and looseness? The order of the whole Controversy I take it lies thus. 1. Whether any persons baptised at years intelligent not fully excommunicated (or if you will, not secluded from other Ordinances) may be debarred the Sacrament? 2. Whether they may be debarred by dissuasion only? 3. Whether by a juridical act? 4. In what cases or for what crimes they may be debarred? 5. By whom that juridical act may be exerted for the debarring of them? In the first of these would be considered; whether a sentential debarring one the Sacrament, be not really an excommunication? 2. Whether there is not a further degree of excommunication than this? 3. Whether it's not lawful to exert the first when the latter is not? And in the fourth, It might be enquired further: How fare ignorance may be a cause of suspension? 2. Whether the refusing of them who have never testified their understanding aright of their Baptismal engagements by a verbal profession thereof before the Church, or some appointed by the Church to receive the same, or at least before some public Minister of the Church; whether, I say, the refusing of them be any suspension properly? or if only non admission, whether it be lawful? and here would come in the business of examination. But I expressly limited the Question first to be discussed to an enquiry, whether in any case the parties above mentioned (baptised adult, and not fully excomminunicated) may be debarred the Sacrament, expressly secluding from our present dispute those inquiries, by whom and what power, and for what offences they may be debarred. And yet Mr. W. calls these my Limitations and explanations of the Question, Extravagancies, and needless Inventions; when as their design was to keep from extravagancies; and if he who took upon him to answer that paper, had duly observed them (as was meet) his discourse would have been much better, although much shorter, than it is.   

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

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

§. 6.  
My third note or limitation of the Question (number 6.) secluded also from our present question, the consideration of the kind of power, whether of order or jurisdiction, requisite for suspension. To this Mr. W. answers, p. 14. They (he means my Antagonists) hold there is no such kind of suspending power as you stand for, prescribed in the word of God, for refusing to submit to your examination.— It is your usurped kind of suspension they except against, as you yourself might have scene, had you read their works through, as you snatch at a piece.  
1. See now how nimble our learned Gentleman is, to evade the question if he could. Is our question, Whether persons may be suspended for resusing to submit to examination; not that I refuse to speak to that in its due place; but first we inquire whether in any case, for any crime, the persons before mentioned may be debarred? and that was Mr. Timsons position before rehearsed, viz. No unregenerate, or ignorant and scandalous members in the Church; being baptised, and of years not excommunicate, may be debarred the Lords Supper, etc. It was not, none may be debarred for ignorance, or refusing to submit to examination. But none though never so scandalous members in the Church may be debarred. And this I opposed; which Mr. W. should have defended, as he took upon him.  
2. Is not this a pretty stating the question Mr. W. here teacheth and informs me in? viz. Whether is an usurped kind of suspension lawful? This is even like to the question, Quot sunt quinque praedicabilia? But what are we the better for agreeing in that question, when as it presently occurs; whether there is any suspension not usurped?  
3. But indeed I see no Antagonist who is so silly as to state the question on that fashion; though Mr. W. say if I had read their works through, I might have seen, it is our usurped kind of suspension, that they except against. Alas! good man! how industrious is he to make the world believe I am a man of no reading? I will not go about to persuade them of the contrary. Yet I must needs say I had read through divers Authors against suspension, and particularly Mr. Timpsons' books, before I drew up those lines which Mr. W. hath assaulted. I would not have told this, but that I apprehend it will be no matter of glory and commendation to me; and it affords an argument somewhat probable in mine opinion to evince that Mr. W. is not infallible, who insinuates (elsewhere as well as in this place) my not reading Timsons works through, but snatching at a piece. I hope he will not be offended at our catching the piece of the Psalm following for our solace a while.  PSAL. 119. PART 1. A. 
1 ALL such are blest, who perfect are,  
whose fect Gods ways do pace.  
2 About his Laws they take most care;  
with whole hearts seek his face.  
3 Also, they do nothing unjust,  
But God's good paths frequent.  
4 As thou (Lord) bid'st strictly we must  
keep thy Commandment.  
5 Ah! that sound guidance might me teach,  
to keep thy statutes high!  
6 And then foul shame shall ne'er me reach,  
who all thy Laws do eye.  
7 A right heart in me shall thee praise,  
taught in thy judgements just;  
8 And I will keep thy statute-wayes:  
O leave me not poor dust!    

CHAP. II.  

§. 1.  
IN my fourth note (at number 7, 8, 9) I said that my Antagonists by [excommunicate], understand them who are debarred from all public Ordinances in the Church, as hearing, praying, etc. And therefore if: I prove the person spoken of in the question, not debarred from these, may yet be debarred the Sacrament, it cannot be denied I shall rightly conclude against their assertion; wherein I do not declare any thing of my own judgement concerning Excommunication, but speak only ad hominem.  
And here though Mr. W. hath not a word against the Contents of this Note, he carries it as if he would seem to confute it, by 1. rendering extra communionem ejectio, an ejection out of the common union (as if there were not degrees of communion, and so not of an ejection out of communion). 2. by rambling about the Jus Divinum, without any occasion at all ministered by any thing I had spoken here in this note. for his mentioning the same. 3. By concluding thus: But for your full overthrowing of our assertion, we shall believe it when we see it. We believe you cannot, I am sure you do not: What needed this vapour here? The man is prodigal of them being sufficientiy stocked for the largest expense of them. I boasted not of a full overthrow of their assertion, but said, That if I prove a person baptised, adult, intelligent, and not debarred the public Ordinances of hearing, praying, etc. in the Church, I shall then fully overthrow their assertion which holds none baptised, adult, intelligent, and not excommunicated may be debarred. The which Mr. W. doth not deny, yea he grants it in several passages of his Book, expressy or by consequence. But the former particular about Divine right, he is often upon: and he so often (as disturbed if not intoxicated with passion) reels into discourses concerning prudentials, and Jus Divinum, charging me for excluding all prudentials from Church-government, that his importunity will force me to trouble the Reader with some short account of my apprehensions concerning these things, he so pitifully raves upon throughout his Book.   

§ 2.  
1. The Laws of Christianity are given to men supposed not altogether destitute of right Reason, some beams of the Image of God, some remains of that signature imprinted on man at his first creation, still continuing upon him. And men are not called to lay aside any of their natural right Reason in their becoming Christians; but rather by Christian helps to attain to an higher improvement, to a more noble elevation and use thereof. And therefore whatsoever right Reason doth dictate in respect of government in general, agreeing to all government as such, (as it doth in many things) Christians are to make use thereof in reference to Ecclesiastical government. Always provided, that that must not be accounted right Reason, which thwarts the blessed Scriptures, which should ever prevail against any conceit of our own. Right Reason itself teaching us, that God is infinitely wiser than we, and that Christ's laws must be obeyed, not disputed, when once they appear to be his laws. But the light of Nature (the spirit of man, that candle of the Lord,) doth direct in many wholesome things, for the due ordering of any society in a suitableness to the end for which the association thereof is lawfully made; whether Civil, in Families, Towns, Kingdoms, States; or Ecclesiastical in particular Churches, or in the associations of particular Churches, greater or lesser  
2. Yea, the law of Nature, or Natural Reason, is part of Christ's law, whereby he rules his Church. And therefore Christians not only may, but aught to act prudentially in the administration of Church affairs, as well as in other things, and to make use of all the light of Reason in pursuing that general Rule, Let all things be done decently, and in order.  
3. Yet in Ecclesiastical government Christ the King of his Church hath given us many positive Directions in his Word, partly by express preceptive Rules, and partly by obligatory precedents and examples, such especially as were not suited to any temporary account of those times, and the condition thereof; but whose ground and reason still continues in all the succeeding ages and conditions of the Church. These are Ecclesiastical constitutions on a Divine right simply and strictly. From these we may not digress upon any pretence of Reason whatsoever. Yea because we must act rationally, therefore we must close with all these the directions of wisdom itself; and deal with all our conceits and humours making insurrections against the same, as with mutineers which are in rebellion against their Lord and Master.  
4. In a larger sense also a government may be said to be by Divine right, not only in reference to its compliance with the foresaid positive Scripture rules and binding examples, but also in respect of its rational suitableness to godly prudence, for the order and edification of the Church, in things not particularly determined in the Scriptures, and yet neither expressly nor by consequence thwarted by the same. And thus (I suppose) who ever have owned a Church-government, they have thought it by Divine right, that is, that it was according to the Scriptures, and not contrary thereunto.  
5. And thus I was satisfied to comply with the constitutions of the Presbyterial government (the government in substance upon the matter of all the foreign Protestant Churches in Europe) composed by a learned, pious, and judicious Assembly, imposed by authority of both Houses of Parliament, when I first settled in this County, and by their Ordinance of Aug. 29. 1648. still continued as much in force (for aught I know) as any other law, at least as any other Ordinance of Parliament, divers whereof are acknowledged to be still in force. Upon the apprehension, I say, of the lawfulness of the said government, partly upon a strictly scriptural account in the main things, and partly, viz. in lesser matters, upon a rational, prudential account not contrary to the Scripture, I did and do submit unto the same. And I doubt not if it had been faithfully pursued according to the religious design and intention of the imposers thereof, the excellent fruits thereof through God's blessing. would have been so great, as might have silenced the most of its considerable adversaries   

§. 3.  
In my fifth note. (at Numb. 10.11, 12, 13, 14.) I hinted the ordinary and common distinction among reformed Divines, of the greater and lesser Excommunication. Here Mr. W. crows over me, as flying to the authority of men of so late a standing, for proving the abstention pleaded for. Whereas any one (yea one whose brains are as ill marred as he tells the world he fears mine are) may easily perceive that I quoted them not to prove suspension, but to show that they called Suspension Lesser Excommunication. And therefore those who oppose the debarring of the suspended, should not have stated this question, simply concerning the unexcommunicate without distinction. And yet for all Mr. W. so much blames me for this, he himself quotes Peter Martyr, who (saith he pag. 18.) being as great an Antiquary, and as great a reverencer of true Antiquity as any of you, saith, That though degrees of excommunication may easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, yet no such thing can be proved from Scripture. And Mr. W. gives his own judgement thus, pag. 20. 21. We deny not degrees unto excommunication, nor in excommmnication unto further degrees of severity in case of persistance in obstinacy against the authority of the Church. To both which I answer, 1. Comparisons are odious. Doth Mr. W. know, that none who assert suspension, do excel Peter Martyr in knowledge and esteem of Antiquity? Belike he thinks his tongue is his own, and he may talk at random. Our renowned Usher hath a glorious name in foreign Countries as well as in these Nations, for the Prince of Antiquaries, who hath merited such an Epitaph as Doctor Hackwell in his Apology for God's providence, l. 3. c. 6. §. 2. saith was bestowed on that Phoenix of learning, Johannes Picus Earl of Mirandula. 
Johanes jacet hic Mirandula caetera norunt,  
Et Tagus & Ganges, forsan & Antipodes.  Yet hath this our most learned Doctor and Bishop pleaded for Suspension, and that as grounded upon the holy Scripture, in his Body of Divinity, pag. 435. 2. Did the Fathers think their degrees of excommunication, which they admitted, were not regulated within Scripture-bounds? 3. If that degrees of excommunication may be proved from the Fathers, how come those who now plead for degrees of excommunication, to be charged with novelty and innovation? and how came it to pass, that Mr. W. in his Epistle passed his word to the judicious Reader, that all men of reading know how much the Church government mentioned in, or collected from the Fathers, and in use in their days, differs from our men's present Model? Immediately before these words Mr. W. exclaimed. High language! It may very fitly be the Title and Epithet of these his words following: What was Grotius no man of reading? & was he not a man confessedly impartial in this matter? who yet asserts the ruling Elder from antiquity. Imper. sum. potest circa sacra. c. 11. quoted by Mr. Blake. Covenant sealed, cap. 7. §. 16. Was our renowned Cambridge Professor Doctor Whitaker no man of reading? who in his Defence of his answer to Campions ten Reasons against Dureus, London. 1583. l, 9 de Sophismatis. p. Mihi. 807. saith, Ita es ignarus ut esse in Christi Ecclesia presbyteros nescias, qui gubernationi tantum, non verbi aut sacramentorum administrationi operam darent? Art thou such an Ignoramus, as, to be ignorant that there are Elders in the Church of Christ, who should be employed only in governing, not in the administration of the Word and Sacraments? And he quotes 1 Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose on it. And (p. 820) he tells the Papists that Luther, Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and many others of our Reformers, were Presbyters ordained by Popish Bishops, and then (to prove against them the lawfulness of our Ministry) that these being Presbyters, might ordain other Presbyters. Tum si Presbyteri erant, & sunt presbyteri, jure Divino iidem, qui Episcopi, alios etiam Ecclesiis presbyteros praeficere potuerunt. Yet he adds, Sed nolim existimes a nobis vestros ordines tanti fieri, ut sine illis nullam esse legitimam vocationem statuamus, etc. Or is it the business of Suspension [the pretended subject of his Book] which he saith, all men of reading know differs much from the Fathers; why then hath he acknowledged by Peter Martyrs mouth, that degrees of excommunication may easily be proved from the Writings of the Fathers? For there's no question, I think, but suspension will be allowed to be one degree, if degrees be once granted.   

§. 4.  
But Aretius quoted by me as not against suspension as a lesser excommunication (at Numb. 11.) Mr. W. takes himself specially concerned in, though yet he saith, pag. 19 that he never engaged Aretius as opposite to our suspension. The reason of my mentioning Aretius, was an information I received from him who desired my paper, that Mr. W. quoted Aretius against suspension. And how easily might Mr. W. have certified his Parishioner of this mistake, without troubling the world with it in Print; since he doth not disprove in the least, what I alleged concerning that Author: Yet that he may seem not to say nothing, he will show that Aretius useth not, nor pleads for the distinction of greater and lesser excommunication; which thing it is manifest I did not affix on him.  
But he hath here another, (and that belike no small) quarrel. I cited Aretius his Common places, and Mr. W. saith, He knows no such Piece. I should have said his Problems, as if his quarrelsomness were not more to be blamed then such a mistake supposed. O how exact will Mr. W. have us to take him in the very names and editions of Books! But why may not Problemata be rendered in English Common places, my most severe Master? Aretius himself I hope may be allowed to give us the meaning of his own words (to save a labour of turning to Holy-oke under whose leaf recubans sub tegmine, Mr. W. beneath (p. 137.) would shelter himself) In my Book Edit. Lusannae. 1578. the first page thus gins. Problematum s●u locorum theologicorum pars altera. And it is likely Mr. W. his Book is of the same Edition, because his quotation of pag. 48. which he hath p. 20. agrees with the 48. leaf of mine. If I should tell him I find no such thing as he quotes in the 48 page, but it is in the 48 leaf, should I not be ridiculous to him? and yet he might then see his own weakness in mine.   

§. 5.  
But the substance and design of my fifth note, was to show, that (as I apprehended) mine Antagonists do deny the distinction of greater and lesser excommunication: and in special they deny suspension or abstention to be one degree of excommunication, which may lawfully be exerted by itself against any person. And therefore in their asserting, that the persons spoken of in our question, if not excommunicate may not be debarred, by [not excommunicate] they mean not cut off in our sense of full excommunication; and that otherwise they should but trifle. viz. if they took [excommunicate] for such as were under a lesser degree of excommunication in our sense. The which is so manifest, that I see not how any man of reason can deny it. Now to this Mr. W. answers, pag. 23. Why put you your nonsense upon us, and say we egregiously trifle, unless we admit of degrees of excommunication in your sense? What shall one do with a man who heeds not what he saith? He chargeth me with putting and affixing on my Antagonists, the distinction of greater and lesser excommunication, unless they would be guilty of nonsense: whereas I did flatly remove from them that distinction, and said, they did not acknowledge degrees of excommunication, particularly not this of Suspension, adding, that if they did own them in this question (as they hold it) they should but trifle. And yet Mr. W. will needs face every body down, against the evidence of plain words before their eyes. And he talks his pleasure of Sophistry and Imposture, and at last apeals to the judicious Reader, under whose eye I willingly leave him with the paper he pretends to be answering. In the interim I will step aside to take a little refreshing in the  PSALM 119. 2d part. B. 
V 9 By what shall you this ways cleansed be?  
By heeding holy Writ.  
10 Behold my whole soul hath sought thee:  
Let me not err from it.  
11 Because I would not sin, thy word  
I hide in heart and will.  
12 Blessed art thou most mighty Lord,  
Teach me thy Statutes still:  
13 By my lips have declared been  
The Judgements of thy mouth.  
14 By Riches none more mirth can win  
Than I have by thy Truth.  
15 Busied in thy Precepts I muse,  
And all thy ways respect,  
16 By them all joy to me accrues,  
Thy Word I'll not forget.    

CHAP. III.  

§. 1.  
THe terms of Excommunication full, or not full, sundry times do occur in the following Argument. These Mr. W. rejects as adokimas, as fooleries, as not considerable, etc. and in a fume piping hot, he fancies the bagpipes when he hears them named (p. 151) Such arguments as these must be his apodictical proofs against them, in refuting whereof belike his friends think I shall be hard put to; and they conjecture not amiss, I shall hardly devise a reply weak enough to bear a fit protion to such sorry pretensions. But in stead thereof I shall judge it requisite to offer somewhat concerning excommunication, and that distinction of it, submitting the same in all humility, to the sober and judicious; as followeth.  
1. The consideration and strict perusal of the places and phrases of Scripture treating on this matter, is the best foundation of a right knowledge and discerning hereof.  
2. Yet some places speak of an excommunication which is not pertinent to our times, or at least not to our present controversy. I mean that excommunication by way of Anathematising and cursing an incurable offender; to which kind Polanus (Syntag. l. 7. c. 18.) refers, Gal. 1.8. and Rom. 9.3. which he calls the simplex anathema, and 1 Cor. 16.22. called Anathema maranatha. And that cutting off mentioned Gal. 5.12. (not to speak of Hierome and Grotius their interpretation of it, for the smoothing or dismembering the parts of those Heretics who so much pressed circumcision) It is by the learned Doctor Hammond made parallel to that of 1 Cor. 16.22. viz. (as he saith on the place) as an expression of excommunication of the highest degree, answerable to the SHAMATHA among the Jews; which he explained on 1 Cor. 16.22. to be excommunicated from the hope of the Lord, and as leaving the offender to Divine vengeance (agreeable to the denunciation of Enoch, Judas v. 14.) which is denounced against them who love not Christ, that is, as he excellently expounds it, who fall from Christ, by renouncing of him to avoid persecution, especially if teachers of others, so to do, and justifying the thing as lawful, as it is said the Gnostics did. See Doctor Hammond in Apoc. 21.8. denying the Lord (before men) who bought them.  
3. That phrase also of [delivering to Satan] though a tolerable sense of it, may be, and is accommodated to the ordinary excommunication still in use in the Church; yet many, if not most, learned Interpreters think, it had a further and more peculiar sense in those Apostolical times, which the Church doth not now look at nor expect, viz. the external buffeting the offender by Satan.  
4. There are two other passages, which though they are by divers referred to some excommunication, yet I think we can build little or nothing upon them, in the explication of this point The first is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be cast out of the Synagogue, used John 9.22. and 14.42. and 16.2. Now this is applied only to the Jews their wicked practice against them who owned Christ; and the phrase is no where (that I know of) justified by Christ or his Apostles. And me thinks we have little reason to seek for the nature of Christ's Otdinance in the vile practice of his enemies taken by itself.  
The other passage is in 3 John 10. where Diotrephes is said to cast the Christian Jew's out of the Church, that is, a Church of the Gentile-Christians. Let us a little peruse the Text, which runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
1. I would ask, Who are these he cast out of the Church? Not those who would entertain the Jewish Christian strangers, there is no probability any would be so sottish, as to excommunicate them for their will, desire, or intention to have entertained those guests: and if those he is said to have cast out, were the guests themselves called the brethren, than excommunication cannot be here meant, because they were not under the jurisdiction of that Gentile-Church, nor any Officer thereof, and so could not be cast out of that particular Church in which they were not before. 2. It cannot be proved that Diotrephes was any Church-officer in that Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may signify one who seeks inordinately, or assumeth dignity, as well as one that useth immoderately the same, and it is very probable (saith Doctor Hammond, that this Diotrephes did this without having any real authority in the Church, as a presumptuous, confident bold person, and then his act in casting any out of the Church, would not be accounted a sentential excommunication. 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used in the New Testament to signify any hindering, although it be not by any act authoritative forbidding, nor pretend thereunto, and is rendered to hinder, Luke 11.52. and to withstand, Acts. 11.17. and to let. Rom. 1.13. and therefore that passage wherein this Diotrephes is said to forbid, or hinder, and withstand them, who would be more hospitable than himself, doth not invite us at all to interpret the following words of any authoritative Ecclesiastical censure. Upon the whole matter I humbly conceive, that this passage here, [He casts them out of the Church] doth denote nothing else, but his thrusting out the Jewish guests from being kindly harboured, telieved and accommodated in that Church, he by his factious and pragmatical endeavours (taking upon him to be thought some body more than ordinary,) laboured to draw the Church to join with him in that inhospitality, wherein he had among many too good success. But I shall not contend in this, only I have signified the probabilities which incline me to conceive that Ecclesiastical excommunication is not strictly signified by the phrase of [casting out of the Church] here used; at least that it is so dubious, that it will be no foundation stone in the Doctrine of Excommunication.   

§. 3.  
I shall now proceed to consider the less questionable and more plain phrases and passages in the New Testament, whereby excommunication is intimated, which are such as these.  
Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican, Matth. 18.17. that is in some respects, as to thy behaviour towards him, and esteem of him, as generally the Interpreters I meet with do understand it.  
To bind on earth, v. 18. doth also relate to the same thing. That fifth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, hath most in it concerning Excommunication, of any one chapter in the Bible. Here are several phrases signifying the same thing. v. 2. That he who hath done this deed, might be taken away from you. So also v. 13. Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. The phrase of delivering to Satan, used vers. 5. and 1 Tim. 1.20. so far as it may signify what is yet of continued use in the Church, is commonly interpreted by the words of Christ before mentioned, Matth. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican. Satan being visibly the God of the Infidel world, and of the manifestly and notoriously profane and wicked men, as the Publicans though Jew's, were accounted by their own Nation. But there are in this chapter two more expressions concerning excommunication, which we must somewhat more insist upon, especially the former, which will help to clear the later. The one of these in v. 9 and 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, etc. the meaning whereof he cautions against mistake, v. 10. yet not altogether with Fornicators of this world. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered not at all, as 1 Cor. 16.12. or in no wise, as Rom. 3.9. or (taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an Adverb of confirming) not surely, as Luke. 4.23. Act. 18.21. & 21.22. & 28.4. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in that ancient manuscript, which the profoundly learned Doctor Hammond hath given us an account of, in what it differs from the other received Greek Copies. Quasi dicat, What I wrote to you concerning your not keeping company, or not being mingled with fornicators; In that word [Fornicators] I meant, not at all, or surely I meant not, or (at least) I did not altogether mean the Fornicators of this world, etc. For ye must needs go out of this world. For with Calvin I so understand those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, q. d. Quid opus est, vobis praeclpere de fili is seculi, quando ut semel renunciastis mundo ita oportet vos ab ecorum onsortio subducere; totus enim mundus in maligno positus est, saith Calvin on the place. Neither doth it at all prejudice this interpretation, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seems to be left out. For though sometime it signify and is rendered Then, as Matth. 12.42. 1 Cor. 7.14. yet it is also elsewhere but an expletive particle, signifying no more than nempe, to wit, so, Act. 7.1. 1 Cor. 15.15. And (that I may further pursue this sense) 1. I humbly conceive the Corinthians could scarce need such an admonition and instruction, viz. that their separation from the world obliged them not to a total separation from all persons not of the Church. 2. Divers learned Interpreters think that in this tenth verse, the Apostle refers not to any Canonical. Epistle of his now lost: but to the second verse of this chapter, where he had admonished them concerning their duty of withdrawing from Fornicators. And the wv, or none in the beginning of the eleventh verse, is but an ordinary transition. 3. The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is used in Scripture but rarely: and then it is used to signify the Churches withdrawing from a brother offending. So it is manifestly taken 1 Cor. 5.11. and 2 Thess. 3.14. and it is never else used in the New Testament save in this ninth verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore here it must be so sensed, unless there were some cogent reason for the contrary, which to me appears not. And being thus sensed in v. 9 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of verse 10. must be read, not at all, or to that purpose, and not, [not altogether,] whereby the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be in part referred to the not keeping company with heathens, which is to Church or Ecclesiastical withdrawing by way of censure.  
4. According to the sense our translation hath of the tenth verse. (which many other learned Interpreters comply with) it should seem but a temporary monition, of not altogether avoiding the company of Heathens. viz. so long as the altogether avoiding them would necessitate the believers to go out of the world, or to have almost no converse with men. And then in a Christian Nation we might have no converse at all with a heathen, which no one will assert.  
5. What an harsh Ellipsis is there in the sense of our translation? I wrote to you not to keep company (or to be mingled) with Fornicators, yet [here we must supply, I wrote not to you not to keep company] not altogether with the Fornicators of this world. But if you take it with the most excellent Interpreter Calvin, it runs easily, referring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very last word before, q. d. I wrote to you not to keep company with Fornicators [we may either leave out [And] as the Kings M. S. Copy doth, or else translate it but! 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being frequently an adversative particle, put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Stephanus shows in divers instances. See his Graecolat. Concord. Nou. Test. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) But not at all the Fornicators of this world— for ye must needs departed from the word: as if he should say, I meànt not the heathen Idolaters and fornicators, when I warned you not to keep company with fornicators: those I was not speaking of, for [or since that] ye aught to go out from them, the Church being called out of the world, and therefore ye ought not only to shun their sinful ways, but that personal converse with them which might countenance them therein, or endanger yourselves thereby. This I thought not needful to admonish you of, you knew it well enough before. But now I have written to you, not to keep company with a wicked brother, etc. And thus I have showed (in clearing the context) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is peculiar to Ecclesiastical withdrawing, or excommunication, as it is used in the New Testament.   

§. 4.  
The other intimation of excommunication, we have in the later end of the eleventh verse of this. 1 Cor. 5. not to eat, which as all agree, includes exclusion from the Lrods' Supper; so it's very probable it must be extended so far further, as to leave the wicked brother censured under as great a separation from the private familiarity of the church, as the heathen was. see the phrase elsewhere used, Luk 15.2. Acts 11.3. Gal. 2.12. I suppose there is little difference betwixt the import of this and the other last mentioned. But here that is expressed proverbially, or Symbolically, which there is more plainly. A persons eating with another, when he doth it upon choice and design, being a symbol of intimate friendship, and voluntary complacential communion with him. At least so it seems to have been in those times of Christ and his Apostles, Matth. 11.18, 19 The whole significancy of the phrase as to the present point, is grounded on the opinion and custom of the time and place, where eating with any as aforesaid, is notoriously reputed to be an owning of the courses of them with whom we eat or drink, and a testification of that complacential respect to them which may probably harden them in their wickedness, and encourage others in the same: there not to eat is a necessary withdrawing or not mingling ourselves. But where eating with, is not a probable sign of countenancing of them, as aforesaid; and there are more evident sighs of discountenancing them manifested at that time, I suppose that phrase then and there ceaseth to signify the withdrawing mentioned in this chapter. The learned Doctor Hammond thus paraphraseth on this eleventh verse But the purpose of my writing is only to interdict you that free encouraging converse with Christian professors guilty of any of these sensual heathen sins, used by Idolaters: and to command that with such an one, you enter not any friendly commerce, so much as to eat with him; much less to admit him to the Sacrament, or the feast that attends that, until he do reform.   

§. 5.  
Another phrase is used, Rom. 16.17. Mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, & avoid them. It must be confessed, some learned Interpreters make this exhortation parallel to that of our Saviour's, Beware of false prophets— and that Christ his sheep should not hear, but fly from the voice of the stranger and  shepherd. But others interpret it of discountenancing those seditious persons, by shunning communion with them. " From such ye are to separate, that others may not be deceived, by taking them for men as orthodox as any, as Doctor Hammond paraphraseth it. And Paraeus saith, Hos igitur, observari & vitari, hoc est, ab Ecclesiae consortio excludi monet Apostolus. And he parallels it with Titus 3.10. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition, reject. Which is another scripture phrase referring to the casting of a person out of the communion of the Church.  
In the 2 Thess. 3. There are two other phrases, both relating to the denying some communion to disorderly Christians. Many think these, especially the first of these, belong not to any authoritative sentential excommunication pronounced and declared by the Officers of the Church, but show the duty lying on all Christians to use their own discretion to discern and separate from these offenders, so far as concerned them in their places and stations. The first of them is at verse 6. We command you brethren to withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly. And the later is at verse 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed, yet count him not as an enemy, etc.  
That also is a denying of some Christian communion, which the Apostle exhorts to in the third Epistle of John, verse 10, 11. If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine (that is, a doctrine contrary to the doctrine they had received before mentioned) receive him not into your house, nor bid him god speed. For he that biddeth him god speed is partaker of his evil deeds, the which Doctor Hammond interprets of the wicked and Apostatising Christian Gnostics, who taught men to deny Christ in time of persecution.   

§. 6.  
From these hints the Scripture gives us about withdrawing communion from wicked Christians, duly perused, we may gather,  
(1.) That Excommunication is no Scripture word, but is used by the Church to signify all that just Ecclesiastical severity, which over and besides admonition, is to be used towards a wicked brother in respect of the Church's behaviour towards him, for the reclaiming of him, and freeing the Church from the pollution of his intimate society. For this description doth agree to the texts before mentioned, as is manifest; and therefore if excommunication do signify what is the sense of those texts, we shall not in the description aforesaid, misconceive the importance of it.  
That it is a part of Ecclesiastical severity not one doubts, all the texts mentioned do evince that. That it is all that Ecclesiastical severity the Church and members thereof do make use of, besides admonition, will not, I think, be questioned; because so generally Authors do make Admonition and Excommunication the only dividend members of Church censures in general: and because also neither the texts quoted, nor any other, do give ground for adding a third part of Ecclesiastical censure distinct from these. The rest of the description also is so plain in the texts, that I shall not insist upon any of the particulars thereof, viz. that the object of Excommunication is a wicked Brother; that it is inflicted by the Church, and the members thereof, and that for the ends mentioned. It is employed in just Ecclesiastical severity, that it is done according to the appointment of Jesus Christ.  
(2.) Excommunication is nothing else but a Suspension of a person at present from personal privileges; & not a cuttig him off simply from the Church. But (as I said) a suspending him from the privileges, which as an orderly Church-member he might rightfully enjoy. Mr. W. renders extra communionem ejectio, an ejection out of the common union. p. 15.  
But though some excommunicate persons are to be dealt with (in some eminent respects) as if they were cut off from, and were none of the Church, in reference whereto it is ordinary for Divines to speak of them as cut off. Yet they are not simply cut off from all union with the Church thereby, nor are so to he reputed; which may be evinced from the forementioned Scriptures.  
For 1. he that is most excommunicate according to those Scriptures, is to be but as an heathen, therefore not an heathen. Simile quâ simile non est idem. Now if he were simply cut off he should be an heathen, and not only as an heathen.  
2. Some excommunicate are to be accounted as Brethren, 2 Thess. 3.15. Therefore they are not reputed no Church-members.  
3. The Pastors are to have a pastoral care over the excommunicate, and they and other Church members are still to admonish him as a brother.  
4. He is only as a sick person under cure and Church remedies in order to his recovery. 1 Cor. 5.5. Mat. 18.15. 1 Tim. 1.20. Now there is no physicking of a member simply cut off.  
5. He is obliged to hear the word as a Church-member, and to receive admonitions in public and private. For he is tied by virtue of the baptismal Covenant he hath professedly entered into, to exercise himself in all the ordinances of Christ he hath opportunity for, as he hath for hearing the word as well as an heathen, with hope of receiving good thereby; and for some other ordinances it is said that he looseth at present possessionem rather than jus, as Mr Rutherford expresseth it, and explains it by the similitude of a man having three houses, who is for some offence confined to some one of them, and sequestered from the other, so as he may not make use of them.  
6. If he were made no Church-member by excommunication, he should upon his repentance be rebaptised: and so the Donatists rebaptised those who came into their Societies, which was reasonable enough upon supposition that they were before no members of the visible Church, as Mr. W. speaks. pag. 22. 23. and passim alibi. But the excommunicate when readmitted are not to be rebaptised, therefore they were not reputed simply no Church-members whiles they were excommunicate.  
7. All (say they) are cut off but conditionally, if they do not repent; therefore they are not cut off till that condition be fulfilled, which cannot be before their death, for aught we know; the sin against the Holy Ghost, or the sin unto death, I suppose can hardly (if at all) be known to be committed by any individual person, so as that the Church should conclude him absolutely irrecoverable. To say a person is cut off conditionally, includes he is not simply and absolutely cut off, whiles that condition of his final impenitency is not existent and accomplished. Doctor Ricard Field of the Church, lib. 1. ch. 13, 14, 15. shows how those three sorts of men who go out of the Church, viz. Schismatics, Heretics, and notoriously wicked persons who are excommunicate, do yet all of them remain still parts of the Church of God. And concerning the last of them he thus speaks ch. 15. Excommunication doth not wholly cut off the excommunicate from the visible Church of God. For they may and often do retain the entire procession of saving Truth, together with the Character of Baptism, which is the mark of Christianity, and so far forth notwithstanding their disobedience, still acknowledge them to be their lawful Pastors and Guides, by whose sentence they are excommunicate, that they would rather endure and suffer any thing, then schismatically join themselves to any other communion. So he. And in the same chapter speaking of suspension, he saith, The lesser excommunication excludeth only from the Sacramental pledges, and assurances of God's love; which when it is pronounced against them that stubbornly stand out, and will not yield themselves to the Church's direction and disposition, is properly named Excommunication.  
I have the rather insisted on this, because of two consequences which will naturally and easily flow from this doctrine, viz. 1. That the scruple hinted by Mr. W. p. 133. and insisted on by others (in opposition to our abstension, or suspension) is manifestly frivolous and groundless. They say, if a parent turn not his children out of doors, he will not deny them bread; and apply their simile, that in like manner, those who are not excommunicated, or not cast out of the Church, should not be denied the Sacramental bread in the Lord's Supper.  
2. That Church-membership (taken at large) doth not give right to persons of years, to the Lords Supper. For than they who are cut off by any excommunication, should be admitted; they being still parts of the Church of God, as Field calls them.   

§. 7.  
(3.) Since excommunication is a withdrawing or rejecting of one from communion, hence it follows, that as communion is more or less, so this withdrawing (and therefore excommunication) is capable of degrees, to be more or less. And some more notable degree may be denominated by one name, and another by another. Thus it was among the Jews, the common nature of whose excommunication was, a withdrawing from some communion, as ours is. Many of the learned have described theirs, in the three special degrees of it: as Schindler pentaglot. in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gerrard. harm. Evang. c. 178. gives a summary account of them out of several Authors. The first was truly a separation, or withdrawing. But the second was more solemnly such. Quâ quis solenniter in totius Ecclesiae conspectu— exclusus est. The word solenniter some such man as Mr. W. would catch and cavil at; as he doth p. 18. against such a passage in my papers. What (saith he) is your Suspension such an Apocryphal business that it deserves no solemnity in the managing thereof? Unto such inconsiderable flirts I shall not trouble myself nor the Reader with any answer. But I insist not in describing wherein the several sorts of their excommunication did consist (there being much difference among the learned in that. See Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. 5.) But that there were several sorts; and in those, that one was a severer degree of exclusion or separation and withdrawing from, then another. The four degrees or steps in the censure of excommunication among the Greeks formerly, are mentioned by most who have written on this controversy. The stantes, succumbentes. audientes and plorantes. But the Gentlemen who oppose us allege, that those were steps in readmission of the excommunicate, not steps or degrees in excommunication. But (though I confess this is an ingenuous answer, yet) methinks we may rationally infer the lawfulness of proceeding by steps in excommunication, from that supposed lawfulness of admitting several steps of delivering out of excommunication. Sure I am, there is as much ground in Scripture, (and reason too as I apprehend) for the former as there is for the later.  
And that conceit of excommunication under the notion of a dismembering, and turning out or cutting off from Church-membership, being (I conceive) sufficiently and clearly refelled in the foregoing Section; this inference will appear much more evident and convincing. But I shall offer here these two considerations, for the further confirming of gradual excommunication, or putting out of Ecclesiastical communion.  
1. If there be nothing in the nature of excommunication itself, which is against a gradual procedure in excommunication, nor any Scripture prohibition of it, and if it be not contrary to the general Rule of doing all things in the Church orderly and to edification; than it is lawful: But the former is true; therefore the later also. That there is nothing in the nature of excommunication against it, hath been showed, in that withdrawing communion, which expresseth the nature of all excommunication is capable of degrees. That there is no Scripture prohibition hereof is to be reckoned upon, till some Scripture prohibition be produced, which I could never yet see, nor hear, so much as pretended by any. Nor is it contrary to the Rule of orderly and edifying transaction of affairs in the Church: since courses of mildness and gentleness are most likely to edify, when they thwart not Justice and Right, as those do not which are not contrary to the Word, the Rule of Right and Justice.  
2. Again, if a person may have no right to, yea ought to be debarred the Sacrament, who yet ought not to be turned out of all that private Christian communion, which some excommunication deprives of; then there may be degrees of excommunication, or putting one out of Ecclesiastical communion, and particularly one degree of abstension or suspension, preceding (for some time) the withdrawing of private Christian communion. But the former is true; therefore the later. The Consequence I suspect not the denial of; the Antecedent stands firmly upon these two pillars, viz. 1. That no Christian notoriously under gross and scandalous wickedness, hath any right to the Sacrament, nor hath the Minister any rightful commission from the Donor or author of the Covenant and Seals thereof, to administer or give the Sacrament unto him. As suppose in point of faith, a notorious Heretic who denies a fundamental of the Christian Creed; or in point of manners, suppose one hath committed whoredom, and it is notoriously known; both these remaining visibly impenitent, are uncapable of having the Lords Supper lawfully given unto them. And yet 2. an offender though so notorious as in the forementioned cases, ought not forthwith to be rejected and turned out of all that Christian private communion, which some excommunication deprives of. For the proof of the former of these two propositions, I must crave the Readers patience, and (God willing) in the following discourse he shall find it (I hope) clearly and convincingly confirmed. The later of them I know none that deny. And there is Scripture-evidence for it. The heretic, Titus 3.10. is not to be rejected and cast out of all that private Christian communion, which some excommunication deprives of, till after the first and second admonition, which are not to be given together and at one time, as all acknowledge; but at some distance. And a person is not thus to be rejected, till obstinate: Now obstinacy in wickedness (referring to faith or manners) cannot be suddenly manifested, but requires several admonitions being to be rejected by an offender, before he can be declared obstinate.   

§. 8.  
(4) There are sundry sorts of persons in sundry capacities, concerned and exercised in withdrawing from a scandalous brother. 1. The Ministers, the Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 2, The people. 3. The whole Church of Officers and people together. These aught to be distinctly considered, and not confounded, as too usually they are.  
1. The Minister are exercised herein, by the power of Order, which enables them to take cognizance of their capable or uncapable subjects of any of their administrations, as in reference to the reproof and admonition of scorners, so epecially in reference to the Sacrament; (especially where there is no governing Church which might oversway their particular judgements of discretion.) And they are to bind and retain sins. not only by preaching the Word, and denouncing the judgements of God against such as walk in wicked courses indefinitely, Matth. 16.19. John 20.23. but also by withholding the sacramental pledges of God's favour (so far as concerns their office and administration thereof) from such as are manifestly and notoriously impenitent, though not yet declared obstinate in such gross wickedness: And much more are they to deny the Sacrament to them who are by Ecclesiastical juridical procedure manifested to be obstinate in such scandalous profaneness: this is included in (though not the whole of) those texts directed to the Apostles and Ministers, Matth. 18.17, 18. Titus 3.10. being compared with other Scriptures which authorise them to administer the Sacraments only to obediential believers (of which we must treat beneath) and therefore do inhibit their administering to any other.  
Of this excommunication I suppose they especially speak, who sometimes deseribe it with reference only to a withdrawing from sacramental communion. So Camero in one of his Epistles, inter opuscula mifcellanea, pag. (mihi) 532. col. 2. thus speaks, Haec una est legitima excommunicatio, quare sic defin●o: Excommunicatio est sententia peecatori impenitentiam profitenti, vel reipsâ, vel etiam verbo, denuncians peecata ejus non esse remissa, proindeque abstinendum esse illi sacramentorum usu, quae sigilla sunt remissionis peccatorum. And Calvia hath a passage to the like purpose, in his 278 Epistle. Qui suspensi à sacra coena proteruè judicium Ecclesiae respuunt, declarant se extraneos, ac proinde nihil senioribus restare video, nisi ut Magistatum exslimulent ad eos durius coercendos: nam in poenis Ecclesiasticis ultima est excommunicatio. On this account I suppose it is, that chrysostom so much and vehemently warns Ministers, that they admit not such as they know to be under gross wickedness, to the Lords Table. Chrysostom. Hom. 60. ad populum Antiochenum de sumentibus indigne divina & sancta mysteria. Let no cruel, no unmerciful, no impure one any way approach. Haec tam ad vos qui communieatis, quam ad vos qui ministratis dicta esse volo— No small punishment hangs over your heads, if ye suffer any one to partake of this Table, whom you know under wickedness: For his blood shall be required at your hands. If a Captain, if the Consul himself, if he who hath the Diadem, approach unworthily, do thou hinder and restrain him.— This he amplifies by one having the charge of keeping a Well clean.— And a little after the same Father adds, But thou wilt say, How shall I know this or that man, what he is? I dispute not what sins are unknown, but what are known. Dico horribile quoddam atque tremendum: non est ita malum demoniacos intus esse, sicut istos qui peccatorum sordibus polluuntur. Illud enim pessimum est, sicut Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & Testamenti sanguinem ducere communem, & spiritus gratiam contemnere. Multo igitur Demoniaco pejor est, qui petccati sibi conscius accedit.— Let us therefore exclude all whom we see come unworthily etc. And that speech of chrysostom is known sufficiently, I will sooner give my life, than the Lords body to one unworthily: And I will sooner endure my blood to be spilt, than I will allow that most holy blood to any but the worthy. So also in Cyprians time, to give or deny the communion was all one, as to give or deny the Church's peace. See his Epistle 54. Cyprianus, Liberalis, Caldonius, etc. Cornelio fratri.   

§ 9  
2. Private Christians in the Church (wherein also are included the officers, considered in their private capacity common to them with other members) are concerned and exercised in excommunication or withdrawing communion. For to them as such, seem those instructive directions and precepts to belong, 2 Thess. 3.6, 14. Rom. 16.17.3 joh. verse 10.11. to withdraw from and avoid, and not entertain some notorious offenders: yea, and that whether these offenders are censured and declared to be such by the governing Church or no. Indeed it is most orderly, that the Guides and Officers go before and direct the people concerning such as are to be avoided. yet are not the people excused in their neglect of withdrawing communion (in their places and stations, viz. as to private encouraging intimate communion) from notorious obstinate offenders, although their spiritual Governors enjoin them not this withdrawing from the foresaid obstinate notorious offenders. For these Scriptures do absolutely command this withdrawing, and give no such dispensation to the people in case of the negligence of their guides. And when the people follow the injunctions of their Officers herein, (as being thereby and therewith satisfied concerning the obstinate wickedness of such particular offenders) they do close therewith not merely because the governing Church requires this, (for then they should be bound so to withdraw from any whom their leaders may warn them to avoid;) but especially because they are satisfied in their opinion of the integrities and abilities of their guides, or by their personal knowledge of the parties censured, or by some other way, that these particular persons whom they are warned to avoid, are such as the Scripture commands them to withdraw their foresaid intimate and encouraging communion from.  
3. The Officers and people of the Church conjunctly are to withdraw communion from some offenders. For to them as together, the Directions for this purpose are prescribed, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13. When the Church is met together. Whether it refer to any parricular congregation met, among the Corinthians, or to a classical meeting of sundry congregations, comes to one pass as to the present point. For in a classical Church-meeting, there are (as there were in that Synod, Acts 15.2, 22, 23) besides the Ministers, others of the brethren, delegates from the rest, and therefore representatives of their whole congregations respectively, & with respect to the transaction of a withdrawing by these, excommunication is thus described, as Aretius hath it. Problem. Theol. de Excommunicatione. Excommunicatio est alicujus prosessi religionem nostam à consortio fidelium, in sacris & prophanis rebus exclusio, facta in nomine & virtute Christi, per ordinarios Ecclesiae ministros, consentiente reliquâ Ecclesiâ, & facta emendandi peccatoris causa, & ad liberandum à contagione peccati Ecclesiam And thus in Cyprians time it's manifest, great respect was had to the people, or brethren as such, in the management of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and especially in matters of Excommunication or Absolution of their members; and they had so great a stroke, that they had a negative voice, and scarce any thing done without, or at least, against their will, in these great affairs. Remeant quotidie (saith Cyprian Epislola 55. Cornelin sratri) & ad Ecclesiam pulsant; nobis tamen à quibus ratio Domino reddenda est, anxiè ponderantibus & solicitèe x aminantibus, qui recipi & admitli ad Ecclesiam debeant. Quibusdam enim, aut crumina sua obsistunt, aut fratres obstinatè & firmiter renituntur, ut recipi omnino non possint, cum scandalo & periculo plurimorum. Neque enim sic putamina quaedam eollig●nd a sunt, ut quae integra & sana, suntvulnerentur; nec utilis ac consultus est pastor, qui ita morbidas & contactas over gregi admiscet, ut gregem totum mali cohaerentis afflictione contaminet— ut gaudent & laetuntur, cum tolerabiles & minus culpabiles redeunt: ita contrà, fremunt & reluctantur, quoties immendabiles & protervi, & vel adusteriis vel sacrificiis contaminati, & post haec adhuc insuper & superbi, sic ad Ecclesiam remeant, ut bona intus ingenia corrumpant. Vix plebi persuadeo imo extorqueo, ut tales patiantur admùti. And even in the weighty business of installing or ejecting Ministers. (Epistola 68 Cyprianus, Caecilius, Primus, Polycorpus, & Felici Presbytero, etc.) it is said, Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis dominicis, & Deum metuens, à peccatore praeposiio separate se debet, nec ad sacriledgi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere, Quando ipsa maximè habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi— Instruit & ostendit ordinationes sacerdotales non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ fieri oportere, vel plebe praesente, vel delegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium suffragio & judicio fuerit examinata.   

§. 10.  
This joint act of the Ministers and people (or the major part thereof) declaring according to the word of God, a notorious (and not only so, but) obstinate flagitious brother to be as an Heathen and Publican, and so to be removed from that Ecclesiastical communion, which an heathen may not be admitted unto; (This I say) I take to be the greater or full Excommunication: which yet is not simply a cutting off the excommunicate from the Church, but in some respects only, viz. in regard of the suspending them from some privileges of the Church, as Maccovius saith. Loc. come. c. 84. Non igitisr penitus è corpore gladio hoc (excommunicationis) amputatur, sed quoad certas quasdam communicandi rationes per sacramenta & familiarem consuetudinem. This withdrawing in these two respects (viz. 1. in respect of sacramental communion. And 2. such inward encouraging familiarity as might not be afforded to an obstinate heathen) being declared and denounced by the Church as aforesaid, against an offender, I conceive includes the utmost which is in any excommunication now in use in the Church of God. I know some extend it further, both for the exclusion from the word and prayers of the Congregation, and from almost any civil communion, except in some cases of very near relation to the excommunicate; yea, and then too, from praying with them, that the wise might not join in prayer with the excommunicate husband. But this severe Doctrine I know not how to prove, and therefore must not assert it. I find indeed an Antichristian excommunication, Revel. 13.17. That none might buy nor sell, save he that had the mark of the Beast. But it is dangerous (as one faith) to sweep Christ's floor with Antichrists bosom. I know some of the Ancients speak of the excommunicate as deprived of the suffrages and prayers of the Church. But then I think their meaning is, that they are not prayed for as the faithful are; not but they were prayed for under the notion of impenitents, that God would give them true repentance, as the Church prays for the conversion of the heathens. Some were thrust out of the place of the Assembly, but then mostly those places were (I conceive) private houses where the Church had their meetings; of their coming to which there is not the like reason as there is of their liberty to come to our assemblies, where the excomunicate may have a civil right to a seat as well as others. And where there were seats for the excommunicate distinct from the faithful; there also were such like distinct seats for the Catechumen and Heathens; whereby as it appears they were not excluded from the hearing of the Word, so it is also manifest they were not excluded any more than Heathens were, which is all contend for in this matter. The reverend Vindicator Mr Humsreys, Vindic. p. 149. is so ingenuous as to acknowledge, he thinks there's reason to come to composition with his worthy Antagonist about the admitting the excommunicate to the Word and Prayer, from 1 Cor. 14. I could be willing (saith he) to compound the matter with one distinction: Exclusion is either real or relative. I shall leave it to him that will dispute with Mr Drake how the Church can exclude the excommunicate really from being present at the Word and Prayer; and it shall suffice me that they are excluded eluded relatively however, so that though they may be present as heathen, yet are they cut off from all their interest in them, still as members; so here. But why will not this handsome distinction be applied, to the receiving the excommunicate to the Sacrament also really, though not relatively, if that this excommunication did not essentially contain in it a withdrawing from communion in the Sacrament, and not so in other Ordinances? And why should our Brethren check us for making such a difference as they say we do betwixt Ordinances of equal sanctity, viz. the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments; when they themselves are here forced (as to admission to them) to do the same thing? Exclusion from the Word and Prayer, I doubt not may be exercised on an excommunicate (and so on heathens) where no civil right he hath hinders not; in some cases as prudence may direct. But then its an accidental, and was not intended in the sentence of excommunication considered in itself. That great mistake of taking excommunication for a cutting off from Church-membership hath been sufficiently, I hope, manifested in the sixth section of this Chapter.   

§. 11.  
I shall only add one thing more concerning this full excommunication. As the consent of the particular Congregation, whereof one is a member, is necessary for this his excommunication, because else it cannot have its execution; and therefore cannot be inflicted, where the major part of that Church are against it (though the Officers are never so urgent in it). So also because in a neighbourhood and association of congregational Churches, this excommunication passed in some one of them, is not likely to be effectual for humbling the offender, unless the rest also comply therewith: And it cannot be expected they should, unless they have satisfaction concerning the justness thereof. Therefore we judge it requisite that where a Classis may be had, this excommunication be managed with their advice and consent, that so other Ministers and Churches may not admit an excommunicate of any one, to their Communion among them; either sacramental, or that private encouraging fellowship, which by excommunication he is justly debarred from, at home.   

§. 12.  
(5) last, from the Texts before mentioned, it may also appear, that there is an excommunication ipso jure as well as facto, that is, 1. where the Law of God determines who are to be withdrawn from, and it's left to the discretion of the Church-Officers and private members, to determine who those persons are, who by the Law are so excommunicate, upon a notorious manifestation thereof. And 2. where there is required the juridical sentence of some Ecclesiastical Judge to determine that such a person is to be excommunicated. This latter none doubt of. And the former is proved by 2 Thes. 3.6. and 3 John ver. 10, 11. That learned Gentleman Mr. William Morice, quotes Estius, saying, that, If the crime be so notorious that by no gainsaying it can be denied, it seems not that the sentence of the Judge is to be expected, in order to the avoiding of the offender. This quotation he hath in the 147 page of his book, which he hath entitled, Caena quas● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The new Enclosures broken down, and the Lords Supper laid forth in common for all Church-members, having a dogmatical faith, and not being scandalous. Which position, if it be limited to Church members adult, who have duly once made a personal recognition of their baptismal Engagements. And if herein he exclude not the profession of a justifying faith, as if it were not necessary to be joined to, and with the dogmatical faith he speaks: I say, if that position of his be so understood (as I see not but it may according to the tenor of his discourse following) I find nothing therein to be gainsaid. For all such Church members are to be reputed and dealt with, as justified sincere believers.   

§. 13.  
In my sixth particular concerning the state of the Question (in the M S. numb. 15, 16.) I made use of Ames his words to express my mind, viz that the lesser degree of excommunication which consisted in suspension, hath place in the Church, not by any particular express Institution of Christ, but from equity, and the nature of the thing itself. There, first Mr. W. flouts me as quoting so low an Authority, and adjudgeth me to be styled a private man for it. I had been more private but for him. But it's evident I built nothing upon the authority of Ames here, no more then Mr. W. doth on the Author of charity mistaken, or Tornesius which he quotes in his Epistle. Next, he gives us his observations concerning the time and order of Ames his works; and that (in part) I think to show my quotation of him to be amiss. And though he after mention his Transcriber of my copy; his diligence he commends, that none of the faults may be taken off myself; Let him excuse his Transcriber as he pleaseth, my paper quoted Ames, de Consc: lib. 4. cap. 29. But who could think this lofty Eagle would deign to catch at such poor flies as these. But he had leisure enough it seems, and a mind to say any thing, so it might be against me. And then because Ames is not of my mind in all things about the subject of the power of excommunication, he tells the world I wrong Ames, in quoting that passage from him. When as our dispute was purposely and expressly separated from the Question about the subject of this power. Numb. 5, 6.   

§. 14.  
My seventh and last note was to this purpose, One particular affirmative overthrows an universal negative, and therefore if I prove some in the Question, in any case may be suspended, I attain my end. The which is so manifestly true to every fresh man, that Mr. W. hath not the face to deny it; yet he chides about it extremely, but most impotently, as if he would challenge our Wych-wallers to a scuffle with him. Your majestical severity— in a bead roll of words, as if you would charm the senses of the vulgar with your rare skill in Logic.— to delude the simple, by fraudulent and illogical arguments, etc. Thus his tongue runs at random, and he hath confuted me fluently, if his Reader will but do him this small, very little favour, as to believe him without proof. But in the midst of this ranting fit, he interweaves two impertinent Questions, Pag. 31. The first is this; Why all unregenerate, ignorant and scandalous members should not be debarred as well as some? seeing they all (as well as some) do stand guilty of the same notorious cause of exclusion. To which I answer. 1. Some may be unregenerate, who are neither ignorant nor scandalous. 2. There are degrees of ignorance and scandal, and therefore some may be more debarrable than others. 3. I no where say that any notoriously ignorant or scandalous should be admitted; but its sufficient for the overthrowing their universal negative, None such may be debarred; if I evince any may, let him look to it whether all such may; my present province not putting me on the proof thereof.  
His second Query is; Whether your pretended flagitious Burgess may lawfully be whipped, before be he carefully convented or convicted, or after; If before, tell us by what Law, if not till afterwards, Then you no ways contradict our Assertion. As if I had brought this simile to prove suspension, when as I used it only to show, that a particular affirmative overthrows an universal negative, viz. that if some flagitious Citizen may be whipped, than its false that none such may; so it some scandalous Church-members may be suspended, than its false that none such may. The matter he queries as to some excommunication of scandalous persons notoriously such, although no juridical sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge hath passed on them to be such, hath been answered in the last section. And now having dispatched his cavils against my explication of the Question, and the management thereof; I shall attend him in the argument itself. But first let me take a little refreshing.  PSALM 119. part 3d. C. 
17 Choice bounty show, that whiles I live,  
Thy Word I keep with awe!  
18 Clear up my dim eyes to perceive  
The wonders of thy Law!  
19 Conceal not from me thy Laws high!  
I am a stranger here;  
20 Care breaks my soul, whiles all times I,  
Long for thy Judgements dear.  
21 Cursed are the proud, whom thou dost blame.  
Who from thy precepls stray.  
22 Cast not on me Reproath and shame!  
For I have kept thy way.  
23 Crowned Princes 'gainst me sat and spoke;  
But on thy Laws I thought.  
24 Certain delight in these I take,  
And from them counsel sought.    

CHAP. IU.  

§. 1.  
TO my first syllogism (at numb. 21. of the Copy of my M S.) he answers p. 33. 1 by quarrelling with my conclusion; and that in two respects. (Besides his exception against the phrase [fully excommunicate], which hath been reselled above) 1 that there's left out of it [They expressing their desire to receive, and offering themselves:] But how vain is this cavil, expressing the desire he hath to receive any evasion that offers itself? For 1. will he grant we may suspend them who do not profess their desire to receive, and do not offer themselves? If so, then Church-membership alone doth not give right to the adult for the Sacrament, and so his cause is marred. And he a little before, and in his Epistle, puts in the limitation of intelligent persons at years, who only with him are admittable; so that if they are not intelligent, they are to be debarred, though they express their desire to receive, and offer themselves. Now let Mr. W. show what Scripture debars these from the Sacrament, and not from the prayers and other public ordinances of the Church? But that he attempts not to do. If he had, it were ten to one, the same proofs would bring in more limitations as well as that. But it's sufficient for him, for his part to cavil against others. 2 Again, my argument proceeds concerning the law of Christ debarring a visible profane person; and than who sees not that it concludes against him, whether he desire and offer himself to be admitted or no? And yet with these shifts it seems he nonplussed my paper, when he and it were together, and tells it he could stop its course here, and since it bristled not again, he is heartened to let the world know, how brave acts he could do, if he would. 2 The other quarrel he hath against my conclusion is, That its a Tautology; and that is means that some baptised persons at years suspended may be suspended. For (saith he) by [not fully excommunicate]. we understand your meaning to be [suspended.] Suspending may either denote the sentence of debarring, or the execution of that sentence. To say some persons censured with abstension or suspension, may be suspended, that is, have the Lords Supper denied to them is no Tautology, no more then to say, a person censured with full excommunication, may be debarred all public Church ordinances (according to their sense of it). But the pofition I undertook after stating the Question was this; viz. That its lawful to debar some persons the Lords Supper, who are baptised, and not warned to departed or kept from other public ordinances, of hearing, praying, singing, in the public Congregations of the Church. And immediately after this I began my argument, the conclusion whereof was, Some baptised persons at years not fully excommunicated, may be suspended from the Lords Supper. Whereby its manifest, that by [not fully excommunicate] I meant [not kept from all public ordinances in the Church] which is their sense of excommunication. And is this a Tautology, some baptised persons not kept from all public ordinances, may be suspended from the Lords Supper? My own judgement concerning full excommunication hath been showed before in the last Chapter. But what a pitiful business is this, that Mr. W. so much quarrels at the state of the Question, and sometimes saith, I say what he holds himself in it; and yet he would never rectify the same in a line or two, though desired (as I am informed) so to do, if it pleased him not, that we might have been agreed on that, before we proceeded to dispute upon it. But he seems to imitate the crafty Gunner, who would always say he aimed at that which he hit, but would never agree before he shot, what should be the mark he would shoot at. Thus much concerning the conclusion of my Syllogism. Now he comes to the premises.   

§. 2.  
The major he saith p. 35. he grants with my elucidation thereof in such general terms as they stand. Yet after he bethinks himself, and will (as he seems to me) grant it upon condition that the granting of it may do no hurt to his own opinion. Whether this be not the sense of his p. 36, 37, 38. let the Reader judge who will peruse the same.  
The proof of my Minor (which the Reader may receive if he please to turn back to the Copy of my paper M S. at numb. 24.) Mr W. sets down in his p. 39 and gives us words upon it, p. 40, 41, 42, 43. without distinguishing upon, or denying any proposition therein. He talks much of accademical dispute. Be it known to him I am not ignorant of the method of Disputation used in both our Universities. But if the Respondent (as he here makes himself) should in stead of giving a short answer (as he ought) by denying or distinguishing upon the terms of either proposition, run out into such extravagancies as he here doth, he would (and that most deservedly) be hist out of the Schools. He raps again at the distinction of greater and lesser, fully and not fully excommunicate; but impotently, without any proof offered against the same. And then lest the practice of the Church of England formerly used, should give any countenance to the distinction, he endeavours to clear the Church of England, who manifestly used that distinction. But the great fault is, that it is now used by us; & what in them he excuseth, in us Presbyterians is a crime, he can hardly find terms of aggravation and disgrace bad enough to put upon it.   

§. 3.  
Let us then first see what was the practice of the Church of England herein. And then how Mr W. takes us off from pleading that, and I shall give my reply thereto. And first let us observe what was required by the Church of England formerly, in reference to the manifestation of the knowleledge of such as were to be admitted to the communion, and their understanding owning of the Christian faith.  
In the order for Confirmation, it's thought good, that none be confirmed, but such as can say the Articles of the Creed, the Lords Prayer, & ten Commandments, and can answer to such questions of the Catechism as the Bishop (or such as he shall appoint) shall by his discretion appose them in. And this order is most convenient to be observed for divers considerations: First, because that when children come to years of discretion, and have learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in baptism, they may then themselves with their own mouth, and with their own conseat, openly, before the Church, ratify and confirm the same: And also promise, that by the grace of God, they will evermore endeavour faithfully to observe and keep such things as they by their mouth and confession have assented unto, etc. And at the end of the Confirmation it's ordered, And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he can say the Catechism and be confirmed.  
Here is the substance of what is required among us, Let any who come to communicate, show that ever since they came to years, they thus personally owned the Christian Faith, and I know no bar in the Presbyterial Government to their admission. The Ordinance of Parliament no where requireth that all should be examined now in order to their admission. But that the ignorant are to be excluded; and that implies not (as some have over-hastily concluded) that all are to be now examined. But only that all not examined sometime before, are to be examined now, and they only; unless there be proofs (or at least strong presumptions) of any their apostasy from (or losing the knowledge of) the faith they have sometime personally professed.   

§. 4.  
Secondly, for scandal; the order of the Church of England was manifest, that the scandalous should be suspended, though not then fully excommunicated, or excommunicated majori excommunicatione, as the Canons speak.  
In the Rubric before the Communion, it is thus ordered, If any of those who intent to communicate, be an open notorious evil liver— the Curate shall advertise him, in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repent and amended his former naughty life, etc.— The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to partake of the Lords Table, until he knows them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance, be content to forgive the other from the bottom of the heart— & to make amends for that he himself hath offended, and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity,— the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate.  
The first exhortation which is ordered to be read at certain times, when the Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the holy Communion, is mostwhat verbatim and altogether in sense, what Mr, W. hath prefixed before his Book under the name of Dr Peter Martyr, and why he might not have quoted the Common-Prayer Book for it as well as Peter Martyr, I cannot certainly tell; but the Reader may easily guess somewhat shrewdly at it. And for answer thereunto, as I see nothing therein against the suspension pleaded for, so those who framed the Common-Prayer, thought it no way thwarted their suspension and lesser excommunication; if they had, they would not have contradicted themselves so grossly, as to insert it in the Communion, where they so expressly give order for the debarring the ptophane, as you have already heard. And in their next exhortation to examine themselves, repent and amend, they add, For otherwise the recieving the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your damnation. And especially in their third Exhortation. It's said thus, Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or flanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devil enter into you as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of impiety, and bring you to destruction of body and soul. Whereby it is evident, the first exhortation to come, was made to them only, who were supposed obedient believers; and here they who were disobedient are warned to keep off, whiles so wilfully disobedient; and those who were notoriously such, were to be kept off by the Minister. But yet certainly the Curate did not fully excommunicate all them whom he was not to suffer to partake of the Lords Table, though in part he did ecclesiastically withdraw from them; as is more evident in the Canons of the Synod held at London in the first year of King James.   

§. 5.  
The title of the 26th Canon is, Notorious offenders not to be admitted to the Communion. And in the Canon; No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion, any of his cure or flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious, without repentance, nor malicious persons not reconciled, nor unfaithful Churchwardens, etc. Can. 27. The title is; Schismatics not to be admitted to the Communion. The title of Can. 57 is, The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching Ministers. In the Canon itself its ordered; Those who leave their own Parish Churches in that respect, etc. they are from the Ordinary to receive punishment by Ecclesiastical Censures— that is, Let them (persisting in their wilfulness) be suspended; and then after a months further obstinacy excommunicated. In Can. 59 Enjoining Ministers to catechise every Sunday; It's decreed, if the Minister do neglect, he is to be admonished— and if he wilfully offend again, suspended; and if the third time, then excommunicated; and others concerned to come themselves, or send theirs to be catechised, are in the same Canon, in case of their neglect herein, to be suspended by their Ordinaries (if they be not children) and if they so persist for the space of a month, then let them be excommunicated. Can. 68 the title whereof is, Ministers not to refuse to christian or bury. But in the body of the Canon there is this proviso; Except the party deceased were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance.  
These three last Canons I have quoted, show how clearly they owned a degree of Censure, called by the name of suspension; though it was in those cases to be inflicted by the Ordinary. But the former quotations show how fare the Minister also was entrusted with a debarring from the Communion, notoriously profane persons, who might tender themselves to receive. Now we are to hear, what Mr. W. allegeth to cut us off from our present pleading this order of the Church of England: The suspension (saith he) taken up in the Church of England, in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime, was the public act of the Church and State, not inherent in a Minister (as a Minister) but derived to him by deputation; and cannot now be pretended to, the Common prayer book (which gave the power) being now abolished. So he, p. 41.   

§. 6.  
First; It's to be observed that Mr. W. here speaks of the suspension taken up in the Church of England, as if it were only in case of obstinacy in some notorious crime; whereas its manifest, most of the passages before rehearsed out of the Canons and Common prayer book, clearly evince, that suspension was inflicted for several crimes without respect to obstinacy therein, and then obstinacy and continuance in those crimes, without visible repentance and reformation, was punished with greater excommunication, as the Canon itself speaks.  
2. But as to the substance of his exception, I answer briefly thus for the overthrowing of it; Either the Common prayer book was not abolished by a lawful authority sufficient for the nulling and abrogating of that sanction whereby it was formerly established; or else it was. If it were not, than Ministers by virtue of the Common prayer book, may (as opportunity is offered) suspend according to the Directions therein given them; which remain still in force, if not nulled by a sufficient authority. But if the Common prayer book was abolished by a lawful authority, sufficient for the abrogating that sanction whereby it was formerly established, then certainly, they who had such power to abrogate that government and order, had power also to establish our suspension. It belonging to the same power or authority to null as to make a law. And then the same suspension (in substance) is delegated to Church Officers still, in the Ordinance of 48 for Presbyterial Government where this is appointed, by the Lords and Commons, by whom only the Service book was abrogated.  
I have the rather hinted this for the satisfaction of some godly persons who have not been well satisfied with the State proceed, in reference to Church Government; who yet have an high esteem of the former constitutions of the Church of England: And, me thinks, where the same thing for substance is appointed and practised, they should not reject it. And now let the Reader if he please, judge, whether M. W. or we behave ourselves most like Ministers of the Church of England, (in reference to the degrees of excommunication, and specially in reference to suspension) the neglect whereof, he (out of Mr. P.) chargeth us with. Mr. W. proceeds to carp at [may be] in my syllogism, when as yet [may be] was in the position I opposed. And the question was, whether such cases may occur, not whether they did occur, wherein the persons spoken of might be suspended, as appears in my M S. at numb. 6.17. But our Doctor resolutissimus & absolutissimus, descends not so low as to observe the state of the Question; he had rather, it seems, be showing his Logic to his weaker consciences (for whose satisfaction his title page designs his book) and telling them, p. 43, 44. which are the subjects and the predicats in the Propositions, and the medius terminus in the syllogism: they will (it may be) applaud their Doctor, with an Egregiam veró laudem. But if any of his weaker consciences meet with these lines, I am of opinion they will not so fare admire those logical terms as to refuse the plain and wholesome provision I now offer them to share with me, in the  PSAIM 119. Part 4. D. 
25 Down on the dust my sad soul stays.  
Let thy truth life afford!  
26 Declared to thee I have my ways.  
Thou heardst: Teach me thy Word!  
27 Disclose thy Precopts-way to me!  
Thy wondrous works I'll tell.  
28 Deep grief my soul melts; strengthen me,  
After thy Word right well.  
29 Drive lying ways from me; thy Law  
Grant to me graciously!  
30 Duly, I chose thy Truth, and saw  
Thy Judgements with mine eye.  
31 Dearly thy witnessed Truth I hold  
From shame Lord me discharge.  
32 Daily in thy ways run I would  
If thou my heart enlarge.    

CHAP. V.  

§. 1.  
THe confirmation of the Major Proposition in my second syllogism, (at numb. 25. in my M S.) Mr. W. repeats in his p. 44. where he hath such jejune and lanquid exceptions, against some explications being inserted in Parentheses, and so separated from the syllogism itself; that I judge it needless to make any defence against them. There being none (I think) who manage a dispute in writing, who do not use the like. Although its true, in disputations face to face, there is less need of them; any mistake which might occur about the meaning of the terms, being soon rectified by explication thereof. The like frivolous complaint he makes of some various equipollent phrases used, viz. [visibly unbelievers] and [such as aught to be judged and taken to be unbelievers] when as I had expressly signified the equipollency of them, numb. 25. The proposition I was to prove was, Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom the Lord would not (according to the revelation of his will in his Word) have the Lord's Supper administered. Now my conclusion in the syllogism I brought to prove this, was; Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such, to whom (according to the word of God) the Lord's Supper ought not to be administered. An ordinary Reader, I think, would see no difference betwixt [them to whom (according to the word of God) the Lord's Supper ought not to be administered], and [them to whom the Lord would not, (according to the revelation of his will in his word) have the Lord's Supper administered]. But Mr. W. that he may seem to see further into a millstone than another can do, hath spied the disagreement. He was (belike) at a great want for exceptions who takes up these; and considering his necessity, he may be better excused. It's better to pick straws than to do just nothing.  
But at last he hath unbuttoned his eyes, and can perceive some strength in my proof when it hath been (he thinks) beholding to him for a better dress, p. 46. where he thus forms it; Those who are visibly unbelievers, are visibly such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administered. But those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly unbelievers. Ergo, Those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administered.   

§ 2.  
Well, now he hath the honour (as he speaks) to be opponent himself, I hope he will be more civil in his answer, and not be captious against his own creature. Wherein now (saith he, p. 47.) doth this argument advance your pretensions, or disparage ours? and then explaining that Question, or showing that he is not at a want of other artificial words to say the same thing again as pompously, he adds, What evidence doth it artificially and intrinsically give for you or against us? My conclusion was [those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such to whom (according to the word of God) the Lord's Supper ought not to be administered]. The conclusion he hath made for me is [those who by word openly renounce the Lord Jesus Christ are visibly such, to whom the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought not to be administered]. Let the Reader judge what material difference there is betwixt them. Yet he grants the latter, when he quarreled the former. But then as bethinking himself, that the argument is mine, though the dress be his, he will now have another thrust at it, and denies the Minor: yet not absolutely but with distinction; now he attempts to play the part of a Respondent indeed. But what he might have said, as befitted a Respondent in a few lines, he must spend many leaves upon (though not altogether) in the following part of his book.  
This being the very point of my argument, and this place most fit to consider it more throughly, I shall here make my reply to him upon it, once for all.   

§. 3.  
Visible unbelievers is not taken (saith he, p. 47.) in the same sense in the Major and Minor. In the Major according to the ancient and famous sense of the Catholic Church for pagan Infidels, for men without, for non-receivers of Christian doctrine, but positively standing under the delusion of some visible Idol or Idols. In the Minor, according to your modern Brownism (that's one of the flowers he useth to dress me a garland with) and private sense, for Christians within the Church, baptised and adult; but manifestly defective in their Christian Ethics, though orthodoxal otherwise in all points of faith, and frequenters of our Church Assemblies and solemnities, as professedly of our Protestant persuasion in point of Religion and divine worship.  
By the way I might reply, What if these baptised adult persons are not orthodox in faith, nor frequenters of our Church: assemblies and Solemnities? Are they then unbelievers in the first sense? or must there be a third sense devised for them? The Reader will observe this confusion. But if he had applied this distinction such an one as it is, he had done somewhat becoming the place he hath taken upon him. But that he leaves at large. Well, since one good turn requires another, I will endeavour to make out his Answer as he (erewhile) thought to do my Argument. And it may be this: Visibly unbelievers may be taken in a twofold sense. 1. For Pagan-infidels. 2. Morbid-Christians, [under which term I suppose he will contain scandalous and notoriously-prophane Christians, or else he saith nothing to the question.] Now, take visible unbelievers in the former sense, for Pagan-Insidels, and then I grant the Major. Those who are visibly unbelievers, that is, Pagans, are such to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administered. And then I deny the Minor. All who in word openly renounce Christ, are not visibly unbelievers, that is, visibly Pagans.  
But take visible unbelievers in the later sense for Morbid-Christians, and then I grant the Minor. Those who by word openly renounce Christ, are visibly unbelievers, that is, Morbid Christians: But then I deny the Major, and say, That those who are visibly unbelievers, that is, Morbid Christians, are not such to whom the Lords Supper ought to be administered. I appeal to any judicious Reader, whether I wrong Mr. W. in this guessing at the application of his distinction and answer thereupon to my Argument. And indeed this elsewhere he gives us in as his sense, many times over and over. p. 50. saith he, You mis-judge in taking the Morbid Church members of our Parochial Assemblies to be unbelievers and Infidels positively, as Pagans, etc. So p. 51, 52, 53. and passim alibi.   

§. 4.  
Here Mr. W. asserts, that to use the word Infidel, or unbeliever for any but Pagans (who never took on them a positive obligation to the service of the true God) is Brownism. And that the Scripture and Catholic sense of the word, doth only denote Pagans. But how hastily was this asserted by him, shall be showed in the following observations concerning the Scripture use of the word.  
1. Christ said to Thomas, John 20.27. Be not thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be not an unbeliever, but a believer. Was not he now in a possibility (ex natura rei) though baptised, to have become an unbeliever by apostasy from the principles of the Christian faith, especially this, that Jesus is the Messiah?  
2. Those two Texts, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers— What part hath a believer with an Infidel? and Titus 1.15. To the unbelievers nothing is pure, etc. are both expounded by Dr Hammond (whose reasons are worth weighing) to be understood of the Gnostick Heretics, called there Infidels, or unbelievers, in that their doctrines and practices made so great an opposition to the Gospel.  
3. And on Matth. 24.51. he makes those two words, hypocrites and unbelievers of equal importance, i. e. saith he, Knaves, false, deeeitfull persons, expressed by S. Luke in setting this down, ch. 12.46. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbelievers, or unfaithful. And he renders the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 21.8. unfaithful, that fall off from Christ.  
4. The Jews, after Christ's ascension, who received not Jesus for their Christ, or Messiah, were unbelievers in Scripture-sense. Act. 14.2. and 17.5. yet were they not then Pagans, under no positive obligation of worshipping a false God. And an excommunicate person, who hath been baptised, and still professeth the Christian faith, is to be dealt with, as an Heathen, yet he is no Pagan, nor absolutely cut off from the Church, as hath been showed above. And the Apostle tells us, that the Jews were broken off by unbelief, though they were Church-members before,, Rom. 11.23.  
5. Belief, doth ordinarily in Scripture-sense, denote such a professed acceptance of the Gospel-call, as includes sincere obedience; and visible believing, visibly sincere actual obedience. (And on the contrary, unbelief and unbelieved, may in Scripture-sense denote wilful disobedience and rebellion against the Gospel, and visible unbelief, such visible notorious rebellion or actual disobedience.) Therefore some disobedient within the Church, may be termed unbelievers. For the Concrete is rightly denominated from the abstract; a just man from justice, so an unbeliever from unbelief prevailing. The Antecedent is manifest in many Scripture-instances. 1. That believing to which justification and pardon of sin is annexed, is a sincere and obediential believing, 2. And so also is that to which salvation is promised; But to a Scripture-believing is annexed justification, Act. 16.39. and pardon of sin, Act. 10.43. And also to it is promised salvation, and that most frequently, Act. 16.31. Rom. 10.9. 1 Cor. 1.21. Gal. 3.22. Eph. 1.19. 2 Thess. 1.10. Heb. 4.3. & 10.39. John 3.15, 16, 18, 36. & 6.35, 40, 47. & 11.25, 26. & 12.46. Rom. 1.16. & 9.33. Mark 16.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. 1 john 5.10. 3. It may also be observed, how Abraham is called the Father of believers, in respect of that eminent and exemplary faith of his, which was truly justifying and saving, and included in it sincere actual obedience, Rom. 4.3. Gal. 3.6. So not to believe is not to obey, Rom. 15.31. Rom. 10.16. They have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord who hath believed our report. And this is referred to the Jews, who were Church-members, at least before Christ's death. And those in the later time, who should departed from the faith, may be called unbelievers; those departers from the faith mentioned 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. the learned Mr. Mede doth show, are meant of Papists, and the grand apostasy of the Antichristian Man of Sin. So those who draw back from the truth, either in respect of doctrinal or practical apostasy, are opposed to them who believe, Heb. 10.38, 39 Therefore those who apostatise, do not believe, and so are not believers in some Scripture-sense: which also agrees with the usual signification of the word. Budeus Comment. Ling. Graec. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cui credi debet, & fidem faciens verbo suo. And Scapula explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be incredulus, qui fidem non adhibet. Item infidus, cujus suspecta est sides; cui fidendum non est. Item perfidus.  
6. I acknowledge the words believe and not believe; belieliever and unbeliever, are used more largely sometimes in Scripture, as I shall perhaps show beneath. But that some Church-members, (that is, such men on each as by their positive engagements and promises, are obliged to believe in Christ, and forsake their sins,) may yet by their notorious disobedience, become visibly unbelievers in some Scripture-sense, is all that I here contend for. And therefore my reverend brother comes off (me thinks) but blewly, who puts so great an honour on Brown, as to call this the Brownistical sense of unbeliever, opposing it to the scriptural and Catholic sense of the same.   

§. 5.  
2. Now I proceed to the application of the foresaid distinction, and the very stress of our controversy will lie on this point, Whether to those who are visibly unbelievers in this sense (I have proved to be a Scripture-sense of the word, that is, as are visibly in the way of actual notorious disobedience to the Gospel, whether to these I say) the Lord's Supper ought not to bè administered, though they be baptised, adult, intelligent, and not excluded other public ordinances in the Church? I explicated [visibly unbelievers] by [such as are according to the word of God to be judged and taken to be thus unbelievers.] Such explications Mr. W. cannot endure. Oh! how he puffs and storms at them! p. 60, 61. and in very sad earnest calls them Bombast, etc. But let us leave our brother to cool at his leisure, and calmly consider the thing itself now before us. And herein I shall design, 1. To premise some considerations, as introductory to what follows. 2. To determine and prove against Mr. W. the negative of the question last proposed. 3. To annex some cautions at the later end, for the further clearing and preventing mistake in this doctrine I must insist upon.  
The considerations to be premised are these.  
1. It is certain, that a distinction ought to be made betwixt Believers, and those we are to account and deal with as in the way of believing actually. The same is to be said of the difference to be put between unbelievers, and those we are to account and deal with as in the way of notorious disobedience and unbelief.  
As to the habit of faith, or unbelief, and the denomination a person may receive from the existence or predominancy of either of them; we cannot certainly know, that any (besides ourselves) are so believers or unbelievers. But we may know who are visibly in the way of faith or unbelief. And therefore I own and comply with the substance of what Mr. W. saith concerning the impossibility of our knowing who are true believers in respect of the habit, p. 55, 57 etc.  
2. Yea, I do not only grant this in respect of the habit of justisying and saving faith, but in respect also of a dogmatic faith, that is, assent to the propositions of the Christian faith, as truths, such as the Devils may have, and the damned, who doubt not of the truth of the Gospel. And if this be made out, I hope the Disputes may be somewhat allayed, which are at present on foot, betwixt very learned and godly men, viz. Whether a dogmatic faith, or justifying faith entitle to the Sacraments? The one may with like reason be granted as the other, and both are attended with equal difficulties or inconveniences supposeable. I may as certainly know whom I am to account a justified believer, as whom I am to account a dogmatic believer; yea, and most commonly (perhaps) as easily too. Is a persons professing his assent to the Articles of the Creed, or owning the Scriptures, a sufficient character of his believing dogmatically or historically? So, is his professing consent, and cordial submission to the doctrine of the Gospel, as sufficient and ready a note to us, of his being a justified believer? yet we cannot be certain he is of that persuasion in the Articles he professeth assent unto; no more than we can be assured he sincerely consents to the same, according to his profession of sincerity. Is (on the contrary) a persons disclaiming the principles of the Christian faith, a sufficient token whereby we may be directed in accounting him dogmatically or historically no believer? so his professed renouncing of subjection to Christ's Laws, [quasi dicat, I will not yet forsake my lusts that I may obey Christ] is a sufficient note whereby we are to account him at present as out of the way of actual justifying faith: Is a persons denying Christ's divinity, a note to us that he is not a dogmatic believer, though yet he profess he believes the Scriptures to be true and so contradicts himself? So is a persons disobedience to, and actual rebellion against the Commands of Christ, when notorious, a sufficient token to us that he is not in the way of actual justifying faith, although he doth profess in word that he believes sincerely and obedientially, and so in this contradicts himself. But of this we shall have occasion to say somewhat more beneath.   

§. 6.  
3. Sometimes persons are called holy and Saints, and perhaps may be believers too, and such like titles attributed to them, whiles here alive in this world, on the account of their being positively obliged (by their own promise) to holiness, faith, and the service of the true God; so as the Heathens and other Nations were not. Thus all the nation of the Jews, who were devoted to God by their professed acceptance of the Covenant of God tendered to them, were an holy people, children of the Kingdom, the Church of God, etc. And so all those persons alive are now Saints, and holy, and believers, who have solemnly taken an engagement upon themselves, by their promise made, to believe in Christ; and they are in Covenant, that is, they have by their own promise covenanted with God, and bound themselves thereby unto his service, so as Pagans are not. And no one can be sure that that promise was not in sincerity, and therefore we cannot say absolutely of any such (though never so wicked, and censured too) that he is no Church-member; that is, that the hath not devoted himself to Christ in truth. But now an heathen hath not (visibly) devoted himself at all to Christ, and therefore cannot be a Church-member; yea though he be of Gods Elect. But for those who have visibly devoted themselves to Christ, this indelible character remains on them, though they are apostates from the Covenant they have professedly entered into; whether in respect of doctrine or practice. Christ speaking to the rebellious Jew's saith, John 8.54. It is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that he is your God; when yet he had told them before, that they were neither Abraham's children, nor had God for their Father, nor were of God, as they pretended, vers. 39, 41, 42.47. The branches broken off visibly from the olive (in some respects) are thus holy still, Rom. 11.16, 17. and so are such as are excommunicated, and suspended from the personal privileges of orderly and uncensured Church-members. They are brethren in this sense still, 2 Thes. 3.15.  
A Church-member really is one who is sincerely devoted to Christ, and we must account all such against whom we cannot prove, that they never were so sincerely devoted to Christ's call. And then I think none alive must be rejected absolutely from being Saints, believers, Christians, Disciples, and Church-members, who have been positively engaged to Christ; unless we could tell who had committed the sin against the Holy-Ghost, or had sinned unto death in St. John's sense; the which is so difficult if not impossible to discern, in particular persons, that I need not have much respect thereto in this matter.  
4. In this last sense its true we may be certain (in reference to many or most) who are believers, and who are not. But that this is not the character and Rule of admission to the Sacraments, will appear in the ensuing arguments; which I now hasten to.   

§. 7.  
In the second place I designed to prove this Conclusion; That to those who are unbelievers in respect of actual notorious disobedience to the Gospel, (whiles such) the Lord's Supper ought not to be administered.  
1 And my first Argument shall be grounded on Mr. W. his concession, and the Introductory considerations before evinced. Mr. W. grants that believing is the Rule for admission, p. 56, 57 You say (saith he) that knowledge who are believers, or who are not believers, must be the lodestar of our administering or not administering the Lords Supper. We say in thesi, the same. And I have proved that neither a persons being a believer habitually is the Rule of admission, for that cannot certainly be known; nor yet his being a believer in respect of positive obligation laid on himself to believe, though that may certainly be known; for than none could be debarred who have ever been baptised, yea or who otherwise have entered into a positive engagement to Christianity. For the Jews were Gods people and holy, not only by Circumcision, but by the renewing of that Covenant, afterwards to take the Lord for their God, Deut. 26.17, 18, 19 & 29.10, 11, 12, 13. Now hence it clearly follows, that the knowledge who are visibly in the way of believing or obedience to the Gospel they have positively (especially by Baptism) obliged themselves unto, is the Rule of admission to the Sacrament. For the two former being removed, no other but this can be assigned, that I know of. And then none can doubt that to those who are unbelievers in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, the Lords Supper ought not to be administered.   

§. 8.  
2. If such were to be excluded the Passeover, who were in visible notorious disobedience to the Law they were debtors positively unto by their Circumcision, and other obligations; then the Lords Supper ought not to be administered to them who are in a visible notorious disobedience to the Law they are debtors to by Baptism and other obligations. But the former is true; therefore the latter also.  
The Consequence, at least (ad hominem) to the men concerned in this dispute, holds firmly.  
The Assumption shall be proved by Instance of the parent-Proselyte, who though circumcised himself, yet, might not eat the Passeover lawfully, if he wilfully neglected his duty in circumcising his males. And this was not such a merely ceremonial bar, as is pretended to have been the only bar (among the Jews) from the Passeover.  
The place is Exod. 12.48. When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord; Let all his Males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veaz, et tunc, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the LXX (a phrase of like importance with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 11.28.) the Syriack reads it, After that all his males are circumcised, then shall he come near and keep it. And he shall be as one that is borne in the Land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. By the gear here is not meant the advena, vers. 45. but the stranger within the Covenant, distinguished from thè stranger within the gate only, who did but dwell among them as Ains worth shows; and so the LXX render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin version of the Chaldee Paraphrast, hath, aliquis proselytus. Now he was not a Proselyte but by Circumcision; and yet (we see) before he might be permitted to eat the Passeover, all his males must be circumcised. Both were his duty, yet the neglect of circumcising his males barred him the Passeover. For saith Ainsworth, he was yet in his sin, whiles his children were (through his default) uncircumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13, 14. Exod. 4.24.26. And thus (saith he out of Maimony) the Jews have interpreted this place, that as the circumcision of himself (if it be omitted) debarreth him from doing the Passeover, so doth the circumcision of his sons, and of his servants, etc. and if he kill it before he doth circumcise them, it is unlawful.  
It's added in the Text; For no uncircumcised person shall eat hereof. I confess it may be rendered [And no uncircumcised person, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vecol, et omnis praeputiatus] with which agree the Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Latin Interpretation of the Syriak version; and the LXX leave out [And], and saith only, No uncircumcised person shall eat it. But if it have reference to the preceding part of the verse, as our Translators seem to have conceived, (and doubtless vau is frequently used as a causal or rational conjunction, as Schindler shows in Pentaglott. and so is rendered Psal. 60.11. For vain is the help of man. Esa. ' 64.5. Behold thou art wroth, for we have sinned,) And then I do not see how it can be accommodated thereunto, unlosse we conceive, that [uncircumcised] is here taken for [one notoriously disobedient to the Laws which his circumcision had obliged him unto], as in special in this of circumcising his males; and that not only in regard of the disobedience in this neglect considered in itself, but as it argued other disobedience accompanying the same; as we heard out of Ainsworth; he was yet in his sin, while his children were uncircumcised. This accords with those words, vers. 43. of this 12 Chap. No strdnger shall eat thereof; as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it; Omnis filius Israel, qui fuerit Apostata, non commedet ex eo; no son of Israel, that is an Apostate, shall eat thereof. Thus we have an instance of debarring the Passeover for a pollution not ceremonial which should make him unclean ceremonially, so as to separate him from the company of others civilly. And this we shall have occasion (I think) to improve further beneath. Mr Cotton in his grounds and ends of children's Baptism, p. 11, to show the heinousness of the sin of a baptised parent, who neglects to baptise his Infant, quotes this place, and saith, Surely in the old Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himself, if his children were uncircumcised. And according to the analogy Mr. W. proceeds upon, (and reasonably enough) in his solving the Question why Infants are not admitted to the Communion; taken fromthe not partaking of the Jews Infants at the Passeover, p. 131. I say on the same analogy we may more particularly argue, If a circumcised person formerly might not eat the Passeover if he circumcised not his males, than a baptised parent now may not eat the Lords Supper, if he bring not his infant to Baptism; and indeed supposing the command as clear now for the baptising of Infants, as it was before for circumcising of male Infants, the argumentation is strong enough.   

§. 9  
3. I thus argue in the third place; The Sacrament ought not to be administered to them, whom we are no wise called, nor obliged to administer to, upon the account of administering to believers. But we are no wise called, nor obliged to administer the Sacrament to unbelievers, who are such in the sense, and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, upon the account of administering to believers. Ergo, the Sacrament ought not to be administered to unbelievers, who are such in the sense, and in respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel. The Major is manifest; the Minor I thus confirm. If in other like cases, where duties are incumbent on us, respecting our behaviour towards others, as so and so qualified, the obligation to those duties of our behaviour towards persons ceaseth when they are not visibly so and so qualified; then we are no wise called, nor obliged to administer the Sacrament to unbelievers, who are such in the sense and respect of notorious disobedience to the Gospel. But the former is true; therefore the latter also. The Consequence is clear; For paria arguunt fidemque faciunt.  
The Minor may be showed in sundry like instances. The Scripture enjoins us several duties in our behaviour towards the wicked and godly, the righteous and unrighteous, although we cannot certainly tell who these persons are habitually and inwardly. But all agree (I think) that those are to be taken and dealt with by us as such, who are visibly in the ways of godliness or impiety. David describing the practices of an holy man, Psal. 15. among others reckons this, ver. 4. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth them who fear the Lord: we must shun the company of the wicked, Psal. 119.115. we are to give to him that needeth, and not as in a way of charity and necessary relief, to them who need not. But we know not ever who needeth, that craves our alms; he may counterfeit; and if it appear he doth counterfeit, we are not obliged, nor called to give unto him what belongs to the needy. We must know persons to be Christ's Disciples by their loving one another, yet such love cannot certainly be known to us to be in others. John 13.33. So also we are commanded, Luk. 17.3, 4. If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him.  
But how shall I know when he reputes? It follows, vers. 4. If he trespass seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him. There is a twofold forgiveness, 1. that which is opposed to hatred, grudges, and unjust desire of revenge against him who hath wronged us. Thus we are to forgive him who trespasseth against us, whether he repent or no; we are to love our enemies remaining such. 2. That which is opposed to the not receiving him into familiarity, and tokens of intimate and encouraging friendship as formerly. And thus we are not bound to forgive, unless he who hath trespasled do repent; that is, do manifest his repentance; and his saying he reputes, may be a manifestation thereof sufficient to us, that we may so far acquiesce therein, as to be obliged to forgive him in this later sense. But here Calvin's caution is useful, Addendum est (saith he on the place) Christum non privare fideles judicio, ut slultè ad verbulum unum creduli fint; sed tantum velle aequos esse & humanos, ut resipiscentibus manum porrigant, si modo apparet ipsos ex animo sibi in peccat is displicere— sed quoties probabile Agnum conversionis dederit peccator, admitti vult Christus ad reconciliationens, ne repulsae fractus deficiat. Now he who hath taken away my goods, and saith he reputes, and yet will not, having them in his hand, restore them to me; by his wicked and wilful detention, overthrows the credibleness of his verbal profession; and his saying, I repent, obligeth to this sort of private forgiveness I have mentioned, no otherwise, then as it is a probable token of his serious repentance. Nay, though he is a wise son (as the proverb goes) who knows his own father, yet is every child obliged to honour both his parents. So manifest is it, that we may be, and are obliged in several duties to those persons as so and so qualified, whom we cannot certainly know to be such, under the notion whereof we tender those respects to them. But as our Saviour saith, He that receiveth a Prophet, or Disciple, in the name of such (that is, who probably appears to be such) shall have his reward: so here in these and such like cases. But when persons appear to be in a way visibly contrary to these qualifications on which is founded any offices in sundry respects, who doubts that our obligation to perform such offices to them, than ceaseth? When therefore such as by baptism have bound themselves to believe, that is, to receive and obey the Gospel, do yet notoriously appear to be unbelievers in respect of their actual disobedience to the Gospel, we are not obliged to administer the Sacrament to as believers: As on the contrary, when baptised persons owning their baptisms, appear not to be in a way of notorious disobedience to the Gospel, we are bound to administer to them as believers, whether they are really and inwardly so or no.   

§. 10.  
4. A fourth argument may be grounded on the form of administration, wherein the Minister saith to the Communicants according to 1 Cor. 11.24. Take, eat, this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you. So Luke 22.19, 20. And this Cup is the New Testament in Christ's blood which is shed for you. In the Common-prayer book it is, Take, eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee. The Directory saith in Paul's words, This is the body of Christ, which is broken for you. Whence I argue, The Lord's Supper ought not to be administered to them to whom these words may not be spoken particularly in the administration of it. But to such unbelievers as are such in respect of their notorious visible disobedience to the Gospel, these words may not be spoken particularly in the administration of the Sacrament: Therefore to them the Lords Supper ought not to be administered. The Major is above exception: For those ought not to be admitted, to whom the Minister may not say what he ought to apply to the communicants. The Minor I shall further insist upon, and labour to clear. In order whereto I must inquire into the meaning of the foresaid words to be used in the form of administration.  
It must be acknowledged, that these words considered absolutely and in themselves, may be interpreted more generally either, 1. of Christ's being sacrificed for the redemption of all the world of mankind, the genus humanum; and that not only sufficienter (for that which is paid for the redemption of persons, is not strictly a price, because it is sufficient in its own nature to be a worthy and valuable consideration to redeem them) but conditionally by way of Christ's intention also to redeem mankind, that is, upon the condition of believing: So that this Gospel may be preached to every humane creature (not so to any lapsed Angel) He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. God so loved the world, etc. Or, 2. (if this please not, the fuller explication whereof may be seen in learned Camero, and the larger disquisition of it in the acute Amyraldus) Christ died for all, in that he bought all, to be Lord and Ruler over them, as Mediator in the Kingdom he hath received by dispensation from the Father to be Lord of all. Or, 3. as he procured some common benefits for all. But I conceive it's manifest, these words of administration considered as words of administration in the Sacrament, and so with special relation to the Sacrament, cannot be understood in so large a sense, q d. Christ died for thee if thou will believe, or on condition of thy faith; or Christ died for thee, or was broken for thee, that he might have power over thee as Lord and Judge, or to purchase some common benefits for thee, as he did for all mankind. For so they might be applied to heathens, yea to the most wicked of heathens, and such as are visibly in the most nototious opposition of, and apostasy from the very name of Christianity; and so this should be no more an application of comfort to the visibly most worthy receiver, then is applicable to the vilest Mahometan on the face of the earth.   

§. 11.  
There is another as narrow a sense put on the words, as the former is large, and that is to restrain them, to the application of the benefits of Christ's death absolutely to every receiver. q. d. This is the body of Christ, in which thou hast saving interest. As surely as thou receivest the outward signs, so certainly is the inward grace there also. But this cannot be the meaning here, because no Church nor Minister can certainly tell who those are who are sincere believers, who only are partakers absolutely of the remission of sins purchased by Christ's broken body, and his blood made over unto them. There remains only a third sense (that I know of) which is a mean betwixt the two former. And this is to be founded on the manifest sense of other such like passages in Scripture, and the nature of the Lords Supper itself. Paul saith to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5.11. But ye are washed, but ye are are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. And to the Ephesians, Eph. 2.1, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22. You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins; by grace ye are saved through faith, chap. 5.8. Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord. Abundance of such passages there be in Scripture, where it is manifest the Apostle applies to them the comforts and benefits of sincere believers, as theirs; and yet he knew not their sincerity absolutely. It must needs then be, that according to his knowledge of their sincerity, so was the application he makes to them of the privileges annexed only to sincerity, that is, according to the judgement of the Church which received them as such probably. If they were such as Ecclesiastieally they appeared to be, than all these benefits were really theirs. And hence the baptised are said to be illuminated and sanctified, because in the judgement of the Church they were such, who were admitted to baptism, who if they were really what they were by the Church esteemed to be, were certainly sanctified and enlightened. so I humbly conceive the meaning of these words, This is the body of Christ which is broken for you, is this. q. d. If thou be really what the Church taking thee into her fellowship judgeth thee to be (whiles it being in a capacity to judge, hath not judged thee contrary) than thou art certainly partaker of the inward grace of this Sacrament. All the saving benefits flowing from Christ's blood, are thine. If thou art sincere, as the Church or Minister hopes and judgeth of thee in admitting thee, than Christ is thine really. Not if thou wilt believe Christ is thine; but if thou now dost sincerely believe as thou now appearest to do; which supposeth that he is taken for one who doth sincerely believe by them who regularly admit him, (the governing Church or Minister alone in some cases.) How incongruous would it be to say to a rebel who was erewhile visibly in Arms, and was breathing out treason against his Sovereign, and hath not yet visibly recanted the same, and therefore is still visibly in the way of treason, how incongruous would it be to say to such a one, If thou art a good subject, the King is thy friend? And it is manifest in part by what hath been before quoted from the Common-prayer book, and Canons, that the Church of England, which used that form of administration, Christ died for thee, understood it as to be applied only to the visibly justified believers, because they excluded the notoriously disobedient (though not fully excommunicated) and warned all to refrain who lived and allowed themselves wilfully in secret sins, which the governors of the Church could take no cognizance of. Thus in the third Exhortation, after the warning of the wicked persons, that they come not to the Lords Table. In the invitation following, those only are called who are truly penitent. To them it's said, Draw near and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort. They never seemed to call or encourage the profane to come to be converted from that their wickedness, although God may work such an effect by the Sacrament, even in an heathen if he were (though finfully) admitted.   

§. 12.  
All Divines, I think, have held, that in the Sacrament there is an application of comfort to the communicants particularly. As the Minister is to give each their portion in due season, and so is prudently to hold forth and apply the promises to those he judgeth humbled, and capable of having them fitly and sately applied to them; and not to the visibly impenitent in that stare (except so as to encourage them to repent, that they may be capable of them.) So in the ministration of the Sacrament, comfort is applied to the communicants, upon supposition of their being in such a capacity for it really, as to the Church they are apparently  
In short, if the delivering the Sacrament to a communicant in this form, Christ died for thee, or the like words, be an application of the richest Gospel-promise to him, at that instant for him to lay hold upon for his present comfort, and is so intended by the ministrator of the Sacrament to him, than he is supposed in the judgement of the Church which receives him, or in the prudential judgement of the Minister (where there is no governing Church to involve his particular judgement in theirs) that he is one who at present is in a capacity to believe that he hath saving inrerest in Christ's body and blood exhibited there unto him sacramentally and signally, which they must judge of, not by his being a Church-member in the largest sense, (from which excommunication doth not simply cut him off) but by his being visibly (to them) in the way of actual obedience to the Gospel he professeth. So much for this Argument.  
Before we pass to the next, it will not be amiss to take a little repose in the fifth part of the 119 Psalm.  PSALM 119. Part 5. E. 
33 Eternal God, teach me thy way!  
Which I shall keep to th'end.  
34 Endue me with that wit I may,  
Thy Law with whole heart tend!  
35 Ever me guide in thy Laws blest!  
For therein I rejoice,  
36 Estrange not my heart from thy hests,  
But from vile avarice!  
37 Engage me not to see vain woe!  
In thy way quicken me!  
38 Establish now thy word, unto  
Thy servant, who fears thee!  
39 Early prevent my feared disgrace!  
For good thy Judgements be.  
40 Each word of thine I did embrace;  
In just grace quicken me,    

CHAP. VI  

§. 1.  
I Proceed to my fifth and chief Argument, in the management whereof we shall derive clear light from the holy Scriptures. And it may be thus framed; The Lord's Supper ought not to be administered to them who do visibly and notoriously want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted thereunto. But such as are unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith, etc. Therefore the Lords Supper ought not to be administered to them. The Major is undeniable: The Minor I thus confirm. Such as visibly want that faith which is necessarily required, to be visibly present in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Baptism, do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper. But such as are unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in the adult, who may be lawfully admitted to Baptism. Therefore unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, do visibly want that faith which is necessarily required to be visibly present in them who may be lawfully admitted to the Lords Supper.   

§. 2.  
The major proposition here is proved by the analogy (which divers have showed) betwixt the two Sacraments; there is the same Covenant sealed in both, and the same benefits conferred (at least) on the adult in both. And if any make any difference herein, the advantage is given to the Lords Supper, and so our argument is more strong, a minori ad majus. But I shall not siay on this; since the learned and ingenuous Mt. Humphreys (the strongest opposer of the suspension our controversy is now about, that I have seen) hath granted that Adult is eadem est ratio utriusque sacramenti. And in his explication of that Rule (that it may suit with his own hypotheses the better), and explicating himself thereupon, rejoined. sect. 5. p. 65. he saith; You must take the meaning thus: There is cadem ratio, but not in omnibus. It holds in the main, that the same saith which will admit one of age to be baptised, will also admit him to the Lords Supper; and that is an historical faith only in profession; yet as for making that confession, though it be needful in Baptism, in admitting them to be Church-members, seeing we have Scripture for it; yet not at this Supper, where we have none. For when men are Church members already, their very coming is their profession. So he.   

§. 3.  
Here are indeed some passages I am far from consenting to; as that Baptism admits persons to be Church-members, when as the great argument for the Baptism of children goes upon a contrary position, viz. That Church-members (whom not barring crime is charged upon) may be baptised. Therefore they are Church-members before Baptism; though in that their Church-membership is solemnly signified and publicly acknowledged. And his concluding it not needful to have this confession made before a person be (first) admitted to the Lords Supper, as it was before persons adult were admitted to Baptism, will not hold: unless he could show, where persons baptised in infancy, were (or aught to be) in Scripture admitted to the Lords Supper, without a personal recognition of the Christian faith. But because this is not particularly determined in any Scripture example, we must needs argue by analogy to Baptism about it. There is the same reason for requiring a profession of faith from one baptised in infancy, before he is first admitted to the Lords Supper, as there is for requiring it from the adult for their Baptism; especially such as Augustine and others, who were many years' Christians in profession before they came to be baptised; and the Jews, who were Church-members before their being baptised. But to let these things pass here. Mr. Humphreys grants the Rule, so far as I intent now to make use of it, viz. that it holds in the main, that profession of faith (historical saith he, but most lamentably wrong) is the Rule for admission to both Sacraments; only in the baptism of the adult it was verbal profession, and at receiving, he saith, their very coming to receive is their profession. Though he maketh the manner of testifying the faith required in adult persons to be baptised, different from the manner requisite for testifying the faith required in him who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper; yet he grants (if I understand him) that what faith was the condition of applying Baptism, is the condition of admitting to the Communion; which is all I require. And therefore the visible want of that faith is a bar to his receiving, which would be a bar to the baptism of the adult.   

§. 4.  
It now remains that I prove the Minor which was this: Unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel do visibly want that faith, which is necessarily required to be visibly present, in them who may be lawfully admitted to Baptism; and the truth of it, is thus made out; If it were a visibly actual justifying and saving faith, which was necessarily reqired in Scripture as the condition of persons adult, their admission to Baptism, than the last recited minor proposition is true. But the Antecedent is evident, therefore the Consequent must be granted. I suspect not that any will deny the consequence; my work will lie in demonstrating the Antecedent; the which I shall thus endeavour.  
1. Such a visible faith as is joined with a true and saving visible repentance, is an actual justifying faith visibly. But the Apostles so required such a visible faith as is joined with a true and saving visible repentance. Therefore they required a visibly actual justifying faith, necessarily as the condition of admission to Baptism. Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins; that was the condition Peter tendered to them; and that it was visibly closed with by them is manifest, upon which they were baptised. ver. 41. Then they who gladly received his word (especially the doctrine of repentance he had preached to them, for their crucifying Christ, and of faith in Christ as the true Messiah) were baptised. Here is the application of Baptism to them, upon that condition supposed to be visibly performed by them; which therefore excludes them who close not visibly with this condition. If any say (as it's usually said) who can know a sincere believer? Let them say how Peter could tell who repent, yea and not only who received the word, but gladly received it; such as visibly did so, he must take for such, or deal with as such; who can honour a godly man to love him; or who reputes to forgive him? Those who are such apparently, must be treated as such really, as hath been before said.   

§. 5.  
2. That which Philip required in the Eunuch as a necessary prerequisite for his admission to baptism, is the necessary condition of persons adult their admission to Baptism. But a visibly actual justifying faith, was required by Philip to be in the Eunuch as a necessary prerequisite for his admission to Baptism, see Acts 8. where an express account is given us of the baptismal terms, ver. 35, 36. Philip preached unto him Jesus; and as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the Eunach said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God— and so he baptised him. A reverend Divine hath objected two things; 1. that Philip required more than was necessary to Baptism; As we require all graces to be acted in Communicants, though yet we cannot deny them for coming short in some things they-ought to do. And (saith he) we require in persons to be married, that they give up themselves to the Lord, and marry in the Lord; yet cannot deny marriage to them for want of saving grace. And 2. that the Eunuch's answer, in which Philip acquiesced, shows it was but a dogmatical saith, which might be short of justifying.   

§. 6.  
To these I answer: 1. jointly; That one of them destroys the other. For if it were only dogmatical faith, the same Divine pleads, that that is necessary for admission to Baptism, And then Philip required not accessories besides necessaries; of necessity therefore he must renounce one of his exceptions before he can rationally pitch upon the other positively. Yet 2. I shall answer severally to them. And first of the latter. Exc. 1. If thou believe with all thy heart, i. e. visibly professest so to do [the heart was not searched into by Philip]. The meaning of this should be according to this grave Divine (in one of his exceptions) q. d. if thou believe with all thy understanding, with whole assent, as he (explicating himself) saith the Devils do believe, really, upon clear convictions.  
I shall consider the like phrase used elsewhere, whereby we may most certainly discern, whether it is to have that sense or no. Math. 22.37. Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind; which is interpreted (and must needs be so) with the will, aftections, and understanding. Here the whole heart, denotes the whole will, distinguished from the whole understanding. The same we have, Mark. 12.30. Love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This last clause being added to what was in Matthew, denoting the outward endeavours in testification, and as a fruit of the inward bent and energy of the whole inward man, denoted by the three former. Here then again the phrase with all thy heart, denotes with all thy will, and distinguished from the phrase, with all thy mind, denoting with all thy understanding. So also vers. 33. the same phrase is in like manner used for the whole will; only in that verse, there's some alteration of the order before used; in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we have here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but that is all one as to my present purpose, for which the text is quoted. In the same signification is the phrase with all the heart, repeated Luke 10.27. And these are all the places, I take it, where the phrase is used in the new Testament do a thing with all the heart, besides the text under consideration. Therefore (sure) it must be taken so here, unless there be some manifest Reason in the context, to withdraw it from its usual, (and always elsewhere used) signification; which is not produced, nor I believe can be.   

§. 7.  
Besides, If we look back to the original of the old Testament, from whence this phrase in the new Testament is fetched; It will further appear, that to believe with the whole heart, is most fitly interpreted of believing sincerely and affectionately. The text the Gospel refers to is Deut. 6.5. In vers. 4. Hear O Israel, etc. Ajin the last letter of the first word, and Daleth the last letter of the last word in the verse, are extraordinary great letters in the Hebrew, to cause heed and attention to the Commandment following, which is that called in the Gospel the great Commandment; as noted by its great letters: and thence (by the way) most fitly Christ represents the less Commandments in the esteem of the Jews by pricks or tittles, & least pieces of letters. But the Hebrew phrase here used answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Becol leb. which is ordinarily, if not constantly, applied to the doing of a thing affectionately, unfeignedly, willingly, etc. Deut. 13.13. That he may try you whether ye love the Lord with all your heart and soul. The latin Interpretation of the Arabic version in our London Bibles saith; 〈◊〉 appareat utrum vos sitis amici sui sinceri, ex cordibus et ani●●abus vestris, Deut. 26.16. & 30.6. Josh. 25.5. 1 Sam. 12.20. serve the Lord with all your heart; further explained, verse 4. Serve him in truth with your whole heart. So to do any thing with the whole heart; is to do it willingly and sincerely; and applied to duties, it denotes the doing them, in a right manner, as to praise the Lord with the whole heart, Psal. 86.12. to swear with the whole heart, 2 Chron. 15.12. To seek God with all the heart, 2 Chron. 15.12. & 22.9. To turn to the Lord with all the heart. Deut. 16.10. 1 King. 8.48. Jocl. 2.12. To follow the Lord with all the heart, 1 King. 2.4. and such like. Now if the phrase in the Hebrew used there, do relate to the whole soul, and therein especially to the will, and the Greek phrase coming from thence, not used in the new Testament elsewhere, but manifestly in this sense, then according to the safe Rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we must take it here, to denote, sincere, affectionate believing, in a right or acceptable manner, which was required visibly in the Eunuch, as a necessary prerequisite to his Baptism. And that the rather, because of the Apostles explication of believing with, or in the heart, Rom. 10.8, 9, 10. of an undoubted saving faith.   

§. 8.  
Having thus shown (I think convincingly) that Philip's proposal of believing with all the heart, as a condition of Baptism, did intent more than a bare historical, dogmatical faith, which may be, and is in Devils. Now, I think, it will not be bogled at, That the Eunuch his profession of faith, was apprehended by Philip as coming up to that demand, and though the Devils often said the same or like words, as the Eunuch here expresseth his faith by, and wherein Peter made that glorious confession, which Christ so much magnifies, Math. 16.16, 17, 18. and on which Christ will build his Church; Yet there's no doubt Peter's faith in that, was more than dogmatical, and what might be in Devils: and the acknowledging of the (then) hardest Article of the Christian faith, to wit, that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah, was a probable testimony, that the men who professed this, would not stick at taking him for their Saviour. And therefore such assent to Christianity is spoken of in Scripture to denote, that entire faith which is justifying and saving, as in the Epistles of John and elsewhere.   

§. 9  
Thus much for answer to one of the exceptions made against the force of our present argument; The other is, that Philip requires more than was necessary to his admission to baptism, as hath been before explained. To this I answer. There are clear testimonies that Philip required this believing with all the heart, as a necessary prerequisite condition of the Eunuch's admission to baptism, if we will but allow Philip's and the Eunuch's words to be the Interpreters of their own minds, without miserable torturing and forcing of them to abuse their Masters. For,  
1. The Eunuch saith, What hinders me to be baptised? To this Question Philip answers, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst: Therefore in answer to the Question is employed, If thou dost not believe with all thy heart, thou mayst not; and then no more but necessaries are here required. (I have often enough explained this to be meant of visible believing with all his heart.)  
2. The Eunuch saith, Here is water, what hinders me to be baptised? He enquites therefore, if there were nay such defect now as should so bar his being baptised, as the want of water would have done, if that had not been there then; therefore the Eunuch inquires, If there were any effectual bar now against his baptism.  
3. To which Philip answers as we have heard; If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayst, viz. be baptised: now there is water at hand, and Philip an Evangelist, (no doubt Commissioned to dispense this Sacrament) There's nothing now to hinder, except there should be a want of a visible sincere and hearty believing, and that should hinder thee. If this do not (but rather thou by thy profession approvest thyself thus to believe) thou mayst. I appeal to any Judicious Reader; whether this be not the genuine, fairest and easiest sense of the words; and how tortured & strained is that the Exception puts upon them. As if a man coming to one authorized to marry people, should say; Sir, here's a fit match for me, what hinders me to be married; and then the Commissioner should say, If ye both are agreed with all your hearts ye may. Is not this their appearing serious agreement, signified (whether they do inwardly and sincerely so agree or no, the merrier looks not after,) the necessary prerequisite condition, which being visibly wanting, would hinder his attompt to marry them. And if he should say, (as the Reverend Objector supposeth, parallel to this text) If ye fear the Lord, ye may marry; how unsuitable would it be to the Question proposed by them?  
4. If such plain words as these [What hinders me to be baptised? If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayst] may be expounded, q. d. [To that Question of thine, What hinders me to be baptised? I answer, Though thou do not visibly believe sincerely, thou mayst]. I know not what security we shall have for the sense of almost any Scripture; especially where no absurdity forceth us to departed from the manifest genuine usual proper sense of the words.  
I shall leave it to the Readers serious thoughts, whether I have not proved, that Philip required a visible (believing with all the heart, or) justifying faith, as the necessary condition of the Eunuch's admission to Baptism; and than it follows that a persons believing in respect of such a faith as connotes visible obedience to the Gospel, is the Rule of admission of the adult to Baptism, and by consequence of such only to the Lords Supper, as are visibly so qualified. One thing more I shall observe, before I pass this, viz. that the Eunuches Question was (as seems) directly and primarily an enquiry, upon what terms Philip would baptise him, and so refers to his right to baptism in soro ecclesiae; and therefore I have interpreted the believing with all the heart in Philip's answer, to be meant of a visibly sincere believing, according to the Rules Philip was to judge by, who were to be treated as sincere believers. And to refer it to the forum Dei, as distinguished from the sorum ecclesiae, is not (so far as I can discern) proved nor encouraged by the context.   

§. 10.  
When I had dispatched thus much of this argument, and had considered several other texts to be annexed, proving the same thing, as Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.11, 12, 13. Gal. 3.27. etc. upon which I should and intended to have argued; At this time (I say) there came to my hands Mr Richard Baxter his late learned and accurate book, containing five Disputations about right to the Sacraments. Upon the perusal whereof, I perceived he hath so plenteously by many arguments proved the visibility of saving faith to be the title on which only Baptism and the Lords Supper too may be administered, That I shall spare the labour of adding any more here, but refer the Reader to receive (thankfully) that plentiful harvest, there prepared for his further satisfaction in this thing. I found indeed, he also had the texts I have made use of here, viz. Act. 2.38. & 8.35, 36. Yet I let them stand still; hoping that my improvement and management of them, somewhat differing (though not dissenting) from that Reverend Author, may be no prejudice to the cause, nor imputed for presumption and arrogance to myself.  
I shall now hasten to the third task I undertook in the method above proposed, for the evincing that such Christians as are unbelievers in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel, ought not to have the Lords Supper administered to them. And that was to annex some Cautions for the further clearing and preventing mistake in this doctrine; but this may have a distinct Chapter; and because the matter is difficult let us pause upon it, and crave divine assistance in the ejaculations of  PSALM 119. the 6th part. F. 
41 Freely on me thy grace power out!  
Lord save me by thy Word!  
42 For so shall I answer each flout,  
My trust is in the Lord.  
43 From me ne'er take thy Truth, for I  
Hoped in thy Judgements store.  
44 Flying all vice J'll keep truly  
Thy Law for evermore.  
45 Freedom is that blessed path I tread,  
While I thy precepts seek.  
46 Fear not my soul, God's Laws to spread,  
And of them to Kings speak.  
47 Filled with the love of thy Commands,  
Therein my Joy I'll choose.  
48 Full gladly to them I my hands  
Lift up, and on them muse.    

CHAP. VII.  

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

§. 2.  
I confess upon this doctrine here occurs a great Question; Whether David whiles actually impenitent under his gross sins, was unpardoned, and so unjustifyed? since all pardon and the continuance thereof is to be expected only on the condition of faith and repentance. It must be acknowledged, this is a point of great difficulty, to speak to it clearly and consistently: The obscurity whereof hath occasioned different thoughts in the godly learned for the explication of the same.  
Some have said, those gross sins do extinguish grace, and are inconsistent with the very habit of faith, and so null pardon; which they apply to the case of Peter and David, till they did repent, and so the work of regeneration was begun anew again in them, as it was in their first conversion. To which they think that passage, Psalm 51.10. affords some illustration. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. but although it may be so to their sense, and the same omnipotent power of God's grace is to be put forth for their recovery, as was for their first conversion: (Which two reasons may be some account of the Psalmists expressions;) yet I conceive, it's plain, that the feed of grace is never totally destroyed in them, but is immortal, although it may as winter-corn, lie (we know not how) long under the clod. Others say, all the sins of the godly are sins of infirmity (the persons committing them, being not dead in sin, as an unrogenerate man is, but only diseased and wounded, and because they are not committed with full consent; The habitual resolution and frame of their souls, being against those sins which they are sometimes overborn with. But this seems contrary to many plain Scriptures, Ezek. 18.24, 26. Matth. 18.3. Rom. 8.13. 1 John 1.6, etc.   

§. 3.  
Between these two extremes some have laboured to find a middle way more safe. I shall also adjoin my poor endeavours in the following particulars.  
1. I take it for certain, that there is in the godly a seed, or habit of sanctifying grace, which (when they are at the lowest ebb, in regard of the fruits and acts of it) is never totally extinguished, john 10.28. & 17.20, 21. Luke 22.32. And this is an active principle, ready to put them on to actual faith, repentance, love, and obedience. In regard whereof, the habitual frame of David's heart was for God more than for sin, even when his sin hindered the actings of grace, therefore he never ceased altogether to be a penitent and believer; and therefore was never altogether cast out of the state of pardon and justification by those sins (though heinous) which he did not finally continue in.  
2. Notwithstanding this their state of justification and pardon continued, yet the godly may fall, and be under actual guilt by gross sins whiles not particularly repent of. And that not only such guilt as may oblige them to temporal judgements, (which often are for the same inflicted on them, 1 Cor. 11.29, 30, 31. 2 Sam. 12.14.) But also the present actual guilt of eternal wrath and damnation. For he may fall into such sins, wherein if he finally continue, he cannot expect to be saved, but is bound to think he shall perish continuing therein, Matth. 18.3. and 2. wherein, afterward he repenting, acknowledgeth God might justly have cast him off in his sin, and damned him for it; notwithstanding his former interest in Christ. Now these accusations of Conscience are true, grounded upon the threaten of the word of God against such as are (any while) particularly impenitent under such sins. Therefore the guilt of conscience charged on him, was really on him at that time.  
3. And he may fall into such sins, as the Church may justly retain and bind (as it is conceived the incestuous Corinthian was godly before,) and these are bound in heaven: therefore their sins at that present are not remitted in heaven.   

§. 4.  
3. How these positions (both which seem manifest in Scripture) should agree together, and not contradict one another, is the great difficulty. That learned Divine (before named) most happy in solving of difficulties, though he ingenuously confess himself much in the dark here; yet inclines to this answer, viz. That pardon belongs not only to actual repentance and faith, but to habitual. And so David was actually pardoned on the condition performed of his habitual faith and repentance, which kept the interest of Christ, most prevailingly in his soul, when he was so foiled by actual wickedness. Which he is driven to hold, as he saith, because he supposeth a godly man may die in gross sins not particularly repent of. But then methinks, it would follow hereupon, that David after his rising again by actual repentance, was pardoned only as to his sense, being really and actually pardoned before (even in the committing the crimes) on the condition of his habitual faith: which yet I think that Mallcus, and happy confuter of the Antinomians, will not grant.  
4. Some distinguish of habitual and actual pardon, according to their habitual and actual faith and repentance. And so David should have the former before he was recovered by repentance, not the later. But this distinction may not be granted, because though there be habits of sanctifying grace insused into, and inherent in us, distinguished from the actual exercise thereof, yet grace justifying and pardoning, is wholly without us, and is God's act; and therefore I see not how any can be said to have habitual pardon.   

§. 5.  
I shall now cast in my Mite for explicating this matter, by propounding, explaining, and applying these two distinctions.  
4. Distinguish betwixt virtual pardon, and the formal application of pardon. The terms of the distinction (after I had in my thoughts pitched on them) I found in Ames, Medul. lib. 1. c. 27. though he explain them in a sense different from what I intent to signify thereby. Per formalem applicationem (saith he) remittuntur peccata praeterita, sutura autem virtuailter. Praeterita in se, futura in subjecto vel personâ peccante. The fore-praised Mr. Baxter also, in his Method for settling Peace of Conscience, p. 266. speaks of virtual justification, which David did not lose, and actual, which he did at present lose by his sin. And of (which comes to the same effect) imperfect and more perfect justification. But I mean by virtual pardon, and the formal application of pardon, an actual and potential pardon, not only in potentiâ remotâ, but proxima. As the fruit is virtually contained in the seed: so where there is a seed of habitual faith, there is a principle certainly (through God's grace promised) productive of actual particular repentance for particular gross sins, in due time. The kingdom of heaven (true grace) is thus compared to a grain of Mustard seed.  
The virtual or potential pardon is acquitting from sin on such a condition, which is inchoatly in the sinner, viz. in regard of the seed of it, certainly productive of actual particular repentance for those gross sins: not only as what shall be in respect of God's Decree (which hath no condition) to which Ames seems to refer, (if there were such a pardon or justification in respect of God's decree to pardon, a man might be said to be justified before he is born) but especially, in that, there is that habitual faith and repentance in the sinner, which will certainly produce actual before death. And thus David was virtually or potentially inchoatly pardoned, as to those gross sins not yet particularly and actually repent of; and so he was not out of the state of justification then (as out Divines express it.) But yet he was not formally pardoned, till upon actual repentance he had attained actual reconciliation with God, especially in reference to those particular sins, whereby he was disobliged from God's wrath due to him for the same. For this forgiveness is not to be expected but upon actual repentance, 1 John 1.7, 9 Prov. 28.13. And if it were otherwise, a godly man could not presume.   

§. 6.  
2. Distinguish the way God hath confined us to, wherein only we may expect pardon, from the way God out of his Royal prerogative may take for pardoning a sinner. The way prescribed in the word, wherein only we may expect pardon through Christ, is in performance of the Gospel-condition of actual faith and repentance, for all sins in general, for more particular gross sins particularly; and in the continuance hereof Now God ties us, not himself: If any of the elect should die before actual particular repentance, they having not oppotunity for such repentance, as in the case of self-murder upon a violent temptation, or the like, God may acquit them from the guilt of that particular sin upon their habitual repentance for it. But this we cannot expect, nor build upon, having no Rule for it, that God will do so, though we cannot say he never will. Besides, we know not what actual repentance God may give to such in the instant before death, such secret things belong not to us. And therefore as we cannot judge others, as to this, so neither may we vary from the Rule of actual faith and repentance, in order to our expecting the obtaining and continuance of pardon and justification unto life and salvation.  
The Reader will (perhaps) say, To what purpose hath this perplexed question about the state of a Christian, under some notorious sins, been here spoken of? I answer. Because it is, as I suppose, much conducing to the clearing of the caution we have in hand, that it is not the visibility or probable appearance of habitual faith primarily that is requited, which should authorise the Church or Ministers to admit a person to the Sacraments, but a visible actual faith shown (probably) in a present conformity and obedience to the Gospel. For since habitual faith & repentance cannot (according to the rule we must expect to be ordered by) entitle a person to actual pardon, or the formal application of pardon; it follows that that habitual faith isnot enquired for primarily, in order to admission to the Sacraments, which are instituted to seal actual remission of sin, and are so designed by the ministrators thereof. It is true, where we require actual faith, habitual is supposed: but habitual is not sufficient, though we could be assured thereof, being not sufficient (in its kind as a condition) for the obtaining of pardon of sins. And this leads us to the second Caution, which is this.   

§. 7.  
2. That a person is not judged by the Church, or Minister, to be destitute of grace, no not visibly and apparenter, necessarily upon the account of their debarring him from the Sacrament; but only that he doth not live in the visible actual exercise of faith, but walketh in ways inconsistent therewith: And which therefore bring him under guilt at present; so that his sins are retained in heaven, that is, unpardoned as well as on earth in the Church. As by the preaching of the word they are retained in soro interno, or poenitentiali; so by the Church-censures, in foro externo & juridicali, Matth. 16.19. & 18.18. As in preaching (I say) the threaten or comforts, men's conditions are manifested to their own consciences; so in Church-censures inflicted on offenders, and in Ecclesiastical restoring of them, there is a solemn application of the threats or promises of comforts to particular persons, upon credible evidence of their states, being such as may require the same respectively, either the one or the other. Now a godly man may have need of having the threaten applied to him, supposing his fall into any gross sin not particularly repent of. And so may have his sins retained by the Church, not only he who hath the habit of saving faith inwardly (and undiscernably, as to others;) but also he of whose habitual justifying or sincere faith, the Church or Ministers have probable hopes at that very time. As suppose in David's case, one who had long known his former upright life, might by that have had more probable grounds whereupon to judge and esteem him habitually holy, then from his present crimes to judge or esteem him destitute of true holiness. The like is the case of some few of the Quakers, and such notorious heretics in our days, who upon the account of their former holy conversation a long time, are hoped to have a seed of grace in them, which will in due time (through God's mercy) exert itself, for their conversion from their present blasphemies (as it hath done in some.) Yet what sober person can doubt that at present they are in such ways of actual infidelity and wickedness, as to be rejected (as they are) by our Churches.   

§. 8.  
The third Caution that must be here remembered, which was hinted before, viz. That it belongs primarily to the governing Church to judge what persons are so unbelievers, in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel, as that the Lords Supper may not be administered to them; this being confessed by all to be one instance of Ecclesiastical punishment, or rather castigation; viz. in exclusion from the Sacrament. And then (where the Church is in such a capacity to judge) I humbly conceive the Minister (while he is their Minister) is to administer according to their judgement, yea although their public judgement thwart his own opinion. For in such a case the question is not, whether unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel, should be admitted; that he cannot recede from to gratify any: but whether this or that person be such an unbleliever, which is regularly in a Church under Ecclesiastical government to be determined by a public judgement, wherein particular persons are (and an Officer considered as a single person is) concluded, so as it may not be resisted by him alone, (though he hath the liberty of appeal as opportunity is offered.) As when a Judge acquits one upon the verdict of the Jury whom he thinks ought not to be acquitted. The question there is not, whether the guilty should be acquitted, that may not be done by him upon any terms, but whether that person is guilty; and here without any injustice he submits his own opinion to the public judgement of them whom the Law makes Judges (in some sort) of the fact in such cases. I said while the Minister continueth to be their Minister, he is obliged thus to comply; but in some gross and palpable maladministrations, it is thought the Minister (and so the Judge in the former instance) should leave his place, rather than continue to execute the wicked determinations of the public judgement aforesaid; As Hooker in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical Polity says, Calvin did in such a case; preaching his farewell Sermon upon such a wrong judgement passed by the Consistory of Geneva for the admission of a notorious offender to the Sacrament.   

§. 9  
4. But when the Church is not in that capacity, there being not a governing Church, nor can be procured, I suppose it is devolved to the diseretion and prudence of the Minister for suspending his own act of delivering the Sacrament to such as are openly wicked and profane, and (as it were) ipso jure excommunicate. For the proving hereof, or what is tantamount, that reverend Divine Mr. Blake hath given us his ren reasons in his Covenant sealed, ch. 7. §. 16. well worthy of consideration, and answered objections made by Mr. Jeanes against the same. To which, (if it would not be counted too much presumption) I would add. There is no one (I think) doubts, but a Minister, if cast among heathens, to whom he preacheth the Gospel, and they tender themselves to baptisin, might make use of his prudence and judgement of discretion to direct him in administering or not administering baptism to those he discerns capable or incapable, who are fit Catechumen, and who not; who seem to profess the Christian faith seriously, and who saying the same words, do yet manifestly scorn what in words they profess. And where he hath no governing Church, to whose public judgement he should have recourse; I see not but the case as to this, is of the same exigence: either he is to administer to all that come, or he must discern and judge who are to be refused and who embraced. Now there is no public judgement for him to be guided by. But none (sure) will say the former. The Minister is greatly concerned to do his endeavour in keeping the manifestly uncapable from participating even where there is a governing Church, much more where there is not, and so agreater burden is cast upon him. Cyprian in his 54. Epistle Cornelio fratri, after advising him to admit the penitent to the communion, saith, Si autem (quod Dominus avertat à fratribus nostris) aliquis lapsorum fefellerit, ut pacem subdole petat, & impendentis praelii tempore communicationem, non praeliaturus accipiat, seipsum fallit ac decipit, qui aliud corde occultat & aliud voce pronunciat. Nos in quantum nobis & videre & judicare conceditur faciem singulorum videmus, cor scrutari, & mentem perspicere non possumus. De his judicat occultorum scrutator & cognitor, citò venturus, etc. And that by accipere communicationem, he means to receive the Lords Supper, is evident by his words a little before, where he urgeth to entertain the lapsed penitents, Cum ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, ut possit accipientibus esse tutela— Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confession Nominis sanguinem fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? Aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus se non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus?  
And in his 61 Epistle Euchratio Fratri. To him who had enquired his judgement de histrione an talis debeat communicare nobiscum? Cyrian answers; Puto nee majestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor Ecclesiae, tam turpi et infamî contagione soedetur. And Chrysoslom, Ad populum Antiochen. hom. 60. de sumentibus indigne divina et sancta mysteria: saith, Nos ministrorum tenemus locum, qui ver ô sanctificat ea et immutat, ipse est nullus itaque Judas assistat, nullus avarus; si quis est discipulus adsit. Name tales mensa non sascipit; ait enim, Cum discipulis me is pascha facio, etc. And that's a famous place in Justin Martyr, in his second defence of the Christians, ad Antonium pium. (Johanne Lang q Interpret) where about a little after the middle, relating the manner and order of the Christians service, and divine worship or Liturgy; he saith, Porro, alimentum hoc, apud nos appellatur Eucharistia, quod nulli alij participare licitum est (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) quam veram esse doctrinam nostram credenti, et lavacro propter remissionem peccatorum, & regenerationem abluto, & ita ut Christus tradidit viventi.— And then that the Lords Supper be not administered to the appatently scandalous, (as these quotations say it ought not) should be the special care of them who are to dispense the same. Let a Minister think with himself, if he shall neglect to reprove a wicked man appearing such, whether he think he may safely excuse himself before the Lord with saying, There was no governing Church where I was Minister, by whose sentence he might have been declared a wicked man, If there had, I would have reproved him as such? and then see whether the using a notorious wicked person in the Sacrament as if he were an orderly Christian, will be excused with, saying, I wanted Prelates, or a Classis, or an Eldership, by any of whose authoritative judgement he should have been declared a wicked liver? And if this were well weighed, what a mighty burden lies on the Minister in this thing, where there are no Church-governors' besides; I think it would quicken Ministers in more serious labouring for assistance in the work.   

§. 10.  
5. Lastly. I would by way of caution note, that though the Rule for non-admission or suspension before asserted may not be infringed; yet there ought to be much charitable candour, rendernesse, and wisdom in the application of it to particular persons.  
I shall not take upon me to give particular Directions in this matter, what crimes may now denominate one scandalously profane, that is, in ways of wickedness and unbelief, inconsistent visibly, with any exercise of saving faith. Only in general I shall say, It is my opinion. 1. That such miscarriages as are not more heinous and scandalous, than those are which are generally acknowledged to be incident to the godly, (I mean to them who walk godly) will not be marks to us of any particular persons unbelief in the sense aforesaid. I will not be particular here in making comparisons betwixt neglect of admenition, and neglect of ordinary family duty, betwixt backbiting censoriousness, and some vain words, containing in them an unnecessary attestation, by faith, truth, and the like. But the judicious Reader may (if he please easily) bethink himself of many such Instances to be compared. 2. Those crimes which are visibly inconsistent with the exercise of faith at sometimes, may not be so at other times; as polygamy in the old Testament, compared with the New Testament times. 3. The like variation may be rational in respect of persons, considering the difference betwixt one and another, in respect of temptations, helps, warnings, convictions, company, and the like. 4. Where a multitude are enwrapped in some crime, commonly the Ringleaders are much more deeply guilty than the rest, drawn in by the company, example, persuasions of their leader.   

§. 11.  
5. To conclude, in point of ignorance I think few can be thus judged of, where the Ministers do what they may for their instruction. Fundamentals are very few and plain. And I hope upon good encouragement in sundry Parishes in my neighbourhood, we shall not have one debarrable upon the account of ignorance, as indeed I think there are few, very few (comparatively) already, through God's blessing upon our endeavours for private and personal instruction; which oh that all Ministers would set upon! We find great encouragement, even among those aged people we suspected would have been most averse. They generally thank us, when we come to their houses, or elsewhere confer with them. Which I mention that none may discourage themselves with supposed fears of the untractableness of any, whom they have not first tried, after a loving, tender, and gentle application of themselves to them for their instruction. Much wisdom is needful, herein (oh that God would give us a greater measure of it!) but the design is of noble tendency; and I hope many a soul will and doth bless God for the zeal of that Worcestershire burning and shining light, and his Associates, which have provoked many to this unquestionable good work. And in point of practical miscarriages, we have Directions given us in the Ordinance of Lords and Commons, after advice had with the Assembly; which may justly bear some sway with us, as to the discerning what persons are debarrable upon their notorious miscarriages visibly inconsistent with the exercise of sincere faith.   

§. 12.  
Upon the whole matter I conclude that there are few (comparatively) in the Parishes I am acquainted with, who may lawfully be judged by us, to be in such ways of wickedness, as are inconsistent with the exercise of godliness; either because (through God's mercy) such wickednesses do not notoriously appear, (and de occultis non judicat ecclesia) or because, upon their being admonished thereof, they are ready to condemn themselves, and professing repentance to promise reformation. The main obstacle lying in this is that some notoriously guilty of wickedness publicly known (through the nature of the crime itself they have committed) are unwilling to profess publicly their repentance for the same. And yet in my experience this doth rarely happen. And I humbly conceive, that learned Gentleman Mr Maurice, hath done an acceptable service to the Church of God, in opposing the practices of some Ministers in his neighbourhood, who associated with some few of their members in one Church, to administer the Sacrament there; neglecting it wholly in their own proper Churches. It's better to be too charitable (if I may so speak) in judging them capable who are not, then too censorious in judging them not capable who are so. Better it were that some have what belongs not to them, than any should be deprived of their due. I conjecture by the places I know, that there are few places in England, where a Minister can sufficiently excuse himself in neglect of administering the Sacrament to his charge; by the pretence of want of a competent number of visibly capable Communicants. And that the want of Elders is no plea sufficient, hath been proved by many pens, which I hearty assent unto; and therefore would earnestly desire Ministers not to neglect the celebration of the Sacrament in their own places, upon such pretences, although in such want of government a greater burden must needs lie upon their own shoulders. In short, I would be as charitable as might be in judging and discerning who are in ways of wickedness, visibly inconsistent with any exercise of faith, (And yet to prevent abuse of this doctrine, it must be remembered, that we are to judge ourselves by a stricter Rule in discerning of our conditions, than others may make use of in probable discerning concerning us. And 2. we may have strong suspicions and jealousies concerning others, (so as to admonish them sharply) whom yet we cannot judge ecclesiastically (and use) as such whom we fear them to be. But that such as are notoriously thus wicked, have any right, or may be regularly admitted to the Sacrament, I flatly deny, upon the Grounds and Reasons before memioned.  
But it's now high time to take our refreshing.  PSALM 119. part 7th. G. 
49 Grant to thy servant that good word,  
Whereon I hope by thee!  
50 Great joy this doth in straits afford;  
For thou hast quickened me.  
51 Graceless proud men in scoffs waxed hold,  
Yet kept I thy Law sound.  
52 Good Lord, I mind thy Judgements old,  
And therein comfort found.  
53 Grim horrors seized on me, because  
Men break thy Statutes sage.  
54 Glad songs to me have been thy Laws,  
In th' house of pilgrimage.  
55 Grave thoughts I had of thy Name, Lord,  
By night, and thy Law kept.  
56 Guiding my steps after thy Word:  
This blessed fruit I have reaped.    

CHAP. VIII.  

§. 1.  
THese three last Chapters being duly weighed by the attentive Reader, and compared with Mr W. his discourse from pag. 47. to 62. I hope he shall not want an answer for most there alleged, pertinently to the matter we are upon. Extravagancies we shall not now deal with. Yet some more particular Answer shall be given to what remains any thing considerable in those pages of his.  
He often harps upon one base. You mis-judge (saith he) in judging the morbid members of our parochial Assemblies to be Infidels and unbelievers positively as Pagans, p. 50. Give over your herterodoxall brownism (such words as this and mormo, and mormonize, fill his mouth completely) and honour the Christian Religion, by putting a divinely positive difference, between the unbelievers among us, and the unbelievers of Pagans, p. 53. And (I know not how) many times over doth he in such like expressions inform our dulness, that there is a difference betwixt our unbelievers; and Pagans; and with great vehemency persuades us to believe that Pagans were not baptised, nor do they profess the Christian faith as ours do. As Augustine said to Cresconius, l. 2. contra Cresconium Grammaticum, ne quisquam vel nimis acutus, id quod semel breviterque dixisses interpretari aliter conaretur: etiam obtusis auribus et cordibus tuam curasti immergere atque inculcare sententiam. One would be apt to think I had denied this which he urgeth so hotly; or else that he hath such a stomach to confute me, he will beat a brat that no body owns on my back. Did ever any one deny to put a difference betwixt baptised persons, and unbaptised, yea those who are but catechumen? But if the Question be whether Unbeliever, is a name applicable (by Scripture warrant) to some baptised persons, I have answered it already, (when I routed his sorry distinction) and shown that it is, in divers Instances. And if further the Question be, what kind of believing is the condition of visible title to sacramental admission? I have showed that it is that believing which doth connote visible actual saving faith and repentance. And that the due administration of the Sacraments doth necessarily suppose in the judgement of the Church or Minister, that the person to whom they are dispensed is a sincere believer, and a converted person, is a position wherein I think I shall never see Mr Baxter answered; though he have so grave and learned an Antagonist engaged against him therein. And indeed Mr W. and I might well have been silent, to have heard our Betters argue the matter. That's my opinion, I cannot say it was his.   

§. 2.  
P. 50. Mr W. will needs show us how they who are ignorant and disorderly can be believers; and saith, The very best of us are sinners and Saints but in a divers respect; sinners ex peccato remanenti, Saints ex gratiâ renovantis; or sinners quoad reliquias vetustatis, Saints quoad primitias spiritus. i e. (if I may english his latin, because he doth not) to this sense; we are sinners because of sin in us, and Saints because of grace in us.  
Well now, what will he do with this distinction? he tells us; So our morbid Church members are in a divers respect believers and unbelievers. Believers positively, as soederally and professedly of the Christian persuasion. Unbelievers negatively, as in works they practically deny the faith under which they positively and professedly stand by baptism, and visible submission to the outward means of faith and reformation, not as aliens, but as of the household of faith, putting themselves under the Church's cure, not justifying their miscarriages, but coming to our solemnities as to the means of better carriage, professedly hoping in Christ for salvation, and in no other. And then he shows how some of the children of Israel were Rulers of Sodom by their sinful practice, yet children of God, and of the Prophets, and the Church, a severed and holy people, by the holiness of the Covenant under which they professedly stood.  
First, for the similitude of one to the other compared. As we are sinners because we have sin in us, and Saints because of grace; so some are Saints, or an holy people, though they have no holiness in them, but only engaged positively to be holy. Wherein is the likeness? As some having learning are learned, so some engaged or professing to be learned are learned. Is not this good?  
And then again. As we are Saints and sinners in divers respects, so are persons believers and unbelievers in divers respects. The comparison should have been, of some who are Saints and no Saints, to have fitted believers and unbelievers; the denomination is taken from the prevailing or predominant part.   

§. 3.  
Then for the thing itself. First, he describes positively believers, such who are soederally and professedly of the Christian persuasion. Well, and are not all the excommunicate, or most of them so? have not they a dogmatical faith? And 2. are they not federally, positively engaged; no time nor condition can take off, or free them from their baptismal engagements.  
Well, but in his explanation of his unbelievers negatively, he adds more to the description of his positively believers; as namely; 1. Visible submission to the outward means of faith and reformation, not as aliens but of the household of faith. 2. Not justifying their miscarriages. 3. But coming to our solemnities. 4. Professedly hoping in Christ for salvation; and 5. in no other Saviour. And p. 57 he further describes them thus. The baptised among us that frequent our Assemblies, hear our doctrine with reverence and attention, join with us in our solemnities, give us visible testimony of their assent to our doctrine, to such we are to administer as believers, etc.  
Now 1. I would know what Reason Mr. W. can produce for putting in these qualifications, into the description of his positively believer, rather than, that he should in general, walk according to his profession, which makes a visible Saint, or justified believer? 2. If all these be necessary to make up his positive believer, who must have the Sacrament then, if these or any of these be wanting visibly, in a baptised person adult, and not excommunicate, he is not (or not enough) a positive believer, and so must not be admitted to the Sacrament. It should seem then, it's Mr. W. his doctrine, that if a person baptised and adult, either will not be reproved, is a desperate swearer, who as the dog turns again to rend him, that (though never so prudently and meekly) casts the pearls of admonition before him; or if he frequent not (come not above twice or thrice a year to any public, religious solemnities) or if he do justify and plead for his miscarriages; or if he know not whether Christ be God or no, whom he saith he hopes in; or whether Christ be man too and died; yea or if he do not hear the word with reverence and attention, and give us visible testimony of his assent thereunto. In any of these cases (much more where all concur) suspension is allowed of; and I presume Mr. W. would not have this person for any one of these offences excommunicated in his sense, viz. excluded all public Ordinances. And yet whiles he grants all this, he pretends to justify the position I opposed, viz. that no ignorant or scandalous baptised adult, and not excommunicated person should be debared the Sacrament; our Gentleman who is so impatient of being contradicted by me, can calmly and contentedly contradict himself, and that in so many instances altogether.  
3. I would demand, where God hath promised to him that believes dogmatically only, and professeth so, and that he is willing to receive, etc. that he shall have the Sacrament, either the bare signs, or the thing signified thereby? If he will forbear to answer these scribble (as his severity calls my writings) till he have some clear proof for that, I think we shall be no more honoured with his public assaults. But I may not impose such hard conditions on him; his tongue and pen are his own.  
4. But if his positive believer do truly profess the whole Christian persuasion, that is, to assent to the doctrine of the Gospel understandingly (for a man cannot be persuaded of what he understands not) and that he hopes in Christ, that is, in Christ's way; he is a justified believer. If he do but credibly profess the same, no one doubts of his admission to the Sacrament. But then the Question will be, whether this word profession is credible, when his deeds do notoriously contradict the same; of which we must speak beneath.   

§. 4.  
Mr. W. adds, p. 51. And we read not of any debarring this had people (the Israelites) from the solemnity of the Passeover. There were no such imperious Masters of Reformation in those days, which gathered proselytes of the better sort into a faction, and excluded all the rest from Church fellowship, as the world, aliens, unbelievers, and no Church members.— Likewise the Apostle saith, We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles; so our people are Christians by nature and birth, and not sinners of the Pagans, positively by the proper Rules of their very profession.  
This latter assertion of our being Christians by birth, as the Jews were Church members borne I deny not. But that's no medium to prove the general admission he pleads for. The former words of his are argumentative after a fashion. The argument is gathered from comparing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, with the Passeover among the Jews, and our Ministers with the Jewish Governors then.  
And here first we have the flowers of his argument, Imperious Masters of Reformation; faction. He should remember he was to dispute not revile now. But some men's mouths do so abound with the distillation of reproachful terms, that they can hardly speak vehemently, without spitting abusively. 2. We have his false intimations, that we gather proselytes into a faction, excluding all the rest, etc. This falsehood runs almost through his book; that we gather new Churches, and disclaim the old constitution as null, lay another in examination: notorious untruths! I shall say no more to them now, but demand, whether the Constitutions and Cannons ecclesiastical, primo Jacobi, which Can. 27. enjoined that all should kneel at the Communion, and that the Minister should not deliver it to any if they did not kneel; were intended by the Imposers thereof (or did it amount in the nature of the thing itself) to a new constitution of the Church? Did they gather the kneelers into a faction as their proselytes. Mr. W. I think, will hereby cross his affection to the Prelatical Government, hinted in his p. 73.) so as to say that was a factious design. And then all excluding some-from the Communion in our Churches (without excommunicating them from all Ordinances) yea though upon unscriptural grounds (for I am of opinion, their kneeling was not jure divino, no more than bowing at the name of Jesus) is not a demolishing of the former constitution of the Church, and erecting a new one in a faction. And I might ask, whether every time the people of the Jews, were by their godly Magistrates called to renew their Covenant with God, and sometimes so strictly enjoined hereunto, that he that refused should be severely punished, yea separated from the Congregation. (2 Chron. 15.9, 12, 13. & 34.29, 31, 32. Ezra 10.3, 5, 7, 8.11, 12.19.) Whether (I say) than they pulled down the old constitution of their Church, and made a new one in a faction?  
But I keep the Reader too long from the argument, the strength whereof I shall neither conceal nor decline, though it's but sorrily here hinted by Mr. W. And because this objection against suspension is the strongest that I know of, I shall take the occasion here offered to speak more closely, and yet largely unto it. But of this in the two following Chapters. Now to our Crumbs of comfort.  PSALM 119. part. 8. H. 
57 High God, my portion; I have said.  
I'll keep thy word most true.  
58 Hearty I thy savour prayed:  
Thy promised mercy show.  
59 Heeding my paths, I turned my way  
Unto thy Testaments.  
60 Hasting, I did no whit delay  
To keep thy Commandments.  
61 Hells wicked bands have rob me.  
Thy Law to mind I call.  
62 Humbly at midnight, I'll thank thee,  
Right are thy Judgements all.  
63 He who sears thee, walks with me still.  
And who thy precepts keep.  
64 Here-all this Earth thy mercy's fill.  
Teach me thy statutes deep.    

CHAP. IX.  

§. 1.  
THe passage wherein Mr. W. is pleased to insinuate the argument against suspension, is this; We read not of any debarring this bad people (the Israelites) from the solemnity of the Passeover. The argument here intimated is this; All the people circumcised, though never so bad, were admitted to the Passeover, therefore so must all the baptised adult, etc. be admitted to the Lords Supper.  
1. I deny the consequence as it's here propounded, (and yet it is most strictly propounded, according to the  passage of our Friend, from which its framed) because it proceeds from fact to right, which is not valid; if it were, he might by like reason prove polygamy lawful, because it was in so many ages, and by the best sort of men in those ages practised in the old Testament.  
2. And if in stead of [admitted] we put [rightfully admitted] to the Passeover: yet the consequence is not clear enough to determine our controversy. Because the Ordinances of the Old Testament are not without limitations, Rules for the New, in these things. We grant an argument may be drawn from Analogy in some cases, viz. where we can prove the Analogy itself by Scripture, or at least that the ground of the Analogy is of equal concernment and latitude to us now, as to them in the old Testament, and that too not retrenched by any particular Institution in the New.   

§. 2.  
The strength of that Argument from infant-circumcision for pedobaptism, lies not in this immediately, that because their children were circumcised ours must be baptised; but because it's evident by their circumcision, that they were Church-members: therefore our children are Church-members. Which consequence holds firmly, unless it could be showed, either that their Church-membership was typical, and so concerns not us, or else that that privilege of Church-membership belonging to the children of the believing Jew's then, is now reversed in the New Testament, which we put the Anabaptists or Antipedobaptists to prove if they can. And then because they (or most of them) grant, that all Church-members (not forfeiting their privileges as infan● cannot) may be baptised, hence we conclude Infant-baptism. But now in this Argument from the Passeover to the Lords Supper, (supposing at present but not granting the rightful general admssion there pretended) there is not the like ground of Analogy to go upon. For we grant not to Mr. W. that all Church-members (whereof many forfeit their privileges) may be admitted to the Lords Supper. This is the thing in question between us. If he would have argued to purpose, he should have given in his Medium, whereby he would evince the like generality of the subjects recipient of the Lords Supper as of the Passeover. Whether from the identity of nature, use, and signification of the Passeover and the Lords Supper, or from what else, and then it would be considered.   

§. 3.  
1. That the Passeover was a Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament. Mark 14.12. The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passeover. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quando pascha immolabant, Deut. 16.2. thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover unto the Lord thy God of the Flock and of the Herd. By the way we may note, that this translation in the last words mentioned [of the Flock and of the Herd] seems to contradict Exod. 12.3. and other places, which say it must be a Lamb only or a Kid, how then of the Herd?. The most learned Dr. Ralph Cudworth (the now worthy Professor of Hebrew, and the great ornament of the University of Cambridge, and the Master of that flourishing College there, to which I am most obliged to wish happiness) in his discourse called the true notion of the Lords Supper, p. 38.39. gives us this solution. The words (saith he) in the Hebrew, according to a several punctation, and supplying of something that must be understood, may be expounded divers ways, any whereof is far better than that which our English translators pitch upon. Onkelos reads it, Thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover before the Lord thy God, of the sons of the Flock, and the Peace offerings thereof of Oxen. Which may be confirmed from that of Josiahs Passeover, 2 Chron. 35, 7. And Josiah gave to the people of the Flock, Lambs and Kids, all for the Passeover-offerings, to the number of 30000, and 3000 Bullocks; Where the Bullocks, or the Herd, are divided from the Passes-over-offering. So vers. 13. these were roasted.— but the other sod in pots. So that forenamed place, Deut. 16.2. is to be read thus: Thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover to the Lord thy God (and then the Verb being again repeated) thou shalt sacrifice sheep & oxen, or thè stock and the herd, that is, one in the Passeover, the other in Peace offerings. But I quoted the text only to show that the Passeover was a Sacrifice. It was indeed killed by the people, or might be. Exod. 12.6. Though the Levites killed it, 2 Chron. 30.17. that was because the people were unclean, and so might not come into the Court to kill it. Which special and peculiar reason so rendered, shows that except in such a case of uncleanness, the people themselves had killed the Passeover. The same reason is rendered for the like purpose, Ezra 6. But this makes it not no Sacrifice properly so called: For the people might kill other Sacrifices, as the Burnt-offerings, Levit, 1.4, 5. Peace-offerings, Levit. 3.2. and Sin-offerings, Levit. 4.24.  
The Passeover likewise was brought to the Tabernacledore, as Sacrifices were Deut. 16.2. compared with chap. 12.5. Numb. 9.7, 13.. compared with Exod. 29.42. It also agreed with the Sacrifices, in that the blood of the Passeover was to be sprinkled by the Priest, and the fat to be burnt on the Altar, Exod. 23.18. & 34.23, 25. 2 Chron. 30.16. & 35.11. Now the skilful Jews tell us, that the sprinkling of blood is the essence of the Sacrifice. At the first institution in Egypt there is some difference, for it was there killed in every private house; but then also Sacrifices were not appointed to be offered by a peculiar order of men, as they were afterwards.   

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

§. 5.  
3. Furthermore, if we have clear grounds in the New Testament to deny the general admission (pleaded for) to the Lords Supper, whatsoever is urged from the old Testament, will have no consequence in it to the New. But we have given some reasons before, to prove that in the New Testament such believing as connotes visible actual obedience to the Gospel, is the only rule for admission to the New Testament Sacraments. And as learned Mr. Baxter saith in his third Dispution about right to the Sacraments. pag. 303. It is certain that the fabric of the Jewish Polity, especially the grounds and reasons of all God's institutions of those times are so imperfectly known to us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel-arguments to one dark one from those Laws. For 'tis a most necessary Rule, that in all our Disputations we must reduce uncertainties to certainties. Our Arguments must be A notioribus ad minus nota. Mr. Blake confesseth it very dangerous to argue from mere Analogy, and professeth he doth not so but from the ground of the institution. And how dark are those grounds in some cases to us? So he.  
It is certainly a most hard thing to give any consistent account about many concernments of the Passeover, How all the Paschal Lambs should be killed (in the place where the Lord should choose) Deut. 16.5, 6. and the blood of each sprinkled on one Altar: And as some say, the fat sacrificed on the Altar too. How all these (many hundreds) could be so killed in one place, in one evening (or betwixt the two evenings, as they called it) in a few hours space, is a thing to me hugely difficult to conceive. And whether Capellus his distinction of a private and public immolation of the Passeover, doth avail here, I dare not determine. How difficult is it to show how the Jews might certainly know the Even of the fourteenth day (which some accounted to be the beginning of the fifteenth) after the Moon had changed; especially when the change of the Moon happened to be near the end of one day, and beginning of another? And from this uncertainty most probably came the variation of days, wherein Christ and the Jews celebrated his last Passeover; if there were such a difference, which is (as I remember) denied by Tolet and Baronius, whom Cloppenburgius defends; but asserted by the illustrious Scaliger and Causabon. The Arguments of both parties are marshaled by Capellus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad amicam inter se & Johannem Cloppenburgium epistolicam collationem de ultimo Christi Paschate. But if the Jews, or at least some of them, varied from the day Christ observed for celebration of the Passeover, whether it was on the account of a Tradition which should be observed by the Jews, that when the Passeover fell on the day before a Sabbath, they might put it off till the Sabbath; that the inconvenience of two Sabbaths coming together might be avoided, and then that Christ would not comply with them in this their frugality, or rather niggardliness in God's service? But this Reason, though asserted by many, is confuted by the most learned Doctor Cudworth before praised, in his discourse concerning the true notion of the Lords Supper, who shows that the Jews had no such custom in our Saviour's time, and that Calendar which now they use according to the Talmud, was not completely finished till about the five hundredth year of the Christian Aera. Or whether the variation of days was from the uncertainty of knowing the right day, when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or appearance of the Moon was not soon discerned after the change; which might occasion the observation of divers days, according to several persons their persuasion about the time of the Change, and as some say, Observare duos dies propter dubium? And whether Christ's Passeover was a true Legal Passeover, or only a Feast of unleavened bread, in a private imitation of the Passeover? According to which the learned Hugo Grotius in Annot. ad Matth. 26. gives this distinction of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and saith, this was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as the Jews celebrate at this day; because the Temple being down, all sacrifices are ceased. But this distinction is denied by others, and especially assaulted by the fore praised Capellus.  
Divers other difficulties there are about the Passeover, which with the former mentioned, may confirm what Mr. Baxter so reasonably asserted, viz. That it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel-Arguments to one dark one from those Ordinances about the Passeover, if there were such an one. I shall add also, That there is no small difficulty in clearing who were the subjects to be partakers of the Passeover, particularly whether children so soon as they were capable of eating flesh, did not partake? I shall not discuss the point, it would be too long; only I must crave liberty to say, that I see no convincing-proofs of their exclusion, nor any absurdity following upon their reception; whiles I consider the Passeover (as was before hinted) was not wholly and only sacramental; though I believe it was a Sacrament (as the Manna was also to some:) and the Scripture probabilities of their partaking, are more than I can find alleged for the contrary. And if this Argument be further urged for admission of all such to the Lords Table, as were admitted, (or are supposed by some to have been admitted) to the Passeover. It may be it will occasion a further and more exact consideration of that point, concerning their Infants partaking of the Passeover: Which. yet if asserted, will not (I think) infer; that such children now must partake of the Lords Supper: But will most effectually overthrow the consequence of the argument I am now answering to.  
I should now proceed to a second answer to be given to this argument; which I shall forthwith endeavour as soon as I have taken my Cordial following.  PSAIM 119. Part 9 I. 
65 Just Lord, thou with thy servant low,  
well dealt, as thou hadst said.  
66 Instruct me right to judge and know;  
for on thy Word I stayed.  
67 I went astray whiles crossless most,  
but now thy Word I keep.  
68 In thee dwells goodness, good thou dost;  
Learn me thy Statutes deep.  
69 Impure proud men, against me have lied.  
I serve thee with heart right.  
70 Jolly and fat as grease they bide.  
In thy Law I delight.  
71 It's good that I have felt thy Rod  
to learn thy statutes just.  
72 I count thy Law better, O God,  
than thousands of gold dust.    

CHAP. X.  

§. 1.  
THe last Chapter presented what I judged sufficient (at present) to answer to the consequence of this argument, viz. If all the people of the Jews circumcised, though never so bad, were admitted to the Passeover, than all such baptised, must now be admitted to the Lords Supper. The Antecedent assumed is: But all the people (circumcised) were admitted to the Passeover. Concerning which this Chapter will give an account of my apprehensions.  
This general admission (much more this rightful general admission) to the Passeover, here asserted, is denied not without many reasons given of the denial of it by the learned Mr Gillespy, in his Aaron's Rod blossoming, l. 1. c. 9, 10. which I refer to the diligent perusal of the judicious Reader who hath not read him already.  
I shall also humbly offer somewhat in the following particulars, whereby the foresaid assumption may be disproved. I shall meet with and solve the most colourable pretensions that (I have seen) undertaking its protection.  
(1) The command of celebrating the Passeover is delivered in general terms, Exod. 12.3, 6, 43, 44, 45, 47. etc. All the Cngregation of Israel shall keep it. And this reacheth clearly thus far; that they all there spoken of were obliged to this as their duty, viz. to celebrate the Passeover according to the ordinances of it. But hence it follows not, that there might be no hindrances (and that through their own fault,) which might debar them in statu quo from doing what they were obliged unto. The obligation to a duty doth not ever warrant the performing of it, when there's a present incapacity and unpreparedness for it; but it should put on ever and provoke to a preparation and performance both.  
And so I should think all Christian adult professors baptised, are obliged to celebrate the Lords Supper, yea even the most profane, (shall I add, the justly excommunicate also who are not disobliged from, though debarred from the Sacrament through their own default). A drunken professor of Christianity, whiles drunk at the time of divine service, is not sure disobliged from God's public service, no not from the Lords Supper, but yet, none doubts, he is then justly debarred and excluded from the same. There are two sorts of hindrances from the Sacrament. 1. When the persons hindered are wilfully accessary to their own hindrance. 2. When they are hindered without their own fault. The first hinders but doth not excuse; the latter both hinders and excuseth: of the former sort we had an instance in the man who neglected to circumcise his males, in which default, he was debarred, yet not excused from celebrating the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. Of the latter sort seem those mentioned, Numb. 9 in case of ceremonial uncleanness. And yet if any did unnecessarily and wilfully touch a dead body, or take a journey fifteen miles from the camp, or from Jerusalem (as the Jews interpret [a far off] though they were hereby hindered, they were not excused before God for their neglect.)  
(2) But in reference to these persons hindered from the Passeover, Numb. 9 I shall observe these things.   

§. 2.  
1. That there was no express exception of them in the former general commands, Exod. 12. That all Israel should do the Passeover. For then there could have been no doubt about these in their case; at least Moses would not have been at a stand about it, as he seems to be, vers. 8.2. That yet it was not thought (notwithstanding that general command without exception expressed) that all might keep the Passeover without limitation of some preparedness for the same. 3. That there was then an order, and care had, for keeping back some (even of the Israelites) from the Passeover. These two last observations are evident in vers. 6, 7. Those defiled say to Moses and Aaron, Wherefore are we kept bacl; that we may not offer— among the children of Israel? Which implies that they tendered themselves to partake, and complained that they were by some kept back. 4. That its manifest here is not intended an enumeration of all impediments, no not of all those impediments which excused from doing the Passeover, (as sickness, etc. not here mentioned) how much less of those which excused not; which I think this text doth not refer to. And therefore notwithstanding this place, the Jews thought other things bars of their celebrating the Passeover. John 18.20. They went not themselves into the Judgement hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might keep the Passeover. They judged preparation for the Passeover (for which they had a solemn day) antecedently necessary to the doing of the Passeover. And probably, in their judgement, a litigious action on an holy day, was accounted a moral sin, which they pretended to make scruple of. There is little doubt, they hold excommunication for moral sins, as Mr. Gelaspy hath copiously showed. And yet neither are their excommunicates expressly excepted in this text; so that it should make against their excluding the de facto, as well as the ipso jure excommunicate. It cannot therefore be inferred from this text, that all did partake of the Passeover, except those in a journey, or polluted by a dead body.   

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

§ 4.  
4. Again. If we peruse all the examples of their celebrating the Passeover in the old Testament; therein we find not any (I think) admitted under such notorious wickedness as should then be judged visibly inconsistent with true actual faith.  
We may soon view the places, they are not many. After the first celebration upon the Institution, Exod. 12. when they were under those miraculous dispensations which were apt to dispose the very wicked (in heart) and much more others to an outward good conformity.  
The next and only Instance while they were in the Wilderness, was that of Numb. 9 which hath been already perused by us. And then soon after their entrance into Canaan, the Passeover was celebrated, Josh. 5.10. immediately after the circumcision of the adult, not circumcised in the Wilderness before; which its no way probable they were compelled to receive, without being acquainted with, and having respect to the Covenant they entered with God, and God with them, whereof circumcision was a seal. And that the people (indefinitely) were then in a visible beleeeving frame and obediential posture, is gatherable from Chap. 1.16, 17, 18. which the miraculous bringing them through Jordan also, (immediately before this their celebration of the Passeover) was apt to confirm and establish them in, Chap. 3. and Chap. 4.  
During the time of the Judges we read of no Passeover kept (I do not say there was none). And in the time of the Kings there are but two Passovers recorded in holy Scripture, viz. one during the reign of Hezekiah, and the other of Josiah, those two good Kings. Hezekiahs we have 2 Chron. 30. where is mentioned (according to our translation) the long interruption of it, v. 6. That they had not done it of a long time, in such sort as it was written. (In stead whereof both the Syriack and Arabic versions have, Because their riches were much increased). And there are here, not only no intimations of the visible profaneness of any who did partake, but great testimony is given to the contrary. They were indefinitely called by the King and Princes to turn again to the Lord, and that they should not be stiffaecked, v. 6, 7. and they answered that call, v. 11. Of some its said, that they humbled themselves, (they were confounded, saith the LXX, acquiescentes consilio, saith the vulgar Latin: they were contrite in heart, saith the Syriack, or they trembled in heart, as the Arabic) and they came to Jerusalem. And of others its said, v. 12. God gave them one heart to do the commandment of the King and Princes by the word of the Lord; which was to turn to the Lord, as before. And that this was manifested in deeds and notable instances of real reformation is showed v. 13. And then Hezekiah begged pardon, or acceptance for them (only) who had prepared their hearts to seek God, v. 19 Which implies that he took them (all indefinitely) for sincere believers. The Syriack version hath it thus; The good God expiate for the whole people of Israel, seeing that we have prepared our hearts to pray to God, etc. And the Arabic saith; The God of goodness spare the Isralitish nation, seeing that he hath prepared our hearts to pray to God, etc. And then v. 21. they kept the feast of unleavened bread with gladness, and the whole assembly took counsel & kept other seven days with gladness, v. 23, 26.   

§. 5.  
The other Passeover was in the time of Josiah, recorded 2 King. 23.22, 23. & 2 Chron. 35.1, 2. etc. where is to be observed, that things being much out of order by the ill government of his Grandfather Manasseh, and his Father Amon, Josiah doth endeavour a reformation before its storied that he called the people to a Passeover; In the twelfth year of his reign, he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, groves, and Images, 2 Chron. 34.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And then it follows, v. 8. Now in the 18th year of his reign, when he had purged the Land and the house, he took order to repair the house of God: and having found the book of the Law, he caused it to be read to all the people, great and small, v. 30. he himself being greatly humbled by the contents thereof; He v. 31. made a Covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his Commandments, and testimonies, and statutes, with all his heart and soul, to perform the words of the Covenant which are written in this book. And v. 32, 33. he causeth all present in Jerusalem and Judah (all the people, v. 30.) to stand to it. And the Inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the Covenant of God, the God of their Fathers. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of the Countries that pertained to the children of Israel; and made all that were present in Israel, to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their Fathers. And now having thus prepared the people (in this same 18th year of his reign, 2 King. 23.23. 2 Chron. 35.19.) he commanded the people to keep the Passeover there recorded. What footsteps are there here of any visible profane persons partaking of the Passeover?  
There is only one more example in the old Testament storied, Ezra 6. It pleased God after a long captivity for the humbling Judah, to stir up Cyrus to proclaim liberty of their return to build the Temple, he encouraging and assisting them therein. Those of them whose spirit God raised to go, Ezra 1.5. Closed with the design, attempted it, and pursued it, with a visible frame of great humility, fear of the Lord, zeal for his service; and to the utmost laid out themselves in the same. Chap. 1.5. Chap. 2.68, 69. the whole third Chap. Chap. 5. 5-11. (1 Esdras 5.44, 45, 53, 61, 63, 65.) Ezra 6.14, 15, 16, 17, etc. And then is related their keeping the Passeover, v. 19 viz. as is showed, v. 21. The children of Israel which were come again out of captivity; and all such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of the heathen of the Land, to sock the Lord God of Israel, did eat and kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy, etc. The Syriack version, hath it thus; And the Israelites eat it, who came up from the Babylonian Captivity (viz.) all those who were separated from the filthiness of the Land. And so it is also in 1 Esdras 7.13. making that separation to be the preparative qualification of all who did partake of the Passeover. But if we take it as referring to the Proselytes, it supposeth the children of Israel, to whom the Proselytes were so joined, were in like manner separated from the filthiness of the nations. Upon a strict view of all these examples; It appears not, that any did partake under a visible profaneness, inconsistent with visible actual faith and obedience; but the contrary.   

§. 6.  
(5) Let me add, That when the people generally did keep the Passeover, although some might be notoriously wicked at home, it is not easy to conceive how those who admitted their paschal Lambs, and offered part thereof for them, and who had the charge of the holy things, could know their particular scandalous sins, so as thereupon to debar them. How could they know who was ceremonially unclean by touch of a dead body, or who had not circumcised his males, and so was morally uncapable in that state? Yea though many thus obnoxious might be known so to be at home, yet it being not manifest to those Governors, they could take no notice thereof. And yet hence it follows not, that they who thus thrust in themselves had a proper right to actual present participation of the Passeover; as elsewhere is showed by us. But the case is otherwise now, as to the Lords Supper; when Christian people are gathered into particular Churches, under the Inspection of Guides and Officers, in a special manner appropriated and designed to watch over them in the Lord.  
However, this seems evident, that on the same Reason whereby they did gather the exclusion of those otherwise ceremonially unclean, from the particular express prohibition of the unclean by a dead body: they might also infer the rightful exclusion or abstension of all notoriously profane and breakers of God's Covenant, from the particular express prohibition of him who circumcised not his males, Exod. 12.48, 49.   

§. 7.  
(6) To conclude (at last) this pont. The general command for celebration of the Passeover, is no larger than for circumcision: now as this supposed the Covenant to be visibly entered into, with understanding, as Ainsworth shows on Gen. 17. So that must suppose their continuance in that Covenant, as necessary to enright them in a sacramental partaking of the Passeover.  
But it's high time for me to crave the Readers pardon for so long detaining him upon, and hindering his Transitus from this argument of the Passeover. But if he think (as I do) that its the strongest objection, and that answering it, will enervate divers others (as that fetched from 1 Cor. 10. concerning the Manna and rock, though indeed it's much more easy to answer those, and they have been clearly answered by others, and therefore I pass them) If my Reader (I say) consider the importance of this argument, I trust he shall not complain, I have provoked his patience, or abused his leisure herein. If any will needs be passionate, I have David's remedy for an ill spirit.  PSALM 119. part 10. K. 
73 Kned was I by thy hands, and made:  
Learn me thy statutes just!  
74 Knowing me shall thy people glad:  
For in thy Word I trust.  
75 Known are thy Judgements right to me:  
In truth thou smitest me Lord:  
76 Kindly me comfort, I pray thee,  
According to thy Word.  
77 Keep me alive, by grace from thee:  
In thy Law's joy I find.  
78 Knowing no cause, the Proud wronged me.  
Shame them! thy Word I mind.  
79 Knit may they be to me in love,  
Who thee fear, thy Laws know.  
80 Keep my heart sound i'th' truth to prove;  
Lest shame me overthrow.    

CHAP. XI.  

§. 1.  
THe great quarrel he hath about Examination is cast in my way, p. 54. and often elsewhere. But though it justles uncivilly, and as a bold intruder absurdly presseth in, when we are busy about other matters, I am resolved it shall stay for its answer, till its turn come among the Digressions, and then I shall deal candidly with it.  
At p. 58. Mr. W. brings in this syllogism, as if it contained my sense, and were some part of my argument, viz. Such as by Scripture characters are to be judged and taken to be unbelievers, are unbelievers. But all men baptised, adult, and of the Christian persuasion (if irregular in their conversations) are by Scripture characters to be judged and taken to be unbelievers. Ergo, all men baptised, and adult, and of the Christian persuasion (if irregular in their conversations) are unbelievers.  
He quarreled ere while with my inserting parenthesis in a syllogism, but if I had put in such a parenthesis as he here hath in his minor and conclusion, which being taken out, the sense is destroyed in both propositions; I might have well deserved his censure, which yet I list not to return upon himself here. But to the matter I answer. Did ever any one say, that any irregularities in conversation, were Scripture characters whereby we might judge of persons as unbelievers? I asserted only that there are some such as would amount thereto. What those are, was not our business to enumerate. If I say some irregular in their conversations are to be excommunicated, will it hence follow, that all irregular persons (in any respect such) are to be excommunicated? What coherence is here? And yet this toy seems to tickle his fancy, and he plays with it again and again, p. 58, 59, etc. And gravely as if in sober sadness, thus delivers himself; Some irregularities in men's lives we hold not unreconcilable with a true doctrinal persuasion, nor with the habit of saving faith neither. When such irregularities become notorious, public and scandalous, the parties so offending are legally to be proceeded against. But for every private miscarriage, a Pastor is not to debar a man at his pleasure, upon the verbal information of some few in private; but deal gently by private conference with the party informed against, as a Father with his child.— And then he points his tale on me in these words; This were more Christianlike than your rash frequent and rigorous suspensions.  
In answer whereto I say.  
1. Neither the habit of saving faith in persons, nor of dogmatical faith (as I have already showed) is directly enquired after by us, in order to administering the Sacraments to them; but the visible exercise thereof, which an habitually godly man may be destitute of for a time.  
2. Who said any irregularities might debar one, except notorious public or scandalous?  
3. Some notorious miscarriages need not any trial for the proving them to be such as deserve excommunication. But the offenders are ipso jure excommunicate, having manifestly and publicly lost their right at present of actual admission to some Church Communion. 2 Epist. John, v. 10, 11. If there come any to your house and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor bid him God speed. Where particular private Christians as well as others were commanded, to deal with such as excommunicate in law; whether the governing Church upon a juridical trial had declared them to be such or no. What need is there of witnesses to prove an unmarried woman who hath borne a child is a fornicatresse, or of Judges to try and discern whether this sin (without repentance manifested for it) deserve excommunication. Is not 1 Cor. 5.11. a sure Rule, unless pronounced by the Church-governors, or any other?  
4. Yet it's not unlawful to take juridical cognizance of such plain cases. (Abundans cautela non nocet) And upon good reason it may be judged meet and most orderly where it may be.  
5. What means he by a Pastors debarring any at their pleasure? Is not this an odious insinuation? Do we pretend to arbitrary Government?  
6. Did any ever say that for any private miscarriage one might be debarred?  
7. What quarrel hath he against verbal information? Is it unsufficient on that account? or must it needs be written?  
8. May not some private miscarriage, that is, some grievous wickedness privately committed, and known to two or three only, yet persisted in, after the procedure mentioned Math. 18. be a cause of excommunication, as well as a public offence notorious in its own nature, without all such previous admonition, according to 1 Cor. 5.  
9 What means he by [the information of some few in private?] Is the information taken before persons chosen by the Parish for the congregational government thereof, an information taken before some few in private? What, would he have it before all the Congregation? or before how many of them? What rambling exceptions are here?  
10. I do hereby provoke Mr W. to prove that any have been suspended or excommunicated in the Parish I minister to, except for gross offences, notorious through the nature of their crimes, or the publickness of their committing them, or by a juridical receiving the testimony of sufficient witnesses thereupon. And those offences too visibly continued in without repentance after admonition. And these Cases have been very rare with us: not so many I think, as the years have been of my serving the Church here. And then commonly the issue hath been comfortable, and upon their profession of repentance they have been restored with great joy, and that shortly; we administering the Sacramen in a constant frequent course. I confess some few have been desired to refrain for one time, or perhaps two upon several grounds respecting themselves and others), when yet it hath been then signified to them that they were not suspended, nor should be debarred by us. And yet Mr. W. (so far is he from the timerousness he censures me for) dare tell the world in print of my rash, frequent, and rigorous suspensions.   

§. 2.  
At p. 60. Mr W. is pleased to add, By our administering to believers is meant to such believers as we may have certainty that they are believers. But of men's saving faith (which lies invisibly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture or charitable hope, of their baptism, and of their true doctrinal confession of saith, we may have certainty. And their visible conformity to the means of faith, & solemnities of the Christian Religion, with their brethren in the public ordinances of worship, is a visible testimony of their owning the Christian Religion. And the outward administration to them as to visible believers, is equally their outward right, with the strictest livers. For Ministers are but the outward ministrators of the elements in the Lord's Supper; the Spirit is the inward administrator of the invisible grace.  
Whereunto I return, 1. That we must have a certainty those are believers (that is, visibly such) to whom we administer, I readily grant. 2. That we can have any more certainty of a persons dogmatic faith, then of his justifying faith, I have before denied, and do still; upon the grounds above mentioned. He that pretends to know who is really a dogmatic believer, must pretend to know the heart immediately. men's dogmatical, or doctrinal. as well as their saving or justifying faith, (which lies invisibly in the hearts of the havers thereof) we can have but a conjecture, or charitable hope of. Yea, let me add, It is as difficult (if not more) for a Christian to discern in himself, whether he hath a true dogmatic faith. i e. whether he doth assent to the truths he professeth, as to know whether he consents to the same, receiving them in love. And who that hath been acquainted with the troubled spirits of the godly, and their temptations, hath not had experience of those dangerous doubtings about believing or assenting to the great points of Christianity, concerning Christ, the Scriptures, etc. I know a Minister would give much to be constantly assured that he believes the doctrines he preacheth concerning those common and great points of the last judgement, heaven and hell, and the like. Yea, do not all doubts about our justifying faith, recur to the doubting about our doctrinal faith, as the ground thereof? Doth not the soul thus argue? Can I love God so little, and the World so much, be so mindless of God's service, so sluggish, so careless of my soul, if I did really believe the truth of God's promises, the immortality and pretiousness of my soul, the vanity of the world, the danger of God's displeasure, and that now is the day of grace offered to me, the continuance whereof I have no assurance for an hour longer? If a man promise to poor beggars, that if they will but come to such a Prince a few miles off, they shall there have great riches, etc. and yet they sit still and stir not, would not another suspect, and may not they suspect themselves, that they believe not there is truth in the proposition and motion made unto them? Quis enim Domino ment credit, & facultate non credit? Quis Deo animam suam mane pat, & pecuniam negat? Quis promissis coelestibus fidem commodat, & non agit ut esse possit particeps promissionum? Et ideo cum videamus homines haec non agere, cogimur non credentes palam & evidenter agnoscere. Salvian ad Eccl. Cathol. l. 2.  
And I think the great (Physical if I may so call it) work of conversion, lies in illumination of the understanding, Eph. 1.17, 18, 19, 20. And the will is sweetly moved, according to the nature of such a faculty (yet necessarily in respect of the event) to close with such through convictions. A man may profess a dogmatic faith, (and so also a justifying faith) who hath it not. And we must believe his credible profession. But I think that man whose understanding is so fare enlightened with Gospel-truth as a sincere believers is, is a sincere and justified believer; that predominat assent being inseparably joined with consent also.  
This consideration I have the more insisted on, that it might be an answer to that Objection, viz. If justifying faith only entitle to the Sacrament, than none may receive who want assurance. Let those who hold dogmatic faith entitles to the Sacrament, answer, and say, what he must do who doubts (and wants assurance) of his dogmatic faith; and it will serve to direct him, who doubts concerning his justifying faith: the case is the same in both.  
3. Mr. W. here insinuates (if I understand him) how we must have a certainty of their being believers, whom we administer to, viz. by our having a certainty of their baptism, and their true doctrinal confession of the Faith. This will rationally put an end to the Controversy about (that which is called) Examination before admission to the Sacrament. But that is not now to be insisted on.  
4. I grant, after they have once given a certainty that they have in their own persons made a true doctrinal confession of the Faith, with professed consent thereunto, their right to the Lords Supper is not to be denied, till they do by notorious wickedness (as before hath been declared) incur Ecclesiastical censure.   

§. 3.  
5. I know not well what Mr. W. means by visible conformity to the means of Faith, and solemnities of public worship, which he saith, is a visible testimony of their owning the Christian Religion. If he mean that their conversations are not notoriously opposite to the faith they have professed, I concur. If their coming to Church, what ever their lives be otherwise, than I demand whether a Christian may be censured for no misdemeanour, unless he neglect coming to Church? And if he may, than his coming to Church is not a sufficient testimony that he is such a visible believer who hath right to the Sacrament,  
6. That should seem to be intended as an argument which Mr. W. adds, viz. [For Ministers are but the outward Ministrators of the Elements,] and then it would be to this purpose, If Ministers are but outward Ministrators of the Elements in the Lord's Supper, than the outward administration to them who are baptised and come to Church, though notoriously profane in their lives, is equally their outward right, with the strictest livers. But, Ergo. I deny the consequence, neither is there any semblance of connexion in it. If the governing Church do retain profane persons in their sacramental communion, that might have some more probability of inferring the Minister's duty to administer to them. But what is that to our case?   

§. 4.  
7. Whereas Mr. W. further adds, therefore as long as the Church holds [men baptised and grown to years] in her outward communion, in other ordinances, so long doth she hold them in the outward worship of celebrating the Lords Supper with her members as their due and duty.  
I answer, Nay rather from what was before asserted, whence this is inferred by Mr. W. viz. That Ministers are but Ministrators, it follows, that they are to minister and officiate to them as in the Church's communion only so far as the Church retains them in her communion. And therefore if the governing Church exclude any from the Sacrament, though not some other Ordinances; the Minister answerably may officiat to them in other ordinances, but not in that.  
8. Whether the governing Church may exclude some from communion in the Lord's Supper, who are retained in other Ordinances, I know is questioned; and perhaps Mr. W. may aim at such a thing here. But I see not how his words do signify it; I shall not therefore here stand upon it, having laid down those grounds before, upon which the question may be determined in the affirmative.  
And thus have I adventured, more particularly than otherwise I should have thought needful to answer Mr. W. his Pretensions in this thing; because that in his confidence of my weakness, he here so vauntingly vapours and concludes in these words, p. 62. In your next let me understand what you can produce and offer for refutation hereof, which I believe you neither will do, nor can do.  PSALM. 119. Part 11. L. 
81 Longing for thy heart faints my heart.  
In thy word I hope Lord.  
82 Looking thou shouldst comfort impart.  
Mine eyes fail for thy word.  
83 Like to smoked Bottles I am now.  
Thine Hests I'll not forget.  
84 Let me my dayes-count know, when thou.  
wilt pay my Foes their debt.  
85 Lewd men have digged pits for me  
in pride, 'gainst thy word true.  
86 Laws made by thee all faithful be;  
help me when Foes pursue.  
87 Lo, they on earth almost me spent,  
but I left not thy Law.  
88 Let thy kind love my dulness rend:  
I'll keep thy word with awe.    

CHAP. XII.  

§. 1.  
HAving cleared and confirmed, that those who are visibly in a notorious way of wickedness inconsistent with the exercise of true faith, are on that account such unbelievers visibly, as have no immediate right to the Lords Supper, and so ought not to have it administered unto them. The Assumption follows at numb. 25. in my M. S. That those who by word openly refuse the Lord Jesus Christ, are visibly such unbelievers, and therefore they are such visibly to whom the Lords Supper ought not to be administered. This assumption I thus confirmed (numb. 27.) hecause to profess to renounce Christ, is to profess not to believe; now he who seems seriously to profess his not believing, that is, his renouncing Christianity, cannot be by any (rightly) judged and taken to be a believer. that is, such a believer as aforesaid.  
I here gave an instance of one uncapable of rightful admission to the Sacrament, and therefore not to be admitted, though he be baptised, adult, and on whom the sentence of the Church may not (perhaps) have passed for excommunication. (The Instance was of one who doth in words renounce Christianity. I added [seriously] not in opposition to madness or distraction, (as Mr W. trifles, p. 63.) For then the Instance would not have fitted the Question; Mr. W. himself excludes the unintelligent, p. 34. but in opposition to both. 1. Ironical uttering of words, which then signify not what otherwise they would; as those words are usually interpreted, Gen. 3.22, Behold he is become like one of us. And 2. a questioning or doubting uttering of words, which though in form assertive, yet are otherways manifest to be intended not as assertive but probational. So joseph's speech is fairly interpreted, Gen. 42.9, 16. By the life of Pharaoh, ye are all spies. So Psal. 73.13. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, but after he clears his meaning, was only a questioning or doubting of it, v. 15. If I should say thus, I should offend against the generation of the just.  
Now such an one as thus in words significative of a renouncing of Christianity (where the circumstances of uttering them, declare the meaning of the speaker is not ironical, nor probational only) doth profess to renounce Christianity, I said, is not in a capacity of rightful admission to the Sacrament. And by this one Affirmative, I overthrew their universal negative; they say none adult baptised, not put off from other ordinances, may be suspended or debarred the Sacrament: I say, such an one as we have mentioned may; therefore their universal negative proposition is false except further limited.   

§. 2.  
I think now, there are few who understand any thing concerning disputation. but would expect, Mr. W. should have answered, either by affirming that this word renouncer of Christianity should be admitted to the Sacrament, if he tender himself to partake; or else by distinction, have put some limitation on the universal negative I assault, whereby it might have appeared, that such an instance as this was not comprehended in it. But (to admiration) he can answer (and doubts not to refute me) without denying or distinguishing: as follows.  
1. He saith; The whole depends upon a mere supposition. It is rather a thing imagined, than a cause likely to happen in the Church. This exception I made myself, and answered it, which answer of mine Mr. W. endeavours to take off beneath; where I shall make my reply.  
2. He saith; But if such a case should fall out, viz. That a man in the Church should professedly renounce Christianity, than he renounceth the Lord's Supper too. And so your suspension in this case would be needless.— There is no need of suspending or excommunicating, such a wilful renouncer of Christianity.  
I answer, by distinguishing, 1. Betwixt renouncing of all the essential parts, and some essential part of Christianity. 2. Between his renouncing the Lords Supper in particular, as to his using it for the end and use Christ hath appointed it for; and, renouncing it altogether, upon all accounts whatsoever. And 2. now I say. 1. To renounce an essential part of Christianity, is to renounce Christianity, though a man profess not to renounce all the essential parts of Christianity. It is essential to Christianity, that Christ be accepted, embraced and submitted to, as Lord and Saviour; to save us from sin, Math. 1.21. as well as from punishment; therefore to reject Christ as Lord, is to reject Christianity. He that saith, I believe Christ died for me to redeem me from hell, etc. But I will not obey him, he shall not reign over me, I neither will nor can spare my lusts (at least not yet) etc. doth renounce an essential part of Christianity, and so by Consequence, Christianity itself. For any essential parr of a thing being removed, the thing itself is removed. I may say of our accepting Christ as King and Saviour, as the Epigrammatist spoke of his two poisons; Dividat haec si quis, faciunt discreta venenum: Antidotum sumet, qui sociata bibet.  
2. He who thus renounceth Christianity, renounceth also (expressly or by consequence) the Lord's Supper, as to a main end and use Christ hath appointed it, viz. for the engaging the soul nearer to Christ, and resigning it up, in grateful and holy obedience to him, who is the author of salvation to them who obey him. But yet he may not renounce it, as to all other respects; he would do as others do in the outward work, etc.  
And therefore there is need, yea a necessity of suspending or excommunicating such a wilful renouncer of Christianity.   

§. 3.  
3. Mr. W. tells us, this (supposed renouncing Christianity) cannot abolish his positive estate, which stands on the free grace of God by Baptism— and so he is a believer for his positive estate in point of Religion, by virtue of his consecration, unto the Christian faith in Baptism— and God will judge him as a Christian, if he continue in his revolt till death; not as a Pagan Infidel, p. 63, 64, 65.  
Ans. 1. Who ever said his wickedness disobliged him from his baptismal engagements? 2. Mr. W. confesseth, that this renouncer of Christianity, is a Christian and believer (by virtue of his Baptism) at the day of Judgement, when condemned. And doth he think such a Christianity as is in hell, gives right to the Sacraments here? Who then can be excluded? A damned Christian is a baptised person, consecrated to Christian duties, and not wholly disobliged from the same. 3. And yet Mr. W. saith, p. 63. I should judge of him rather by his continuance, or noncontinuance in this supposed abrenunciation. What would he judge of him? to be a Pagan Infidel So he is not when damned, therefore cannot so be judged of by his foresaid abrenunciation here and continuance therein, or will he judge him to be an unbeliever as destitute of habitual saving grace? that belongs not to us to judge of, but to God alone who knows the heart; or must he be judged an unbeliever, as lying under notorious wickedness, inconsistent with the exercise of faith? that indeed we may judge of; But then to what purpose doth he thus judge of him, in reference to his sacramental claim? If to allow it, and admit him, than its all one as to this, as if he were not so judged of. If to exclude him; then I have what I contend for; unless there be no judging of a man till he be dead, and then no man can be excommunicated for any crime whatsoever. For (I am of opinion) there is no need of excommunicating or suspending a man after he is dead, nor of judging of him in order thereunto.   

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

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

§. 6.  
This text requires our most serious perusal. And here I shall observe; That though Gods sealing or confirming his promise or single covenant of grace is not excluded, yet this text doth very eminently refer to the sealing or confirming of Abraham's personal faith; and that not only a dogmatical, but justifying and saving faith, professed by him in receiving Circumcision. The Question Paul disputes in the context is, whether a man may be justified without the works of the Mosaical Law as such? and he proves our affirmative in the example of Abraham. Abraham was a righteous person, and justified by faith, his faith was imputed to him for righteousness; that is, God dealt with him, and accepted of him through Christ, as if he had been perfectly righteous in himself. (having pardoned his sins, as the phrase is explicated, v. 6, 7, 8.) That this is the clear and easy importance of the phrase of imputing a thing to another, I think I first learned from our learned Wotton, on John 1.12. (a notion much better than fine gold) which is demonstrated by two places of this Epistle, where the same manner of speech is used; Rom. 2.26. If the uncircumcision keep the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, he shall far no worse than if circumcised; so Rom. 9, 8. Now that Abraham was thus justified without those Mosaical works, the Apostle proves; 1. In that he was justified before the works of the Law as such, were in force. For he was justified before he received Circumcision (one use whereof afterwards was to engage the receivers thereof to all the Mosaical Law, Gal. 5.3.) 2. In that Circumcision in its design and intendment (and to Abraham effectually) was to be a seal of the righteousness of faith before received: and hence (as well as from other texts) Divines so unanimously conclude, that the Sacraments are not instituted for the unconverted, but converted. (I say instituted. For its vain to speak of the possibility of conversion in the event, by or at the Sacrament, as thence to infer the manifestly profane and unconverted may be admitted. For no one can say of an heathen or excommunicated person, if he be sinfully present and partake, that he shall not, may not be converted at, or by that sinful partaking. The spirit bloweth where it listeth.) The concurrent judgement of Divines, English and Foreign, Episcopal and Presbyterian, herein; that man of vast and digested reading, the learned Baxter, hath demonstrated at large in sixty Testimonies, produced in the second of his five disputations concerning Right to the Sacraments. Sundry of which Testimonies have many in them, being the judgement of many Churches, and many learned men therein. And many more might be easily brought forth. I shall take leave to mention only two or three in reference to this text in special, not cited by him.  
Oecumenius in locum, (Maximo Florentino Interp.) saith; Nullam aliam ob rem, circumcisus suit (Abraham) quam ut pro signo ac demonstratione ipsam circumserret circumcisionem justitiae illius, quae in praeputio substitit ipsi Abrahae. Si verò signorum ac sigilli loeo accepit circumcisionem, nihil ipsi ad justitiam prosuit, sed hâc solumodo ratione justificatum esse significavit, hoc est, quod cum in praeputio esset, adhuc justitiâ dignus habitus fuit. Arctins in loc: saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem (circumcisio) proprie fuit respectu electorum, nam in his geminum usum retinuit, scilicet, obsignare justitiam eis collatam. Pareus quotes Lyra expounding it thus; Accepit signaculum justitiae fidei, hoc est, ut esset signaculum justitiae fidei latentis in ment. When the Rhemists on this place had said; the heretics (that is, the Protestants in their language) would hereby show, that the Sacraments of the Church, give no grace or justice of faith; but that they be notes, marks and badges only of our remission of sins had by faith before, because Abraham was just before, and took this Sacrament for a seal thereof only, etc. These Rhemists are thus answered herein by our learned Cartwright: St Paul (saith he) doth not only call Circumcision a sign but a seal, whereby it is evident, that God so wrought by this sign, that thereby he came to a further assurance of his righteousness, which he had before the setting to of the seal.— And whereas they (the Papists) would have this righteousness, which was before the seal thereof, to be peculiar unto Abraham; and that in others the righteousness is not before the seal, but with it! It is directly contrary to the whole discourse of the Apostle— 2 Then, It is absurd, that thus the seal is supposed to be put before the justice, whereof it is the seal. And thus the Lord (which for men's better understanding borroweth his Sacraments from the common usage of their compacts and Covenants as near as may be) is brought first to seal, and then to write that which he sealeth, clean contrary to that usage of men, from whence he draweth the resemblance of his Sacraments, etc.  
Behold here the old Protestant Doctrine aslerted in opposition to the Papists, viz. that a personal faith or justice is according to this text sealed or confirmed, and supposed to be existent in one before he comes to partake of the Sacrament. Which designs the sealing of his righteousness upon his believing supposed: And that the contrary opinion is absurd. Now alas, what impudent times are we fallen into, when men have the confidence to tell us (against our own eyes) that It is a novelisme and heterodox upstart doctrine, now among us, that Sacraments are instituted and designed only for the converted, and for the confirming (not working of faith); when as I think, it will be hard for them to produce so much as a Protestant Catechism which asserts not the same. This book of Cartwrights I have quoted so largely, was written (as the Title and Preface show) by order of the chief Instruments of Queen Elizabeth, and the State, at the special Request of many most famous and eminent Divines, Goad, Whitaker, Fulk, and sundry others.  
Furthermore, that this text doth point to Abraham's faith, as that which was sealed by the Sacrament, (and not only Gods promise) may be showed from several hints thereof in the text and context: As, 1. It was the seal of the righteousness he had before Circumcision, which (at least according to our translation) denotes an inherent qualification in him, which he received a seal of, by submitting to that ordinance of God, appointed for the testifying of his faith and obedience.  
2. That faith was sealed, in respect whereof he is the Father of them who believe; now that was a faith inherent in him, and not only the doctrine of faith revealed to him, and others also in common. And they are Abraham's children in the sense of the text, who walk in the steps of our Father Abraham, v. 12. And Christ tells many of the Jews flatly (who yet had the same doctrine of faith revealed to them as Abraham had) If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John 8.39. Although he acknowledgeth them Abraham's seed too, after the flesh, v. 37.  
Let me lastly Insert, D: Hammonds Paraphrafe on the text, Rom. 4.11. And Abraham being justified after this Evangelical manner, upon his saith, without and before Circumcision, he received the Sacrament of Circumcision, for a seal on his part, of his performing those commands of God given him; his walking before him sincerely, Gen. 17.1. (upon which the Covenant is made to him, and thus sealed, v. 2, 4, 10.) and on God's part— etc.  
I conclude therefore according to this text, the Sacraments are seals of the mutual covenant (which only indeed is a covenant properly and strictly) viz. not only of Gods tender of grace to us through Christ upon the condition of faith; but also seals whereby according to God's institution, we are to ratify our accepting of those Gospel terms for justification in Christ's blood; and in so doing receive a further confirmation of God's love towards us, (in such degree as we are capable of the sense of it). And though God requires all them to whom the Gospel is revealed to seal their acceptance thereof, yet God requires no man to seal he doth what he doth not, nor hath he any proper visible right to the Sacraments, who visibly rejects these Gospel terms.   

§. 7.  
6. Mr. W. tells us, God makes men believers by Baptism, p. 66. If he mean they are solemnly to signify the same herein, I grant it. But if that they are not Christians before, I deny it upon evident Reason.  
1. For they are baptised because Christians, not forfeiting the privileges of such, therefore they are Christians before. I shall here only refer to Peter Martyr (the Author Mr. W. so often mentions with honour in his book, as well he may) loc: come: cl. 4, cap. 8. §. 3. et 7. etc. Where he gives an account of the baptising Infants of Christian parents, upon the Churches hope of their election, as being the seed of the holy. Neque parvulos baptizaremus, nisi jam eos ad ecclesiam et ad Christum arbitraremur pertinere. And he saith; Those are not to be heeded who move a scruple in this matter, and say, What if the Minister be deceived, what if the child be no son of the promise, nor of the divine election and mercy? For the same cavil may be about the adult; Nam de illis quoque ignoramus ficte necne accedant, an verò credant; an filij praedestinationis an perditionis; An Christi gratiam habeant, an illâ sint destituti, et mendaciter dicant se credere. Yet we baptise them upon their external profession (quam si mentiantur (saith he) meâ non refert). And on 1 King. 8. the same Peter Martyr saith; Justificatio ex baptisme non pendet sed antecedit. Obj. Coeterum fortē dixeris, quorsum baptismus ijs traditur, si ante rem baptismi habuerunt? An illis luditur opera? minime; quia deo paremus, qui baptismi opus nobis praeceperit. 2. Deinde promissionem et donum quod accepimus, obsignamus. 3. Praeterea, ibi a spiritu sancto per verbum et externa symbola fides confirmatur. In which doctrine of this learned man, may be seen (as the orthodox Protestants generally I think do agree) that all are supposed actually in God's favour, and made partakers of remission of sins, before they are admitted to Baptism. And from this and divers such passages in him, may be strongly inferred the doctrine of suspension I am treating upon. (Whatsoever Mr. W. pretends of this Author's opinion to the contrary.) For if we baptise men adult, because we believe their profession, than we cannot baptise them, when either they make no profession, or if a verbal one, which is not credible to us; and then we admit men to the Lords Supper, on the same account, viz because we take them to be believers, and that non mendaciter dicentes se credere, but as to us and our hope of them, really and savingly.  
2. Again; If Baptism did make men Christians, it were as necessary to salvation, (not only necessitate praecepti, but medij also) to be baptised, as to be a Christian, and then all unbaptised (at least of the adult) must be damned. For no one can be saved, who is not a Christian, as to the essence of Christianity.   

§. 8.  
Mr. W. tells us over, and over, and over again, that they are positive believers, who are baptised, whereby they are distinguished from the unbaptized, or Pagans, and that their obligation by baptism, cannot be removed by their personal vitiosities.— And at last concludes in this chiding strain; Who are you then, that deny them the title (being the proper cognizance of their obligation to Christ) and discharge them from the visible service of Christ in the celebration of this holy Supper; under pretence, that they are no visible believers, because of some wants and deformities in their lives? etc. p. 66.  
Ans. He said before this title agreed to Papists, and he cannot deny in his sense, it agrees to the greatest Apostates that ever lived upon the earth; they are his positive believers, that is, consecrate to the Christian faith in their baptism, and their baptismal obligations still lie on them, whereby they are distinguished from men of other religions, or rather from men who never were engaged in the profession of the Christian Religion. And then I think it will be no great honour to have such a title in such a sense only; when the thing of Christianity is wanting. 2. But I have told him before, that I acknowledge them Christians and Believers in his sense, that is, they are positively obliged to Christ, and to believe in Christ: but that alone entitles them not to the Sacrament; for than none might be debarred who had ever been baptised. 3. And I never discharged them from celebrating the Lords Supper, no more than he doth the drunk, who yet are justly hindered from it; they sin in not receiving, because their hindrance is by their own fault, and yet they ought to be debarred, as hath been showed before. Yea, It's manifest that Heathens to whom the Gospel is preached, are as truly obliged to be baptised as these baptised persons now spoken of, are obliged to receive the Lords Supper. Let Mr. W. answer how a Minister can debar an heathen coming to baptism (which he is bound to do) for want of profession of his assent and consent to the doctrines of Christianity, and yet not be guilty of discharging him from his duty? And I doubt not the same answer (if opposite to this) will serve to answer that concerning the Lords Supper. The thing hath been explained already, therefore I shall not here repeat it. 4. Mr. W. here again insinuates, as if I asserted persons visibly such unbelievers as have no rightful claim of admission to the Sacraments, because of some wants and deformities in their lives: as if any wants or deformities were affirmed by me to be sufficient to prove persons visibly, actual unbelievers, whereas I say it only of such as are inconsistent with the exercise of faith: Concerning which I have adventured to give in my thoughts, Chap. 7. §. 10. and §. 12.  
The sum of the argumentation we have had before us here, is this, Such as in word renounce an essential of Christianity, may be debarred the Sacrament though adult baptised, and not by the sentence of the Church excluded other ordinances; therefore some baptised persons adult, and not secluded from other ordinances, may be debarred the Sacrament. Mr W. hath answered hereunto, as you have heard, without denying that such should be debarred, or distinguishing thereupon. But what he wants in rational answering, he makes up (as he is wont) in confident concluding, and saith, p. 67. We are rather confirmed than any ways confuted. Proceed to the Exceptions which you seem to allege as ours against your pretended assertion, and withal let us hear you take them off, and then give us leave to maintain them as far as ours. Such a maintenance will starve the incumbent upon it, unless an augmentation can be procured. But of this in the following Chapters. Here we take up at present, and return to our repast.  PSALM 119. Part 12. M. 
89 Mighty Lord, thy word settled is.  
The Heaven by thee doth stand.  
90 Amongst men is seen thy faithfulness.  
The Earth bides by thy hand.  
91 Made they remain, this day, by thee.  
For all obey thy might.  
92 My straits  this had crushed me,  
But for thy Law's delight.  
93 My mind thy Laws fast holds, for I,  
quickened by them, am taught.  
94 Me save who am thine, thine wholly,  
for I thy Precepts sought.  
95 Men vile have waited me to rend,  
But I'll thy judgement's mind.  
96 Mine eyes have seen perfections end.  
Thy Law most bread I find.    

CHAP. XIII.  

§. 1.  
THe Reader may be pleased to know, that when I had drawn up the argument before insisted on, I (as my manner is) studied to oppose it myself. And as I know not that the argument hath been thus made use of about admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; so I knew no exceptions that any had made against it. But I faithfully set down what in my own thoughts seemed considerable; and therefore alleged them not as my Antagonists exceptions, as Mr W. insinuates. Yet I do not see that he himself hath any thing so material to object, as I had before objected to myself in these exceptions, which he labours (but in vain) to make good against my argument.  
The first exception was (at numb. 28.) that no baptised person adult and not fully excommunicate, tendering himself to communicate, will, or doth ever so openly in word renounce Christ. To which I answered, (at numb. 29) the case may yet be supposed, yea it may happen. And that is a real power for censure which may be exercised upon an occasion which may possibly occur, whether it doth actually occur or no. In reply hereunto, he pretends not to deal with the substance of my answer, but promises to consider it in the fourth Exception. But he hath by businesses enough in the interim, to engage in, whereby the unwary Reader might be drawn away from the point we are upon. As the Lapwing makes a great cry to draw the passenger from her nest.   

§ 2.  
1. He is still angry at the distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate, and saith, You grant a degree of excommunication to lie upon the party debarred by your suspension, and therefore your suspension is essentially excommunication, for things that differ gradually are essentially the same. p. 69.  
1. I do grant a degree of excommunication on him who is properly suspended from the Lords Supper; and therefore I told him, the question ought not so to be stated, Whether one qualified as aforesaid, and not at all excommunicated, may be debarred the Sacrament. For all Divines, I think, who hold suspension, do acknowledge it to be a degree of excommunication: But whether such an one as aforesaid, not debarred all public ordinances (according to our Antagonists sense of excommunication) may be debarred the Lords Supper. But this plain sense will not sink into his head, and therefore he goes on thus: Your pretended Antagonists propound their case candidly, clearly, and ingenuously (see Mr. W. can give good words when he hath a mind) and say [not excommunicated] removing excommunication altogether from the parties they admit, & look upon them as in Church-fellowship and communion. And do not we do so also to them we admit? The question is not of them we admit, but of those not admitted. But you (saith he) lay down your case obscurely, fraudulently and captiously, as if you meant no fair dealing. And why alas? but because I will not trifle in the question, to inquire whether one not excommunicated may not be suspended, that is in our sense excommunicated? or go from my own principles, and the principles of our reformed Divines, who so generally hold juridical suspension to be an excommunication.  
2. Things which differ Physically only in degree, may differ Morally in kind; to be adjudged to have a small scar in the flesh, and to have the head cut off, differ gradually, as a greater or lesser wound: yet they are punishments of a different kind and nature; the one capital, and the other not. The residue of his answer to the exception, is almost all a bundle of untruths: one of the most eminent whereof is this, That none with us are Church members till admitted after our examination and trial of them. And this in sense divers times repeared, p. 70. And he hereupon tells us, how we prepare our people for Anabaptism. Be it known to him; the truly learned Mr Blake and Baxter, are as likely to understand what is of tendency to Anabaptism as he, (no disparagement to him neither,) and yet they both hold the lawfulness of suspension of some of the persons mentioned in our Question. And though they have some differences among themselves, yet they both agree against Mr W. his doctrine.  
A second thing I added, was, The case of some such persons (qualified as aforesaid) their renouncing Christ, is supposeable not only as possible, but probable to occur (at numb. 30.) if (as under the Episcopal government) all baptised persons adult, should be required under a purse-penalty, to communicate once or twice a year: then many open rejecters of Christianity, and who aver there is no Christ without them, might to escape the penalty, tender themselves to receive. The same may be said of hundreds, who account the Sacraments mere carnal things in our times.  
To this Mr. W. saith, 1. This is my malicious slander of the Prelatical government. If it be a slander, doth he know it to be malicious too? Hath he dived into my breast? Good words I pray: Whence is all this heat? He tells us the 21 Canon of the Church of England, (1. Jacobi) enjoined Ministers so to order matters, that every parishioner might communicate at least thrice in the year; but not a word of forfeiting any sum of money in case they did not. But he tells us not of a 22. Canon next ensuing, which requires all to receive the Sacrament thrice a year, under the penalty and danger of the Law. But will Mr. W. go about in this age to persuade people, that they were not punished by purse-penalties, when presented in the Prelatical Courts for not receiving? and accuse them as malicious slanderers, who say they were? Mr W. talked of one following truth so close that it dash out his teeth. This is not Mr. W. he hath not lost his teeth, he can by't deep enough I am sure. But I am afraid his forehead is in more danger, when he can set a face on so notorious a bad business. Were not they required under a purse-penalty to communicate, who were commanded to receive under the penalty and danger of the Law, and felt that penalty was chargeable to their purses.   

§. 3.  
2. In an angry dialect he saith, that those instances I mentioned of such as might deny the essentials of Christianity, and yet probably to avoid an external penalty, might come to communicate, do no way make for me. But he is too wise to tell us why they do not; Is there not a possibility, yea probability, such, in such a case would tender themselves to communicate? And did not that take off the exception, which said, none such would come to the Sacrament.  
3. In the next place he seems to have a mind to extol the Episcopal government. And it is not my business to disparage it; yet I doubt not the Presbyterian government is lawful according to Scripture. But the Reason he gives for the excellency of the Prelatical government as it was in England formerly, above the present Ecclesiastical government (established by the State, Aug. 29. 1648.) because under that government such monsters durst not appear and prosessedly show themselves, as now swarm every where without control. I say, this Reason is not valid. For the State-assistance than was afforded, which is not now so effectually, as to the execution of our government. If the State had left men to their liberty then, as much as now, it might have been even in that respect as bad as it is now with us, as in other respects it was far worse.   

§. 4.  
4. He ends with a continual strain of provoking language, which I pass over and neglect, and he concludes all goes on his side, saith, Well, this first exception stands good against your assertion; and why? Because he saith, Nothing I alleged hath proved, that any will or doth by word renounce Christ, who tenders himself to the Sacrament. But I told him, It was not necessary to destroy the exception, to prove any will or doth; but that it's possible, yea probable, there might be such an one as would perpetrate such wickedness, which cannot be denied, I would be content to lose my argument that it could. Who can prove that any one will commit fornication, and continue obstinately under the guilt thereof visibly in some particular Church? And yet it follows not thence, that such wickedness if committed, and be notorious, is not a sufficient cause of Ecclesiastical censure. And our present case, as to the probability of its occurring, is the like.  PSALM 119. Part 13. N. 
97 Nothing I love as thy law high,  
which I mind all the day.  
98 None of my Foes are wise as I.  
'Cause thy Hests with me stay.  
99 Norknow my Guides that which I do,  
For all thy laws I mind.  
100 Nay more than th' Ancients I do know,  
when me thy statutes bind.  
101 Naughty ways I have shunned all,  
That I may keep thy word.  
102 Nor from the judgements turn I shall,  
For thou hast taught me Lord,  
103 Nothing sweet as thy word I taste,  
no not the honey pure.  
104 Noonlight beams they on me cast.  
All false ways I abjure.    

CHAP. XIV.  

§. 1.  
A Second Exception I laid in against my Argument, was this, (at numb. 32.) That such persons as aforesaid, tendering themselves to receive, cannot openly at that time profess their rejecting Christ, because in the tender of themselves to this Ordinance, they offer to profess the contrary, viz. their owning of Christ.  
To the which I answered, 1. That the case under our present consideration, supposeth him at the same time, when he tenders himself to be admitted to the communion, to profess (being asked) against his owning of Christ, q. d. I desire to do as others do in receiving; but I am resolved at present I will not submit to the commands of Christ, nor part with my lusts which he bids me fly from.  
Mr. W. now to take off this answer, besides uncivil chide here both in the Preface and Epilogue, hath only one thing (which I hope was but a mistake in him) to allege. Is it your practice (saith he) to provoke men in the open face of the congregation, by ask them questions, when they come humbly and reverently to celebrate the Lords Supper with their brethren?  
It is our practice to know those who communicate before the time of celebration come, and then when they signify their intention to receive (especially such as have not joined with us before) is a special season we lay hold on, if any notorious wickedness in one who tenders himself give occasion, to admonish him concerning the same. And then is the time for suspension if there be just cause, not in the moment of celebration, (there would be the execution of suspension if one suspended should thrust in thither, by refusing to administer to him.) We have no such questioning there; the case had no reference to it. But it was thus, as for example, If a person notoriously known to live in whoredom, and keeping a strumpet in his house, shall tender himself some convenient time before the day of celebration of the Sacrament; and then be asked, Whether he will leave his wanton? and he answer, No, he cannot leave that vice, he hopes God will be merciful to him notwithstanding, and yet he desires to receive as others do; will Mr. W. say it was unlawful or unseasonable then to ask him that question? and doth not the said vicious person by professed refusing to repent of, and leave his lust, renounce an essential of Christianity, and therefore renounceth Christ, notwithstanding his tendering himself to be admitted to the communion drawing on. And was not this according to the order formerly appointed in the Church of England? See the Rubric before the communion, where it is thus ordered. So many as intent to be partakers of the holy communion, shall signify their Names to the Curate over night, or else in the morning before the beginning of morning Prayer, or immediately after. And if any of those be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbour in word or deed: the Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, in any wise, not to presume to the Lords Table, until, etc.  
This mistake being discovered, I shall not need to insist on the answering divers other passages Mr W. hath after in his Book, which are grounded on this unreasonable catch.   

§. 2.  
2. My second answer to this second Exception was, It's not impossible for such a man to profess contradictions, so that you cannot conclude he professeth not against Christ, because he professeth for Christ, at the same time, or in one breath. Mr. W. reply, Yea we can and aught in the judgement of charity so to conclude: and he would put me off with this slur, should we say it's not impossible for you to profess contradictions, you would rather laugh at our folly, then conceive yourself guilty. Give us leave then to judge you none of the wisest, for this ridiculous elusion.  
Some prove themselves men by their visibility rather than rationality, they will laugh you out an argument of their manhood, sooner than give you a reasonable demonstration of it. What ridiculous matter our brother hath here got to make himself merry with, I see not, if he keep close to the case we are considering of. If I say I do accept Christ as tendered in the Gospel, and yet in the same breath, say, Christ shall not reign over me, I think I should profess contradictions, and my profession of the former, is no evidence that I do not profess the later. He may turn his tune, change his ha'! into ah! and in stead of laughter see just cause of lamentation, that such contradictory professions are too frequent. An Arian saith, I believe the Scriptures to be true, yet I believe Christ is but a mere Creature. The Socinian saith, I take him for my Saviour and Redeemer, yet in a proper sense he never redeemed me, paid no price, never was accursed sor me, etc. Those mentioned by Christ in the Gospel, Matth. 21.38. said, This is the heir, come let us kill him. They acknowledged him heir, and so their Lord and Master, and yet profess they would kill him, was not here a contradiction in one breath professed agreeable to our present case?   

§. 3.  
A third answer to this second Exception I suggested thus, (at numb. 34.) he then denies Christ expressly, he professeth to receive Christ only by consequence, from the nature of the ordinance he desires to join in; although perhaps he understands it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that consequence.  
The Exception to which this third answer was fitted, must be remembered to be this, viz. That a person baptised, etc. and tendering himself to receive, cannot openly at that time profess his rejecting Christ, because that in this tender of himself to this ordinance, he offers to profess the contrary, viz. his owning of Christ.  
Now in reply to my said third solution of this objection, the less Mr. W. hath of weight and pertinent, the more doth he pour out gall and bitterness, p. 80, 81, 82, 83. And, 1. He saith; My answer is not so large as the exception. The case is (saith he) concerning a baptised person [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] tendering himself to receive the Lords Supper; the Query is this, viz. Whether such a person at that time in the tendering himself can be said herein, to reject Christ or Christianity.  
1. Here's the mistake continued I before discovered, taking the time of actual celebration of the Sacrament, in stead of the time of tendering himself to be admitted to the sacramen-approaching. 2. He seems to intimate that I had said, the very tendering himself to communicate was a renouncing of Christ; which no word of mine ever signified, and I am apt to think Mr. W. himself hath so much charity towards me as to hope that absurdity never entered my thoughts. 3. If there were a defect in what I here propounded, it was in delivering of the exception, not in the answer thereunto. The answer is manifestly as large as the exception; and though The exception only mentioned a person baptised, the other limitations of [adult, intelligent, and unexcommunicate] were excluded, according to the former explications given, in stating the Question, not necessary ever and anon to be repeated at large, 4. Yet as to the particular matter we are now upon, It's all one whether all these limitations be taken in or no; our present Query is, whether he that tenders himself to be admitted to the Communion, can at that time (not in that act of tendering himself, as Mr. W. wildly lays it) professedly renounce Christ? The which I say he doth who renounceth professedly any essential of Christianity, notwithstanding his tendering himself to receive. And as to this particular, it's all one whether he were before excommunicate or not.  
And yet Is it not a very good Jest, that whiles Mr. W. thus industriously seeks for flaws where there are none, but what his greedy desire of finding some hath imprinted in his own fancy; he yet here saith, he must wink at small faults in me. He may wink at my faults, I grant, but I think then, he winks not close, but only contracts his peeper's, that his eyes may see, and his eyelids too may try my failings; or if perhaps he wink close, it's but with one eye, and that the right, that with the left, he may take a sinister aim at, and more peircingly pry into my supposed defects.   

§. 4.  
2. Upon my supposition, conceiving the person spoken of, that he doth profess to receive Christ by consequence from the nature of the ordinance which he desires to join in; Mr. W. infers; How then can such an one then and therein be said to deny Christ expressly? Mark those words [then and therein] and see how he abuseth me; where did I say that not only then but therein (in tendering himself to receive) he may be said to deny Christ (at all, much less) expressly? And yet when he hath made to himself this man of straw, and scuffled with it a while very valiantly; he insults amain, and paratragoediats wonderfully; and is ill ashamed of his match, he descended to grapple with; and is now so very bashful, that he tells us, he is ashamed that ever a mother in our Israel should breed such a son, as he hath phancy'd me to be; To which I also am ashamed to return any reply; and so we are both like to be ashamed together. Didicit ille maledicere et ego contemnere, as he said in Tacitus. I despise these his insultations, maledicta haec, quae in me iratior quam consideratior evomuit, as Augustine said of Petilianus, l. 3. contra Ipsius Petiliani scripta perversa. The good man is ashamed of me; and indeed though I judge his answers sufficiently absurd and indiscreet, yet I must confess I see more reason to be ashamed of myself (when I look into myself) then of him; though in that inscript, he hath thummed so uncivilly; upon a strict perusal and review of it, I discern no reason which should invite me to recant the sense of any one sentence therein. The term [Admissionists] which for brevity sake in that private M S. I had inserted, I could wish had been omitted, and in stead thereof such a periphrasis as this, [our brethren for the general admission pleaded for] had been placed. And some passages besides I think might have been more conveniently expressed, and probably would have been, if I had suspected their publication.— But I am afraid it was anger, rather than modesty which brought the red into his face on this occasion; or having endeavoured to murder my good name, with the blood thereof, he dies his checks, and would be accounted shamefast.—   

§. 5.  
3. He excepts against that clause [though perhaps he understand it not, or doth plainly reject his owning of that consequence]. The sum of his exception, (laying aside his insipid scorns, mingled therewith) is perhaps he well understands, what he goes about, and perhaps he owns the consequence, and doth not reject it at all. Our [perhaps] is more charitable than yours, and bottomed upon a better foundation of hoped grace.— When an evil against a man can be but supposed, and good may be hoped, true Christianity will rather hope the best, then suspect the worst.  
Let the Reader judge, whose [perhaps] here is more charitable; when he hath well weighed, whether is the less crime in one to profess contradictions not understood so to be, or when he knows they are so, and owns the same; my [perhaps] was of the former, his was of the latter. And now let the Reader also judge, whether Mr. W. hath in the least invalidated my answer, and proved that a man cannot be supposed to profess contradictions, when he professeth one thing in express terms, and the contrary, by necessary consequence, which destroys and contradicts the former; the which if Mr. W. could prove (for his encouragement in such a design he may be assured) it would thence follow, that the most notorious heretic by tendering himself to receive should (ipso facto) become Orthodox this tendering himself to receive, should quit him of Arrianisme, or any other blasphemy, which yet on all occasions he professedly asserts and maintains.   

§. 6.  
The third Exception I mentioned was this (at numb. 35.) Some may say, that such an one, should be fully excommunicated: to which I answer (at numb. 36.) by hinting some Reasons to the contrary (which are strengthened and enlarged by the discourse concerning excommunication, and the degrees thereof, which we treated upon above, Chap. 3.) But Mr. W. counts that labour impertinent. It sufficeth him to confute all, by saying I prove not the case but only suppose it: and so he proceeds to the 4th Exception. This Reply of his, hath twice or thrice already occurred; and yet because Mr. W. in his answer to my solution of the first exception, than passed it over with naming it, and promised to speak to it more fully on the 4th Exception. I have hitherto delayed to confirm my argument against him. But now looking forward into his animadversions on the 4th Exception, and finding him speaking little there close to this matter, I shall here take occasion to make my defence in it. But that may furnish another Chapter.  PSALM 119. part. 14. O. 
105 Of all Lamps thy word bright'st doth burn;  
It's to my feet a light.  
106 Obey will I, what I have sworn,  
To keep thy Judgements right.  
107 O Lord, afflictions sore me sting;  
By thy words quickening reach!  
108 Oh! accept my prayse-offering!  
And me thy Judgements teach!  
109 Often my soulis in my hand,  
Yet to thy Law I cleave  
110 Od'ous men sought to snare me, and  
Thy precepts I'd not leave.  
111 Of old my heritage hath been,  
Thy Laws, which gladness send.  
112 Ordered my heart is to walk in,  
Thy statutes to the end.    

CHAP. XV.  

§. 1.  
THe Reader may be pleased to remember, that the Question is whether any such qualified, as aforesaid, may be debarred the Sacrament? I supposed the case of one by word renouncing Christianity (or some essential part thereof) who, I said, though so qualified as the Question puts him, (to wit, baptised, adult, intelligent, and not fully excommunicate) may be debarred; and if so, than their universal negative, that none so qualified might be debarred, is manifestly false. Mr. W. often hath answered; that he excepts against the case. I no where find him saying that in such a case this person should not be debarred; but he saith, p. 83. Our exception lies against that very supposition, and you do but repeat your own case, against which we except. And often elsewhere, he saith this same thing. But not any where can I see him offering any Reason of that his exception? I shall now offer my reason against it.  
If it be a valid exception against an argument which makes supposition of the present case supposed, to say that case ought not to be supposed; It is either because the case supposeth what's impossible, or what never was, is, nor shall be existent; or for some of these, or some other Reason. But as I know no other Reason to be pretended, (when I do, it may be considered) so these here enumerated, are either not applicable to our present case, or are not valid against it.  
The first is not applicable to it. It's not impossible that a man who tenders himself to be admitted to the communion, should professedly in words renounce Christianity, or (which is tantamount here) an essential part of Christianity. It's neither impossible, impossibilitate absolutâ & ex parte rci, quae sita est in implicatione terminorum, qui se mutuò evertunt; neque impossibilitate relatiuâ & ex parte atque respectu alicujus potentiae. It's not so impossible as it is for God to deny himself, or for yesterday to be to day; nor as it may be impossible for some one who is blind to see, (I mean in sensu diviso, for in sensu composito, this is impossible with the absolute impossibility before mentioned). This therefore is not applicable to our present case supposed. And yet if the latter kind of impossibility were, it were no valid reason against our argument. For we find in Scripture arguings upon such things or cases supposed. It's a rational observation which the learned Amyraldus hath, Specim. Animadvers: special: par. 3. erot. 5. Licet (saith he) supponere eum esse fidelem (I may say also infidelem, in the sense opposite to that wherein he there takes fidelis) qui actu non est talis, neque verô esse potest: nam & Paulus supponit justitiam esse per legem, quod falsum est, & ex eâ suppositione deduxit Christum esse mortuum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod est adhuc falsius; ut ostenderet, quod est longe verissimum, justificationem non ex lege, sed ex evangelio constare: sic Christus dicit, si dixerim me non nosse patrem, mendaxero, etc.   

§. 2.  
As for the other Reasons pretended against the validity of my arguing upon the supposition aforesaid, viz because the case supposed, neither hath been, is, nor shall be existent; or because at least some of these may be said of it; I should return as follows. If the non-present existence of the case, were valid against the arguing on it, than we could never prove by argument the Rule in general that any notorious Adulterer were to be censured, in any particular Church, where there is not such a notorious Adulterer existent among them. And if the non-former existence were valid as aforesaid, than no new kind of crime could be new censured. The consequence of both these, is manifestly sound and rational. But the consequents in both are plainly false, therefore the Antecedents are not true. And the futurition of such crimes cannot certainly be foreknown by natural means; therefore if the non futurition were a bar to the supposing such cases, there could be no supposition of any crime not present or past; which is also most false. For all penal Laws suppose an offence to be committed, upon which the execution of them takes effect.   

§. 3.  
2. Again; If that might not be supposed, which, neither is, was, nor shall be existent, than the holy Scriptures make not right suppositions. For such are frequent there, Gal. 1.8, 9 If we or an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel, let him be accursed. We may make supposition of an Angel from heaven (since the fall of man) preaching a false doctrine, and that he should be accursed; neither of which happen; yet we may argue, if he do so, he is accursed: even as I supposed a baptised person, etc. his word-renouncing of Christianity, and his being suspended: whether either of these happen or no? I might argue, that, if he do so, he is so to be dealt with. Multitudes of other such suppositions, of things which never were, nor are, nor shall be, we find in Scripture, and arguings thereupon; see many together, 1 Cor. 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 so elsewhere, Math. 6.15. John 8.39. & 16.7. & 18.23. Gal. 2.21. Ezek. 18.24, 26, etc.  
Augustine in his book de fide et operibus, thus disputeth against them who would admit notorious unclean persons to Baptism, Cap. 12. He supposeth to them that an Idolater should come without renouncing his Idolatry, and asks them whether they would admit him to Baptism, (though perhaps this case never occurred) and thence he argues against their admitting of notorious fornicators, without renouncing that their wickedness before. Profectò (saith he) dicturi sunt homini, Templum Dei futurus es, cum baptismum acceperis. Dicit autem Apostolus Quae compositio Templi Dei cum Idolis? Quare ergo non vident similiter dicendum, membrum Christi futurus es, cum acceperis baptismum non possunt membra Christi esse membra meretricis— Curio ergo ad baptismum Idolis servientes non admittimus, & fornicatores admit tendos putamus. Cur & his & caeteris malis dicat, & haec quidem suistis; sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in nomine Domini Jesu Christi, & in spiritu Dei nostri? Quid igitur causae est, ut cum potestas pateat utrumque prohibendi, venientem ad baptismum permittam fornicarium permanere, & non permittam Idolis servientem: cum & illis & his dici audiam, & haec quidem suistis sed abluti estis. (It should seem by the way, that those words of 1 Cor. 6.11. were spoken to the baptised, which manifests they in those times took all the baptised to be savingly justified persons.) Thus we see how from a case which perhaps never occurred, he argued in reference to a case frequent among them: there being the same Reason of both, in the thing wherein he compares them. Would it not have been a sorry and silly Answer for Caecilianus to have returned to this Argument of Austin's; Why but none not renouncing their Idolatry do, or will desire to be baptised, I except against the case supposed? All know that the truth or falsehood of an hypothetical proposition, depends only on the right or wrong connexion of the parts of it, not on the parts themselves whether one or both of them.   

§. 4.  
3. Besides the case I supposed, was at least possible to occur, yea probable, as hath been before showed; and therefore is further removed from the Exception.  PSALM 119. part 15. P. 
113 Perfectly all vain thoughts I hate,  
But love thy Laws O Lord:  
114 Preserved under thy shield I sat,  
I do trust in thy word.  
115 Part ye from me who evil do;  
For I'll keep Gods Laws just.  
116 Preserve me by thy word, I so,  
Shall live, and boldly trust.  
117 Propped by thine arms I safe shall be,  
And still thy precepts eye.  
118 Plucked down the lawless are by thee.  
For their fraud is a lie.  
119 Put back from thee dross-earthlings be,  
I love thy hests therefore.  
120 Poor flesh! I quake for fear of thee,  
I dread thy Judgements sore.    

CHAP. XVI.  

§. 1.  
ANd now I shall wait on Mr. W. in his animadversions on the 4th exception I set down against my Argument, and my solution thereof. The exception was (at numb. 37.) That there is no such instance in our times of a word-renouncer of Christianity, when he tenders himself to be admitted to the Communion. And therefore we need not perplex ourselves, with forecasting what might be done in such an extraordinary case. But the present controversy is concerning such as in word profess to own Christ, when they tender themselves to communicate, although there be visible testimony that their lives are not hitherto agreeable to their profession. My solution hereof was (at numb. 38, 39 &c) The sum whereof is; It's no needless point of wisdom, to labour to foresee, the necessary ill consequents. which may ensue upon the receiving a principle, although at present there is not opportunity for the existence of them.— And those evince the principle not sound. If suspension then in the case proposed, cannot be denied, than it must not be universally rejected.  
Now Mr. W. in his reply hereto; 1. affixeth on me, as if I owned what was put in the exception, viz. that the case supposed was an extraordinary Instance, and that the present controversy is concerning such as in words profess Christianity: and so he thinks to beat me with my own concessions. Is not this brave disputing, that what I brought in as an objection against my argument, should be taken for my own assertion? Yet this he takes for a confutation of me, p. 86, 87. and doth so far presume on the silliness of his Readers, as to tell them hereupon, that I am in a wood, and know not which way to get out. I came indeed among briers and thorns when I fell into Mr. W. his hands, and I shall hardly get out without receiving some marks of his sharpness. But that may seem to some (especially mine Antagonist) an extraordinary Instance, which is not so.  
Again; I would distinguish, a case may be said to be extraordinary in a twofold respect; 1. in respect of the rare and seldom occurring of it; so of incest or parricide, the Instances may be extraordinary. Or 2. in respect of the Rule whereby a case is to be discerned and judged of, which may differ from the ordinary Rule. As the ordinary Rule determines incest unlawful, but an extraordinary temporary Rule made it lawful for Adam's immediate children to marry together. And now whereas Mr. W. saith, Extraordinary Instances happening in the course of God's extraordinary providence, cannot infringe the truth of a general Rule, true in the course of God's ordinary providence. And adds; This is a Rule that best Divines walk by, notwithstanding your pretended skill in Logic.  
What pretended skill in Logic did I ever boast of? What an impotent scoff is this? how iucoherently and abruptly brought in? If I might answer Mr. W. in his own way I should say, perhaps he may presume of his artificial Logic, especially in the first part, both of the peripatetic, for he is good at such simple terms, as mormo, mormonize, and the like, and the Ramistical; one would be apt to think his Invention is too great, by the figments he hath published concerning me. But a little more natural Logic, it's humbly conceived, would not make him (no more than me) an overplus. For I think the Preface he printed before his first Errata Table to this book, argues no overflowing of his discretion; the Preface was this; Christian Reader, my remoteness from London, and the miscarriage of my Letters by the Post, have caused many oversights to pass (in this impression) without timely correction. And that now I may not be disappointed, I have committed my business to honest Randal Foster, Carrier of Leek, who is sure and trusty, though but slow in his motion. But to the thing I answer, by applying the former distinction, and say the Rule mentioned is true being understood in the latter sense not in the former. Now our case if it may be called extraordinary, it's so only in respect of the seldom occurring of it, not in respect of any extraordinary Rule appointed for the judging of it, differing from the ordinary Rule, which determines that unbelievers in the sense above explained, are not to be admitted to the Sacraments.   

§. 2.  
2. He saith, p. 89, 90 Why must wise men be of such a long proviso, to provide so long beforehand, against supposed evils of future contingency, which haply may never fall out? or if they come to pass, shall it be imputed to their folly, that they had not provided themselves with remedies against unknown evils, which possibly may come to pass? What fools then were the primitive Fathers of the Church, that they could not foresee the evil of heresies; but must assemble in Councils after they arose, and had no instantaneous remedy to put a sudden check thereunto. Nay, what fools were the very Apostles, that they did not foresee the evil of Judaizing, that they must go up to Jerusalem to consult about a Remedy after the evil arose? Doubtless, all these wanted some of your suspension wisdom. Those old times did not afford men of such a prudential forecast, as the present age doth.—  
1. The Ranting Language I'll skip over, as a dirty puddle in my way. 2. The contingency of the offences happening, doth not make that a Rule should not be necessary for the ordering of them. For there is a contingency in the happening of adultery, drunkenness, or any such offence, for which Excommunication is to be inflicted on an offender, according to 1 Cor. 5. And these in the nature of the things themselves, are as much contingent and casual events, as that our present case supposed of a word-renouncing of Christianity. And the Rule for exclusion reacheth this as well as those. 3. Hence it follows, we are to admit no principle contrary to this Rule, in this no more than those. If I hold such a Principle as doth necessarily infer, That no incestuous person may be debarred, the not occurring of such an offence doth not make the principle to be true. And therefore I am to renounce that principle, whether incest be ever committed or no.  
4. The examples Mr W. pretends to the contrary, are wholly impertinent. They concern either first, the foreseeing of offences which after did occur, whereas the point we are upon, is the foreseeing an irregularity which would follow upon a principle in case such offences do occur: the former we are not bound to foresee, the later we are. Or secondly, they concern the execution of a Rule before known, in such manner as may be most for the edification of the Church; in reference to which there will be continual need of new consultations as long as the world stands; because of the varying circumstances of places, times and persons, and the exigencies thereof. Councils now do not make new principles, when a new case occurs, but consult for the better improvement and application of principles already received, in reference thereto. The very edge therefore of Mr. W. his Similes turns, and so will not at all touch the nerves of this my first Solution, given by me to the fourth exception propounded.   

§. 3.  
My second answer to the exception of the extraordinariness of this case I had supposed (at numb. 39) was, That though this case seem so rare and extraordinary (which explication of rare by extraordinary, showed, I meant thereby rarely or seldom occurring as before) yet by necessary consequence it concludes (not includes as Mr. W. prints me) other instances of daily and ordinary incursion. For if he who in words rejects Christ, may be debarred, than he who by some notorious deeds rejects Christ (though not in words) may be debarred, though he be a person baptised, adult, and not fully excommunicate. The further Mr W. goes on, the more doth he go out, and extravagate: and where he hath (as appears to me) lest colour of argumentation, and lest pincheth my papers, there is he most confident and censorious. I shall meddle as little with such stuff as I can, but some is so interwoven with what seems more material, that it will not be sundered. But to the matter I would design my Reply. And  
1. He saith, p. 94. Few would have imagined how rare and extraordinary should by necessary consequence have concluded daily and ordinary. This cavil is answered in the last chapfer, by distinguishing of the word ordinary. From the Rule of some things which seldom occur, conclusions may be drawn in reference to things which frequently occur. From Abraham's being justified in believing that singular promise, that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed, is concluded justification by faith in general of all them who are justified, Rom. 4. From the promise made to Joshua, to be with him (especially in conquering Canaan, which was an extraordinary and rare case, is concluded, that God will be with his people in ordinary cases of daily incursion. Heb. 13.5. compared with Josh. 1.5. Divers such examples there are in Scripture. Our Protestant Divines disputing against justification by works in the Popish sense, & their doctrine of Purgatory from the singular instance of the Thief on the Cross, who went immediately to heaven, Gerrard observes, Harm. Evang. de passione, cap. 15. p. 183. that the Papists would seek such an evasion as Mr W. here doth. Tandem igitur (saith he) eo abeunt, quod privilegia paucorum non constituunt nec evertunt Regulam. To which he answers, Atqui cum est omnium piorum coram Deo justificatio gratuita, scilicet ex fide in Christum Medintorem, id quod Apostolus clare ostendit, quando Rom. 4. v. 1. etc. Ex particulari Abrahae justificati exemplo, generalem justificationis formam ac modum probat. Quod ergo anima conversi Latronis sine Purgatorii ignis interventu, rectâ in Paradisum est sublata, id non est personale privilegium, sed generale exemplum, etc.  
Yea, let me add further, that it's usual in Scripture to suppose Cases, which (for aught we know) never were nor shall be existent, and from thence to conclude matters of ordinary and frequent incursion. Nathan the Prophet, 2 Sam. 12. supposeth the case of a rich man taking the poor man's Ewe for his guest, and the grievousness of that offence so supposed, being granted, he thence concludes the heinousness of David's wickedness committed by him in the point of Uriah. This was an usual way of arguing with Christ Jesus, for the conviction of the Jews: there are many instances thereof in the Gospels: there are two of this nature, Matth. 21. He there supposeth a man who had two sons, and he commanding them to go and work in his vineyard, the one said, I go Sir, and went not; the other said he will not go, and yet went. And thence concludes, that the Publicans and Harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven before many of the Jews. So likewise he supposeth an Housholder planting a Vineyard, and letting it out to Husbandmen, and how injuriously and treacherously they dealt with his servants and son, and how severely they were punished; and thence concludes against the Jews for their abusing the Prophets, and rejecting Christ himself; as they themselves perceived, verse 45. The force of such arguments lies not in the existence of the case supposed, but in the merits of the cause supposed, and in the parallel and likeness betwixt the case supposed, and their cases whom he deals with. Comparata etiam ficta arguunt fidemque faciunt. as P. Ramus rightly observes, and gives many examples thereof, Dialect. l. 1. c. 18. So here, whether word-renouncer of Christianity be existent or no, if he be to be debarred the Sacrament, and the case of one who in deeds rejects Christ, be parallel to that, as to a visible renouncing of Christ, the Argument is valid from the former to the debarring of the later.   

§. 4.  
2. Another exception Mr. W. makes against the expression (he saith is mine) of quotidian and ordinary rejectings of Christ. This expression (saith he) is somewhat harsh and rigorous, p. 96. & the like he hath, p. 103. But expressions warranted by Scripture, are not too harsh nor rigorous; but such is this: For the Scripture frequently puts this language on the notorious acts of disobedience, even amongst God's people by dedication and verbal profession, 1 Sam. 8.7. & 10.19. & 15.23, 26. 2 King. 17.15. Jerem. 16.19. & 8.9. Hosea 4.6. And Christ Jesus makes these two phrases of rejecting him, and not receiving his word, of equal importance, John 12.48. And would to God this were not too ordinary and frequent!  
3. Mr. W. adds, p. 96, 97. Perhaps some of your reverend Pastors & grave Elders, may possibly be involved in the crime. It is supposeable, nay possible (to use your own weapon) that such may be word- or deed-rejecters of Christ in your sense. If such an extraordinary emergent as this appears, who then shall suspend the Parish Pope, or his Vestry Cardinals? They will haply have a private Mass, though none of the Congregation will join with them. In this supposable case which possibly may occur, though it doth never actually occur, what instantaneous Remedy have you? Methinks such wise men as you should foresee the evil, and be furnished with an instantaneous Remedy against it, when such a case shall occur, though it never actually doth occur. Shall I retort upon you this Counterbuff, viz. That God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church for the instantaneous checking of this supposable evil? or else must you renounce your principle, which upon a close pursuit will cast you on this rock? We only here improve your Argument to such further usefulness as you never expected; and the improvement is rather good against you than against us, because it is your own argument.  
Despising his scornful language, I answer. 1. Mr W. doth here manifestly abuse me. For in his Counterbuff (as he calls it) he puts this Pofition down in a different Character, as if it had been mine assertion and words, viz. That God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church, for the instantaneous checking of this supposable evil. The passage of mine he alludes to, was in the beginning of the Argument, where one proposition in my Syllogism was, Those who are visibly such as the Lord hath in his word, declared to be persons, to whom he would not have the Lords Supper administered, may be suspended from the Lords Supper. And this I said, is clear; because God hath placed a power somewhere in his Church for the managing his Ordinances so, as they may not be dispensed to such as he hath declared in his word, he would not have them administered unto. And I had before limited the Question thus, That we are not now enquiring by what power any may be suspended, but only concerning the lawfulness of the act of suspending the persons mentioned in the question, by any person or persons whatsoever, in whatsoever capacity they are, or by whatsoever kind of power it may be exerted by them, or any of them. So that if it were lawful for a General Council to suspend, it proved the assertion sufficiently which I undertook. You see then, 1. that the expression of an Instantaneous remedy he talks on, was not mine, but his own. 2. Besides, we may distinguish of debarring, 1. by a Rule for debarring: and 2. by the execution of that debarring the Rule appoints. In the former sense, there's an Instantaneous remedy (as he speaks) in the case propounded by him; to keep the ordinances from being dispensed to such as have no actual right thereunto: For the word of God so debars them, that they ought not to approach to the seal of the Covenant, without their real and present accepting of the Covenant-terms, which they cannot do, whiles they lie under notorious wickedness unrepented of. In the later sense there may not be ever an instantaneous remedy to execute the Rule effectually. But we are not disputing what men do, but what they ought to do according to Scripture-Rule. He might in the same manner trifle about suspending the unclean from the Passcover, and say, But what if the Priests and Governors were to keep back the Legally unclean, were so unclean themselves, who must suspend them? and hence argue, that they might not debar others, because there was none to debar them, or not instantly; when as yet the Rule debarred them as well as others; and they sinned in not complying with it themselves, as well as in not executing the same for the debarring of others.  
And thus the Reader may perceive our Gentleman's Counterbuff, is but the blind-mans-buff, and fit for an hoodwinked boy than a learned censurer of others Logic. But, O my soul, stop here; restrain, yea, extinguish the rise of a seeming just indignation by attending wholly to the divine and calming meditation of,  PSALM. 119. Part 16. Q. 
121 Quietly I do judgement just.  
Save me from Tyranny.  
122 Quashed let me not be by proud dust!  
For good be my surety!  
123 Quite fail mine eyes for thy goodness;  
and for thy righteous word:  
124 Quickly to me mercy express!  
Teach me thy Statutes Lord.  
125 Qualify me with grace to know  
thy Testimonies right!  
126 Quickly Lord work! It is time now,  
For men thy Law null quite.  
127 Questionless therefore I do love  
Thy Truth above gold best.  
128 Questionless thy Laws right I prove,  
and each false way detest.    

CHAP. XVII.  

§. 1.  
THe consequence in my argumentation (at numb. 41.) If word rejecters of Christianity, though baptised, adult, and not fully excommunicate, may be debarred the Sacrament, than also some such deed-rejecters of Christianity may be debarred, my paper proved (at numb. 42.) as is related by Mr. W. p. 98, 99 Which we shall have occasion anon to repeat.  
I shall now gather up the sum of what Mr. W. answers for the enervating thereof, and then having compared my argumentations with the pretended solutions he returns thereunto, I shall make my Reply to them severally, and then add more proof for the confirmation of my Consequence aforesaid.  
1. Mr. W. saith, p. 99 We begin now to fear the feverity of your Church Officers: But our comfort is, that neither Titus 1.16. nor 1 Cor. 5. nor Math. 18.15, 16. nor Rev. 2.2. do establish your suspension, nor command us to submit to your Church Officers.  
2. That Timson calls them intruded Elders, p. 99, 100  
3. The Question now in agitation with us is, Whether open scandalous and presumptuous offenders in the Church, are to be punished by the discipline of the Church? We affirm positively that they are— such offenders in words or deeds.— The correction of these do fall properly under Ecclesiastical discipline; yet not so as the Christian Magistrate is to be excluded— And yet all this doth not infer the necessity of your suspension, as a censure distnct from excommunication; viz. that every Parish Priest with his Elders (after his own humour) should be Judge in his own cause, use partiality, exclude men from the Lords service, merely at his pleasure, for not submitting to his Examination, though otherwise judicious and of good example, albeit the cry be against men ignorant, and of gross behaviour!— And then tells us, It's fit the correcting discipline should lie in indifferent and impartial hands, more public than the Parish Priest and his Elders.— And ofttimes it will fall out, that a Pastor and his Elders will be Judges in their own cause, and then suspension was become private revenge, and parties will become Judges; All this, p. 101, 102.  
4. He asks; Is your Parochial suspension with your Classical power in being (by toleration civil) an universal Remedy against all the Errors that belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance? As yet you have no place for public Judicature allowed by the State, no Power to issue out Warrants for the legal summoning in of offenders. And therefore your proceed in suspension are without all form of Law, p. 103.  
5. I see that (ipso facto) men must be suspended (by you) for their former miscarriages, and present words of sorrow, and of promising obedience for the future, must not serve the turn. This he insists on in many words, p. 103, 104, 105, 106, 107. and labours to confute me by Luk. 17.4. and asks, Whether the Church, (which is coetus misericors, and deals not against men in rigour of Justice, but with bowels of mercy) may not take men's present words of repentance for a real dissenting from their former evil deeds, and believe in charity, that their word-Testimonies of Repentance are serious Retractations of their former evil deeds?  
And now I desire the Reader to do himself, Mr. W, and me that right, as to compare these five answers severally and jointly with my argumentation, which should be confuted by them; and let him try his best skill to fit them thereunto. My reasoning for the confirmation of my Consequence, recited in the beginning of this Chapter, (which Mr. W. here assaults) thus proceeded; If the above mentioned Consequence (from the suspension of word-Rejecters of Christ, to the suspension of some deed-Rejecters of Christ) do not hold, it is either because no deed-rejection of Christ is so manifest, visible and heinous a rejection of Christ, as word-rejecting of Christ is; or else because the Officers in the Church, have some good Rule according to which they may dispense with, or not deny the Sacrament for deed-rejecting of Christ, rather than word rejecting of Christ, or for some other Reason. But neither of these do enervate the Consequence, nor any other Reason, therefore its good and valid: not the latter, because no such Rule can be produced, but rather the contrary, Titus 1.16. 1 Cor. 5. Math. 18.15, 16, 17, Rev. 2.2. Not the former, because, etc.— which may be perused (at numb. 44, 45.)   

§ 2.  
Mr. W. in answering hereof, doth neither assert, that either of the Reasons mentioned, doth enervate my Consequence, nor fault the enumeration of obstructive Reasons which might enervate it, nor assign any other. And yet his foresaid returns must serve for solutions, and he in the strength of them thus flourisheth it out, and shows his mettle, p. 108. The proof of your Consequence we have examined at large, we have showed Causes, why we cannot approve of it; You may take time to consider, and reply if you have any stomach to the undertaking. But (I fear me) you will consider of it ten times, before you will undertake it once.  
Truly I may consider it twenty times, before I can find any thing herein pertinent, for me to reply unto: such an adversary may safely challenge and provoke to Disputation. Did ever any Quaker return a more impertinent pretended solution to an Argument? And yet they will be as bold as Mr. W. himself hath attained to be, and tell you, no body dare or can answer them. And under the shelter of that their irrational impudence, they often escape Replies to them. And so might Mr. W. for me, if others Judgement had not prevailed against my own for this once; hereafter I hope my Friends will not urge me in this kind any more.  
But though these his five Reasons against my Consequence, (so you see he calls them, else I had wanted a name for them; as the Painter that wrote [This is a Lion] over the picture he had drawn, that no body should take it for a Bull) though I say these his answers are manifestly nihil ad Rhombum, yet because it may be thought, he may, like a squinting Fencer, wound me some where else by them, though he touch not the place he makes a show to aim at; I shall therefore satisfy his importunity this once, as I have sometimes gratified the Quakers, to make some reply to them severally; and then I shall (as I promised) confirm my own argumentation.   

§. 3.  
To his first; It's plain I cited not those texts to prove suspension immediately; I brought them to prove that Church Officers have no good Rule according to which they may dispense with deed rejecting of Christ, any more than with word-rejecting of Christ, in point of sacramental administrations, thus; If there be a deed rejecting of Christ, for which Ecclesiastical Censure is to be inflicted, as well as for a word rejecting of Christ; then the Church Officers have no Rule to dispense with or not deny the Sacrament for the former rather than the latter. The Antecedent is proved by the texts quoted; Titus 1.16. In words they profess Christ, in deeds they deny him: And the other texts proved a deed-rejecting of Christ, (yea when in words Christ is owned) to be causes of Ecclesiastical Censure, and therefore as truly as word rejecting of Christ is.  
To his second, I say, Mr. W. it seems hath found one man, as bold as himself, to reproach Elders without offering any Argument against them, or invalidating those produced for them. A confident man as I have lightly met with, who though than a private Christian, as he styles himself, without blushing, tells us in his Epistle to the Reader before his Bar removed; I look to be censured for this my presumption, in dissenting from the common interpretation of several Scriptures, and asserting some things against the judgement of many, or most Divines and godly Christians, etc.  
Assault Humphreys and Timson, cries Mr. W. p. 48. The men like Ingenuous Worthies appear in print, etc. It's pity that such a learned and ingenuous Divine as Mr. Humphreys appears to be, should be yoked so unsutably with Mr. Timson. Mr. Humphreys wants not assaulting, Mr. Timson (as to our controversy) will not I think deserve an assault; until now (in his public capacity Mr. W. intimates) he gain the repute of less arrogance and more learning than his former writings (so far as they reach our case) have discovered. If such a man as Mr Humphreys, will pick out that which looks as considerable in this controversy in Timson, it would sooner be answered. But I wonder not Mr. W. and Timson so well agree; For they are both good at provoking words; and it's a jolly Champion whose name Mr. W. hath mentioned 26 times (I take it), in his book. When I have little else to do I may perhaps answer him as Mr. W. challengeth me. But I hope to be better employed. And the truth is, I agree with him and Mr. Humphreys in so many things (they treat of) for substance, that the service of answering them is not so proper for me as their peculiar Antagonists. But see what an answer this is: Timson is against Elders, Ergo there's no consequence from the suspension of word rejecters of Christ, to the suspension of deed-rejecters of Christ. Sampsons' new withes will not tie these together. This is to dispute at a low rate indeed.   

§. 4.  
3. To his third, I say, 1. Our question was not whether open scandalous and presumptuous offenders in the Church are to be punished by the discipline of the Church? I wonder he hath the face to say it was, and tell the Reader so, who hath the Question stated before him otherwise. But whether any of these might be debarred the Sacrament, though not fully excommunicated. Therefore Mr. W. his debate here is not only impertinent to the present argumentation he pretends to answer to, but also to the whole controversy in hand. 2. His odious Insinuations of every Parish Priest, after his own humour, using partiality with the rest of that riff raff; have been answered before. 3. But that which add ravim usque he talks on, is suspending for non-submission to Examination, and that of persons otherwise judicious and of good example. Our Question was, whether for any cause any might be suspended, not for what causes? Yet this Digression I intent to say somewhat to, when it comes among the Digressions at the latter end; to which I refer it. 4. If it were not fit the correcting discipline should lie in the hands he excepts against, because of their cohabitation with them who should be corrected, which may cause partiality; then the Corinthian Officers should not have had in their hands the correcting discipline wherewith to censure the Incestuous person, because (forsooth) he was among them; and they might (if Mr. W. had been their prompter) have evaded the Apostles objurgation for neglect of disciplining him, and have said, It was not fit for us, who live with him, to censure him; some body else more remote, (who might be presumed more impartial) should have taken him in hand. And belike the same Reason would as well persuade Justices of peace, that it's not fit for them to take cognizance of offences among their neighbours; they are fit to minister Justice to those who are remote from them, not to them who cohabite with them, in the same Hundred or Parish. And yet though Mr. W. talks thus considerately, (as he saith himself, p. 103.) yet a while ago he seemed to have a better mind to exercise discipline among his neighbours, if the State would enough assist him therein. For, said he, p. 90. we have ordinary cases enough in being for the full exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline, had we power from the Christian Magistrate to convent offenders before us authoritatively, and to inflict punishments upon them (after their legal conviction) according to the quality of their crimes; and should not rather be a ludibrium to bold offenders, than any way reform them.  
To the former part whereof I answer; Did he never see the Ordinance of Lords and Commons of March 29, 1648. entitled, The Form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland, agreed upon by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines? Is that but a toleration? or was it ever repealed? But some Ministers and others pretend ignorance of such an Ordinance, and wonder when it's showed them; and well they may, that they should no more regard the affairs of the Church. Others have pretended, It was but an Ordinance, and therefore not valid after the dissolution of the Parliament who made it, and yet in the mean time, have sued for their tithes upon an Ordinance built upon the same Authority.  
To the latter part I return Cyprians answer, Epist. 55. ad Cornelium; Quod si ita res est, frater charissime, ut nequissimorum timeatur audacia; & quod mali jure atque aequitate non possunt, temeritate ac desperatione perficiant, actum est de Episcopatus vigore, & de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac divinâ potestate; nec Christiani ultrâ aut durare, aut esse jam possumus, si ad hoc ventum est, ut perditorum minas atque infidias pertimescamus.— And after, Non id circo frater charissime, relinquenda est ecclesiastica disciplina, aut sacerdotalis solvenda censura, quoniam convitijs infestamu●, aut terroribus quatimur, etc.   

§. 5.  
To his fourth, I answer; It's most of it answered in what was lately mentioned, whereby it appears, if Ministers were not the greatest hinderers of Church Order, they might see that presbyterated Churches have power from the State, authoritatively, to send for offenders, yea to give Oath if need require. But as long as the Magistrate doth not compel them to do their duty herein, (by depriving them of their maintenance for neglect hereof, as well as for total neglect of preaching) they cannot see sufficient authority for their acting herein. That Question Mr. W. here propounds, whether Parochial suspension with Classical power in being (by toleration civil) be an universal remedy against all the evils that belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance? Lanswer negatively; Who said it was? But doth Mr. W. thence evince the consequence of my forerecited argument to be invalid? Good Reader, Respice titulum; Look to what Mr W. is answering to all along, and then judge whether it was handsome, he (of many) should have told the world, how he fears my brains are almost marred, as he doth, p. 89. I am beholding to him for his care of me; But I cannot desire he should be foe solicitous about mine, as so pitifully in the interim to neglect his own?   

§. 6.  
His fifth Answer or Reason against my foresaid consequence, is a mere fiction, the product (I think) of an extravagant fancy, and too fruitful an invention, ratified and excited by a passionate heat. I never said that former acts of wickedness, though amounting to a rejecting of an essential of Christianity, nor yet word-rejecting of Christ, when retracted by a visible repentance, should debar any from the Sacrament. They are then cancelld and blotted out, when repent of, and are no more to be mentioned against the offender. As Cyprian saith, Epist. 55. Cornelio fratri. Primus foelicitatis gradus est non delinquere, secundus delicta cognoscere. Illic currit innocentia integra & illibata quae servet, hic succedit medela quae sanet. But as in the beginning of the argument I spoke all along of a word-rejecting Christ, which a person is found in, when he tenders himself to communicate; so here the deed rejecting of Christ was such as he was then visibly still guilty of; which he is not, when he hath seriously retracted it by repentance and promise of Reformation. And yet where this Gentleman is most amiss, he is usually most confident, and (if I may use Cheshire language) threapes me down thus, p. 104. You cannot say I misconceive your meaning; no, by no means. If he say white is black, he must not be contradicted, no not when he pretends to know my thoughts, so infallible is he; the seven Hills aspire not to this Elevation I trow. Marsilius Ficinus, who interprets Plato, saith, Platonis quidam familiaris vir doctus, edidit librum cujus inscriptio fuit Contradicendum non esse, eidem de eo Platonem consulenti, respondit Plato, Cur me consulis, si tibi prohibes contradici. I shall leave him in his confidence, and return to the Ark of my trust.  PSALM 119. part. 17. R. 
129 Right wondrous are thy statutes bright,  
My soul keeps them therefore.  
130 Receiving of thy words give light.  
Th'simple with knowledge store.  
131 Restless I called and pant, for I  
Longing thy precepts crave.  
132 Regard me with that rich mercy  
Which doth thy lovers save.  
133 Regulate my steps in thy Word!  
Let no sin rule o'er me.  
134 Rescue me from man's wrongful sword!  
So I'll thy Laws keep free.  
135 Rays from thy face shine on me now!  
Teach me thy word to awe!  
136 Rivers of tears from mine eyes slow,  
Because men break thy Law.    

CHAP. XVIII.  

§. 1.  
ANd now having answered Mr. W. his Reasons (as he called them) The Reader may discern how my argumentation concerning deed-rejecters of Christ their suspension, remains untouched by him, much more unwounded and safe. But because the point is of great influence into the present controversy, I shall add somewhat more hereunto, to prove that notorious gross wickedness (continued in, without visible repentance of it) is and aught to be taken (in the judgement of the governing Church, or where there is no governing Church in the judgement of the Minister officiating) as equivalent to word-Rejecting of Christ; and therefore equally renders a person uncapable of having the Lords Supper administered unto him.  
The argument I before propounded (at numb. 44, 45) was to this purpose; If words are no otherwise testimonies, then as they signify the mind of the speaker; then words of profession for owning Christianity, are not significative of the mind in that profession, when there are some such deeds at present owned which do more probably signify the mind to the contrary. This consequence is clear, because the use of words is to be signs of things; when they manifestly are not so, they cease to have the use of signifying the mind in the thing spoken of. Verba quid audio facta cum videam? Cyprian de unitate ecclesiae catholicae, saith Credere se in Christum quomodo dicit, qui non facit quod Christus sacere praecipit.  
The Antecedent also is manifest. For,   

§. 2.  
1. In other matters some deeds practised and continued in, render words to the contrary incredible; and there is the same reason of them and this case, as to the thing wherein I now compare them. The command is to Give to him that needeth; but every one who saith he needeth, is not to be taken for a needy person, when as the contrary other wise appears to us, by his abundance visibly under his hand, and his large and unnecessary expenses. So he that reputes is to be forgiven, but he that says he reputes is not to be believed, when actually and visibly he continues in the wickedness he saith he reputes of: Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum, and that before God or men. If a thief rob me of my purse, and then say he is sorry for my loss, and that he hath so injured me, yet will not restore my purse to me; Is his saying I repent, a probable indication of his mind? Is that a credible profession? St John shows, 1 John 3.17. compared with Chap. 4.20. If a man say he love God, or his neighbour, and yet so manifest his hatred, that he will not relieve his brother in distress, he is a liar; and therefore so must be judged of, by that manifestation of his deeds contrary to his words. Was not the enmity of the Jews Adversaries as to building the Temple, signified by their practising against the same, more than their friendship was by their good words, Ezra 4.2. Let us build with you, for we seek your God as ye do, etc. So Jer. 8.8, 9 How do ye say ye are wise— they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them. 1 John 2.4. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 1.6. If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth. Now sure a lie manifested to be so, is not credible, nor a significative testimony of what in words is asserted. When the Pythonisse maid, Act. 16.16, 17, 18. gave testimony to Paul and Sylas verbally, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation: Was that a credible profession or testimony? Augustine libro de Mendacio ad Consentium, saith, Ille mentitur, qui aliud habet in animo, & aliud verbis, vel quibuslibet significationibus ennnciat.   

§. 3.  
2. Words are more apt to be counterfeit then some deeds, therefore some deeds may be more credible testimonies of the mind, than words contrary thereunto. When Saul said to Samuel, 1 Samuel 15.13, 14. Blessed be thou of the Lord, I have performed the Commandment of the Lord. Samuel said; But what meaneth this bleating of the sheep in my cares, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? And saul's disobedient deeds of sparing Agag and the best of the Amalekitish flock, (though pretended for sacrifice) was a more credible sign of saul's disobedience, than his word-profession of obedience was to the contrary. Was not Judas his betraying Christ into the hands of the Jews, a more credible signifier of his treason, than his good words [hail Master] at the same time was of his dutiful submission? And were it any uncharitableness in judging concerning Judas at this time, to take in the cross-witnesse of his deeds, against his words. One would think this matter were so plain, there should be no need of arguments or Instances to prove it.  
3. If some deeds of wickedness committed after the profession of godliness, do evince that profession to have been false, and so now not credible: then some deeds of wickedness committed and visibly continued in at the time of the said profession, do much more invalidate it, and render it non-credibly significative of the mind of the speaker. But the former is true. The Prophet thus convinceth the Jews of their falsehood and dissimulation; Jerem. 42.20, 21. Ye have dissembled in your hearts, when ye sent me unto the Lord your God, saying, Pray for us, and according to all the Lord shall say, we will do. And now I have declared it unto you, but ye have not obeyed, etc.   

§. 4.  
4. Our Saviour shows the man's unwillingness to go and work in the Vineyard, though he said readily, I go sir, in that he went not, Math. 21. therefore his not going was a more certain signification of his unwillingness to go, than his verbal profession that he would go, was of willingness to go. So the Psalmist from the transgression of the wicked (what ever they may profess to the contrary, concludes the fear of God is not before them, Psal. 36.1. Therefore its evident what the learned Mr. Baxter hath 3. disput. about right to the Sacraments, p. 277. viz. That verbal profession, if it be not a probable sign of the thing professed, it's not to be taken for a valid profession. But words contradicted by the notorious tenor of the life, are no probable signs, but these works are a more certain sign of the contrary.— If an affirmation presently contradicted by words as express and certain, be not to be taken for a valid profession, then much less is an affirmation more certainly contradicted by the tenor of the life, yea and too oft by professed impenitency, so he. If Mr. W. be entertained to officiate to a people upon their promising him an honourable maintenance, I would willingly know, whether he will continue his pains among them, upon condition of their promising him his salary, though they do not pay it, or upon the condition of their performing what they promised. If their deed nonpayment be not to prevail against their word-paiment, or verbal promise of payment, an easy thing will content him.  
But I am of opinion, if they should so abuse him, he would tell them (as well he might) that their word-payment stands for nothing, when contradicted by their nonpayment in deed; he would not take their being positively his paymasters sufficient to engage him, whiles they are negatively no paymasters to him; if I may so use the distinction he lays so much weight upon, in this Controversy of positively believers, which should enright them to the Sacraments, though they are negatively unbelievers, that is, engaged to believe, though they do not.  
I will conclude this with a passage of Salvian. de gubern. Dei l. 4. (p. mihi, 143.) where speaking how Pagans are scandalised by the wicked lives of such as profess themselves Christians, he adds, Et cur hoc ita? Cur utique nisi ob eos qui Christiani esse dicuntur, & non sunt, qui per flagitia as turpitudines suas, nomen religionis infamant; qui ut scriptum est, o'er fatentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant, cum sint abominabiles & increduli, ad omne autem opus bonum reprobi, per quos ut legimus via veritatis blasphematur, etc.  PSALM 119. Part. 18. S. 
137 Surely thou righteous art O Lord,  
Upright thy judgements are.  
138 So are the Statutes of thy Word,  
all faithful, right and rare,  
139 Sharp zeal consumed and cut me sore,  
when foes thy word forget.  
140 Solely pure is thy word, therefore  
my soul so loveth it.  
141 Small though I am, and scorned, I cast  
not thy will out of mind.  
142 Stable thy Righteousness doth last,  
Thy Law the Truth I find.  
143 Surprised I am with grief and pain,  
Thy Commands me delight.  
144 Settled thy just Laws aye remain.  
Give me Truth's living light!    

CHAP. XIX.  

§. 1.  
ANother Reason my paper added at numb. 46. which Mr. W. sets down, p. 108. and it was thus: Furthermore, if the deed-rejecting of Christ were not of as certain credible signification concerning a persons unbelief, as the word-rejecting is; then no person who denies not Christ in words, may be fully excommunicated; especially if he desire to communicate, and that earnestly: which these men say is a testimony of his seriousness, which we may not refuse in his profession to believe. And doubtless, etc.— the rest see at numb. 47, 48. This Mr W. designs to answer and confute, p. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116. In all which, if neither vain confidence (his primum, secundum and tertium,) nor calumniating falsehoods, nor impertinent digressions may serve for reasons against me, I doubt not my present argumentation will remain safe enough for aught Mr. W. hath to produce against it. Indeed if a Disputation were to be managed in the passionate mood, and the Crabbed Figure, (such as the Pythagoreans accounted the number 2.) he is hard enough for any man I know, (unless the Quakers might go near to match him.) I must confess I dare not vie scoffs (Ironies I can digest well enough) nor foul language nor falsehoods with him. If this be the victory he seeks, he may take it for me. But it may be the Reader who hath not seen his Book, will hardly believe so many pages should be blotted with such stuff; but will expect I should give him a more particular account of them. I am sorry so to spend time, yet if it will not be helped, I must be content, and he also.  
(1. At p. 109. he tells us in 8 or 9 lines, 4 or 5 times over, that his cause is good, and mine bad. In all this (saith he) there's little afforded considerable, that hath not been before answered. Here's no convincing new evidence, that any ways disproves our position. The imbecility of all your Allegations against us, and the miserable shifts you are put to in colouring ever your own, confirm us the more strongly in what we hold, and against what you pretend to. And the longer you argue, the more apparently do we see your imbecility, and the goodness of our own cause.  
Oh expedite and cleaver confutation! But Reader, I am afraid he suspects thou wilt scarce believe his tale once told, that he tells it thee so many times over, and that altogether too. But look back and see whether this reason of mine he assaults, was at all mentioned, much less answered before in the dispute; thy two eyes will give thee better information herein, than his tale twice two times told.   

§. 2.  
2. In the next place he saith, You know we are not against the excommunicating of scandalous notorious and stubborn delinquents— but before such excommunication we maintain their external right unto the Lord's Supper, and their right of free access thereunto. And a Ministers admission of them is not considerable in the present case. They come not thereunto upon his courtesy (as if he had power to admit or not admit). This is  to the matter in hand. But they come upon their own proper and internal right, i. e. their baptismal interest as Christians to perform visible homage to their Lord and Saviour. And he that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances of equal sanctity, is injurious to God and to them also!  
1. Reader, suppose all this true, and see whether it wound my Reason he is answering. Will it hence follow, that some deeds of wickedness are not as significative of a persons rejecting Christ, as words are, (which was the proposition by me to be proved,) or that if this were not so, no man who in words did not renounce Christ, might be fully excommunicated? (which was my Reason to prove the foresaid proposition by.)  
20 To the things he mentions, though impertinent to this place, I shall also make some reply. 1. Though mine Antagonists do not simply deny excommunication, yet they (some of them at least) so lay their train, as to deny excommunication among us in England in these times. For they quarrel with any power claiming to manage it. Congregational Independent power will not sure be allowed by them; and Classical Presbyterial power is the object of their scorns and contempt. And unless we could have Bishops again, and those assisted by the State, I see not how they would allow of excommunication here in England. In England, I say, For I hope to the reformed Churches beyond Seas they will be more favourable than to deny them the use of Church censures for want of Prelates. But if they are impartial, and will take in them too, whose case (to say truth) differs not from ours; then shall excommunication be owned by them in all Europe no where, or only among the Papists, who still have Prelates. And are not these Gentlemen very liberal now (that they should tell us of it themselves) for granting excommunication on this fashion.   

§. 3.  
2. I hold also that after a person is regularly admitted to the participation of the Lords Supper (that is after a solemn personal owning of his baptismal engagements) he is not to be debarred the Lords Supper, before he fall under some excommunication, viz. either jure or facto, less or greater.  
3. One while M. W. speaks of their external right to the Lords Supper, as if he asserted only their external right. But soon after he saith, They come upon their own proper and internal right, i. e. their baptismal interest, etc. 1. We should here distinguish of, 1. a direct and proper right, they may have by Gods grant to them, to receive the Lords Supper, and the benefits represented therein. 2. an improper right, and collateral, by Gods authorising the Ministers to administer to them, whiles they visibly appear such as have interest in those benefits. Many may have right in the later sense externally, or before the Church (i. e. Ecclesia judice) who have not right in the former sense internally and properly. A man who only seems to be poor and distressed, may have an external, improper collateral right to my alms before men, as I am bound to relieve him, and sin if I do not, Prov. 3.27. Withhold not good from him to whom it is due, (that is, the Needy, as the LXX. turns it) when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Yet if he do but counterfeit poverty and distress, 〈◊〉 hath no inward proper right to my alms. These two therefore should not have been confounded and jumbled together, as they are here by our Author.  
4. If such as we have spoken of, have no right to be admitted, and do visibly so appear, I think the Minister is concerned in the admission or debarring of them, if he will approve himself a faithful Steward of the divine Mysteries, & that it lies wholly in him where there is no governing Church, but where there is, it lies on him jointly with others instructed by the Church.  
As for that passage (often before) of the Ministers courtesy in admission, it hath been once and again repelled as an odious and wretched, impertinent and false insinuation: he must admit according to the Rule prescribed him by his master (to whom he must give account) without being swayed awry either by base fear and passion, or partial respects. I think chrysostom was of this mind when in his 60. Homily ad Pop. Antioch. de sumentibus indignè, etc. he saith, Let no cruel unmerciful man approach, no impure one any way. These things I would have spoken as well to you who communicate, as to you who minister— No small punishment hangs over your head, if ye permit any to partake of this Table whom you know to be held with any wickedness, for his blood shall be required at your hands, etc.  
5. Their baptismal engagement to celebrate the Lords Supper, doth not hinder their being justly debarred (in the case under consideration) no more than a Heathen (who hears the Gospel preached to him) his engagement to be baptised, doth hinder his being justly debarred baptism for want of scrious profession of the Christian faith, antecedently necessary to baptism (as all I think do grant.) Let Mr W. show the contrary if he can. I say the one is aeque though not aequaliter engaged as the other; as truly, though not so solemnly, and multifariously. A man is as truly obliged to obey God, who hears his will clearly revealed, as he is who hath by his own profession further positively bound himself to obey.  
6. The learned and ingenuous Mr Humphreys (a Gentleman worthy indeed to be answered) acknowledgeth (as we have seen above) that as an heathen, so an excommunicate may be admitted both to the prayers and hearing of the word preached, in the Church; and the thing is manifest in itself, as h●th been showed. And yet saith this our confident Author, ●●●ou hear, He that debars them as long as they are in visible communion with Christians in other ordinances, is injurious to God, and to them also. What he will say he means by visible communion in other ordinances, I know not. But they may be present with them in the Congregation, and that in a constant course, and that as doing their duty there, as well as others; and they may account themselves, and so be lawfully owned by others as Church-members, though suspended or excommunicate.   

§. 4.  
I know no difficulty here, but that concerning receiving their children to baptism. But that I find not mentioned by Mr W. And if their children should be debarred baptism, that is no argument against debarring them the Lord's Supper; It's no good reason that nothing should be done in a business, because all is not done which some think (and suppose rightly) should be done. So far we are satisfied that the parents being so notoriously wicked as aforesaid, should be debarred the Lords Table; Whether also their children must be debarred baptism. is another thing to be enquired into. This Controversy is weighty and large, and I shall not presume to design a just discussion of it here, yet may I not wholly omit it. Concerning the baptising of the children of both parents notoriously ungodly, and suspended or excommunicate, I would briefly hint these few things.  
1. Some solve the difficulty, by saying, We receive their children to baptism on other accounts than on their right from their immediate parents, as Mr Drake answered Mr Humphreys on this point.  
2. But by the immediate (though notoriously ungodly suspended or excommunicate) parent, I humbly conceive a right is conveyed for the baprism of his infant. (Supposing that the parent desire it; otherwise none can meddle with the dedicating of his Infant, which is parentum juris, at the parent's disposal.) For,   

§. 5.  
1. All Pedobaptists use this Argument, Church-members may be baptised. Some children are Church-members-. Ergo. And doubtless they understand their Major proposition here of Church-members not sinfully debarring themselves. For a son of a believer, who hath not been baptised in infancy, though he be a Church-member, may when he is adult by his scandalous life, hinder himself of receiving baprism, as well as one baptised may of the Lords Supper. Now the child of a notoriously ungodly, and suspended or excommunicated parent is a Church-member, and doth not sinfully hinder, or put a bar to his own baptism. That he is a Church-member is proved; If the parent be a Church-member, than so is the infant, (this consequence I think none I have to deal with will deny). But that he is a Church-member still hath been proved above, chap. 3. §. 6.  
That this child doth not put a bar to his own baptism, I need not prove. Upon this ground I add,  
2. The child is not to be punished for the father's sin; which yet he were, if he should not be baptised. 1. Admit the parent be visibly a believer when his child is born, or rather when the child is begotten, according to 1 Cor. 7.14. (which is said to describe the child's birth-priviledge, as it is called, though it seems rather to be a generation-priviledge) and that he delay the baptising his child a month (perhaps longer) and in the mean time he for some notorious wickedness is suspended or excommunicated. Certainly his infant had a right to baptism (at lest coram Ecclesia) and supposing the parent to have true grace (coram Deo too) after it was born, and therefore it cannot be said, that to deny it baptism is no punishment, as not depriving it of any right it ever had: and therefore the denying it baptism now, is to cut it off from what it had, and lost not by its own default.  
2. It will not I think be denied, that it is a privilege and great mercy which the gracious providence of God hath disposed unto this infant, that it hath or had right to baptism. If it were only the privilege of the parent, that he might have his child baptised, it were more imaginable how his child might be debarred upon his forfeiture. But since it is a privilege to the child, it cannot be debarred, but it must be punished as well as its parent and that for its parents personal miscarriage. He himself indeed may keep it from baptism; but as in that he sins and doth it wrong, so should they who refuse to do their office for the baptising of it, upon the parent's desire.   

§. 6.  
3. It is not nothing that the Jewish children were to be circumcised the eighth day, although the parents by legal (or moral) uncleanness might be debarred the Passeover, or excommunicated; which it should seem would not have been, if the censure upon the parents had reached any further than to the suspension of him from some personal privileges, whereby he was as an heathen in some respects; and did not extend to make his child as an heathen in any respect; particularly, that it should be debarred circumcision as the child of an heathen should; though the parent were debarred the Passcover, and so dealt with in that respect as though he had been an Heathen.  
4. He may be admitted to Baptism who is holy by consecration, and being rightly devoted to Christ's service, doth no way reject the same. But such is the condition of the child of a notoriously scandalous Christian, yea excommunicated. Ergo, he may be admitted to Baptism. Of the first there is no question I think. The latter proposition is clear in both its parts. 1. This child is holy by consecration, and being rightly devoted to God. For when the parent entered, or seemed to enter Covenant with God; as therein God tendered himself his God, and the God of his, or his seed; So his restipulation was answerable thereunto. that he and his, his seed should be the Lords people. Whether this parent was sincere in this covenanting or no; he and his are engaged thereby; and so his seed is a seed holy by consceration, and being rightly devoted to God, and the service of Christ: and as he himself is to be accounted really justified, or dealt with as such, till he notoriously contradict his professed engagements to Christ's service, (Deut. 26.17.) so also is his seed (which in devoting himself he also devoted to God (Deut. 29.11, 12.) to be treated as holy ones, and as justified ones are to be dealt with, till that they by notorious disobedience contradict the engagements which lie on them. And thus the children which some wicked Jews offered to Idols, God claims as his in a special and peculiar sense, as having been devoted to him, and his service, Ezek. 16.20, 27. & 23.27.   

§. 7.  
5. Although the learned and worthy Mr. Baxter in his third disputation about Right to the Sacraments; asserts and copiously labours to defend that the Infants of notoriously ungodly parents have no right to Baptism, (In answering of whom, this controversy might have its just disquisition, which it cannot be expected I should undertake) yet in that same disputation, p. 264, 265. he most reasonably asserts; That all God requireth in the free universal Covenant of grace, to our participation of his benefits, is our consent. And children do consent by those, whose they are: For they that own them, or whose they are, have the disposal of them, and so of their wills interpretatively, and may among men make any Covenant for them. which is for their good (at least) and oblige them to a performance of conditions.  
Now upon this ground I would propose it to consideration, whether a notoriously ungodly parent, yea excommunicate, (who in words professeth assent to the Christian faith, and knows what the Christian faith is, as to the fundamentals of it) may not justly and fairly be presumed by the Church and Minister, hearty to consent to dedicate his child to God in God's way, although he himself is so bewitched with and enslaved to his lusts, that he doth not consent (as it appears by his contradictory deeds) to give up himself to God in his way; For my part I do verily think, many a drunkard would have his child sober and temperate; and many a wanton desires his child may be chaste, etc. And in general many a wicked parent appears cordially to rejoice in the towardliness and godliness of his children, etc. And then according to the foresaid position of this accurate and pious Author, the child of such a wicked parent may be admitted to enter, and therefore to seal his entrance into Covenant with God in Baptism; he consenting understandingly for him upon Gospel terms, whose he is, and in whose will the child's will is interpretatively involved. Yet because the scandalousnes of the said parent gives just occasion to the Church of suspicion, fear and jealousy, lest he should alter his will and desire now signified to have his child truly a Christian and godly, and so fail in using necessary means for his child's instruction (during its nonage) in the Christian faith; It's but equitable the Church should demand sureties for the same; according to Ames his resolution of the case; de conscientiâ lib. 4. qu. 1. Resp. 8. Excommunicatorum contumacium liberi, non expedit baptizari nisi sponsorum idonco●um interventu. I must beg the Readers pardon for this excursion which I fell into almost unawares; and having engaged in it, of some I shall have cause to crave their excuse for saying so much, and of others for saying no more; the point indeed deserveth a larger disquisition. But mine apology to the former shall be, that Mr. W. his exception I was answering did in the latitude of it comprehend this, and therefore I would not wholly pass it by; and to the latter, that his words do not clearly import he had any special reference to this point, and therefore I thought the less might serve to note concerning it, in my Reply unto him.  PSALM 119. part. 19 T. 
145 This whole heart cried to thee, Lord hear!  
Thy statutes I'll fulfil.  
146 To thee I called; save me most dear,  
Thine hests I shall keep still.  
147 The daybreak my cries do prevent;  
Trusting thy word I wait.  
148 The night too, mine eyes are intent,  
Thy truth to meditate.  
149 To my voice hark in kindness true!  
Thy Judgements quicken me!  
150 They draw nigh who mischief pursue.  
Far from thy Laws they be.  
151 Thou Lord art near, and very true,  
Are thy Commandments sure.  
152 Thine hests thou hast (of old I knew)  
Founded aye to endure.    

CHAP. XX.  

§. 1.  
I Shall now proceed to what remains. (3) In the next place Mr. W. answers my forementioned Reason, to this purpose, p. 110, 111. If the man (supposed in the case) comes and desires to communicate, and that earnestly, this Mr. W. saith is rightly affirmed (by mine Antagonists) to be a Testimony of his seriousness, which we may not, upon his profession thereof, refuse to believe. And this Mr. W. proves in these words; For, Sir, if you grant the case, viz. that he desires to communicate, and that earnestly; then show a Reason (if you can) why all godly minded Christians should not (in charity) believe (upon his profession hereof) that this is to us (in foro externo) a credible testimony of his seriousness? Nay, you add moreover, that [who makes a credible serious profession of his faith and willingness to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ] the Church ought not to excommunicate. Nay, you add [doubtless the Church ought not]. And we add, that [doubtless] the Church ought not to deny such an one the Lords Supper, or suspend him from it. What a schism will do we know not, etc.  
The Reader may be pleased to bear in memory, that after I had evinced that a man baptised at years and not fully excommunicate, might be debarred the Sacrament, if at the time when he tenders himself to be admitted (when the time of celebration gins to draw near) he in words renounce Christ, or an essential of Christianity, (which is not (that I find) denied by Mr. W.) In the procedure of my argument I added; that if such word rejecting of Christ, as before-said, may debar the person aforesaid, than some deed-rejecting of Christ may also. Because that by some deeds of wickedness, there is as credibly a signification of a man's rejecting Christ, as in words. And this was proved as by other arguings, so by this under our hand at present, viz. If some deeds do not as credibly signify a persons rejecting of Christ, as words might do; then none could be excommunicated for sinful deeds, whiles they renounce not Christ in words, but in words profess their earnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament. This consequence is valid, at lest ad hominem, because mine Antagonists intimate, that he who verbally professeth his desire to receive, must be by us accounted a serious professor of faith (what ever his works are.) And I aver that no visibly serious professor of faith is to be excommunicated. For than one in the way of a visible exercise of faith and true repentance should be excommunicated; which none sure will affirm. And this Consequence I cannot see that Mr. W. sticks at. But now whereas I should assume; But some may be excommunicated for sinful deeds, notwithstanding that in words they renounce not Christ, but verbally profess their earnest desire to be admitted to the Sacrament.  
This I think Mr. W. denies; I am not certain; look over his words thyself Reader, and use thine own judgement to guests what he drives at. But this I am certain of, either he denies this, or he saith nothing of a contradictory tendency to my argumentation which here he pretends to enervate. And if he do deny the foresaid Assumption, as I conceive his words import taken together, It may be imputed to his haste, that he should hold what is so manifestly false, viz. That none may be excommunicated for sinful deeds, though never so heinous and notorious, if he renounce not Christ in words, and profess verbally his earnest desire to communicate.   

§. 2.  
But because M. W. bids me show a Reason (if I can) for the contrary. I must prove that the Sun shines at noon day. And, 1. If this his assertion be true, than not professing earnest desire to communicate, in the only crime sufficient to cause excommunication. But a man may be excommunicated for other wickedness, without respect to this, 1 Cor. 5.11. A whore monger, or drunkard, etc. notoriously such, may profess his earnest desire to receive, and yet that makes him not, no whoremonger, and no drunkard. 2. Then also, the Church may look for no further satisfaction in order to restoring of an excommunicate, than his verbal profession of earnest desire to receive the Sacrament. For that which should prevent their excommunicating of him, must be available to restore him. But the Church in many ages hath required particular confession of notorious sins, and express profession of repentance for them, (and not only profession of earnest desire to receive) as antecedently necessary to the absolution of an excommunicate, in analogy to that, Levit. 5.4, 5, 6. where he who was to bring his trespass offering for a false oath (though through ignorance) was to confess that he had sinned in that thing, and then he is allowed to b●ing his trespass-offering to the Lord, and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning his sin. So more generally, Numb. 5.7. on which saith Ainsworth out of Maimonides; The Hebrews set down this duty thus— This confession is with words: and it's commanded to be done. How do they confess? He saith, Oh God for I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus; and lo, I repent, and am ashamed of my do, and I will never do this thing again. And this is the foundation of confession. And who so maketh a large confession, and is long in the thing, he is to be commended. And so the owners of sinand trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or presumptuous sins; atonement is not made for them by their oblation, until they have made Repentance and confession, by word of mouth. Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to stripes, no atonement is made for them by their death, or by their stripes, until they have epented and confessed. And, so, he that hurteth his neighbour, ● doth him damage, though he pay him whatsoever he own him, illonement is not made for him, till he confess and turn away from doing so again for ever.  
Now it may be Mr. W. could have taught them a more expeite and easy way of satiffactory confession, viz. if the offendeiprofess verbally, his earnest desire to partake of the Passeove, that shall quit all scores.   

§. 3.  
() Mr. W. further adds; As for your [fully and not fully] excommunicate] we look not on them as considerable in this present controversy, they are your own miserable shifts, etc. What's the conclusion? Ergo, my fore mentioned Reason is not sound? Wonderful hap he hath, if he can draw this inference from such premises. This distinction of excommunication hath been proved before, (at Chap. 3.) and I wonder not if he would so feign shift it out of his way if he could, it so fully enervates the Reasons of his Champion Mr. Timson, and shows his miscarriage in the very stating of the Question. If that third Chap. aforesaid stand good, particularly the sixth §, that excommunicates are Church-members, and are not by excommunication cut off from all ordinances, (although accidentally that may sometime coincidere, and often did fall in, in the primitive times.) The title of his book is blasted, which over each leaf is this, to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right of all Church members; but in the first page, is thus; To receive the Lords Supper the actual Right and duty of all Church members of years not excommunicate. Which is sorrily propounded. For 1. here and in his book he confounds Right and duty, as if these were of the same latitude; as if because its an heathens duty to be baptised, or a Christians duty when drunk on the Lord's day, to sanctify the Sabbath in public Ordinances, yea or an Excommunicats duty to receive, (all which are manifestly their duty, which they are obliged to) that therefore it were the heathens right to be baptised, without any more ado, or the drunken Christians to be admitted into the Assembly while drunk, or the excommunicate had actual right to the Lord Supper, while excommunicate. 2. And that all excommuncation turns our of Church-membership Mr. Humphreys holeth, rejoined. p. 155. where he saith, Suspension is null withot dismembership. To what purpose then should Mr. Timson hae added [not excommunicate] but to instruct us in this lesso●; That to receive the Lords Supper is the actual right and duty of all Church members (at years) who are not no Church member. This is the Warrior whose Herald Mr. W. is pleased to m●●e himself; and he once and again provokes me to grapple with him. But if I have made good this one argument against Mr. W. there's none (I think) can reasonably think, there's any need of answering Mr. Timson in print. Mr. W. hath much of his sense and language too, where he could bring it in. But his distinction of fully and not fully excommunicate, I suspect the more anger's him, because it makes the weapons of his ious brave man, unserviceable in this contest with me in this: gument.  
But I have showed, there is an excommunication by the Officers of the Church, or Minister alone, & by the people alone, though the Officers refuse to join: and there is an excommunication wherein the Officers and people of the Congregation (and neighbourhood too perhaps though that's not essential) do concur, which is a fuller excommunication then either of the former.   

§. 4.  
5. In the 5th place Mr. W. answers and confutes (as he pretends) my Reason, by saying; As for your Excommunication you give us a very acquaint account thereof, and in a taunt he saith, Scholars may do well to furnish their note books with it. And in stead of better Answers (furor arma ministrat) he fits down in the chair of the scorners, and thus acts his part. It should seem (saith he) that your [full excommunication] is a very shrewd thing, when you can be at leisure to meet in a full Classis, and so have your severe Rabbis of discipline sit in state, with the rest of your grave Benchers, than the case of a poor sinner is put upon the debale, and after that your Elders have well stroaked their beards, and nodded in their votes, the decree is that the sinner arraigned is to be excommunicated fully, and that with full excommunication completely. The sum whereof is, that such a man found and judged guilty of such misdemeanours, is declared to be as an heathen Infidel, and do such an one to be looked upon, and dealt with by all our Church members, i. e. to he counted as an enemy, and not to be admonished as a brother.  
Here are learned arguments, apodictical demonstrations, but be like all in Bocardo. Here are formulae oratoriae for the cupping crew, who may probably applaud the Author, and quaff his health round for them. I'll confess they are not to be answered by me. Ego poenitere tanti non emam, (as Demosthenes said to the Corinthian Lais) I dare not answer according to this folly. No wonder if he crow over me, as wanting stomach, and not being stomachful enough (p. 108, 118.) for such doughty dispute. He makes it appear (though unmannerly) what a full stomach he hath, by his continual cructations of such putrid and adust choler. For after all this, he is rifting again in this very place, and afterward, as sourly as if he had had no vent before, and at last (p. 114.) brings up that crude calumny (which he for the once belcheth forth) to besmear me with it, viz. the denying the Pope to be Antichrist .. I see its perilous to be near a man in his casting fits, or that owing one a spite, hath the trick of the new organon salutis, and can with his provang unload his stomach at his pleasure. And this he ushers in with a parturiunt montes, and saith, you know my meaning. I know indeed what follows, and thence conclude, M. W. is content to be a Mousetrap, that my paper may seem ridiculous. But if he remember the story Sir Walter Raleigh hath out of Herodotus, it may lessen his confidence of vanquishing the Mouse he laughs at. The story is thus in History of the world, p. 612. Herodotus saith, Senacheribs great host which he had when he threaned Hezekia by Rabsheca, was intended against Egypt; But a great multitude of field mice entering the Camp of Senacherib by night, did so gnaw the bows, quivers, strings and straps of his men's armour, that they were feign the next day to fly away in all haste, finding themselves disarmed. In memory whereof (saith Herodotus) the statue of this King is set up in the Temple of Vulcan, holding a mouse in his hand, with this Inscription, Let him who beholds me serve God. I'll not apply the particulars, but only thus; The mouse Mr. W. despiseth, if it may have fair play (I doubt not) will disarm this warrior, and cut in sunder the nerves of his arguments. But the [parturiunt montes] I think may be more fitly applied to his ●●●ving and groaning to be delivered of that flatulent falsehood, that Mola, or monstrous birth of the Antichristian lie, which at last he brings forth, and exposeth to the view of the world. And let the world (at his own instance and desire) behold how he travaileth with iniquity, hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. But this filth I shall wipe off beneath. For I am afraid of displeasing the Reader, by having too much of these personal fooleries together. I shall therefore leave them, and speak only to the thing remaining, which Mr. W. hath here touched upon, namely, concerning the description of Excommunication (which he pretends to gather out of some expressions of mine) to be a declaring of a person to be as an heathen, and so to be dealt with.  
If he had perused Math. 18.17. Let him be to thee as an heathen and publican, sure he durst not have scoffed at that. He that is to be to us an heathen, is to be judged as an heathen, and so to be dealt with, that is, in some respects; viz. in those wherein he is to be to us as an heathen. Neither the Scripture, nor my paper here said he was to be judged an heathen simply. But it saith, let him be to thee as an heathen: with which manner of expression my scribble (as Mr. W. fitly calls them) did wholly comply. And what now hath our learned Gentleman to oppose hereunto? that you may seek for some where else; unless this may be allowed the place and honour of an objection in stead of a better, which skulkes in an implicit Ambuscado, namely, the interpretation he puts on my expressions aforesaid; that is (saith our learned Expositor) to be counted as an enemy, and not to be admonished as a brother. But if Paul be not against his Master, this will do us no hurt. Even an heathen, (any neighbour as such) is to be admonished as a Brother, in some sense, and not counted an enemy simply. (Eph. 5.11. Levit. 19.17. & 10.36. Mark 12.33.) And a Christian excommunicate aught to be admonished, though in some respects he is to be to us as an Heathen. The reconciliation is easy. Take it in the learned Zanchius his words on 2 Thess. 3. Obj. Videtur sibi contrarius Apostolus; praecipit, ne commercium habeatis cum eo (excommunicato) & tamen habete eum pro fratre. Resp. Prohibet familiaritatem non necessariam periculosam, noxiam, quâ indulgeamus eorum vitijs, aut saltem conniveamus, non edentes ullam significationem odij & improbationis peccatorum, quâ denique in similia peccata induci & ipsorum scabiae inquinari possimus: or as Zepperus thus; Although not one ought to join himself in stricter familiarity and private offices to the excommunicate; yet charity shall be exercised towards him, in public and private prayers to God, and frequent admonitions. (de polit. ecclesiâ. p. 164, 165.) But the excommunicate are not to be driven away from the public Assemblies of the Church, to hear God's word, lest they should grow hopeless, and the doors of repentance be shut to them.   

§. 5.  
6. The Rest Mr. W. hath (besides personal vagaries) is the old business of Examination, p. 113, 114. and his Question what difference we make betwixt suspension and full excommunication, hath been answered before. And now let the Reader use his own eyes and judgement, whether any or all these six answers do in the least infringe my argument he pretends to evervate hereby. Which was this, If deed rejecting of Christ may not be a cause of Excommunication, where there's a desire signified to receive the Sacrament; then none who desire to receive may be excommunicated. The latter is false, therefore so is the former. Fit now his answers to this mark; and then determine of them as Reason directs. I must crave thy excuse for holding thee so long in the examination of Mr. W. pretensions on this point. We will now the more greedily and eagerly drink of those cordial waters of the Sanctuary.  PSALM 119. Part 20. V V. 
153 View thou my straits, save me! thy Laws  
I forget not O Lord.  
154 Unloose my bonds! plead thou my cause!  
Quicken me by thy Word!  
155 Vile men are from salvation fare;  
Who seek not thy command.  
156 Very great, Lord, thy mercies are:  
Life by thy Judgements send.  
157 Various foes strive me to oppress.  
Thine hests I'll not forsake.  
158 Viewing Transgressors grieved I was,  
When they thy statutes broke.  
159 Vouchsafe to see, thy Law I love,  
Lord, kindly quicken me!  
160 Very true I thy Word long prove.  
Thy Judgements lasting be.    

CHAP. XXI.  

§. 1.  
BE of good cheer (my Reader) Mr. W: now saith, I pray let us come to an end. I hope he is somewhat near (for this time) an end of his revile, and impertinencies. However having, tired thy patience sufficiently whiles I have insisted too long on his extravagancies in the last chapter, I'll promise thee to touch them more lightly here.  
That which remains for Mr W. to answer to, is only a recollection of the argumentative procedure before had and managed in my paper, which was thus, (as may be seen at numb. 49. If it be granted that one, though formerly baptised, and yet not fully excommunicated, yet now being an openly by word professed Infidel, may be suspended in any case, where there is a bar against his then full excommunication, then, at least in the like case some scandalous livers in the Church may be suspended; and then I concluded with some passages of Salvian and Tertullian thus: I remember I have read somewhere in Salvian, qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur. And Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat. Agreeable whereunto is what I find quoted from Tertullian Apol. cap. 44. speaking of the Heathens prisons he saith, Nemo illic Christianus nisi planè tantum Christianus, aut si & aliud jam non Christianus.  
To this short repetition of mine argument, Mr W. strenuously rambles one continued long chide in nine pages (oh the Art of that man!) without bringing any thing new which hath a colour of reasonable opposition to it; or old which hath not been already answered by me. He talks of Examination and my patched piece, and brags as for a wager, p. 118. in these words: You shall vunderstand how considerable I am, before you and I part, if you have any stomach or courage in the present controversy. He tells us of his call to his place. p. 119. Of his setting Dog once and again and again, p. 120.121. Of our (as he falsely pretends) rejecting the suspended from our Pastoral care. And most audaciously cracks out this notorious calumny, When they are suspended, you look after them no longer, unless it be for your Tithes and Church deuce. And talks of Brownism wildly, p. 122.123. acquaints us (as if he were a professed Quaker, or at least as if he had never writ against the Anabaptists) that he looks on no deductious from Scripture as obligatory, unless he have some clear revelations for such deductions.— And (which some of the Papists, much more the Protestants will stick at) that for the sense of obscure places of Scripture, he prefers Catholic expositious before any man's private sense or interpretation. p. 124. he dreams about the fruitlesness of suspension. p. 125. And what not? Truly I do not see how he can be out of his way, whose ordinary road is some digression or other. Some of these may perhaps be considered among the Digressions beneath, at present we shall not stay on them; only (me thinks) it is not handsome for him to quarrel with a patch, who solemnly thus dates his Epistle to the Reader. Given at my poor house at Leek, July 25. And it is somewhat suspicious he carries a Dog set in his bosom, who hath the setting-dogg so often in his mouth. I now wonder not he is so ready in his facundia canina, his currish eloquence. If he have not bos in lingua, be sure he hath canis in lingua, which may keep him from being mute, or meal-mouthed, especially while he sits under the influence of the Canicular and snarling constellation.   

§. 2.  
But now at the middle of the 125 page he gins to discourse more soberly, and so holds on too for divers leaves together. And in earnest, I would not have him miss the Readers just commendation for it. It is not so ordinary (for aught I see) with him so to do, as that it should not now be particularly observed to his praise. And therefore though it looks nothing like a Refutation of the sum of the argument he should be dealing with, I shall the more willingly touch (but briefly) the main contents thereof.  
1. He shows the excellency of the Lords Supper, as in other respects, so for the ocular instruction of the meanest, and as an effectual means to convince men, and take them off from grossest sins, p. 125, 126.  
I suppose in this he aims at that trite argument against suspension, that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance. And I grant it may be so, and hath a probable aptitude as a means (taking the whole celebration together) to convert, even an heathen (or unbaptized Catechumen) who hath some knowledge of Christianity before, if he should (though sinfully as all grant) be admitted thereunto. No one can say he shall not be converted thereby. But what's that to the purpose? If Gods revealed institution design it not to the notoriously profane, no more than to them, or such as are fully excommunicate? We must not be wiser than God, nor invent means of good to others unwarrantably, we may not do evil that the greatest good may come thereby. Yet because it must be supposed, that there will be close hypocrites in the Church, who yet have an improper collateral right to the Sacrament, in that Ministers may rightfully minister unto them (though they have no proper right directly to the Sacrament.) God in his infinite wisdom and goodness hath so ordered it, that it may be hopefully useful for their conversion to sincerity, and therefore so it may be designed by the ministrator, upon that supposition aforesaid.  
2. Mr. W. shows (and rightly) how the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.14, 15, 16, 17, 21. to take off the Corinthians from Idolatry, allegeth their use of the Lords Supper,— saying, ye cannot partake of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: he doth not herein, and for their evil discharge them from the Lords Supper, but convinceth their reason of the inconsistency of such criminal liberty with the use of the Lords Supper. And here Mr. W. is pleased to honour the Apostle with his commending him for a Rational Churchman, p. 127.   

§. 3.  
3. And then he shows (and rightly too) that the Apostle his speech, 1 Cor. 11.28. commands all Church-members adult to receive.— And p. 128. answering the objection, that all cannot examine themselves, saith, That such persons are bound in conscience, immediately to labour for knowledge, and to break off their profane courses, that they may be able to examine themselves, and to come to the Lords Table. But in the mean while their ignorance and profaneness takes not off the Divine obligation that lies on their consciences. And this he profitably insists upon, p. 128, 129. But at the later end, as if he had wounded our cause to the quick (though alas! he never toucheth it) he adds, And thus you see what the conviction of the double obligation will work men unto, if pursued and followed rigorously. A thing that lies on the Ministers of the Gospel to do, and not to cast off the people by a childish or churlish suspension.  
4. Then he shows how by baptism Christians are under this double obligation to examine themselves and to come to the Lords Table, deny it (saith he with vehemency) who will, or can. When alas! I deny it not, nor doth the defence of my hypothesis require I should. There are some other passages of his mixed with these I have related, I cannot digest, which have been answered elsewhere; and I am not willing to quarrel with them here, as long as the main of his discourse hereon, seems such as I do comply with. I will not compare with Mr. W. nor any other in rigorous pressing of doctrines, this in special for men's conviction and reformation. But I do endeavour it according to my poor measure; and I think here's nothing for substance of these things, which hath not been heard from me. But the knot lies not here, whether they are obliged both to labour for knowledge, and leave profaneness, & so to come? But in this, whether they may not be debarred the later, for their visible want of the former? And he may be pleased to remember, that the Fallacia divisionis, is as ill Logic as the Fallacia compositionis, to argue à been conjunct is add malè divisa, is as consequent, as à bene divisis ad malè conjuncta, which he minds us of, p. 128. and I have explained myself on this point before, ch. 10. §. 1, 2. and elsewhere. I shown that obligation to duty doth not ever give or argue a right of admission to the performance thereof simply, without any more ado. A drunken Christian is not disobliged from the public service of God while such, nor doth any excommunication disoblige from the Lords Supper; they both sin, in both not waiting on God in his ordinances, and hindering themselves by their own default. That divers things debar from the performance of duties, which do not excuse nor disoblige from them, is a truth so plain, that he that runs may read it.   

§. 4.  
5. Mr. W. p. 131.132. answers the Query, how infants are not obliged to receive, 1. By Analogy to the Infants among the Jews in reference to the Passcover. (but that point deserves a more accurate consideration.) 2. By showing that his Assertion is consigned to baptised persons adult, they are bound immediately to examine themselves, and to come to the Lords Table; and they sin against knowledge and conscience by neglecting these duties being urged upon them, and made known to them: and they cannot be so urged and made known to infants, by reason of their incapacity, etc. But this last reason is not valid: For if their incapacity of knowing and having Baptism urged on them, hinders them not from being baptised, why shall this alone hinder them from the Lords Supper? They may be brought to one as well as the other, when two or three years old, and therefore are no more incapable of the one than the other upon this account.  
6. Mr. W. shows the incongruity of denying children their board, and not bed; belike to teach us, that none in the Church should be denied the Sacrament. But that I have refuted, ch. 3. at the later end of the sixth Section.  
These are the Returns he hath given for the confuting the sum of my foresaid argument, which have as much influence into that design, as Tenterton steeple hath for the causing of Goodwin sands; according to the story I remember Father Latimer hath in one of his Sermons.  PSALM 119. Part. 21. W. 
161 Without a cause Princes wronged me.  
But thy word awes my mind.  
162 Words sacred joy my soul, as he  
joys, who great spoils doth find.  
163 Wretched lies I abhor always.  
But love thy commandments.  
164 Within th' day seven times I thee praise  
for all thy right Judgements.  
165 Who love thy Law, great peace procure,  
nothing shall them offend.  
166 Waiting I hoped for thy Law sure,  
and did thy will attend.  
167 With my soul I have kept thy word,  
and truly love it most.  
168 Well have I marked thy precepts, Lord,  
For all my ways thou knowst.    

CHAP. XXII.  

§. 1.  
THere is nothing further to exercise thy patience (good Reader) but some descants on the passages I quoted from Salvian and Tertullian. And first against those of Salvian, Mr W. hath divers Exceptions, as 1, that I tell him not where in Salvian to find them. 2. That I quote a broken piece, concealing what follows, adding an &c. as a veil under which to hid his sense. 3. That I quoting two passages in several books, put them together, which he saith is not fair dealing, p. 134. 4. And lastly, that the thing quoted is perverted to a sense not intended by the Author.— To these his Exceptions I return, 1. to the first. When I finished that private paper he hath publicly assaulted, I had not my Salvian with me, else it had been easy to have turned to the Book and page. Every private paper needs not the exactness (in these things) of a public plea. Doth Mr W. in every Sermon or Lecture, when he quotes any passage from an Author, name the Chapter, Book and page? If he do, I think it is a needless exactness; when as any one who doubts of, or peruseth the quotation, may easily have recourse to him, for the place where it is to be found.  
2. His second exception is frivolous, unless the words following those I quoted, did turn the sense of the former word: to another intent than that was for which I quoted them; which they do not, but rather confirm it, as shall be showed in answering his sourth exception.  
3. The third exception is removed by what I have said to his first, neither is Salvians sense at all injured; he speaks to the same purpose in both places, as shall appear immediately. And I did not say they were joined together in Salvian; but named them as two several passages, not quoting the book wherein either of them was to be read.   

§. 2.  
4. To his 4th Exception, (which is most material, the rest are toys suitable for him that abounds in leisure for them) I answer. I quoted not Salvian (nor yet Tertullian neither) to prove suspension immediately, as Mr. W. pretends, p. 136. Your intent (saith he) in alleging his words is to justify your debarring men from the Lords Table. Mr. W. hath ill hap in telling my intents, and yet he will not adone with it. But (saith he) whether Salvian intended any such thing, let the Reader judge. Read him again, he is Minimus patrum, and it's no great labour to read him over. If Minimus patrum refer to the quality of his writings, and that he is of least account; how comes Mr. W. to be the Judge and Censor of the Fathers? If to the quantity, as the words following [its no great labour to read him over] do intimate, I presume Mr. W. in that hath taken his aim amiss. There are other Fathers of whose works and writings extant, the quantity is less than Salvians; as the Clement about the year 93. Polycarpus, Ignatius, Minutius Faelix, etc. I know no such controversy mentioned in Salvian as that is we are now discussing, to wit, about suspension. What he intended or foresaw the arguments and matter he treated upon might reach to, neither Mr. W. nor his reader can judge. But I quoted him, and the other, for illustration (rather than prose) of that which I before most insisted upon, viz. That meas rejecting of Christ in notorious deeds of wickedness, was a more credible Testimony and manifestation, that they are not really believers or Christians, than their bearing and owning the name of such, is that they are. And hence I inferred, that such are not to have the Sacrament administered to them, which is properly the portion only of real believers and Christians. And now let the Reader judge (at mine as well as Mr. W. his instance and desire) whether my quotations were pertinent or no.  
The first passage I quoted from Salvian was, that l. 4. the gubernation Dei; where he saith; Since that as we have said, this is the faith of a Christian, faithfully to keep Christ's Commandments; It is without doubt, that he hath not faith, who is unfaithful, nor doth he believe in Christ, who treads under foot Christ's Commandments, and the whole comes to this, that, qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur, nomen enim sine actu atque officio nihil est. The former clause (which I have Englished he speaks to also in his 3. book, de gubernat. dei. (p. 67.) Quid est igitur credulitas, seu fides! opinor fideliter hominem Christo credere, id est, fidelem deo esse, hoc est, fideliter Dei mandata servare. The latter part of the quotation, contains the matter he much insists upon elsewhere, and aggravates it greatly, l. 3. the gub. dei. at the end. Quo sit ut etiam nos qui nos Christianos esse dicimus, perd●mus vim tanti nominis, vitio pravitatis. Omninò enim nihil prodest nomen sanctum habere sine moribus; quia vita a professione discordans, abrogat illustris tituli honcrem, per indignorum actuum vilitatem.— Cum utique hec ipso magis per nomen sacratissimum rei simus, qui a sancto nemine discrepamus; nam & ideo plus sub religionis titulo Deum ludimus, quia positi in religione peccamus. & lib. 4. (p. 127. edit. Oxon. 1633.) An meliores sumus barbaris? Jam videbimus; Certè quod non est dubium, meliores esse debemus; ex hoc ipso utique deteriores sumus, si meliores non sumus, qui meliores esse debemus. And after in the same book. Quae cum ita sint, magna videlicet nobis praerogativa de nomine Christianitatis blandiri possumus, qui ita agimus ac vivimus, ut hoc ipsum, quod Christianus populus esse dicimur, opprobrium Christi esse videatur. And p. 145. Et ideo hoc ipso Christiani deteriores sunt, qui meliores esse deberent; non enim probant quod fatcntur, & impugnant professionem suam moribus suis; magis enim damnabilis est malitia quam titulus bonitatis accusat; & reatus impij est pium nomen. And in his Epistle to Salonius before his, Epist. ad Cathol. Eccles. Parum sunt rerum vocabula ipsas res non habentia, & nihil virtutum verba sine viribus.  
I have mentioned these say of his, not only for the excellency of them, but that the Reader may see I catcht not at one passage let fall from Salvian, concerning the meaning whereof there might be some doubt, but that it is agreeable to other places in this zealous Author; wherein he shows how little account is to be made of men's names, and their words, when they are manifestly contradicted by their notorious wickedness. But I will wait on Mr. W. in his observation upon the passages of Salvian, quoted p. 135, 136, 137.   

§. 3.  
1. He saith, and observes; That the party he speaks of was a Christian, for he yields unto him, nomen Christianum. 1. I grant he may be called a Christian in regard of his positive engagement to Christianity. But that's not the sense we have here to deal with. For so is an excommunicate, yea the most notorious Apostate to Turkism or Judaisme, a Christian still. 2. But in Salvians sense (which is ours) Mr. W. cannot gather, one is a Christian, because he is named a Christian, as in part appears from passages before mentioned out of Salvian, de guber. Dei. l. 4. p. 142. Intelligere ergo possumus aut quales esse pagani crediderint Christianos, qui talibus sacrificijs Deum colerent, aut qualem sollicitent Deum ipsum, qui haec sacra d●cuisset. Et hoc cur ita? Cur utique nisi ob eos qui Christiani esse dicuntur & non sunt, qui per slagitia at turpitudines suas nomen religtonis infamant; qui ut scriptum est, ore fatentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant.  
2. Mr. W. his second observation is; That there is opus nominis Christiani, quod est agendum. An employment prescribed and proper to men of that name and profession, by the exercise whereof, they should make it visibly and really appear, that they are men of that honourable profession.— As he instanceth in Divines, Physicians, and Lawyers, otherwise they give no visible testimony of their being of such professions.—  
Reader, I pray thee, consider for whom this observation makes: wilt thou take him for a Physician, and make use of him as such, who hath no skill in it, and practiceth no cures? The same may be said of the Lawyer without skill in Law, if that appear to thee, shall the one be thy Lawyer, or the other thy Physician, because they have gotten them gowns with great buttoned sleeves, and one calls himself and is called a Doctor in Physic, and the other a Lawyer? Even so (saith Mr. W.) men of the Christian profession must act accordingly; they must and should, but what if they do not? must not then the Christian without exercising Christianity, be accounted as the Physician not versed in Physic, or the Lawyer not employing himself in the Law?  
3. Mr. W. in the last place observes; He doth say, that [Qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur] and of this negative (which might have been (if Mr. W. had pleased) another observation like the former) he gives this convincing Reason; viz. [Nomen enim sine actu atque officio suo nihil est]. He doth not say, that such an one is no Christian; but he cannot be seen of others to be a Christian, nay, nor conclude unto himself that he is a real Christian, because he rejects the Christian employment, and doth not act as a man of that holy profession, etc.  
Thus Mr. W. expounds Salvian; and truly as much for my advantage as I should have done myself. I should have taken [Christianus non esse videatur] to signify he may seem to be a Christian; that is, he is no Christian: videtur being usually an expletive word with Tully and other Latinists (according to the usual Hebraisme used in Scripture [to be called] is [to be] (Isa. 9.6. Luk. 1.32, 36. Math. 5.19. Mark. 11.17.); and Salvian himself having so expounded himself in the point he speaks to elsewhere, as we have seen. [Christiani esse dicuntur, & non sunt.] But as Mr. W. takes it, [he may not be seen by others nor himself to be a Christian], it well fits our turn, and is according to what Salvian hath, ad eccls. cathol. l. 2. Quis promissis caeleslibus fidem commodat, & non agit ut esse possit particeps promissionum? & ideo Cum videamus homines haec non agere, cogimur non credentes palâm & evidenter agnoscere. Doth not this reach to what I had said, viz. That a deed-Testimony may prevail above a word-Testimony? and therefore if we may debar him who in words rejects Christ, then also him who by some notorious deeds of wickedness, doth as manifestly reject Christ. Yea doth not M. W. say the same here in effect? Mr. W. before affirmed that we must certainly know those are Christians and believers whom we administer to; and here he confesseth (in expounding Salvian) that a notorious scandalous professor of Christianity, who doth not the act and duty of a Christian, cannot be seen of others to be a Christian; how then will he administer to him? he will say, (as I guess) 1. he sees him to be a word-professor of Christianity; that is, he sees him to lie, and for his lies sake notoriously appearing to be such, he will admit him. Oh prodigious terms of admission! or 2. that he is sure he is baptised, and so engaged to Christianity. But if that be sufficient, no Apostate whatsoever may be rejected; as hath been hinted before. And yet the man among all these weaknesses he manifests, is strong in uncivil language, and cries, Abuse not Antiquity to palliate your follies.   

§. 4.  
4. His 4th observation is; That Salvian in another place and book saith, Infidelis sit necesse est qui fidei commissa non servat. And here he goes to his Dictionary, to teach us that Infidelis is an Adjective, and then saith; Salvian here takes not the word [Infidelis] in the rigid notion of an [Infidel] for a man without the Church, which directly denieth, and utterly rejecteth the principles of Christianity, but for a man untrusty within the Church; unsaithful to him who hath committed the things of Christianity to his trust. And we say so too. And I say so too. Well met then sometime. The place quoted is in l. 3. the guber. Dei. p. 68 Cum ergo ista sint omnia, per quae fides constat, videamus, quis tanta haec fidei sacramenta custodiat, ut fidelis esse videatur: (where videatur is only an expletive as I take it in the former quotation) quia Infidelis, ut diximus, s●●, necesse est, qui sidei commissa non servat. And so we are to account of him, as to some respects; according to what this Author saith in the place before mentioned, Eccl. Cathol. l. 2. Cum videamus homines haec non agere, cogimur Non Credentes paldm & evidenter agnoscere: to which he adds; Non louse! ut eos nos Deo fidem putemus adhibere, cum illi se rebus clament negare. Doth not this teach us, that he who saith he believes, is not for his saying so, to be taken for a believer, (or a believing person) when his deeds manifest his unfaithfulness? and then sure its pertinent to my argument preceding. But (saith Mr. W.) this proves not that our unfaithful and earcless Brethren (as Pagan Infidels) are to be kept from the Lords Supper, because of some unfaithfulnesses and negligences, before legally convented and convicted.  
1. It proves this as much as, that they are to be debarred, for any wickedness after legal convention and conviction. I believe Salvian had respect to neither. 2. What he means by [legal convention and conviction] I know not; but if he refer to what is done by, or before the civil Magistrate, or by his positive directions; 1. there was no legal proceeding under heathen Magistrates for some hundreds of years after Christ's ascension: and 2. he reacheth not us who have the directions of the Magistrate in Church Censures, particularly in this of suspension, as hath been showed above. 3. It is not every unsaithfulness or negligence Salvian here makes the character of his unbeliever; no more do we of such unbelievers as aught to be debarred the Sacrament. This odious insinuation hath been repelled more than once before. 4. The words of Salvian alleged, prove (or rather assert, I brought them not as a proof) that he appears to be an unbeliever, who is notoriously unfaithful to his baptismal engagements: and from that I had before inferred, that he is not to be admitted, whiles such, to the Lords Supper.   

§. 5.  
As for the discourse Mr. W. here falls into about the difference there is betwixt a pagan Infidel unbaptised, and a baptised unfaithful Christian, p. 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. It hath nothing in it which colourably makes against us (save two passages) which hath not been answered before; The description of excommunication he would gather from Tertullian, viz. That it is a banishment of a Delinquent from communication of prayer, Assembly, and of all holy communion with Christians, hath been particularly spoken to, Chap. 3. §. 10. One of Mr. W. his pretensions which bears the show of an objection is this, (p. 141, 142. where he saith,) In our Ecclesiastical discipline we proceed not against men, as no Christians, as no believers, (therein you are mistaken) For what have we to do to judge them that are without? We leave such to Gods own immediate severity and disposal. In our discipline we proceed against men as Christians, and as professed believers, as within, as of ours, and of us, which have transgressed the law of faith, or violated the holy Rutes of Christianity, and refuse to submit and make public satisfaction when legally convented and convicted. Now if you judge and take our men (when you juridically suspend) to be no Christians, no believers, not within, none of yours, nor of you, what talk you of either of suspending or excommunicating of them? of no Christians and no believers, they must be made Christians and Believers by Baptism, not your examination and approbation of them.  
The ground of this his objection hath been removed in the place last referred unto; and in Chap. 5. §. 6. (and Chap. 19 §. 5, 6.) where hath been acknowledged by us, that not only flagitious baptised persons, but also excommunicates are Church-members, and therefore within, and so are not to be rebaptised when restored. In this the Reader may see whose way is more rigorous, Mr. Ws. or mine. His associates take excommunicates for no Church-members, so do not I; and yet they restore them not by baptism, when they allege against me, that such as are not within, must be taken in by Baptism, as we heard Mr. W. speak. According therefore to what we have before delivered, we distinguish with Mr. W. and say; 1. Some persons are, and are called Christians, believers, etc. only upon the account of their being positively and solemnly engaged to Christianity, and the Christian faith. And 2. some are, and are called Christians and believers, not only on the account of their being so engaged as aforesaid, but of their visible conformity to those Christian engagements. All who are Christians in the former respect, are Church-members, (whiles alive) and [within] in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 5.12. (that phrase [of us] Mr. W. inserts too, if it refer to, 1 John 2.19. is difficult to be understood, and its a great question whether it be equipollent, to the [within, 1 Cor. 5.12.] so I shall omit it here). A disciple or servant is sometimes denominated from his being entered into a School, having covenanted with his Master to serve him, and therefore these are liable to Ecclesiastical Censures. And yet they may be no Christians, nor believers visibly, upon the account of the latter respect, and therefore cannot claim the privileges belonging to disciples who learn, and servants who obey their Masters, whiles they notoriously refuse to learn and obey Christ.  
And this minds me of the second thing Mr. W. hath in the  pages, which seems to need an answer here. It's page 139. where he saith; A man undeniably without, and utterly uncapable of the Lords Supper, may have the Scripture characters of faith in your sense, i. e. he may be instructed in the Christian faith, be able to give an account (yea a true account) of his faith, submit unto your Church order of examination, and be of Christian behaviour without exception in his private carriage, and yet be such a visible unbeliever (to us) as the Lord in his word would not have the Lords Supper administered unto.— viz. because not baptised, etc. yea though as he before said, he may be regenerated.  
1. Sometimes Mr. W. makes to be within, and to be a Christian or believer of equal latitude; as in his last exception, I have answered. Here he acknowledgeth one not within, to be a true and real believer; and therefore I should conclude a true Christian, though not so solemnly. For I am of opinion none can expect to be saved but true Christians; and these Mr. W. saith, may be truly regenerate and go to heaven. 2. But whereas he tells us this catechumen or heathen Proselyte may be, without exception, of Christian behaviour, in his private carriage, and yet not be capable of the Lords Supper. I utterly deny this. For if he were of Christian behaviour, without exception, he would submit to Baptism (the contempt whereof all acknowledge to be a damning sin,) and then in the same day (and hour for aught I know) he might communicate. And if he have opportunity to desire the Communion, he hath opportunity to be baptised, and therefore cannot be excused in the neglect of it, nor then be accounted in that neglect a believer in respect of visible compliance with and obedience to the Gospel. Who only hath a visible right to the Lords Supper. And now Sir (saith Mr. W. p. 145.) to your Allegation out of Tertullian, viz. [Nemo illic Christianus, etc.].  
This also was quoted by me, for the same purpose as the passages of Salvian were, viz. that the name or word profession of Christianity is no argument nor testimony he is a Christian, whose deeds do notoriously contradict the same. And my paper they expressed it (at numb. 50.) [Agreeable whereunto is what I find quoted from Tertullian, Apolog. cap. 44. speaking of the Heathens prisons; Nemo illic Christianus nisi planè tantum Christianus, aut si & aliud jam non Christianus.] Now Mr. W. hath left out the word [prisons] in the copy he hath printed as mine, and when he hath so done, takes pains from the context in Tertullian to inform me, that the Father speaks of the Christians sufferings in prisons; as if I had not understood it before. Is not this a brave confutation to be boasted of? He excuseth his Transcriber of my paper, p. 115. And whether he must take this nonsense to himself he hath printed as mine, or on whom else he will lay it, I know not; I list not to upbraid him with frauds, imposture, and cheating, etc. which yet he usually puts on me, so wonderful civil and well mannered is he.  
2. Mr. W. adds; But why shall I trouble you with these things, seeing you are so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you act herein but by virtue of another man's Quotation. He had before said to me, p. 60. I find no ingenuous dealing in all your paper. And here to do me a spite he will contradict himself, (like as elsewhere he complains of the obscurity of my paper, p. 80, 82, 88 as if he could not know what I would have; and yet gins his Postscript with these words; Sir, after all this, I return you thanks for this plain declaration of your mind in this piece of yours.) But (by his favour) he is too hasty in concluding I had not perused Tertullian myself (and the same may be said of his censuring my childishness for referring to divers Authors as mentioned by Zepperus) because I said [I find Tertullian thus quoted] there being other causes of such references, viz. 1. When we have perused Authors, not now with us, and so the reference at second hand helps us only to the place where that is, which we would quote. And 2. When the reference to such later learned Writers who have quoted those Authors for the same intents as we would make use of them, doth add weight to the quotation, by affording a probable proof, that the passages quoted are rightly understood and interpreted to the true and genuine sense of the original Authors.  
3. After his telling us of his favour in mentioning another passage of Tertullian for our advantage, (and his favours are not so ordinary and common, that I should reject any of them, though it shall appear beneath, I act not by virtue of his quotation) He falls foul on Tertullian; and as scolds when one in any thing displeaseth them, rake in all old sores, and reckon-up all the faults they can really, or upon uncharitable suspicion, charge him with: so because Tertullian hath the hard hap to cross Mr. W. as himself conceives, and to favour me, the world shall now be told what failings he had (or he was thought by some to have had) other ways: But what if there were some called Tertullianists accounted heretics (when yet the name heretic was very rife) who denied second marriages, and said that the souls of wicked men became Devils after their departure out of this life, and that the soul is continued by going from one into another, as much as to say by carnal descent and succession, as Doctor Meredith Hanmer in his Ecclesiastical chronography, reckons up their tenants out of Augustine? What are any of these to the present controversy betwixt Mr. W. and me? And what are Montanus, and his two [false] Prophetesses', Priscilla & Maximilla, and their phanatique courses, mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. l. 4. cap. 26. and lib. 5. cap. 3. & 14. (What are these I say) to the point quoted from Tertullian? What if the advise given be commendable; so to read Tertullian, as that bona ejus recipientes mala respuamus, we take not in the bad with the good? May not the same counsel be given in reading others of the Fathers also? But are they therefore not to be made use of in any thing? Is Cyprian of no use, because he would have heretics rebaptised? nor those of the Fathers, who held the Millenary opinion? nor Augustine, with many others, who held Infants should communicate? nor Origen, who had many errors? All my business remaining here is to show that the passages quoted from Tertullian are not accounted erroneous; That they cannot be reduced to Montanisme, nor Tertullianisme, I think is manifest already, to which yet Mr. W. should seem to have respect in his mentioning them here, for the disparagement of Tertullia's authority. I press not his authority further than the reason and weight of his words themselves afford us good credentials. But that in this quoted he speaks truth, and is nothing to be blamed I shall show; 1. from the Notes and Castigations of that learned man Franciscus Junius on Tertullian: 2. From the consent of other Fathers with Tertullian. Junius in his Paraphrase upon Tertullias fifty Apologeticks adversus Gentes; on that passage, Apol. 44. Ait si & aliud jam non Christiani, saith; Nam si quo praeterea eulogio insignirentur, ut furti & homicidij, jam Christiani non sunt, neque hujusmodi homines in talem amplius sectam recensentur.  
So upon that in Apol. 46. Sed dicet aliquis, etiam de nostris excedere quosdam à regula disciplinae; desinunt tum Christiani haberi penes nos philosophi vero illi cum talibus factis in nomine & honore sapientiae perseverant. Whereupon the foresaid Paraphrast saith, that Tertullian answers that objection. But some of your Christians do err from their Rule, as well as some Philosophers. Verum hoc, inquit, est, sed ratio diversa succedit. He answers, this is true, but with much difference from wicked Philosophers. Philosophus enim licet aberravit, ejus nominis autoritatem non amittit. The Philosopher transgressing, loseth not the authority of his name. Diogenes enim Zeno, & Aristoteles inter Principes Philosophorum nihilominus habentur. Christianus verô, simulac à disciplinâ declinat, ex albo Christianorum eraditur, neque ullo modo eo dignatur nomine aut censu. But the exorbitant Christian is put out of the catalogue of Christians, nor is he any way accounted worthy of that name or estimation. The corrector of Tertullian we see corrects not these passages, but illustrates them with his Commentary upon them. Yet they need not be understood in the vigorous sense Mr. W. puts upon them, as if these exorbitant or disorderly Christians should in no sense be Christians, nor Church-members, nor as if they might not be restored to the honour and privilege of orderly Christians upon their repentance and reformation. But only that they are not honoured and respected as Christians whiles vicious, as Tertullian objected to the Heathens, their Philosophers were as chief Philosophers, notwithstanding their viciousness.  
2. And such like expressions we find in others of the Fathers, which further demonstrates no singular error of Tertullian is contained in the passages quoted.  
Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. (anno Christi 100) Solent enim (saith he) nonnulli malo dolo nomen quidem Christi circumferre, sed patrant quaedam indigna Deo, quos oportet ut feras evitare. Sunt enim canes rahidi clam mordentes, quos vitare oportet, ut morbo difficulter curobili laborantes. Justin. Martyr (A. C. 130.) pro Christianis Defens. 2. ad Antonium pium. (Johanne Lango interpret) a good way from the beginning, saith, At enim qui non ita vivere comperiuntur, sicut ille (Christus) docuit, Certum id documentum est, non esse Christianos', quamvis doctrinam Christi linguâ profiteantur. Non enim profitentes tantum, sed operibus simul professionem confirmantes salvatos iri dicit. Sic enim dicit, Non quisquis mihi dicet, Domine, Domine, introibit in regnum coelorum.— Caeterum eos qui minus consentaneam preceptis ejus vitam agunt, Christianique tantummodo dicuntur, à vobis quoque puniri rogamus.  
Origen comra Celsum (A. C. 206.) lib. 4. a good way from the beginning, Sigismundo Geleno interpret) where he answers the reproaches the Jews cast on the Christians, calling them worms, etc. he saith, Tacco reliqua hominum vitia, à quibus non facile reperias immunes, ne istos quidem qui habentur pro philosophis: sunt enim multi adulterini philos-ophi. Atque his obnoxii sunt homines professione nec Judaei nee Christiani. quae autem Non sunt inter Christianos si propriè Christianum accipias, etc.  
In Minutii Felicis Octau (A. C. 212.) post medium, there are found almost Tertullia's very words. Denique de nostro numero carcer exaestuat: Christianus ibi nullus, nisi aut reus suae religionis aut profugus.  
Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae cathol. speaking of a Schismatic, he saith, Sic se Christianum esse profitetur, quomodo & Christum Diabolus saepe mentitur ipso Domino praemonente & dicente, Multi veniunt in nomine meo dicentes, Ego sum Christus, & multos fallent. Sient ille Christus non est, quamvis fallat in nomine ipsius, ita nec Christianus videri potest, qui non permanet in Evangelii ejus & fidei veritate— And after. Confessor est, sit humilis & quietus, sit in actu suo cum disciplina modestus, ut qui Christi confessor dicitur, Christum quem confitemur, imitemur.  
Now Mr. W. may go on, and talk his pleasure (to his tender consciences) of my abusing antiquity to palliate my own follies, p. 137. and he may jumble heaven and earth together in rating Tertullian for Heresy and Schism, and all upon his saying but this in sense, That whereas heathen Philosophers were honoured though never so vicious, Christians lose the honour and esteem worthy of the Christian name, by their wickedness. And let him also make them believe (who will see with his eyes) that my quotations were not pertinent for the illustrating of what I had before otherwise proved (though he insinuates these were all my proofs: and in an exuberancy of wit, cries, p. 252. Must humane testimonies be all your proof at last? viz. That a bearing the name (& by word professing of Christianity, or faith is no credible testimony that he is a true Christian believer, whose notorious wicked practices contradict his word-profession. And that the Lords Supper must be administered to such as appear to be no real Christians, no true believers. I will believe when he or any else can show me one Scripture-evidence for it.  
Mr. W. now dismisseth me, p. 151 in his proper language, thus, Put up your bagpipes & whistle at home. And let him cry aloud Montibus & sylvis that if there be any idle echo there, he may procure from it an answer to such another book as his Suspension discussed is. But by his leave I'll take David's Harp, and on it thus conclude;  PSALM. 119. Part 22. Y. Z. 
169 Yield to my cry thy presence near,  
From thy word light I crave.  
170 Yield to my suit thy ready ear!  
After thy word me save!  
171 Ye lips of mine shall praise the Lord,  
who taught me his Truth sure.  
172 Yea, my tongue shall boast of thy word,  
For thy Laws are right pure.  
173 Yoked in thy Laws I choose to be.  
Let thine hand help afford!  
174 Young fresh delights thine Hests give me.  
I longed for thine aid, Lord.  
175 Zealously to praise thee I list,  
whiles life lasts, just help send!  
176 Zion path I, stray sheep, have missed;  
Seek me! thy Laws I'll tend.     

A particular Answer to twentytwo Digressive passages in Mr Ws Book, entitled, Suspension Discussed.  

(1)  
IN his Epistle to the Reader he saith (speaking of us) Although some things of the ancient Fathers, they have sometimes in their mouths; yet they will allow the authority of the ancient Fathers, no further than will serve their own turns, etc.  
The like complaint the Papists sillily make against the Protestants, so Canisius barks in the Preface of his Opus Catcchisticum, against Luther, Calvin, and Melancthon. Is any one so stupid as to allow the authority of the Fathers in those things he thinks they erred? Mr. W. (as we have seen above) honourably quotes Tertullian for him, p. 141. and lamentably falls out with him as a Ringleader of Heretics, p. 147, 148. and saith, p. 149. We shall honour Tertullian in yielding to his Assertions, wherein he is orthodoxal, but we shall believe neither him nor you, wherein you are amiss. And doth not Mr. W. use his own judgement to discern wherein he is orthodoxal, and where not; and so reject his authority in the latter, as he owns it in the former? Was not this then an irrational and selfe-condemning Exception?   

(2)  
Your Parish Pope or his vestry Cardinals, cries Mr. W p. 98.  
The Pope is not formidable, but with his Bull. And here Mr. W. would scare us with his Bull against us. For [Parish Pope] is a flat contradiction, according to the sense wherein [Pope] is now taken. But with such a Bull he shall ride none but calves.   

(3)  
Examination of persons in order to their admission to the Lords Supper, is a main ground of Mr. W. his many complaints and invectives in his book, p. 3, 4, 9 Though you (saith he) delude the Country with a loud cry, as if your quarrel lay only against the ignorant and scandalous, yet your design is to bring all men under your Examination, as divinely and scripturally necessary unto acceptable celebration of the Lords Supper, let their parts be never so eminent, and their lives never so regular. The same Coleworts are served in again and again, over and over, p. 21, 27, 28, 38, 54, 56, 60, 88, 95, 96, 113. This dish coming in so often (as the learned Cartwright on 1 John 4.3. said to the Rhemists on a like occasion) argues either an hungry guest, or a needy Host.  
Concerning this (which is called) Examination, (that is, a taking cognizance of adult persons, their understanding owning and profession of the Christian faith, which in infancy they were baptised into) in order to their admission to the Communion: I shall deliver my apprehensions in the ensuing Considerations.  
(1) I consider, that the Scripture mentions not any Instances of such who having been baptised infants, were afterwards when adult admitted to the Supper, as expressly distinguished from them who were baptised adult, or at years: nor doth it, in express Rules or patterns describe how or in what manner, such baptised in infancy, were admitted, or are to be admitted to the Lords Supper.  
(2) Yet from what the Scripture informs us in, concerning the prerequisits in the adult to Baptism, and the nature of the Lords Supper in itself: Some Directions may be gathered concerning this matter; particularly, That there may be required from persons when they first tender themselves to receive, that they make a serious profession of their assent and consent to the Christian faith, they have been baptised into. (Whether this be by a continued speech, or catechistically, is not at all stood upon.)  
For 1. There is the same Reason for requiring this here, as there is for (that which none deny) the requiring it from persons adult in order to their Baptism; although they be never so learned and regular in their conversations before: As Augustine, Ambrose, and others have been; and such as Mr. W. acknowledgeth, (p. 139.) were in a salvable condition) before their baptism, and therefore did visibly appear so to be. The visible understanding owning of the Covenant, whereof the Sacraments are seals, is as requisite in the first admission of the former to the Lords Supper, as in the latter to Baptism; all things being equal on both parties, save only that one is baptised, not the other: but this altars not the thing in debate; because his being baptised in infancy, is no testimony of his personal or visible owning the Covenant, which is required in the adult for the participating of the Lords Supper. 2. There is no Rule (I know of) to direct us at what years any one baptised in infancy, may be admitted to the Communion, but according to his sooner or latter understanding profession of his baptismal engagements. Why may not a child of six or seven years old be admitted (who may be taught to repeat a Catechism, and to say he desires to communicate) but because he is not then judged in a capacity understandingly to consent to the Covenant terms? And how can another though of twenty years be judged understandingly to own the Covenant, who doth not so profess the same before sufficient witnesses? For de non existentibus & non apparentibus idem est judicium. Therefore this verbal profession may be required to be made by a person adult (baptised in infancy) in the presence of competent witnesses, before he is admitted to the Lords Supper. 3. Mr. W. himself tells us, p. 56. that knowledge of [who are believers] and of [who are not believers] must be the lodestar of our administering or not administering the Lords Supper. And p. 59 he saith, In our administration of the Lords Supper to others, we are to be guided by the Scripture Characters of a doctrinal faith. And of this we may have infallible certainty, when we know the parties are baptised, and hear them say the Creed, and testify their beleese of every Article therein contained. And hence we connclude infallibly, that they are (he should have said visibly appear to be) of a right faith, and doctrinally true believers. And again, saith he, p. 61. By our administration to believers, is meant such believers, as we may have a certainty that they are believers. Now if we must know them to be believers by hearing them say the Creed, and testifying their belief of every Article therein, before we can have a certainty they are believers capable of admission to the Supper; then they must give an understanding (visible) account of their faith, in order to their admission. Their having been baptised in infancy is no demonstration (and less than demonstration will not serve for the infallible certainty Mr. W. requires) of their personal doctrinal faith: this doctrinal faith they cannot be expected to have without instruction preceding: and the means of instruction afforded to them, is no proof of their proficiency; therefore according to Mr. W. his own concessions, they must give an account of their proficiency under the means of instruction they have had, for the attaining this indispensably necessary doctrinal faith, (which we must, saith he, have an infallible certainty of) before we administer unto them.  
4. The same Reason which will justify the requiring a Parents renewing his profession of faith, and renouncing what is contrary thereunto, when he presents his child to baptism, will as effectually prove, that he should personally profess the faith, before he was admitted to the Lords Supper. And therefore whereas an ancient Divine in this Country (as I am informed) at the celebration of a Baptism, having asked the Parent the usual Questions, then offered to his Brethren, Why that parent might not be admitted to the Lords Supper, without any further Examination before Minister or Eldership, since he had now made an open profession of his faith at the baptism of his child? It may be answered. 1. That if he please to give a reason to warrant his demanding that profession from the Parent, before the infant should be baptised; the same will show what he desired. (He may try at his leisure to give a Reason for the one, which will not as effectually reach the other). 2. Yea much more strong will it be in the latter than former case; In his datum than quaesitum; supposing the parent had been (upon a personal owning the Covenant engagements) admitted before that time to the Lords Supper. 3. I should readily grant if this parent have not (or not upon a personal confession of the faith) been admitted to the Lords Supper before, that this profession he was occasioned to make at the baptism of his infant, may so far as it goes, serve without renewing of it, at his admission to the Lords Supper. But than it should be considered, whether the answering in that form, I believe, I renounce, for sake, etc. may be reasonably judged an understanding owning of the Covenant, where it appears not (by previous conference with him, or a present more full explication of himself, or some other probable way) that he doth understand what he answers unto. 4. Lastly, I answer, That the parent who is to be admitted to the Lords Supper, ought not only understandingly to own the Covenant and baptism as one seal thereof (which he makes profession of at the baptism of his infant) but also particularly the ordinance of the Lords Supper, the signification of the sacramental elements and actions therein, and the end of celebrating the same, that he may be in a visible capacity of discerning the Lords body; And therefore there is manifest reason why he should make a further profession (supposing he hath not done it before) for his own admission to the Communion, than was required from him at the admission of his Infant to baptism. And so much in answer to this proposal of the Minister aforesaid, of which I desire his candid acceptance. Some other passages mentioned by him at the same time I neglect, as savouring of calumny and passion. The tide may turn, and the brook therewith; I grudge him not the liberty of Retract on; but than it were seemly to be without detraction from others who still own the opinion he was lately most zealous for. I now proceed.  
(3) It makes no alteration as to the matter in hand, whether this understanding profession of the faith, be immediately before a persons first admission to the Sacrament, or a longer time before, so that the thing be done. And therefore where Confirmation was in use, and seriously managed, that might serve this purpose sufficiently; according to the direction of the Common prayer book, before recited, Changed 4. §. 3.  
(4) If persons have been unduly admitted to the Lords Supper, without making this understanding profession of the Christian faith before; that excuseth them not from being now called to make it, in order to their present admission: this will stand good, till it can be evinced that a neglect excuseth from duty; that that must never be done which hath been sinfully left undone, and that because of that irregular omission; although as fit an opportunity is again afforded for the doing of it, as that was which formerly was not taken hold of (as it should have been) for the same. And indeed, (as the Provincial Synod of London in their Vindication hath observed) The great Odium cast upon the Presbyterial way, is occasioned by the shameful neglect formerly, of the Rules then appointed for Examination of all, before they should have been admitted to the Lords Table: And now the Reformation endeavoured in this thing, is not so much for the amending the Rule which before was prescribed, as in calling people up to a stricter observation of the same Rule for matter and substance.  
(5) It hath been already showed, that the Presbyterian Government (which is that confirmed by the Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines, not what some Presbyterians may hold) doth not require all persons now should be again examined, who have formerly upon the due profession of their faith, been admitted to the Sacrament; But it forbidding the ignorant to be admitted, only infers, that such as hitherto have not understandingly owned the Covenant of grace, should now be called to do it, if they would partake of the Sacrament. And therefore where any have formerly performed that in substance which is now required from them who are to be first admitted to the Supper, and can make it appear, there is no necessity according to Presbyterian principles, for their rene wall of it, as to their present communicating.  
(6) This profession must be made before sufficient and comperent witnesses (else it cannot be a satisfactory profession); But who those must be, is a consideration of another nature. For this may vary according to the different circumstances of persons, times, and places, (and the judgement of the Church thereupon, or of those who are most eminently concerned in the management of such things pertaining to the prudential order thereof) so that the end be attained for the good of the persons admitted, and the satisfaction and edification of the Church. I am informed, by a Manuscript Copy I have of the Resolves of a Provincial Synod held at Preston in Lancashire, Novemb. 14. 1648. that the said Synod among other things resolved in their sixth particular. That there is not only one way prescribed or warranted by the word of god, for the Elderships satisfying themselves of the sufficiency in point of knowledge of persons that are members of their Congregations respectively, that they may be admitted to the Lords Supper. 7. That it is not lawful for the Elderships to tie themselves to one way as aforesaid, (suppose it be examination before them) when that one attains not the end, and another may probably do it. So they. In the business of Marriage its necessary the consent of the parties should be expressed before competent witnesses; but the Christian Magistrate may determine who shall be competent witnesses; whether a Justice of peace, or a Minister shall be present to take and record the signification of their consent. Yet no sober man cries out, Why are unscriptural conditions put upon persons to be married? The like may be said concerning the present point. Yet in this case (methinks) that should sway most for our direction herein at present, which is commended to us by both Houses of Parliament (after their removal of the Common prayer book) with the advice of the Reverend Assembly. Form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland; (of Aug. 29. 1648.) p. 30. But if people in some Congregations will not be gotten to comply with that direction in the letter of it; I know not, but there may be some variation without offence, as the Minister or Elderships of particular Churches (with advice of their Classis if extant) may judge expedient for the satisfaction and edification of the Church. See Mr Blake, Covenant sealed. Ch. 7. §. 14. p. 230, 231, 232, 233. and §. 16, p. 272, 273. I am afraid I have been too long on this Digression. The urgency, and misrepresentations of the thing here handled must be my excuse. I humbly submit it to the judicious peaceable Reader, who will consider how to show a clearer way, before he censure this. And I shall easily neglect discontented, furious, uncivil Wranglers, whose business is to carp at others, but build nothing consistently of their own in this matter.   

(4)  
Your pretended Church order (saith Mr. W. p. 4.) requires an account of men's saith auricularly. And p. 28. You deny the Lords Supper to such as will not give an auricular account to you, or your Elders, etc.  
Auricular confession is a phrase used to denote, that which is required among the Papists, 1 viz. that every one do confess all his sins (though private) to the Priest alone, whispering the same into his ear. Now what a shameful slander is that Mr. W. puts on us, in the application hereof to the profession of faith required among us, cannot but be manifest to every observer. 1. We require no confession of private sins, but abhor it unfeignedly. 2. Who knows not, the great quarrel many have against the Presbyterial Government, is because it allows not the Minister alone of his own head to seclude the other Officers chosen by the people, from joining with him in receiving this confession of faith required? But let the Reader here see what cause he hath on this occasion to accompany me in a serious lamentation, that envious animosities should so fare prevail upon any, as to hurry them on to such calumnies, as malice itself could not devise more impudent.   

(5)  
Mr. W. adds, p. 4. Which very (auricular) account is the basis of your new model, or pretended Church constitution. And p. 9 Those you refuse to canonize by your ghostly approbation, though baptised, them you look upon as the world, etc. The like he hath over and over, p. 11, 21, 22. Such are no Church-members with you. p. 60, 61, 88, 113, etc.  
To name these things is to confute them; I have spoken of their untruth in the Treatise, Ch. 8. §. 4. & Ch. 21. §. 1. and need to add no more in so palpable a falsehood.   

(6)  
But he adds to this sad heap of falsehoods, when he saith, p. 124. Let men be suspended by you, do what they will afterwards; let them be Atheists or of what sect they will afterwards, you regard not. The like he hath, p. 122. And woe be to us if this be truly charged on us; But I defy him and the Accuser of the Brethren to boot, to prove the charge.   

(7)  
And the language of envy powers out itself further, p. 123. When they are suspended you look after them no longer, unless it be for your Tithes and Church deuce. It may be the man who affected to date his Epistle from his poor house at Leek, grudgeth others their Tithes. His neighbours may do well to consider his complaint. But a man should carry himself honestly, though in a poor house, and then he would forbear these criminations, which our course of personal instruction may manifest to be false, even to a proverb.   

(8)  
He tells me, p. 124. Debarring from the Lords Supper with you is the comprehensive of all Discipline; and that power to debar being granted you are content. And who told Mr. W. this tale? perhaps he is not so ill provided as to be destitute of some body or other to father it upon; no more than he was for that story he tells the world in his Apology, about his Antagonists design to obstruct the impression of his book (which I could never learn any thing of to this day). But we are for admonition before suspension, and for a further excommunication (or withdrawing Communion) after suspension, as opportunity may be offered, and the case require (see Form of Church Government, p. 18, 39, 40.) Let Mr. W. tell what figments he please to the contrary. Certainly he is no child, but he doth what children do, when he is so busy in raising bubbles made of his own froth, and then shouting aloud, tosseth them about with that breath which first raised them.   

(9)  
In the same page last mentioned, he further gives his word against us; You (saith he) make your Brethren your slaves.   

(10)  
And by your  power of suspension, you assume to yourselves more authority over the people, than ever did the most domineering Prelate among us, in making poor people sland to your courtesy for the Lords Supper.  
To both these jointly I answer. 1. How is that an  power (to make our Brethren slaves with) or at our courtesy; (1) which is limited by the Ordinance of Parliament, so that we may not add of our own heads to the enumeration of the meritorious causes of suspension? Form of Church Government, p. 30, 31, 34, 35. etc. And (2) when any may appeal from a Congregational Eldership to higher Judicatories, in case of wrong done them, according to the constitution of the Presbyterian Government? Form of Church Government, p. 15.  
2. How do we assume that to ourselves, which by the said Form of Church Government we are required to do? (not to mention here what hath been discussed before, concerning the Minister's duty in point of conscience.)  
3. How do we take more authority to ourselves then the Prelates did? Not to rake into other old sores, that which the Prelates did in suspending all who would not kneel at the Communion, and requiring Ministers should not deliver it to them (as hath been recited in the Treatise above. Ch. 4. §. 4.) doth clearly manifest the falseness of this, which Mr. W. (or rather his passion, I hope it's not himself) would affix on us.  
4. But yet more, his distemper swells above ordinary bounds, when he flatly determines our usurping power of suspension to be such, as that we assume more power to ourselves over the people, than the (1) most domineering Prelate (2) ever did, among us. Belike Bishop Bonner himself not excepted. I'll say nothing here in our own Apology, but rather for Mr. W. who more needs it, I consider, That as of false Dial's, that's best which is most false, because it will deceive fewest: so it was a favour to us that Mr. W. when he would traduce us, hath done it so palpably and grossly.   

(11)  
He is pursuing the design of his book, viz. against us, when he saith, p. 91. The scandal of such as departed from us, casting such an odium upon the public Ministers and proper means of grace, deserves the severity of Ecclesiastical Discipline more by fare, than the private miscarriages of our men, (in public unity with us in matters of Religion) possibly can: and yet you let these alone. And here the Christian Magistrates mere toleration, restrains your consciences, etc.  
Mr. W. here seems to insinuate that the Magistrate doth so tolerate these enemies of the means of grace, as that Ecclesiastical Censures might not be inflicted on them, without offending him. Whereas The toleration of some supposed to be erroneous, yea schismatical and heretical, is in reference to the forbearance of laying corporal or purse-penalties on them for the same; not laying restraint on the Churches in exercising of spiritual Censures. And if Mr. W. be so bold as to slander the State thus openly, It's the less to be wondered at, that against our professed judgements & present practice, he tells the world, that we let these exorbitant persons (being our Church members) alone; that is, that we dare not censure them Ecclesiastically as opportunity is afforded unto us. Mr. W. is so much at leisure as to tell me, p. 151. About 19 times you have alarmed us with the bagpipes of your [fully] and [full]. I might count his Untruths here (I will not say Full lies to answer my fullies) But I have somewhat else to do.   

(12)  
But he hath another confutation of our suspension (like the rest) p. 114. in these words: You are a man mightily cried up, and wonderfully admired by some; and one (a prime friend of yours) in my hearing spoke of you by way of admiration, saying [O that man!]. And that for which he so deservedly extolled you was the great good service, you did for the honour and credit of the Pope's holiness, acquitting him from a gross aspersion cast upon his holiness by some Protestant Divines, charging him to be Antichrist. Now you by your skill and authority discharged his holiness by open Proclamation or preaching from the crime objected; And whether for the like good services, others (your Admirers) cry you up, time will manifest: But me thinks, in this piece of yours I can find little that savours of Divinity, or of any other good science.  
I shall not stand expostulating about the publication of this he pretends to have heard, (For I grudge every word I shall write for my vindication herein, and indeed was apt to have contemned it in silence, if some others had not urged me to take notice of it publicly). But I flatly deny the words he chargeth on me, and any other equivalent thereunto. The Sermon from which this reproach hath (as I understand) taken its pretence, was preached on 1 John 2.18. which text was not of my own choosing, but fell to my lot in the exercise we have in these parts, which handleth that whole Epistle in order. 1. I have the witness of my own conscience that I never harboured that opinion which is here put on me. 2. I have the testimony of a godly Divine (Mr. Thomas Edge) to whom I communicated the notes of that Sermon before I preached it, that I designed to profess against it: the which he hath given me under his hand. 3. I have my notes yet to show, which also I brought to our Classis, that they might see, how therein I affirmed that it was my opinion, the Pope (with his party) are the great Antichrist of the latter times. 4. There were six or seven Ministers my Auditors, sundry of whom wrote my Sermon, who all would unanimously testify (if I desired it) against what Mr. W. taxeth me with. Three of them, viz. Mr. Newcome, Mr. Martindale, and Mr. Edge did long ago send me in their Testimonies in this matter: but they are too large to be here inserted fully; and some passages therein may not well become mine own pen to transcribe and publish. Yet some one of them I shall here recite; because Calumniators mouths are not easily stopped.  
Mr. Martindale his Testimony runs in these words.  
Having lately read in the 14 page of a little book called Suspension discussed, an invective passage against my dear Brother Mr. Samuel Langley, Author of the Manusript pretended to be answered in the said book, charging him to have acquitted the Pope by open Proclamation or preaching from the crime of Antichristianisme objected against him by some Protestant Divines; I account myself a debtor both to the truth, and also to the good name of— a Minister of Jesus Christ, to give this true and impartial testimony of him, viz. That upon the 8th day of May last, I heard an elaborate Sermon, preached by the Gentleman accused, upon 1 John 2.18. (which is in all probability the very Sermon that the Accuser aims at), wherein he was so fare from denying the Pope to be Antichrist, that he professedly asserted that the Pope (called elsewhere in Scripture the man of sin) is, and may properly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist, great Antichrist of these latter days. And that John in using the term Antichrist may probably allude to such a thing. Though he modestly proposed his judgement (with submission) that these words [Antichrist] and [Antichrists] in the Epistles of John, did most properly, and in their primary and immediate signification, refer to the false teachers of those days. Adding also his grounds, and divers Cautions, to have prevented misunderstanding and misrepresentations, if it would have been. What I have here said I am ready as occasion shall be given (by oath if lawfully required) to own and justify: which if I should refuse, not only my conscience, but also my hand hereunto subscribed, would bear witness against me.  
Rothsterne, Janu: 27. 1656. Ad: Martindale.  
Mr Newcome and Mr Edge severally testify the same in substance, and speak of some particulars more largely, out of their written Notes they took of my Sermon, I shall only add one passage from Mr. Newcome, because it is thought Mr. W. would father his Story on him, Speaking of me, he saith,— — He did over and over assert, that the Pope was the Man of Sin, the Whore of Babylon, and properly so called the Antichrist of the later times, both as Antichrist signifies Vicarius Dei, and one opposite to Christ: And that the Apostle might refer and allude to this Antichrist of the later times, in what he discourses of the Antichrist in that place of those times. This was the substance of what was delivered. If therefore Mr. W. refers to any discourse of mine, as the ground of this reproach that he casts upon Mr. Langley, I do hereby witness the contrary to what he says of him in this thing: which if he had not meant to abuse himself, he might further have enquired into, and have understood before he had so far engaged in such a gross untruth.  
Henry Newcome.  
In short, my judgement was and is this: He was primarily and directly the Antichrist spoken of in John's Epistles, to whom those Characters of Antichrist, 1 John 4.2, 3. and 2 John 7. did primarily and directly agree: And those were the Antichrists of those days, the false Christ's, Matth. 24.24. He is secondarily and by consequence (even in john's sense) the Antichrist to whom those Characters do secondarily and by consequence agree; and this is the Man of Rome. (upon which I vindicated our Protestant Writers in their referring to Rome in their Commentaries on these Epistles; so far was I from clashing with them.) And this man of Rome is properly the Antichrist of the latter times, directly deciphered, 2 Thess. 2. and 1 Tim. 4. and in the Revelation, under the Titles of the Man of Sin, Whore of Babylon, etc. though the holy Ghost doth never directly and in the primary sense of any place where [Antichrist] is mentioned in Scripture (it being never used but in the Epistles of St. john) affix the same on them of Rome, but by consequence only. Alas! good Reader, I am very sorry this Antichristian business hath held thee so long. I would make an Apology, but that would need another for staying the with it. I will therefore pass on to the next.   

(13)  
But yourself (saith Mr. W. p. 77.) are not over-confident that this answer is sufficient; and so you add more. Let us have your second.  
The Over-confidence I willingly yield to himself the very centre thereof. But what a silly Reason is this, after one answer given to an objection, I add a second, therefore I distrust the first. Wonderful witty!   

(14)  
Mr. W. tells us, p. 11, 12, of parties known to be Christianly judicious, and of blameless behaviour, who yet purposely refuse our examination upon the account of our divine right; judiciously discerning the way and design to be Brownistical, and not Scriptural. And so (saith he) these last mentioned may judiciously refuse, that they might not countenance superstition.  
1. To whom are these parties known to be Christianly judicious? If to all the Church-officers, I do not think they would debar them; if they do, I disown their practice.  
2. And I know none who require them necessarily by divine right to renew the profession of their faith in order to their communicating, who are already sufficiently known to be (not only judicious but) Christianly judicious, as Mr. W. speaks.  
3. And if any Church did so require it, none do engage the parties spoken of to believe they must needs submit on that account to this examination that they may be capable of the Sacrament.  
4. The word [Brownistical] is often taken up to disgrace the Presbyterian way, as it was formerly against the old Puritans. If Mr. W. had that of a Man in him he finds desiderated in me (p. 154.) he might have told his Reader of Brown's opinions condemned (and then it would appear whether the Presbyterian Principles were guilty thereof) and not fight against us with the Rattles of mere names. But take these Clackes from him of [Brownists, Anabaptists, Mormoes, etc.) and you half spoil him.  
5. If Mr. W. can make that out, that the parties he speaks of may lawfully separate from our communions, because of examination required (yea suppose amiss:) I will undertake upon the same ground to evince that his people may judiciously separate from his sacramental communion, lest they should countenance profaneness. And if any do withdraw from him upon the later account, he may thank himself for giving them such a weapon to defend themselves against him with. But for my part, although I think the one as justifiable as the other, I must profess I justify neither. I think this is a main thing of Brownism and Donatism, to hold that we may lawfully separate from the ordinances of God in Churches holding the fundamentals, because of some (supposed) maladministrations therein, which we are not necessitated in our joining with them to approve of. And yet this Mr. W. hath asserted by clear consequence, when he said, that persons may judiciously separate from our communions, because of a supposed miscarriage in the Church-officers in requiring examination; who yet never require the persons examined should profess their belief of the necessity jure divino, of the said examination, as a condition prerequisite to their admission. Augustine, (the mall of the Denatists) contra Parmen. l. 3. glozing on those words, 1 Cor. 5. [auserte malum ex vobu] (whether in the strict sense of the place or no I now dispute not) Per malum suum malis quisque consentit. Si autem ex scipso auserat malum, alieno malo non est unde consentiat. Quapropter, quisque etiam contempscrit Ecclesiae Dei disciplinam, ut malos cum quibus non peccat, & quibus non favet, desistat monere, corrigere, arguere; si etiam talem gerit personam, & pax Ecclesiae patitur, ut etiam à sacramentorum participatione quempiam possit separare, non alieno male peccat sed suo. Ipsa quippe in tanta re negligentia grave malum est, & ideo sicut Apostolus admonet, si auferat malum a scípso, non solum auferat audaciam committendi, aut pestilentiam consentiendi, sed etiam pigritiam corrigendi adhibita prudentia & obedientia in eo quod praecipit Dominus, ne frumenta laedantur. And this I take to be the right mean betwixt unwarrantable either separation or admission.   

(15)  
Mr. W. p. 123, 124, saith, He looketh upon no deductions from Scripture as obligatory, unless we have some clear revelations for such deductions: For (saith he) clear revelations of holy Scripture, are the genuine principles into which our faith is resolved.  
1. If by [clear revelations] he mean the light of solid Reason, he saith here no more but this, q. d. we look on no deductions from Scripture as obligatory to us, unless we do rationally discern that they are right deductions. And this suits with a passage he hath a little after; The Scriptures (saith he) were given as a sufficient and infallible Rule for the government of the whole Church, so that any deduction not conformable thereunto, must either be rejected as erroneous, or suspected as impertinent and needless.  
2. But I submit it to the impartial Reader, whether his former words do not fairly intimate, q. d. That we are not obliged by consequential deductions from Scripture, unless the Scripture also clearly reveal that consequence (and then indeed it ceaseth to be a deduction only). For he explains himself in the next words, viz. [For clear Revelations of holy Scripture are the genuine principles into which our faith is resolved], that by [clear Revelations] he means [the revelations of holy Scripture] not [the reason whereby we draw just deductions from the Scripture]. I desire the Reader to take Mr. W. in the most favourable sense his words are capable of. But I thought meet to disclaim this latter sense, lest the Quakers should think we complied with them in denying consequences from Scripture to be obligatory to us. And the rather, because I find that was a studied trick the Papists have long since taught their disciples to put upon us, viz to require us to prove all we held by express Scriptures, because we ground all the points of our Religion upon the Scriptures, and not on the authority of the Church. And by such like crotchets of denying syllogisms, disputing by Queries, etc. Some of the Papists have bragged, they would undertake to make a Cobbler able to put the most learned Ministers of France to a non plus. As may be seen, with the whole Popish plot (now acted in England with a little necessary variation of the method) discovered in that little but very learned tract of D. Chaloner, then Principal of Alban Hall in Oxford, entitled, Credo Ecclesiam sanctam Catholicam, Printed at London 1638. (long before the name of a Quaker was heard of in England, and therefore appears not devised to make them odious. p. 134, 135, 160, 161, 162, etc. Where he shows the Popish design (out of their own Records) agreed upon, viz. to send Missionaries (as they themselves called them) could out of all orders and Universities, who dispersing themselves, shall after Sermon ended, by this method blank the Ministers of the reformed side. The which may not be unprofitable to have observed in reference to our present times and the behaviour of divers under the names of Quakers, Seekers, etc. among us.   

(16)  
M. W. adds, in the page last quoted; And for the sense of obscure places of Scripture, we prescrre Catholic Expositions before any man's private sense or Interpretation, accommodated or applied to favour his own, or his modern party's pretention.  
For answer to this, see the last quoted Author; Credo Ecclesiam sanctam, etc. part. 1. §. 7. p. 150, 151. And Bishop Usher in his answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland. Edit. London. 1625. p. 32, 33, 34. Where he shows that divers of the Papists themselves grant (what they blame in us) that a man may without arrogance descent in interpretation of Scripture from what is given by the most of the Doctors before. He quotes Fisher the Jesuit confessing, that it cannot be obscure to any, that many things as well in the Gospels, as in the rest of the Scriptures, are now more exquisitely discussed by latter wits, and more clearly understood than they have been heretofore. And Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his Commentaries upon Moses, advising the Reader not to loathe the new sense of the holy Scripture; for this, that it dissenteth from the ancient Doctors; but to search more exactly the text and context; and if he find it agree, to praise God, that hath not tied the exposition of the Scriptures to the senses of the ancient Doctors. As for that passage Mr. W. adds, [Accommodated to favour his own, or his modern party's pretention], it's only a begging the thing in question. All acknowledge that its a wrong to interpret the Scripture in favour of an old or new error; But none will grant, his own interpretation is accommodated to an error. But if Mr. W. would have kept to his own Rule he hath here given, he would not have set 1 Cor. 9 3, 4. upon the rack in his Title page, for the countenancing the design of his discourse following. When as those words he there sets down [Mine answer to them that examine me, is this] are by the stream of Interpreters (I have seen) referred to the preceding words, v. 3. q. d. mine apology to them who question my Apostleship is this; Am I not an Apostle?— to you, doubtless I am, For the seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. Not to the following words, as he hath, by corrupting the text with his [viz.] inserted before [Have we not power to eat and to drink?] And if it should refer to the subsequent words; Mine apology to them who examine me is this, have we not power to eat and to drink, have we not power to lead about a sister a wife as well as other Apostles, & c? What then is that passage [Have we not power to eat or to drink] to sacramental eating or drinking? Like as much as [paveant illi] had to the excusing the Priest from paving. Over the head of this quotation he tells us, he published his book for the satisfaction of weaker consciences. But what ever he thought of their consciences, me thinks he presumed of their strong stomaches and sharp set, that he can proffer them such a crude morsel in the first mess: a bad omen it's counted to stumble at his own threshold; and it brings to mind what D. Whitaker Regius professor sometimes of Cambridge, in his defence of his Answer to Campions Reasons, said to Duraeus. lib. 1. de sacris literis. Nihil est quod metuam, me tu mihi scripturarum possessionem cripias, praesertim cum scripturis aut rarò admodum utaris, aut imperitè ac pueriliter abutaris.   

(17)  
Mr. W. it may be, will not take it well if I should neglect the ornaments of his book, rather than we should fall out about this, I will adventure upon the Readers patience to insert some of them here; especially the fine liveries he is pleased to  me (his meanest servant) with. Magisterial rashness, p. 8. You delude the Country with a loud cry, p. 9 Specious cheat, p. 21. And thus you may see what conscience it is that you pretend to, p. 22. Majestical severity. Bede roll of words, as if you would charm the senses of the vulgar, with your rare skill in Logic, p. 30. A mere sophister, p. 46. Your heterodoxal brownism, p. 53. Your malicious slander, p. 72. None of the wisest for this ridiculous allusion, p. 78. I am ashamed that ever a mother in Israel should breed such a son, p. 81. A mere crack, p. 94. Your clandestine scribble, p. 48. Whisper, peep, mutter, p. 48. (as if he would prove me a Conjurer from Isa. 8.19.) Your brethren of the Anabaptists, p. 113. A fugitive in the land of Nod, p. 118. Cum multis alijs. This part of Mr. W. his book I acknowledge is unanswerable by me: he hath quite none plust me at scolding: Let him have his Triumphs for this glorious victory; Sed malè vincit is quem poeniteat victoriae. But I begin now to question with myself. whether it were not good to blot out all this Catalogue, lest it fall into the hands of some Quaker, who may use it for a Calcopy, and rail by authority of a Minister. But for myself, I am not pricked with this crown of thorns he hath set on my head, nor do I fret that he hath exposed it to the world.   

(18)  
In your next (saith Mr. W. p 95.) prove this, viz. that refusing to come under your ghostly Inquisition is a deed-rejecting of Christ.  
But first he should show where I affirmed, it was either directly or by consequence. All I undertook in the Manuscript sheet he deals with, was to prove that some ignorant or scandalous persons baptised and not fully excommunicated, may be debarred the Communion. Now how doth this or the defence of it, necessitate me to take up what he here would have me? But if he could soberly propound, whether one who never gave an account of his faith to competent witnesses thereof, may be debarred for refusing to do it? I have proved the affirmative in the third Digression above. If others may be orderly appointed to take this trial (which he odiously calls an Inquisition,) neither I nor my brethren I think should be crossed thereby in our affections, but rather should gladly be discharged of it, if so it might be.   

(19)  
Mr. W. thus speaks, p. 144. The Lord's Supper is the ministration of the Spirit, that giveth life, as part of the Gospel ministration, deny it if you can. A glass wherein the glory of the Lord is to be beheld with open face, effectual to change men into the image of God by the Spirit, as well as any other Gospel ordinance; deny it if you can, or dispute what you can against it. Say (if you please) that then, an heathen is to be admitted to the Lords Supper. He is, in sensu diviso, he is not in sensu composito. Incommodum non solvit Argumentum. But the Apostle gives you the Rule, viz. [We know, that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law, Rom. 3.19.] The proportion of which Rule is this, viz. [We know, that what things soever the Gospel saith, it saith to them who are under the Gospel.] And this may stop your mouths.   

(20]  
He goes on and saith; Repentance and conversion is the design of the whole Gospel ministration to them that are under the Gospel. Let heathens be once brought under the outward Regiment of the Gospel, by instruction and baptism, and then the whole Gospel ministration would tend to their repentance and conversion [terms aequipollent] and effect the same, unless the fault were their own. The proper intent of Gospel ministrations, is the conversion of such as live under the same.  
Though there are (at least) two distinct things to be spoken to in these Digressions, I put them together, because the same answer will serve some passages in both. My return is as follows. 1. How far the Lords Supper is to be acknowledged a converting ordinance, I have before shown, Chap. 21. §. 2. 2. But here Mr. W. would answer an objection he supposeth I should make against him, by inferring that then Heathens should be admitted. But I would not make that inference from the supposing the Sacrament were (in some sense) a converting ordinance, no more than that an excommunicate should be admitted. We must not administer ordinances to any but those the Lord hath warranted us to administer unto, although we might conceive a probable aptitude in those ordinances (as means) for the spiritual good of such as are sinfully admitmittted thereunto. 3. Yet if I should make that objection Mr. W. here puts upon me, it would (for aught I see) remain in force for all he hath here brought for the solution of it. He tells us, 1. He is to be admitted in sensu diviso, not composito. But if the Lords Supper he designed and appointed to be used by us as much and primarily for conversion as preaching the Gospel, there appears no reason in the nature of the ordinance itself (Mr. W. is treating of), why it should not be dispensed to an heathen whiles an heathen, as well as preaching is. 2. He abuseth that Scripture, Rom. 3.19. I hope I shall not wrong the Reader by inserting a few words for the clearing of its meaning, whereby will appear the absurdness of Mr. W. his application thereof.  
The proposition the Apostle resumes further to prove, is in the 9th verse; That both Jews and Gentiles are all under sia, and so liable (in themselves without the grace of the Gospel) to condemnation. And this he proves by sundry Quotations out of the old Testament, vers. 10, 11, etc. to the end of vers. 18. As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one, etc. These Scriptures quoted must reach the thing for which they are quoted, to wit, the depravation of man's nature in general, as Calvin speaks of them, Nihil impedit quo minus ri●ê ac verè in humanam naturam congerantur. And its evident that the injustice, cruelty, fearlessness of God, therein spoken of, were sins against the light of nature; which rendered the Gentiles as well as Jew's obnoxious to condemnation upon that account: as also upon the account of the positive revelation of the heinousness of these sins, to the Jews, and to such of the Gentiles to whom the said positive revelation was or should be made known. And therefore the following words, ver. 19 which Mr. W. quotes, are not brought to show that the Jews only were under the precepts and prohibitions of the written Law. But the Apostle here makes a particular Application of those quotations, which shown the depravedness of men in general, to the Jews in special; that they might not exempt themselves, or think themselves better by nature than the Gentiles: as they had been brought in pleading against the Apostle, in the beginning of the 9th verse, And now (saith he) we know, that whatsoever the Law saith, (the old Testament Scripture,) it saith to them that are under the Law. So we read it; but the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it saith to them that are in the Law. Now Rom. 2.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [Being without the Law] that is, [not having the positive revelation of the Law made known to them.] And the strength of the Apostles applicatory conviction of the Jews here, seems to lie mainly in this; that since they not only had the light of nature to convince them of their sinfulness, as those Gentiles had who were without the Law; but also the positive revelation of the Scriptures made known to them, and so were in or with the Law: therefore they especially should not be unacquainted with this point the Scripture did so fully and frequently treat of, as was showed in the places before quoted. And indeed it cannot be said (as some Interpreters sense the words, though with no advantage to Mr. W.) that what ever the Law saith, it speaks of the Jews to whom it was given. For it speaks often of the Gentiles. But this is clear, what it saith, it saith to them to whom it is made known, and therefore their mouths, (together with the Gentiles) should be stopped from pleading for justification, by their obedience to the Law, which none of them had perfectly obeyed.  
Now how can this text be applied by proportion to infer that the heathens must be baptised before they come under the commands of the Gospel; as Mr. W. would have it, q. d. As the Jews were particularly concerned to take notice of the corrupt nature of man, which made justification by works to be impossible, either to Jews or Gentiles, and to take notice of what ever the Law saith to (or of) them: So (what shall I say?) Heathens under the times of the New Testament are not obliged to receive the Lords Supper till they are baptised, and positively engaged to Christianity. Where's the proportion, which Mr. W. is so confident of, that should stop the objectors mouth? Such a Rule of proportion as this should rather be called the Leaden then Golden Rule. It may be a truth (though not gathered from this text) that Heathens to whom the Gospel is not revealed, shall not be condemned for sinning against the positive Rules of Christianity. But if Christianity be revealed to them, they are bound immediately to close therewith; and so to be baptised and communicate, as opportunity is offered. They are in the Gospel now, according to the proportion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 2.12. though not sub lege, having not professed their submission thereunto. And the neglect of this latter doth not excuse their disobedience to the positive Rules of Christianity concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper: I mean their not being under the Gospel by professed submission thereunto, excuseth them not, who are in the Gospel, or are not without the Gospel revealed unto them.  
4. To the main of the 20th Digression, wherein Mr. W. saith; The proper intent of the Gospel ministration is the conversion of such as live under the same: I answer. But what means he by [being under it?] Those who have submitted professedly thereunto, and testified the same by receiving Baptism: so his other words manifestly lead us to understand him. But than what a wild position hath he given us to no purpose? When Christ gave Commission to his Ministers to disciple all nations, Gentiles as well as Jew's, and then to baptise them; and to preach the Gospel to every creature: must the scope of their Ministry be properly to bring them only to an external profession of submission to the Gospel, that they might receive Baptism, and not properly intent their saving conversion, till after they were baptised? I had thought the proper intent of the Gospel ministration to the Heathens, when it was first preached to them, had been to convert them sincerely, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, to receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith in Christ, Act. 14.15. & 26.18. and not properly first to make them hypocrites, only dogmatical professors; reserving the proper intent of the Gospel ministration for their saving conversion, till after they were baptised.  
But if Mr. W. mean by [being under the Gospel] such as hear the Gospel, than he saith true. The intent of the Gospel ministration is to convert them who hear it, as Heathens do, when it is first preached to them, as well as borne Christians. But this is impertinent to the scope of Mr. W. his present discourse, and the pretended solution of the objection he is now dealing with.   

(21)  
Mr. W. in sundry places speaks of the rise and publishing of my paper, with his answer thereunto. In his Epistle, having told us the difference happening betwixt himself and some of his Parish (especially) in the point of suspension; thereupon (saith he) in all likelihood the Author of the Manuscript was sought unto, to declare his thoughts concerning the Controversy.— At length, the long looked for piece came, was cordially embraced of the Affectors of the discipline stood for; and being judged and taken by him to be satisfactory, and a total rout thereby given to our party; the Author thereof was pleased to give way, that I should have the sight and perusal thereof, and to declare my thoughts concerning it.— I went to the Gentleman (to whom it was pretended to be sent for his satisfaction) and desired a copy thereof, though there were no name to it, and I obtained my desire without reluctancy. And p. 116. Mr. W. saith; The subject matter hereof is of more general concernment, then mine or your particular, and therefore I print it, for a public benefit. And p. 73. Surely you never intended this for the public light, but the mischief you have done by your clandestine dealing, and the high opinion that some men have conceived of your learning and integrity, makes me print you, that men of blind credulity may see what you are, and what the men of your pretention and practice, have for the justifying of their new Model.  
I shall give a plain but brief Narrative of the transaction of this business. I was sundry times earnestly solicited by a Minister (Mr. N.) to let him have an account of my judgement concerning suspension, which he desired on the behalf of Mr. M. (the Gentleman Mr. W. mentioned) an endeared friend of the said Minister. I told him I had nothing written about it, but some short animadversions I had long ago made for my own use, upon Mr. Humphrey his first piece on this subject. Which upon entreaty I lent to him: and it should seem by what Mr. W. saith, p. 115. they were communicated to the Gentleman aforesaid, and without my knowledge to Mr. W. Being again and again, importunately moved by the Minister aforesaid, to state the Question, and give in my opinion thereon, more distinctly; I at last consented to endeavour somewhat therein; the which I finished at the house of the said Minister, being occasionally there one night. Upon his further desiring that with my leave, this paper might be communicated to Mr. W. I permitted the same, if by the Gentleman aforesaid, it should be thought fit; being certified that upon Mr. M. his representing to his Minister Mr. W. how he was unsatisfied in the doctrine of the general admission contended for; Mr. W. for the satisfaction of his Parishioner had showed himself willing and desirous to admit of a collation with some Ministers of a different judgement from him therein. (as I have to show under the hand of Mr. M. the Gentleman aforesaid.)  
And indeed I was cordially desirous to have the controversy searched into to the very bottom, as being of great moment, and myself sufficiently inclinable (if I know mine own heart) to receive any convictions Mr. W. might afford rationally to sway me to his part, as the most desirable upon many outward accounts, if it could but appear to be warrantable; which made me the more willing to consent to the Requests aforesaid. Now when this Paper of mine by Mr. M. was communicated to Mr. W. Mr. M. hath certified me under his hand. that Mr. W. (in stead of returning a private answer as was expected for a candid brotherly impartial discussion of the point) as if he had gotten some mighty advantage, with abundance of triumphing and insulting expressions, gave out he would print it. And further, Mr. M. attests under his hand in these words, And whereas some of Mr. W. his friends had given out on his behalf, that the reason why he answered this paper of Mr. Langleys in print, was, because several Copies were dispersed of it in his parish, and he had no way to meet with them, but this of printing his answer, I do hereby declare that this is utterly untrue, I was so far from giving or suffering Copies to be taken of it that to my knowledge I never shown the paper to any in the parish but himself; and there were no Copies of it extant among us (I myself not so much as reserving a Copy) but that which was in his own hands, till they were printed and published by him. T.M.  
Many other passages Mr. M. hath testified under his hand, but I shall omit inserting the same here, in respect to Mr. W. whose disparagement I seek not, to the Reader, to whom personal matters I know will be tedious, and to the cause itself I defend, which needs not the infirmities of its opposers to raise itself by. When I had intimation of the resolution for printing my paper, I said I would not lift up my lip to desire a forbearance: I think I could have been content to have seen myself rationally confuted. But when I saw the answer, and how in stead of close answering the argument before him, he did so pitifully extravagate, and so sedulously seemed to endeavour the disgrace of my person, rather than the confutation of my cause, I was much confirmed thereby in the opinion I had asserted. Let the equal Reader freely judge herein.   

(22)  
Mr W. saith, p. 150. Truly I have not done pious and renowned Timson the honour I should, in omitting the many and material passages that I find in his Epistle to the Reader, and every where so exactly set forth in his excellent Book. It were pity but he should honour Mr. Timson as the Scholar did Zabbarel, who being set to epitomise him, transcribed every word, saying, all was so sweet he could leave out none. But some Palates count mouldy cheese the best: and the material passages Mr. W. hath honoured his renowned Timson with the quotation of, are so unsavoury and tainted, as will disgrace the judgement of the Author and Citer of them, p. 37, 38, 99, 100 He calls your Church-officers (saith M. W.) Intruded Elders, etc. This forsooth is an honourable quotation.  
It is not my business now to discuss the Controversy; whether any persons but Ministers or preaching Presbyters may be chosen and designed by the Church, to join with the ministers in the Ecclesiastical external government thereof? If I should speak any thing concerning it (in this last Digression) I should premise a distinction to be put betwixt what is appointed in Scripture by divine institution, and command for all Churches at all times to observe, and what is gatherable from Scripture precedents and passages, to have then been lawfully used in the Church of God, and therefore may still lawfully be imitated. Of this later sort are lords-days, Collections, 1 Cor. 16.1.2. Pastors and Teachers, as distinct offices allotted to several persons, Rom. 12.7, 8, etc. Of which sort also I humbly conceive the Station of such as are now called Ruling Elders, is to be accounted; not merely so an excogitation of prudence, as if it had no footsteps in Scripture patterns, nor yet so absolutely by divine appointment, as that all Church's sin, who in any times have not made use of them. And this I take as a mean betwixt two extremes.  
I shall not so much as name the Arguments commonly produced for the Scripturalnesse and Reasonableness of their Office. I shall only crave leave to offer one Scripture, which is not so much taken notice of as I think it should be for the clearing this point, (having before warned the Reader that it is not the name but thing I aim at.)  
Acts 15. The Synod there mentioned, wrote Decretal Letters, after this manner, v. 23. The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren send greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, etc. And then the Decree itself is recorded in the following verses. That which I would have here observed, relating to the point in hand, is, that some under the name of Brethren, are joined with the Elders, or Pastors, from whence ariseth this Argument, viz.  
If these (called) Brethren acted authoritatively in this Ecclesiastical Decree, and yet were not private Christians, the Disciples or Members of Jerusalem Church; then some select persons, not Ministers did act authoritatively in Ecclesiastical government. But the former is true: Therefore the later. In the Consequence of the Antecedent I see nothing likely to be denied. The Minor I shall endeavour to prove in its two parts.  
1. That these brethren acted authoritatively in this Ecclesiastical Decree, is evinced by many of these strong Reasons, whereby the Reverend Assembly (in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, concerning Presbyterial Government, presented to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, p. 65.) do prove that the Elders did act authoritatively as well as the Apostles: the which are further improved by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Reg: Ecclesiastici, p. 224. to evince that both the Elders and Brethren acted authoritatively as well as the Apostles. The Elders and Brethren (say the London Ministers) who were as authoritatively members of the Synod as the Apostles, did in all points as authoritatively act as the Apostles themselves.  
For 1. The letters containing the Synodical Decrees and Determinations, were written in the name of the Elders and Brethren, as well as in the name of the Apostles, vers. 23.  
2. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles, brand the false Teachers for troubling the Church, subverting of souls, declaring that they gave the false Teachers no suck Commandment to preach any such doctrine, v. 24.  
3. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, v. 28.  
4. The Elders and Brethren as well as the Apostles did impose upon the Churches no other burden than these necessary things, v. 28.  
In all which its manifest the proof is as strong for the joint authoritative acting of the Brethren here, as it is for the Apostles and Elders. I speak of a joint act in the same kind of power: how fare the Apostles might excel the Elders, or the Elders the Brethren in the degree of power in each respectively, is not now enquired for.  
All (I can think of) which may be objected against this proof is;  
(1) That in divers places the Authors of this synodical Decree are mentioned under the name of the Apostles and Elders, without joining the Brethren with them. As, 1. The Antiochian Delegates are in their Instructions directed to make their address to the Apostles and Elders about their Question, v. 2. And 2. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter, v. 6. And 3. the Decrees of this Synod are said to be such as were ordained by the Apostles and Elders, which were at Jerusalem, Act. 16.4.  
(2) That the Brethren may be named here, no otherwise then as in Paul's Epistles Timothy, or Sosthenes, and sometimes all the Brethren with him, are; which denotes only their consenting thereunto.  
To the first of these I answer. 1. That its ordinary to name the whole from the predominant, leading & more noble part. 2. These Scriptures do not say, the Apostles and Elders only, excluding others were Authors of this Synodical Determination; and therefore they are no prejudice to those other Texts, which put in the Brethren with them.  
To the second, I say, Though Paul join others with him in his Epistles sometimes, yet, 1. the title of those Epistles bear his name only. 2. He manifests in the Epistles themselves, that they are his only, speaking in the first person therein. Gal. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, etc. 1 Thes. 5.27. 2 Thes. 3.17. The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle, so I writ. 3. If we had no such clear Reasons elsewhere to prove Paul only the Author (under the Holy Ghost) of such Epistles, the joining others with him in the Preface would be a sufficient ground of our taking them who are so mentioned in the Preface, to have been joint Authors with him thereof. But now here's nothing can be showed to invalidate the title of the Synodical Decree, in its strictest sense. Act. 15.23. 2. The Decree speaks all along in their names which are prefixed thereunto. 3. Decrees and Laws speak most strictly and properly; especially in the Titles and Prefaces thereof, which declare the power whereby they are made and promulgated (as a Law made by Kings, Lords, and Commons:) Although in familiar Epistles, there's ordinarily more liberty of a larger expression.  
2. The latter part of the Minor proposition, in the Argument I am upon, is this, viz. That these Brethren were not private Christians, the Disciples or Members of the Jerusalem Church.  
1. This (I believe) will not be denied by our Brethren, either of the Episcopal or Presbyterian judgement, if they be convinced that these Brethren acted authoritatively in the Synod. (Which I think is clearly proved above.) For no private Christian is allowed by them, as such, to have right of authoritative suffrage in Ecclesiastical Councils.  
2. I have only here against me, the Brethren of the Congregational way, who (though from other Scriptures they own the Officers I dispute for, yet) here say, that these Brethren were the members of the Jerusalem Church, as such. But that I humbly conceive cannot be. The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, v. 23. are the same with the whole multitude, v. 12. And the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, v. 22. Now this whole Church, and whole multitude, must either refer to the whole Church of Jerusalem, or to the whole synodical Assembly only of that and other Churches there met together, (which the Reverend Mr. Cotton in his book of the Keys, (p. 54, 59) is pleased to call a Synod of Churches, or a Congregation of Churches, yea a Church of Churches.) It cannot refer to the whole Jerusalem Church, because neither that whole Church, nor the greater part thereof, could meet in one house (much less a private house, as its probable this was,) to manage the synodical affairs orderly; as appears by the great numbers of that Church recorded upon count, 120, Act. 1.15. 3000, Act. 2.41. 5000 men, Act. 4.4. here are above 8000; and multitudes besides, Act. 2.42. & 5.14. & 6.7. as is more largely showed by the London Ministers, and most excellently by the Reverend Assembly in their Answer to the Reasons of the dissenting Brethren, where they undo the Exceptions made against it, so solidly, learnedly, and perspicuously, that they seem to have left no place for a colourable Reply. (Whereby (among other Arguments) they demonstrate that the Jerusalem Church was a classical Church, or a Church by association of sundry particular Congregations, called one Church, Act. 8.1. & 11.22. & 15.4.) It remains therefore that the whole Church and multitude, Act. 15. must be the synodical Assembly of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren, which Brethren must needs be the Delegates of the Brethren, or those who represented the Brethren, members of several Churches. The Delegates of Antioch are expressly mentioned, v. 2. and probably there were some from Syria and Cilicia, v. 23. who were as much concerned in the business consulted about as Antioch was.  
Thus fare it's evinced, that some of the Brethren (not preaching Elders) being delegated and appointed by the Church, may according to Apostolical pattern, authoritatively join with preaching Elders in acts of external government of the Church. And then, if Presbyters with such delegated brethren, may be the subject of Church power in higher Assemblies and matters; it will easily thence follow, such brethren may have and exercise a proportion of Ecclesiastical power, in lower matters and Assemblies. This Argument I humbly submit, (with all else I have written) to the peaceably judicious. I shall conclude with the 34th Psalm, that these 22 Digressions may be attended with a refreshment proportionable to the 22 Chapters of the Treatise above.  

The 34th Psalm (in the original whereof the initial Letters of the Verses proceed Alphabetically, save only that the 5th Yerse beginning with He, ends with Vaughan the next Letter, and so the Psalmist omitting Vaughan in the beginning of the next Verse, goes on with Zain, etc. whereby it comes to pass, that the 22 Hebrew Letters being gone through and ending in the 21st Verse, the last verse of the Psalm is super-numerary) rendered according to the Acrosticall conceit of the Original.  
1 At all times I the Lord will bless:  
my mouth shall praise him dear.  
2 Boasting my soul shall God confess:  
which meek ones glad shall hear.  
3 Come, magnify with me the Lord;  
jointly exalt his Name.  
4 Duly I sought the Lord: he heard,  
And all my fears ore'came.  
5 Eyeing him men received light:  
their face no shame did see.  
6 For this poor man cried, and Gods might  
from troubles set him free.  
7 Gods Angel round encampes them who  
him fear, and gives them rest.  
8 How God the Lord is, taste and know:  
who trust in him are blest.  
9 In fear, serve God the Lord, each Saint:  
who fear him he'll not scant.  
10 Known may be hungry Lions faint:  
who seek God, no good want.  
11 Learn of me, children, come to me;  
I'll teach you the Lords fear.  
12 Man, if thou life love, and to see  
Days which much good do bear;  
13 Never fail to keep thy Tongue from ill,  
thy lips from words untrue:  
14 Omit no good, no lust fulfil:  
seek peace, and it pursue.  
15 Pleasing to God's eyes just ones are;  
And their cry to his ears.  
16 Quite contrary ill doers far;  
from earth their name God tears.  
17 righteous men God hears, when they cry,  
and preserves them from ill.  
18 Soft hearts the Lord have to them nigh:  
he saves the contrite still.  
19 The Rigt'ous under griefs may groan;  
God brings them out of all  
20 Verily, he keeps every bone,  
that not one broken fall.  
21 Woe slays the vile: who, wish th' just ill  
X times more themselves have.  
22. Yet God keeps his: who trust him still  
Zions' King them shall save.    
FINIS.   

Reader,  
THine ingenuity is not so much suspected, as that it should be counted needful to give notice here of every mischance in some letters points or Accents. It's hoped that those which might hinder or retard thine understanding of the Authors meaning, are here corrected.  
In Ep. Dedic. page 5. l. 18. read debarred. Of p. 13. l. 33. r. if we. p. 23. l. 32. r. christianarum. In thè Book, p. 2. & p. 4. deal the marks ' ' ' in the margin. p. 6. l. 37. for there, r. then. p. 25, 27, 28, 73. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 13. l. 6. for nor, r. or. p. 24. l. 7. r. proportion. l. 23. deal it. p. 27. l. 14. r. consortio. l. 29. for none, r. now. p. 28. l. 22. for word, r. world p. 32. l. 19 deal the note of a parenthesis. p. 35 l. 34 r. but requires time. p. 36. l. 3. for their, r. the. p. 36. l. 29. for quare, r. quam. p. 37. l. 11 for not what, r. not of what. p. 39 l. 9 r. contaminet. l. 10. r. laelantur. l. 24. for vel plebe, r. ut plebe. p. 42. l. 33. for there, r. here. p. 56. l. 32. for each, r. earth. p 58. l. 33. r. perhaps believers, and such like tules may be attributed. p. 63. l. 41. r. signum. p. 64. l. 23. for to as, r. to them as. p. 66. l. 6. for there, r. thine. l. 38. for thee, r. the. p. 71. l. 34. for honour r. know. p. 79. l. 38. deal of. p 80. l. 34. for 4. r, 1. p. 85. l. 28. for sc, t. si. l. 37. r. ipse est. Nullus. p. 93. l. 40. for will hereby. r. will not hereby. p. 95. l. 28. for that, r. the. p. 103. l. 23. for had, r. hold. p. 109. l. 17. r. parentheses. p. 115. l. 2. r. thy help. l. 13. for when, r. whom. p. 116. l. 39 r. made to my. p. 120. l. 27. for our, r. the. p. 127. l. 34. r. appositc. p. 129. l. 12. for a, r. the. p. 130. l. 9 r. continued. l. 10 r. and concluding. l. 34. r. shunned. p. 131. l. 3. r. Noon light beams thy laws on me cast. p. 132. l. 33. for visibility, r. Risibility. p. 134. l. 4. for excluded, r. included. l. 27. r. concerning. p. 135. l. 7. for inscript, r. manuscript. p. 141 l. 33. add I reply. p. 142. l 2. for this, r. his. p. 147. l. 6, 7. r. governor's who were. p. 148. l. 38. for was, r. will. p. 152. l. 31. r. considerably. p. 162 l. 1. r. entrusted. p. 177. l. 41. for consequent r. inconsequent. p. 179. l. 35. for or peruseth, r. or would peruse. p. 181. l. 15. for sit, r. fit. p. 183. l. 12. for seem to be, r. seem not to be. p. 184. l. 20. r. ad Eccl. p. 185. l. 29. for when, r. whom. p. 187. l. 20. for they, r. thus. p. 189. l 19 for Ait r. Aut. p. 191. l. 7. r. consitetur, imitetur. l. 20. r. at last?) viz. l. 28. for cry, r. sing. p. 204. l. 26. for Dei, r. Christi. p. 205. l. 17. for staying the, r. staying thee. p. 217. l. 11. r. Lords days collections.